Tharman Shanmugaratnam
Singapore
“EDB conducts regular reviews to GIP to ensure its effectiveness in attracting only top-tier business leaders who are interested to drive the growth of their businesses and investments from Singapore.”
“MAS may vary the size of the additional capital requirement imposed on the bank and take other regulatory actions depending on the outcome of ongoing reviews. MAS requires all retail banks in Singapore to ensure that their mission critical systems supporting digital banking are resilient.”
“This question will be answered in the reply to Dr Tan Wu Meng's Parliamentary Question filed for tomorrow's Sitting. [Please refer to "Probe into Recent Disruptions of DBS' Digital Bank and Physical ATM Services and Preventive Measures Implemented", Official Report, 5 July 2023, Vol 95, Issue 107, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Ans…”
“Borrowing from the banks is one of the ways in which MAS carries out MMOs to soak up such excess liquidity. Like other central banks, MAS does this daily through an auction system, enabling MAS to withdraw liquidity through the Primary Dealers that submit the most competitive prices.”
“To mitigate consumer over-indebtedness, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) requires financial institutions (FIs) to implement a range of safeguards when extending mortgage loans and unsecured credit.”
“The Monetary Authority of Singapore imposes on external asset managers the same stringent regulatory standards for anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism that it imposes on banks.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,416 lines we hold for Tharman Shanmugaratnam, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 34 of 49.
“Mr Speaker, Sir, we have every reason to be confident about our future. Globalisation is playing to Singapore's strengths - our openness to the world, our responsiveness to change, our reputation for trust. But what will ultimately determine our success is our people's spirit of enterprise, resilience and self-reliance. Even as we bolster our system of social support, we must keep these values strong in our society. Many Singaporeans bear testimony to these values. Like Mabel Ong, now in her mid-fifties. She did not get beyond primary school. But she has always worked. First, as a seamstress for many years in garment factories. Until her mid-forties, when her eyesight deteriorated and she found it harder to sew clothes. She then started working at hotels as a valet, delivering laundry to hotel guests, and as a food server in restaurants. Two years ago, she took up a friend's recommendation and started work at the Oriental Hotel, checking and issuing mini-bar items for rooms. She does every type of work she can; during lull periods, she volunteers to help out at the linen department. She has also been going for courses so that she can take on new responsibilities. Recently, the hotel promoted her into a new position they created - 'Mini-bar Supervisor'. Mabel sums it up in her own words, her attitude to work and to life - "Whatever I can do, I will do. And whatever I do, I will try to do well." That is the Singapore spirit - can do, will do, do well. This is why we will succeed and this is why we have a bright future. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. [Applause.]”
“And we will supplement their incomes and savings through Workfare. This Budget strengthens our revenues for the future. We are raising the GST to broaden our tax base. It will give us critical additional revenues that will enable us to improve our social security system, increase spending on health, especially as our population ages, and ensure that our income taxes remain competitive. To help Singaporeans adjust to the higher GST, we are providing a comprehensive offset package. Lower-income Singaporeans will receive much more than the extra GST they have to pay. The middle- and higher-income groups will also benefit from the offset package as well as from the higher employer contributions to their CPF. Most importantly, all Singaporeans will be better off because these decisive moves that we are making now will grow our economy. We are setting in place a strong and sustainable fiscal position. The GST increase will give us an additional $1.5 billion each year. Workfare will cost us about $400 million a year. Our increased health expenditures will amount to $300 million each year on average over the next five years, and considerably more beyond that. Expanding continuing education opportunities for all Singaporeans will cost us at least $300 million extra each year in the long term. The corporate tax cut will cost us $800 million per year. The GST increase will help us to finance these initiatives. But we also need to use more of the investment income from our reserves. The additional income from our reserves, together with the increased GST revenues, will give us the resources to enhance our social security system, invest in new capabilities, further sharpen our competitiveness, and meet the challenges of the future from a position of strength.”
“1 billion for FY2007. The GST increase, reduction in corporate tax and other tax changes taken together, will increase FY2007 operating revenue by $0.3 billion. The GST Offset Package, Workfare, and top-ups to NRF and the endowment funds will cost $2.1 billion. After taking these into account, the estimated FY2007 Overall Budget Balance is a deficit of $0.7 billion. The Government will not need to draw on past reserves as the deficit can be fully financed by funds accumulated since the new Government took office in May 2006. Details of the revised fiscal positions for FY2006 and FY2007 can be found in Annex F*. * Cols. 1531-1534. Ready for the future Mr Speaker, Sir, this Budget is about our future. It will build on our strengths, enhance our capabilities, and provide opportunities for all Singaporeans to strive and succeed. This Budget will sharpen Singapore's competitive edge. We are reducing corporate tax and providing an environment for enterprises small and big to flourish. Singapore will become the best place to start and grow a business. We will invest in our people, enhance our infrastructure, and create a living environment that will inspire every Singaporean. This Budget also strengthens our social security system. We are raising the employer CPF contribution rate to help our workers become more financially secure and to provide for their future medical, housing and retirement needs. We are taking a bold new approach to help those at the lower end of our workforce. Their wages are being held down by globalisation. Our older workers, especially, find it difficult to secure jobs, and many lower-income households struggle to make ends meet. We will reduce their CPF contribution rates to help them stay employable and to increase their take-home pay.”
“They spend most of their take-home pay, or about $3,000 a month of spending. They will pay an additional GST of $57 per month or $685 per year typically. The couple has two children, one in primary school and the other in secondary school. They will get a total of over $4,200 from the GST Offset Package - comprising $1,700 in GST Credits5, $790 in U-Save rebates, about $340 in S&CC rebates, $1,200 of PSEA top-ups, and $200 of property tax rebates for 2008 and 2009. Add it all up, it comes to six years’ worth of the GST increase in the case of this family. In addition, on an on-going basis, even after the GST offsets are distributed and over with, this family will be getting ongoing improvement in their standard of living because the wife will qualify for $900 from the Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) scheme and the husband gets an increase in his employer’s CPF contributions as well. 5 This includes the $100 NS component for the husband. The GST Offset Package is therefore a substantial one that will help the majority of Singaporeans offset their increased GST costs for several years. Low-income households, in particular, will be well provided for, both through the GST Offset Package and the WIS. Even after the GST offsets have been distributed, Workfare will continue to provide significant support for low-income workers on a continuing basis. This is why the GST, combined with the Workfare Income Supplement Scheme, is not regressive. Lower-income workers will end up better because of this - better off compared to before the GST increase and the introduction of Workfare. CONCLUSION FY2007 Budget position Mr Speaker, Sir, let me now summarise the FY2007 budget position. Excluding Special Transfers and tax changes, we expect a surplus of $1.”
