Sin Boon Ann
Singapore
“Madam, with growing affluence, rising obesity has also become a national problem. Other than the health risk for the individuals, there are other related problems such as healthcare expenses, loss in productivity and so on.”
“Madam, mental health problems still hold some stigma in the society and will prevent patients from seeking help and professional advice early and impede their re-integration into the workforce and community after treatment.”
“Sir, the silver tsunami is almost upon us and we must be prepared for the transformation of our social landscape. One in every five residents will be above the age of 65 by 2030. Many Singaporeans can expect to live another 20 years more but the quality of life can vary greatly.”
“If they are eligible for HDB concessionary loans, they will not be affected. However, quite a number of HDB upgraders or downgraders do not qualify for such loans. They may be upgrading due to additional children in the family or taking in elderly parents.”
“Sir, rigorous and thorough training for our servicemen is necessary to prepare them adequately for their role as defenders of our country. However, training safety is just as important.”
“But I feel more needs to be done to consolidate the understanding even further. What are MINDEF's action plans with this aspiration in mind? What are the upcoming educational publicity and other programmes MINDEF has planned to enhance the awareness and understanding of our public.”
The complete record
Every one of 965 lines we hold for Sin Boon Ann, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 20.
“The Report of Wages 2007 included medical social workers and community-based social workers within the lowest five occupations with median salaries of $2,600 and $2,300 respectively. Until 2005, social workers were referred to as associate professionals in the Report of Wages. To sum up, the Singapore situation lags behind even Hong Kong's professional scene, where a Licensing Board was set up in January 1998. As recently as 24th January 2009, the Chief Executive Officer of National Council of Social Service (NCSS), Ms Ang Bee Lian, reiterated the need for about 100 professional social workers every year in the next five years to handle the social services sector. She mentioned in the interview with Berita Harian that 50 voluntary welfare organisations have more than 105 vacancies currently. With the present economic downturn, individuals and families will have more severe problems and social workers will be in great demand. If the manpower crunch is not addressed swiftly, even the current social workers who are delivering services will suffer burnout. We all know that the work of a social worker is not only physically and mentally demanding, it also requires strong relationship skills that can be emotionally draining. For all this, they are poorly rewarded in terms of working conditions. What needs to be done? Even though the Minister for Community, Youth and Sports, Mr Vivian Balakrishnan, announced that the salaries of trained social workers would be raised in 2007, and in 2008, the Accreditation package was announced, the tipping point has not been reached. Undoubtedly, these actions have helped to some extent, but the community-based voluntary welfare sector has not changed its salary structure to any significant degree.”
“There are other institutions which are currently offering a degree program, such as Bachelor in Social Work programme by Monash University and UNISIM. In 1970, the Singapore Social Workers' Association (SASW) was established. It is the voice for the 600-odd professional social workers in Singapore. There have been several small pieces of research conducted by university students on the factors affecting job satisfaction of professional social workers, eg, Ms Corinne Ghoh's research where she identified good working conditions and promotional opportunities as predictors of job satisfaction. The problem of leakage of social work manpower at two points, ie, at the recruitment stage and after a few years of practice, is a major cause of concern to the social service sector planners. In 1995, the then Acting Minister of MCYS stressed the need for more trained social workers to meet the manpower requirements of Family Service Centres (FSCs). The SASW has been trying to persuade the MCYS to improve the salary scales and career prospects of professional social workers, not just in the public sector, but also in the NGO sector. Three years ago, the SASW organised the first ever Social Workers Day in Singapore. So we have had small steps like the Social Workers' Tea reception by the President at the Istana and the Outstanding Social Workers' Award, etc, which have enhanced the image of professional social workers. But the root of the problem remains. Social work, as a profession, is stilI seen as a 'soft' career and, therefore, the salaries of social workers in the VWO sector lags behind other professional occupations, such as teaching or nursing.”
“Sir, social workers are often the unsung heroes of our society. They work with people and families who are in need of help or counselling. As our society becomes more advanced, we believe more demands will be placed on the services of social workers. This is particularly the case when the economy goes into a recession and workers are retrenched. More families will need to work with social workers to resolve their problems. Unfortunately, while the workload may be going up, we believe we are not getting enough of social workers to undertake field work. In other words, there is a shortage of qualified social workers, and this is in urgent need of redressing. I know that the Government is look at improving the work conditions and career prospects of the social workers, and also to train many more to undertake support roles for the social workers. I would, therefore, like to ask the Minister to update this House on the progress of these plans, and whether he is confident that the services of social workers will be adequate to deal with the problems that this economic recession will bring upon our society. Social Work Profession in Singapore Assoc. Prof. Kalyani K Mehta: Sir, I would like to declare my interest as a Life Member of the Singapore Association of Social Workers. It has taken more than 50 years for the social work profession to reach a stage where the need for a licensing board is being supported by the Singapore Government. I shall take a few minutes to outline the growth of social work as an academic discipline. In 1952, the Diploma in Social Work was launched in the then University of Singapore. In the late 1960s, the degree programme was launched, and it has produced many leaders in Singapore, including the President, Mr S.R. Nathan.”
“Therefore, I would like to ask the Minister what the Government intends to do if there is a significant decline in the level of funding for the charity sector which may compromise on the level of service provided by these voluntary service organisations and whether the Government is prepared to step in to meet the shortfall in funding, if necessary. Survival of the VWOs Amidst a Global Financial Crisis”
“Sir, Singapore is developing, and quite rightly, a relatively vibrant charity sector, including the voluntary welfare organisations. This is consistent with the policy of the many helping hands approach where the Government seeks to work in tandem with others, such as the voluntary welfare organisations, in tackling social issues. Many of these organisations are supported by donations from members of the public or by organisations who themselves are supported by members of the public. With the current downturn, it is expected that the donations to the charity sector and the voluntary welfare organisations will decline. Unfortunately, the services that these organisations provide will continue to be in demand and, in some cases, especially in an economic crisis, the demand may, in fact, go up. The services provided by these organisations will have to carry on, or the service clientele will suffer. With a substantial drop to be expected in donations, the challenge for many of these organisations will be to maintain the level of service quality. I am appreciative that the Government, in this Budget, has decided to increase the amount of tax deduction from 200% to $250% of the total amount donated to the charities. This will only work if the companies are making profit and are able to write off against these tax benefits. But in cases where they are making losses, then I think the ability to contribute to their favourite charities will indeed be placed in peril.”
