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 5 of 20.
“I believe it will be easier for the people to accept increases in the Ministers' salary if the Government is more open about the process of measuring the performance of the Minister. In past debates in this House on this topic, there have been calls, including today, in the light of Ms Denise Phua's speech, to have a more transparent process of measuring the performance of Ministers; such as perhaps having an independent body, headed by the President, to provide an independent and institutionalised process of assessing the performance of Ministers because this will help to add to the confidence of the process of fixing the wages and rewarding Ministers. I support this proposal and hope the Government will consider this. Finally, to serve our nation is both a duty and a privilege which all Singaporeans should apply himself or herself to without hesitation. Money is an important consideration. However, it must never be at the forefront of our consideration to enter public service. High salaries as inducement for entering public service will rob the Minister and his office of the moral high ground to serve. Great names in history are often remembered for the sacrifices that were made than by the monies that they earned. Highly capable people who are not prepared to make the sacrifice should not be called to serve. In fact, in some cases, I think our country’s interest will be better served, if they remain where they are. They can be co-opted into service in other ways as this Government has often done.”
“With the exception of one, whose profession is not included in the list of professions used as benchmarks, their present salaries generally would have been higher than what they were earning previously. What does it mean for us? After 14 years since we introduced the policy of pegging the Ministers' salary to the private sector, there is still no clear evidence that pegging the Ministers' salary will necessarily result in more people from the private sector being inducted into public service. The fact remains that the bulk of our Ministerial candidates continue to be drawn from the civil service; and rightly so, as these entrants would have had long years of policy experience to take on Ministerial appointments in the Cabinet. Yet, this does not mean that we do not have to pay our civil servants and Ministers well. I suppose for civil servants, it is settled principle that we should pay them well enough to keep them happy in service and for Ministers, well enough for talented and able civil servants to know that there is career and pay advancement beyond the level of the Permanent Secretary. If we can accept this as a basic principle, even in the way we apply the settled formula, I am sure we will be in a position to decide on what is a reasonable compensation for all. The question at the end of the day, Madam, is not how much a Minister should be paid. I do not think that people mind generally that Ministers should be paid highly. The question really is whether there are sufficient and clear benchmarks that will properly determine the Minister's work and the quality of his contribution to the work of the Ministry.”
“In this regard, it is the civil servants who prepare the answers to questions raised in Parliament and often, provide answers to anticipated questions. Political appointees do not often write papers. They do not do the research, neither do they undertake the execution of policies. But they provide policy directions in a similar way that directors of a company provide the strategic thrust for the management. Above all, they take responsibility for the work of the Ministry in the same way that the Companies Act pins responsibility on directors for the failings of the company. Very often, as in the case of companies, it is the civil servant who may bring up proposals to be endorsed by the political master. How much work, input or value add is provided by the Minister is not clearly defined in the current framework. For this reason, while the public would have no issue with the high salary given to the Permanent Secretaries and senior civil servants, they become a lot more apprehensive when it comes to Ministers. Should the Ministers therefore be remunerated for the responsibility that they take, or should they be paid by policy directions that they provide? I think the Government should be clear about this. Madam, it has been a while since we initiated the policy of pegging Ministers' salaries to private sector salaries. How have we fared? Underlying the debate is the belief that we would be in a better position in tapping talent from the private sector, after implementing the policy proposed by the White Paper in 1994. In the current Cabinet of full Ministers, one Minister came from a bank and a surgeon came from the private practice. The rest were elevated from the civil service, having spent the most part of their careers in policy-making.”
“Equally, in many cases, at least unlike listed companies, there is no established framework of disclosure that would help to determine the actual performance of the Ministries, the quality of the Minister's contribution to the policy process and the outcome of these policies as to its effectiveness. In the context of and the tradition of the British parliamentary democracy which we inherited, the Minister's performance is determined by the ability of the backbencher to raise questions about particular policies and the Minister's continuing stay in Cabinet would depend largely on his ability to give an account of and defend the policies of his Ministry. This is very much a hit and miss approach for which I cannot say is entirely satisfactory. Why so? Firstly, information flow is more often guarded by secrecy than by open candour; with the consequence that unless a scandal breaks out, whether or not exposed by the media, or the Auditor-General picks up an administrative lapse, it would be difficult for the public to have a full and complete picture of the performance of the Ministry and, hence, the performance of the Minister. I do not deny that our Ministers and Ministries are excellent. However, as it stands, we do not know if they could be better; or if the Ministries are performing badly, it could be worse but for the work of the Minister and his senior civil servants. Secondly, under the current system, the work of the Ministry is carried out by the professional civil servants who are led by the Permanent Secretary. The Minister’s role is largely political, the main thrust of which is the strategic direction and political defence of the work of the Ministry.”
“In many cases, where the company is not doing well, or the company continues to bleed red ink, stock prices will more likely dive southwards and in many cases, CEOs will be told to go; which perhaps explains why many CEOs in the US, while they are paid very handsomely, do not last on the average more than five years on the job. In their case, every time the company performs badly quarter on quarter, the CEO's job is at risk. And the market knows it because of the legal requirement, in the case of listed entities, to post the results of the company's performance on a regular basis. Or, take the case of a professional. Why is a lawyer paid the wages that he earns? Again, market discipline plays a major part in this. Would a lawyer be able to earn the kind of salary that he enjoys if he was no good? I am a lawyer, and I will be the first to tell you that if I am no good, my clients would take their custom elsewhere to other lawyers who will be eagerly standing in line to take my place. Conversely, if a lawyer is good, because he is able to solve complex legal problems, he will be paid a premium and no one would begrudge him of that. In the case of Ministers' salaries, many would argue that it would not be fair to compare Ministers' salaries with the private sector because they are not subject to the same market discipline as the high earners in the private sector are. For goods and services, a client is free to go to another firm if he is not satisfied with what he is getting. The same, however, cannot be said of public services. Outside of general elections, there are no competing services for public policies on health, education, or transportation, for example, that would set the appropriate real time benchmark for determining the quality of the Minister's performance.”
