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 4 of 20.
“Sir, I think that it is important that I touch on these few points. I think it is quite clear that seamless provision of services –”
“I think the truth of what is happening in the market at the moment is that we are seeing an increasing migration of young lawyers with a few years' experience to other jurisdictions – China and Hong Kong – and, in itself, Singapore firms are having to compete to retain these talents. So it is not as if these lawyers are not given the options to go into foreign firms to widen their exposure, training and sharpen their cutting edge in legal practice. And increasingly, speaking for my firm alone, we are losing many, many good lawyers to these foreign firms. As it is now, without opening up the legal profession to foreign firms or competition, we are not able to keep these talents within our shores. So I am not sure whether young lawyers, as said by the Minister, have restricted options in their career choices in choosing which firm to practise. Thirdly, there was a point made about the transfer of technology and the seamless provision of services in cross-border work. If I recall, some years back when we – Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr Sin, please make the clarification rather than debating it.”
“Sir, I would like to thank the Minister for his very comprehensive reply and response to the comments that have been made earlier in relation to the Bill. I just have a couple of clarifications or comments, if you may, Mr Deputy Speaker. The first point relates to competition or lack of it, and the point that was made was that by opening up the sector to competition, it will lead to improvement of the legal services in our sector. Sir, if you recall, in my speech earlier, I am not against competition. My point was essentially one of fair competition and it was acknowledged by the Minister in his speech that if we open up the legal services, can we be sure that the competition or the playing field itself will be fair? One significant point that comes to mind immediately is competition for talent. It is essentially a no-brainer that a young law graduate looking at prospects and options will be more inclined to join up with foreign firms that offer better pay, better perks, better opportunities, travel or otherwise, and advancement in his career. What kind of impact or knock-on effect will this have on local firms to hire these talents from our law schools and how will this affect our future development and, above all, our competitiveness and ability to then compete with these bigger firms? So, that is essentially a point that we have to think about when we talk about competition. As I said earlier, I am not against competition. My only question is: can the Government be sure that, in doing this at this time, in moving at such haste and speed, we are basically ensuring that all will be fair at the end of the day? The second point that was made by the Minister is that young lawyers, because of the present set-up and situation, are not given the option.”
“Also, it is envisaged that in order to ensure that there will not be a deluge of foreign firms practising Singapore law, only a limited number of foreign law firms will be permitted to qualify in this category. In considering the application and the terms and conditions to be applied to these firms, it is my hope that a certain balance be struck by the Attorney-General in his wisdom in coming to a decision as to what to permit. Finally, there is just one other point that I wish to comment on the Bill. Clause 36 introduces a new section 91A which restricts judicial review in any court on any act done or declaration made by the Disciplinary Tribunal. Sir, I am just puzzled as to why the Government should choose this draconian approach in taking away the right of an affected person who is the subject of an administrative law action from seeking redress at our Courts. In the context of our Constitution, the right of an aggrieved person to seek redress at our Courts is fundamental. Restricting this right would run counter to the spirit of our Constitution even if the restriction itself is not on the face of it, ultra vires the Constitution. I should therefore be grateful if the Minister could explain why this restriction to judicial review in the new section was introduced in the first place. Subject to the comments above, Sir, I support the Bill.”
“One response to this question perhaps is the belief that what is good for Singapore must necessarily be a good policy to adopt. I have alluded to this earlier in my speech that the underlying principle in opening up the profession is to allow for a seamless one-stop service by foreign firms for cross-border services based on the feedback given by the financial services sector. Honestly, I am not convinced that allowing foreign firms to provide that one-stop service to the banking sector will speed up the development of not just the financial services but also the legal services as well. After all, is the joint law venture policy not promulgated much earlier supposed to make that happen? And what has the record and history of this policy been, having been implemented for a while now? It is my understanding that more, perhaps, could have been done and yet the expected transfer of technology is not taking place, even under the rubric of joint law ventures. What will then happen again with this policy is that the possibility of these firms competing with local firms directly for local work at the higher end, apart from competing for local talent. If that were so, how will this serve to meet the needs of the financial services sector that is not already met by the local firms? How can we say that this is good for Singapore when it is your own people's interest who are put at risk in the process? Presently, the amendment Bill contemplates that the Attorney-General in permitting a Qualifying Foreign Law Practice to qualify for a licence to practise Singapore law may stipulate certain terms and conditions to these firms.”
“One feedback from financial institutions as to why we are not able to grow our financial services sector fast enough is the inability of the foreign law firms to provide a seamless one-stop service to these financial institutions undertaking cross-border work. However, I am not sure if providing a one-stop service will hasten the development of the financial services sector, and I would like to ask the Minister in this regard to just demonstrate to this House how this will be so. Be that as it may, even if that were true, it raises a fundamental point and issue of the way we want to take this country forward. In approving this policy, and bearing in mind the potential harm that this may do to our legal profession, the bigger question that we should ask is whether we are now moving towards the principle of economic development at all cost, even if it may harm a key sector of our society? This has been a difficult question that confronts many societies today. On the one hand, much has been said about liberalising the economy to free trade among countries while breaking down all protective barriers. Yet, at the same time, we are mindful of the social costs that come with free trade and liberalisation. The question is where do we draw the line? Each country will have to decide where that equilibrium is. Even countries such as the US, one of the biggest proponents of free trade, are struggling with finding that equilibrium. Whatever it is, in fact, no country, I dare say, would pursue the policy of economic development at all cost. Yet the one question that some of us will be asking is, are we pursuing the policy of development at all cost with this policy at this time?”
