Wong Kan Seng
Singapore
“We all want a better future for our children and the future generations. Amid the debates, let us not lose sight of what we are working for – we are working for the benefit and future of Singaporeans. Not for growth targets, not for foreigners, but for Singaporeans.”
“Mrs Mildred Tan also suggested doing a longitudinal study on the impact of new citizens on Singapore. I am told that there is a periodic study on the perception of integration and rootedness of Singaporeans and PRs. A study is now ongoing too.”
“All they need to do is simply declare that they meet the residential criteria. EASING IN US ECONOMY (Impact on Singapore) 9. Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Senior Minister what will be the expected impact on the Singapore economy arising from the US Federal Reserve's announcement on 3rd November 2010 of a "quantitative easing" of the US economy…”
“Well, from the data I have here, 553 registered to vote before the 2006 GE and this is the data I have but Ms Lim may be right. There may be 1,000-odd that Ms Lim had mentioned. From what I am told now, we have 1,325 Singaporean overseas who are eligible to register to vote have registered.”
“But, as I said, there are so many other possibilities that they could come in and there could also be many possibilities that we could have missed and they have entered or left Singapore. LAND SWAP AGREEMENT FOR KTM STATION AND RAILWAY LANDS 2.”
“They are also recruiting people by offering them scholarships. So, we hope more of our companies can do that. Hopefully they come here to work for a while and, if they like our place, they may want to settle down. This is a place which they can think about. POPULATION AND TALENT DIVISION 5. Assoc. Prof.”
The complete record
Every one of 3,192 lines we hold for Wong Kan Seng, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 64.
“Our children and grandchildren are fortunate to grow up in prosperity and stability. They did not experience the difficulties and risks their parents faced in bringing them a better Page: 24 life. Mdm Speaker, can Singapore continue on its path of success and prosperity? It depends on whether Singaporeans can look beyond their individual self-interest and have a consensus on the kind of Singapore we want for ourselves and our children. It also depends on whether we have enough Singaporeans who care enough to come into politics to serve selflessly, just as Mr Lee and his team had done for Singapore, and whether Singaporeans will trust and support these individuals. I sincerely hope that all Singaporeans will build on the foundations laid by our pioneer leaders and continue to make Singapore a unique, extraordinary country for the next generation. This means upholding the values of meritocracy, multiracialism and non-corruptibility – core values that Mr Lee strongly believed in and which have now become our national ethos. Let us continue to do this and stay cohesive as one people. Then, Mr Lee would not have toiled his whole life in vain for us. Mdm Speaker, modern Singapore has lost its founding father, Mr Lee Kuan Yew. On behalf of my residents and my family, I convey our deepest condolence to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and his family, as we grief with them. [Applause.] 5.00 pm”
“On hearing that I was attending a dinner, he nagged me to go home, as he believed that my heart was like a ticking time bomb. I might suffer a stroke if I did not go back to rest. He insisted that I seek a cardiologist's advice and he also named the doctor. I saw the doctor the following day. Dr Lee Wei Ling also recommended a neurologist friend to see me and, on the neurologist's recommendation, I saw another neurologist and it turned out that I had no TIA. I was relieved and I believe he was very relieved, too. Mdm Speaker, here I would like to say a few words in Mandarin. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Lee Kuan Yew is a great man across centuries. He often reminded us that some policies were like bitter medicine which might be hard to stomach in the short term. But as long as the purpose of the policies is to benefit the people, then we must persist. History will judge Mr Lee's achievements. In my heart, Mr Lee had devoted all his life for Singapore and was a responsible, good Prime Minister. In the future, there will not be another great leader like him. "Cultivate oneself, manage a family, govern the country and attain world peace" – Mr Lee had achieved them all. He had devoted all his life to Singapore and left us a prosperous and harmonious home. (In English): Mr Lee's physical health declined in recent years. But he was still mentally sharp. It pained me each time I saw him appearing in public attending to the call of duty. I would have preferred to remember him when he was much fitter physically, and not so gaunt and frail. Today, we enjoy an international reputation as a clean, green, efficient country with a low level of corruption and a strong Government supported by the electorate for more than 50 years.”