“This is a time when we must close ranks as a nation, because if we do not, we cannot expect others to help. This crisis gives a sharp definition to what it means to be a nation, to go beyond the individual need to think of others in greater need. If we accept that this crisis will bring out the positive traits amongst Singaporeans and provide the perfect occasion to strengthen the ties that bind, then I would strongly urge the Government to strengthen and deepen the grassroots institutions to ensure that every opportunity is present to allow Singaporeans, whether retrenched or otherwise, to come together to support and exhort one another and, most importantly, not to lose hope for the future. I would like to ask the Minister, what further steps is the Government taking to facilitate further social bonding during this crisis and whether grassroots organisations may be revamped or reorganised during this period to ensure that the channels of assistance, both in giving and receiving, are open and wide. Greater Assistance for Sandwiched- and Middle-class”
“These are not your typical Singaporeans who cannot find a job or hold down a steady job. These are your Singaporeans who have spent the better part of their life toiling and working hard to make for a better future for us all. This crisis will present us the opportunity to come together as one people - a people characterised by the willingness to go beyond the instinct of self preservation, to help fellow Singaporeans in need. Not all will lose their jobs; however, all Singaporeans will be called upon to consider how they can come forward together as a people to help others who are less fortunate than they are. The spirit of self sacrifice must prevail to be an enduring testimony of the strength of Singapore as one people and one nation. Sir, I have the deep conviction that Singaporeans, by and large, have the generosity of spirit to freely and generously give. The evidence of that generosity abounds in recent past. We think of the help given to the Nepalese twins who were conjoined at the head, of the Bangladeshi worker who was hurt and dumped in a canal and left to die until he was rescued by a kind soul, and of the generous giving to the family of the Singaporean who threw himself in the path of the oncoming train to escape life's misery. Every time the public hears of some hapless soul whose life has been dealt with a lousy set of cards, there will always be an effusive outpouring of sympathy and help. In this recession, there will be many who will be without jobs; there will also be others whose business has failed. Yet, during this time, there will be Singaporeans who are not as badly affected and who can still share the little that they have with others who have not.”
“Yet, we have never failed to hold steady this tiny ship we call home as we steer through the raging storm. And each time, we emerge from the turmoil a stronger people, having survived the threats and challenges that seek to take away all that we are, and all that we have. Our resilience, the same resilience which helped strengthen our resolve to survive, has shone through. Now, once again, we are confronted with the prospect of another economic tsunami looming over the horizon. We see the inevitable coming. More than ever, our people will be called to the test. Can we survive the coming storm? Will our tiny vessel, battered by the waves and assailed by the winds, be able to make it through as the generation before us has done? The helm of leadership is now upon the shoulders of the present generation who, for many, have been blessed with the good fortune of being born at a time when the land was overflowing with milk and honey, and for whom their present path has been made smooth by the labour of the generation before them. I believe that the bonds that bind a hundred generation are forged out of the crucible of common experience and endeavour. We have become stronger as a nation from the crisis only because we chose to stay the course to collectively confront the challenges ahead of us. These are the shared experiences and memories that will continue to hold us together in Singapore. In the coming months, how we stay together to face the onslaught of the financial and economic crisis ahead will help to shape our outcome as a nation. We must continue to rally together as a people. In the coming months, there will be many for whom a full-time occupation was a matter of the recent past.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head I of the Estimates be reduced by $100. Sir, the current recession is the worst that this country has seen or, for that matter, the world has seen since the Great Depression. What started out as a financial crisis has now become an economic crisis of global proportion. The disappearance of lending and falling demands in world economies has resulted in factories and services having to deal with excess labour and capacities. For many, this would mean making workers redundant and packing them home. In Singapore, we are not spared either. The current economic crisis has had its toll on many. Just last year alone, 16,000 Singaporeans lost their jobs. Even then, many seasoned commentators believe that the economic tsunami has not unleashed the full force of its destruction upon us. Many more jobs will be lost. These are not just mere statistics, but developments that will have significant impact on the lives of ordinary Singaporeans. Suddenly, self respecting Singaporeans who thought they had secure jobs were left to suffer the indignity of being told that their services are no longer required. There will be many, particularly those who are in the middle class, who will be most anxious about their future. They are often sandwiched between two generations - their parents and their children. Once unemployed, many Singaporeans will find it almost impossible to find another similar job that pays just as well. Sir, we pride ourselves truly as a nation that believes that no one will be left behind in our journey together for a better tomorrow. Through the ages, we have weathered through many storms as a nation. With each passing shower, the waves that rise seem more threatening than the last.”
“The question really is whether we can find jobs that are less physically demanding and perhaps meaningful for them to work in. I would, therefore, like to ask the Prime Minister for an update on the work of the Committee in dealing with the problems of ageing in our society. Caregivers”
“Sir, many visitors remarked that in a modern metropolis like Singapore, they often come across the rather unusual, if not disturbing, sight of old ladies and sometimes men, bent double pushing trolleys piled high with cardboard boxes. If they are not collecting cardboard boxes, they can be found at petrol stations pumping petrol or working as cleaners in office premises or condominiums. They are doing this to earn a relatively meagre allowance to see to their daily needs. By most accounts and from talking to them, they are not rich, retired Singaporeans. On the contrary, these are elderly folks probably in their 70s or 80s often living alone and having to provide for themselves. It is indeed sad to see our fellow Singaporeans in advanced age having to lead such hard lives to eke out a living. This has prompted many of my overseas friends to ask whether we have any welfare support for senior citizens. Such comments and queries often lead us to wonder whether we can do better to look after our senior citizens. How we take care of our senior citizens is a reflection of who we are as a people and what we stand for. The question is really whether we can do better as a country to provide for the elderly. The fact remains that the Government is indeed thinking long term in providing for a society that is rapidly ageing. The formation of the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Ageing is one example of the priorities that we as a country are facing on the problem. Until we have effectively put in place a robust comprehensive framework for taking care of the elderly in our society, we will continue to be confronted with questions of how we should manage their long-term needs. To be sure, many elderly want to continue working to stay active.”
“Secondly, the Government could use this period to help our SMEs build capabilities by improving on their store of intellectual property through massive funding and support in research and development. I have always maintained, both in this House and outside it, that it is only through intellectual property that we, as a small country, can compete well in the global economy. With intellectual property that is commercially viable, our SMEs can be price-setters rather than price-takers. It will help to boost our exports and soften the impact of a global recession. Thirdly, this crisis has renewed the call once again for the Government to seriously consider whether they should allow for the setting up an SME bank to avoid the effects of a credit crunch. Madam, this global economic recession has been seen by many to be the worst that the world has seen since the Great Depression of the 1930s. In response, the Government has taken a counter-cyclical fiscal policy. This Budget has demonstrated the willingness of the Government to dip into reserves to fund a budget deficit. However, with an expansionary fiscal policy, one has to be careful in ensuring that the people will not be too dependent on public spending such that cutting back, when the economy improves, may pose major problems. For now, I believe the Government is keenly aware of the delicate balance that is required. With that, Madam, I support our Government's financial policy for FY 2009. EXEMPTED BUSINESS (Motion) Resolved, That the debate on the Budget Statement be proceeded with beyond 7.00 pm and the proceedings thereon be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 91(3). – [Mr Mah Bow Tan] ANNUAL BUDGET STATEMENT Debate resumed.”