“I am, however, a firm believer in fair competition and of the principle that we should not pursue economic development at all cost. In the case of fair competition, we must allow for more time for our local firms to grow and develop the expertise to provide the services that are required to meet the demands of an increasingly sophisticated financial services sector. If we are still committed to the principle of helping our legal sector to grow, we should improve the framework for the transfer of technology. We should, for instance, provide more incentives and opportunities for our young lawyers to be exposed to foreign firms and provide more opportunities for the use of Singapore law as the governing law of the documents, as mentioned earlier. In this regard, if we are prepared to reconsider the principle of non-internationalisation of the Singapore dollar, it would help to promote the use of Singapore law in cross-border loan documentation. Until local firms are ready to face foreign competition, opening up the market will be premature and will work against the interest of the local law firms. The Australians and the Americans on the other hand are not concerned with foreign competition because they have a longer history. That is why you will find only some Magic Circle firms in Australia and the US where they have a relatively modest presence. The market will have to be opened up more slowly if our interest is to be served. Now, this leads me to the next point. It is my understanding that one of the principal reasons behind the move to allow foreign firms to practise Singapore law is to support the financial services sector.”
“In this regard, lawyers have a special role in that they owe a duty to their clients and are also expected to uphold and protect the integrity of the application of the laws of the land. It is for this reason that lawyers who mislead the authorities or knowingly break the laws will have to face the censure of the Courts and the Law Society. It is also for this reason that lawyers have through history, and in our case, since colonial times, been closely associated with the development of the law, either in the Courts, the review committees or the law schools. Law firms and law practitioners have always been called upon to perform public service and would readily do so mainly because of the wider interest that their involvement will serve. The firms that they represent, being local firms, as far as I am aware, have seldom placed obstacles in the way even if these lawyers recommend policies that may potentially harm the firm's interest. A clear example of this is the recommendation from local lawyers who form the committee to promote the introduction of Qualifying Foreign Law Practice. Sadly, I am not convinced that these foreign firms necessarily share, nor are they expected to share, these commitments that the local firms have. When the crunch comes, whose interest will they serve? I am much concerned that we will lose much of our heritage and tradition that is very much a part of Singapore's history. Will the likes of Drew and Napier, Allen and Gledhill, Rodyk and Davidson, Wong Partnership, firms that we know well and are products of Singapore, become footnotes in our history books? In case I am misunderstood, Sir, I am not against competition, and neither am I against the opening up of our market to foreign law firms.”
“The presence of our human talent would be better felt across the globe if we are presented as Team Singapore through a practice that is firmly rooted in Singapore as opposed to losing our talents to the offices and the hallways of big foreign practices whose interests may not always be aligned to our national interest. Like the local financial institutions, most of the major local law firms have aspirations to become regional and international practices. In order for this to happen, we need to put key policies in place; some of which have been implemented at the moment. These policies include making Singapore law the applicable law that governs the transactions, beginning with financing documents; encouraging the greater use of our capital markets, both on the buy and sell sides to raise capital; the continued encouragement to use Singapore rules as the applicable rules in arbitration proceedings; the promotion of policies that will incentivise the upgrading of knowledge management among the local law firms; and the transfer of know-how that I believe was the main intent when foreign joint law ventures were first mooted. Unfortunately, by allowing foreign law firms to now practise Singapore law, even in limited areas, the Government could well be dealing a fatal blow to the nascent efforts of our local law firms to develop and go regional. Is this what we want for the legal industry? Thirdly, law and the practice of law is a very unique vocation that occupies a very special place in any society. In its modern context, it is supposed to reflect the values and the choices that represent the will of the people. As lawyers, we are not only advocates of the rights of private citizens but are also officers of the Court.”
“The local firms, which are most unlikely to match the pay and service conditions that these foreign firms will offer, will not have the ability to attract top graduates to join them. In the longer term, the quality of services of the local firms will suffer and this will, in turn, make them even less competitive than the foreign firms. Take a look at Hong Kong. With the dominance of foreign firms, the local firms have been finding it difficult to compete. The outcome unfortunately is that many of these firms that could have grown to become major regional or international players, standing alongside the bigger firms, are increasingly being sidelined. We know it because before, our first preference was to use local firms. Now, we are turning to international firms when it comes to using Hong Kong lawyers for the Hong Kong part of the work. Secondly, and it follows from the point just made, I am not sure whether such a move will necessarily help Singapore firms to develop and grow an international profile similar to the Magic Circle firms (being the established London firms) or the Wall Street firms. Without the necessary talents and with fewer opportunities to work with these foreign law firms, since there are fewer incentives to form joint law ventures now that foreign firms are allowed to practise local laws, it is very unlikely Singapore law firms will have the potential to become world class practices. For Singapore, our biggest advantage has always been our people. We know that our lawyers are highly regarded because of the excellent training that they receive both at the university and in practice.”
“Sir, I would like to remind my colleague, Dr Teo Ho Pin, that one bird does not make a summer. In fact, a majority of the lawyers are people of great integrity and honesty and it is not a contradiction, in turn, to say that, "I am represented by my 'honest' lawyer". But, Sir, I would like to, first of all, declare that I am an advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore and I have an interest in the subject matter which I am about to speak on. The proposed section 130D of the Legal Profession Act, when passed, will allow a foreign law firm being a Qualifying Foreign Law Practice, to practise Singapore law subject to certain conditions and constraints set by the Attorney-General. This is a significant development in the legal profession. This amendment opens up the practice of Singapore law to foreigners, even though presently it is restricted to certain areas of practice. This is a very unusual development as, in many countries, the practice of local law is often restricted to the local people. Quite obviously, such a significant development would be of great interest and concern to many lawyers whose practice may be affected by this change of policy. To the extent that a foreign law firm is now able to give legal opinions on local laws in an approved area of practice, it would give rise to a number of issues and implications that I would like to address in this House. First, there is now a distinct possibility that the local legal practice, at least in the financial services, including the corporate and capital market practices, has the potential to be marginalised by foreign law firms. These firms having had the benefit of a longer history of international practice would be in a better position to attract the best of our lawyers to work for them.”