“Both rolled out the red carpet for him. I experienced up-close how Mr Lee interacted with foreign leaders of countries much larger and more powerful than Singapore. They showed great respect and admiration for Mr Lee and his achievements for Singapore. They treated him as an equal and listened keenly to his analysis of world issues. They valued his insights. These meetings were an eye-opener for me. They made me feel very proud to be a Singaporean and to be able to serve under him. Even before he stepped down as Prime Minister in 1990, Mr Lee would encourage the younger Ministers to make decisions because he felt that we would have to implement them Page: 23 and be accountable to the people. When issues of critical importance were discussed at Cabinet meetings, Mr Lee would express his views and explain his thinking, sometimes vigorously and forcefully. But at the end of the discussion, he would say, "You, the younger team, are in charge and it is your decision to make. I have given my views". Some people think that Mr Lee brooked no dissent and was autocratic. That is wrong. While Mr Lee has strong views, he also listened. When convinced, he would change his views. Beneath the public persona of Mr Lee as a tough-minded man who suffered no fools, Mr Lee had only the interests of Singaporeans at heart. That was why he spent his whole adult life caring for Singaporeans' welfare, uplifting our well-being and protecting Singapore's interests. We are the beneficiaries of his lifelong dedication and contributions to Singapore. At the personal level, Mr Lee was a caring man. Some years ago, a doctor diagnosed me to have a transient ischemic attack (TIA). Mr Lee learned about it and called me up on the phone.”
“The Pioneer Generation of Singaporeans understood the existential crisis they faced. They worked hard and trusted Mr Lee and his colleagues to bring them a better life. They were willing to make short-term sacrifices for long-term good. As a result, the leadership team was able to create an economic, social and political ecosystem that has made Singapore unique, successful and relevant to the world. Mr Lee imbued in Singapore the values and principles of meritocracy, multiracialism, non-corruptibility and belief in the rule of law, and built the institutions to ensure that these core values and principles are practised. When many colonies' leaders of his time had hung on to power long after gaining independence, Mr Lee was a firm believer and practitioner in self-renewal of leadership. He did not hold power for himself. He did it for Singapore. He played a personal role in recruiting and developing the younger team of Ministers. I remember nostalgically the lunches he had with me as a new Minister in the 1980s, together with one or two of my colleagues. We could ask any question and he would share his thoughts and experience. I also learnt a lot during the many dinners at the Istana poolside hosted by Mr Lee for foreign leaders. These were occasions when great minds converged to discuss issues of the world. Mr Lee brought the younger Ministers on his overseas trips to give them exposure to international relations. These trips offered practical lessons in diplomacy. When he was Prime Minister, I had the privilege of joining his trips across Asia, Europe and the United States. My first overseas visit with Mr Lee was to Jakarta in May 1985 when he was hosted by the late President Soeharto. In September 1985, he was hosted by the late Deng Xiaoping in Beijing.”
“Mdm Speaker, this is one of the saddest days in my life. I first met Mr Lee Kuan Yew when I was a young officer to attend a meeting with Dr Goh Keng Swee at the Istana in 1973. In 1984, I had the daunting experience of sitting before him to be interviewed by the Sec-Gen Committee to join politics. Since 1985, I have had the privilege of working with him as my Prime Minister, mentor and colleague. Throughout his six decades of public service, the late Mr Lee had only one mission – and that was to create a better life for all Singaporeans. In one generation, Singapore was transformed. The results of Mr Lee's life-long dedication are all over Singapore. No words can truly describe or reflect his contributions and the great impact he made on the lives of millions of Singaporeans, including mine. His policies enabled me, a son of hawker parents, to become a Deputy Prime Minister. Many poor families' children have done well, too. Many in this House came from humble beginnings. Social mobility is not an abstract theory in Page: 22 Singapore. Good leadership and governance have been crucial to Singapore's success. For Singapore to overcome adversity had not been easy. Nations with far more than we had at the point of our Independence have fallen short. Many nations, large and small, have studied the Singapore story. Singaporeans benefit from this sterling reputation when they travel, live and work overseas. In the last few days, many Singaporeans I met told me how lucky and how proud they are to carry the red passport when they travel. My foreign friends said they wished they had a "Lee Kuan Yew". Indeed, we are blessed to have had him as our leader. Mr Lee and his team took bold, tough decisions in the interest of the country and not for themselves.”
