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 5 of 6.
“" That paper went on to state: "To the extent that the [GIC's] return on investments has been higher than the return actually credited to CPF members, a recurrent, highly regressive, large implicit tax on the CPF wealth has been borne by CPF members." Madam, how much has this contributed to the situation in which we now find ourselves, with an ageing population with insufficient retirement savings? And if we do not rectify this, are we not perpetuating this undesirable state of affairs? Going back to the proposed low-cost pension fund, its purpose was to give all Singaporeans, especially lower-income Singaporeans, better returns on their CPF balances. Such investment opportunities are typically unavailable to lower-income Singaporeans. Even as Fullerton Fund Management, a Temasek Holdings unit, seeks to manage funds from institutional investors and high-net worth individuals, the Government declines to set up a low-cost fund for lower-income Singaporeans. That seems inequitable to me. Worse, it condemns Singaporeans to an unjustifiably low rate of return, one that contributes greatly to Singaporeans needing to continue working longer. Madam, the Minister has also announced that a committee will be formed to study the proposed compulsory annuity scheme. I trust that this House will be given the chance to debate the committee's findings at the appropriate time. But for present purposes, it is worth discussing what a compulsory annuity would mean for CPF members. It represents an unprecedented inroad into members' ownership rights over their CPF funds. Prior to this, members have been restricted in what they can do with their funds, but they are not forced to spend on anything.”
“Should we not structure a CPF policy around the likelihood of long-term gains and not the improbability of sub-par gains, especially bearing in mind the substantial opportunity cost to CPF members of the latter option? If the Government is able and willing to adopt a long-term view with our reserves, then why can the CPF Board not take a similar approach with at least the SMRA balances or even a portion of Ordinary Account balances? Indeed, it seems that the GIC may already be managing CPF balances. It is just that CPF members are not benefiting from it. The CPF Board invests the bulk of CPF balances in Government bonds. These bonds pay a rate equal to the rate that the CPF Board has to pay to members. But what does the Government do with the funds it raises? According to a 2002 paper published by the Asian Development Bank Institute, the Government invests these funds with the GIC. If the returns are as high as 8.2% per year in Singapore dollar terms between 1981 and 2006, or 6%-8% for the next 25 years, then why are CPF members being deprived of the benefit of the GIC's fund management expertise? What does all this mean for CPF members? The 2002 paper I referred to said: "This arrangement has not provided members with high enough real returns to capture the power of compound interest. To the extent the Government earns a higher rate of return on the CPF funds than what it pays to members, there is an implicit tax on CPF wealth. This tax is likely to be fairly large and regressive, as low-income members are likely to have most of their non-housing wealth in the form of CPF balances.”
“But CPF savings are meant for the very long term. Let us just take the SMRA funds, for example. The Minister himself acknowledged that the ideal peg for the SMRA rate would actually have been a 30-year Singapore Government Security, which the Minister estimated would return 4% per annum, if it did exist. But over a 30-year timeframe, market volatility would even itself out. The Minister referred to the recent financial market turmoil as a timely reminder of the risks of the full investment route. But, Madam, even with the recent turmoil, even with the ST Index briefly dipping below 3,000 points a few weeks back, the STI still closed at 3,476 points yesterday, up 14.4% year to-date. Yes, short-term fluctuations may be difficult to stomach, but, over the very long run, they will smoothen out. Surely, over a 30-year timeframe, the average returns will exceed 4% per annum. Surely, even if the short-term risk is borne by the Government, it will be able to even out that risk over the long term. The Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC) provides a great example. Last July, at the GIC's 25th Anniversary Dinner, the Minister Mentor disclosed that the GIC had earned returns of 8.2% in Singapore dollar terms over its 25 years of existence. I understand that the GIC has indicated that over the next 25 years, a more realistic expectation would be 6%-8% per year for our reserves. The GIC manages our reserves. I would expect the Government to be no less careful with our hard-earned reserves than the CPF Board is with members' balances. I am confident that the Government will agree that the chances of the GIC earning less than the CPF rates are very, very low at the very most.”
“Since last December, insurance company Aviva has advertised a product called Big-e. This insurance product targets CPF members, providing a guaranteed return of 3.5% per annum for CPF funds parked with it, subject to a minimum investment of $5,000. Aviva fixes this rate every month in advance, but they have stayed at 3.5% since the product was introduced in December 2006. Funds invested with Aviva can be withdrawn at any time without penalty. How is Aviva able to offer such a product and still make profits? Why can the CPF Board not match Aviva's rate for all CPF balances in the Ordinary Account? My layman's perspective cannot comprehend this and I hope that the Minister can explain. More fundamentally, I remain unconvinced that the CPF Board cannot obtain better returns on members' balances. The Minister took pains to explain why the full investment route, as he called it, was unsuitable, and I thank him for the explanation. This presumably means that the previously proposed low-cost pension fund will now be shelved. The key obstacle seems to be the need to ensure that CPF returns are risk-free. Madam, in the first place, I think some Singaporeans will argue that the CPF is not risk-free but is instead subject to different risks, specifically the risk of Government intervention. It can take the form of deferred withdrawals, higher Minimum Sum requirements and, now, even a compulsory annuity, but the net effect is the same, ie, interference with members' entitlement to their funds. I will put that aside for now. I would like to go on to discuss the Minister's reasoning about the impracticality of delivering higher returns whilst shielding members from volatility. The Minister said that this would have meant subsidising losses using other members' or taxpayers' money.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, thank you for allowing me to participate in this debate. At the National Day Rally, the Prime Minister had announced some far-reaching changes to the CPF scheme. The Minister provided some important details to this House yesterday. Any Government measure that enhances and increases Singaporeans' savings can only be a good thing. Based on the figures and projections released by the Government yesterday, Singaporeans would be better-off and better-prepared for the hard realities of a longer life. The Minister's assurance that under the new system all CPF members would receive higher interest payments is comforting. But, to me, the real question is whether we can do more. Can we do more in a manner that is balanced and sensible and does not involve unwarranted or unjustifiable risks, costs or trade-offs? I think we can. Mdm Deputy Speaker, the poor rate of returns on CPF balances is one of the main reasons why the existing CPF scheme without reform will be inadequate to meet Singaporeans' retirement needs. As a long-term retirement savings plan, the CPF's rate of return is crucial. Unfortunately, the rate of return enjoyed by CPF members to-date has been poor. In a 2006 paper, two NUS economists argued that "CPF members have not benefited from the power of compound interest". They estimated that from 1987 to 2004, the real rate of return credited to CPF members was only 1.2% per annum. This was contrasted with an equivalent rate of 3.39% for EPF members in Malaysia. This shows just how poor CPF returns have been when compared with other countries' provident fund systems. The Minister has now announced an improved rate of 3.5% for up to $20,000 in the Ordinary Account. Let us put that into perspective.”