“More details will be announced by MCYS. Additional subsidies for healthcare, education and Service and Conservancy Charges The Government will provide the restructured hospitals and polyclinics with more grants to fully absorb the additional GST on subsidised healthcare services. This will cost the Government an additional $12 million a year. We will also absorb the GST payable on school and miscellaneous fees as well as fees and tuition grants at ITEs, polytechnics and universities. This will cost an additional $40 million a year. Town councils will also get an additional $10 million a year to absorb the additional GST payable on Service and Conservancy Charges. Overall impact of the GST Offset Package on households Let me summarise the overall impact of the GST Offset Package for Singaporean households. Most households will receive GST Credits, Senior Citizens' Bonuses, PSEA top-ups, U-Save, S&CC and rental rebates, and property tax rebates. Taking these offsets alone, those living in four-room flats will receive benefits that are, on average, seven times the extra GST that they will have to pay each year. In other words, seven years' worth of offset. Even those in executive flats will receive four years' worth of offset on average. The lowest-income households will receive the most. For instance, two-roomers will receive about 16 years' worth of offsets, or 16 times the increase in their annual GST expenditure. More details can be found in the Annex*. * Cols. 1529-1530. Take the example of an average Singaporean family living in a four-room flat. This example is typical. If I were to choose a lower-income family, the benefits would be larger. Husband, aged 42, earns $2,800 a month. His wife, aged 37, earns $1,000 a month.”
“We will enhance the Kindergarten Financial Assistance Scheme (KiFAS) by increasing the level of subsidy from 75% of kindergarten fees, which is where it is currently, to 90%. This means that low-income families will now be able to enjoy a subsidy of about $80 a month. Subsidies for the Centre-Based Financial Assistance Scheme for ChildCare (CFAC) will be increased by between $20 and $40 a month for each child. Other enhancements to the ComCare Fund programmes will be announced by MCYS later. These enhancements will cost a total of $6 million a year. Assistance for pensioners The Government has decided to increase the Singapore Allowance further by $20 per month, and raise the gross pension ceiling from the current $1,100 to $1,150 per month. The revision will give an additional $4 million a year to pensioners residing in Singapore. Public Transport Fund While public transport remains affordable for the majority of Singaporeans, there are lower-income families who need more help. The Government will commit $10 million, to a Public Transport Fund (PTF) in October 2007, to be given out over three years. This will provide additional help to lower-income households for their public transport costs where necessary. Assistance through Citizens' Consultative Committees (CCCs), Self-Help Groups and VWOs Although we have a comprehensive GST Offset Package, it is possible that some households will face special difficulties. The best way to help them is through flexible assistance from their CCCs. I will therefore top up the CCC ComCare Fund by $5 million over five years. To help lower-income Singaporean families, the Government will also provide $2 million over five years to the Self-Help Groups, and $3 million over five years for Government-funded VWO programmes.”
“We will top up these accounts from time to time, when our surpluses allow, and give more to those who are less well-off. I will credit the accounts of those in secondary school or older with $400 in 2008, and another $400 in 2009. Those of primary school age will get less as they can get more PSEA top-ups in future years if we are able to share surpluses. The PSEA top-ups will cost $400 million and benefit around 650,000 children. Table 3 - Structure of PSEA Top-ups (each year) Age of Child in Year of Payout Annual Value of Home less or equal to $10,000 Annual Value of Home more than $10,000 7 to 12 $200 $100 13 to 20 $400 $200 Utilities-Save (U-Save), Service and Conservancy Charges (S&CC), and Rental Rebates As part of the GST Offset Package, I will also extend the Utilities-Save, S&CC and Rental Rebates to eligible HDB households for five years, from 1st April 2007 to 31st March 2012. This will help low to middle-income households cope with increased household expenses that they face due to the GST increase. The U-Save and S&CC rebates will also be extended to those living in HDB executive flats. These rebates will benefit 800,000 HDB households and cost a total of $800 million over five years. Property tax rebate I will provide a one-off property tax rebate of up to $100 per year in 2008 and 2009, in other words $200 in total for all owner-occupied residential properties. This will benefit about one million property owners, with three- and four-room HDB flat owners paying little to no property tax in 2008 and 2009. This will cost the Government $200 million. Assistance for low-income families with young children To help lower-income families with young children, we will increase financial assistance for kindergarten and childcare.”
“Senior Citizens' Bonus I will give senior citizens more. Many of them will be concerned about the GST increase because they have to meet their living expenses out of their savings. We will therefore provide Singaporeans aged 55 and above with a Senior Citizens' Bonus, as long as they have annual assessable incomes of $100,000 or less. Those aged 60 and above will get more, with amounts ranging from $1,000 for those in the lower-income group to $400 for those who are better off. As with the GST Credits, the quantums will depend on their income and the annual value of their homes. Two-thirds of the Senior Citizens' Bonus will be given in cash and one-third credited into their Medisave Accounts on st July of each year. For example, a 65-year-old retiree living in a three-room flat will get $1,000 of Senior Citizens' Bonus on top of the $1,000 he will get in GST Credits, making a total of $2,000 over four years. The Senior Citizens' Bonus will cost the Government $400 million. Table 2 - Structure of Senior Citizens’ Bonus Annual Value of Home $5,000 or less More than $5,000 and up to $10,000 More than $10,000 Annual Assessable Income $24,000 or less Aged 55 - 59: $600 ($150 per year for 4 years) Aged 60 & above: $1,000 ($250 per year for 4 years) Aged 55 - 59: $400 ($100 per year for 4 years) Aged 60 & above: $800 ($200 per year for 4 years) Aged 55 -59: $200 ($50 per year for 4 years) Aged 60 & above: $400 ($100 per year for 4 years) More than $24,000 and up to $100,000 Top-ups to Post-Secondary Education Accounts We want to help families with the costs of their children's post-secondary education. As I mentioned earlier, we will open Post-Secondary Education Accounts (PSEA) for all Singapore citizen children aged from seven to 20 from next year.”
“Those who live in one- to three-room flats4 and have annual assessable incomes of $24,000 or less will qualify for the largest quantum of $1,000. This $1,000 will be paid out in instalments of $250 per year over four years. Nearly three-quarters of the population will receive GST Credits of $800, again in instalments of $200 each year over the next four years. Next, if you live in a larger home with an AV of more than $10,000 but your income is less than $100,000 a year, you will get $400 in GST Credits. The top income group comprising those earning over $100,000 a year will get $100 of GST Credits, paid one time. It is a small gesture, but recognises that the GST increase affects everyone. 4 This refers to those living in flats with AV of $5,000 or less. It covers virtually all HDB residents in one- to three-room flats. Table 1 - Structure of GST Credits Annual Value of Home $5,000 or less More than $5,000 and up to $10,000 More than $10,000 Annual Assessable Income $24,000 or less $1,000 ($250 per year for 4 years) $800 ($200 per year for 4 years) $400 ($100 per year for 4 years) More than $24,000 and up to $100,000 More than $100,000 $100 (for 1 year) NSmen and NSFs, including those aged below 21, will also get an additional $100 of GST Credits to recognise their contributions to national security. They will get their bonus GST Credits in the year that they qualify. So a person who becomes an NSF in 2008 or 2009 will also get the bonus GST Credits in that year. Singaporeans will have to sign up just once to qualify for all four years of GST Credits though the amount they get will be assessed yearly, based on their income and residence. The first instalment will be paid out on 1st July this year, at the same time as the GST increase.”
