Tin Pei Ling
Singapore
“This is not about building a talent pipeline and reserve for the land, sea and air transport sectors, but also about helping Singaporeans seize more valuable opportunities. (In English): Mr Speaker, Singapore did not inherit our connectivity. We built it deliberately, chapter by chapter, and this House now holds the pen for the next one.”
“Thank you, Chairman. Two questions. One is that I hear that there will be a review of the COE system later part of this year. I would just like to ask if there is a specific timeline that we can look forward to. Second is on land transport overall. It is on the impact of ageing population and ageing infrastructure.”
“Leveraging frontier technologies – automation, advanced sensors, predictive analytics and artificial intelligence (AI) – will keep our infrastructure globally competitive. But we must deploy technology responsibly to augment productivity while managing workforce transitions and reskilling needs.”
“Many thanks to all. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. [(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of $3,109,174,200 for Head W ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. (proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of $13,306,280,300 for Head W ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. (proc text)]”
“Can the Ministry consider targeted measures, such as rental relief schemes, tenancy support for heritage and neighbourhood retailers, incentives for landlords to prioritise local tenants or co‑investment platforms that enable local businesses to secure long‑term premises?”
“Internationally, we could forge norms that prevent regulatory arbitrage and ensure cross‑border accountability. Hence, building on existing frameworks, what more will the Government do to strengthen Singapore's role in global AI governance, standards, certification, international coordination and capacity building, to preserve human agenc…”
The complete record
Every one of 781 lines we hold for Tin Pei Ling, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 16 of 16.
“With each fee payment therefore, it means that a senior will have even less money in his or her MediSave to pay for subsequent treatments. This is as a result of their admin fee charged. This will adversely affect Singaporeans who are needy and without family support, and particularly our elderly. Moreover, with the advancement of technology, better process design and economies of scale achieved, would there not be cost savings gained over the past years? Therefore, can the Ministry waive off the administrative fee for MediSave transactions so that Singaporeans' hard earned money can be fully utilised for their healthcare needs? Support for Chronic Patients”
“Mdm Chair, to many Singaporeans, MediSave is a compulsory savings account to cater specifically to their healthcare needs. They see their MediSave as their hard-earned money and they feel they have the right to use it as and when they need it. Such thinking is understandable. Madam, the principle behind imposing criteria such as annual withdrawal cap and minimum sum requirement on MediSave is to ensure we set aside enough savings to meet our future healthcare expenses. However, for senior citizens, especially retirees who no longer have an income, they have limited means and they will look to their MediSave to pay for their healthcare needs. So, firstly, can the Ministry allow greater flexibility in the use of MediSave with a higher annual cap and lower minimum sum? Can the Ministry extend the coverage of MediSave to more areas? For instance, can we have a definition by Page: 83 exclusion? For example, MediSave can be used for all medical needs except aesthetic medicine. When I raised a cut on the use of MediSave for senior citizens in last year's COS debate, it was suggested that if MediSave and MediShield cannot be tapped on, or tapped on further, the elderly can turn to MediFund. However, some elderly feel extremely uncomfortable with having to apply for MediFund, especially if there is still money in their own MediSave account, but which they are unable to use. They also fear they will have to incur out-of-pocket expenses if they fail to secure financial assistance. Furthermore, there is an administrative fee chargeable on MediSave deduction transactions. While the fee may appear modest, it can add up to quite a sum if a senior has to go for several medical appointments or treatments and thereby, has to make several MediSave deduction transactions.”
“Mdm Chair, I would like to ask the Minister whether the MOH will look into shortening the waiting time between the point of referral to the point of appointment scheduled? This is so that those who require further examination or medical attention can receive them promptly. Secondly, will the MOH be reviewing the adequacy of subsidies to help the majority of Singaporeans, especially the elderly, better cope with healthcare expenses?”