“We all want a better future for our children and the future generations. Amid the debates, let us not lose sight of what we are working for – we are working for the benefit and future of Singaporeans. Not for growth targets, not for foreigners, but for Singaporeans. We are working to ensure that our children will be well-educated and brought up in a safe and secure environment. That our young adults can realise their aspirations, find good jobs and take care of their families. That our elderly can spend their twilight years in comfort and in dignity. Let us work together to achieve this for the sake of Singapore and our families. Mdm Speaker, in conclusion, I support the Motion moved by Deputy Prime Minister Teo and the amendments by Member of Parliament Liang Eng Hwa. 4.38 pm”
“Let us hope that Europe is not heading the way that Japan did in the last twenty years, or it will affect us. Singapore's ageing society is not spared if we do not grow. We are ageing faster than many developed economies. There will be a tipping point where a shrinking workforce will not generate sufficient tax dollars to meet the needs of the growing elderly population. This will be exacerbated by companies that leave for other markets if our workforce is not sufficient to meet their needs. Singapore does not have unlimited past reserves to plug the gaps. The White Paper sets out the Government's thinking on how to keep Singapore going and continue the Singapore Story. We have to have some growth in order to take care of Singaporeans. And we need workforce growth to do that, apart from productivity. There are three ways to grow the workforce: (a) encourage procreation; (b) increase labour participation rate; and (c) bring in transient foreign workers with the right profiles. The first is a highly personal choice and takes time. The second is a long running Government effort, and our participation rate is high by global standards. I am sure the Government will continue to find innovative ways to encourage Singaporeans to work as long as possible and attract men and women back to the workforce. But no matter what measures are taken, the Page: 84 number of Singaporeans aged 65 years and above will increase. That will mean a bigger budget for social expenditure and health care. With fewer Singaporeans working, tax revenue will also be less. This leaves the last option, and we now know that pacing the influx of transient foreign workers is important and the Government is calibrating the inflow. There are no silver bullets.”
“These are fundamental shifts, as explained by Deputy Prime Minister Teo and Minister Khaw Boon Wan recently. The White Paper makes assumptions on the projected rate of economic growth, Singaporean population growth, numbers of new PRs and new citizens to add and how many transient workers for a certain level of economic activity to serve the interests of Singaporeans. Transient foreign workers are required Page: 83 when we cannot find enough of our own Singaporeans to fill the jobs. But Madam, in the light of global uncertainties and rapid changes, the jury is still out as to whether we can achieve our goals. We cannot take economic growth for granted. Mdm Speaker, allow me to say a bit more on the issue of our demography. We have heard the old adage "Demography is destiny". A shrinking workforce impacts job creation and tax collection. An ageing population stresses government budgets and healthcare. Without economic growth, the Government cannot generate tax dollars and budget surpluses to invest in the next generation while meeting the social security needs of the present generation. Failure to find the right balance will cause economic uncertainty. Developed economies like Japan and Europe are grappling with this right now. The threat looms large for other growth economies even the likes of China. Being used to having economic growth for decades except for short periods, Singaporeans cannot imagine what it will be like to have zero or very low economic growth for long periods. But we do not need to look far to find an example in Japan. Its growth has been anaemic for the last two decades and people's lives have not gotten better. Its society is ageing rapidly, and since a few years ago, deaths are more than newborns.”
“The future looked very bleak in January 2009 when the Government brought forward the Budget, and rolled out the Resilience Package to help Singaporeans and companies ride out the crisis. There were still some job losses but, overall, unemployment of Singaporeans was held steady, and some transient foreign workers left Singapore. I saw all these developments firsthand. I was in the ring as the Minister for Home Affairs and, later, as the Minister in charge of Population. While we can change immigration policies quickly, tweaking the criteria, infrastructure is a different story. Building new HDB flats, private homes, new schools and new hospitals takes more than two years. Constructing a new MRT line or a major highway takes more than six years, sometimes more. This lag in infrastructure investment thus contributed to the feeling of congestion, overcrowding and competition from transient foreign workers as Singaporeans feel today. The White Paper before this House today is the effort made by the Government to prevent a repeat of history. The point is that it is not whether the population size should be 5.9 million or 6.9 million. It is about how we keep our economy growing at a sustainable rate, create better jobs for Singaporeans and provide care and support to our elders who have contributed much to our country. These objectives are the key responsibilities of the Government. But they must have the people's support. We must build a consensus on these objectives in order for the Government to act for the benefit of Singaporeans. For the White Paper and the Land Use Plan sketched out by the Government, it should start investing in infrastructure today so that Singapore has the capacity to respond to the challenges and the needs of tomorrow.”