“My first supplementary question is to clarify whether the grants were disbursed to UNSW or UNSW Asia, and who would we be calling that back from because, as I understand it from the press reports, UNSW Asia is very much insolvent, in which case, unless you can get it back from UNSW, the parent university, there is not much chance of getting funds back. My second question is with respect to the MOS' answer on the EDB not interfering with employment contracts. The number of academic staff at UNSW Asia had uprooted to come to Singapore, and this whole event has left them with a very unpleasant aftertaste when it comes to Singapore. My question to the MOS is whether the EDB and the Ministry accept that the reputation of Singapore is important and that, therefore, it is beneficial to invest some effort into ensuring that the reputation is not affected when things go bad.”
“The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development (Dr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman) (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, Sir, NParks undertakes upgrading or comprehensive redevelopment of parks within private estates if the facilities are beyond economical repair, or as part of the Estate Upgrading Programme (EUP). NParks also routinely maintains parks for wear and tear. When upgrading park facilities in private estates, NParks consults the Neighbourhood Committees to obtain feedback. Such consultations are helpful for assessing the demand for various amenities, such as exercise equipment for the elderly or synthetic rubber mats. Of the 16 parks within the private housing estates in Nee Soon South, four have been provided with exercise equipment for the elderly and three have rubber mats in place. One of these is the Teacher's Estate Playground, which was recently upgraded as part of the EUP for Teacher's Estate. NParks also has plans to upgrade Thong Soon Green Playground and complete the works by the end of the year. NParks will continue to monitor the conditions of the parks and playgrounds in all private estates, maintain them in good condition and upgrade those in relatively poorer condition. Er Lee Bee Wah: My residents have been asking me this question in every of my house visit to private estates. And I have been liaising with NParks, and the standard answer given to me is that they are waiting for budget. So I would like to ask when is the budget available and when can my residents see physical works done on the ground for the remaining playgrounds.”
“Sir, I have two supplementary questions. My first question is whether the Police had fully investigated the background of the speaker before they granted the licence the first time around because I am sure that the information was available online when they were considering the first application. The SMOS has referred to another talk. I would just like to ask whether the other talk was in Singapore and whether a licence had been granted for the other talk and, if so, when was it. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: The first point is, like I have said, the Police assessed the application according to the information made available to it. So the applicant would have to furnish the information. So, here, the curriculum vitae of Prof. Sanders that was given to the Police did not indicate, for example, his involvement in the UN or the fact that he had written articles which talked about the local equivalent of our section 377A. The other talk was organised by a statutory body and because it was a statutory body under a parent Ministry, it did not require a licence. PRIVATE HOUSING ESTATES IN NEE SOON SOUTH (Redevelopment and upgrading plans for parks) 8. Er Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for National Development (a) what are the plans for the redevelopment and upgrading of parks at private housing estates in Nee Soon South; (b) whether there are plans to replace the sand with synthetic rubber at these parks; and (c) whether there are plans to install exercise stations for the elderly.”
“Sanders was likely to talk about our section 377A which is the criminalising of homosexual sex. And also, in terms of the background of Prof. Sanders, Police subsequently came to the knowledge that, in fact, he was an advocate for the criminalising of homosexual sex who had spoken, for example, at the United Nations. That is the context. It was not taken lightly. Neither was it a case where Police just approved without careful consideration. Police did approve carefully, based on the information then available.”
“Sir, two supplementary questions. My first question is whether the Minister can clarify what is the nature of the additional information that led to the licence being cancelled. I am asking that because there could be a concern that the Police did not fully deliberate the circumstances of the application before they granted it the first time round. My second question is whether the Police had considered granting the licence subject to conditions. This is because, as I understand it, the application was for a talk on international trends outside Singapore. So the application itself did not cover Singapore at all. If that was the case, would the Police have considered granting the licence subject to the condition that the speaker did not touch on Singapore? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, the information was made available to Police which was information available online. Essentially, the context of the original application was for a talk, as Mr Siew has said, on a topic which looked innocuous enough, which was "Sexual Orientation in International Law: The Case of Asia". So it appeared to be a lecture highlighting Prof. Sanders' research, comparing the laws of Europe and Asia. But subsequent to that, like I have said, Police came across information available online. They then understood the larger context - which was really that it was part of a two-week stretch of events where local activists had organised several other events, such as talks, exhibitions, forums, etc, which promoted the gay cause. I think the Police then had a better understanding of the background of Prof. Sanders, in particular, there was another talk which was also publicised online, an intended talk by Prof. Sanders at another place, which led Police to believe that Prof.”
“Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Law what recourse is available to unhappy residents affected by en bloc sales of their units and who cannot afford to hire legal counsel to pursue their case, especially regarding unscrupulous and intimidating practices.”
“Sir, I have two supplementary questions for the MOS. My first question is, from the numbers cited by the MOS, it seems that annually, about 90 applicants for registration will be rejected. I would like to ask the MOS what are the typical reasons for rejecting these 90 or so applicants every year. My second question is with regard to this specific application of Mr Alfian Sa'at, and I take the MOS' point that it is not appropriate to discuss specific applications in this House. Having said that, I understand from Mr Alfian Sa'at that the reason for the rejection of his application was not really explained to him. So I would like to ask the MOS whether it is the Ministry's position that it is appropriate to reject this sort of application without going to specific reasons, if only to let the applicant know how he or she may improve himself or herself, so that he or she may take up a teaching position in future. RAdm [NS] Lui Tuck Yew: The Member is correct in that we have a rejection rate of about 3%, rounding up to about 100 cases that are rejected annually. The reasons vary. Some of them are because the applicants do not meet the minimum educational criteria. Or, sometimes, it is really because of a variety of reasons like, for example, their past records, disciplinary cases, and so on. On Mr Sa'at's case, like I have said, I think the most appropriate thing to do would be for him to engage MOE directly and we can deal with the case on an individual basis. EN BLOC SALES (Recourse for unhappy residents) 14.”
“I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether the Ministry has considered introducing a new offence of sexual solicitation which is something that has been done, I understand, in England where a person who solicits sex or sexual activity with a minor would be committing an offence. I think the MOS has mentioned about the provisions which deal with actual sexual conduct, carnal connection and rape, but sexual solicitation would actually nip that in the bud. So I would like to ask the MOS whether that has been considered. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Our Penal Code review has been a comprehensive one. One of the areas that we have been looking at is sex with minors. This is one area indeed we are considering actively. We are looking at the UK provision - section 15 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, on sexual grooming, in other words, if a person chats up a minor and after chatting her up, invites her out, meets her and, thereafter, has sex with her or commits an offence on her - whether we can make that an offence without the actual act of sex having been committed. So it is a matter of drawing the line and scoping it so that the mischief that is being targeted can be addressed sufficiently.”
“Sir, I have two supplementary questions. The first question is I would like to ask the MOS to clarify what he meant when he said that places for foreign students are over and above the places for local students. Does this mean that places are offered to foreign students only after all eligible local students have been offered and have accepted their places? My second question is this. The MOS has mentioned that there are 14,000-odd places for year of admission 2007. Out of these 14,000-plus places, how many places will be going to foreign students?”