“In this crisis, we see how vulnerable and important the SMEs are – vulnerable because a significant number of SMEs are export dependent. A contraction in export markets elsewhere would necessarily lead to the SMEs operation and revenue being affected, and importantly, because SMEs are homegrown and rooted in Singapore. I believe that in a crisis, the SMEs are not going to take flight. Where can they fly too? This is their home and the land which gave them the opportunity to succeed. The SMEs, being seen as Singaporeans, will be more likely than not, to fly the national flag by keeping as many jobs as possible. The US is facing considerable pressure in this crisis when implementing the stimulus package to give preference to the local industries through a series of rather innovative and unconventional conditions such as imposing local content in the steel sector. In the same vein, we should examine whether more can be done to assist the SMEs during this difficult period. I believe we can. We can do better by persuading our people, whether they are doing business here or elsewhere to adopt the "Sourcing from Singapore" approach, if given a choice. The House has heard of similar proposals before this, but have been turned down because of our policies favouring the lowest bidder, or FTA and WTO obligations. While all these are true, we must start somewhere, and be prepared to jettison old sacred cows regarding unfettered competitions and not giving preferences to SMEs in government purchases, if we want to develop a robust local economy. We want to be like the Japanese or the Koreans who are in the habit of bringing their SMEs along whenever they invest overseas.”
“However, six months on, one must be clear in ascertaining what we want the loans for. The common complaint now is that the banks are still not lending. And there are valid reasons for this as, for instance, they may not be convinced that there is sufficient cash flow from underlying business to sustain the loan. The last thing we want to see happening is to commit the folly of lending to sustain businesses when the orders are just not there. What we are seeing now is a successive deflation of the world economy. We need to ensure that the stimulus packages across the world work to revive the economy. Until then, as an export-oriented economy, we may just have to hunker down and not expect too much until recovery comes round. However, to the extent that businesses can justifiably use the credit to maintain and keep its business going, the Government should do all it can to ensure that the necessary credit is given. Here, I would like to urge MAS to play a more active role in monitoring and, perhaps, assuming the mediatory role in helping to resolve any issue that may arise in this regard. While I am not advocating that MAS should substitute its judgment for the financial institutions, we need to ensure that in this climate, all parties are treated equitably and that financial institutions are not using the economic crisis as an excuse rather than a reason for the withdrawal of credit. Which leads me to my final point about the small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in Singapore. SMEs come up regularly in this House for mention, not least because there are those among us in this House who strongly believe that the SMEs are the salt of the Singapore's earth, whose success and vibrancy are equally important to a successful and a vibrant Singapore economy.”
“There could be the form of providing more rebates to start-ups to settle down or setting up of the physical infrastructure, such as pushcart shops at malls and MRT stations. Additionally, facilitation can also be provided by giving a more simplified set of rules on starting and running small enterprises, with limited compliance requirements to reduce costs, or in the case of street hawkers, to make more licences readily available and to reduce the impediment to doing business for them. My third comment relates to the Government helping businesses to stay viable during this difficult period. Madam, this year's Budget seeks to help businesses by, among other things, reducing the cost of hiring local labour and easing up on the credit pipelines with the financial institutions, making it relatively easier to get access to credit, which is the main casualty of this credit crunch. This is an innovative approach in helping businesses during this time, save that it would at best provide short-term relief, rather than long-term solution to the current crisis. There are two reasons for this. First, by providing relief on the first $2,500 in each worker's wages would help to provide relief in the short term. This addresses the supply-side of the equation, but not the demand-side. The question that confronts most businesses today is whether they will be able to sustain decent volumes in their order books to maintain the present level of staffing. If there are insufficient orders to sustain business hires, then no amount of subsidy will be sufficient to keep jobs in the longer term. Secondly, in the initial melee following the financial crisis, keeping a healthy pipeline of credit is absolutely crucial to business.”
“I raised the example of illegal street hawking to illustrate the point that the Government could perhaps do more to help nourish the entrepreneurial spirit of Singaporeans. I know that, at all levels, the Government is trying. At the CDC, for instance, there is seed money available for budding entrepreneurs to kick-start their business. There are also various programmes to train people in retail business and business management. However, the question is whether more can be done. The answer is yes, and I would like to suggest two approaches that I hope the Government will consider – enablement and facilitation. First, enablement – while the Government has various schemes to train Singaporeans in running businesses, it should review the current programmes to see whether more training could be provided across constituencies to make it easier for people to sign up. Would the Government provide counselling sessions to help those interested to see if they are suitable for such undertakings or if they are taking excessive risks by going into business? Will there be advisors who can help interested entrepreneurs to undertake a thorough and rigorous analysis, including SWOT analysis of the business proposal, before embarking on the venture? I believe that much of the business risk will be mitigated if entrepreneurs are guided and are given the opportunity to go through thorough training, analysis and guidance. Second, facilitation – business is about competition. To survive in a tough business environment, care and nurture must be given to start-ups to ensure its chances of survival. In this regard, more should perhaps be done to help start-ups. This could perhaps be extensive incubation zones across constituencies which are set aside for such undertakings.”
“This is important for us as a small country, where we need to depend much on our people's own ingenuity and initiative to survive. Currently, our economy is perhaps too dependent on foreign investments to provide employment opportunities for Singaporeans. By encouraging more Singaporeans to start their own businesses, we also help to reduce our vulnerability to job losses when these foreign investors pack up and leave when the going gets rough. In fact, we are beginning to see the emergence of an informal economy during these troubled times. The 31st January 2009 edition of the Straits Times reported a big jump in the number of illegal hawkers in the last year. 1,623 were caught illegally hawking. This is twice the number of people who were caught hawking in 2006. The Straits Times attributes this burgeoning underground trade as a side effect of the economic downturn. The report went on to indicate the difficulty that these vendors have in getting a licence. Of the 122 people who applied for a street hawker licence, only 26 or about one in five got one. This is after meeting the stringent requirements that the applicant need, in order to qualify for one. For example, he has to be a Singapore citizen or a permanent resident, aged 45 and above or is unemployed or who has financial difficulty. --> Madam, while I understand the Government's policy stance on regulating street hawkers, I wonder whether the time has now come for the country to be more relaxed on our policy on the informal sector. Have strict hygiene requirements by all means, but go with the philosophy to facilitate rather than restrict if we truly want to help Singaporeans.”
“If we can carry this out, it would help to reduce our dependency on foreign labour for certain industries. To do this, we should ensure that the wages that Singaporeans can earn in this sector should be sufficiently attractive to incentivise them. Currently, foreign workers earn just slightly above $1,000 a month and a little more if they work overtime. If we are able to perhaps increase the average take home pay by as much as 60% more, it may be sufficient to encourage more Singaporeans to move into such occupations, particularly in the construction sector, that is, at the moment, being dominated by foreigners. This could perhaps be achieved by improving the productivity of the workers through higher level of automation and training, which to some extent can be subsidised by Government funding. More importantly, our Government could perhaps tweak our Workfare regime by increasing the amount of payout in sectors that we wish to see more participation by Singaporeans. This would help to increase the total salary reclaiming for Singaporeans in sectors that have traditionally been taken up by foreign workers. Secondly, this year's Budget is a little short of doing something more to help Singaporeans to go into business. Now, in a full employment situation of the earlier years, Singaporeans may not find going into business to be such an attractive proposition. However, in an economic downturn, we could assist Singaporeans who have the inclination to go into business, go into business. This should also include those who still have jobs, but who may consider switching to improve prospects. We want to encourage and promote a culture of enterprise amongst Singaporeans.”