“Yet, it was not without challenges and risks. Global interest in China as a source of cheap labour and low-cost manufacturing base picked up. The US economy was vibrant and talk of renaissance in Europe was common. Now we know what is happening. There were good opportunities then for Singapore, and if taken, would benefit all Singaporeans. Any Government would find it hard to pass that over. We had to make sure Singapore continues to build and to attract foreign companies and investments so that they can create jobs for Singaporeans. Unemployment fell to 3.4% and to 3.1% the following year. We were quickly running out of the labour pool to keep companies interested in coming to Singapore. We were concerned about competition so we decided to let in more transient foreign workers and grant permanent residence and citizenships to more people. Even with the increase in foreigners and PRs, our unemployment dropped to 2.1% in 2007. By 2008, people were feeling the strain seeing too many foreigners among them and they were also worried about their future as a result of the Global Financial Crisis. Page: 82 Madam, with the benefit of hindsight, we were a bit too liberal then in bringing in too many foreign transient workers, and granting PR. By January 2009, the Government responded by tightening the immigration criteria to take in less PRs and new citizens. Could we have built up more infrastructure and housing then, when barely a few years before that, our prospects were not very bright? Again, with hindsight, many think that the Government should. Admittedly, the Government was caught off-footed. But the Global Financial Crisis came swiftly in 2008.”
“But typical of this Government who has always been open with the people about the country's problems, it has taken this bold move to share frankly with Singaporeans the Page: 81 key challenges that Singapore is facing. Mdm Speaker, this White Paper is not about growing our population to 6.5 million or 6.9 million, or even 5.9 million. Neither is it about the GDP growth per se. It is about Singaporeans' future. It is about how we can provide enough well-paid jobs to the people, especially our younger generation, most of whom will have a diploma or a degree, and what we must do to provide for the needs of an ageing population. The demographic change in the next 17 years is a serious challenge that will confront us, regardless of the political party in power. The debate on the White Paper and the feedback by the public will inform our choices as a society and help us to understand the long-term consequences and implications of these hard choices. There will be trade-offs, either today or we pay in the future. Being a small country, Singapore will always have population issues. Let us cast our mind back to the last decade. The context of the population issues that confronted Singapore 10 years ago was very different from what we face today. In the year 2000, we were just recovering from the Asian Financial Crisis in 1998. In 2003, just as we were recovering from 9/11 and the Jemaah Islamiyah arrests, SARS struck. Singapore economy grew by 1.1% and unemployment hit a high of 4%. COE prices were on the down trend. Some Members will also recall the debate in Parliament about how to clear the 10,000 units of unsold HDB flats. It was not that long ago. Two thousand and four marked the beginning of a boom cycle to 2008. Companies were investing and employing again.”
“Mdm Speaker, when the White Paper was first released, many Singaporeans were shocked by the headline number of 6.9 million people by the year 2030. This figure had been much misunderstood and became a big distraction. It evoked strong reactions from Singaporeans. They wondered why this Government is planning to increase the population by another 1.6 million when the infrastructure is already not enough to cater to their needs, and many Singaporeans are still waiting for their homes. Singaporeans feel that Singapore is already too crowded; the transport network is inadequate, and they have to compete with foreigners for jobs. In this context, they do not look forward to the prospect of a larger population, even if that only means that it will happen in 17 years' time. The plans announced by MOT and MND to ramp up our transport network, build more parks, homes, waterways to provide a high-quality environment were simply washed over in people's mind. The Government has repeatedly stressed that the figure is not a target. It is used to plan the infrastructure required. If we search our hearts and conscience, we will know that this is not a rash Government. For decades, it is the same Government that shared the country's problems openly with the people. This way, it hopes to rally the people to find solutions to the difficulties that we faced together. The Government's objective is to sketch out a possible scenario for Singapore in 2030. This is laudable. They took the bull by the horns and are upfront with the people. They could have taken the easy way out and not bring this subject up till after the next GE, or better still, two GEs from now when the transportation network is improved and flats are built.”