“Madam, coming after two very forceful speakers - Minister Teo Chee Hean and Mr Shanmugam - I can only say that they presented very forceful and persuasive arguments as to why the motion standing in the name of the Minister should stand. However, I can also say that after today's debate, there is still this element of unease that remains with the public and I suspect that the underlying sense of unease is a feeling that the public service and the private sector rewards cannot similarly be compared. I feel that some comparisons may be made, but I would not think a case can be made that complete comparisons may be made. If I may repeat, at the heart of the Government's argument lies the belief that people and talent should be adequately rewarded by money. And I agree with Mr Shanmugam that it would be naive and simplistic to assume that anyone, no matter how he loves Singapore, would be motivated to public service by ideals alone. Just how adequate and sufficient the reward should be remains the crux of the issue. So we have identified some professions and used the median income of these professions as a basis for rewarding our Ministers. The question is always: is this a fair comparison? Some will say that it is not. For them, the main difference lies in the market discipline and the regulatory controls imposed to ensure fair market practices and consumer protection. Take the case of a CEO of a listed company. Many listed company CEOs will tell you soon enough of how the market will punish them, their company stocks particularly, if their periodic numbers are not profitable. Often, CEOs are rewarded on the basis of the financial performance and that is usually benchmarked against the bottom line or the profits of the company.”
“Sir, I would like to thank the Ministers, the Minister of State and the Parliamentary Secretary for a very comprehensive reply and I would also like to thank them for the update on the good work that the Ministry has done since last year's sitting of the Committee of Supply. The work of the Ministry certainly underscores the fact that we are a young nation and we are still some way towards strengthening our social cohesion, our sense of inclusiveness and national identity. More importantly, I think the message that we are sending out to all Singaporeans is that we are a fair and inclusive society. By an inclusive society, we also want to send a signal to all Singaporeans, including the elderly, the young and the not-so-well-to-do, that they are just as much a part of the Singapore society as all of us are. I have no doubt that Singaporeans will remain committed to this vision of making our Singapore Dream a reality. On that note, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $1,046,783,860 for Head I ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $230,809,800 for Head I ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head W - Ministry of Transport”
“Yes. I just want to take up from where MOS mentioned yesterday concerning the length of time it takes for CDC to respond to financial assistance applications. She said, if I could recall, that it takes at least six weeks, or within six weeks, the applications should be processed. Can I just ask the MOS to perhaps explain to me what she means by processing within six weeks?”
“Sir, may I have the opportunity of one more question?”
“This relates to the same point too. I am assured by the Minister's reply that no one in Singapore needs to go hungry. But the fact remains that we come across people who are indeed hungry, people who are left out and who basically fall through the cracks. I suppose this must be something to do with our communication process, our ability to reach out to these people and to tell them where help can be delivered. Surely, the Minister would also, in his deliberations, consider whether or not the communication channel or the outreach channel is adequate and could the Ministry be doing more in this regard to reach out to these needy Singaporeans.”
“Sir, the Minister, in his reply to my queries, responded by saying that one way of dealing with globalisation is to try and minimise the gap between the rich and the poor, and part of the strategy lies in topping up the income of the poor through Workfare. My question to the Minister is whether he thinks Workfare alone is sufficient. Workfare extends about a couple of hundred dollars a month to these families. Given the widening income gap, is Workfare alone sufficient to minimise the difference and to build up a sizable pool of the middle-class? Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: Workfare, in the long term, will not be sufficient. The long-term solution is education, training, increased productivity, increased competitiveness and that leading to increased wages. But Workfare, however, buys us time so that we can enable our people to seek the training and the time to upgrade themselves. And, more importantly, as Singapore seeks to ride this express bullet train of globalisation, we need to give people, who feel most vulnerable, some assurance that seat-belts are on and they would not fall off this train, even when we go down some roller-coasters. For all these reasons, we felt that we need to have Workfare in place - to buy time and to assure our people. But do not get distracted from the fact that a long-term solution is still education and upgrading our competitive capacity and to get better jobs and, ultimately, better salaries.”
“Certainly the goals that we have set out are obvious ones to adopt. The question is, what new strategies do we have? Do we have any grand plans moving forward in this regard? How do we ensure that our youths of today and adults of tomorrow will continue to stay committed to our vision and ideals and have a sense of belonging here? Part of the remit of MCYS is the continual engagement of our youths. In fact, we have gone out of the way to find a space for them to express themselves. We have the Youth Parks in the heart of our city which is proving reasonably successful. For the youths who feel left out of the race for material success, we take great pains to assure them that life's achievements come in many forms, including those who may have spent time in institutional care. Youths of all walks of life must feel that they are a part of the inclusive society here in Singapore. I would like to ask the Government, therefore, how much has been done in this regard and what further plans the Ministry has to effectively address the challenges of looking after our youths.”
“Recently, I was told by some teachers that National Education lessons in school are often not given the same priority that it deserves, and it is often seen as an unnecessary distraction from the "real" lessons in school. Sir, as a nation, we need to ensure our continuity from one generation to the next. The values that we hold dear at our founding - meritocracy, multi-racialism, incorruptibility, hard work and respect for the authority - must find a way of being passed on. It is, as one would say, our cultural "DNA" that defines us as a people, of who we are and what we represent, that are important to us. The next generation must know this. To be sure, we are not expecting our youths to look and have the same interest as the previous generation. Equally, I think it would be far-fetched to expect the grandfathers and even the parents to play LAN games, blog or watch MTV. Their interests may differ. However, at the core, there must be the same enduring values that define us as a nation. How do we hold the next generation of young Singaporeans together as a people to share a common destiny? Education may be seen as one possible approach. However, as we have seen, education alone is not sufficient to push up the level of commitment to or passion for this place. We want to put a feeling of being Singaporean in the hearts of our youths. To do this, we need to engage them more actively, hear them out more closely and give them a greater sense of belonging and purpose as a citizen of this country. We are also anxious that our youths are also able to understand our fears, our concerns, our hopes for the future, without being seen to be too imposing as many parents are in a habit of doing. How do we strike a balance?”
