Siew Kum Hong
Singapore
“Sir, I have one supplementary question for the Senior Minister of State. Sir, Thailand, as the ASEAN chair, issued a statement criticising Myanmar for its trial of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and Myanmar's response was that Thailand was meddling in Myanmar's internal affairs.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have two supplementary questions. My first question is to ask the Minister what is the expected date of announcement of the final decision by MAS in its investigations given that now the preliminary findings have been made and there is a due process going on.”
“My belief is that it will also be the case with these present amendments, in which case, why bother? The Senior Minister of State has pointed out that the prohibition on party political films has an offline aspect as well, and that is true.”
“Sir, I have a similar supplementary question with regard to work permit holders. I would like to ask the Acting Minister how many new work permits have been issued in the past few months, given that there are so many stories of foreign workers already here on work permit not having work or not having enough work.”
“Secondly, there should be increased transparency in how the Act has been used. Instead of waiting until the Act is up for extension to give figures on the use of the Act, it would be better if the Ministry could proactively disclose figures on the Act’s operation on an annual basis.”
“A poll by the Sunday Times last July found that 81% of 230 respondents thought that maids should get a mandatory day-off. That being the case, I hope that the Acting Minister would reconsider the existing position and introduce a mandatory day-off, at least once a month, which I feel should not be contentious for foreign domestic workers.…”
The complete record
Every one of 286 lines we hold for Siew Kum Hong, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 6.
“It is important to lay these foundations now so that we do not scramble or leave things to discretion if and when the situation envisaged in the second part of the motion arises. We profess to be a forward-looking State. Well, this is too important an issue to not look forward on. We should set the policy now so that we have a consistent approach to such situation moving forward. When the day comes we will know what to do and nothing is left to discretion or to chance. Prof. Thio has outlined an explanation grounded in logic and in law for why a by-election is required when a minority Member in a GRC vacates his or her seat. That must surely be so, given that the fundamental justification and purpose of GRCs is to ensure some minimum amount of minority representation in Parliament. I disagree with Mr Hri Kumar's comments on this. I cannot see how any other position can be sustainable as it would severely undercut and undermine the foundation of the GRC scheme. Ms Sylvia Lim, Mdm Halimah and Mr Hri Kumar had spoken about the potential for a single member in a GRC team to hold the rest of the team or even the Government to ransom. My short response to that is that the political parties have to select their candidates carefully. Extending that argument further, a group of elected Members can get together and blackmail their party. Where do we stop? Party discipline is a mechanism to address this issue, not an imperfect law. Similarly, where half or more of the elected members for a GRC vacate their seats for any reason, then, surely, there can be no doubt that it is no longer the team that electors have voted for and, surely, it cannot be argued that the remaining members can perform the duties of the other members who have vacated their seats.”
“So, on principle, on practicality, and on the basis of the voice of the people, based on these three "Ps", I believe that a by-election should be held for a GRC whenever there is even a single vacancy, regardless of whether it is the minority Member or not. Be that as it may, the issue of whether a by-election should be called when there is a single vacancy in the GRC has been debated before and I do not expect the Government to change its position today. The motion before this House today also advocates a different position. Nevertheless, I support the motion. My position is more expansive than this motion and so my position encompasses this motion. There is no inconsistency. Just as I believe that there should be a by-election when there is a single vacancy in a GRC, I also believe that there should be a by-election when there is a single vacancy in a GRC caused by the minority Member vacating his or her seat. And I also believe that there should be a by-election when half or more of the Members in the GRC vacate their seats. I see the motion as a positive movement in the right direction and so I am comfortable supporting it. To me, this motion is fundamentally about setting in place the right principles for calling by-elections when there are vacancies in the GRC instead of leaving it to the discretion of the Government of the day. The motion goes about this in a deliberate and measured manner. It calls for a by-election when it is the minority Member who vacates his or her seat. It calls for a by-election when half or more of the Members in a GRC vacate their seats, both propositions are eminently reasonable.”
“" A total of 478 Singapore citizens were polled, of which 312 were residents in Jurong GRC and 166 were non-residents. Of these 478 residents, 122 or 25.5% did not know. Of the remainder, 214 respondents or 60.1% of respondents who had an opinion either way felt that a by-election should be held in Jurong GRC. 142 respondents or 39.9% of respondents who had an opinion disagreed. So much for Singaporeans as a whole. What about Jurong GRC residents? Of the 312 residents polled, 85 or 27.2% did not know whether a by-election should be held. 129 residents or 56.8% of residents who had an opinion thought that a by-election should be held, while 98 residents or 43.2% of residents who had an opinion did not think so. This was a street poll, it was anonymous, it was random and it does not purport to be statistically valid or representative of Singaporeans of any group. But I think the results are, nevertheless, very interesting and very instructive. Putting aside all those respondents who did not have an opinion – and I must say that this was a disturbingly high number – the majority of Singaporeans and the majority of Jurong GRC residents felt that a by-election should be held. Even including those respondents who did not have an opinion, it is quite clear that more Singaporeans and more Jurong GRC residents wanted a by-election than those who did not. Sir, we are here today to debate the nature of democracy in Singapore. Democracy is about the people, about how they have the power. Well, Singaporeans have spoken, the people have spoken, their voice rings loud and clear, and they want a by-election.”
“Are those who rely on this argument saying that all elected GRC Members in this House are interchangeable? Instead, I would argue that practicality demands a by-election and certainly in Jurong GRC. Of the four remaining Members today, two are full Cabinet Ministers, one is a Senior Minister of State in two Ministries and the fourth is a veteran backbencher with numerous appointments. It is a question mark whether they can adequately discharge their duties in connection with the vacated seat. Even trying to do so will impose a tremendous burden on them. Just as an example, do we really want to risk overburdening the Minister for Finance in these trying economic times? Surely it would be more practical to call for a by-election to ensure a full complement of elected Members in Jurong GRC. Sir, my third "P" refers to the people. Much has been said about the question of whether a by-election is required in Jurong GRC, in the press, on the Internet and in this House today. But what do the people themselves think? Mdm Halimah, who is from Jurong GRC, has talked about the MPs' discussions with the grassroots leaders in Jurong GRC, but the grassroots leaders are not the people. The Singapore blog site "The Online Citizen" decided to find out what the people thought from the people directly. It conducted a street poll last Saturday to find out whether Singaporeans, and in particular residents of Jurong GRC, think there should be a by-election. I was one of the volunteers who helped conduct the poll. As I understand it, the results were published a short while ago today. The question asked was a simple one: "Dr Ong Chit Chung passed away recently, do you think that there should be a by-election in Jurong GRC?”
“Either the people have a right to be represented by the team they have elected and, hence, the right to select a fresh team if the elected team changes or they do not. Either the principle of representative democracy is important or it is not. The prevailing economic conditions should have no role to play in this and certainly should not be allowed to trump these considerations. A third reason that is often cited is that the remaining Members in the GRC can cover the duties of the Member who has vacated his or her seat and so voters are none the worse off. And we have just heard from Mdm Halimah who has spoken on what has been done in Jurong GRC in this regard. Sir, I think this argument belittles the contributions of elected Members, exactly as Prof. Thio had said. Ever since my own appointment as a Nominated Member, I have come to appreciate greatly the heavy duties and burdens of elected Members. I, as an unelected Member of this House, am utterly dismayed by the suggestion that it is perfectly all right for the remaining Members in the GRC to cover the duties of a member who has vacated his or her seat and that nobody should think twice about it. It trivialises and downplays the contributions of elected Members in the way that I think is unfair and unjustified. Do the elected Members of this House really stand for this view? What are they saying about what they do? So, I do not accept this argument either and I urge my elected colleagues not to accept it either. I, therefore, echo the call of Dr Loo for the Whip to be lifted so that the elected Members can vote freely on this. Furthermore, as Prof. Thio and Dr Loo have said, how can parliamentary duties be covered by other Members?”