“Mrs Mildred Tan also suggested doing a longitudinal study on the impact of new citizens on Singapore. I am told that there is a periodic study on the perception of integration and rootedness of Singaporeans and PRs. A study is now ongoing too. But we must be careful not to create too much of a distinction between new citizens and old citizens, lest we get into a debate on who is more Singaporean. *Cols. 3409-3412. The French had such a debate almost two years ago, and I do not think they ended up feeling better or happier. It created divisions within the society as a result of that debate. Under our laws, whether a person is a new citizen or old citizen, he receives equal treatment. Mr Chairman, NPTD takes a Whole-of-Government approach and we assure Mr Zaqy Mohamad that in tackling the population issues, it will continually refine its policies and strategies to ensure a sustainable population – one that supports our economic aspirations and underpins a cohesive Singapore. 3.30 pm”
“Another group of foreigners that we allow to settle in Singapore as PRs and citizens are those with family ties to Singaporeans. These are mostly foreign spouses. A key consideration is whether the local sponsor has the ability to look after the family, so that allowing the foreign family members to reside in Singapore does not result in increased burden to society. Sir, it is difficult to assess an immigrant's willingness to integrate as this goes into his state of mind. Instead, we should make a holistic assessment of the immigrant's ability to integrate through objective factors such as the applicant's age, length of stay, family ties, and whether he has studied in Singapore, and so on and so forth. Integration takes time and cannot be rushed. We must take a pragmatic and realistic approach. If there are practicable suggestions that can help us to achieve the objective of integrating new immigrants with locals, please let me know. On the issue of citizenship test, this has been considered by the National Integration Council (NIC). Members felt that a test may not accurately assess or ensure the long-term commitment of new citizens. Instead, members felt that a more structured naturalisation process would be more effective in ensuring that all new citizens understand the fundamentals of Singapore society and our values. Hence, to enhance the integration of new citizens into our community, we have begun putting them through the Singapore Citizenship Journey. New citizens are required to complete the journey before they can complete the citizenship formalities. This programme seeks to enrich new citizens’ understanding of Singapore's history, nationhood, norms and values. It also provides platforms for new citizens to be involved in our local community.”
“But marriage and parenthood cannot just be about tangible costs and benefits. I hope married couples would not just take a transactional approach in deciding whether to have children. While having children means having to make sacrifices in the short term, there is immeasurable joy to see them grow up and be good citizens. There needs to be a mindset change among our population if we were to tackle the issue of low TFR. Or, as Mr Zaqy Mohamad said, Singaporeans need to overcome these psychological barriers to get married and have children. What the Government can and will do is to ensure that Singapore is a good place to raise children. The Government will also provide some funding support to help them do this, as we have done. But couples must bear some responsibilities for being parents too. Mrs Mildred Tan asked whether we could make "willingness to integrate" part of our selection criteria for new immigrants, and whether we would consider implementing a citizenship test. We need foreign manpower to augment our local workforce so that we can remain globally competitive. But not all foreigners who come here to work are allowed to sink roots. We allow only those of good quality and who share our core values to become PRs or citizens. We take into account not just factors, such as the applicant's economic contributions, qualifications and age, but also whether he can integrate well into our society, and his commitment to sinking roots. In general, Permanent Residents and Singapore Citizens applicants would also have to be in Singapore for some time before their applications may be approved, and this allows us to further assess their level of integration. We also consider the profile of the family if they are included in the application.”