“But the university decided that they are taking on a high level of operational and financial risks, and so they decided to close down. Once they had made the decision to close down, both sides worked very closely to try and mitigate the impact on the students. I must say UNSW Asia went out of its way in providing the scholarships, in talking to the students, to make sure that the students' welfare was taken care of. On our side, EDB and the Ministry of Education also worked closely with UNSW Asia to make sure the students were looked after.”
“Sir, I have two supplementary questions. Firstly, I would like to ask the Minister, of the grants that were already disbursed, how much was disbursed where the milestones have already been reached, which will make them non-refundable to Singapore. My second question is: in the course of the various negotiations and discussions with EDB, I would like to ask the Minister what pre-emptive measures and steps were taken to minimise the impact on students. Because, at the end of the day, I think these students stay in Singapore to study in UNSW and those plans have been fundamentally changed. So, I would like to know when we negotiated with the university, how much consideration was given to their interests. Mr Lim Hng Kiang: Mr Speaker, Sir, as I explained just now, the grants were disbursed, essentially, as startup grants to build up the capacity and, because they have not met the required commitments, these grants can be clawed back. So, we are discussing with UNSW Asia to see how they can return us the grants that were disbursed to them. As for the students and the very sudden closure, this is something unfortunate. Even up to May, we were still discussing with the UNSW Asia how to continue the operations. But, at the same time, we cannot provide them with a blank cheque. Obviously, they must show commitment to undertake the milestones and the projections as indicated to us. As I said in my reply, we were prepared to give them two years to let the operations settle down. Then, they can give us a new plan with the scaled-down projection and we will support them commensurate with the benefits that the new scaled-down plan will give to Singapore.”
“The advertisements for drugs, pornography, pirated software and the like, are easy to identify and easy to deal with. Phishing emails and fraudulent spams remain real risks although public awareness on these has improved in recent years. Most importantly, email users need to be taught how to differentiate between local unsolicited emails that comply and non-compliance spam. It would be safe to send an unsubscribed request to the former, but certainly not the latter, as Mdm Ho has explained. Users can save themselves a lot of grief, if only they were more informed, and it takes some very commonsensical steps. Sir, this Bill is an important component in our efforts to fight spam. It may not be perfect. But it is a positive step forward, and brings Singapore's regulatory environment in this area in line with other leading jurisdictions like the US, Australia and Europe. But this is not the finishing line, and all stakeholders must continue to play their parts in this fight. With that, I support the Bill. 2.25 pm”
“Fourthly, and finally, the Bill proposes a code of practice for Internet access service providers and telecommunications service providers. The Bill provides that they may, with the IDA's approval, issue a code of practice on minimum standards of technical measures to effectively control unsolicited commercial electronic messages. And if they do issue such a code, they must comply. However, the Bill does not prescribe any consequences for non-compliance. There is no requirement for all ISPs and telecommunications service providers to be involved in issuing the code, although all must comply. Having said that, I acknowledge that the IDA could require all of them to be involved before giving its approval. Most importantly, the process around the code involves only IASPs, telecommunications service providers and the IDA. But what about other important stakeholders, such as consumers, commercial enterprises, who do send out electronic communications, and direct marketing organisations? They should be involved or, at least, be given an opportunity to be heard in the process as well. Sir, I have said that this Bill is a positive step. And I fully agree with the Minister that the problem of email spam and unsolicited mobile phone messages requires a holistic, multi-pronged solution. And even with the passage of the Bill, spam email, especially from overseas, will remain a real problem. In my view, of all these various prongs, education remains paramount. Indeed, education will probably become even more important so as to prevent a false sense of safety amongst the public simply because there is legislation in place. We need to continue efforts to educate the public on what to do when spam is encountered. There are some very commonsensical thing that can be done.”
“The US' example, where the FTC has commenced a substantial number of civil actions against spammers, shows that there is a significant role that regulatory and law enforcement agencies can play. Sir, the third issue I would like to touch on is the exclusion of telemarketers and junk faxes from regulation. I think most people would agree with my view that telemarketing calls are far more intrusive and far more annoying than spam emails and unsolicited mobile phone messages. And annoyance becomes actual cost when such calls are received on the mobile phone when one is overseas and roaming. As for junk faxes, they consume physical resources in the form of paper and, depending on the type of fax machine used, toner. Australia has both a Spam Act and a Do Not Call Register Act which was enacted last year and recently took effect. The Do Not Call Register Act creates a "do not call" register that the public can register with, and it is unlawful for telemarketers to call the numbers on the register, although there are certain exemptions. Both the US and UK also regulate telemarketing, junk faxes and spam. So why are we proposing to regulate spam emails and mobile phone messages, but not telemarketers and junk faxes? I do not understand. I accept that it is possible to make a reasonable distinction for spam email on the basis that it costs very little to send massive amounts of spam emails. Telemarketing and junk faxes cost money, which creates an inherent control on the amount of telemarketing and junk faxing done. What about mobile phone messages? That also costs money to send. So why regulate that, but not telemarketing and junk faxes? I do not think that any convincing justification for this distinction has been articulated, and I hope that the Minister can clarify.”
“Indeed, given how this issue had been repeatedly raised by respondents to the public consultation exercises, it seems to me a little unsatisfactory of the IDA and AGC not to have specifically addressed this earlier, either in connection with the second consultation exercise in 2005 or in the Bill itself. Secondly, the Bill relies exclusively on civil actions by persons who have suffered loss or damage, directly or indirectly, resulting from a contravention of its provisions. The Minister has explained why it does not provide for criminal sanctions and has pointed out that the criminal offences in the US CAN-SPAM Act are aimed at fraudulent spams. But there is a middle ground. I believe that the US CAN-SPAM Act also empowers the US regulator, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), to commence civil enforcement actions against spammers. Sir, spam is like a hydra, cut off one head and another two will grow elsewhere, shut down one's spammer and two more will spring up elsewhere. Spam is also a problem that affects everyone. Its effects are diffuse but it affects many. When added up, the negative effects become substantial. That is why the resources of private enterprise alone will not be sufficient to combat spam effectively. The Bill would have a lot more teeth, if we have included criminal sanctions for the more serious offences, such as where dictionary attacks or address harvesting software are used. Alternatively, the IDA could be empowered to commence civil enforcement actions against offenders or even to impose civil penalties. This would lighten the burden of private industry. It would also have helped to ensure that in cases where the ISPs are unable or unwilling to take action for any reason, there remain other entities able to commence proceedings.”