“Hence, I would like to ask the Minister: what are the measures taken or planned to be taken to engage and work with the community in tackling re-offending? Since the launch of Community Outreach Project and Community Befrienders Project in September 2010, what has been the progress of these projects? What are some ways that MHA works with its volunteers and community partners to better support the rehabilitation of offenders? And, lastly, are there success stories or positive examples that can be shared, so as to inspire and motivate everyone involved to continue such efforts? Are there learning points that we can learn from and improve on so that we can strengthen community efforts? Second Chances for Ex-offenders”
“Sir, safety and security are critical to our nation's well-being and success. For without good external and internal defence, we will not have the freedom and capacity to pursue our individual aspirations and neither will we have the peace of mind to improve our lives and raise our families. While Singapore has performed well in anti-drug efforts and our recidivism rate is generally considered low compared to other countries, we must continue to do more in keeping offences down and in re-integrating ex-offenders back to the society. To do so, we need to go beyond enforcement and hard-hitting measures. We also need to look at the softer social aspects. Hence, a strong and fully engaged community is imperative. Page: 142 I would imagine a strong community is one that is resilient and inclusive. In this case, it is one that welcomes ex-offenders back, provides a network of support, able to marshall resources and the will to help the ex-offenders get back on their feet, resist temptations and rebuild their lives with their families. The community network involved can comprise a wide range of stakeholders, including family members, neighbours, grassroots leaders, religious groups and VWOs within the neighbourhood. Some studies also point toward the importance of a conducive environment, comprising factors such as family support, employment and housing, in reintegrating ex-offenders. And in the local context, where Asian values and the idea of a "kampong" are still very much valued and alive, the community will no doubt play a critical role in reintegration efforts. If anything, by involving the community, we can hopefully promote greater understanding and acceptance, and thereby help to reduce the public and self stigma that ex-offenders sometimes face.”
“With HDB doing the matching, there is certainty that a co-tenant will be found and, thus, for the single elderly who are currently homeless, they can move into the unit first while waiting for the HDB to send in a co-tenant later. In essence, we need to do our utmost to enable our elderly to secure a nest for their retirement and live safely and peacefully in their golden years. And the third area − which I will do it very quickly − is on mental health. I spoke on this during last year's debate and I am glad that the MOH has made several moves on this front. However, I urge the Government to continue to pay attention to this area. I think more can be done, and I will elaborate more on this during the Committee of Supply debate. But I hope that help for those with mental health needs will always have a special place in the Finance Minister's mind, heart, and coffers, too. Mr Deputy Speaker, this Budget is a step in the right direction. I hope that the Finance Minister will not stop here, but will continue to make Budgets in this vein. At its core, this Budget represents a new philosophy – that Singapore is not about trying to maximise growth, but sharing outcomes fairly, and moving together as one people; that Singapore is not just about enabling those who are able to get ahead, but is about bringing everyone along throughout the journey. Our SMEs, our seniors, those with mental health needs – they are all part of our community and deserve our help. Pressing ahead without them is not an option. Instead, we must continue to dedicate resources to help them cope with the changes taking place in our economy and society, and deliver programmes to better their lives. Again, with that, I support the Budget. 6.38 pm”
“Often, HDB is kind enough to provide a list of interested tenants so that the senior applicants can call them on their own and try to strike a deal. However, the common feedback that I receive is that this process is not effective as the "candidates" on the list tend to find ways of rejecting one another, thereby unduly prolonging the process. Hence, can the HDB consider giving an additional boost and do the matching for them? I anticipate concerns but I think this idea can be considered. First, the "candidates" would have to be assessed to be eligible and in real need of a flat by the HDB in order to rent it. This is already done under the current procedures by HDB. Second, when HDB does the matching and allocation, it will minimise time wasted; also, HDB can do pre-screening to determine who Page: 141 might be suitable to live with whom, thereby reducing the risk of conflicts later.”
“However, sometimes, circumstances may dictate otherwise, and we should not make it unnecessarily difficult for them to own their homes. Another priority is to cater to the needs of the single elderly. My observation is that there is a rising trend of more single elderly looking to rent HDB flats. Currently, they can only do so under the Joint Singles Scheme. The rationale for disallowing only one person to occupy one unit, and thereby maximising the use of the unit, is understandable as there is a finite supply of rental flats. However, we need to institute proper safeguards to protect our seniors. Let me share another case that I encountered recently. This case was about a 73-year-old elderly Singaporean who was co-renting a flat from HDB with another single elderly. The monthly rent was only $26 – this is to be paid to HDB – but the latter made him pay another $185 per month to her as "rental fee". The latter had also apparently disallowed him to use electricity and forced him to shower at a nearby swimming complex. He was so scared of losing that unit that he endured it. Had the case not been surfaced to me by a kind-hearted lady in my ward, he would have continued to suffer in silence. Now, apart from this, stories of how single elderly would rather sleep at the void deck than face their co-tenants are also not uncommon. Hence, I think we need measures to be put in place to prevent bullying of the elderly, and ensuring a peaceful and safe living environment for all. For instance, the authorities could set up the dos and don'ts upfront, impose mandatory community mediation when disputes occur, and impose penalties of differential severity on the bully. Also, it is really challenging to require single senior elderly to search for suitable co-tenants on their own.”