“More jobs are expected to be lost if the current economic malaise does not improve. While I appreciate the expansion of public- sector employment, it would be difficult to see how the public sector increases in hiring, can effectively mitigate against the massive extent of job losses. In the circumstances, more need to be done to deal with the increasing number of unemployed Singaporeans. While there are several approaches to deal with the problem, I would like to suggest two for now. First, there are jobs that are shunned by Singaporeans because either the work conditions are not conducive or that the pay is not sufficient. Last year alone, 227,200 jobs were created. Of these about 70,400 jobs went to locals and 156,900 jobs went to foreigners, who took these jobs because the locals were not available. The foreign employees cover the entire spectrum of jobs that are available; from white-collar professionals and managers, to blue-collar workers and manual workers. It is often mentioned, even in this House that jobs for Singaporeans can be created easily by sending these foreign employees home. The problem really is whether Singaporeans are willing or able to step up to fill these vacancies. I was in Australia, in the middle of last year, and noticed that in many of the road construction sites, it is the local Australians who do the work and direct traffic. I was fairly impressed by Australia's ability to encourage its local people to take up employment in industries that traditionally, in our case, was taken up by foreign workers. In the longer term, we should find ways to enable more Singaporeans to take up employment in blue-collar jobs that have been increasingly taken up by foreign workers.”
“Yet there is the counter argument, precisely because everything is always new, makeshift and fiendishly complicated, few understand what schemes are available or how they work. Instead of feeling reassured, many like Mr Tan will continue to feel stressed out, unable to plan for the future. There is a lot to be said for a simple-to-understand, permanent social safety net. For example, a more comprehensive safety net for middle-income Singaporeans can be made possible by considering an unemployment insurance programme. These can be means-tested and covering basic needs or may compensate the lost pay somewhat proportionally to the previous earned salary. More importantly, the programme would compensate the recently unemployed on a bi-monthly or monthly basis. The second theme of the Budget is on saving jobs and providing opportunities. I applaud the Government for its ingenuity in introducing the Jobs Credit Scheme. By most accounts, this will provide some cost relief to employers who are faced with declining revenue and a deteriorating business outlook. A question underlying the Jobs Credit Scheme is whether it will be sufficient to save jobs in the longer term if the recession continues to bite. It is likely that the scheme may not be adequate to save jobs even if the employers would like to. A scenario where excess production capacity can result in plants being mothballed and staff being made redundant is highly likely, given our export-oriented economy and exposure to the global market. The Jobs Credit Scheme would not deter employers from retrenching in this scenario. The public sector has announced increases in the number of jobs available. Unfortunately, 16,000 jobs were lost last year, bringing the unemployment numbers in 2007 to 62,900 residents.”
“Certainly, the measures by the Government in giving GST Credits to Singaporeans to improve on their cash flow, demonstrates the Government's efforts in mitigating the consequences of an economic recession. However, the bigger worry at the back of most Singaporeans' minds is whether such measures are sufficient in the longer term and whether or not more could be given to allow a softer landing for them. While the Government is doing as much it can to ease the current pain, if we do not cast a wider net, I believe there will be much anxiety that will be built up amongst unemployed Singaporeans. The question, Madam, is whether we can do more for Mr Tan, the ex-manager, now unemployed, if the recession continues to bite. Do we need more comprehensive safety nets for middle-income earners such as Mr Tan, who do not benefit from Workfare? Arguably, a prolonged recession can reveal the relatively ad hoc and, therefore, inadequate nature of our social assistance programs as well as the limitations of Workfare for middle-income Singaporeans. Perhaps this is an opportune time to go beyond the temporary measures announced in the Budget 2009. This crisis offers an opportunity for us to make some key changes in economic and social policies, to engender new capabilities, recalibrate how we define our programs, reduce our dependency on foreign labour and review our position towards social safety nets. Singaporeans are grateful for the measures taken at this time. However, we must pause now to assess the severity of the situation and ask ourselves if it is timely to institute a more permanent safety net for our workforce. The Government has said that, when circumstances change, help schemes will change accordingly. When times are good, they should be withdrawn.”
“Both Mr Tan and his mother are suffering from hypertension and diabetes. They visit the polyclinic every three months and the SGH twice a year. Mr Tan is unable to downgrade his flat or sell his car because these sales will not result in a positive outcome. Mr Tan is in financial difficulty. He needs a job. He may have to retrain. However, at 49 years of age, Mr Tan is not confident that he will be able to find another similar job that will pay just as much. How should we expect Mr Tan to make of the current situation, and what should his expectations of help reasonably be, before the Government can properly be said to have discharged its duty to its people? This is not an easy question to answer and the clue lies in whether we should expect Mr Tan to give up all but the basic necessities during this downturn. Certainly, for Mr Tan and his family, they will have to adjust to a lower quality and standard of living. He may let go of his car, forgo their annual vacations overseas, or perhaps eat out less often. We hope these are things the Tan family will be able to do without too much adjustment pains. However, will Mr Tan be prepared to give up the extra spending on his children's education – the tuition and enrichment classes for his children or for that matter, give up his broadband connection, his mobile phone and the other daily necessary expenses, such as a quality healthcare plan? In addition to dealing with the indignity and pain of retrenchment, Mr Tan worries about an uncertain future. Mr Tan will also have to dip into his savings and this is not to mention that there is a good chance that his flat will be taken away from him if he starts to persistently default on his mortgage payments.”
“Madam, this Budget recognises that people are going to lose their jobs. Cash flow constraints and a rising cost of living will put tremendous stress on the family budgets on the account of lower spending or loss of income. The GST credits and rebates can provide some measures of relief for many Singaporeans. The difficulty with providing cash relief has always been the question of how far the Government should go. In a recent sitting of Parliament, there was a heated debate of how much the Government should give before it is considered sufficient. However, this recession will have a far deeper impact on lower middle-class Singaporeans than one can imagine. For those who are at the bottom 10% of our socio-economic strata, I believe our present schemes and programs will largely be adequate and will continue to assist them. However, the bigger issue is what can be done with the lower-middle and middle-income Singaporeans who are affected by this downturn – groups that are most at risk of job losses but who may not benefit entirely from the increase in GST Credits and Workfare Income Supplements. Consider the typical profile of one such person. In the United States, they have Joe the plumber. Here, we have Mr Tan the manager. Mr Tan, (not his real name) 49 years of age, is a retrenched executive of a building managing agent company. He was earning $2,800, while his wife, an accounts officer earns about $1,200 a month. He is living in a five-room HDB flat with his son, aged 9, and an aged mother who is 78 years old. Mr Tan has been retrenched for five months. He is actively seeking employment, having sent out 30 to 40 applications. Out of the applications sent, Mr Tan only received about three to four calls back.”