“Do we want to add a further layer of checks on his decision-making by imposing on the Public Prosecutor the possibility that if the case does not succeed, which is taken not on behalf of himself as in a civil case, but on behalf of the entire public, as it were, in the protection of public interests? Do we want to impose a further layer of caution by telling him that if he gets his decision wrong, he has got to pay costs? Until now, and the answers have been given in this House, the public policy perspective has been not to impose that burden on the Attorney-General. It will be too high a burden. That is the view that has been taken.”
“Sir, while I can accept the differentiation between innocent in law and innocent in fact, and the fact that compensation in the acquittal situation is a matter of policy, there could be instances where prosecution decides to proceed with the matter on the basis of sloppy investigation and in the process of which drag the innocent party through a lengthy trial process at a great cost because he has to spend a great amount of money to defend his good name. In such a situation, would it be fair to say, therefore, that the onus is on the Government to then compensate? Mr Shanmugam: Sir, the questions I have been answering so far have to deal with the issues of "innocent" in law and "innocent" in fact. That is the question that I am answering and making clear absolutely the Government's commitment to the presumption of innocence and at the same time explaining why the Attorney-General said what he said and why that is consistent with the Government's position. When we deal with the issue of compensation and whether the accused who gets acquitted should be compensated, we deal with entirely separate issues which is really not the subject of my question. But as I answered earlier, it raises a number of difficult, complex, public policy issues because each time you talk about compensation, it is really the State, the Public Prosecutor, making careful decisions whether to proceed with a case or not to charge someone in Court. And he does it on behalf of all of us as the State against an individual, after what we believe are thorough and careful investigations, both on the part of the Police and then with the second layer, on the part of the Attorney-General's Chambers, and it has to be proven in Court.”
“Sir, I am just curious to understand the Senior Minister of State's point that it is a question of effectiveness of safety if you put the two-point belt as opposed to three-point belt. Can I just ask the Senior Minister of State if this is actually borne out by any studies as to whether or not this is safe or lacking in safety if you put a two-point belt as opposed to a three-point belt? I would have thought that, whether it is two-point or three-point, as long as you can actually improve the safety, even by a margin, because technical constraint of the buses does not allow for a three-point safety belt, then the immediate thing is, as my colleague says, to implement this system first, ensure safety and then talk about the niceties of a three-point safety belt in newer buses as we move along. It has been four years since we discuss this subject in the House. If we had taken effective and immediate steps, then I think a lot of these accidents or mishaps could have been avoided.”
“Sir, I have a couple of supplementary questions. The question of safety in school buses and the use of seat belt was first mooted some years back in this House. I would like to ask the Minister why it has taken LTA such a long time to come around to the conclusion that safety belts in buses are therefore necessary in new buses that they are going to put on the roads. Secondly, given the relative low cost, which I understand is the case, of installing seat belt, why can the authority not insist on its use as an interim measure until fuller studies are carried out? We know from the tragedies which just happened a couple of months back that one girl was safe because she hung on to the handle of the seat, while the other child unfortunately died because he did not do so. If there had been lap belts, I think the situation could well have been different and the boy's life could have been saved as well. So, why can interim measures not be given? And if these are very small part of the cost component, why can assistance not be given to existing operators to tide them through this difficult period? As for the reduced capacity, there could be reduced income for bus operators. But I suggest that these are measures which are necessary to take into account the safety and the lives of the children. And for future incomes, perhaps we should let market forces decide since new buses are going to have reduced capacity if you want to install seat belts anyway.”
“Sir, I would like to thank the Minister for his candour in his reply. Certainly, there is nothing that is said that shows any attempt on the part of the Government to try and hide its investigations from members of the public. I just have a question for the Government, ie, to ask the Government whether they are aware that the point of contact between a detainee and the public is always a source of potential security breach. And if it was, was the Home Team aware at that time when they had these visitations, the CCTV was not commissioned or functioning? If it was aware that it was not functioning or commissioned, why did it allow these visitations to go ahead? Because we learned subsequently that it was a combination of failures that had resulted in Mas Selamat Kastari's escape from the detention facility. So I appreciate it if the Minister could respond to these questions. The second question is one which essentially relates to the massive turnout that the Government has put out for the search of the escaped detainee. I remember looking at the front pages of the Straits Times the following day, seeing hundreds of soldiers lined up in a school nearby, with soldiers hand-in-hand looking for an escaped fugitive. I would like to ask the Government whether this was essentially a serious attempt of finding the escaped fugitive or it was really a public assurance exercise to assure the public that all was under control, and also whether it was the best way forward to look for a missing fugitive.”
“Sir, I understand that some doctors, in their desire to meet market demand, bring in machines and experiment with medicines that meet with different standards of approval around the world. So from a consumer's point of view, while the machine may meet a certain regulator's standard in other countries, it may not have met the US standard which is, to many of our minds, a gold standard. So how would you expect a consumer to form his own judgment about the treatment procedures if they are not sure which standard it is would be safe for them? Could the Minister enlighten us on this?”