“And given the cross border nature of this problem, international efforts are the only sort of effort that can effectively reduce spam volume and is probably inevitable in the long term. But, Sir, the Bill is not perfect. I had co-authored a submission in response to the consultation paper in 2005 on an earlier draft version of the Bill. I had also, in my previous capacity as a private practitioner, advised clients on the first consultation exercise conducted by the IDA and AGC in 2004. I will now address several issues in connection with the Bill that have remained despite those two consultation efforts that I hope that the Minister can clarify. Firstly, the status of communications sent pursuant to a pre-existing relationship remains unclear. Miss Penny Low has mentioned this, and I would like to add a few comments. The Bill simply does not address this issue, despite it having been repeatedly raised by industry players in the public consultation exercises, including in the first consultation in 2004. This is actually a great concern to most commercial enterprises, who would have to, or want to, send communications to their existing customers from time to time. But if this communication is not initiated by the customer or not asked for by the customer, would it be considered an unsolicited message? It is unclear and clarity on this would be helpful. In fact, from my years of experience specialising in the area of Internet law, I would say that this is possibly the single-most important issue to the industry in connection with this Bill.”
“That seems to have been the experience in the US. Our opt-out model is very similar to the model used in the US CAN-SPAM Act. According to a New York Times' article in February 2005, the one year period since the CAN-SPAM Act went into effect actually saw spam email going up, from 50% to 60% of all emails sent over the Internet before the law went into effect to 80% after. A more recent New York Times' article, in December 2006, reported that the volume of spam email, as a proportion of all emails sent, had risen to more than 90%. Furthermore, the proposed legislation will apply to all unsolicited messages with a Singapore connection. That includes messages sent from outside Singapore to a recipient in Singapore. But enforcement against a spammer operating outside Singapore would be difficult. Sir, the IDA's survey in 2003 found that 77% of the total spam email received came from overseas based companies. This percentage is unlikely to be significantly affected by the Spam Control Bill. Having said that, I still believe that the Bill will be helpful. There is a substantial amount of local unsolicited messages, especially sent to mobile phones, and the Bill will help to regulate that. In fact, my own personal experience is that although local spam email is low in volume, it actually takes up a disproportionate amount of time, compared to overseas spam, which is typically much easier to identify a spam. And mobile phone messages will always take up the time of the recipient, to open, scan and delete the message. More importantly, passing anti-spam legislation will give Singapore the right to a seat at the table, in any eventual international effort to fight spam.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. I contribute commentaries to the Today newspaper. In December 2003, I wrote a piece about spam. That was in the wake of the US passing its CAN-SPAM Act. Three-and-a-half years later, I am speaking in Parliament on Singapore's own Spam Control Bill. I have in a way come full circle. This Bill is timely. In fact, it is perhaps a little late in the game. For instance, both the US and Australia passed spam legislation in 2003. The IDA had first conducted a public consultation on spam legislation in May 2004. We have taken almost three years to actually reach the Second Reading of this Bill. Be that as it may, it is better late than never. Sir, the Bill implements an opt-out model for unsolicited commercial electronic messages. The Minister has explained what that means and I would only add that I was previously in favour of an opt-in model, but I now favour an opt-out model. It is a judgment call as to which model is superior. But all things considered, I would agree that the opt-out model represents a more practical approach to the issue of spam, one that avoids unnecessarily onerous compliance obligations. And to those marketeers who would argue against even the compliance obligations for an opt-out model, I would say that they really should exit the business if their revenue cannot cover this added compliance costs. Sir, the Minister has rightly pointed out the limitations of the Bill, and what it will and will not accomplish. The Bill seeks to regulate spam. It does not seek to, and it will certainly not, solve the problem of spam or reduce the volume of spam. It legalises unsolicited messages that comply with the prescribed requirements and may well increase the volume of unsolicited messages received.”
“Sir, I would like to ask for clarification on what are the safety considerations that have been cleared for these HID lamps.”
“Sir, Wired magazine ran a story on the RAHS system, and I think the system was called the largest data-mining exercise in the world. I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether the RAHS system collects personally identifiable information. And, if so, what safeguards are in place to ensure the privacy of the individuals in question?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would just like to ask the Minister how many Administrative Officers are there in grades MR4 and above between SR9 and MR4 and on Timescales.”
“We have to, otherwise we would not have sacrificed our time to be here, we would not have heeded the call of duty and served. We must believe that we are not the only ones with this idealism and sense of purpose. We must believe that there are many other Singaporeans who feel strongly enough about our nation, that they would be willing to make the necessary sacrifices to serve the country. If we have reached the stage where money is necessary to draw able Singaporeans into public office, then I think we might as well pack up now, because we would have failed, because Singaporeans obviously do not see Singapore as a nation worth fighting and sacrificing for. Sir, I do not believe that to be the case. To believe otherwise is to admit failure in our nation-building efforts. I am not prepared to do so. And I hope that the Government is not prepared to do so either, and will show that in future revisions. ADJOURNMENT OF DEBATE Resolved, That the debate be now adjourned. - [Mr Mah Bow Tan ].”
“The MR4 benchmark is such that Ministerial salaries are tied to the very narrow tip at the top of the pyramid, but are decoupled from the stagnant broad base at the bottom. The benchmark itself becomes part of the problem. Also, a large part of Ministers’ bonuses are tied to Singapore’s economic growth. This growth represents the sum total of the efforts of all Singapore citizens, permanent residents and foreign talents. But thanks to globalisation, many Singaporeans are not reaping the fruits of their labours and are instead struggling to stay afloat. Ministers benefit from this economic growth through the GDP bonuses, even as many Singaporeans do not. There seems to be a certain degree of inequity here. Sir, we are told that it is an admirable sentiment to want our Ministers to be people with that sense of self-sacrifice, who are prepared to make a financial sacrifice - a reasonable one - to serve the country, but the real world is different and that this view is unrealistic. But to me, this way of thinking is not unrealistic. Instead, it is actually an important sieve that filters out the types of people that we should not have in Government, people whose desire to serve would be outweighed by a few million dollars, even if their standard of living is not compromised. I believe that our Ministers did not make the decision to enter public service lightly, and they have made great sacrifices in doing so. And because of that, Singaporeans respect and salute them, and give them the moral authority to lead. We have to ensure that future governments are able to enjoy the same degree of moral authority. Sir, I think that we are all idealists in this House. We all believe in this great social enterprise that we call Singapore.”
“Our leaders need to have this moral authority to lead the nation, so that whenever we have to ask Singaporeans to make sacrifices for the good of the nation, whether it be workers bearing the brunt of CPF cuts or NSmen putting their lives on the line to defend Singapore, they will respond without question, willingly and courageously, because they trust and believe in our leaders. I dare say that our NSmen will risk their lives if ordered to do so by the Prime Minister or the Defence Minister, but not if it is the Permanent Secretary. It is this moral authority that makes all the difference between a Minister and a civil servant, a leader and a manager. Sir, the track record of the ruling Party has been almost impeccable. With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, many an unpopular policy has proved to be the right choice. So, by and large, Singaporeans remain trusting of the PAP, and that shows at each and every General Election since independence. The present Government is no different. It won last year’s election by a landslide, and it has the requisite degree of moral authority. But we need to ensure that future governments will continue to have that same level of moral authority. The benchmarking system puts that at risk. When we focus on salaries to the exclusion of the moral imperative and considerations of public duty and service, we endanger the moral authority of the Government to lead. Because then, cynicism creeps in, and it taints, weakens and may ultimately destroy the bond between the Government and the people. This is exacerbated by the surrounding context of a widening income gap. During the Budget debates, the House heard so much about the income gap, about how it is inevitable, and about what we are doing to address it.”