“Madam, not since the Great Depression of the 1930s, have we seen the global economy go into such a rapid, synchronous contraction. Britain is in a recession, technically, its first in 30 years, and Germany, the largest economy in Europe reported its steepest contraction in post-war economic growth. In Singapore, we are indeed worried, not just because we are in a recession but because we do not know how long and how deep this recession is going to be. We hear, on a daily basis of retrenchments and of lower profit estimates across industries. Against this broad canvas of doom and gloom, Singaporeans look to the Budget with much anticipation that our fiscal spending in the coming year will not only provide relief in this current crisis, but will create the possibility for a new and better tomorrow. This is what the Resilience Package promises. An unusual Budget for unusual times. Not only is the amount of deficit spending unprecedented, but this Government is also drawing into the reserves to give Singaporeans the assurance of a helping hand in times of need. However, these measures are decisive measures for the short-term. My central concern relates to whether we should do something differently if this downturn drags out longer than expected, and beyond the measures announced in 2009. We should, perhaps, start to think about using this crisis as an opportunity to make some key decisions in economic policies. There are three themes, which relate to the Budget that I thought we could make some basic adjustments to. First, enhancing the social safety net for the lower income families; secondly, saving jobs and providing opportunities, and thirdly, helping businesses stay viable and building new capabilities during this period. First, enhancing the social safety net.”
“Why should my husband be the one to play golf while the family is dumped on me?" So as we dig deeper into these issues, we realise that this issue goes beyond maternity leave and savings account. This does not mean that we do not even begin to try. But what it does mean is that we will have to take a comprehensive approach in dealing with this issue. We may have to re-look at the definition of the family by including, perhaps, single unmarried mothers. For now, such a suggestion would come across as being radical and perhaps ahead of our time. But whatever it is, unless we try harder, I personally am not too optimistic that under our current policies, we will succeed in reversing this declining trend of fertility rate in the longer term. With that, Sir, I support the Bill.”
“However, I cited the French example if only to show the need for us, as I said earlier, to take a more holistic and comprehensive approach to encouraging families to have children or couples to start families. In the debate on the amendment to this Bill in September 2004, Dr Amy Khor had asked if MCYS could consider helping to train more home-based baby-sitters and to consider extending infant care subsidies to parents who choose home-based baby-sitters as opposed to infant care centers. The Minister noted her point and suggested studying this before making any commitment in this area. I am not sure whether the MCYS has come to any conclusion arising from the study in this regard. Yet, again, I cite this as an example of the little initiatives that the Government can provide that will go a long way in providing this holistic support which I spoke about in tipping the mother one step further towards having babies or, for that matter, having more babies. When we first began family planning, we encouraged Singaporeans to stop at two. Over the years, our tagline changed to asking Singaporeans to have more if they can afford it because of our declining birth rate. The irony is that with Singaporeans who can afford to have more children and who are in a position to provide for their children, monetary incentives are often less of a concern than quality of life. I have spoken to many women on this issue. The common retort has been, "Can the Government assure me that my child will not suffer from the excessive pressures of our education system? Or can I be sure that my career will not be affected by my juggling between the competing demands of looking after the family and pleasing my bosses? What about my own quality of life? Do I have the right to pursue my interest?”
“For instance, I have been told that some HR staff when interviewing candidates for employment would want to know whether the women are starting a family or whether they are going to be pregnant, or whether they are pregnant. If it was found out that they are going to get married, they are going to settle down and have children, this may alter the final selection as to whether or not they will be hired by the company. The current legislation itself does not extend so far as to protect women in this category. Certainly, while we want to extend the leave given to women to encourage them to have babies, it is a difficult struggle that some employers have in wanting to extend employment to them. So, therefore, the question of encouraging women to have babies itself must extend through the entire policy landscape, which includes housing, labour, and so on and so forth. So it is a very difficult issue for which the baby bonus and the incentives only settle part of the equation itself. There are other countries which have come up with other models which help to make it easier for mothers to have children. To illustrate, France, for example, has a caregiver model wherein a child minder is afforded by the state to new mothers to help with the chores, understand the concerns of mothers and provide these mothers with specific needs of the new born. France also has a system of collective care, which takes place in the form of creches and day nurseries and these establishments are either run by the councils, private organisations or voluntary bodies, which are set up by the companies for their employees. I am not suggesting for a moment that we follow the French way. First of all, it is too expensive and, secondly, it is not practical and it may lend itself to abuse.”
“The constraints cut across our policy landscape and also the way the labour market operates. Let me explain with just two illustrations. First, the common bugbear amongst young couples has to do with the long wait for a subsidised HDB property. Most couples prefer to have their own pad before having children. The option of buying from the open market is not available to many couples. They would not have the means to pay up to $20,000 to $30,000 cash over valuation which is usually asked for if you buy a flat in the open market. Most would, unless they have parents who can help them, have to save up for a period of time before they can afford to settle down. So, typically, by the time a working couple have their first child, they would be in their late twenties or thirties; if at all they decide to have babies. In most cases, the prospect of having three or more children by the time the women are forty seems rather remote indeed because forty is a biological age beyond which having children may be at risk to the women and the child concerned. So how many more babies can we have if they are getting married later? Secondly, shortly after the announcement of the extended maternity leave for mothers, there are grave concerns on whether or not this may work against them at the work place. Now I understand that the Government is very concerned about discrimination against women who are pregnant and who have to take leave, and who have been retrenched as a result. The fact of the matter is that women these days may not be given the same protection when it comes to seeking employment. Not every employer is as enlightened as we want them to be.”
“The question really is what can be done in the longer term to provide young couples with the assurance that having children is not such a frightening prospect as envisaged. Should our policy approach towards family planning be carried out in a more holistic manner in looking at providing support for the family that is not just focused mainly on giving birth to children, but also in looking after the child all the way to adulthood? The current Act and the proposed amendments focus largely on providing incentives for giving births to children. I am, however, of the view that more can and should be done if we want to achieve the desired outcome that was intended. For instance, we give extended paid leave to mothers to bond with the children, but this is only part of the equation. What happens when the children are older and in school, and there is no one to look after them. Should we not also have a comprehensive scheme where before- and-after school care facilities may be strengthened to give working mothers the comfort of knowing that long after their children are born, the Government is there to provide a comprehensive network of support for them. Providing or increasing any subsidy in this regard will give a longer visibility of support. Presently, I am given to understand that the student care subsidy is only extended to those who cannot afford it. Should the funding principle in this regard be restricted to only those who cannot afford it? Or should it also be extended to working mothers to make it easier for them to make a decision about family planning? Many women I spoke to reflect the view that the decision to have children goes beyond financial incentives of giving birth.”