“On the issue of facilitating work-life practices and work-life balance, Mr Viswa Sadasivan is well aware that there is the Tripartite Committee on Work-Life Strategy which drives the implementation of work-life strategies across industries. Companies can tap on the Work-Life Works! (WoW!) Fund to defray the costs of introducing work-life measures, for example, for purchasing laptops and implementing infrastructure to support telecommuting. Companies are best placed to determine how best to address employees' needs, to attract and retain their talent. Mr Gan Kim Yong will say more about work-life balance during his COS debate on MOM. With regard to parental leave, the Government introduced paid childcare leave in 2004 to support both fathers and mothers in their parenting duties. In 2008, we extended paid childcare leave to six days for each parent until the child turns seven. We have also introduced six days of unpaid infant-care leave a year until the child turns two. That is a total of 42 days paid leave and 12 days of unpaid leave per parent. In 2009, a year after the introduction of the 2008 M&P package, 30% of fathers took more than three days of paid childcare leave, as compared to 46% of mothers. The Ministry of Manpower’s survey also shows that 48% of companies voluntarily provide paternity leave in 2010 on top of the legislated childcare leave. For now, I think we have done enough to encourage shared parental responsibility through childcare leave. Married couples should decide between themselves how to share their parenting responsibilities. Mr Zaqy Mohamad suggested that there could be a tipping point in subsidies beyond which Singaporeans will change their minds about having babies.”
“This is done through the Social Development Network (SDN) and accredited private dating agencies. Minister Vivian Balakrishnan will elaborate on SDN's programmes when he speaks at the COS debate on his Ministry. Mr Zaqy Mohamad and Mr Ong Ah Heng – in their Budget speeches – also suggested providing more financial assistance for couples to have children. The Government has indeed invested sizeable resources to support Singaporeans in having children. Since the Marriage and Parenthood (M&P) package was introduced in 2001, the Government has enhanced the package twice – once in 2004 and again in 2008. Members can refer to the handouts I have given regarding the individual support measures that were introduced in 2001, 2004 and 2008. Members can see that with the 2008 enhancements, we now have a broad-based package of support measures, including increased maternity and childcare leave, increased baby bonus cash gift and co-savings, and increased childcare subsidies. We should allow more time to assess the impact of these measures, before considering further adjustments. The National Population and Talent Division (NPTD) will consider Mr Zaqy's suggestion on how to present the package more intuitively, so that Singaporeans can understand and appreciate how the various measures apply to them. Mr Zaqy Mohamad and Mr Viswa Sadasivan said that the cost of HDB flats could have deterred couples from getting married. While that may be the reason some give for not getting married, let me assure the House that the Government is committed to keeping new flats affordable through generous subsidies. Minister Mah Bow Tan will say more about this when he speaks at Ministry of National Development's Committee of Supply (COS).”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, I thank the hon. Members who have spoken on the issues of Singapore's low Total Fertility Rate (TFR), ageing population and the need to keep our economy open and welcome migrants and foreign workers. I believe Mr Lim Boon Heng will address the issue of ageing population later. Our resident Total Fertility Rate reached a new low of 1.16 last year, in spite of efforts to promote marriage and parenthood. One cause of this is that married women are having fewer children. They also marry later. The average number of children born to ever-married citizen females aged 40 to 49 fell from 2.76 in 1990 to 2.22 in 2000, and to 2.08 in 2010. While the TFR of ever-married women has declined, they still have around two children per couple. The other contributing factor that has the greatest impact on our low TFR is that more Singaporeans are remaining single. I have asked the Clerk of Parliament to distribute some tables and Members can refer to those. [Copies of handouts* distributed to hon. Members.] In 2010, 62% of females aged between 25 and 29 were single, up from 45.5% in year 2000. For males of the same age group, 78.5% were single in 2010, up from 66.4% in 2000. Singlehood rates for those aged 30 to 34 have also increased significantly. Some Members suggested that the key to raising our fertility rates lies in reducing our singlehood rates. I totally agree. But getting married is a very personal decision. I know from perception surveys that Singaporean women do want to get married, and they are just waiting to find the right partner, and so are the men. Getting married is a very personal decision. What the Government can do is to facilitate the process by providing opportunities for singles to socialise.”
“Mrs Mildred Tan asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the number of people above 55 years of age who do not have the Minimum Sum in their CPF accounts; and (b) what is the progress of the CPF Minimum Sum Topping Up Scheme.”