“It is better to raise prices at one go and compensate Singaporeans with a substantial offset package. By doing it in one step, it also means that no one can profiteer by raising prices in anticipation of a second step. For businesses, it also saves costs because they will not need to adjust their systems twice. We will make it easier for smaller businesses to register for GST. SPRING will subsidise up to 50% of GST registration-related costs for Internet connection and IT consultancy and training for small enterprises. This support will be in place for two years starting from March 2007. SPRING and IRAS will also work with the industry chambers and associations to provide free automation software to businesses and help them administer the GST. GST OFFSET PACKAGE This brings me to the measures we will take to offset the GST increase. We will put in place a comprehensive set of measures for Singaporeans, with more for the lower-income. The majority of Singaporeans will get offsets that are equal to at least five years of the increase in their expenditures as a result of the higher GST. Lower-income households will get much more than five years' worth. This GST Offset Package will cost the Government $4 billion in total over the five-year period. Helping Singaporeans cope with the GST increase GST Credits Of this $4 billion, $1.8 billion will be given out in cash, in the form of GST Credits. All adult Singaporeans will receive GST Credits in annual instalments. The amount that a person receives will depend on two factors - his assessable income (AI) and the annual value (AV) of his home, which is used as a proxy for his wealth. I will give lower-income Singaporeans larger GST Credits.”
“We are studying this carefully and discussing with the President the proposed revisions to the Net Investment Income formula. We expect to be able to increase the investment income available for spending by the Government by taking in capital gains as part of this income. What we aim to do is to work out a formula that strikes a fair balance between the claims of present and future generations, because the financial security and spending needs of tomorrow are no less important than those of today. But we cannot rely on Net Investment Income alone to cover everything that we need to spend on. Instead, we must use the additional income from our reserves to secure further improvements to our competitiveness, to make longer-term investments in infrastructure and R&D, and to top up the endowment funds that will bring value to Singaporeans for many years to come. This way, the NII will help to boost the growth of our economy over the long term. The increased expenditures that we will have to make on the social front over time should, therefore, be funded primarily by other revenues. Raising the Goods and Services Tax rate This is why PM announced last year that we will raise the GST rate. Doing this will broaden our tax base, and enable the Government to implement Workfare and other initiatives to strengthen our social cohesion and grow our economy. I have decided to raise the GST rate to 7% with effect from 1st July 2007. It is prudent to implement the GST increase now, in one step, while the economy is strong. This is expected to raise additional revenues of $750 million this year, and $1.5 billion per year going forward. I have carefully considered the alternative of spreading out the increase in the GST over two years, and decided against it.”
“Extending stamp duty relief Today, only limited liability companies and registered business trusts qualify for stamp duty relief on intra-group transfers of assets. I have decided to extend this relief to unlimited companies, Limited Liability Partnerships (LLPs) where all the partners are companies, and Statutory Boards. This will take effect from today. Rationalising liquor duties Some liquors are taxed on the basis of alcoholic content while others are taxed on the basis of volume. We will progressively move towards taxing liquors on the basis of alcoholic content. From 1st January 2008, I will tax beer and stout on this new basis. This is a rationalisation of duties and is not aimed at generating additional revenues. In addition, we will harmonise the Customs and Excise duty rates for beer and stout. The new rates are set out in the Annex* to my speech. * Cols. 1527-1528. Reviewing asset taxes We mentioned in 2006 that we will review our asset taxes, including estate duty. I have decided to postpone a verdict on this. There have been many calls also to rationalise the structure of estate duty on residential properties and other assets respectively. I prefer to take this together with the decision on whether we will retain estate duty. Raising new revenues Let me now turn to the issue of raising revenues to ensure long-term fiscal sustainability. To meet our future expenditure needs and ensure that we remain competitive on direct taxes, we will raise additional revenues from two sources - income from our reserves, and GST. Drawing more income from the reserves First, the Government intends to amend the Constitution to revise the rule that allocates Net Investment Income (NII) from past reserves for spending.”
“I have also decided to extend the Foreign Domestic Worker Levy Concession, which currently only applies to those with young children and elderly parents, to employers with disabled family members, in other words, where there are disabled family members, or the employers are themselves disabled and need additional care-giving support. This will take effect from 1st November 2007. The Foreign Domestic Worker Levy changes will cost the Government $75 million a year. More details on the qualifying criteria for the extension of the concession to those with disabilities will be announced by the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports. Reducing the foreign worker levy To help companies save costs, I will lower the second tier foreign worker levy for the manufacturing and services sectors from $310 to $280 with effect from April 2007. This will cost the Government about $1 million a year. The Minister for Manpower will also be announcing other measures to facilitate access to manpower in the construction sector and certain other industries that are growing very rapidly. Extending tax relief for cash top-ups to CPF Accounts by siblings Currently, a person can claim up to $7,000 in tax relief each year for making cash top-ups to his, his parents', his grandparents' or his spouse's CPF Retirement Accounts, provided the beneficiary is aged 55 and above. To encourage greater support from close family members and not just children, we will extend this tax relief for cash top-ups to siblings who are aged 55 and above, and who earn $2,000 or less in the year preceding the top-up. This will take effect from YA2008.”
“Therefore, we will continue to monitor the trends in personal income tax rates of competing locations. The changes to the framework for drawing investment income on our reserves will enable us to lower our rates further if necessary. Rationalising indirect taxes I have decided to implement other tax changes to rationalise our indirect tax regime. Abolishing Cess First, I will remove the current broad-based Cess that applies to F&B outlets. For those who are not familiar with this, it is the second of the three 'pluses' on the bill you get at a restaurant. This will cost the Government about $30 million a year. Cess has played a role in helping to fund the promotion of tourism. The Government will study more targeted ways to use Cess in future, where necessary, to fund specific tourism events. Reducing road tax I will reduce road tax by 8% for passenger cars and motorcycles. This is part of our move to shift progressively towards taxing on the basis of vehicle usage rather than ownership. Someone who owns a 2.0 litre car (eg, a Toyota Picnic) and who currently pays $1,550 in annual road tax will get about $124 in savings. Details will be announced by the Ministry of Transport. Reducing the Foreign Domestic Worker Levy I will reduce the monthly Foreign Domestic Worker Levy by $30 from 1st July 2007. This will benefit one in every six households in Singapore, which currently employs a foreign maid. It will be particularly helpful for families that need a maid to help take care of dependants.”
“We recognise that our SMEs will typically face greater difficulties in meeting the higher costs due to the CPF employer contribution increase. Therefore, I have decided to give them a rebate on their labour expenses for two years. In the first year, this will take the form of a 2% cash rebate on the first $40,000 of total employer and employee CPF contributions of a firm. On the next $40,000 of total CPF contributions, we will give a 1% rebate. These percentages will be halved in the second year. This rebate will effectively offset up to 45% of the additional CPF cost that SMEs face in the first year and cost the Government $100 million in total. Details can be found in the Annex*. * Cols. 1525-1526. Keeping our personal income tax regime competitive Personal income taxes have also been coming down worldwide, although not to the same extent as corporate taxes. We have gradually lowered our personal income tax rates, most recently with a two-percentage point cut to 20%. We aim to keep personal income taxes low. This will maximise the incentives for all Singaporeans to work hard and reap the rewards of their efforts. It will also help us to attract and keep both international and Singaporean talent here. For most taxpayers, our personal income tax regime is already competitive, because our marginal tax rate schedule is highly progressive. Thus, individuals with assessable incomes of up to half a million dollars pay less tax in Singapore than in Hong Kong; in fact, up to about $530,000 of assessable income, you pay less tax in Singapore compared to Hong Kong. However, at the very top end, some other jurisdictions have lower effective tax rates than us, including Hong Kong. For attracting and keeping top talent, this is an issue.”