“Madam, the post-independence generation has come of age and in recent time, has come under the spotlight in our discussions. This is rightfully a concern for us as this generation of Singaporeans grew up at a time of relative peace, comfort and stability in our society. Their childhood experience is often said to be the envy of those who grew up in the earlier generation. The earlier generation of Singaporeans faced much uncertainty, particularly when there was great political turmoil, characterised by strident internal political strife with the communists, the racial riots, the uncertain economic future that confronted Singapore and faced with an extremely hostile environment in South East Asia that was perpetuated by our immediate neighbours. Fortunately, we pulled through those difficult years. And as we move further and further away from those moments, it would be an interesting challenge for us to preserve the memories of the times. We need to preserve these memories. It is important as it is the external challenges in those early years that, I would argue, serve as a crucible that holds us together as one united people, determined to shape the outcome of our own destiny. These memories are still vivid in the minds of many of us - the pre-65 generation - today. It is the events of our early struggle that helped to define who we are in this nation and what we are as a people. For the younger generation, the events that we speak of are but stories that they read about in the story books and National Education seminars. There is little correlation between what they read about and their personal experiences. Indeed, some even question the relevance of such attempts to teach them the history of our country.”
“For instance, there could be inter-agency approaches to promote cooperation between Government departments and Ministries to encourage these initiatives. 5.15 pm My question to the Minister really is: what further measures is the Government taking in promoting social enterprise further? Are we working with agencies like SPRING Singapore to enhance our capability and capacity in this regard?”
“This was an initiative that came with the belief that one way for cottage industries to survive in costly Singapore is not to start cottage industries that would put us squarely in competition with lower cost countries in the region, but rather to produce items that would differentiate itself from what the others had to offer and thereby carving a niche that would give these residents a more than even chance of succeeding. Sir, social enterprise, while an age-old concept, is a logical way forward to help needy residents to be independent. It requires much resources and help from the various agencies to get it going. These can range from providing the business consultancy advice to providing residents with the right contacts and opportunities to help them develop this business. One thing that we need to be clear about is that it is not the responsibility of Government agencies concerned to ensure the success of these enterprises. That is not the point. The spirit of social enterprise is to provide every opportunity to create employment and to encourage the repatriation of profits back to the community. It is a grassroots initiative that is motivated by the people and for the people. Once our people recognise that doing business with these social enterprises is not for personal gain, but for the benefit of the community, the complexion of the relationship will inevitably change. I believe that our Government also believes in the spirit of social enterprise. I also believe that there is more that our Government can do to promote this initiative in Singapore. We should not just give money and provide preliminary advice alone. We can and should actively promote grassroots social enterprise initiatives.”
“Madam, indeed, charity is fishy business. I cannot agree more. We want to teach people to fish rather than give them fish. This is an appropriate observation and one should embrace as we approach the issue of longer term welfare assistance for needy families, and to encourage sustainability of welfare in charitable work. I suppose the impetus for this drive for social enterprise came with the recognition of the work of Prof. Mohammad Yunus whose initiative in micro-financing for the needy won him a Nobel Prize. Closer to home, I note that social enterprise initiatives have indeed been on the rise. I recently note that the North West CDC has started a community kitchen with the hope of providing needy residents with the opportunity to make use of community provided infrastructure to supplement their family income through baking and cooking on a commercial basis. This is an excellent idea as it helps residents to acquire additional income while mitigating some risks associated with running the business. This risk may include rental, marketing or even distribution and debt collection. To the extent that outside support may come in to help these budding entrepreneurs succeed, it goes a long way in ensuring that there is a more than even chance of them succeeding. Equally, over at the North East CDC, there were also a number of initiatives that were started to encourage the needy residents to be independent rather than to be dependent. One project that I thought was worthy of mention was the effort to get our residents to acquire soap making skills.”
“Besides financial security, one issue that is fast becoming a feature in our neighbourhood is the presence of elderly couples or elderly persons living on their own. This is an outcome of our society having smaller homes in HDB estates and children leaving the roost when they leave to set up their own homes. This is a concern, as loneliness can affect the mental and emotional well-being of those who are affected. These days, it is not uncommon to read of old people dying alone in their flat and it could take days before the neighbours realise it. This is a sad and tragic end for anyone living in Singapore. Sir, what is heartening perhaps is the fact that our Government has come to recognise the growing problem of the elderly in Singapore, and this has come about with the formation of a Ministerial Committee on Ageing and Elderly Issues under the leadership of Minister Lim Boon Heng. This is a significant and major attempt at tackling the issue of ageing at a most comprehensive level. While we are talking about early days for the committee here, I believe the Minister in charge has indicated what plans he has with the rest of the committee. I should like to take this opportunity to ask the Minister whether he could give this House any further indication of specific challenges that we are going to be faced with beyond the broad concerns and the plans he hopes to recommend to the Government on this issue. Eldercare Homes”
“Sir, that we are a rapidly ageing nation is undeniable. Singapore has experienced below replacement fertility since 1975. In 2005, our fertility rate was 1.25, and it seems that if our total fertility rate continues to remain at 1.5 for several years to come despite our various efforts, it is unlikely that our public policies in its current thinking are likely to raise the level significantly or at least above our replacement requirement. This low fertility rate, coupled with increasing life expectancy of our people, makes for an ageing society. By 2030, one in four persons in the society will be over 65 years of age, and they will be considered elderly by our standards. In 2000, there were 10 workers supporting every elderly person. By 2030, there will only be 2.2 persons to support every elderly person in Singapore. Quite clearly, with an increasingly ageing profile, Singapore cannot afford to let the burden of looking after the elderly fall disproportionately on the younger members of the country. There is a growing recognition that the elderly may have to continue working to support themselves well into their sixties. Indeed, we are now talking about raising the retirement age to 65 in order to ensure that elderly Singaporeans remain financially viable and independent. Unfortunately, in the face of globalisation, the choice of wanting to remain in employment is not a choice for the elderly alone to decide. It would be interesting to see how we will still be able to continue to find sustainable and, above all, meaningful employment for the elderly in the years to come. In this regard, I hope the Minister can share with us how the Ministry is looking at dealing with this issue.”