“However, due to certain unexpected circumstances, they needed to purchase a flat and did not have sufficient cash to pay for it. Nonetheless, they are still working and are able to continue to top up their CPF accounts. More flexibility in the use of CPF for our seniors will give them a greater sense of comfort and confidence. The second issue that I would like to raise has to do with housing, and this is partially linked to the use of CPF as well. The concept of a studio apartment is good. However, the requirement for upfront cash payment of 100% is too stringent. Some seniors, for whatever reasons, have to seek their own housing. Studio apartment is the option for them, as some are not eligible or unable to find a co-tenant to rent a HDB flat with. Their cash savings may be significant but insufficient. However, they have money in their CPF, and some who are still working will be able to contribute back to their own CPF later. For example, I recently came across a case in which a senior lady, who was working part-time as well, with a mentally handicapped son, who had to right-size to a studio apartment. However, she could only pay for the studio apartment after she had sold off her current 3-room flat which they were still living in. In essence, she needs to do a contra arrangement. But this is apparently not allowed by HDB. Page: 140 For this and other cases, can the HDB allow a more flexible payment arrangement for them? Alternatively, can the HDB provide an arrangement that helps to synchronise the sale of an existing flat with the moving in to the new studio apartment? Securing a retirement nest is important to many senior citizens and I believe most would much prefer to live with their own children or family members if they have a choice.”
“The outreach should also be aimed at removing any potential stigma of applying for these funds and help schemes. There are two specific issues that I would like to briefly touch on in this area of helping the elderly age with greater confidence and dignity. The first has got to do with the CPF. The Government should allow greater flexibility in the use Page: 139 of MediSave, with a higher annual cap and lower minimum sum. Some elderly feel extremely uncomfortable with having to apply for Medifund and being unable to use their own savings in the CPF. They also fear that they will have to incur out-of-pocket expenses (OPEs) if they fail to secure financial assistance, such as the Medifund. These OPEs can, perversely, lead to worse health outcomes and greater health expenditure at a later date. A patient who defaults control of chronic diseases, like high blood pressure and diabetes, is only storing up more expensive catastrophic medical problems for later. For example, early diabetes can be controlled with minimum organ damage. If uncontrolled, tragic consequences, such as blindness, heart disease, kidney failure and limb amputations may follow. Out-of-pocket expenses must not discourage elderly Singaporeans from making the right decisions for their health. Hence, while the Government should be applauded for looking at how the out-of-pocket expenses can be reduced, I also hope that more flexibility in the use of MediSave can be looked into as well. Next, for seniors who are 55 years old and above but who are still working, can we not allow them to tap on their CPF monies – not just their MediSave – in a more flexible manner? I have come across some residents who are just at the threshold of 55 years old, and face the Minimum Sum requirement being imposed on them.”
“I believe this is not what the Government wants to see. I would like to state clearly that the purpose of helping SMEs is not to help them increase profits. If SMEs are unable to survive, not only will the bosses of SMEs lose their rice bowls, not only will the foreign workers be sent back to their home countries, but also the Singaporean employees will suffer. Earlier, in my speech in English, I mentioned that 99% of enterprises in Singapore are SMEs and, out of 10 workers, seven are Singaporeans. From this perspective, SMEs are very important to the livelihood of Singaporeans. So, if the SMEs cannot transform successfully, cannot survive and continue to employ Singaporeans, many Singaporeans who are gainfully employed may be displaced and lose their jobs, their family members and family lives will be greatly affected. Hence, I would like to appeal to the Government to actively seek ways and means to help SMEs transform and to overcome the difficult situation that they are facing. (In English): The second area that I would talk about is to help the elderly age with greater confidence and dignity. I strongly welcome the measures announced in Budget 2013 that are targeted at our seniors. I believe these measures bring much needed new help. Still, it is important to ensure that these initiatives, such as the ElderCare Fund, the Senior's Mobility and Enabling Fund, and integrated eldercare service centres, are made easily accessible to the elderly, so that the targeted groups will actually benefit from them. Many elderly do not know what the schemes are, who can apply and how to apply. Hence, the Government needs to mount a more determined and extensive outreach drive. A positive example is the CHAS publicity drive.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, please allow me to speak briefly in Mandarin. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this Budget Statement continues to restrict the inflow and growth of foreign workers and the rationale behind the tightening of the foreign worker policy has been clearly explained and discussed in the last few months. Restricting the growth of foreign workers is a matter of time and because of the tightening of foreign worker policies, many SMEs have complained bitterly. For some of them, it appears to be a matter of life and death. Some feel that they have been forced into a corner and they have to make a livelihood elsewhere. This year's Budget Statement is not just about restricting the inflow of foreign workers; it has also introduced some goodies. However, I believe the goodies are not enough. I believe that the Government can provide greater guidance, apply greater flexibility and introduce more stable policies. For example, the Government can provide greater assistance and guidance to help businesses transform. Secondly, the Government should allow them to enjoy greater flexibility in terms of manpower, especially in the deployment of foreign workers. Thirdly, provide rental rebates to help SMEs reduce their business cost. Page: 138 For SMEs, the pressure of not having enough workers is great. Just as Mr Seng Han Thong mentioned in his speech, although there are many opportunities or "lobangs", there are not enough people, not enough headcount for businesses to grab these "lobangs" and opportunities. Under such circumstances, I believe SMEs will change in order to survive. However, if they have too many worries, if there are already too many problems that they cannot resolve, then they will really be unable to change.”