“Madam, I would like to thank the Ministers, MOS and the Parliamentary Secretary for their very comprehensive replies. Certainly, if we look at the efforts of the Government and, in particular MCYS, over the years, it would be very difficult to say that the Government does not have a heart. If I were poor, an elderly or a young Singaporean, I will be gratified to know that the Government is there to help us, and for the young to know that there is a great future ahead of us. I agree that the road to the future Singapore is challenging, and there are many more issues that we have to iron out, many more things that we have to do. But looking at the commitment of this present Government and the country as a whole, there is great hope for us. And I would like to congratulate the Government on the work well done and I believe that the Government will continue to press on to make Singapore an even better place for all Singaporeans. On that note, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $1,177,933,100 for Head I ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $154,199,900 for Head I ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY REPORTING PROGRESS”
“Madam, I am heartened to know that there are so many schemes available to help the poor and needy families, in particular the children. I think what is of concern at this moment is: are these families and children slipping through the net? We have the family service centres, the VWOs, we have CDCs doing their good work. And very often in our MPS cases, when we write to family service centres, we get replies that say, "We know this family, they need financial assistance. We referred them to the CDCs and we provided them with temporary pocket money from the Straits Times Pocket Money Fund." Perhaps the Minister can enlighten me whether there is any particular agency that can take ownership of a particular case and see through this family from A to Z, be it in the form of getting the father a job, getting the child placed in school and ensuring that the child stays in school, and providing the proper counselling so that on a holistic basis we can provide a more comprehensive and thorough assistance, and eye-balling the family as it were, to see the family through. I think this is the critical issue that we are confronted with.”
“At the grassroots level, it is also a known fact that we are having difficulty getting younger Singaporeans to do community work because they are so involved in their own lives that they find it difficult to sacrifice their time to serve the community. I would therefore like to ask the Minister what else is the Government doing to address the concerns of many Singaporeans about youth development.”
“Worse, there are those who compete for scholarships purely because of the prestige of winning one, but without the serious intention of serving out one. Secondly, there is this mentality of "somebody is going to pick up the mess after me" attitude. Sir, the fact of the matter is that a whole generation of Singaporeans has been raised on the back of foreign labour. We have maids from the region to serve us, the workers from Bangladesh and elsewhere to do the sweeping and the cleaning of tables after us. Why is it that we always have to send in an army of foreign workers to clean up the place after an event, especially a public party? Why can't Singaporeans - and, of course, older Singaporeans are guilty of this as well – take greater ownership of and pride in their environment? If we are not prepared to take responsibility for this place, who is going to do it for us? There is a joke making its rounds that some Singaporean males are so pampered that if they can help it, they would rather get their maids to do their area cleaning for them in National Service and even charge up Pengkang Hill for them. Have we lost the sense of ethic of hard work? Thirdly, I do not see much evidence of our youths cultivating the deep sense of community service and sacrifice. Yes, currently, we require our youths to spend some time doing community work in the hope that they will be sufficiently inspired to want to do this for life. Sadly, in most of my encounters so far, children are doing community work only because they are asked to, as part of their co-curricular and not because they want to.”
“Madam, enough has been said about the old, now we talk about the young. Like the Minister, I too worry about the next generation of youths in Singapore. I say this because our youths do not have a deep sense of history and appreciation of who we are, and I wonder whether they know what we stand for as a nation and the challenges that confront us and our future. There is no doubt, as some say, an absence of us being able to pass our cultural DNA to our next generation. Even then, without a doubt, the youths of today enjoy many more opportunities than their parents in fulfilling their potential. They are, quite naturally, Internet savvy and are generally more comfortable with handling technology than perhaps their parents. Yet, at the same time, there is anecdotal evidence that points to some weaknesses that warrant some concerns on our part. There are many, but I will just point out a few. Firstly, there is a perception that we are raising a generation that is more preoccupied with the "what is in it for me" than "what more can I do for fellow Singaporeans" questions. Indeed, we have been told that there are many bright Singaporeans who are turning away offers of Government scholarships, because they are not prepared to spend a part of their life in service to their country. There are those that we hear of who, after having taken on Government scholarships, are prepared to break their bonds because of a better offer that has come up during their course of study. It does not matter that the country needs them. All that matters is that their self interest must come first, and it is legally acceptable if they just pay the contractual damages.”
“Whilst the rules may be tightened to some extent in this regard, a case could be made for putting the money in the hands of an independent trustee and only to be applied for the purpose for which the money is raised, with the trustee closely scrutinising the budget. This process of putting charity money in the hands of the trustee would help to strengthen public confidence and trust in charity funding.”
“Not only are charities going to find it difficult to find suitable and capable men to serve, even auditors are reluctant to come on board because of the perceived high risks involved. In any event, it is my understanding that if an auditor would agree on the assignment, there is usually a premium to be charged. Essentially, one can no longer get the auditor for the charity on expectations that the rewards are going to be in heaven. The question is: have we thrown the baby out with the bath water? Secondly, at the moment, our policy is not to interfere with the way the money is raised and spent so long as the charity is able to disclose the spending and have proper resolutions to back the decisions of the board. What made for a bad case for NKF was not the gold taps but that the gold taps were not disclosed to members of the public whose donations went towards their acquisition. However, there is a deeper concern here. What if the leader of a charity is able to, through sheer charisma, raise money from members of the public to partly fund his lavish lifestyle, and his followers willingly give the money, even if the wider society may frown upon it? Should the State intervene and decide otherwise for the charity? Thirdly, should the monies raised by a charity be separately and independently managed by external parties so that the people who run the programmes will not face the temptation of putting their fingers in the till? Part of the problem of rich charities lies in the freedom to spend the money once raised, at their absolute discretion.”
“I will provide the dessert. Sir, the recent media attention on the potential impropriety of certain decisions taken by certain members of Ren Ci Hospital has once again put the spotlight on charities and governance. But like private sector organisations, charities are organisations headed by governing boards and held accountable or answerable for any wrongdoings of the organisation. However, unlike private sector organisations, charities by their very nature are not-for-profit entities. The entire philosophy and foundation of charities are often based on the need to help with particular noble causes, usually the alleviation of poverty, and would therefore expect a voluntary spirit and some measure of sacrifice on the part of anyone who works or helps out with these charities. This understanding provides the basis on which charities are allowed to raise monies from the public without the need to pay tax on the monies raised. However, the lavish lifestyles of some members of charities, the failure of governance and the public censure of some board members, have raised issues that I believe charities and even the Commissioner of Charities are still trying to resolve. I shall name three. Firstly, as a result of the relatively onerous nature of running these charities, how can charities continue to get good men and women of high integrity and substance to provide governance as board members and managers? For the private sector boards, financial incentives are often the reason why people are prepared to come on board. However, the very suggestion of appropriately remunerating board members and paying executive would run counter to the philosophy of charities.”