“Thio has spoken on what the law is and she has done so far more ably than I ever could. But I do not believe that this House should feel bound by what the law today says. This House makes law for Singapore, it would be odd, no, it would be nothing less then sheer abdication of constitutional responsibility for this House to say that it is bound by existing law and to stop there. Instead of considering what the law should say and then changing the law to say that, the law should reflect correct principle and we should not distort principle to accommodate existing law or contort our thinking to justify incorrect law. If the law is unclear or just plain wrong, then this House is duty-bound to clarify or correct it, instead of hiding behind such an unclear or wrongful law and perpetuating an undesirable state of affairs. So, I will not place much weight on the fact that the existing law does not require a by-election. Another reason that has been cited is that a by-election would distract Singaporeans from the pressing issues posed by a slowing economy and rising inflation. This was also the reason cited when Dr Tay Eng Soon passed away in 1993. Sir, surely this argument cannot stand. It implies that voting and elections are luxuries, that there are really just so much fun and games to be left for good times and inappropriate and unnecessary in bad times. It suggests that the right of voters to be represented by the team that they have elected is in reality a privilege and not an entitlement. It means that the principle of representative democracy is not fundamental to our society and can be waived by the Government of the day when deem inexpedient. I think that cannot be right. Either a by-election is necessary or it is not.”
“As I have said, elected Members have the legitimacy of the people's endorsement of representing the will of the people. The mandate from the people is fundamental to a functioning democracy. So, when the electors in a GRC elect a team of candidates, what is the mandate being given? Sir, I was a voter in Ang Mo Kio GRC in the 2006 General Elections. I was voting for a team of candidates in a GRC. To my mind, the mandate that I was giving to the team I voted for was for the team as a whole. I think that the mandate for the team of candidates as elected by the voters to represent the GRC in Parliament and if the composition of the team changes for any reason, then it, by definition, becomes a different team. It ceases to be the team elected by the voters. In that situation, surely a fresh mandate from the voters is necessary. Jurong GRC was uncontested in the 2006 General Elections and so the team entered Parliament by way of a walkover. But this does not change the fact that the team today is different from the team that was nominated and had entered Parliament in 2006. So, on principle, the first team, I would say that by-election is required in Jurong GRC. I think that the principle of representative democracy should, in and of itself, settle the issue, but some have cited reasons based on practicality in arguing against having a by-election. In the first place, I do not think that practical considerations should ever be allowed to trump a principle that is so fundamental to the concept of democracy. But even if we are to accept that this second "P" of practicality is relevant to the discussion, to my mind, it also points in favour of a by-election. The first reason that some may cite to justify not calling for a by-election is that the law does not require it. Prof.”
“I firmly believe that a by-election should be called, whenever there is any vacancy in a GRC, not just when the vacancy is left by the minority Member or when half or more of the elected Members vacate their seats, I would, therefore, argue that a by-election should be called in Jurong GRC as a result of the vacancy caused by the passing away of Dr Ong Chit Chung. It does seem from the previous speakers' speeches that I may be alone in this House in this regard, and I also recognise that this specific point of whether there should be a by-election where there is a single vacancy in a GRC has been debated in this House in the past. Nevertheless, I ask for the indulgence of this House while I spend a few minutes on what I call the "3 Ps" – Principle, Practicality and the People. Sir, the starting point must surely be the principle of representative democracy, as recognised in the first part of the motion. This principle is the first "P". I think Mr Hri Kumar said that there is no universal definition for this, but I disagree. I see this very simply. In Singapore, the people elect their representatives to Parliament. Where the seat in a single member constituency is vacated for any reason, the people cease to be represented. To avoid this situation, a by-election should be called. The logic is simple and clear for single member constituencies. And I think there should be no dispute or disagreement insofar as the motion calls for a writ for by-election to be issued in the event of a vacancy in a single member constituency for any reason. The situation is muddied somewhat by the GRC scheme because there would remain other elected Members for that GRC, and that is really the nub of the issue here.”
“As I cannot do better than the learned Prof. Thio, I would simply say that I fully endorse her speech on this aspect. The Nominated Member has described to this House the different approaches of a number of countries. With such a divergence of practice, the proposed three-month time-frame seems to be eminently reasonable, especially when the motion also envisages the need for an exception where general elections are imminent. So, I also support this third part of the motion. Mr Hri Kumar points to the UK and says that the three-month timeline cited by Prof. Thio is only a convention. As Mr Hri Kumar no doubt knows, the UK does not have a codified written constitution and Westminster conventions are regarded as being as good as law. I now move on to the second part of the motion which, in my view, represents the meat of the motion. This second part asks this House to call on the Government to fine-tune the electoral system by introducing amendments to the Parliamentary Elections Act requiring a by-election in certain stipulated circumstances. These circumstances are: where a Member of a GRC belonging to a minority community within the terms of section 8A(1) of the Parliamentary Elections Act vacates his or her seat for any reason; where half or more of the elected Members of a GRC vacate their seats for any reason; or where the elected Member of a single member constituency vacates his or her seat for any reason. Sir, my own view is a little different.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to participate in this debate. I rise in support of the motion. This motion was filed by Prof. Thio and Dr Loo in the wake of the passing away of Dr Ong Chit Chung, an elected Member of Jurong GRC. The Government has indicated that it will not be calling for a by-election in Jurong GRC. Instead, the other elected Members in the GRC will take turns to cover the duties of Dr Ong. This was the same approach taken in 1993 when Dr Tay Eng Soon, then an elected Member for Eunos GRC, passed away and in 1999 when Mr Choo Wee Kiang of Jalan Besar GRC resigned. Sir, the motion has three parts. Firstly, it calls upon this House to affirm the importance of representative democracy. Secondly, it proposes a fine-tuning of the electorial system to provide for by-elections in certain circumstances. Finally, it calls for all by-elections to be called within three months of the date of vacancy, unless general elections are imminent. Sir, the first part of the motion on the importance of representative democracy must surely be beyond doubt and beyond debate. We are a parliamentary democracy and the elected Members of this House represent the people. The people have voted the Government into power and that is where the Government draws its legitimacy from. That is the source of the Government's right to rule. I cannot imagine any Member disputing or disagreeing with the importance of representative democracy as a principle. And I cannot imagine any Member not agreeing with this first part of the motion. Indeed, any elected Member who is reluctant to affirm the importance of representative democracy should consider whether he or she should continue as a Member of this House. I will now touch briefly on the third part of the motion.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have a clarification for the Minister of State. I think the Minister of State has misunderstood my point about the inclusion of financial services and products under the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act. My point was that last year's public consultation exercise included a set of draft regulations called the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) (Regulated Financial Products and Services) Regulations under which MAS regulated financial products and services were to be excluded from the Act after they had been included in the Amendment Bill. So my question was to ask the Minister of State to clarify whether the Ministry intends to issue such regulations after the enactment of this Amendment Bill.”