“Recognising that business borrowings are now taking various innovative and non-traditional forms, I will now allow all borrowing costs that are essentially similar to interest to qualify as tax-deductible expenses, with effect from YA2008. Such tax deductible costs will include certain guarantee fees and bond discounts. This will cost the Government $110 million a year. IRAS will release further details on this change. Making Singapore the best location to start and grow companies I spoke earlier about our intention to make Singapore the best location for companies to start, grow and globalise. Our tax regime for SMEs and start-ups is already attractive. We will make it more so. I have decided to increase the Partial Tax Exemption threshold for companies from the current $100,000 to $300,000, with effect from YA2008. This will cost the Government $150 million. All companies will enjoy this exemption, but it will benefit SMEs the most. This will mean that almost 80% of taxable companies in Singapore will pay taxes at effective rates of less than 10%. It also means that a company with chargeable income of $500,000 will pay tax at an effective rate of 12.5%, equal to Ireland and significantly lower than comparable rates in Hong Kong. I will also enhance our tax regime for start-ups. Start-ups currently enjoy full tax exemption on the first $100,000 of their chargeable income for each of their first three years of assessment between YA2005 and YA2009. I have decided to remove the YA2009 expiry date so that all start-ups will henceforth enjoy a full three years of exemption. These moves, coupled with the reduction in corporate tax rate to 18%, will make Singapore one of the most competitive locations in the world for SMEs and start-ups.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the plans I have laid out for CPF and Workfare represent the Government’s commitment to address the dislocations caused by globalisation and ensure a sense of cohesion and financial security among Singaporeans. We are also making major new investments in our social and economic infrastructures. At the same time, we want to be able to reduce direct taxes to enhance our competitiveness. To do all this, we must therefore raise additional revenues. I will now map out our plans on the revenue front. Reducing direct taxes Restructuring the corporate income tax system First, direct taxes - we will make a significant move on corporate income tax in this Budget. The landscape is now more competitive than it was, even five years ago. Globally, corporate tax rates have come down to an average of 27% compared to 31% five years ago. Hong Kong's rate is currently at 17.5%, and could go down further. Ireland's is 12.5%. The emerging Eastern European economies have become serious competitors for global investment - Czech Republic's is at 24%. Poland's and Slovak's Republic are at 19%. Hungary's is at 16%. Latvia's and Lithuania's are at 15%. As a broad-based measure to help all companies and to keep Singapore attractive as a business location, I have decided to reduce the corporate tax rate by two percentage points, to 18%, with effect from YA2008. This will cost the Government $800 million a year. This corporate tax cut will bring Singapore more investments and more good jobs over time. I will also do more to keep our tax regime relevant to new business structures and financial practices.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That Parliament doth agree with the Committee on the said resolutions." Question put, and agreed to. Resolutions accordingly agreed to.”
“The effective execution of CPR requires both technical skills and mental readiness. An individual trained in CPR further needs experience and maturity to assess whether a crisis situation needs one to effect an appropriate intervention through CPR or not. In secondary schools, First Aid is a core component in all Uniformed Group (UG) training programmes. The First Aid course is at the basic level which includes teaching students to render first aid treatment for cuts and bruises, and the dressing of wounds. However, the First Aid Course does not include CPR. CPR requires additional training and certification. Only Uniformed Groups like Red Cross, SJAB and National Civil Defence Cadet Corps that have trained instructors include CPR as a compulsory training component as part of an extended First Aid package. CPR requires judgement and technical expertise to be appropriately and effectively executed in a given crisis situation. The training of CPR requires skilled instructors who need to be re-certified every three years. Likewise, trainees need to be re-certified regularly. It would therefore be best left to professional bodies with qualified trainers to promote CPR within the community rather than to incorporate CPR into the school curriculum. FOREIGN MAID LEVY TAX (Deduction for singles) 16. Dr Fatimah Lateef asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance if he will consider allowing foreign maid levy tax deduction for singles who have the responsibility of looking after their aged parents as currently only married women or those separated, divorced or widowed with children, who can claim child relief, are eligible for such tax deduction.”
“Miss Penny Low asked the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (a) if he will give an update on, and the reasons for, means testing for special needs education; and (b) whether there are sufficient safeguards to ensure that parents of children with special needs will send them to schools.”
“3 Resident Discouraged Workers Number 7,300 6,100 6,000 As a % of Economically Inactive 0.7 0.6 0.6 As a % of Labour Force (Inclusive of Discouraged Workers) 0.4 0.3 0.3 Source: Labour Force Survey, MOM Notes: (1) Employment rate refers to the proportion of residents in the specific age group who are employed. (2) Long-term unemployment rate refers to the proportion of the resident labour force (i.e. employed or unemployed) who have been unemployed for 25 weeks or more. (3) Economic inactivity rate refers to the proportion of residents in the specific age group who are not in the labour force (i.e. neither working nor looking for work). * Data pertains to residents aged 15 & over. For residents aged 25-64, the economic inactivity rate has declined from 24% in June 2003 to 21% in June 2006. (4) Discouraged workers are persons outside of the labour force who are currently not looking for a job because they believe their job search would be in vain. Reasons cited for being discouraged include: (1) Believes no suitable work available; (2) Employers’ discrimination (e.g. prefer younger workers); or (3) Lacks necessary qualifications, training, skills or experience. (5) Conceptually, a person can be classified as employed, unemployed or economically inactive. As such, the sum of employment rate and economically inactivity rate will not necessarily add up to 100%. (6) June Labour Force Survey was not conducted in 2005 due to the conduct of the General Household Survey by the Department of Statistics, MTI. SPECIAL NEEDS EDUCATION (Update and safeguards) 8.”
“# The first batch of Secondary 4 N(A) students, who will be selected at the end of Secondary 3 in 2006, will skip the ‘N’ level examinations in 2007. REDUCTION IN UNEMPLOYMENT 7. Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the reduction in the number of long-term-unemployed from 2003 to date includes those not necessarily employed, such as those undergoing training, those who have given up the job search and those affected by other such factors; and (b) how much of these other factors contributed to the reduction in unemployment. Dr Ng Eng Hen: By definition, as adopted to conform with international standards, the long-term unemployed excludes those who are economically inactive, such as those pursuing education or training, or choose to retire or stay at home due to family responsibilities. In recent years, the proportion of the economically inactive – i.e. those who are not looking for jobs - has actually fallen as more chose to enter a growing job market. The economic inactivity rate in June 2003 was 37% but in June 2006, had actually fallen to 35%*. The improvement in long-term unemployment rates reported recently for Singapore are due to good economic growth. As a result, more people are able to find jobs quicker and are now working. Compared to 2003, the employment rate in 2006 had increased by about 2%. A summary of the statistics is in Table 1. Table 1: Resident Employment Rate, Long-Term Unemployment Rate and Economic Inactivity Rate, 2003, 2004 and 2006 (As at June) 2003 2004 2006 Long-Term Unemployment Rate (%) 1.5 1.7 0.9 Employment Rate (%) Aged 15 & Over 59.5 59.6 62.1 Aged 25-64 71.8 72.3 75.5 Economic Inactivity Rate (%) Aged 15 & Over 36.8 36.7 35.0 Aged 25-64 24.0 23.6 21.”