“How do we and in what circumstances should we get Singaporeans to settle down and have more children; and more importantly, to provide the right environment for the children to be properly nurtured and have their potential maximised? Over the years, we have experimented with different policies. These include baby bonus incentive schemes and improving paid maternity leave. Over the years, our total fertility rate has not improved significantly, which explains why the topic of procreation and family planning surfaces from time to time and continues to preoccupy our minds. Sir, giving mothers the monetary incentives and making it easier for them to get paid leave to have more children, I feel, only partially address the problem. I believe the problem of our low fertility rate goes deeper than that. Our society has increasingly become more competitive over the years. The parents who are in a better position to raise their children well are not inclined generally to want to have children or more children; not unless they can have the assurance that they can raise their children properly without severely affecting their quality of life. The fact of the matter is that a fair number of educated women these days choose to work to supplement the family’s income, or simply as a career choice. They are also hard put to provide quality care for their children. In other words, many families would want to have the cake and eat it; but many will find the strain of keeping both. With rising costs, and the pressures of providing the best for the children and family with whatever material comfort they can afford, I am not surprised that many mothers are apprehensive about having babies or having more babies for that matter.”
“Sir, the Children Development Co-Savings (Amendment) Bill seeks to amend the current Act to enhance, principally, the existing pro-family measures that the Government has put in place. This amendment is part of the on-going effort to strengthen family bonds and, more importantly, to improve the total fertility rate among Singaporeans which as we are well aware is falling over the years, and is still below the replacement level. This development is consistent with the declining fertility rates in most developed countries, and we are no different. The decline in total fertility rate is an issue that no responsible government should ignore. Of course, as some would say, we could rely on immigration to make up for the loss in numbers over the years. As a Singaporean, Sir, I would say that such a move would be folly indeed. Without the majority of the population being born and bred locally, the character and composition of our society would change. Imagine for a moment if a significant number of Chinese in Singapore were replaced by Chinese from the mainland. The presence of such a large number of foreigners with limited or no association with the history of the place, either through family ties or otherwise, would make for a very different Singapore as we know it. I, therefore, welcome any initiative by the Government, including the ones introduced by the current Bill, to incentivise women to have more children to add to our numbers. This, unfortunately, is not the first time that, as a country, we are addressing this issue. Population and procreation as subjects of public interest continue to vex our leadership going as far back as I can recall, when Minister Mentor was Prime Minister.”
“Sir, the problem is two-fold. One is the business and the other, is the financial institutions. Will the Government be prepared to work with these financial institutions and the SMEs in the private sector to manage the withdrawal of the availability of credit within the economy and to give the assurance and to provide all the assistance that they need?”
“Sir, the two elements in this crisis are the crisis of liquidity and the crisis of confidence. I think one of the concerns really has to do with the confidence on the part of the financial institutions to continue with the lending. My understanding is that amongst the businesses, the banks are actually restricting on finances and credit extended to the businesses. To the extent that this happens, will it not create a crisis in the real economy, especially where businesses depend on credit to fund the ongoing cash requirements of these companies? And can the Minister assure this House that this crisis of confidence is something that MAS will watch very closely and avoid a situation of a lack of credit within the real business sector?”
“Perhaps, the MOS can respond to my earlier plea for repealing such a provision.”
“Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister of State for a very comprehensive reply to my earlier questions. I just have three questions which I would like to ask the Minister of State. The first question is, she had said there is a fair amount of supervision by the members of the co-operative of the management. Based on the Ministry's understanding, would she be able to tell the House how many members generally participate at the members' meeting and the level of participation in the selection of leaders of these co-operatives. The second question is more fundamental and, that is, I understand that credit unions or societies are not widely exposed and, therefore, they are not required to come under the supervision of the MAS. The difficulty often is where does one draw the line between members of the public and members of a union or society. Do 10,000 members constitute the public or do you confine these 10,000 to just the membership of the union? Surely, if there is a sizeable number, how do we then have the confidence that the credit societies have the same robustness of supervision that the MAS subjects the financial institutions too? As I was sitting there listening to MOS, I was quite concerned to learn that there are over $1 billion worth of money sitting in these credit societies. I was thinking why it is not the case that we cannot bring these credit unions within the supervision of the MAS; particularly when such huge sums of money are involved and also because the people who have an interest in these savings are not people of substantial means. My final question is, I did say earlier in my speech that perhaps the Government can consider repealing the provision of the inability of the courts to review the decision of the liquidator.”
“Additionally, I note that section 87 of the Act presently provides that no civil court shall have any jurisdiction in respect of a matter concerned with the dissolution of a society and no appeal shall lie to a civil court from an order of the liquidator. Sir, legislation taking away the right of the courts to review the acts of the state or any individual for that matter should be sparingly used. In this case, I cannot see why the court should not be in a position to review the decision of the liquidator with respect to the dissolution of the society. On the contrary, such provisions limit access of the aggrieved to justice, and weakens the rights of society, not least of which are the members. I do not see why in this current age we need to keep such a provision in the Act. I would urge the Government to consider repealing it. With that, Sir, I support the Amendment Bill. 4.44 pm”
“Nonetheless, credit societies are allowed to raise capital either by way of fresh subscription or deposits from its members amongst other means. If the credit society were to go out and aggressively sign up members of the public for this purpose, how robust will the office of the Registrar be in supervising the business activities of these unions? Should the MAS be involved at some stage? How can we be sure that the interests of the members will be sufficiently safeguarded by the current legislation? Besides, I am not sure if the very business model of co-operatives is anti-competitive. Would there be issues under our Competition Act with regard to issues of competition? Finally, in some ways, the present Bill does not go far enough to address some of the other issues in the current Act. I shall just mention two. Currently, the Act envisages that minors as young as those who are 12 years of age as in the case of school co-operatives may join as members. The present Bill has lowered the age of membership of the non-school co-operatives to 16. It does seem rather odd to me that what the law deems as a minor and thus not of sufficient age to enter into legally binding contracts is now able to accept minors joining co-operatives as full voting members who can vote potentially and take part in management as a key member within the society. To the extent that members are now allowed to join co-operatives because of certain policy consideration, then I think that the law should perhaps differentiate and treat them differently from the adults under the current legislation.”
“Presently, the remuneration committees of listed companies determine and recommend the remuneration of directors and senior executives of the company to the shareholders. In the present case, I note that the amendment gives the society the freedom to determine the remuneration packages of the management committee members without the oversight of the Registrar before. With this arrangement, I do appreciate the flexibility. However, I am not sure if, in so doing, we may be creating vulnerability here, particularly if members' control is weak. Further, if the intention with the amendment is to bring the Act in line with the Companies Act, then there is potentially an important omission in the Bill. Currently, under the Companies Act, there is a general prohibition against loans to directors or financial assistance to directors, directly or indirectly, in acquiring shares or units of shares in the company. Presently, there does not appear to be any specific prohibition against these acts in the Bill. Does it mean that it is acceptable for the society to lend management committee members money? Or that it is acceptable for the management committee member to borrow money from the society to acquire further voting rights of up to 20% of the total voting rights in the society? It would be inconceivable that the officers of the society can do all of those things that are currently proscribed by the Companies Act. Thirdly, co-operative societies by its very nature contemplate a sizeable membership. This is particularly true with respect to co-operatives that require substantial capital to start a business; particularly in the context of a credit society. I do appreciate that the present Bill seeks to tighten control over such societies.”