“However, it seems to me necessary for the Tribunal to publish its decisions or, at the very least, summaries or digests of cases. This will address the criticisms I have mentioned, introduce some important transparency into the process, and provide valuable clarity and guidance to consumers. Finally, I would like to ask the Minister whether the Act has been effective in preventing what may well be called "serial offending". It is possible for an unscrupulous businessman to set up a business, such as a time-share company, that engages in unfair practices prohibited under the Act. When complaints are lodged against the company and it faces legal proceedings, whether from consumers or CASE, they can simply shut this company down and start a new one and continue preying on consumers. The Act and the amendments do not address this, and I am told that this does happen in practice. Perhaps, in addition to the amendments currently before this House, the Ministry should also amend the Act to apply its mechanisms to the person behind these companies. For instance, section 9 of the Act could be amended such that if CASE applies for an injunction, then the court is explicitly empowered to extend the injunction to apply against the company's directors and shareholders as well, if it is satisfied that such persons have previously been involved in other companies that have engaged in similar unfair practices. Sir, in conclusion, the Ministry has done well to update the Act to keep it relevant, in light of changing circumstances. Nevertheless, there remains much room for improvement and I hope that the Minister can address the issues I have raised. With that, I support the Bill. 5.52 pm”
“The consumer may not be able to monitor the other application and so may not be aware of its outcome and the possible additional steps that he can or should take. Sir, my third point concerns the Small Claims Tribunal. The amendments will effectively expand the jurisdiction and caseload of the Tribunal. I trust that the Ministry and the Subordinate Courts will ensure that the Tribunal is appropriately staffed and equipped to handle this expansion. I would also like to propose that decisions of the Small Claims Tribunal, at least those in proceedings commenced under this Act, be published. Decisions of the Tribunal are currently not published, so consumers have little guidance as to the relevant factors that the Tribunal will consider when coming to a decision. I have received some troubling anecdotal feedback about the Small Claims Tribunal. Firstly, the Tribunal's decisions are inconsistent. The Tribunal also seems to construe "services" very narrowly, as having to require skill and labour. Accordingly, it seems that the Tribunal has ruled that cases, eg, car rental disputes, fall outside its jurisdiction which, in my view, runs contrary to the clear intent of the Act and a purposeful construction of the term "services". I have also been told that some businesses have had so many complaints against them that their representatives before the Tribunal have become extremely experienced, thereby facing lay consumers who may well be appearing in a court setting for the very first time at a severe disadvantage when they appear before the Tribunal. Sir, I believe in the usefulness of the Small Claims Tribunal where lawyers are not allowed and so I support in principle the central role of the Small Claims Tribunal in the Act.”
“If the worry is of conflicting outcomes between the consumer's case and the application to the court for an injunction or declaration, then an alternative approach could be to declare that the decision in the consumer's case will not affect and have no precedential value in the other case. Another approach that is fairer than what is in the Amendment Bill will be to allow only the consumer and not the merchant to apply to the court for a stay of the legal proceedings so the consumer can choose for himself whether or not he would like to wait for the outcome of CASE's application. The new section 6(9) of the Act is also unfair to consumers. This provision permits the court, acting on its own motion, to discontinue proceedings that have been stayed, if there are no further steps in the proceedings for two years. This is regardless of the status of the application by a specified body for a declaration of injunction. In other words, the stayed proceedings can be discontinued even if the other application drags for more than two years and remains unresolved. Sir, justice should not be held hostage to the court's desire to clear their docket of outstanding cases, especially where the legal proceedings were stayed through no fault of and against the wishes of a consumer. While the Amendment Bill does specify that the discontinuance is without prejudice to the consumer's right to reinstate the action, it seems to me unfair that the consumer, and even the supplier, should have to bear the cost and inconvenience of effecting a reinstatement. On a related note, in light of the power of the court to discontinue proceedings if no steps are taken for two years, the Act should require either the court or the supplier to notify the consumer of the outcome of the application.”
“That would render completely pointless the inclusion of financial products and services into the Act. Many believe that Singapore is overly pro-business and too lacking in consumer protection. Such a move would simply prove such views to be true. Therefore, I hope that the Minister of State will inform this House whether MAS-regulated financial products and services will subsequently be excluded from the Act by way of regulations and, if so, explain why and how such a move will nevertheless benefit and protect consumers. Sir, my second point relates to clause 3 of the Amendment Bill. It amends the Act so that where a consumer has commenced legal proceedings against a merchant and subsequently CASE or a specified body applies for a declaration of injunction against that merchant, either the consumer or the merchant may apply to the court for a stay of the proceedings, pending the resolution of the application. It seems to me that the supplier is far more likely than the consumer to exercise this right. There are a number of problems with such a mechanism. Firstly, it seems to me inherently unfair that a consumer's course of action against a merchant who has engaged in unfair practices can be held hostage to a separate application by a specified body. As the saying goes, "Justice delayed is justice denied." I understand that, in most cases, the consumer would already have approached CASE before commencing legal proceedings against the merchant and, obviously, he was not willing to rely on CASE. What happens if the merchant dissipates his assets, pending the resolution of CASE's application? The consumer would then have been deprived of his recourse against the merchant through no fault of his own.”
“" While I am sure that the MAS considers the interest of consumers when acting as the regulator, it nevertheless has other priorities as well. Furthermore, the Act contains important features that are absent from the MAS' regime. Consumers have a private right of action against suppliers. There is the voluntary compliance agreement which can include provisions requiring the supplier in question to compensate consumers who have suffered loss or damage resulting from the unfair practice. CASE is also empowered to apply to the court for a declaration or injunction against offending merchants and the decisions of the court are subject to appeal and public scrutiny. These are all essential enforcement mechanisms implemented by the Act but absent from the MAS' regulatory regime. Crucially, many of these features relate to the compensation to consumers. Sir, we are here today to debate the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act. Let me repeat: consumer protection. On the other hand, MAS administers a regime to regulate banks and financial institutions. It may be fine for regulating the financial industry, but does it protect consumers? It certainly does not provide for compensation to consumers. Regulation of merchants' behaviour is fundamentally different from compensation to consumers. The Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act encompasses both aspects. But the MAS-administered regime provides only for the former and not the latter. After all, if the MAS-administered regime was sufficient to protect the consumers, then why amend the First Schedule to the Act to bring financial products and services under the Act in the first place? It would be highly disappointing if any financial products or services are excluded from the Act simply because they are regulated by the MAS.”