“Therefore, I would urge the Government to offer rental rebates to SMEs and all those who rent from the Government, to keep the rental rate steady. Another area to consider is how to disincentivise workers from job-hopping so that there is better predictability. For example, some business owners told me that Malaysian workers, who are apparently preferred over workers of other nationalities, have a much higher tendency to job hop as they know that they Page: 137 are, indeed, much preferred. Hence, they requested that the Government set rules to prevent such job-hopping practices, for example, requiring a six-month break when a Malaysian worker quits one employer to go to another. Essentially, what this means is that after a Malaysian worker has quit one employer, this person has to go back to Malaysia for six months before coming back again to work for the new employer. I should make it clear that by helping SMEs, it is not about helping them to maximise profits. When SMEs fold, it is not just the owners going out of business. It is not just foreigners losing their jobs and being sent back to their own home towns. Helping SMEs means safeguarding the businesses and jobs that many Singaporeans have and helping their families, that is, Singaporean families, to preserve their livelihoods. According to the SPRING website which I just checked today, the fact remains that, today, about 99% of enterprises in Singapore are SMEs. And out of every 10 workers, about seven are hired by the SMEs. This is a significant statistic and it also goes to show and give us a sense of proportion of the kind of impact that Singaporeans may feel if SMEs cannot survive this change. I think this is something that we can all think about.”
“The Government also has to do more handholding as many SME bosses may not be proficient in English or simply do not know what possibilities are available out there. It is difficult to expect them to transform if they cannot imagine what is possible. The Government may even have to take on a bigger role in conducting horizon scanning of best practices and innovations, and share them proactively with the SMEs. Second, on flexibility. The Government should allow more flexible deployment of staff. For example, a coffeeshop owner may have two coffeeshops, but these coffeeshops are registered separately by virtue of their different locations where they are sited. Can this coffeeshop owner be given the flexibility to deploy his foreign workers between the two locations, depending on the prevailing business conditions? We also need better definition of sectors as the types of businesses increase in complexity and have a more calibrated set of rules governing particular sub-sectors. The Government should also allow businesses to retain already trained foreign workers, whom they had invested in, so that they need not re-train their new workers again and again. Third, on stability. Efforts to curb foreign manpower growth can bring instability to our SMEs. Hence, maintaining greater certainty and stability in the rest of the business operating environment will be helpful. Keeping business costs low for about one to three years will give businesses the confidence and capacity to change. For coffeeshops, for example, rental cost is almost always on the top of the list of business costs. If they cannot cope, they risk passing on the cost to consumers, who are mainly the lower- and middle-income groups. Hence, rental cost can be a major driver of inflation.”