“Sir, a review will be done at the appropriate time. If the Member asks me when that will be, I cannot tell him for now. Since it is just two and a half years ago that we had introduced the improved package, it is really too soon for me to say, "by this particular date, we will do a review". There are many reasons people choose to have children, have more children, or choose to not have children or get married at all. There is no one answer to it and there is no one strategy that we can use. What we have tried to do is to help couples who have children or who want to start a family with some assistance either through childcare subsidies, maternity leave, income tax rebates or other measures. We think there is no single item for which we can say that by doing more of this or that, we will have more babies. I do not think I am able to do justice to the question raised by Mr Seah in the next half an hour or one hour because the issue is really far more complex. Every human being is different. Even for societies that we have studied, there is no one, single method through which TFR could be raised. We know some countries spend quite a bit of money and they have achieved a higher TFR. We also know of some countries that spend very little money and yet, they have a high TFR. Even at the individual level, we know some people can well afford to have many children but yet have very few. And some cannot afford to have children and yet have many. I do not think there is a single answer to deal with this issue, when we are dealing with human beings and talking about emotions and people's needs. CPF MINIMUM SUM TOPPING UP SCHEME 2.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the issue is far more complex than just putting in more money or encouraging people to have babies. As Mr Hri Kumar has pointed out, we have seen a change in values and mindsets in the way people perceive marriage and having children. If Members remember: in my parents' generation, having half a dozen to a dozen children was practically the norm. Then, for their children, because of the programme that the Government rolled out at that time, many had at least two children. Now, the younger ones would think about giving the best to their children. So, they conserve whatever resources they have to try to give the best to the children and, therefore, have fewer children. A bigger mindset change is really in the way people think about their lives. When they find a job, there are so many other priorities that they have in mind, such as building their careers, saving enough money and so on, and so as a result, we see an increase in the singlehood rate in our population, particularly among those who are of a marriageable age. The last Population Census of 2010 had shown that there were increases in the singlehood rates for both men and women.”
“All they need to do is simply declare that they meet the residential criteria. EASING IN US ECONOMY (Impact on Singapore) 9. Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Senior Minister what will be the expected impact on the Singapore economy arising from the US Federal Reserve's announcement on 3rd November 2010 of a "quantitative easing" of the US economy by US$600 billion. 10. Mr Teo Siong Seng asked the Senior Minister if the recent decision by the US Federal Reserve to pump US$600 billion into the financial system will have any inflationary repercussions on the Singapore economy, especially in driving up our currency, stocks and property. 11. Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Senior Minister (a) whether there has been a significant increase in capital inflows into the Singapore market in recent months; (b) whether the continued monetary quantitative easing in the US will lead to further capital inflows into Singapore and pose asset inflation risks; and (c) whether some form of control measures are necessary.”
“Sir, as I have said, postal or mail voting does not guarantee voters' secrecy. So as far as this is concerned, we do not think that that is the path we want to embark on. As to whether we have made it convenient for people to vote or not, and the accessibility of the voting stations, as I think that is the main point: we only set up voting stations overseas where we have a significant number of Singaporeans residing in those countries. We can only provide for that when voting takes place in the Embassy building for good reasons – safety, security as well as diplomatic immunity that we enjoy. We have 28 Missions where we have High Commissions or Embassies in capital cities of large countries, like America or Australia. In some places, we do provide for more than one station, like the US or China, but there is a limit to how far we can stretch and make accessible voting stations in the places where Singaporeans live. So right now, we have nine voting stations. In time, we may increase if there is a significant number residing in those places and if they are eligible to vote. But I think so far, we have tried our best and minimised the inconvenience to them by allowing Singaporeans to register online. When they move to another place or come back to Singapore, all they need to do is to go online and tell the Elections Department that they are in a particular place and the register will be updated again. When the register of electors is out for re-certification, that is another time for us to tell them again when to register. For those who have already registered it, is also quite simple. The Elections Department will inform them by email if they have maintained the same email address, that they are supposed to pre-register.”
“Well, from the data I have here, 553 registered to vote before the 2006 GE and this is the data I have but Ms Lim may be right. There may be 1,000-odd that Ms Lim had mentioned. From what I am told now, we have 1,325 Singaporean overseas who are eligible to register to vote have registered.”
“Sir, the previous GE registered only about 550-odd overseas voters and not 1,000-odd.”
“May I ask when were the 1,000-odd voters made known?”
“But, as I said, there are so many other possibilities that they could come in and there could also be many possibilities that we could have missed and they have entered or left Singapore. LAND SWAP AGREEMENT FOR KTM STATION AND RAILWAY LANDS 2. Mdm Halimah Yacob asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs (a) if he will give an update on the Memorandum of Understanding between Singapore and Malaysia; (b) what plans are being considered for the historic Tanjong Pagar site and the land along the railway tracks; (c) what are the plans to develop a rapid transit link between Singapore and southern Malaysia to be operational by 2018; and (d) what joint iconic project is being considered and whether such a project will accelerate the rate of investments and joint ventures between Singapore and Iskandar Malaysia.”