“Sir, I echo the sentiments raised by my colleague on the conditions for social workers. This is a topic I raised last year, and the Minister, in his reply, affirmed the Government's commitment to introducing a $1 million package under the Social Work Professionalisation Package and new schemes to offer good and experienced social workers paid sabbatical leave to recharge, re-energise and renew themselves. Sir, I would, therefore, like to ask the Minister for an update of what has been done since, eg, how many social workers have benefited from increasing fundings to these voluntary welfare organisations in the form of better salaries and how many good social workers have been able to take advantage of the sabbatical programmes that have been promised? In addition, I would also like to ask the Minister whether the Government would consider reorganising the present profession of social workers to be governed by a chartered body similar to the Law Society, with powers to admit and recognise professional social workers, set standards, maintain discipline and to improve the image and standing of social workers in Singapore generally.”
“From our MPS sessions, we can appreciate that, for many of these families, the situation at home can be highly tense and stressful. The root causes can come from a variety of sources, such as financial, physical, illegitimate relationships, drug abuse and early marriages. When a family is broken, it is sadly the children who suffer. It cannot be denied that, for these children, it is their very own experience that will leave an indelible mark in them; oftentimes, leaving them emotionally scarred. Help for these dysfunctional families often come from many fronts - financial, counselling and job placements, to name a few. Unfortunately, by the time help is extended, it is often rather late in the day and usually limited to temporary relief. One, therefore, often asks whether more could have been done to save the day for these families. I would, therefore, be grateful if the Minister could respond to the following questions: (1) Does the Government feel that it has done enough to prepare Singaporeans for marriage and to raise a family? (2) Is there not more that could be done by way of early detection and counselling to minimise or reduce the risk of families becoming dysfunctional, such as better coordination between the various agencies assisting the family concerned; and (3) What more can be done to help dysfunctional families, particularly children of these families, to cope in their situations?”
“Sir, the family unit is an important cornerstone of our society. What we are and who we are is very much determined by the upbringing we get as children and young adults. Conventional wisdom believes that having strong and stable families would provide the right environment to bring up better adjusted children who are emotionally stable and who in turn can contribute to an orderly society. Unfortunately, for many, including those in my generation, starting a family and being able to keep the family unit strong is very much of an experiment; an exercise of learning by trial and error. Certainly, when I started my family, it was based on my own experience with my parents and my wife's parents. And with the changing values that come with the changing times, we had to adapt as we went along. Surely, there were classes and books that existed. However, we never felt a compelling reason to read up or attend classes on starting a family because there was very little expectation to go for any formal training during my time. My wife and I tried various methods on our three children and, after close to 20 years, I am grateful to say that my three children are reasonably well adjusted and I have a wife who still stands by me today. I am sure, however, if both my wife and I had more formalised exposures to parenting and acquired a better understanding of family dynamics, we could have been spared the trial and errors and the risk of failures as parents. 1.45 pm Not everyone has been as fortunate as we have been in building a successful family unit. There are many out there who, for one reason or another, have been unsuccessful and the family has become highly dysfunctional, resulting in divorces.”
“The acceptance of the report by the Government and the study of the ways to implement them is indeed an exciting time for those, including myself, who believe in the big potential of social enterprises in helping the poor and needy achieve self reliance. Minister Vivian Balakrishnan has also said in his response to the Report that he will be announcing the ways in which the Government will be implementing the recommendations of the committee. And I would therefore appreciate it if the Minister is able to give his response today, if possible, and in particular, I would like to hear from the Minister whether the Government intends to "let a thousand flowers bloom" by actively promoting such initiatives and educating the public at the grassroots; whether the Government intends to review the regulatory environment and form of business organisational vehicles; whether it would be in the form of cooperatives or otherwise, and to make it easier for social entrepreneurs and the community to start social enterprises; and also whether the Government intends to give further tax incentives to encourage the adoption of more socially responsible initiatives by the private sector.”
“Sir, in the late 2007, the Social Enterprise Committee headed by Mr Philip Yeo published a report on ways to grow the social enterprise sector and to encourage social entrepreneurship in Singapore. This is a milestone report and I must congratulate Mr Yeo and his committee for the work well done. The coverage has been comprehensive and covers the three broad areas: (a) encouraging socially responsible enterprises; (b) building pro-social enterprise environment; and (c) creating a culture of social entrepreneurship. Some of the key thrusts and suggestions include, for instance, getting both the private and the public sectors to demonstrate greater social responsibility by seeking to hire more of the physically disadvantaged and needy Singaporeans and enabling them with the capacity for work by providing them with adequate training and to redesign the job scope and the physical environment where necessary to accommodate them. Besides promoting social responsibility, the report of the committee also seeks to encourage greater funding options for social enterprises and to provide a supporting framework through the establishment of an association and a centre that will serve as a resource base for social entrepreneurs. Minister Vivian Balakrishnan accepted the report, recognising that social enterprises and socially responsible companies can play a role in helping the needy and those from dysfunctional families to be self reliant. And, indeed, I am glad to note that while the ideas of social entrepreneurship and promoting socially responsible companies are relatively recent ideas, the Government was quick to recognise the potential of such undertakings and its impact on the wider community.”