“From this year, schools that are ready have also been able to allow selected N(A) students to skip the 'N' level examinations altogether, and take a five-year course aimed at preparing them for their ‘O’ level examinations.# Some of our secondary schools have introduced further innovations to customise learning for their students. For example, Dunman Secondary School has adopted a form of subject-based banding for their students. Secondary 3 N(A) students who are strong in Mathematics attend classes with the Express students, while Secondary 3 N(T) students who are good in Mathematics attend classes with the N(A) students. MOE will continue to review our secondary school landscape and streaming policies. We will learn from experience with the various flexibilities that have been introduced in schools, and explore ways to further refine secondary school education over time. _________________________________________________________________________________ * From 2005, there are provisions for lateral transfers to N(A) course i.e. Sec 2N(T) to Sec 2N(A), Sec 3N(T) to Sec 3N(A) and Sec 4N(T) to Sec 4N(A). This change resulted in an increase in the number of N(T) students promoted or transferred to the N(A) course, from 210 in 2004 to 370 in 2005. The year refers to when the transfer was effected, i.e. 370 N(T) students transferred from 2004 N(T) to 2005 N(A). ^ For a start, Mother Tongue Languages (MTL) and Mathematics were offered. In 2004, it was decided that the range of examinations that N(A) students could sit for be expanded to the full range of ‘O’ Level subjects from 2006. Schools that were ready could offer the option to their students from 2005.”
“Streaming in schools is an educationally sound approach that has served us well. By offering teaching and learning approaches based on students’ different abilities and learning styles, it allows students to learn at an appropriate pace and progress as far as possible in their studies. This is how we have brought the attrition rate in schools down, to about 3% currently. Through the years, MOE has been regularly reviewing and refining our approaches to streaming, so that we can help our students learn as best as they can. At the primary level, we have made several refinements to the system, including as Mr Liang has noted, the introduction of subject-based banding to replace the current EM3 stream, starting from 2008. At the secondary level, students currently take the Express, Normal (Academic) [N(A)] or Normal (Technical) [N(T)] courses. The N(A) course which Mr Liang asked about has allowed students who will have difficulty taking the ‘O’ levels in four years to prepare for the ‘N’ levels instead. Many of them go on to take their ‘O’ levels in Secondary 5. By doing this over five years, they learn at a more comfortable pace, and are able to do better. Similar to the primary level, we have been introducing greater flexibility for students in secondary schools. To cater to late developers, we allow for transfers between the Express, N(A) and N(T) courses. For the N(T) students, we now allow for lateral transfers after Secondary 2, and beyond.* N(A) and N(T) students are also able to take up to two of their subjects at a higher level.^ Over 2,400 (or 20%) N(A) students sat for one or two ‘O’ Level examinations while in Secondary 4 in 2005.”
“With greater awareness of the ENABLE Fund and public education on the abilities and productivity of persons with disabilities, I hope more companies will recognise the work value of people with disabilities and provide them jobs.”
“The ENABLE fund is open to employers who are willing to hire four or more persons with disabilities. As at 15th January 2007, 14 companies have tapped on the fund, with 41 workers benefiting from it. There are another seven companies currently at different stages of discussion with the Singapore National Employers' Federation (SNEF), which administers the ENABLE Fund. As the ENABLE Fund has just been launched, it is still too early to establish if the grant is sufficient. The Employment Sub-committee of the Enabling Masterplan is concurrently gathering feedback from the employers through focus group discussions on how to assist persons with disabilities in getting employment. The committee is a 3P effort, involving the people sector, the private sector and the public sector. In addition to voluntary welfare organisations, the sub-committee also has representatives from the National Trades Union Congress, the Singapore Workforce Development Agency, the Singapore National Employers' Federation, the Singapore Human Resource Institute, the Ministry of Manpower and several employers. These agencies are well placed to advise on the ENABLE Fund. If adjustment to the grant is necessary, the Enabling Masterplan Employment Sub-committee will make the appropriate recommendations to my Ministry. Meanwhile, SNEF has been actively promoting the ENABLE Fund through marketing brochures and posters, and the distribution of marketing collaterals to SNEF member companies. A Disability Awareness and Public Education campaign has been launched in conjunction with the International Day of Disabled Persons on 3rd December last year.”
“For example, today, Bizlink Centre, a central job placement agency funded by MCYS and the National Council for Social Service, manages to place about 250 Persons with Disabilities into open employment annually, while another 1,300 of them are finding employment in our sheltered workshops. My Ministry firmly believes that employment is the best form of self reliance for the disabled and will encourage all persons with disability, who are work-capable, to seek employment. However, we recognise that people with disabilities do face difficulties in securing employment, not because they are incapable but because they are often not given the opportunity to demonstrate what they are capable of. That is why my Ministry worked with the Singapore Workforce Development Agency to set up the ENABLE Fund (Engaging Persons with Disabilities in Employment Fund) in July 2006. It aims to encourage employers to make that first step of employing people with disabilities. Through the process, these companies which employ people with disabilities will demonstrate that people with disabilities can also be contributing staff and they are employed not out of compassion, but based on their merit. This is what the disabled community is asking for too. The ENABLE Fund is one of the many initiatives that my ministry has to encourage employment amongst persons with disabilities. It complements the efforts of Bizlink, which also conducts vocational assessments and onsite job counselling or coaching after placement to help the employee with disability adjust to his new work environment. For example, Natural Cool Holdings, one of the companies that has tapped on ENABLE Fund, has utilised the grant to engage a training officer from Bizlink to coach its staff.”
“The Ministry of Finance has not influenced the GIC, or Temasek, for that matter, on their decisions on when to realise investments. Let me say, more generally, that this is a very complicated issue. We are concerned about having to smooth out what are inherently volatile flows. We are working with the President to devise a formula that we think is practicable and is fair to both current and future generations. We will be coming to Parliament in a few months' time to amend the Constitution and we can have a fuller discussion then. ENGAGING PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES IN EMPLOYMENT (ENGAGE) FUND 13. Mdm Halimah Yacob asked the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (a) since its establishment, how many firms have made use of the Engaging Persons with Disabilities in Employment (ENGAGE) Fund and how many workers have benefited from it; (b) whether this scheme covers workers with chronic illnesses; (c) whether the amount allocated under this Fund to individual companies is sufficient for them to effect changes to accommodate people with disabilities; and (d) what measures have been taken to promote the use of this Fund and the employment of the disabled. The Minister of State for Community Development, Youth and Sports (Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon) (for the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports): Mr Speaker, Sir, we acknowledge that it is not easy to match persons with disabilities with the right jobs. However, I am pleased to say that we have come a long way in facilitating the employment of persons with disabilities. In the past, persons with disabilities would be kept at home and not given the opportunity to work. Now, persons with disabilities are able to find meaningful employment.”
“As I have said, it is volatile and difficult to predict. Past performance is not a very good guide for the future. I can tell you, for instance, that the performance for the last five years, was not as good for capital gains in the previous five years because everyone knows that there was a global equity market collapse four years ago. I would be wary of looking at past performance and saying, "That is the basis on which we project into the future."”
“When the general offer was concluded in March, the Consortium, ie, Temasek and its partners, announced that they intended that Shin Corporation remain a listed entity and that, under the rules and regulations of the Stock Exchange of Thailand, this meant that it should have at least 15% of free float compared to the 4% free float. But they still have another year to achieve this. All this was known and factored into their calculations. CLOSURE OF CAUSEWAY TO HEAVY TRAFFIC 8. Mr Wee Siew Kim asked the Minister for Transport (a) if there are any updates from the Malaysian government on their announcement in August 2006 that the Causeway would be closed to heavy vehicles from Malaysia so as to facilitate the construction of a new road to connect the Johor end of the Causeway to the new Customs, Immigration and Quarantine complex in Bukit Chagar; and (b) what is the impact of the diversion on Singapore.”