“I would like to ask the Minister, therefore, whether there has been any significant improvement in employment of our disabled Singaporeans since the commencement of the Enable Fund and whether he is able to share with us some of the major initiatives that the Enabling Masterplan Committee is contemplating at the moment. Caregivers' Allowance”
“Being handicapped is often a condition that has prevented them from finding gainful employment and to lead meaningful lives. While society may learn to accept the handicapped socially, it is still struggling to accept them as working colleagues. Indeed, it is still a challenge for the handicapped to find fair opportunities at employment, both with respect to getting past that door for the interview and being given a fair shot at promotion. Beyond the recognition and acceptance that our handicapped fellow Singaporeans may be different, we must be prepared to engage them without discrimination and accept them as they are. The Government, to its credit, started a number of initiatives to help the disabled in our society. One key initiative is the Enable Fund which is aimed at providing persons with disabilities equal opportunities in the job market. Equally, I noted with much satisfaction last month when we were updated of the initiatives of the Government to form the Enabling Masterplan as part of the overall ambitious approach by the Government to deal systematically with the needs of the disabled from education to employment opportunities. I applaud the Government for these initiatives. However, we do know that we are still some distance away in educating our society to be open and broad-minded in our approach and treatment of the disabled in Singapore. I do hope that the day will soon come where we will learn to accept our disabled brethren equally as a member of our family, where they will be judged not by their physical appearance or mental ability but by the strength of their character.”
“Sir, we want to build a Singapore society that is fair, just and inclusive. It must be a society where everyone, no matter the colour of his skin or his belief, must feel that he or she is a member of; and this must include those among us who, whether by birth or otherwise, are disabled mentally or physically. We have come a long way in accepting disabled persons as equal members of our society. For many of us, we have handicapped friends whom we are proud to be associated with. Personally, I know a number. I can think of my old friend, Henry Ho, not much older than I am but who is a polio victim. Henry did not allow his polio condition to affect him in any way. It did not stop him from living life to the full. He swam, learned to cycle, and graduated from our local university. His physical condition did not set him apart from my other friends. In his zest for life, Henry was inspirational. There are others who are even more inspirational. I can think of David Lim, our very own Singaporean who led the first Everest expedition. David was paralysed by a rare nerve disorder and upon his subsequent recovery, made him a disabled person. That condition did not stop David from attempting to climb the highest peak in the Americas, which he did in February 2000. Henry and David are but just two of the many examples that all of us are able to recount of the handicapped Singaporeans who were able to overcome their physical limitations and lead fulfilling lives. Their journeys were no doubt fraught with much difficulties and obstacles, and their effort made more challenging because of their conditions. 3.15 pm Unfortunately, for every Henry and David out there, there are many who are not as fortunate. For them, life is a constant struggle.”
“Sir, this episode led me to wonder whether in the context of our social assistance delivery, our agencies are mindful of the urgencies that confront many of the families and that it is not enough if they just merrily wrote to various organisations to ask for assistance while the family in need continues to wait. In law, there is a maxim that justice delayed is justice denied. In this case, I wonder if the welfare agencies are equally mindful that social assistance delayed is also social assistance denied. I would therefore like to ask the Minister whether the Ministry keeps tabs on the performance standards of the agencies that deliver social assistance and whether these agencies are measured in respect of their performance and, in particular, the outcome. Perhaps, the Minister would also like to enlighten me if the Ministry has any scheme that calibrates the subvention that is given according to the performance of the welfare agency concerned.”
“It is not uncommon for these agencies to take a while to respond; and even if they did respond, assistance rendered is often short term in nature and does not seem to address the deeper and longer term difficulties of the people in need. Recently, I wrote on behalf of a resident who was poor and unable to help herself and members of her family, many of whom were school-going children. I could see that this resident was rather desperate and I thought that she would have required longer term intervention. Unfortunately, it took a while for the agency to reply. Even in its reply, the response of the welfare agency was that the resident had already received some interim assistance earlier, particularly the Straits Times Pocket Money Fund and was no longer entitled to further renewal. The reply further indicated that the agency had written to other agencies and had not heard from them. There was no indication about what further steps are being taken to help the resident concerned. A copy of the reply was extended to me. Sir, I was rather disturbed by the reply. Firstly, it took a while for the reply to come. Secondly, the reply merely gave the stock answer that the children had enjoyed the benefits of Straits Times Pocket Money Fund for the year and are therefore no longer entitled to further renewal. Nothing was said about whether the welfare of the children would be looked after despite the withdrawal of the benefit. Will the children be left to go hungry as a result? Thirdly, the reply merely said they had not heard from the other agencies they had written to and would be writing to them again. That is fine; my concern was for the family and what was going to happen to them in the meantime.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head I of the Estimates be reduced by $100. Sir, in his reply in last year's Committee of Supply, the Minister made the point that if one were poor, there is no place that we would rather be poor in than in Singapore. I cannot agree more. Many of us have travelled extensively all over the world. In almost all of the countries that we travel to, it would not be uncommon for us to come across the destitute and the homeless. We see this not only in less developed countries, but also in developed ones as well. In Singapore, we are indeed proud of the fact that we hardly have homeless destitutes sleeping rough in our streets; nor do we have people going without medical care or people going to bed hungry without food. We provide shelter for the homeless and we consistently assured our people that there will always be a social safety net for them. However, that does not mean that there is no room for improvement on our delivery of social assistance. In the course of our meet-the-people session, we would typically come across families and residents that are in great distress, financial or otherwise. Often, we would have to write to various welfare agencies to get financial or other assistance for them. And often, the help required is quite immediate. Unfortunately, our common experience on this score has been the relative tardiness in the delivery of help to them. Sure, ComCare allows the grassroots organisations to provide immediate relief. However, there is only so much help that the grassroots can extend.”