“In this regard, channelling more resources into training and ensuring that children from disadvantaged background are given every opportunity to pursue an excellent education must continue to be a key pillar in our policy landscape. Thirdly, fostering a culture of care and share between the rich and the poor and championing values of thrift and frugality should continue to be the focus of our efforts at community bonding. Much has been said in recent years to encourage and promote philanthropy. While it is good that people should now be encouraged to give more, it would be even better if those who are well-to-do could be seen working within the community. The Government should continue to promote and encourage active participation in community work by those who are well-to-do and to make a virtue of modest living and less than ostentatious lifestyle. It would therefore help if the Minister could enlighten this House on whether such steps are being taken. Social Assistance”
“Our approach towards helping the poorer and more needy Singaporeans should be likewise. Giving Singaporeans cash hand-outs and rebates across the board may not be the most effective way to use our resources to strengthen social cohesion. We should instead set aside more resources to provide a more holistic approach in helping needy Singaporeans to bridge the social divide. I would like to suggest three approaches. First, we should strengthen our community-based organisations, such as the Family Service Centres, CDCs and the grassroots organisations to provide better integrated and coordinated assistance on a case management basis. Currently, needy families who approach these organisations are dealt with on a symptomatic basis. Unfortunately, for many of these families, there are root causes that have to be dealt with if their difficulties are to be resolved. In this regard, case ownership and information sharing between the various agencies would assist greatly. The Minister could perhaps let us know how much of this is possible currently. Secondly, what is important to us, as a nation, is that the underclass must never have the complete resignation and despair with our society and feel totally disenfranchised from it. There must be the feeling that social mobility still exists within our society. Creating a sense of hope and mobility gives many Singaporeans the drive and the aspirations to better themselves and helps to reduce the amount of resentment against those who have done well in present circumstances, because one day they hope to be like them too.”
“This is no doubt aggravated by the fact that the Gini coefficient is expected to be higher, meaning a growing income gap between the rich and the poor in Singapore. It does not help that the visible signs of wealth among those in Singapore with plenty of cash to flaunt are fairly prevalent here. Singapore is about one of the few places in the world where there is such a high concentration of premium continental cars. Such visibly open and naked display of wealth can only help to breed deep resentments among the majority of Singaporeans. For many, the lifestyle of the rich and famous in Singapore can only be the substance of their dreams and never a reality. The resentment runs deeper where there are pressures that come out of having to cope with the escalating cost of living. How do we begin to tell that fellow Singaporean that the future will continue to look bright when he cannot see himself as ever being in a position to join the ranks of the rich in our society? For many Singaporeans who barely make $24,000 a year, the idea of earning more than a million annually is just mind blowing. The unhappiness among many Singaporeans, Sir, is not one that can be solved by generous hand-outs alone. We have often heard that what has been given is soon forgotten. Soon people will be asking for what is next that the Government can give them. Giving is the opiate of society. The more you give, the more will be asked. Giving generously tends to breed a dependency and a rights mentality that places increasing and increasingly unreasonable demands on the Government over time. Sir, we have often heard of the difference between giving a person fish and teaching him to fish. There is a difference between consumption and investment.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head I of the Estimates be reduced by $100. Sir, last year, in the Committee of Supply, the debate on public assistance prompted the Minister to ask, "How much is enough?" The response raises rather deep questions on how we should continue to help Singaporeans cope, as the country powers along on the back of a strong and performing economy. Looking at this year's Budget, it would be difficult to fault the Government as being niggardly in its handouts to Singaporeans. We note the Growth Dividends, the income tax rebates, and the Medisave top-ups, to mention a few. This is over and above the other measures that were announced earlier, such as Workfare and Hope schemes. And I do applaud the Government for adopting the principle of sharing the fruits of success with the people. Sure, there are many in this House and those outside who question whether the Government could have been more generous in giving back to the people. No matter how much the Government has given or promised to give, not everyone will be satisfied. There is a constant clamour for the Government to give more, even if the Government has given out $1.6 billion of the surplus, even if up to the 40th percentile of households are going to get more from the Government than they are paying to the Government, and even if the 2-room retiree households will get $3,100 in benefits from this year's surplus sharing package. Yet many people are still unhappy. Unhappy with the steep increases in the cost of living, with having to pay more for almost everything from transport charges, school fees, and medical fees if means testing is fully in place.”
“Sir, I would like to ask SPS whether the Ministry has a policy of monitoring the quality and effectiveness of school counsellors. Because just last week, I had a resident come to me to tell me that the child was more petrified of the school counsellor than the teacher. That was the reason of the complaint in the first place.”
“While I am heartened to hear from Minister Teo that the Government has made some efforts to hire and retain older workers, I would like to know whether our Government is working towards some specific targets in the longer term in the direction of hiring older workers or retaining older workers in the civil service, because if you look at the number of older workers hired, in relative terms, it is still rather small compared to the large number of staff employed by the civil service today. Mr Teo Chee Hean: Sir, we will do the best we can. But the numbers are not small. As I explained earlier, of those retiring at 62, we re-employ 57% of them. And that does not count those who do part-time work and under contract basis. We also cannot assume that all those who retire actually do want to continue to work. Some of them may not want to, for a variety of personal reasons – health and other things. To set a target may not be very realistic. What we will do is to try to do our best. We know that 100% is probably not realistic also.”
“Sir, other than the firm words of disapproval, I would like to ask the Minister what further actions ASEAN is intending to take to up the ante of disapproval of Myanmese action, especially if they choose not to respond or respond in a timely manner that they were expected to.”