“My first point is that even the amended prescribed limit for claims of $30,000 may be too low for claims in respect of such products and services. By way of comparison, the Financial Industry Disputes Resolution Centre, or FIDReC, hears cases with amounts of up to $100,000 for disputes between insured persons and insurers and $50,000 for other disputes, including disputes between banks and consumers. In fact, from the FIDReC Annual Report for 2006-2007, it seems that financial institutions have voluntarily submitted to FIDReC jurisdiction for disputes over amounts exceeding $100,000, such that the biggest claim adjudicated by FIDReC in its 2006-2007 financial year was actually $729,000. But I am more concerned that, despite what is contained in the Amendment Bill, most financial products and services may end up being excluded from the ambit of the Act. According to the public consultation exercise conducted by the Ministry last year, the Ministry's intent was to exclude from the Act by way of regulations all financial products and services regulated by the Monetary Authority of Singapore. What this means is that even if, today, this House passes the Amendment Bill to include financial products and services under the Act, tomorrow, the Minister may issue regulations that exclude the bulk of such products and services from the Act. I hope that that will not be the case. Sir, in last year's public consultation exercise, the Ministry stated, and I quote, "MAS already monitors the financial services industry closely in its capacity as the regulator. Furthermore, MAS has regulatory and enforcement powers against financial institutions and representatives if they breach MAS' administered laws.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. The Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act took effect on 1st March 2004. Consumers and businesses have had over four years to become familiar with the Act with what is permissible under the Act and what is not. The Consumers' Association of Singapore, or CASE, as a specified body under the Act, has played a key role in giving teeth to the Act. This update of the Act is therefore timely. While any enhancement to consumer protection is praiseworthy and to be welcomed, the Amendment Bill is nevertheless not perfect. I will touch on four areas. Firstly, the Amendment Bill expands the jurisdiction of the Act to include financial products and services, motor vehicle sale contracts and timeshare-related contracts. The maximum quantum for claims under the Act will also be increased from $20,000 to $30,000. Sir, the inclusion of motor vehicle sale contract is timely and much needed. However, the amendments do not adequately address the issue of lemon cars which are new cars with many defects and problems. This is essentially the sale of a fundamentally defective product to a consumer. While the purchase of a car from a car dealer will appear to be covered by the amended Act, the amended prescribed limit of $30,000 is inadequate. It seems arbitrary to me that the purchaser of a very cheap car can get proper redress if it is a lemon but not the majority of car buyers. Here, I think it is important to note that $30,000 would be a very low price for a car, even for second-hand cars. It is not clear if lemon car cases are common. But this discrimination does not seem right in principle. Financial products and services are also being brought under the Act.”
“I think there is room for the Act to be amended to allow for greater public consultation. Sir, with that, I support the Bill. 4.29 pm”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. The amendments contained in the Bill will put in place the necessary framework to allow the Public Transport Council to implement distance-based through fares, which is, in my view, a fair basis for determining public transport fares. So I only have two points to make in relation to the Bill. Clause 3 of the Bill amends section 23 of the Act, in particular clause 3(b) amends section 23(2) such that PTC may, in certain circumstances, prohibit persons from charging fares lower than those approved by the PTC. This is a change from the current situation where persons are freely permitted to charge fares lower than those approved by the PTC. This seems counter-intuitive. After all, if an operator is able and willing to reduce its fares, why should the PTC stop it from doing so? I would think that lower transport fares are a good thing, especially in these times of high inflation. I therefore hope that the Minister can clarify the situation in which the PTC will proscribe persons from charging lower fares than what have been approved and what measures will be put in place to ensure that the PTC will do so only in these situations. Secondly, Sir, the new section 24AB creates a mechanism for the PTC to consult with licensed bus service operators and licensed Rapid Transit System operators. But this excludes the public. I hope the Minister can clarify why only the operators and not the public who, after all, are the persons who will be paying these fares, will be consulted. Indeed, a recurring complaint from the public is that the PTC does not pay sufficient heed to the concerns of the commuters themselves, considering that it is the commuters who will be using the system and paying the fares.”
“And, certainly, if the Government was keen to give Singaporeans more time to come to an informed conclusion, then it should provide for much longer campaign period than the statutory minimum of nine days which has been the practice in past elections. Also, in this year's COS, Mr Matthias Yao had raised the question of contingency plans to deal with possible disruptions to the smooth conduct of elections, such as severe weather on Nomination Day and Polling Day. The Deputy Prime Minister's response then was that the Elections Department was looking into this and legislative amendments would be introduced to address such situations. The Bill currently before this House does not appear to address this issue. I therefore hope that the Deputy Prime Minister can update this House on the status of the Elections Department's work on contingency planning and the proposed legislative amendments that he had referred to in this year's COS. Sir, the Amendment Bill before this House is a well-balanced piece of legislation that preserves the principles of democracy by enabling many more overseas Singaporeans to vote than is presently the case. This keeps our general elections relevant in today's globalised world. I believe that the refinements I have suggested would improve the Act even more. With that, I support the Bill. 3.22 pm”
“That being the case, I propose that the Government should fund the travel of one polling agent from each political party involved in the elections to each overseas polling station where overseas voters in respect of constituencies contested by that party are registered to vote so that all parties would be able to appropriately monitor the various overseas polling stations. This would ensure that the same degree of transparency and accountability applies to both local and overseas polling stations and preclude any allegation of vote rigging, foul play or other unfairness. My second point relates to early voting for overseas voters. Ms Sylvia Lim had raised this issue in last year's COS and I think she has mentioned this slightly earlier. Sir, at COS this year, the Deputy Prime Minister had answered that there are many implications to early voting which make it unfeasible, including the fact that overseas Singaporeans would then only witness four to five days of campaigning from overseas before voting which may not be enough for them to form a conclusion on whom to vote for. I urge the Deputy Prime Minister to reconsider this and to permit early voting for overseas voters. The concern raised by Ms Lim is certainly true that there is a valid concern about anonymity in some wards, in particular single member constituencies. It seems to me that there is little qualitative difference between five days of campaigning and nine days of campaigning. I believe that the benefits of permitting early voting for overseas voters far outweigh the potential problems.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. This Bill seeks to refine the Act by implementing changes that the Deputy Prime Minister had announced in the Committee of Supply debate earlier this year. These refinements are positive and much welcome. Having said that, I have three points for the Deputy Prime Minister's consideration. Sir, of all the amendments, the relaxation of the eligibility criteria for an overseas voter is the most significant. A Singapore citizen must now spend an aggregate of 30 days in the past three years in Singapore to qualify for overseas voting. It removes the previous eligibility criteria which had been heavily criticised. This will have the effect of enabling many more overseas Singaporeans to vote. It also means that at the next general elections, overseas polling stations are likely to receive many more overseas voters than in the 2006 elections. Section 39 of the Act specifies that the Presiding Officer of a polling station, which includes an overseas polling station, shall exclude from the polling station all persons except voters allotted to that polling station, the candidates, the polling agents of each candidate and other persons involved in the functioning of the polling station. My question is whether the Government will make special provision to enable polling agents of candidates to be present in overseas polling stations. While the Act, as it now stands, permits parties to send their polling agents to overseas polling stations, the reality is that travel costs would be so high as to make this prohibitive and unrealistic.”
“I think an apology is the least that the Ministry could do, and I believe a clear, unreserved, unqualified apology is a necessary first step towards the restoration of public confidence in the Home Team because it demonstrates that the Ministry is squarely confronting the issue. The failure to apologise suggests that it is downplaying the seriousness of these incidents and denying responsibility. Unless and until this happens, it would be difficult to expect public confidence in the Home Team to be restored.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, we have been repeatedly told that the three security lapses this year were due to human error and that no system can completely eliminate human error. That may be so. But this seems to imply that human error is unavoidable and hence inevitable. This is difficult to reconcile with the Government's previous calls to Singaporeans to be ever vigilant because we have to win against the terrorists every time but they only have to win once. The inescapable fact remains that we have had three lapses across three different departments within a short span of four months or so. One would have expected the Home Team to be extra vigilant after the escape of Mas Selamat and that there would at least have been no more human errors in the period immediately following his escape. As we all know, that was not the case. I dare say Singaporeans' confidence in the Home Team has taken a serious knock. Sir, I think there is a very legitimate question as to whether three lapses in three different agencies in four months are enough evidence of a wider problem in MHA. The Ministry has consistently focused on individual officers' omissions and how even the best-designed systems are susceptible to human error but has not acknowledged any fault as an organisation. If there are human lapses in different agencies within the Ministry, then there is a valid question as to whether the Ministry itself has done enough to inculcate a culture of zero-tolerance for human errors across the entire Home Team as a whole. Furthermore, in the month or so since the Changi Airport slip-up, there has, to date, been no apology from MHA to Singaporeans for these lapses. The public would be forgiven for thinking that MHA is in denial, at least publicly.”