“For instance, coffeeshops are common spaces and common focal points for ordinary Singaporeans to come together and enjoy an affordable and delicious meal. Some SMEs are in sectors where you simply cannot mechanise tasks. For example, you cannot simply create standard pre-mixes for machines to whip up delicious dishes. It is like having robots to read out lines in a drama play. I am sure they can do so competently, but the feeling is just not the same. Over the last few days, I have spoken with a couple of business associations comprising coffeeshop owners and merchants, as well as SME owners from other sectors. They shared their manpower woes, including not having enough manpower, not having the right skill sets or simply some who are quite resistant and unwilling to take on a certain task or even undergo re-training. Whatever these woes are, I believe that their circumstances apply to the rest of the F&B sector as well, especially for the smaller businesses. Hence, measures to provide guidance, flexibility and stability are necessary to help our SMEs cope with the manpower pressures. Page: 136 First, on guidance. The Government has to be more proactive in reaching out to small businesses which may not have the capacity and resources to find out about Government help, or to apply for such schemes and implement productivity measures. It should work with business associations to apply best practices, for example, implementing self-service models at food outlets, introducing new innovations, pushing for efficiency gains and quality standards. Through these, perhaps, they can even enjoy efficiency of scale in some innovations and implementation of such measures.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Budget 2013 is in the right direction – it promotes greater redistribution of wealth, more help and care for low income, elderly and less privileged Singaporeans, manages long- Page: 135 term foreign manpower growth and strengthens the resilience of our SMEs. Several commentators have also called this a "Robin Hood" Budget as the Government takes more from the more able to give to the less fortunate. Therefore, it is in this spirit that I support Budget 2013. While I understand that the Budget, no matter how comprehensive, cannot cover all grounds, I hope that the Government will continue to pay attention to three areas, which I will elaborate now. The first area − it is to help SMEs to help Singaporeans. The recent debate on the Population White Paper has clearly set out the need to curb foreign manpower growth. This move is necessary and has to take place at some point in time – in fact, taking the necessary tough measures now today may forestall the need for even more difficult adjustments tomorrow. And, unlike other proposals, the Government's proposal paces the adjustments to enable a soft landing which will be helpful for our SMEs to cope. However, we need to take care that SMEs are given sufficient space to adapt and transform. There will be some heartaches as they undergo transformation to keep up with the times and increase productivity, but we should avoid excessive pain. We must remember that not all SMEs are the same. They operate in different markets and face different business conditions. Some SMEs may add a certain character to our society, or are emblems of a certain Singaporean way of life.”
“29 pm Asst Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene (Nominated Member): Mdm Speaker, Point of Order. Can I confirm that we have a quorum in this Chamber? [(proc text) Thereupon, a count was made. (proc text)]”
“This is perhaps why the Government would rather be blamed by the people now for making an unpopular decision than risk being blamed by the people as the one responsible for bringing about the crisis later on. However, in life, there are also times when those on the losing end are happy while those on the winning end are sad. Therefore, I urge the Government to listen to the voices of young Singaporeans. If the Government believes that the White Paper is the correct solution, then I hope the Government will try its best to convince Singaporeans. Our future should lie in our hands. I hereby make a bold statement to the Government that, sometimes, if the Government can take a step backwards, we will all see the fuller picture and have that breathing space. Page: 28 (In English): Mdm Speaker, the end of the White Paper debate cannot be the last word on the matter. It should be an opportunity to continue an engagement process to explain, clarify, argue, adjust and then solicit buy-in and build consensus amongst the people. This White Paper is for Singaporeans and, so, it is only right that Singaporeans are brought on-board to support the strategies in the paper. Precisely because this concerns all of us, that is why Singaporeans' support is so critical. There is no need to rush an 18-year destiny in just one week. Hence, Mdm Speaker, as hon Member Mr Liang Eng Hwa has proposed and set out the amendment to the Motion and, therefore provided clarity to the intent of the Motion, I support the amended Motion standing in the name of the hon Member Mr Liang Eng Hwa. Otherwise, I would boldly ask that the paper be deferred so that there is more time for collective discussion, more detailed explanation and exploration of more options. 1.”
“Therefore, if the Government firmly believes in what it has set out in the White Paper, it will have to explain more and illustrate more, to persuade a generation brought up to Page: 27 think critically, speak out without fear, fight for our rights, and do what we believe is the right thing. Mdm Speaker, just a few words in Mandarin, please. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Population is an important issue that we must pay attention to. This decision will bring about long-term implications. By 2030, I will be 47 years old and I should still be working. If I am lucky, I will probably have children and will be bringing them up. Therefore, today's decision will affect my generation, as well as the future of our children. For now, many of my peers are facing mounting pressure as there seems to be endless rounds of obstacles. There is no right or wrong about the definition of a bright future. And Singaporeans should decide for ourselves and be responsible for it. Several days ago on 5 February, a 17-year-old student Zhang Jiayu wrote in to Lianhe Zaobao to express her views. The article titled "What the post-1990ers think of the White Paper" was not only well-written but expressed the voices of many young Singaporeans. I hereby quote from her, "If my future children are to live in such a crowded environment, and face endless competition while living under financial strains, I'd rather not have children than to let them suffer. I believe many who are born in the 1980s and 1990s think the same way." Of course, economy, work and money are important, but happiness, having a meaningful life and personal space are equally important. I understand that the responsibility of this Government is onerous. If we make a wrong move, we may lose the whole game.”