“On Mr Inderjit Singh's first question, on the takeover, Temasek understood full well the regulations of the Stock Exchange of Thailand and fully expected to have to make a general share offer. The offer was very well received, perhaps better received than most people expected, so that the eventual share ownership of the consortium as a whole went up to 96%. But it fully expected that it was going to have to make a general offer. On the question of licences, I would rather not speculate on these rumours that have been floating around, whether on AIS or ITV or any other subsidiaries of the Shin Group. Our basic posture should be that, from time to time, there will be surprises wherever we are investing. There may be regulatory changes. In fact, the Thai government is now reviewing the Foreign Business Act which governs all foreign investments in Thailand. And we have to make sure we comply with the laws and regulations at every point in time.”
“So, I would say this quite firmly - our policy of not wanting to intervene, whether it is in political risk assessment or commercial risk assessment, is a sound one and it is in the best interests of both Temasek and the Government. This is how we will be able to sustain this business of earning good long-term returns in fairly risky markets. On the question of size, Temasek has been publishing its figures for a few years now. In its last annual review, it published its total assets at S$129 billion, a fairly large size. Investment experts will not necessarily agree, by the way, that being a very large asset manager is always an advantage. There are pluses and minuses, depending on the sector you are in and your investment strategy. Suffice to say that we are satisfied that, compared to other reasonably large investors - there is no investor perfectly comparable to Temasek - including those who are involved in private equity-like transactions, Temasek has been performing well. The 18% return obtained historically has been a good return. In fact, I can tell you that the investments it has made since 2002, when it started investing more actively in Asian markets, have been substantially above the 18% historical return.”
“On the first question on political risk, I am not very keen to provide our own analysis of what the political outlook for Thailand was at the point that Temasek made its investment. Suffice to say that Temasek did obtain the best advice possible at that time. It is not for me to be involved in assessing whether Temasek made its investment based on the right assessment of political risks. This was a clean transaction on the Stock Exchange of Thailand, paid for entirely in Thailand, totally clean, no influence-peddling. So, I am not keen to get involved in a discussion or debate on whether the specifics of assessment of political risks were accurate. On his other two questions, which I think are relevant, he pointed out that there is a connection to Government, that this is not just an ordinary commercial company. That is true. Temasek is a Fifth Schedule company and I am confident that the Temasek Board understands that, as a commercial company with a close link to the Singapore Government, it will want to play a constructive long-term role in all the markets that it has invested in. That, indeed, is the philosophy of Temasek. But what we should not do is, as I mentioned earlier, to start vetting transactions and deals on the basis of possible political sensitivities because, once we do that, it will backfire. Once we do that, every subsequent transaction will be read into to see, for example, how much of this is in sync with the foreign policy of the Singapore Government. Should we be holding Temasek back from a transaction? Should we be pushing it even harder to move into certain markets? It becomes hazardous. Temasek would not gain and neither would the Government.”
“With that link, does the investment not also take into account the political risk analysis of that investment, especially high-profile investments involving political figures in other countries? Sir, the Minister talked about investment returns of Temasek. May we know whether comparing Temasek's size of investment, in terms of the total capital it has to invest vis-a-vis some other similar investment outfit internationally, how do we fare in terms of investment returns? This is because it is not only in terms of comparing figures but also the size of investment you have which could allow you to have the gain in return. How do we fare on that?”
“Again - and this is somewhat related to Mr Inderjit Singh's earlier question - I do not think we should try to introduce new parameters into the investment decision-making process. It is very hard to know where to draw the line, eg, is it the prime ministers and families of prime ministers, ministers, former ministers, their siblings, and so on - soon we will be wiping out a substantial part of the stock markets in Asia. Every investment has its risks. Be willing to take them, but undertake rigorous due diligence before each investment. That is the job of the Temasek Board and I can assure you that the Temasek Board and management have processes in place to ensure that they are in fact going through full due process, with the best advice, for each of their investments. Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): Sir, the Second Minister for Finance always talks about "due process". Can he elaborate further as to what due process Temasek Holding has gone through in this particular investment, in particular, the political risk assessment, because there were ground sentiments brewing in Thailand before the decision to purchase? There were some adverse ground reactions to the purchase as well as the political reaction to the then-Prime Minister. Sir, my second question is: whilst the Minister has said that the Government has nothing to do with Temasek because it does not influence nor direct what investments Temasek should do, the fact is that whenever something happens on account of an investment that runs afoul or whatever, the Minister would have to answer, and sometimes the Prime Minister would have to answer some questions on it, it shows that Temasek is no ordinary company just purely on a commercial basis.”
“What we are satisfied with is that Temasek undertook appropriate due diligence to ensure that it is in compliance with Thai laws and regulations, not just the laws, but the regulations of the Stock Exchange of Thailand which was where the transaction was undertaken. They obtained the best advice they could obtain - Thai advisers as well as international advisers. They went in with reputable investors who were able to validate Temasek's own risk assessments. So the process was rigorous. Temasek, to the best of its ability and knowledge, acted in compliance with Thai laws. It was not a reckless investment. On her second specific question about Temasek's intention at one point to appoint an advisor, I think his name is M R Tongnoi. Temasek had been discussing this prospect with him. From what I understand, the person had some experience, he is the Chairman of an audit company of a reasonably significant listed company. They subsequently terminated the discussions by mutual agreement. These are matters for Temasek to sort out. The Government should not get involved, and should not intrude in these decisions. Specific appointments, advisory appointments, these are matters for the board to sort out. We are not concerned about Temasek's decision in this matter as it was acting in good faith and with due process.”
“For that matter, we can invest all our reserves in Treasury Bills, 5-year bonds - highly liquid, discrete, small investments, you can pull in and out of the market whenever you want. It is not an unviable strategy. But it is unfortunately a low return strategy. We have got to maintain a diversified portfolio. But we have also got to be willing to take significant risks because that is how significant returns will be obtained in our Government portfolio. There is a difference between Temasek and GIC because GIC is involved primarily in the public markets which tend to be liquid markets. Temasek has a larger portfolio of what we might call private equity-like investments. So the risks will be higher. And we also expect that the returns on the Temasek portfolio will be higher over time. If you look at the past, this has indeed been the case. Temasek has delivered historic returns of about 18% total shareholder value. GIC has delivered good returns. It published its 25-year record a couple of months back which was 8% nominal in Singapore dollar terms, good returns. But this reflects the different types of markets they are involved in. GIC - a large portfolio investor in public markets; Temasek - somewhat more concentrated investments, with higher risks. Overall, the Government looks at this as one large portfolio. We too, like Temasek, must have a strong heart and a bit of patience so that we sustain these good returns.”
“I would not be keen to do that. I do not think it is advisable for the Ministry of Finance or Government to get involved in setting detailed parameters of any sort on an individual investment in the region, or globally, for Temasek, or for GIC for that matter. Asia represents opportunity. It is not as simple an investment landscape as, for instance, the United States. But Asia is where the returns are highest. We have to expect some bumps along the road. We have got to be willing to take the risks - some patience, a strong heart, occasionally your heart skips a beat - but that is how we will achieve good long-term returns on our reserves, which is in the interest of Singaporeans. If the Government starts intervening, influencing or setting detailed guidelines, it will ultimately backfire. Because once it is seen that the Government is involved in the investment decision-making process, then every transaction that goes wrong, and there will be transactions over time that will go wrong in a large investment portfolio, will backfire on us, and it will backfire on Temasek as well. So I rather we keep this simple and clean. We appoint the board, subject to the approval of the Elected President. We change the board if the board is under-performing over time. The board ensures that the management is accountable for performance and the various subsidiary companies are also accountable for performance. And we expect good long-term returns from Temasek. I think that is the neatest framework. It is the form of governance that will allow us to sustain this over the long haul.”