“But neither of this Act nor the Betting Act, nor the Gaming Houses Act, imposes any liability on licensed operators if they allow those who are below 18 to gamble. That seems to be a lacuna in the law which should be plugged, so as to drive home to licensed operators the seriousness of their responsibility not to allow young persons under the age of 18 to gamble. Secondly, Sir, clause 14 of the Bill introduces a new section 20B that empowers the Minister to exempt any person or class of persons from any or all provisions of the Act through Gazette notifications. There is no statement as to the purposes for which such exemptions may be granted. Sir, the debate on casinos shows that gambling remains a sensitive issue in Singapore, which many Singaporeans are greatly concerned about. This broad power to the Minister to grant exemptions is worrying because it potentially deprives Parliament of the opportunity to review and debate proposed exemptions. If the Minister is of the view that this power to grant exemptions is administratively and operationally desirable and necessary, then I would suggest that, at the minimum, the new section 20B should be amended to explicitly state the purposes for which exemptions may be granted. Sir, with that, I support the Bill.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to participate in this debate. I rise in support of the Bill. Sir, this Bill is intended to rationalise the workings of the Tote Board, which is now responsible for regulating gaming and betting in Singapore and to address certain gaps in the law that currently exist. As such, I only have two points to make. Firstly, clause 10 of the Bill repeals the existing section 15 of the Act and introduces a new section 15, which essentially provides that it is lawful for any person of or above the age of 18 years to participate in licensed gaming or betting. This is a relatively lower age and is of some concern, given the trend of Singaporeans starting to gamble at a young age. A survey released by the Government in May this year found that a quarter of respondents started gambling when they were less than 18 years old, up 10% from 2005. Setting the legal age for gambling at 18 years risks exacerbating this problem. I would therefore like to ask the Minister to clarify and explain why and how this age of 18 years old was decided upon, especially when this is lower than the age of 21 years which is required for entry into the upcoming casinos under the Casino Control Act. On a related note, this new section 15 now makes it explicitly clear that those who are 18 years and above may lawfully gamble with licensed operators, which is something that was previously not so clear. So, this is positive. This also means that, by implication, those who are below 18, who somehow manage to gamble with licensed operators are committing an offence under the Betting Act or the Common Gaming Houses Act.”
“I have three supplementary questions for the Senior Minister of State. Firstly, I would like to ask whether the Ministry has sought clarifications from the Myanmar Generals on whether it is true that relief items have been diverted for sale on the market and in their place, inferior items, including, in some cases, rotting foodstuffs, sent to cyclone victims. Secondly, I would like to ask what sort of assurances we will require from the Generals before we release the additional $5 million of aid that we have promised. And, finally, Sir, the Senior Minister of State has stated the Ministry's opposition to the politicisation of aid, and I absolutely agree that aid commitments should not be linked to the issue of democracy in Myanmar. Having said that, does the Government have a position on the timing of the referendum taking place so soon after the cyclone?”
“Recent years had seen repeated calls for the introduction of contestability in our bus and rail sectors, and also for limited duplication of some bus and rail routes, both of which are being done now under the Land Transport Review. Indeed, as far back as October 2003, I wrote a commentary in the Today newspaper questioning whether the present structure of the public transport system created meaningful competition. Such criticisms invariably met with a stock response, when there was a reply, defending the status quo as being adequately competitive. Complaints about the quality of services met with similar stock responses, referring to the PTC's quality of service standards. Clearly, the Land Transport Review calls into question the validity of such responses. Sir, I would just like to end with how other people see our public transport system. I work with a lot of expatriates, many of them Americans. Most of them do not own cars in Singapore for two very simple reasons. Firstly, they cannot bring themselves to pay Singapore car prices, coming from countries where cars are far cheaper. Secondly, and I think more importantly, they recognise the high quality and affordability of our public transport system when compared with their own. I think many Singaporeans who have travelled overseas will agree that, on the whole, our public transport system works. That is important to remember. The Land Transport Review marks a landmark in Singapore's transport policy. And I thank the Ministry for setting such a sound and strong foundation for future land transport planning.”
“ERP, as a pricing mechanism for congestion, is also not sensitive to other considerations. From next month, there will be evening ERP on Toa Payoh Lorong 6. Residents of Toa Payoh can be forgiven for the feeling that they are being penalised for living in a big town with many drivers, or for there being only one entry point into their town from the CTE. These are extrinsic factors that make Lorong 6 a choke point for traffic. ERP will not address this. Sir, the Minister has explained the need to keep residential estates and not just the CBD free of gridlock. I think there is a lot of merit to that. But there is a significant difference between congestion inside a housing estate and congestion in the CBD. The former affects primarily the residents and businesses there. The latter has much broader repercussions. Have Toa Payoh residents and businesses been polled on whether they want evening ERP along Lorong 6? Sir, I now turn to taxis. NTUC Comfort is by far the biggest taxi operator in Singapore, dwarfing all of the other operators. Comfort's sheer size means that the other operators have no choice but to follow its prices, both in terms of fares and also in terms of rental charges. The Ministry and LTA have consistently stated that the taxi industry is liberalised and that taxi supply and fares are market driven. Well, there may have been liberalisation. But is the market functioning properly? Is it truly competitive? If not, should there not be closer regulation of the market? I hope that the Minister can share his thoughts on the status of competition in the taxi industry. I also hope that, in future, the Ministry and LTA would be more open to suggestions from the public on how to improve public transport.”
“Sir, my own experience is that road hogging has gotten worse in recent years with more cars on the roads. But there have been significantly fewer summonses for road hogging in the past three years as compared to the two years before that. Would greater policy enforcement against road hogging during peak hours reduce such conduct, therefore smoothening traffic flow and increasing average speed? Would more driver education help as well? These are examples of how issues, outside the Ministry's purview, can have ramifications for transport. So I hope the Minister can shed some light on the extent to which holistic cross-Ministry approaches are adopted when considering transport issues. My third point concerns our increasing reliance on ERP to manage congestion. Economists generally agree that ERP is the way to go in managing congestion. It puts a price on road usage and motorists get to decide whether to pay and save some time. But from a wider practical perspective, ERP does have flaws. Firstly, it is regressive. It reduces the choice of whether to take a certain road at a certain time to a dollar value. This effectively sends the message that some roads at certain times are largely for the use of whoever can afford to pay, even though those roads are public goods and built with public funds. While one can argue that drivers are, by definition, persons of means, I think there is a world of difference in means between a Chery QQ driver and a Lexus driver. And if one day ERP charges become punitive, as has been suggested might be necessary, then the regressive nature of ERP will become all too apparent, and could end up pricing certain stretches of roads out of the reach of regular folks at certain times – roads that tax dollars had helped to build.”