“Usually, the bulk of the shareholders or members do not attend these meetings; the ones who do are often associated with the management or controlling shareholders; with the result that there is often a rubber stamping of the recommendations of the management. What it means is that management or the controlling member may wield very tight control on the company or society. The question for co-operative societies really is: can members be counted on to provide the supervision that the current framework envisages? Secondly, even though the present Bill seeks to mirror the provisions of the Companies Act, it does not go far enough to address the present weakness of the current framework. I note that with the amendment to the present Act, members of the management committee are required to act honestly and with reasonable diligence. The big question here is, as with the Companies Act, what is the standard of honesty and reasonable diligence of the members? Is it enough if a member of the management committee were to merely declare his interest in the contract with the society and proceeds to transact in the contract? In the case of listed companies, the Audit Committee has oversight of such contracts as interested person transactions, especially between those of the directors and the company they look after, and this comes within the scrutiny of the Audit Committee. In the present case, I note that the Audit Committee provided for in the Bill does not have to look at interested party transactions. I would like to ask the Minister why this has been left out of the scope of responsibility of the committee. Why should the management committee also not include the nomination committee or the remuneration committee as is the case of listed companies?”
“Much, and I have alluded to this earlier, will have to depend on the viability of the business and, of course, the quality of management in relation to running the business. I welcome the Bill as it seeks to streamline the current legislation to the extent that it tightens the Registrar’s control on credit societies, and strengthens the framework of co-operative societies by introducing, among others, the requirement of having an audit committee comprising independent members to perform an oversight function on the business of the society. Broadly, the present amendment seeks to bring the present Act in line with the governance framework of the Companies Act and the amendments that one would say are long overdue. However, although I welcome the changes that the present Bill introduces, there are a number of observations that I would like to make. First, and as a general principle, the Companies Act and co-operative societies presuppose that there is an underpinning of democracy and accountability to the shareholders or members of the society. This explains why under the Companies Act and the present Amendment Bill, accounts have to be laid before the general body of members and certain expenses such as officers' fees or honorarium have to be approved at general meetings. The principle is based on accountability and members vote to elect the people they want to lead them. Unfortunately, the reality on the ground is far from ideal. Those who attend shareholder meetings will attest to the fact that there is a great deal of shareholder apathy generally; and I suspect that this is the case with co-operative societies as well.”
“Sir, co-operative societies are not new. Its movement began modestly towards the end of the 18th century and has since then grown into a myriad of business entities across the globe covering various interests such as consumers, producers, housing, insurance, thrift and loans, amongst others. Compared to other business entities, the early pioneers of cooperatives believed that certain cornerstone values, known as the Rochdale principles, must remain rooted in the organisation. These are inter alia an open and democratic membership, income distribution on the basis of refund on patronage, political and religious neutrality, exchange of goods and services at market prices, and limited returns on equity. As a business platform, co-operative societies allow individuals to come together through the pooling of their resources to promote common interest. To a large extent, co-operatives have been fairly successful in many societies where there are well defined business models and proper management. This is perhaps most evident at home when one looks at NTUC Income and FairPrice. Over the years, NTUC FairPrice has become the face of a successful co-operative that continues to lead the people’s fight against inflation, and a shining example of how the community can come together to deal with their own needs in an independent manner. Indeed, the co-operative movement has come to represent the values of social self-help and provides an excellent platform for social enterprises and initiatives. While the ideals of a co-operative movement may be noble, there is no guarantee that a co-operative will always be successful or that it will serve the needs of its members. The legislation governing co-operative societies only provides the framework.”
“I therefore would like to urge the Government that in drawing up a detailed Code of Practice, the Government would take into consideration a very detailed set of guidelines that will guide and supervise the Attorney or perhaps the Deputy in the discharge of his duties towards the incapacitated person. Madam, in its implementation, much will have to depend on the public to have the good sense to know that delegating the authority to someone to make decisions on their behalf under certain circumstances is a very important and serious exercise. Much of his quality of life will depend on the Attorney to properly discharge his duties and to have the wherewithal to discharge it. Nonetheless, the introduction of the Bill is welcome as it provides a proper platform that is convenient and efficient in dealing with mental incapacity than that which is currently available. However, this is also one Bill that would require much public education and training if it is to be effective. I do hope that in this regard, the Government will put in place resources to properly and adequately prepare the public for it. With that, Madam, I support the Bill. 5.50 pm”
“However, the law unfortunately makes the presupposition that all bankrupts cannot be trusted to act in the best financial interest or property interest of the person who is mentally incapacitated. Thirdly, the Bill entrusts the Attorney to behave properly in discharging his duties under the appointment. Currently, otherwise determined by the authorities, the law allows the Attorney to deal with the property and affairs of the incapacitated person. Such acts will be binding on the person whom the Attorney represents. While the Bill makes provisions for the oversight and supervision by the courts, the Board of Visitors and the Public Guardian, there should be rules to spell out the specific areas that these guardians should look out for. For instance, the Bill is silent on the question of whether or not, in the discharge of his duties, the Attorney ought not to be placed in a position where he is in breach of his fiduciary duty to the incapacitated person. As to what the nature of that fiduciary duty is, as I said earlier, or what is the nature of the conflict that the Attorney should not put himself into a position is very much dependent on the knowledge and maturity of the Attorney concerned. In this regard, I am not sure whether all who will be appointed Attorneys under a Lasting Power of Attorney will properly and fully appreciate the responsibilities that he now has to shoulder for his loved ones whom he is giving continuing care for. I do understand that under the present regime as proposed, there is a provision for the Code of Practice.”
“Unfortunately, unlike estate matters where properties of the deceased may be applied for the benefit of the beneficiaries, including the administrator, there may be fewer incentives for anyone to apply to court to act as a Deputy as there are added impositions on the person concerned without the obvious benefits. Sir, if the Act is to achieve the broader purpose for which it was designed, it should be made more friendly and less costly to implement and has a wider reach to all and sundry rather than just be confined to a few. What we certainly do not want is a legislation that is confined to the middle class and the well-heeled Singaporeans. Secondly, much authority has been given to the Attorney or the Deputy in a court appointed case. These powers are wide ranging. Potentially, these persons may make decisions that harm the person concerned although these decisions are ostensibly made in his best interest. The Bill presently disallows persons who are bankrupt from acting on behalf of the incapacitated person in certain matters. However, the Act is silent as to persons with past record of criminal convictions, particularly those who have been convicted of violent or sexual crimes, fraud or dishonesty. I note that the Public Guardian, together with the Board of Visitors, is supposed to provide supervisory guidance on the conduct of the Attorney, which, for the purpose of my speech, also includes the Deputy appointed by the court. The question really is, whether this is sufficient to safeguard the interest of the person concerned. The Bill seems to be saying that a bankrupt is more dangerous than a convicted fraudster or a violent criminal. This seems like an anomaly and is rather presumptions. A person could be bankrupt for various reasons.”