“Yet, we decline to do so, fearing an erosion of Singaporeans’ work ethic, never mind that one must be unable to work to qualify for Public Assistance. Sir, there are a lot of different perspectives that can be put around Ministerial salaries. My fear is that the singular perspective being applied, of what our Ministers could potentially be earning in the private sector, ignores other perspectives that are equally valid and equally important. We place so much emphasis on using public funds wisely, on sending the right message to society, on not inadvertently creating new problems when we address existing ones. These same considerations must apply when we consider Ministerial salaries. It is not just a question of the number, whether we can afford it or its size relative to the stakes involved. There are other considerations involved, and other potential repercussions. And my greatest worry is that an open-ended linkage between Ministerial salaries and top earners, which is how the benchmarks work in their current form, could in the long run undermine the moral authority that a government needs to lead the people. Moral authority As our leaders, Ministers wield a great deal of authority. They have legal authority due to their positions. They also have moral authority, by virtue of being our elected leaders to whom we have entrusted the reins of the Government. Sir, our leaders must maintain that moral authority, so that Singaporeans will instinctively trust that whatever is done by the Government is done for the good of the country. Government is more, much more than just management. There is an intangible, moral dimension to government and political leadership that civil servants are not equipped to deal with, that have to be addressed by duly-elected Ministers.”
“Their priorities are skewed against public service. And yet, increasing Ministerial salaries would pave the way for precisely this group of people to take up public office. Perspectives Sir, Singaporeans have been asked to put some perspective around the current $45.5 million for the political appointees, being 0.13% of Government expenditure and 0.022% of our GDP. I think there are some other perspectives that can be put around these numbers. At the revised MR4 benchmark of $1.6 million per year, a Minister who serves a full five-year term would have made $8 million. Serve two terms, and that becomes $16 million plus a pension. Even if the Minister spends a million dollars a year, there would still be $6 million left over for a retirement in style. Meanwhile, Workfare will cost the Government $400 million a year. But it is intended to benefit the bottom 15% of the workforce. In 2005, we had 2.36 million workers. The bottom 15% means 354,000 workers. Workfare will cost over seven times of the aggregate revised salaries of political appointees, but it benefits 10,000 times the number of political appointees we have. Or let us take Public Assistance. MCYS recently announced a revision to the amounts that Public Assistance recipients will get. Some Members felt that the amounts are not enough, especially for one-member households. Dr Lily Neo has calculated that a minimum of $400 per month is needed by such households, yet the revised rate for them is $290 per month. With 3,000 households on Public Assistance, an across-the-board increase of $110 per month would mean an additional expenditure of $3.96 million a year – 7% of the amounts that we will pay political appointees every year after the revisions.”
“I think it is safe to say that every one of us in this House are honoured and privileged to be here. It was a great honour for me to be appointed as a Nominated Member, and I am sure it was the same for my fellow Nominated Members. I imagine that it was an even greater honour for all of the elected Members who won the trust of their constituents, and for Ms Sylvia Lim who won over enough voters to qualify as an NCMP. But the honour and the privilege is greatest for the political office-holders. We Singaporeans have reposed our trust in our Ministers, to lead us into this ever more uncertain future that we call a post-9/11 globalised world. That is, I think, the greatest honour that any Singaporean can have, to be so entrusted by his or her fellow Singaporeans. This honour and privilege cannot be measured in monetary terms. It is unquantifiable. And I would argue that it means far more than any amount that a company can ever pay to an executive. I would even go so far as to say that any person who disagrees, who cares so much about what he or she is paid, someone to whom this honour and privilege is not enough, is not a suitable leader and is not fit for political office. Being a Minister involves a lot of sacrifices. Most of them, such as demands on one’s time and the loss of privacy, are non-financial. And I am sure that many, if not most, who have been asked to serve but who declined, did so because of these non-financial sacrifices. So for these people, increasing Ministerial salaries would not make a difference. As for the others, for whom the decision against public service turned on the financial consideration, I would argue that we should not have them in government anyway. They are not suitable for political leadership at all.”
“The salary becomes the opportunity cost of public service, losing out on the millions waiting in the private sector. It becomes the envy of one’s peers, those raking in the big bucks at the top of the corporate ladder. It becomes valuing our Ministers by their salaries, and not their contributions, both tangible and intangible. All that sends the wrong message about our political leaders. It equates political leadership with management. We often hear the phrase “running a country”. I think our Ministers do more than just run Singapore. They lead Singapore. Government is more than just management. Competency and ability at leading and managing an organisation, at problem-solving and policy-making, are in and of themselves not enough to make a great leader. They might be necessary, but they are never sufficient. It might make for an excellent civil servant, but it is not enough for a political leader. Sir, Ministers cannot be just good managers or able technocrats. They must be more than that. They must be leaders of men and women, leaders of Singapore and Singaporeans. A Minister must inspire respect and confidence. A Minister can be appointed to the office, but he or she will command respect and confidence only because of the measure of the person that he or she is. But what is the message sent to society when we focus so much on salaries and money, when we equate government so closely with CEOs, COOs and CFOs, lawyers and accountants and engineers? The message is that our Ministers are really just managing the country, and not so much leading the people. Sir, I do not think that that is right or healthy. We rely on the civil service, including the Administrative Service, to manage the country. We look to our Ministers to lead us.”
“And I agree that Ministers should be entitled to a comfortable lifestyle. I think that we would be demanding an unreasonable financial sacrifice, if we were to ask potential Ministers to downgrade their standards of living upon entering public service. Top talent will expect a nice house, a nice car, or maybe a few nice cars, including for the wife and children, overseas universities for their children, good medical care for their family and parents, luxurious holidays, adequate insurance and sufficient investments for a decent retirement. But, Sir, how much does it really take to provide for all that? $1.2 million per year seems enough to me. Still, I am willing to accept that it may not be enough – I make nothing near those levels, and I would hardly know what expectations such top earners would have. So I am prepared to agree that the number may need to be higher, and may even need to be $1.6 million, $1.8 million, or $2.2 million. What it means to be a Minister But the present benchmarking system is flawed in its mechanics. Many have pointed out these flaws, and I will not repeat them. The only suggestion I would make is to introduce a cap which can be revised from time to time if the Government feels that it is not sufficient for a fair standard of living for Ministers. There should also be an adjustment when a Minister or top civil servant becomes entitled to a pension but the present benchmark is not being changed, and there is no cap. There is no linkage between the benchmark and what it can buy. There is only a linkage with the top earners, whom I think we can all agree will earn more and more as globalisation gains pace. Beyond what is needed to sustain a fair standard of living, what does more and more salary go towards?”