“Many feel keenly and intimately the competition from foreigners; many are struggling to even catch a breather in the career rat-race. The goals we used to have are increasingly unattainable as the goal posts seem to have been shifted again and again. Moreover, to young people, beyond economic growth and good jobs, we have other equally, if not more, important but perhaps less tangible goals, for instance, happiness, meaningful life, fair opportunities and the space to lead the life we want to have. Each generation has its own needs, demands and character, and we need to recognise that. My generation is one which will not simply accept that the Government knows best. We need to be shown the facts and figures, and be convinced that the course of action is, indeed, the right one. For instance, in the case of the White Paper, what were the different scenarios that were considered? How are the measures implemented in other countries with similar challenges not applicable or not relevant in our context? Are there specific data or cases that can be explained so that we would know the trade-offs and, therefore, make an informed decision? For example, how will life change if we are having a GDP growth of 3% or even at 0%? How much higher will taxes have to be if we do not grow the population size? From now to 2030, young Singaporeans will be going through the prime of our lives, building our careers and raising our own families. Our generation will be profoundly affected by the White Paper proposals.”
“That will ensure that foreigners will never be admitted into Singapore beyond an acceptable level and that Singaporeans can be better safeguarded. Finally, I would like to touch on Buy-in from Young Singaporeans. We could do more to communicate the White Paper proposals better. The Population White Paper is one of the most important issues considered in this Parliament. This debate concerns what is the soul of Singapore, and what it means to be a Singaporean and to build a Singaporean core. The White Paper that we debate this week will set the path for the next two decades and, for someone of my generation or younger, there is a lot at stake. I believe that the Government has good intentions. This is evidently an unpopular task; some may question if this is fool's courage; some have even Page: 26 described it as "political suicide" for the ruling party. I would like to think that any political party in a democracy will not shoot itself in the foot; the Government would not have introduced this White Paper unless it believes that this is the best proposal, or at least the least bad for Singaporeans and for the future. However, the Government has to do much more to convince Singaporeans that the White Paper proposals are necessary and correct. Mdm Speaker, I am turning 30 years old this year. In all my years, Singapore has enjoyed high GDP growth of about 5% to 8% every year, except during the short periods when Singapore went into recession. Those of my generation Y would find it difficult to appreciate the perils of prolonged low growth or no growth, especially not when many of us are preoccupied with persistent pressures on a daily basis. Many of us jostle for space on the roads, in our buses and on MRT trains.”
“I had raised this and argued for them in the debate on the Immigration (Amendment) Act in August last year. We should not neglect the contributions of a foreign spouse, especially a woman, married to a Singaporean and who has raised Singaporean children. She is not going anywhere and neither will her Singaporean spouse and children forsake her. We need to understand that marriage is a lifelong commitment. It concerns people's lives. These are Singaporeans who have decided to build a future with foreign partners. We should not make it any more difficult for such couples who have Singaporean children especially. In helping these foreign spouses, we are not just helping the individuals themselves, but really what we are doing is to strengthen Singaporean families and, therefore, nourishing our Singaporean Core. When we talk about the Singaporean Core, it is also about preserving our Singaporean identity. Being a Singaporean, a citizen should be beyond just holding a pink IC. There has to be a sense of togetherness and shared destiny. It is natural that Singaporeans worry if some of these new immigrants are opportunistic and will exploit us for their own gains. It is natural that Singaporeans want to know: will they stay and fight with us if a war breaks out tomorrow? Can they speak our language? And will they sing our National Anthem with the same feeling that we have? Clearly, we cannot have zero immigration. However, we need to do more and try harder in our efforts to integrate new immigrants faster and better. And to prevent Singaporeans from becoming a minority in our own country, I hope the Government will consider setting a baseline percentage of Singaporeans that cannot be breached.”