“Sir, would the Minister be so kind as to enlighten us why the Ministry is not prepared to provide the funds for the temporary market? Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: Sir, under the HUP, our responsibility is to build and upgrade the existing market. Between the period of the centre being closed and the new centre being built, it is up to the hawkers to decide. This arrangement has been going on for the last few years and most of the hawker centres and markets are able to fend for themselves in providing for temporary centres. In fact, they have done so without any loss of business. So we have done the analysis and we think it is adequate as far as the current arrangements are concerned. PROFESSIONALS CONVERSION PROGRAMME (Update) 11. Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether he can provide an update on the progress of the Professionals Conversion Programme; and (b) how many Professionals, Managers, Executives and Technicians have benefited from the programme.”
“Sir, the Member has misheard me and I think it is disingenuous for him to put words into my mouth to suggest that Singaporeans are lazy and that they would not work if they are able to draw down on their CPF balances earlier. All I said was that allowing Singaporeans to draw down on their CPF balances may well act as a disincentive for them to want to work actively and that this may well be counter-productive, and it would be better if they were to draw down on their CPF balances later. The fundamental question will still have to be addressed, ie, how are they going to live out through the balance of their years if they were to live to a ripe old age and they do not have enough balances in their CPF to see to their retirement needs? I think the Workers' Party must answer that question. 3.16 pm”
“I would urge the Government to relook at this practice guide and perhaps define it as a code so that it is better defined and can be easily adopted by the listed companies or corporations. This is all part of a move towards encouraging enlightened practices of hiring older workers. This is no different from encouraging companies to be more transparent in their corporate governance practices. Hopefully, with such a practice to encourage companies to list their practices on hiring older workers, a whole culture may change. The climate may well change to encourage companies to hire older workers and the companies' conduct may be judged according to what their present employment practices are. And in time to come, it would be a good thing if the companies are able to say proudly in their annual reports that they are enlightened employers who have no qualms about hiring older workers. And if we can all do that, I am sure the prospect of late retirement is not such a scary one and that older workers would continue to be encouraged to remain in the labour force and live their retirement age meaningfully. On that note, I support the Statement of the Minister. Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): Sir, may I seek a clarification from the Member?”
“It is commonly the case that there are many elderly Singaporeans who want to find employment - and I mean meaningful employment here - and are not able to find one on account of age. It is not uncommon for residents to come up to me at the MPS session to say that they want employment and are often turned down simply because, in their applications, the prospective employers found out that they are just too old for the job. I have in the past in this House advocated that a code be drawn up by which standards and benchmarks can be set as a matter of practice for hiring older workers. I do appreciate that in a free market economy, it would be difficult to legislate and compel employers to hire older workers. But that should not stop us from holding up examples of role models of employers where the employment of older workers is concerned. As we have done with corporate governance, whether or not a company is enlightened will be judged by the standard of its own conduct and will be assessed accordingly. In the case of listed companies, companies are required to set out their corporate governance practices in their annual reports so that the market can provide a proper assessment of their performance. In a similar fashion, I would urge the Government to put in place a similar practice, starting out with listed companies, where these companies are compelled to disclose the nature of their practice of hiring elderly workers in their annual reports in order that the public may be able to judge their conduct as employers. I understand that, presently, there is a guide that is put up by the Ministry of Manpower. But, unfortunately, this guide is not as well publicised and therefore not widely known.”
“Even with longevity insurance provided for, it is estimated that with the present Minimum Sum, even with the delayed retirement, the average account holder is expected to take home no more than perhaps $400 a month or even less. And this figure may seem adequate for the daily needs of the account holder for now. However, it does not appear as if it takes inflation into account which, I am sure, is bound to affect the purchasing power of account holders over a period of time. I am seriously concerned, Sir, and this has been raised many times in this House as to whether in the longer term, this sum of money will be adequate to meet the retirement needs of the account holder. Fifteen years down the road, the sum of money which the retiree draws from his Minimum Sum may not be enough to pay for his meals, let alone his transportation and medical costs. I know that the Government has put in place plans to monetise the retiree's assets, such as the buy-back of a certain portion of the leasehold interest in an HDB flat. However, the extent to which Singaporeans can benefit from such a scheme is not clearly known and it may be that, in time to come, the Government may have to supplement the retirement income of Singaporeans. Thirdly, the deferred retirement. Our Government has put in place schemes such as Workfare to encourage elderly Singaporeans to continue working and to defer retirements as much as possible. Workfare schemes are good incentives to encourage elderly Singaporeans to continue working. However, the schemes only address the supply side of the labour equation and not the demand side.”
“5% return on Government funds, I think there is a fair amount of assurance given to the people that these funds would be properly managed and, over a longer period with a slightly higher risk profile, the people will get a better return on their CPF balances and therefore have more in their accounts to see through their retirement years. After all, this is essentially the people's money, whether you manage it as part of Government's reserves or you manage it as CPF balances on behalf of the account holders. But the numbers are real. If you can manage and double the returns from 4% to perhaps 8% over a 20-year period, you can imagine the balances in the Minimum Sum and the Retirement Account would grow to a substantial figure over a 30-year period. And this sum of money to the poor Singaporean is a very significant sum which will see through a comfortable retirement. I would therefore encourage and urge the Government to seriously reconsider its position about whether or not to put aside a portion of the money for a slightly more risky investment in order to give the account holders a better return on their money than it is presently contemplating based on the long-term bond yield. My second point relates to stretching of CPF. Under the current system, a sum of money has been set aside for the long-term retirement needs. This sum of money can be withdrawn only when the account holder reaches the deferred draw-down age, currently set at 62 years of age, and eventually would be raised to 67 years of age. The draw down of this Minimum Sum is calculated on a straight line basis over a 20-year period until such time when the sum in the account is exhausted.”