“I, therefore, applaud and welcome such moves by the Government to attempt to bring back some dignity in the lives of those who cannot look after themselves. However, I do have a few concerns that I hope Minister can shed light on. It would be ideal for one to plan ahead to draw up Lasting Power of Attorney but I am not sure if the majority of Singaporeans will fully appreciate the benefits that this legislation seeks to bring to them. I suspect that as with wills and testamentary dispositions, most Singaporeans would either be ignorant of the matter, or will not appreciate it sufficiently to want to bother. Besides, even if they are prepared to draw up such an instrument, we may not have the right people who are sufficiently informed of their rights and obligations in duty to properly discharge their functions as guardians of such mentally incapacitated people. In the absence of a Lasting Power of Attorney, concerned parties, as we understand, may still apply to court to get an order to appoint a Deputy to act on behalf of the person concerned. However, unless that person is a man of means, few would ordinarily want to take the trouble of making an application to court to get a Deputy appointed in the absence of a Lasting Power of Attorney. Who will bear the cost of such application? The fact remains that a person who lacks the mental capacity to make decisions would have to rely on his family for his daily needs. What he may not be able to do, unless he has made prior arrangements, is to have contractual dealings with other parties. In many cases, families may just wait till the person passes away before dealing with his assets and properties. The prospect of going to court to make an application in most cases would just put many Singaporeans off.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, I may be getting old but I assure the Minister that I am not yet suffering from dementia. Madam, the Mental Capacity Bill is both timely and appropriate. Singapore is rapidly ageing. We are constantly reminded of the increasing number of elderly Singaporeans. With ageing, comes the reality that our mental faculty may not be as capable as before. For a fair number within our society there will come a time where they are no longer capable of assuming the mental ability and responsibility for their decisions. Presently, the Mental Disorders and Treatment Act (MDTA) is the only significant piece of legislation that deals with people who are mentally incapable of looking after themselves. And we have just only this afternoon repealed this Act but it will come back in a different form. Unfortunately, the MDTA was drafted more for those who are mentally unsound than for those who are mentally incapable, in law at least, of making proper decisions. Although the MDTA may be applied to those who lack mental capacity to look after themselves, to have decisions taken on behalf of those who lack the capacity under the prevailing legislation may not always be appropriate, as the application of the Act carries with it the potential stigma, as we have heard earlier, of being labelled as insane by the community. The present Bill, therefore, fills a gap in the legislation. It also simplifies and makes it possible for us to plan ahead to prepare for the day we no longer are able to make sensible decisions. With the passing of the Bill, Singaporeans can now draw up instruments in the form of Lasting Power of Attorney, or can now take comfort in the prospect of a court appointed Deputy who can eventually make decisions in their best interests.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to report that my vote was not registered. I voted a "No" and I believe it is a fault in my system.”
“Mr Sin Boon Ann, by way of his questions, is making the point that the major law firms contribute significantly to the legal heritage, to the Singapore legal scene and in a variety of ways they have enriched the legal culture in Singapore. I would be the last person who would disagree with that. Mr Sin can hardly expect me to say that is not correct. That is indeed so. But when you deal with these policy issues, I think one has to leave aside emotion and look at it in terms of the benefit to the public in public policy terms – where the benefits to Singapore lie. Do they lie in the continued pre-eminence of Drew and Napier, Allen and Gledhill, Wong Partnership and Rajah and Tann, to name the four largest law firms, and the benefit of the crop of senior partners in those law firms and the attendant benefits that come with a number of large law firms contributing to the legal scene? Or does Singapore's interest really lie in opening up the market and allowing broader competition and allowing a broader choice to our young lawyers and hoping that, one day, both the foreign law firms and Singapore law firms will have a substantial number of Singapore qualified lawyers at management positions and, as a result, create a more vibrant, economic legal market? When that calculation comes through, it cannot be dominated by emotions. On haste and speed, are we moving with too much haste and too much speed? I do not want to repeat, but I think I have made the point. It is 10 years since we first started the move. It will be a year since we announced it. Some say we are moving too slowly; some say we are moving too fast. We take the approach that we think it is right, based on the calculation and judgment of a number of factors which cannot be objectively quantified.”
“They want to work for a foreign firm, they can go overseas. It is not as if they do not have options and, therefore, why open up? I think there is a logical conundrum that Mr Sin Boon Ann is falling into and it is this: by making the point that when we open up, the foreign law firms will be more attractive in Singapore to Singapore lawyers. He recognises that by way of the current regulations, we are actually preventing it, which means we are restricting the options for the Singapore lawyers. So, it does not jive with his point which he made later on – what is the problem for the young lawyers? They can go overseas. That is precisely the point. If they want to work for a foreign law firm now, they have to leave Singapore. We are forcing them to leave Singapore. Why should we do that? He recognises that foreign law firms in Singapore will pay more, will give better conditions, and it will be more attractive. How do we, at the same breath, then say that all of that should be denied? It is a logical fallacy on his part, I am afraid. So, the point really is: where does the balance in policy making lie? Do we protect the local law firms in their current structure and deny, if necessary, the opportunities for the younger lawyers, and deny the request of the consumers, in order to preserve the existing benefits? Or do we move in a way that we hope the local law firms are able to compete and, at the same time, open up the choices for the consumers and the younger lawyers? Where the balance lies, as I said, is a question of judgment. Let me deal with his final point before I deal with whether we are moving with too much haste and speed.”
“Yes. Will the Minister please clarify that seamless provision of services was contemplated in the Joint Law Venture policy when it was first mooted, and, perhaps, the Minister would wish to enlighten us on this. The next point essentially has to do with legal heritage. Is the Minister not aware, or perhaps the Minister would clarify, that the law firms which have a long and illustrious history in Singapore play a very important role in the development of legal knowledge, tradition, practice, where there is a very close bond and relationship between law firms, practices, law schools, law committees, review committees and public service work? Can the Minister be sure that these same time-honoured traditions will be maintained by these foreign firms who may be totally alien to our culture and practice? The last point of clarification is the question of whether or not we are a protected profession. I would say that, increasingly, the local law firms are moving with the changing times. We are facing competition ourselves when we go out to places like China and India, and having to compete the same. It is not as if time has stood still for these law firms. They are also putting their acts together and trying to meet the demands of globalisation and changing practices. Perhaps the Minister may wish to note that as well. Mr Shanmugam: On the first point about competition, would it be fair, Mr Sin Boon Ann said that foreign law firms offer better pay, better conditions and, therefore, it is a no-brainer that Singapore lawyers will gravitate towards the foreign law firms. I should take that point with the third point he made, which is that there is no restriction on young lawyers because those who want to go overseas have plenty of options.”