“However, it does not go far enough to address lingering concerns, such as the availability of childcare and the cost of hiring a foreign domestic helper. We must continue to do more in this area. I would also like to boldly propose the following measures for the Government's consideration. First, I think this is something that we have all been talking about – childcare. Ramp up, incubate and facilitate the setting up of more childcare centres closer to the heartland so that parents need not worry about accessibility and availability. Second, transport. Make public transport family-friendly in addition to simply creating capacity, for instance, by providing family-friendly carriages on MRT trains for families travelling together with young children or elderly parents. There are only so many cars that the roads can handle and, therefore, at some point, Singaporeans will have to rely on public transport. And we can help by making public transport more family-friendly. Third, women workers. Introduce more measures to protect working mothers and mothers-to-be from discrimination at work. MOM reported that an average of 70% of unfair dismissal cases involving women workers that MOM has received, involved pregnant women. Hence, we must work to ensure a fair working environment in Singapore so that women who wish to start families can do so, without fear of losing their career. It does not have to be a situation whereby you "gain one baby, and lose one career". It should not be a zero sum game. Next, we can strengthen our Singaporean Core by drawing from a pool of non-Singaporeans who are strongly affiliated with Singaporeans. I refer to the Page: 25 foreign spouses of Singapore Citizens.”
“But we have to seriously address and overcome the barriers that deter Singaporean couples from starting families. Top of the list of factors that was explored is the affordability of supporting a child. This is based on studies both in Australia and locally. For example, a year 2000 Australian study pointed out that the financial and psychosocial costs of having children can be difficult to decipher, and that negative "unknowns" themselves encourage individuals to err on the side of caution and thus discourage them from having children. Locally, a 2012 study report by NTU Assistant Professor Shirley Hsiao also found that the top concern affecting childbearing decisions was the high and rising cost of living in Singapore, with 96 out of 165 respondents expressing this concern in the study. These studies make clear that the costs of raising a child is a major consideration and the Government needs to do more to help minimise the uncertainties surrounding the raising of a child. In addition, an interesting observation made in the local study was that incentives, such as the Baby Bonus, Page: 24 were no longer seen as an incentive, but as a form of compensation or reimbursement. Therefore, it is clear that while the schemes that have been offered by the Government have good intention, but it is not enough. Therefore, the Government must continue to monitor the effectiveness of its parenthood schemes and review the package of measures from time to time to address the concerns of Singaporean parents and assure them that the Government will help with the cost of raising their children. The slew of schemes announced in the recent Marriage and Parenthood Package was comprehensive and certainly a step in the right direction.”
“So, how are we going to manage that and how effective will the waste-to-energy incineration be in reducing the volume of waste produced in future by an expected larger population? The next concern I have is about maintaining a Singaporean Core. A strong Singaporean Core is essential to having a stable and healthy Singapore. This is Page: 23 also one of the stated aims in the White Paper. But are we doing enough to maintain and, in fact, strengthen the Singaporean core? There are a few points that I would like to make. First, it is critical to raise our demoralising TFR. Encouraging a significant increase in TFR within a short span of time will be challenging, but we need to continue to push hard at it. Yes, low TFR is a phenomenon observed in many developed countries around the world, but there are also mature economies which have seen a rise in TFR because of good efforts put in by their governments. Consider Australia. In 2007, Australia had a TFR of 1.9, which rose to about 1.93 in 2008 and has since stayed at that level. It is a positive example of a developed economy with a higher than average fertility rate. Some of Australia's birth rate pick-up came from what it has called "recuperation". This means that a significant number of women who had at an earlier stage, for example, at the age 25 years old, did not wish to give birth, and decided to do so only several years later. The report suggests that it is the accessibility of part-time jobs, reduced financial risks associated with childbearing and lowered costs associated with exiting and re-entering the labour market that have enabled this "recuperation". Australia's experience gives hope that Singapore too can, in time, increase our TFR.”
“9 million is NOT a target but a planning parameter; and that the infrastructure will be improved and built ahead of time, I felt more reassured. But still, I have some reservations and I will set them out here. First on infrastructure: with current pain points still stubbornly persisting, it is frankly difficult for anyone to imagine the vision articulated in the White Paper or the Land Use Plan. How much more can we build before collapsing our island nation? I appreciate that MND and MOT have released their respective master plans to improve services, prior to the release of the White Paper. However, I believe we should have first focused on resolving the current pain points quickly before considering the White Paper proposals. Can MND and MOT not continue to work at improving services until the current problems are resolved? When the problems are resolved, I believe that is also when Singaporeans can better imagine and have the confidence that we can accommodate the rise in population growth. Hence, I am glad that the hon Mr Liang Eng Hwa has proposed an amendment which singled out and gave clarity to the need to prioritise efforts in resolving the current strains on our infrastructure. The Government also needs to plan ahead and invest in infrastructure beyond just housing and transport. This should include the adequacy supply of water, sustainability of energy use and effective waste management! Even at our present population size, are these sufficient and sustainable over the long term? Take waste management as an example. We have limited land. The land will grow but to house people and not waste. People, however, will continue to incur and produce waste on a daily basis.”