“As regards the media reports on the losses said to have been incurred by Temasek and its Consortium partners for the Shin investment, these have been concerned with paper losses, not realised losses. They are not meaningful estimates. Given that the free float of Shin shares is currently at about 4%, the market price of the shares may not reflect the value of the underlying businesses within the Shin Group. Ultimately, no investment is risk-free. What is critical is that the risks and returns are assessed thoroughly for each investment. Temasek went into Shin as a long-term investor. And time will tell how well this investment will fare. Given the publicity and controversy the Shin investment has generated, the Prime Minister took the opportunity to clarify with his Thai counterpart, Premier Surayud Chulanont, when they met at the recent China-ASEAN summit in Nanning, that Temasek’s investment in Shin was made on a commercial basis, and independent of Government. PM also informed him that Temasek had taken legal and professional advice before entering into the Shin deal, and would continue to comply with Thai laws. Premier Surayud told PM that the Thai government also regarded Temasek’s investment as a commercial deal, and that the current investigations would not be politicised. He also assured PM that the issue would not affect bilateral relations.”
“The investments are the prerogative of Temasek’s board and management. What Government does as shareholder is, first, to ensure that Temasek has a competent board to oversee its management, guide its business strategies and ensure that investments are made with due care and rigour. Second, Government holds Temasek accountable for good long-term returns on its overall performance, not individual deals. Since inception, Temasek has delivered 18% total shareholder return by market value. Third, the Government, and not just the Government but the Temasek Board, requires that its investments abide by the rules and laws of the markets that it is present in. The approach applies to the Shin transaction. The Government played no part in Temasek’s decision to invest in Shin Corp. Temasek made its own commercial decision. What matters for the Government is that Temasek should have a good governance framework, rigorous decision-making processes and regular performance evaluation. I can assure the House that these are in place. Mr Inderjit Singh and Mr Alvin Yeo have asked if any laws were breached when Temasek invested in Shin. Temasek was guided by advice from Thai legal experts as well as Thai and international financial and investment advisors. They received expert advice. Temasek followed precedents for foreign investment in Thailand. It also went in with reputable Thai co-investors, including a leading bank with a strong reputation in Thailand. Temasek had, to the best of its knowledge and abilities, acted in accordance with Thai laws. It has also indicated its commitment to continue to cooperate fully with the Thai authorities in any investigations.”
“Mr Inderjit Singh and Mr Alvin Yeo have asked questions concerning Temasek’s investment in Shin Corp in Thailand and the Government’s position on the acquisition. Temasek invested in Shin Corp because it assessed that the company offered a good opportunity to participate in Thailand’s growing economy for the long term. The investment was consistent with Temasek’s strategy to invest more in Asia, including ASEAN, China and India. In January this year, Temasek and its Thai partners formed a Consortium and bought 49.6% of Shin Corp from family members of the former Thai Prime Minister, Dr Thaksin Shinawatra. As the purchase crossed the Thai takeover limit of 25%, the Consortium made a mandatory general offer for the remaining Shin Corp shares in accordance with the regulations of the Stock Exchange of Thailand. There was high acceptance of the general offer, resulting in the Consortium owning a 96% stake at the conclusion of the offer in March. Temasek has in place a comprehensive risk management framework to guide it in its investments. It takes into consideration a broad range of risks, including political risk, financial and market risks, as well as the risks involved in executing the investment. A decision on an investment is only taken after a clear-headed business analysis and weighing up of the risk-reward trade-offs. Temasek applied this process to its investment in Shin. Mr Singh and Mr Yeo have asked whether Government agrees with this investment. The Government’s position, as previously articulated in this House, is and must be that Temasek’s investments are commercial decisions, taken independently of Government. We do not direct or influence individual investments by Temasek.”
“As with primary schools, parents and students will have the flexibility to seek admission to any other schools, if they are not keen on accepting the places allocated to them by MOE. In such cases, a student will be evaluated separately by the school he approaches, based on his CPT results as well as any other merit-based criteria set by the school. Third, MOE will allow secondary schools to admit a small number of returning Singaporean students, over and above their planned capacity. This is to recognise that Singaporean children, who are overseas, are unable to seek admission at the same time as those who are in Singapore and thus, may miss out on attending a school of their choice, even though they are well-qualified to do so. This change will not reduce the chances for students in Singapore to get into the school of their choice as there will be no reduction in the number of school places available to them as a result of this change. Instead, we will allow for a few additional places to cater to the needs of returning Singaporeans. All students will still be admitted on merit. Details of the CPT and the posting system will be announced later. With these new measures, Singaporeans will find it easier to return and re-integrate into our schools. Further, in addition to these improved local school admission procedures, families who have been overseas for some time also continue to have the option of seeking approval for admission to a foreign school in Singapore. SUICIDES AMONG FOREIGN WORKERS (Figures) 6. Mdm Halimah Yacob asked the Minister for Manpower with regard to the recent report on suicides among foreign workers, what is the breakdown of foreigners committing suicide by nationality and how many of these were foreign domestic workers.”
“The test enables the school to know if the child has the required education level to fit into the school cohort, and also enables the school to determine the appropriate level the child should be placed into. However, this does mean that returning Singaporean children often have to approach a few schools and to sit for several school-based placement tests. This mechanism can be improved. MOE will put in place three improvements to make re-entry into the local education system friendlier. This will give Singaporeans who work abroad more reassurance and help encourage citizens to venture abroad, knowing that it will not be a problem for their children to re-enter our schools. The admission of returning Singaporeans will also enrich the school environment, and benefit all our students. First, at the primary school level, MOE will do away with the need for placement tests for returning Singaporean children seeking placement. Instead, MOE will identify a primary school nearest to their home with vacancies and offer a place to the child. We will implement this by the middle of this year. With this system, parents will no longer need to go around searching for a primary school place. However, parents will still have the flexibility to seek school places for their children on their own, if they wish. Second, at the secondary school level, MOE will also do away with the need for returning Singaporean children to sit for multiple school-based tests. Instead, MOE will develop a Centralised Placement Test (CPT) to provide a common yardstick. MOE will conduct a posting exercise to allocate returning Singaporean children to schools, based on their school choices and their results in the CPT, subject to available vacancies.”
“The number of returning Singaporean children seeking the Ministry’s assistance for placement into our schools had remained fairly constant at about 130 cases for primary schools and about 115 cases for secondary schools each year from 2001 to 2004. Last year, more students chose to return to Singapore and enter our schools. The number increased to about 220 cases for primary schools and 210 cases for secondary schools in 2005. Currently, MOE has in place a number of measures to help Singaporean children who are overseas or returning home find a suitable place in our schools. For a start, we help returning Singaporean children entering primary one the following year to participate in the annual Primary One Registration Exercise at the same time as other local Singaporeans. They need not be physically in Singapore. The parents can either appoint a proxy to register on their behalf or they can indicate their choices to MOE and we will act on their behalf. Once the child is registered with a school, they can apply for Leave of Absence Scheme if they are not returning to Singapore in time to start school the following year. We will reserve the child’s place in that school until the child returns to Singapore. Similarly, students who are in secondary school but need to leave Singapore can have their places reserved for their return under the Leave of Absence Scheme. For Singaporean children who have not participated in the Primary 1 registration or have not had a place reserved for them, the Ministry provides a one-stop service by helping them identify schools with vacancies near their home. The child would then have to sit for and pass the school’s placement test.”