“Sir, I spoke to a lot of people over the past few weeks about this issue. And curiously enough, I have found that those who argue against high salaries for AOs are frequently serving or former civil servants. They question whether the AOs are all that talented. They believe that AOs are almost never asked to leave, that they receive private sector salaries while retaining an iron rice-bowl, with the prospect of a pension to boot, and that they would not command such salaries if they enter the private sector. So either those in the civil service know something the rest of us do not, or there is a serious perception gap. Perhaps, what is needed is to increase awareness about the contributions of AOs and to have greater transparency in how they are held accountable for their performance. Paying Ministers fairly Sir, I think that the considerations are very different when it comes to Ministers. I agree that people should not have to make “unreasonable financial sacrifices” to enter or to stay in public service. But that simply begs the question of what is unreasonable. What level of salaries would be fair? What sacrifices would be considered unreasonable? Sir, I agree that Ministerial salaries need to be high enough, and that worthy candidates will not be deterred from public service by financial considerations. In fact, I do not think that the current MR4 benchmark of $1.2 million per year is too high in today’s world. I know that many Singaporeans will disagree with me. But we have to be realistic. In a globalised economy where there is massive demand chasing a limited pool of top talent, $1.2 million per year is very possibly at the lower-end of the scale for the very best of top talent.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker Sir, thank you for allowing me to participate in this debate. I know that the hour is late, and I beg the indulgence of the House while I make my speech. I will start by stating my support for the principle of paying Ministers and top civil servants fairly. But I would draw a distinction between Ministers and Administrative Officers. I will first discuss Administrative Officers, or AOs. Administrative Officers Sir, the Administrative Service is a career. It is a job for AOs, albeit one in public service and hence expected to have a greater sense of purpose and an accompanying element of self-sacrifice. Seen from that perspective, we cannot fault AOs if they view the public service and the private sector as alternative career paths, between which they have to weigh the relative merits. It is a choice between two competing jobs, each with their own attractions, and we must be realistic and accept that remuneration plays a big part in the decision-making process. I therefore agree with the benchmarking of the Administrative Service salaries with the private sector salaries, with two caveats. Firstly, the benchmarks should be adjusted for the fact that AOs are entitled to pensions if they serve long enough. Pensions have gone the way of the dinosaur in the private sector. It is therefore inconsistent to benchmark Administrative Service pay to private sector salaries on the one hand, and to retain a pension scheme on the other. We should either do away with pensions completely, or adjust pensionable officers’ salaries to take into account their potential pensions. Secondly, and more importantly, the officers in question must really be that talented and must actually contribute that much.”
“As such, this grassroots leader is able to look after her children, cope with her work, and yet offer voluntary services at the community. Now that her husband is posted overseas, her organisation also encourages her to get a posting so that the family can be reunited. Therefore, to create a pro-family society, the Government, employers, schools, voluntary organisations, etc, must work hand in hand. With various forms of support, I am confident that we can work towards a pro-family society. 6.00 pm (In English ): Madam, the decision to start a family, the number of children to have, and the division of household responsibilities are personal decisions to be made by each Singaporean. On the part of the Government, we will work towards bringing more joy and less stress to parenthood to give couples the confidence to manage family and career. With the public, private and people sectors working together, I am confident that we can create a family-friendly nation and Singaporeans will make wise decisions. So let me come back to the big picture - social capital. Madam, even though social capital cannot be seen or touched, it is everywhere - in our homes, schools, coffeeshops, workplaces and community. As we forge ahead as a nation together, we must continuously invest in this important foundation. All of us must play our part to support, strengthen and develop this foundation. Youths”
“But one day after helping the dog whelp the puppies, she suddenly became aware and overwhelmed by the beauty and loveliness of life. After that, she got pregnant and gave birth to a baby. As you can see, this can be an effective way to evoke the maternal instinct of young women. On my third point, parents, grandparents, the elderly and relatives in the family can play a positive role in supporting youth and strengthening families. With changes in the nature of family structure, increasingly contracting from extended to nuclear families, it is impossible to turn back the clock to the days where we housed several generations under one roof. But, there is still a role for the traditional big family. One of our unique points is that we are a small country with an accessible transport system. Hence, we can encourage the set up of more "neighbourhood families", meaning to encourage family members and relatives in big families to stay near each other. In this way, the family members can form a supporting network and help to look after one and another. Next, let me quote an example to further illustrate the importance of adequate support from Government and grandparents. I know a grassroots leader who is working in the civil service, and she is a mother of two kids. After giving birth to the first baby, she has requested for flexi-working hours so that she can have more time to look after her child. After giving birth to the second child, the organisation has granted her no-pay leave to stay at home. And now she is staying with her parents and they are helping to look after her kids. Although her parents have retired, they are working on part-time projects at home. In that way, the parents have at least some form of supplementary income.”
“As mentioned, we are living in a materialistic society motivated by survival needs and imparting our students with knowledge and living skills is not sufficient. It is also important to emphasise the right moral values and values such as patriotism. In this regard, I am happy to learn that the Minister for Education and Second Minister for Finance, Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam, has agreed that the Ministry of Education and MCYS will work together to expedite pro-family activities. Although we can teach others what to do, sometimes it is more effective if one can experience it personally. "I Love Children" is thus a means to achieve this end. The role of the voluntary organisation "I Love Children" is to encourage more couples to consider having more babies. The Chairman of "I Love Children" has once told me that they have produced a TV clip on children and the clip seems to have evoked maternal instinct in women viewers. Some young people decide to have babies after watching the clip. Therefore, I hope that the "I Love Children" project will be extended to all schools. And, earlier on, Dr Amy Khor has said that it is an easy task. That aside, "I Love Children" is planning to launch a themed bus to publicise happy families and parenthood. For example, we can bring young infants to junior colleges, universities, and community centres and let young people carry them, so that they know babies can be very adorable. Through reality role playing, it gives students the chance to act different roles such as a brother or sister’s role, or mother, bride and bridegroom, etc. This will help to simulate the joy of being a family. You may find it quite amusing. Recently, a lady interviewed on a TV show said she and her husband do not like children.”