“Sir, I want to come back to the MOS' point earlier about setting the terms and conditions for outsourced workers. In his reply, the MOS mentioned that it is out of the reach of the Government to determine the contractual conditions of these outsourced workers. Surely, the MOS will also know that as a standard requirement, the Government, in outsourcing some of these contracts, can specify the parameters and the standards. I am not sure whether the Ministry of Manpower can prevail upon the civil service to lead by example. My point is that if the civil service does not lead in setting the employment standards and conditions of these outsourced contract workers, then it would be very difficult to tell the private sector to do likewise.”
“Sir, I just want to ask for clarification in respect of MINDEF articulating its policy on releasing NSmen for training. I know that they have stated their policy on deferment, but what I would like to hear from the Minister is whether NSmen who ask for timeout for training under the various NSAs would be given timeout.”
“Sir, in his response earlier, MOS said that tribunals are not appropriate for questions relating to time shares. Would the Minister be able to explain why he thinks that a tribunal is not appropriate in the context of claiming redress for a person who is aggrieved in this regard?”
“In a newspaper article published recently, it was noted that philanthropy is on the rise in Singapore and more charities are being founded. While this is laudable, I have always maintained that we can do more to encourage voluntary donation. In recent years, we have been inspired by the likes of Bill and Melinda Gates, and Warren Buffett who donated a substantial part of their personal wealth for the benefit of society. In Singapore, we also see Sim Wong Hoo setting up a foundation and personally donating a substantial sum of his personal wealth to get it going. Returning to society what you do not need not only helps to mitigate the difference between the rich and the poor, but it also helps to bring the two groups closer together. Greater support from the Government, in terms of tax incentives, would help to provide a further boost in this regard. Sir, in our national pledge, we commit ourselves to building a society that is marked by happiness, prosperity and progress for all. This Budget bears the hallmark of a formula that would help us realise the very qualities of our dream. However, in our desire to attain these ideals, let us not forget that it is as much our responsibility to remember that the Singapore of our dreams is a Singapore for all, and not a Singapore for some. With that, Sir, I support the financial policy of the Government for Fiscal Year 2007, as enunciated in the Budget Statement of our Second Finance Minister.”
“It is common for governments to tax the rich more to fund welfare spending for the poor in their effort to create a more just and equal society. We in Singapore have adopted similar positions. We waive the requirement for the poor to pay tax, whilst we progressively increase the tax burden of those who are better off. By increasing the GST, there is a heavier tax burden that the common masses will have to bear. The rich will not be adversely affected, as the proportion of GST that they have to pay in relation to their total disposable income is much less compared to the lower-wage workers. The rich can choose to make the more expensive purchases outside of Singapore, thus avoiding the GST payment. Is this the beginning of a change in the way we approach the issue of social equity? Sir, while I support the policy of setting our tax rates at a level to attract and keep high-income earners in Singapore, I do not think that we should keep our tax rates at a level that must be equal to Hong Kong, our closest rival. Singapore must be presented to potential investors as an attractive place, not just purely on tax alone, but on the entire value proposition that it presents; our environment, our infrastructure, our leadership, and above all, our people. In the interest of social equity, I do not think that we should reduce the tax rate for the top-income earners; not just yet at least until we have substantially expanded the number of people who join the ranks of the middle class. By keeping our top tax bracket, we are, at least maintaining the signal that those who are capable and more able should bear a higher portion of the tax burden for the benefit of society. Next, we should encourage people to give freely back to society. Doing away with the 80/20 rule is not enough.”
“Is Workfare in its current form equitable for them? Workfare should perhaps be used to incentivise employers to hire such older or less qualified workers. This would also go some way in providing employers with the added motivation to give older workers a chance. Additionally, more money should also be ploughed to provide regular and ongoing training that should, in many cases, be made compulsory; particularly for many in the middle-level income group whose jobs are being threatened also by the onslaught of globalisation. I do not believe that the way to deal with global competition for labour lies in job protection. This would be a regressive step. The way forward is to provide the right kind of training and preparation. This would ensure that our workers can effectively compete on the basis of higher value proposition. To do that requires a more intensified and systematic approach which must be led by the Government. In this regard, I applaud the Government's initiative in this current Budget in trying to move post-secondary, post-diploma and post-degree training for the workers by way of subsidising their courses. But I would also encourage the Government to do more than just subsidising the training but providing and deepening the capacity for these people to take up this training. Because sometimes, it is just not the subsidy alone, but the opportunities and the push that goes towards encouraging these employees to take on further training. Thirdly, income tax as an instrument of wealth distribution. Now that the bigger burden of public funding has shifted to consumption tax and away from direct income taxes, the deeper issue raised by this shift relates to whether social equity in the form of wealth redistribution through tax is still relevant.”