“It makes the rail network accessible to a much greater proportion of the population. Is that enough to allow the quality of the rail system to improve to entice drivers to switch? Similarly, what is the projected increase in bus capacity by 2020, so that the bus system can meet the increased demand and still be sufficiently qualitatively enhanced so as to attract drivers? Sir, my second point relates to the scope of the review. It seems that the review was limited to matters within the Ministry's purview, and understandably so. But transport issues really cut across many lines and have many dimensions. Has enough been done across the entire Government to ensure holistic solutions to transport issues? For instance, let us take working hours. We have morning and evening peak hours, largely because most Singaporeans have very similar fixed working hours. Flexible working hours coupled with telecommuting can help spread commuter traffic out and hence alleviate peak hour congestion. While governmental agencies have introduced such schemes, can the Government do more? Can the Government undertake a more concerted effort to introduce flexible working hours across its various agencies? This would ease the demands on our transport infrastructure during peak hours, and also create a strong incentive for the private sector to introduce similar arrangements. Another example is road hogging. I stay in the east and usually take the ECP home. It is really just a straight road but, for some reason, the right most lane is often one of the slower lanes, even without accidents or road works. And I have observed that this is caused by slower moving vehicles in that lane, whose drivers ignore the convoy of cars bunched up behind.”
“Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak. I was held up because my office is at Suntec City and I did not realise that today is the first day of the IT Show, so there is an inevitable jam. So I welcome the setting up of the carpark lot availability system in the Suntec and Marina Square area. Sir, that leads me to the Land Transport Review. I personally think that the recommendations are positive on the whole. There is some very far-reaching slaughtering of sacred cows that significantly improves the public transport landscape. In particular, the explicit focus on a commuter-centric public transport system that drivers will want to switch to, augurs very well for the future. Having said that, I have some concerns that I hope the Minister will address. First and foremost, it remains unclear whether the planned expansion in rail and bus capacity will be sufficient for our growing population, especially as it approaches 6.5 million. The review will guide land transport developments over the next 10 to 15 years. Last year, our population was 4.6 million. Assuming an average population growth rate of 2% over the next 12 years, which is reasonable in view of the growth rate in the past 10 years, our population would reach about 5.9 million by 2020 which is an increase of 29% over today. 12.45 pm Sir, is the expanded public transport system sufficient for a 5.9 million population? The Minister had previously noted the importance of investing in quality and not just system capacity. Rightly so, if public transport is to become the mode of choice even over cars. But I think the implicit assumption is that there will be sufficient capacity. The rail network will double by 2020, increasing the rail density by 60%.”
“Sir, I have two clarifications for the Minister, arising from of his comments yesterday. Firstly, the Minister mentioned that the unemployment rate for diploma holders is 3.4%. This is actually 50% higher than the overall resident employ ment rate as at December 2007, which was 2.3%. I would like to ask the Minister to clarify why this is so. In particular, and I know that the Minister has addressed the issue of S-Pass holders, could these statistics be attributable to competition from the S-Pass holders? Secondly, the Minister touched on the drop in labour productivity last year where it decreased by 0.9%. His explanation was that wages had gone up. I would actually like to ask the Minister to clarify just how increased wages affect productivity. Because, as I understand it, labour productivity is the average output per unit of labour, which is not dependent on wages. Instead, it is unit labour cost that has been adversely affected by rising wages and decreasing productivity. So I hope that the Minister can clarify this point, especially on the reasons why labour productivity dropped in 2007, and how we intend to arrest this worrying development.”
“Sir, just a point of clarification. I think the Member mentioned that I said that the Committee did not consult widely. I said that the Ministry did not consult widely, not the Committee. Using CPF For Self Part-time Education Er Lee Bee Wah: Sir, maintaining economic growth for the longer term is going to be a challenging task, more so, when we depend on our working adults to continue working, making learning their lifelong journey. Rising inflation and rising educational cost will invariably mean having to prioritise between basic needs and education. Take the case of a young married couple, the cost of raising a family will invariably make lifelong education a luxury they may not be able to afford. While thousands of students are attending night classes, there are many more who are missing out because of the reasons I have just stated. Even among those taking part-time courses, many are unable to pursue their studies beyond the diploma stage because a degree will cost them quite a substantial sum. Money in CPF accounts, if allowed to be used for recognised part-time degree courses will be helpful. If share investment, which has inherent risks, is allowed, then surely there is greater merit for CPF money to be used for continuing education. We constantly hear the Government extolling the importance of lifelong learning, yet the CPF policy is denying the account holders the opportunity to do so. It has been argued that CPF is for one's retirement and healthcare. Then, my point is that it would be even more appropriate to invest in education which will further strengthen one's ability to earn more and this will translate into even more savings for retirement through higher salary and by remaining employable for many more years.”
“Younger generations can identify the negative signals sent to society and to employers by this policy. To uproot ageism in society, it is incumbent on the Government to lead by example through our consistent policies. In view of recent policy changes with the appointment of Mr Lim Boon Heng as Minister-in-charge of ageing issues - he is present here - the establishment of the Council for Third Age or C3A, the Silver Industry Committee and other prospective changes such as CPF LIFE, I think the Ministry of Manpower should review the need to continue this formula. The inconsistency in policy rhetoric and actual policy decisions is clear to educated baby boomers of today. The reinstatement of employer's contribution rate would impact on the CPF nestegg of individuals of this age band and an immediate positive outcome would be that more Singaporeans would be able to qualify for CPF LIFE scheme in 2013. In conclusion, I want to ask the Minister for Manpower to give me valid reasons, and give the House valid reasons, for continuing with this current policy. Is there any empirical evidence that the reduction of employer's contribution rate has actually led to more employability of older workers. On the other hand ---”
“But the reduction of the employer's contribution rate for the age group 50 to 55 years is ageist discrimination, as it gives the signal that this age group is not as productive as the 45 to 50 years age group. More importantly, it goes against Article 12 of the Singapore Constitution as it discriminates against Singapore citizens on the basis of age. For example, a person who is 51 years old is usually doing the same job as somebody who is 48 years old but is paid less overall. From the lifespan perspective, Members of the House would agree that the period 50 to 55 years is a time when the middle age economic squeeze is felt most. These days, couples tend to tie the knot later, perhaps around 30 years. And their parents at the age of 50 would still be having economic responsibilities for his growing children who could be in junior college, National Service, polytechnic or university. It is also at this time period that the grandparents tend to fall ill and the sandwich generation is facing economic pressure from younger and older family members. Inflation, of course, is a compounding factor. Hence, my view is that this policy is also anti-family and discourages fertility as it impresses on the next generation the struggles of the parents in making ends meet. The total fertility rate is only 1.26 today but we need a fertility rate of 2.15 for a stable population. In NUS, when I teach the subject of social gerontology, I will discuss policies in class. This is raised by my fourth year students. On the one hand, national policies encourage older workers to continue working for as long as possible but, on the other hand, the CPF contribution rates from employers devalue the older workers through reduction of the employer's CPF rate.”