“The household income ceiling for students to qualify for the newly introduced MOE bursary for university students is not lower than that for the MOE Financial Assistance Scheme for schools. In fact, the MOE bursary for university students effectively has a higher qualifying income ceiling. The MOE Financial Assistance Scheme for schools has a qualifying gross monthly household income of $1,500 for 1-2 child families, or $1,800 for families with 3 or more children. It is targeted at the lowest 20% of households. The MOE university bursary has a qualifying gross monthly per capita household income of $900. It is targeted at the lower 50% of households. If we take a four-member family comprising two parents and two children, a gross per capita household income of $900 translates to a household income of $3,600, which is more than double the qualifying household income of the financial assistance scheme for schools. The lower income ceiling for students qualifying for MOE financial assistance in schools reflects the fact that school fees are much more heavily subsidised to begin with. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION SCHOLARS (Household income) 26. Dr Tan Sze Wee asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) what is the mean household income for Public Service Commission (PSC) scholars who had their undergraduate education funded by the PSC, compared with the national average from 2003 to 2005; (b) if the PSC can provide information on the percentage of scholars who come from families that live in private housing; and (c) how does this percentage compare to the national average.”
“Mdm Ho Geok Choo also asked about relief teachers. On any given day in a school, a few teachers may not be in school due to maternity leave, medical leave, or training. Schools either redeploy other trained teachers, or hire relief teachers to cover their duties for a few days or sometimes even a few months. Currently, on average, a school would hire about seven relief teachers per school term. Majority of these relief teachers only cover duties for a few days to one month. 1 In 2005, MOE recruited about 100 ex-teachers on permanent establishment and over 900 ex-teachers as Adjunct Teachers. 2 This refers to the Adjunct Teachers who were appointed during the period October 2004-February 2006. PURCHASE OF SHIN CORPORATION OF THAILAND (Consideration of political risk) 19. Mr Low Thia Khiang asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether political risk was considered by Temasek Holdings in the purchase of Shin Corp of Thailand and, if so, to what extent was the risk weighed.”
“Mdm Ho wanted to know how the 5-day week has impacted the turnover in the teaching profession. As resignation rates have remained stable, we cannot say with any precision if the 5-day week has had an impact on turnover in the teaching profession. However, we know from feedback that many teachers have welcomed the 5-day work week and the added flexibility it brings. MOE welcomes teachers who have left to return to MOE when they are ready. A significant number do so. Last year, we re-appointed around 1,000 ex-teachers1, either as adjunct teachers or on the permanent establishment. Dr Tan Boon Wan asked about adjunct teachers. Since the Adjunct Teachers Programme was introduced in October 2004, MOE has engaged about 1,100 Adjunct Teachers2. These teachers are deployed in almost 90% of our schools. About half of the Adjunct Teachers are retired teachers, while the rest are teachers who had previously resigned from the Education Service but have now decided to re-join the teaching service. The selection criteria for Adjunct Teachers are closely aligned with the standards we use in appointment of teachers. We have to be confident of their ability to teach well and contribute to the school when they re-join the profession. Hence, their past performance as teachers is also taken into account. The Ministry continues to encourage all our schools to engage more Adjunct Teachers. Currently, schools can engage up to 10 Adjunct Teachers and have their salaries charged to MOE. In addition to schools tapping on their own networks to recommend former trained teachers for appointment as Adjunct Teachers, the Ministry also proactively sends brochures to invite eligible retired and resigned teachers to apply for the Adjunct Teachers Programme.”
“Mdm Ho Geok Choo and Dr Tan Boon Wan asked questions related to teachers which I will address together. MOE has been proactively recruiting teachers, not because there is a shortfall, but because we are expanding our teaching force. We are doing this as part of our efforts to provide more time and space for our teachers in schools, and to improve the quality of education we provide our students. The size of the teaching service has increased from 23,900 in 2000 to 27,600 in 2005, a 16% increase. We aim to boost the teaching force by an additional 2,500, to 30,000 teachers by 2010. The plan is progressing smoothly as we have been able to recruit more teachers than the numbers who have left due to retirement and resignation. A typical primary school of 1,600 students now has three more teachers compared to 2004. Similarly, there are currently three more teachers in a typical secondary school of 1,400 students as compared to 2004. This will effectively mean a 15% improvement in student-to-teacher ratios in our schools. MOE keeps a close watch on resignations. Fortunately, they have remained low, at 2%-3%, in the past few years. In addition, another less than 3% of the teacher population retires each year. We have to take every resignation seriously, and in fact do so. From our surveys and exit interviews with teachers, teachers leave the Education Service for various reasons. Not all of them are "push" factors. There are also "pull" factors, like the desire to try out a different challenge, and family commitments. Still, we take all feedback from teachers who leave the service into account as we look for ways to improve the environment under which teachers work, and the way they are recognised and treated as professionals.”
“Sir, it is another way of putting the same question. Specific questions on gaming revenue can be addressed to the Minister for Finance when the money finally comes about. But the point is a basic one. Whatever our sources of revenue, we end up with a total revenue cake - 18% of GDP, maybe 19% thereabouts. It has got to be divided up amongst many competing sources - defence, economic infrastructure, the whole health infrastructure, including the higher cost of catering to the aged in future, and educating very well all our students - primary school, secondary school upward to ITE, polytechnic, university. We have to make fairly tough decisions there. We are funding our university students - per student as well as the universities as a whole far more than other countries. I justify it because it has wide benefits for the economy as we enter into a knowledge-based era. But you cannot increase the share without taking something away from the polytechnic, ITE and secondary school students. And the return on an investment in education in the early years is important even in a knowledge-based economy. We should not shrink from spending more to deliver high quality in our schools, polytechnics and ITEs. Sir, what we are doing is more equitable than what Mr Low is suggesting - more equitable, because we charge realistic fees so that we do not subsidise the middle class or the upper middle class. We provide financial assistance to those who cannot afford it and we make sure that a broad base of students receives a high quality affordable education. I think our priorities are right. They are not just sensible from an economic point of view but they are also pretty sensible from a social and distributional point of view.”
“I think the universities, myself, and everyone would agree that we want to do it better the next time. The universities did consult with their student leaders before the fees were increased. Naturally, there were mixed reactions. Not everyone agreed. Student leaders, in fact, disseminated the information to the student body. The process can be improved. The universities want to, for a start, begin the whole process earlier in future, the whole process of deciding on revised fees earlier to allow more time for consultation and explanation. But I think there are some positive things that came out of this year's exercise. The universities have taken on board some very useful points made by the students, in particular the point that Mr Tan Soo Khoon also referred to, that students want to have some degree of certainty as to the total outlay that they will face over the full course of their university education. SMU has now gone for that practice of telling students exactly how much they pay for the full duration. NUS and NTU think this is a useful and practicable suggestion and are looking into it. So, we are learning from this exercise and we will better on it in future.”