“This feeling of unhappiness is perhaps aggravated by a feeling that a fair number of them in this category pay taxes as opposed to many who get a sizeable part of the benefits through offset packages who do not pay taxes. I do note that there is an adjustment on the CPF contribution rate that will benefit them. However, I believe something more perhaps should be done to help those middle-income workers for the longer term. Secondly, Workfare as a strategy to deal with the effects of globalisation. Presently, Workfare is extended to help those who are in employment to supplement their low wages so that they could cope with the rising cost of living. Unfortunately, Workfare requires one to be in employment before the right of a supplementary allowance in wages arises. I can understand the underlying rationale for Workfare, ie, people must work to help themselves before help may be given. However, there is a very big pre-supposition that underlies that principle. It assumes that people who want to work can find work; and I am referring to meaningful work here. Workfare as a policy instrument unfortunately does not appear flexible enough for those who want to work but who are unable to find it. Surely, these people are also deserving of assistance. Call it by whatever name, Workfare is essentially, one would say, state subsidised employment. In its implementation, Workfare assists those who are presently in employment. Yet, the irony is that it does not seem to help those unemployed Singaporeans who need help most. We know that there are many Singaporeans who are out of job not by choice but by circumstance either because they are deemed too old or that their skill sets are out of touch with the demands of the new economy.”
“One common response from the public on the Budget relates to the limited benefit that this Budget has on the middle class. Unfortunately, the fact remains that for the middle to lower-middle class families in Singapore, life is not much better than those in the bottom 20% of our society. I am referring to those in the next 30% of the income category. While many of those who fall into this category may outwardly have the appearance of financial stability; and by this I mean steady income, affordable household expenditure, which, in some cases, include maids as well, they are by no means secure. For them, much of the squeeze comes from having to provide for their growing children and often having to take care of their aged parents at the same time. They are typically those in their mid-40s and above. Yet, for these Singaporeans, the challenges from globalisation are not vastly different from the challenges that confront the poorest segment of our society. They may lose their jobs to foreign workers who can perform their task either in a cheaper or more efficient manner. Globalisation is not the only factor that affects the people in this category. The shift in public funding to consumption tax while seeking to reduce the tax on fixed income is seen by many in this income category as another whammy for them. The bulk of the middle class spending is on a sizeable part of income on items that are not GST exempt. The low income wage earners have the use of offset packages to cope with the increases. However, there are many struggling middle-income wage earners who do not enjoy any benefit from the offset packages that the Government has to offer.”
“Talented and capable Singaporeans will always find employment and other opportunities anywhere. Those who are not as capable, often get left behind and are not qualified or good enough to be promoted. Often, it is the talented foreigners who get the promotion. Sir, no job or position, no matter how junior or senior, professional or otherwise, will ever be safe from foreign competition. Quite obviously, we cannot open up the floodgates completely for foreign employees. That would render meaningless, the claim to being Singaporean. We need to take care of our own people even if it means creating an uneven advantage for them in the market for jobs. Just where and how the lines should be drawn would be a challenge for the leadership of this Government. How we confront the issue of globalisation would have significant impact on the way we organise ourselves as a nation. I support this Budget in principle. It represents a significant shift in the way Singapore prepares itself for global competition. There are inter alia two important developments here; first, there is a shift from direct taxation to indirect taxation as an important basis of public funding and, secondly, the increase in the assistance available to help the lowly paid workers to deal with the harshness of global competition. The ideas behind these initiatives are laudable. There are, however, three broad issues that we should perhaps think about in this Budget: first, the middle-class squeeze; secondly, Workfare as a strategy to deal with globalisation; and, finally, the continuing relevance of tax as an instrument of wealth re-distribution within our society. First, the middle-class squeeze. Many in this House have spoken about it, and I will add my voice to it only because I think it is important.”
“Sir, Minister Tharman Shamugaratnam in his address spoke of the forces of globalisation and the need for us to effectively respond to it. I cannot agree more. Indeed, the economic forces that swept across the world in recent years in the name of globalisation, has brought about a more efficient economic order. It greatly improved the income levels and quality of life of many people. One would find it hard to argue against such logic. Labour and capital will naturally flow to places that can best meet the requirement of effective and efficient deployment. People will go to where they can get cheaper services so long as there is quality. Unfortunately, globalisation also has its dark side. It results in displacement of jobs and Singapore is no different. Labour intensive industries no longer find currency in our economy as we move up the economic value chain. Technology and the demands of economic competitiveness have outpaced the ability of many of our workers to make themselves relevant in the new economy. They are in their mid-40s, possess only secondary education at most and whose jobs can now be fairly competed for by workers in China and India. For them, moving into a knowledge intensive industry that requires higher educational attainment is a serious challenge. And it is not just these lowly qualified workers who are facing the challenge alone. The better qualified ones, the IT engineers and the architectural draftsmen, for example, are also not spared. Competition is not just about competition between firms and industries. Competition is also about competition for tasks and talents. How do we train, keep and, in many cases, attract talents is an inevitable outcome of globalisation. Talented labour is highly mobile.”
“I am glad to learn from the Minister of State that the Ministry is looking at the right sizing of the care institutions. What I want to hear from the Minister is whether or not the Ministry is also working towards right timing because one of the concerns is that when you need medical attention, you do not need to wait nine months to see a specialist when the time comes.”
“Sir, is it true that the Indonesians are very concerned over the significant impact on the environment arising from our purchase of sand from them? And, if it is so, can we not impress upon Indonesia to be equally concerned about the haze problem which is also an issue of the environment?”
“Sir, in my speech, I also alluded to the slightly more difficult categories which change with the social mores of the time. One accepts that education is one of the categories of charity which is well recognised by common law. But what if you turn the education or the benefits of promotion of same gender union in a marriage as a charitable cause? Then, who defines whether that is a charity which is in keeping with the changing values of our time?”