“According to the CPF Annual Report 2006, Annex A, the employer's and employee's contributions rate were the same for working adults up to age 55 years. For example, in 1999, the employer's contribution rate was 10% and employee's contribution rate was 20% for the categories of 35 years all the way to 55 years. Similarly, in 2004, the employer's contribution rate was 13%, employee's contribution rate was 20% for all the age groups mentioned. A critical change took place in January 2005 in the age categorisation scheme. The below 35 years age group and the above 35 to 45 age group were retained. However, after that, five-year intervals were introduced, namely, above 45 to 50 years, above 50 to 55 and above 55 to 60 years. For the first time in 2005, the employer's contribution rate for the age group 50 to 55 years was reduced by two percentage points. In 2006, the difference was four percentage points, as compared to the 45 to 50 years age category. In 2007, the four percentage point difference was retained. It was rationalised that the reduction in employer's contribution rate for the 50 to 55 years age group was needed in order to help them to remain in the workforce and be employable. I can understand that from 2001 to 2004, the economy was not doing well and the Government may have taken this policy decision to help older workers. In the CPF Annual Report 2005, the number of active workers in the age group 50 to 55 was 322,000, in 2006 it was 337,000. As it is evident, there was a small improvement but nothing very significant. It is my contention that reduction of the employer's contribution rate after age 55 years is acceptable, as it is also the CPF withdrawal age.”
“Last year, I also noted that the compulsory nature of the Longevity Insurance Scheme represented and I quote: "an unprecedented inroad into members' ownership rights over their CPF funds". It is fundamentally different from the Medisave and Special Accounts, because the funds in those accounts remain the member's, and the member is not compelled to spend them on anything. This is a fundamental sea change in the nature of CPF members' rights over their balances that merits a thorough debate on the nature of CPF membership. Unfortunately, we have not had one. The committee's response to feedback on the scheme being compulsory was a bald statement that this was necessary, "To avoid deficiencies created through adverse selection and opt-outs". That is true. But it represents an implicit value judgment placing the interest of the community over those of the individual. This interference with members' property rights has not been justified. I appreciate both the pros and cons of making CPF LIFE mandatory. It is probably impossible to satisfy everyone but, perhaps, if the Government introduces measures targeting those who do not qualify for CPF LIFE to clearly show that even as Singaporeans bear the primary responsibility of taking care of themselves, the Government recognises the needs of those who fall short, then the compulsory nature of CPF LIFE might become more palatable to Singaporeans. CPF Employer Contribution Rate for 50-55 Years Age Group Assoc. Prof. Kalyani K Mehta (Nominated Member): Sir, today I want to focus on the categorisation of employees' age in the CPF framework and the implications of the employers' contribution rate pegged to it.”
“Sir, MOM has accepted the recommendations of the National Longevity Insurance Committee which has addressed many of the criticisms levied against the original Longevity Insurance Scheme. I would therefore ask the Minister to clarify why the Ministry had proposed the Longevity Insurance Scheme in its original form without the public consultation undertaken by the committee. 6.00 pm In any case, it remains unclear what would be done for those who do not qualify for CPF LIFE. This includes the self-employed and casual workers who do not contribute to CPF and female homemakers. Sir, the CPF has assumed a central role in how we deliver help to less fortunate Singaporeans and there have been laudable efforts to get the self-employed and casual workers onto CPF. But those who are unable to contribute to CPF for whatever reason now face a double-whammy. Firstly, they do not get Workfare Income Supplement payments. Secondly, unless they top-up their CPF, and many, if not most, will be unable to do so, then they do not get the L-Bonus either. Indeed, giving the L-Bonus only to those with some CPF but not those with any almost seems perverse. So what do we do about those who fall outside CPF LIFE? Many will be homemakers who look after their families instead of working. Incentives to encourage CPF top-ups for them are well and good but would not solve the problem. When this House debated the CPF changes last September, I noted that those changes did not address the fundamental issue of Singaporeans without meaningful CPF balances in the first place. I do not think that the Government has articulated an adequate response to this question. CPF LIFE certainly does not address that at all.”
“Sir, clarification for the Minister. The Minister touched on the Complaints Choir and spoke about foreigners leading and organising Singaporeans and complaining about local politics. I attended the private performance of the Complaints Choir and my understanding is that the project was organised by a local arts group, The Necessary Stage, not by foreigners, and The Necessary Stage invited the founders here. The foreigners were really the composer of the music and were also the conductor and some singers in the choir. Can the Minister please clarify how that constituted interference in Singapore politics when the lyrics were all done by Singaporean members of the choir as a whole?”
“It is timely for Singapore to have its own Freedom of Information Act. Such legislation promotes transparency and accountability. It allows citizens to understand their governments better. It facilitates independent research. It enriches the history of the nation. Today, over 70 countries around the world have such legislation. Even China, a Communist state, is implementing a statute on access to government information. It will come into force on 1st May 2008. It is time for Singapore, as a developed country, to take its rightful place within that group of countries. National Branding”
“Sir, the Government collects and holds a lot of information. Yet, much, if not most, of that is unavailable, even to researchers for research purposes. The Government controls how much data to release, and how and when. Available data is sometimes presented differently at different times, making comparison difficult. Even MPs, it seems, are not able to obtain certain data. I know because I have asked for citizenship and PR figures in Parliament, but I have been told by MHA that it is "unable to provide this specific data requested." No reasons were cited. And it seems parliamentary convention permits this. Meanwhile, we simply do not record some types of data. Most notably, when MOM tracks resident employment data, it does not differentiate between citizens and resident foreigners. I think most Singaporeans would consider that essential information if only to better understand how their country is changing. This Government fiercely prides itself on its transparency and accountability. I therefore ask the Government to be more proactive in collecting and publishing official statistics. Any official data that does not invoke national security or similar concerns should be made available. Indeed, I urge the Government to enact a Freedom of Information Act to set the rules under which Government information is made available to the public as of right. In 1946, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution describing freedom of information as a fundamental human right. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which forms part of customary international law, explicitly provides for the right to seek and receive information. The right to information is therefore a fundamental human right.”
“" Mr Ngiam argued that, "the government has to appeal to the people's heart to build the nation of Singapore, not just their stomachs.' I agree whole-heartedly with Mr Ngiam. And appealing to the people's heart requires the Government to put aside its penchant for cold, hard calculations, and to occasionally err on the side of generosity and graciousness. Sir, I want to live in a country that cares for its people first and foremost, not a country that prioritises GDP growth for its own sake. I want to see a nation where Singaporeans are valued for everything that we are, not just the economic contribution we can make. I want to grow old in a state that places a higher premium on helping citizens, than on ensuring that there is no wastage of public funds. I want to be part of a generous society that helps its most vulnerable members, instead of counting the pennies and tightening the purse strings. I do not think that I live in such a country yet, and that disheartens me. I sometimes question what it means to be a Singaporean, and I consider myself one of the lucky ones. This bodes ill for us in this era of global mobility, if other Singaporeans are similarly disenchanted. And those who leave, those who are able to leave, the 1,000 Singaporeans who leave us every year and do not come back are exactly the very ones that we need to stay. Sir, I hope one day, I can say that I do live in such a country. Maybe one day, I will see a Budget that reflects the principles and ideals that I have just spoken about. Until then, I can only continue to hope.”