“Mdm Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to speak in this debate. When the White Paper was released, I had strong reservations. I wondered how Singapore can accommodate 6.9 million, when every day we are faced with crowds in places such as the housing estates, wet markets, shopping malls, MRT trains, buses and carparks? How can I feel that this is still my country if Singaporeans are at the brink of becoming the minority with 55% of the population being citizens in Singapore in 2030? Singaporeans shared these reservations. The White Paper evoked a strong reaction from many Singaporeans. The media headlines were stark and set the tone for the vigorous debate that was to come. The Internet was abuzz with concerns and critical comments. In essence, the pushback from Singaporeans was mighty strong. Many spoke to me, emailed me and left comments on my Facebook page. Let me share some of the comments I have received. First: "What is the purpose of a 6.9 million population? How fast can our infrastructure develop to meet with this increase in population? Are current citizens expected to pay more in terms of GST, transport fares, etc, in that case to let ourselves have less space in this country?" Next one: "It's never too late to stop and think – are we for 'a healthy economy' or for 'a healthy people'? Most important, what is the healthy balance we ought to achieve between national economic progress and meaningful personal growth for each citizen?" Page: 22 These comments are sensible, and I believe many Singaporeans share these sentiments as well. When the Ministers took turns to explain the intent, that is, our first priority is to strengthen the Singaporean Core; that 6.”
“Mdm Speaker, I thank the Acting Minister. I am very heartened to hear his reply, especially the part on involving alumni. One other supplementary question following the answer to whether Singapore is ready for a youth parliament. So, will the Ministry be considering conducting a study, a review or an engagement with youths from different backgrounds on what kind of platform they would like to have and, specifically, whether they would Page: 29 like to have a youth parliament?”
“I thank the Acting Minister for the reply. I have a few supplementary questions. Firstly, could I seek clarification on how youth programmes are assessed for their effectiveness and whether they are sustainable? Basically, the definition of success. Secondly, given the different platforms, such as dialogue sessions that youth are being involved in, as the Acting Minister has highlighted, how are their feedback, opinions, proposals being harnessed, especially towards policy formulation? Thirdly, I read that recently there has been a press release on the increase in investment in terms of partnerships with some youth sector organisations in terms of developing youth. Would the NYC be open to considering partnering alumni from previous youth programmes? Because they have gone through the system and there is some goodwill created, I am sure they will be very happy to take on some of these programmes and help complement efforts by NYC. Lastly, I would like to ask the Acting Minister whether Singapore is ready for a Page: 28 youth parliament at this stage. It was first raised in Remaking Singapore. I think it was raised again last year during Our Singapore Conversation, so I would like to ask the Acting Minister whether Singapore is ready for this.”
“I thank the Minister for the reply. I have four supplementary questions. Firstly, would the Minister agree that 26 of August 2012 is a date that is too arbitrary? Secondly, could there be a better defined criteria, for example, dated from the date of announcement earlier this year, one year back? This is so that parents of children who are at least one year or younger can benefit from the Enhanced Baby Bonus Package. The third question: would the Minister think that this is fair to the parents who had heeded the previous calls for more babies, since they have already given birth and contributed to the baby pool? Would it not be unfair to them in this instance? Page: 33 And lastly, would the Minister agree that the Baby Bonus, in general as a concept, would help to encourage more babies in a family, given that couples who already have babies are more likely to have more babies?”
“I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the clarification. I have a supplementary question. For the CPF, the citizens can actually apply to use the CPF monies if it is a local university, that is, take it like a loan. But it is not applicable for those who pursue their tertiary education in a private institution. Would it be possible to extend that to them as well, but with the requirement that they put it back into their CPF accounts after their graduation and after they have started working? That will really give flexibility and more options for Singaporeans who wish to pursue high aspirations, but do not have the means to do so at that point in time. Page: 1217”