“I want to thank the Minister for his comprehensive response to my comments on the proposed Bill. I just have a point of clarification to make. The Minister said earlier that the Commissioner would decide on what a charity is after he has extensively consulted the public, to get a better sense. So we have, through a process of public consultation, come to an understanding of what exactly is a charity that meets the public interest. Perhaps the Minister can clarify how the Commissioner - or perhaps it is early days - may want to go about undertaking this work.”
“What assurance will the public have that the standards, especially with regard to defining an IPC, be the same? Sir, this amendment Bill is certainly a welcome and timely change to our Charities Act. We need to strengthen public confidence and trust in our charity sector. This is absolutely crucial to our approach of relying on many helping hands to support the needs of the poor and needy in our society. However, our strategy of leaning on voluntary groups to provide the needs does require, on our part, a certain delicate balancing between the need for tight scrutiny and transparency, and the need to provide some flexibility to the charities. How that balance should be calibrated would very much depend on the Commissioner and the Council that would seek to assist him in this task. For now, the Charities Act and its amendment seek to provide a robust framework within which the Commissioner is to undertake his work. The devil as, they say, is in the details. I do hope that over the months, the Commissioner will come up with clear guidelines and codes of conduct and governance to let the public know what the expectations are, and not just leave them to second guess. With that, Sir, I support the Bill. 3.27 pm”
“" Looking at the prohibition in clause 39A and the definition of fund-raising appeal in clause 39, it would seem the net may be inadvertently cast more widely than it is intended. For instance, if a newspaper article were to highlight the plight of a family in financial difficulty, with a view to soliciting public sympathy and perhaps donation, would the journalist or the newspaper be impliedly appealing to the public to give money for a benevolent cause, something that is proscribed by clause 39A of the Bill? Additionally, if you were to give someone money out of sympathy, would the money that you give to the member of public for a benevolent reason be caught under sub-clause (b) which seems to prohibit such an activity? Quite clearly, the situations I just described are not the sort of mischief that the Bill seeks to correct. Nonetheless, if you look at the way fund-raising appeal is defined, it does give rise to a certain level of uncertainty which is unsatisfactory from a drafting point of view. I hope the Minister can shed some light on this. Finally, the Bill seeks to define what an institution of public character ("IPC") means and to set out an administrative framework that allows the Sector Administrator to regulate charities, including approving institutions as IPCs, within their respective sectors. I support the streamlining of the administration of the charities and IPCs along the lines suggested by the Bill. However, if the administration of charities and IPCs are to be divided among the Sector Administrators, one question that arises is whether there will be any assurance that the quality of administration will be uniform across all sectors. In other words, would the bar to qualify as an IPC be the same across the sectors?”
“The composition of the council would be crucial as it would appear to be expected to play a part in helping the Commissioner to decide which charity operates in the public interest and the one that does not, and also to help set the standards of governance for these charities. Unfortunately, the Bill does not give much guidance as to how the Government should go about appointing people to the council. Should the council be expected to have a fair mix of established operators, Government representatives, donors and recipients so that there will be a fair balance in the views represented; should there be a code that governs the conduct of the council in the deliberations, in as much as charities are now expected to abide by a certain standard of conduct that will be established by the Commissioner? I should be grateful if the Minister could throw some light on this. Next, clause 39A provides that no person shall conduct or participate in any fund-raising appeal unless he has a permit or is exempted from having to comply with the provisions of the Act. "Fund raising appeal", under clause 39, has been defined as, and I quote: "(a) an appeal, whether made expressly or impliedly, to any member of the public to give money or other property (whether for consideration or otherwise) which is made in association with a representation that the whole or any part of its proceeds is to be applied for charitable benevolent or philanthropic purposes; or (b) a receipt from any member of the public of any money or other property (whether for consideration or otherwise which is given in whole or in part for any charitable benevolent or philanthropic purposes).”
“This leads me to a separate but related point. Presently, there is nothing in the amendment Bill that allows for appeal from the decision of the Commissioner. Following the amendment, it would appear that there is little recourse by way of an administrative appeal to the Minister if the Commissioner decides either not to register a charity or if he decides to de-register the charity. Ordinarily, it would not be unusual in an act for an appeal to be made to the Minister against the decision of the department concerned. Unfortunately, such a statutory right of appeal is missing under the present amendment Bill. Is this omission intended by the Government? If it is, I should be grateful if the Minster could give an explanation as to the reason why it is missing. Presumably, much of the work of the Commissioner will be guided by the Charity Council, the formation of which is contemplated by the present Bill. This brings me to the next point. Clauses 4A and 4B relate to the formation and functions of the Charity Council. Clause 4B, in particular, provides that it shall be within the remit of the council, inter alia, to advise the Commissioner on any question that he may refer it, to make such recommendations to the Commissioner and to promote self-regulation and good governance. These are indeed very heavy and onerous responsibilities for the council to discharge, and I welcome it. However, if it is the job of the Commissioner to promote public trust and confidence in the charities, much of that must surely begin with the necessity of appointing good men and women to the council.”
“Previously, the Commissioner of Charities is unable to refuse registration of organisations as charities if they are set up exclusively for charitable purposes. Also, the Commissioner is unable to de-register any charity unless it ceases to exist or is no longer in operation or its objectives have changed. Under the present amendment, the Commissioner is given discretionary powers not to register and to de-register an existing charity that does not meet the public interest requirements. The question really is: what is in the public interest? Is it to be determined, as they say, in the court of equity, by the length of the Chancellor’s foot? The extensive powers given to the Commissioner comes with the expectation that close guidance should be issued from his office in order to guide and help the public to better understand what the Government’s definition of a charity is. For instance, one would accept that any charity that expects to be registered must conform with the social mores of the time. One would not expect, for example, the Commissioner to register a society as a charity that is committed to the promotion of the benefits of voodoo magic in our society; or for that matter, a charity that is dedicated to the promotion of sexual freedom. While these examples may not obviously be supported, there are others, I am sure, that are less clear. I am thinking of, for instance, charities that are dedicated to the promotion of same gender unions or charities that strongly support the abolition of abortion. How and on what basis should the Commissioner decide whether such charities should be allowed to register and, if registered, guide the conduct of the activities of these societies or organisations with respect to their dealings with the public?”