“But if you can just set aside a certain portion and aggregate this together as a nation, I think the returns on the individual account holders would be much greater than the 2.5% and 4%, even with the increase of 1% that the Government is now offering to its people. Quite obviously, we all understand that such approaches are not without risks. The Government had in fact indicated the other day that they have studied this matter for five years and are against increasing the risk profile of pension funds. Sir, I beg to differ. Just because there are risks does not mean that these risks cannot be managed properly. We have also heard that with advancements in fund management these days, there are techniques and tools that fund managers can employ which will give a reasonable rate of return to the funds that have been managed. Out of the GIC website, I noted that over a period of 25 years to March 2006, the annual rate of return on foreign reserves, managed by GIC, averaged 9.5% in US$ terms and 8.2% in S$ terms and we are talking about over a 25-year period. Of course, the Government has said that because you are able to generate such good returns in the past, there is no guarantee that account holders will be able to enjoy similar returns in the years to come. But I will just raise an analogy which, I think, is appropriate in this context. Just because the sun has risen for many years, there is no basis for us to be assured that the sun will rise again tomorrow. But the fact that the sun has risen over many years in the past gives us a fair assurance that, going forward, the sun will again rise tomorrow. My point essentially is that with a 25-year record and 9.”
“Mr Tharman, in his reply to my colleague, Mr Inderjit Singh, has said that the returns on investments by the Government which are derived from the investment of our CPF monies are resources that have to be prudently applied, particularly with regard to our surpluses. These resources have been applied to provide, as we understand, various subsidies either in the form of housing or Workfare, which is evident today. Besides, there are various top-up schemes that are available that are meant to help the poor and needy. Getting funds on the cheap from CPF and investing these funds wisely to get better returns to supplement our national budget has helped Singapore to build up its infrastructure, fund different social programmes and build up a fairly substantial amount of reserves over the years since independence. The question that we should ask is whether the time has now come when we should wean the Government of cheap funds and to rely on careful management and harvesting of investment income of our present reserves to meet the future budgetary requirements. Can and should the Government do more than just to peg the returns on our CPF accounts to just long-term bond yields? As opposed to pegging the CPF returns to bond yields, we should consider whether a portion of our CPF monies should be set aside for the management by established fund management corporations like the GIC to ensure better returns for its members. Again, the sentiments that I have here have been eloquently expressed by my colleague, Mr Ong Kian Min, when he said that we do not have to put the entire sum in our CPF balances for the fund management.”
“Second, he talked about stretching the CPF balances and, finally, he talked about Workfare Income Supplement for the workers. Sir, the subject of a higher interest rate on CPF was also recently raised by my parliamentary colleague. Also just now the question was asked whether or not it would be equitable for Government to give a higher return on the CPF balances. Indeed, we are happy to hear from Minister Ng that the Government has agreed from January next year to give an additional one percentage point on CPF balances on the first $60,000. The question that was asked, and is still being asked, is whether or not CPF account members can be entitled to a higher rate of returns on their balances. With the exception of the earlier years of independence, our Government has been running budget surpluses so that the amounts borrowed are not used so much as to finance infrastructure development. CPF balances are indirectly invested by Government through GIC and other channels in external and real assets. And I believe that these returns on investments over the years have been rather substantial - Mr Inderjit Singh says it is 18% - particularly when one takes into account the cost of funds to the Government and the interest rate on CPF accounts has been relatively low. The question that has been asked is whether or not, in the longer term, it would be equitable for the Government to return some of these gains made over the years back to the account holders. On this point, I entirely support and am in agreement with the sentiments raised by my colleague, Mr Ong Kian Min, earlier. If you have accumulated balances over the years using cheap CPF funds, whether or not these monies that you have accumulated should now be considered for equitable returns to the account holders.”
“Sir, the NCMP, Ms Sylvia Lim, touched on one point, which is the Workers' Party's position, on the deferred draw-down age and the retirement age for Singaporeans. She made the point that they should not be put together and that we should be allowed to draw down our CPF balances earlier than the retirement age. I think what she has not addressed in her speech is the fundamental question of this whole debate, and that is whether we have enough in our CPF balances to see us through our retirement. The whole point here essentially is that if we allow Singaporeans to draw down earlier, will there be enough in the CPF balances to see through their retirement? Her speech also does not address the question of vulnerability of Singaporeans not wanting to work if there is an ability and opportunity for them to draw down earlier. How can she be sure that if there is an opportunity for Singaporeans to draw down earlier, Singaporeans will continue to want to work to ensure that there is sufficient income to meet their daily needs, despite being able to draw down on their CPF balances earlier? Sir, I do not think it is such a wise scheme to allow Singaporeans to draw down on their balances earlier while encouraging them to work to a later age. The whole point about delaying the draw down essentially is the recognition that, by and large, Singaporeans are growing older and, therefore, are retiring later, and we need to maintain a sufficient balance in our CPF to see through their old age needs. And this is essentially the point that PM has raised in his National Day Rally. He has raised three points which I would like to touch on in my speech this afternoon. First, he talked about the higher returns of CPF.”
“Sir, how often does the Board of Visitors actually make visits to these Homes to investigate the conditions under which these Homes are operating? My second question relates to the extent of awareness that residents of these Homes have. Sometimes they do not know that they are being abused unless they are told in advance the kind of treatment to expect, what kind of punishment conditions they should expect if they breach the rules, and where does one cross the line of abuse. How much of this has the Ministry done to educate the residents?”
“Sir, besides the presence of the bollards at the bus stops, I want to ask the Minister whether the authority has made a comprehensive review of all the other places or roads where bollards may be necessary, other than bus-stops, to ensure greater pedestrian safety.”
“The MOS said earlier that he is consulting the industry, comprising about more than 1,000 private education providers, to see how to regulate this industry. I get the impression from the MOS that the Government is now looking at regulating this industry. Surely, the question asked is whether this should have been done earlier before the closure came about, and we are left scrambling to look at what further regulations we have got to put in place.”