“After seeing so many foreign media reports on the posh and carefree lifestyle of young bachelors, the young have been imbued with values such as individualism, liberalism and self-actualisation, etc. Of course, as a utilitarian society and motivated by survival needs, we should not be blamed for being materialistic. We should not further reinforce these values but rather our parents and schools should encourage youths to retain traditional values such as "天长地久，山盟海誓" [tian chang di jiu, shan meng hai shi] - a solemn pledge of love that is everlasting, and "克尽父母天职" [ke jin fu mu tian zhi] - it is the bounden duty of parents to raise their children. Thus, it is important for us to start from the family, to inculcate the right values in the young a sense of love and devotion to your family. Many parents may not feel comfortable to advise their children because their children receive better education today. But, as the Chinese saying goes "吃盐比吃米多" [chi yan bi chi mi duo] - I have eaten more salt than you have eaten rice, meaning the parents are more worldly-wise than the children. Therefore, parents and grandparents should not give up but continue to play their roles to instil the young with the right values. Mr Wee Siew Kim has earlier on expressed the same concern about the emotional needs of latchkey kids. The family must imbue the younger generation with the right value system including pro-family values and moral values, and not achieve this through the instrumentality of somebody else. Besides imparting knowledge and living skills, the school can also play a role in reinforcing right family values.”
“Secondly, to review existing policies and adopt new strategies, for example, to work with voluntary organisations to organise pro-family activities. The purpose is to allow the young people or students to be imperceptibly influenced by what they see and hear since young. Due to shrinking family size, there is lesser chance for the youths to participate in the care of younger siblings. Hence, through such events, the youths can experience the warmth of family life, and thus better appreciate the joy little children bring to their families. Thirdly, to encourage family members to lend greater support to the youths as this will help give them the confidence to set up their own families. Parents, grandparents, the elderly and relatives in the family can play a positive role in supporting youth and strengthening families. Apart from hardware support, it is also important for us to look into the other aspect, which is the development of the "heartware". In the past, the Chinese said, "成家立业" [cheng jia li ye] - marry and embark on a career, but it is now the other way round, "立业成家" [li ye cheng jia] - embark on a career and then marry. Twenty years back, when we talked about getting married and starting one’s career, we did not think about housing issue, whether we could afford to buy a house, whether there would be a Baby Bonus, and whether we could afford a baby. Having a family was what life was all about, hence, getting married and having children was a natural progression. Today, in the face of growing affluence, this has unfolded arrays of opportunities for the younger generations.”
“The study concluded that organisations that help staff harmonise their work, family and personal responsibilities see increases in staff productivity and retention. So it is a win-win situation. I am glad Mdm Halimah and the NTUC have launched the "Back-to-Work" programme to encourage flexible work arrangements, part-time jobs and working from home. Presently, work-life strategy at workplaces is being promoted by the Tripartite Committee chaired by Mr Hawazi, of which MCYS is an active member. Together, we will continue to engage employers, particularly CEOs and HR directors, and the unions. MCYS will press on with equipping individuals with the skills to achieve personal work-life effectiveness. Madam, I will now speak in Mandarin about inculcating our young with the right values. (In Mandarin): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A *.] I have earlier mentioned in my speech the challenges faced by dual-income families attempting to achieve work-life harmony. Having said that, I shall not elaborate further. I will now discuss the development of "heartware". The Government has invested heavily to promote family values among our people and encourage them to set up families. The problems that we have earlier discussed relating to elderly care, childcare, marriage, etc, can only be solved when we build a strong foundation for our family. Therefore, I feel that it is a daunting challenge for us to instill the right value system in our youths. I will speak on the following three areas: Firstly, how the families, schools and society can work more closely together to inculcate in the young with the right family values. *Cols. 3457-3460.”
“More than 250 institutes offer the School Family Education and Parent Education in pre-school programmes. And over 2,500 business outlets have adopted the Pro-Family Business Pledge. So it is really a many-helping-hands approach. This Pledge is an innovative idea of the people sector led Pro-Family Business Initiative, which Ms Penny Low is a member of. Businesses are encouraged to cater to families. We believe this is the first of its kind in Asia. In addition, the Pro-Family Business Mark was introduced last October. This is a national assessment to give recognition to exemplary organisations. In January, my Minister announced the $2 million Pro-Family Business Grant to encourage more businesses to be pro-family. There is value in catering to families as a key customer group. As the public sector, Government agencies should be mindful of the impact their policies have on families. I am sure creating family-friendly infrastructure is part of the Housing and Development Board, the Land Transport Authority and the Urban Redevelopment Authority's planning considerations. To facilitate work-life harmony, I think this is a very new area. With more dual-income families, fathers should lend their support to childcare and household responsibilities. Thus, having work-life harmony is necessary for women and men alike. A recent survey conducted by my Ministry found that respondents wanted flexibility in terms of when they work, where they work and the ability to work part-time. I think sometimes we always give excuses that it is very difficult to implement. But during the SARS period, quite a number of companies were very innovative and they carry out flexible work.”
“To encourage marriages, my Ministry partners universities, the community and businesses to facilitate social interaction opportunities for singles. SDU is professionalising the dating industry to ensure standards remain high with the entrance of more private sector players. To provide greater assurance to singles, I am pleased to announce the formation of the Accreditation Council to advise on accreditation standards and processes, and to be the approving authority for dating companies and practitioners seeking accreditation. The Council is chaired by Assoc. Prof. Paulin Straughan, Vice Dean of NUS' Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences. Details of the accreditation framework will be announced later this year. SDU launched the Partner Connection Fund to seed fund creative private sector initiatives for singles to meet that special someone. SDU has received some interesting proposals, and three have been approved so far. I thank Ms Eunice Olsen for serving on the Fund's evaluation panel. Besides encouraging people to get married, we need to strengthen marriages. The National Family Council (NFC) is working with partners to explore setting up marriage resource points, starting with one at the Registry of Marriages. Information on marriage preparation and enrichment programmes, and counselling services will be provided in an informal setting. Indeed, building a pro-family environment cannot be done by my Ministry alone. We need the support of the people, private and public sectors, or a 3P approach. Like the National Family Council, many have joined us in this endeavour - there are over 1,400 Family Life Ambassadors made up of businesses, unions, and NGOs, 84 Family Life Champions and over 850 Deputy Registrars of Marriages in the community.”
“MOE and MCYS have been working together to enhance the quality of early childhood education and to make sure that the supervisor, the principal and the teachers are properly trained. 5.45 pm Mr Wee Siew Kim asked about facilitating the adoption of children. Last year, about 400 Singaporean couples adopted children. Given the small numbers, adoption will not solve our population challenge. To protect the interests of the child, we need safeguards like the Dependant's Pass and Security Bond. Therefore, they need to take a vow to go through this process. Mr Siew Kum Hong has asked whether benefits such as the third month of paid maternity leave and Baby Bonus could be extended to single mothers so that their children are not disadvantaged. Single unwed mothers are not a large group - about 500 children are registered without the father's name annually. Single mothers are entitled to 12 weeks of maternity leave under the Employment Act, of which eight weeks are paid for by the employer for first and second births. They also qualify for Foreign Domestic Worker Levy Concession, Childcare Leave, and can rent or buy a HDB flat with their parents, or as a single if they are aged 35 and above. Their children are eligible for centre-based childcare and infant care subsidies. They pay the same school fees, enjoy Edusave grants and qualify for the same scholarships and bursaries. No Singaporean child will be denied an education due to the circumstances of his birth. The Marriage and Parenthood Package is an incentive for married couples. It is not a financial assistance scheme for children. So the Government cannot and should not be the surrogate father.”