“Yes, help needs to be applied in a smart, careful and judicious manner. But avoiding waste, avoiding erosion of the work ethic and avoiding a bloated bureaucracy should not detract or distract us from the very reason for providing assistance in the very first place. We should not extend help with our right hand, and then pull it back with our left hand. Mr Speaker, Sir, sometimes, it can be worth having some wastage or inefficiency, or "deadweight funding", if the net benefit to Singaporeans outweighs such wastage or inefficiency or deadweight. And by "benefit", I mean benefit in a holistic sense, both tangible and intangible, and not just economic or financial benefit. Intangible benefit could mean better peace of mind for PA recipients, secure in the knowledge that there is some buffer in their monthly allowances. It could mean the sense of recognition enjoyed by caregivers from having their efforts recognised by the state in the form of caregiver's allowance, even if they do not necessarily need that money, even if the sum is more symbolic than substantial. It could mean the relief felt by casual workers and the self-employed, in not having to make Medisave contributions before enjoying the benefits of WIS. Or it could mean the security of the middle class and especially the sandwich class, whose high salary translates into a low household per capita income when spread across all of their dependants, in knowing that they will still be entitled to a full subsidy offered by the Government if they opt for a 'C' class ward. Sir, Mr Ngiam Tong Dow, in an interview with the Petir magazine, cited the view of a so-called "thinking Singaporean", that "all our national policies serve only at the altar of economic survival.”
“We are willing to be under-inclusive and leave some of the needy out in the cold, instead of being over-inclusive and allowing some undeserving persons to slip through the cracks and benefit. We prefer to focus on safeguarding public funds, instead of helping people. Many Singaporeans ask why the Government does not do more to help Singaporeans. Why does the Government not help Singaporeans, when it has the resources to do so? I would phrase the question like this, "What does it mean to be a Singaporean?" The Government consistently emphasises the importance of individual responsibility, of ensuring that people do not abdicate responsibility for their lives to the Government. As a result, we provide the bare minimum level of assistance so that Singaporeans will not starve. Yes, we are all responsible for our lives. We have to be. But that is not the full story. It cannot be. The point is not about judging those who made mistakes or wrong choices somewhere along the line, or finding them undeserving. To cast the question in terms of whether a person deserves aid, is to miss the point. The point is to help our fellow Singaporeans in their time of need. The point is to be compassionate, because there, but for the grace of God, go I. The point is to assure Singaporeans, that if, touch wood, they fall on hard times, they will be taken care of. Simply because they are Singaporeans, and Singapore will take care of her own. We have to. Because if we do not, nobody else will. The world does not owe Singaporeans anything, it has no obligations to do anything to help Singaporeans. But maybe, if being Singaporean is to mean anything, Singapore does. Just like the more fortunate Singaporeans amongst us have a duty to help the less fortunate.”
“The Minister has announced a $40 increase in monthly PA payments, which for a single-person household represents a 13.8% increase, from $290 to $330. But with prices having increased 6.6% over the past year, $330 is really worth $309.50 in January 2007 dollars. In other words, that single-person household would only be seeing, at best, a 6.7% increase in real terms. I say "at best", because the inflation rate experienced by the lowest income group tends to be higher than the average inflation rate. The Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports recently said that the groceries necessary to satisfy the Health Ministry's nutritional recommendations for a person would cost $95 every month, and so $290 a month should be enough for a single-person household on PA. Never mind that individual circumstances may result in some having greater needs than others. Never mind the stories of PA recipients surviving on rice and soy sauce, barely making ends meet. Never mind that limiting the amount so tightly seems to begrudge PA recipients some degree of comfort above subsistence levels. To avoid eroding the work ethic, we leave no room for generosity, no room for error or contingency for PA recipients, no room for the occasional treat that is not given to them by charity. Never mind that PA recipients are, by definition, unable to work in the first place. Sir, we do not want to undermine Singaporeans' work ethic. So we decline to implement an institutionalised social safety net that is either expansive or generous. We choose to err on the side of being conservative, some might even say stingy.”
“This is in stark contrast to the previous Workfare bonuses, which were ad hoc special transfers, where casual and self-employed workers qualified for the payments simply by signing a form. As a result, only 54,000 out of an estimated 160,000 casual workers and self-employed are actually receiving WIS payments. Sir, the reason is not difficult to understand. These workers are usually very cash strapped and living day-to-day, hand-to-mouth. And that is exactly why the WIS was implemented, in the first place, to supplement their low incomes. But by requiring them to use their already insufficient cash to make Medisave contributions to qualify for WIS, the inevitable occurs. Many simply opt out, and we end up missing out on two- thirds of a key group that we were trying to help through the WIS. Or take means testing. I will speak more about means testing during the Committee of Supply debate on the Ministry of Health. But for present purposes, it suffices to say that the current proposal is to perform means testing based on one's income level, and housing type for those without income, such as retirees. The rationale is to keep things simple. But this is likely to end up penalising the high-income with big families and multiple dependants, households with a low per capita income. In effect, this is the group that ends up bearing the cost for the Ministry's desire to keep the method of means testing simple. In fact, the lesson seems so well learnt by some that during the public feedback sessions on means testing, there were even calls to cut back on the subsidies even more. Have we really lost the capacity for compassion? I am glad that the Health Minister rejected this suggestion outright. And what about Public Assistance?”
“Its approach seems to be underpinned by three fundamental principles: avoid wasting public funds, avoid undermining the work ethic, and avoid creating a bloated bureaucracy by keeping things simple. Unfortunately, this approach will often clash with our basic human impulse for care, concern and compassion, and it will generally overlook intangible and unquantifiable factors. Mr Speaker, Sir, last year's Budget and Committee of Supply debates were my first. They were memorable for many reasons, but one particular sequence stood out in my mind. During the COS debate on the issue of a caregiver's allowance for those looking after the disabled and older relatives, the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports referred to a concept in policy circles called "deadweight funding". The argument was that a caregiver's allowance will require the Government to spend a lot of money, spread out over a very large number of families, and so the families who really need help will end up receiving less than they otherwise would. So, there will be no caregiver's allowance. We should not waste public funds on those families with caregivers that do not really need help, never mind that there is currently no direct financial assistance at all for caregivers, never mind that this means that those who do need help will not get it, and never mind that the gesture of an allowance means a lot more than the actual amount. I would hazard that a similar sort of thinking underlies the Workfare Income Supplement Scheme's approach to casual and self-employed workers. To ensure that WIS payments are made only to those who are really working, to encourage people to continue working, we require beneficiaries to make Medisave contributions to qualify for WIS.”
“Some Members have already questioned the so-called "grow at all costs" strategy, of growing the economy as much as we can in good times, to make up for the years of slow or no growth. This seemingly unrelenting focus on GDP growth alone does not take into account the quality or nature of that growth, or the distribution of its benefits. And I have to ask: why should Singaporeans continue to support this pursuit of GDP growth, when they pay the price for it, in terms of higher inflation and more stressful and poorer quality of life, and yet may not be reaping the benefits to an appropriate extent? A possible answer may be that even if Singaporeans are not directly benefiting as much as others, the Government does reap a fair share of gain, which it then uses to assist needy Singaporeans. Certainly, the special transfers are welcome. I applaud the Government for its efforts to redistribute all these monies to the needy and the low-income. And I must confess that it dismays me when higher-income Singaporeans complain about getting less than their less well-to-do brethren. But special transfers are ad hoc in nature. Unless we tap the reserves, they are conditional upon surpluses in past years. We need to make sure that there is protection for Singaporeans in bad times as well, which is exactly when the need for help is at its greatest. Sir, I do not intend to suggest specific measures for the Government to consider. Other Members have made many sound suggestions, and I am sure many more will be made in the next two weeks. Instead, I propose to explore what seems to be the Government's philosophy in helping Singaporeans.”