“In other words, we should, as a matter of principle, emphasise more on disclosure in the charity sector. By disclosing, the public will have a better sense of how their money is spent. Against the broad canvas set by some governing principles that I would like to see governing our charities framework, I would now like to turn specifically to the provisions of the Bill. Clause 5 of the Bill seeks to amend section 4 of the Act by seeking to provide greater focus on maintaining public confidence in charities and in promoting growth of the charity sector, promoting good governance and regulating for compliance. Towards this end, the functions of the Commissioner would include, inter alia, the determination of whether institutions are charities, and to investigate and take the necessary remedial action where there is misconduct on the part of the charity concerned. Additionally, to enable the Commissioner to discharge his functions, there are now more teeth being given to his office to, for instance, suspend the relevant person as a member of the charity and, as a final move, to register the charity concerned to the extent that it has been remiss or fraudulent in the conduct of its business. Sir, I welcome the tightening of the existing Act. However, I feel that more could be done to take it some steps further. I can cite several examples where clearer legislative guidance would be of help. For instance, the amendment Bill gives the Commissioner wide ranging powers to determine if a particular organisation is indeed a charity. However, this begs the essential question of what is a charity in the eyes of a Commissioner and who should qualify.”
“Thirdly, and related to the point made earlier, is the issue of the increasing burden of operating cost arising from the new standards and regulations that these rules are expected to impose. To comply with these new provisions, charities will now have to seriously consider relying on more outside help. Any well-meaning charity that seeks to comply with these rules will think hard about getting professional help; whether it be in audit or otherwise. This would unnecessarily add to the operating cost of the charity as professionals, and I can vouch for that, are expensive to hire. Sir, the point is, well-meaning and dedicated charities are not necessarily your most well-endowed ones, financially. The challenge would, therefore, be how to strike a right balance without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Fourthly, our regulations that govern charities should work towards targeting, not only those who run charities, but also providing an adequate framework that allows supporters of these charities with enough information, both with respect to the work and the performance of these charities on a regular basis, in order that they may better understand and make better informed choices of what they do. We want our donors to make informed choices. In principle, charities that do not have properly defined programmes, or clearly established performance milestones and governance standards, will have a harder time explaining to their patrons why the next dollar should go to them. Donors, as much as consumers at the marketplace, must be given the ability to make informed choices about where they want to put their hard-earned money, even if it is meant to benefit the less fortunate.”
“Indeed over the years, many VWOs have emerged to work alongside the community and Government agencies, as part of the many-helping-hands, to help needy Singaporeans. These VWOs were able to undertake their work more easily because they could rely on the generous donations from the public. Yet, as we have seen with the NKF episode, it is unwise to expect that these charities will be able to regulate themselves effectively and meet the standards of governance expected of them by the public. There is therefore an expectation from the public that charities must now be more tightly regulated. The issue really is: how far should the state regulate these charities in the public interest without at the same time imposing too much fetter on these bodies to a point where it becomes counter-productive? The people who run these charities must be able to get on with the business of running these charities without at the same time having to worry too much about the regulator knocking at their door at midnight. It would indeed be sad if these well-meaning volunteers decide to throw in the towel simply because the red tape is just too much. Secondly, the other challenge, of course, is to provide these charities with sufficient clarity in rules to enable them to comply with what is required of them. I will expand on this later. But suffice to say, for now, that we do not want our charities to pore through voluminous amount of rules and bye-laws. Again, one would say that that would be an over-kill. What we should be concentrating on is to have a code with well-illustrated principles that would guide the conduct of these bodies, rather than an elaborate list of chapters and verses. We want a culture of governance to evolve, rather than one that is dictated by rules and bye-laws.”
“Sir, before I begin, I would like to declare that I initiated the incorporation of an entity that is in the process of being registered as a charity. The Charities (Amendment) Bill could not have come at a more appropriate time. The on-going law suit by the present board of the newly-constituted NKF against some former board members is yet again another reminder that organisations that raise money from the public in the name of charity should not be left entirely on their own to run their affairs with limited or no supervision. The NKF saga should no doubt serve as a salutary lesson for us and for which this Bill before us is an attempted response to fix a weakness in the system. This Bill seeks to amend the parent Act by providing, inter alia, additional functions, duties and powers for the Commissioner. Besides, the proposed amendments also seek to improve the administration of institutions of public character. I support the passing of the Bill mainly because I believe it tries to strengthen the foundations of our charities here in Singapore. The loss of faith by the public in the old NKF made it necessary for us to take steps to restore the trust and confidence in the process of raising funds from the man-in-the-street for charitable purposes, and to put in place safeguards to ensure that funds are properly spent. That said, I have some observations to make as a matter of principle when looking at our policies in regulating charities. First, one of the biggest challenges in formulating charity-related policies lies with striking the right balance. The principle that underpins our welfare approach is the many-helping-hands approach.”
“Sir, would the Government be prepared to demonstrate the same level of commitment that they have shown with the able-bodied athletes by pressing private sector organisations, be it the Tote Board or APB, to narrow the difference in the financial incentives that they give to successful athletes, whether able-bodied or disabled?”
“Sir, I am gratified to learn from the Parliamentary Secretary that the Government supports both able-bodied and disabled athletes equally. My question to the Parliamentary Secretary is whether the financial incentives that they give are also equal and in the way we reward them.”