“Values such as individualism and freedom run counter to the unselfish, long-term commitment associated with marriage and parenthood. Women, in particular, face a dilemma - to start a family or pursue a career. Achieving both would involve juggling the roles of wife, mother, daughter and worker. Moreover, there is a lack of viable work options, like flexible or part-time work, and good home support. The recent discussion on super mums highlighted this challenge. To address these challenges, my Ministry will continue to do three things: promote a pro-family environment; facilitate work-life harmony; and inculcate in our young the right values. First, we will promote a pro-family environment. The Government has in place a holistic package to support parenthood. Since 2001, more than 130,000 babies have benefited from the Baby Bonus scheme. We extended Baby Bonus usage to MediShield and Medisave-approved insurance in 2005. Soon, usage will be extended to medical-related expenses. Parents have access to a range of childcare options. To enable home support, we have the Foreign Domestic Worker levy concession and Grandparent Caregiver tax relief. My Ministry ensures a continuum of quality and affordable care options. Mr Yeo Guat Kwang has asked about this. Childcare centre fees have remained stable. Parents can use their Baby Bonus to pay for fees of childcare centres and kindergartens. Infant care and childcare subsidies are also available for working mums. We will continue to encourage childcare centres to provide flexible programmes to cater to the diverse work timings and care arrangements of parents. We encourage them to extend their operating hours and also offer flexible care for the parents.”
“Small acts of kindness, like passing used textbooks to the needy family upstairs, or dropping in on an elderly neighbour once a week, can make a big difference to the lives of others. Take, for example, Mdm Monah Binte Selamat, a 72-year-old public assistance recipient living in Queenstown. Despite her age and poor health, she cooks for other needy elderly at Lions Befriender events and also checks in on elderly neighbours regularly. We will work with NVPC and other organisations to attract more volunteers like Mdm Monah. Madam, even as we volunteer to help the less fortunate, we must not forget those who are close to us, ie, our family and friends. So, strengthening the ties that bind us is very important. They, too, form a vital part of our social capital. In the past, our family members lived under the same roof and our friends lived in the same kampung. These days, our friends and family members are scattered all over the island and even the world. Yet, these relationships continue to be important as a source of strength in difficult times. Just now, if you have listened to the hon. Members, all of us emphasised the importance of family. The most important relationship is with our families. I am heartened to note that the Singapore family continues to be strong and healthy. More than 90% of respondents to a recent MCYS' survey said that they have a close-knit family. However, there are worrying trends. People are marrying later or not at all. They are having fewer children. More marriages are ending in divorce. The level of family support is decreasing due to smaller families, an ageing population and more transnational families. Globalisation, better educational and career prospects have given our people more opportunities and lifestyle choices.”
“Because many of them will need help with business expertise and other relevant skills, the ComCare Enterprise Fund has funded a number of social enterprises to help them start micro-businesses. We agree with Mrs Josephine Teo that we also need to provide more support for regular businesses that want to hire the needy and disadvantaged. There are already many companies that do so today. We will encourage more companies to do this. Our next strategy is to promote community involvement in helping the needy by strengthening volunteerism. Madam, quite a number of my colleagues have mentioned this. We agree with Mr Wee Siew Kim that the social sector would benefit from having more volunteers with professional skills. The ComCare Connection, launched last month, will help increase the flow of volunteers with private sector expertise to the social sector. It will do so by creating partnerships between companies that want to contribute more than just money, and VWOs that can benefit from the company's expertise. There are already 12 companies in the pipeline, including StarHub and ABN AMRO. I am sure we will encourage more companies to come forward. Maybe Mr Wee Siew Kim, who is in the private sector, can also encourage more companies to join this. But we must look beyond professionals. When I visited Tokyo's Edogawa ward last year, the mayor told me that each and every resident in the city was a volunteer. I am inspired by Edogawa, but because of time I cannot tell a long story. I join Ms Eunice Olsen in wanting to see a movement to make volunteerism a way of life for all Singaporeans. For this to happen, we must recognise that each of us, rich or poor, has something to contribute to our fellow citizens.”
“We have also commissioned a study on the state of social enterprise in Singapore. To further develop social enterprises in Singapore, MCYS has formed a Social Enterprise Committee, chaired by Mr Philip Yeo. It has two strategic goals: firstly, to promote the employment of needy disadvantaged Singaporeans, in social enterprises and other businesses; and secondly, to create a culture of social entrepreneurship in Singapore. To achieve this, the Committee will actively seek the views of social enterprises, and the private and people sectors. The Committee is targeting to complete its recommendations after mid-2007. I would like to thank my colleagues, Miss Penny Low, one of the pioneers of social enterprises in Singapore, and Mrs Josephine Teo for being part of this Committee and contributing to the sector. Let me explain our plans in more detail. Social enterprises provide employment and training opportunities for those who find it difficult to get a job. One example is the case of a patient in Simei Care Centre who suffered from mental illness. Simei Care Centre gave him a job at their social enterprise, Rejoice Printing. With the training and mentoring that this printing business provided, he did well and regained his self-confidence. He even went on to find a better-paying job as a banquet waiter at a hotel. To create more job opportunities for the needy and disadvantaged, the Committee will develop a comprehensive funding framework and business support system for social enterprises. As Mr Wee Siew Kim has suggested, some Singaporeans have difficulties in finding a regular job. Setting up a micro-business may be one way for them to become more self-reliant.”
“These touch points will diagnose the problem, identify the solution, and help put together the right package of assistance. We will also step up our efforts to create greater public awareness. For example, we will set up a ComCare hotline to serve as a convenient first-stop for those seeking help. We will announce the hotline number later this year. To increase coordination between the many-helping-hands, we have set up a ComCare database. Just now, MP Sam Tan said that I have sent out a note to encourage advisors and CCC ComCare community to use this database. Over the next year or so, MOE, MOH and other organisations will be coming on board to share data on the needy they help. We will also consider allowing interested VWOs that administer means tested programmes to join the database. Next, we will build up the ComCare Local Networks, or CLNs. Like my Minister has explained just now, we want to create even more partnership with the grassroots to reach out to and help the needy. Dr Faishal Ibrahim has suggested this. We will also take up Mayor Zainul Abidin's suggestion to step up training for grassroots volunteers involved in providing social assistance. I am sure Members also know that one month ago, I had announced a funding of $1 million from MCYS to PA to train their grassroots leaders to carry out this duty in a more efficient way. Let me now touch on another important social capital, ie, social enterprise. Through social enterprise, we can build up our social capital by using business methods to achieve social goals. Mr Sin Boon Ann and Miss Penny Low have asked about our plans to support social enterprise. Since 2003, MCYS has supported 62 social enterprises through the ComCare Enterprise Fund.”