“Sir, I will answer the second question first. Yes, we intend to share our findings when the investigations can conclusively determine how he had escaped to Malaysia and if it does not comprise our operational security. At this stage, I am not able to say when the investigation will complete. The duration will be determined by several factors, including how cooperative Mas Selamat is and the veracity of his disclosures. Sir, as to the question of how Mas Selamat could have escaped to Malaysia, this is a matter still being investigated by the ISD as well as by CID. But we know that after his escape, we have deployed all available resources to check the various parts of Singapore, including our coast lines as well as the exit and entry points into Singapore. We have also received help from the SAF. But as we know, Singapore is an island. It is not possible to seal off every entry or exit point, whether these are ICA checkpoints or our shores. As we have seen from the examples of illegal immigrants who have managed to enter or leave Singapore and whom we have detected and arrested, it is quite possible that people could also leave or enter Singapore undetected. Just within the last one week, the Police and ICA have managed to detect quite a few cases of illegal immigrants trying to come into Singapore. There were two cases of illegal immigrants trying to swim into Singapore. They are separate cases. There was also a case of two illegal immigrants hiding in a car boot, trying to leave Singapore. There was also a case of a speed boat coming in from Malaysia and trying to offload a few illegal immigrants. Fortunately, in these few cases, the Police Coast Guard (PCG) as well ICA detected them and arrested the illegal immigrants.”
“At the same time, as recommended by the COI, ISD has also planned to have a new purpose-built detention centre in the Changi Prison. The planning is now ongoing and we hope to complete the centre in four to five years' time.”
“Mr Low asked whether Mas Selamat is likely to escape again. As I said, after the COI had completed its findings and which I reported in this House, that the COI made many recommendations, including enhancing the security of WRDC. Over the last two years, this is what the WRDC has done. The ISD has taken a great interest and definitely has looked into the various possibilities that any detainee, not just Mas Selamat, could escape from the WRDC. Besides the tighter procedural measures that were immediately implemented after the escape, significant physical security works were also carried out to address the key infrastructural weaknesses that directly contributed to the escape. So the weaknesses that I have just told Members about and which the COI found in 2008 – all those weaknesses have been resolved and they have been tightened. The protection of WRDC has also been strengthened. Both the security procedures as well as infrastructural measures have been audited by the Prisons Department. That was what the COI had also recommended after the findings in March 2008. There are also annual inspections by the Prisons Department. A revised regime for detainees has also been implemented. The detainees are now classified into three different risk categories, depending on the level of risk that they pose. Based on the categories of risk set by ISD, detainees are given different privileges and security assessment. Mas Selamat is now placed on the highest category, which is the red category. Being a red category detainee, his movement will be closely observed and he is heavily shackled whenever he needs to be moved out of the cell. For him, we have a larger Gurkha guard escort team to ensure that whatever acts that he plans to have will not succeed.”
“The continuing discoveries of new plots and the disruptions by the security forces in the region tell us that the terrorist network is very much alive and resilient. The threats posed by the network therefore remains real and significant.”
“I thank Mr Christopher de Souza for asking those questions. In our assessment, the threat posed by Mas Selamat remains consistent following the operation against the JI in 2001. Mas Selamat was determined to retaliate and plan attacks against Singapore even while he was on the run. Having been trained in Afghanistan, he has the operational competencies to stage a terrorist attack, if given time and opportunity. His determination to do so remains unchanged. This is why Mas Selamat has to be held in preventive detention. Is the threat lower now and is Singapore safer now? Sir, holding Mas Selamat in preventive detention means that there is just one threat less. But there are others out there in the region, in Indonesia, for example. The Indonesian security forces have, over the years, killed major terrorist figures, like Azahari Husin, Noordin Mohammad Top and Dulmatin. But this has not put a stop to terrorism-related activities there. The ongoing counter-terrorism operations in Indonesia bear this out. Sir, Singapore's security cannot be divorced from the security situation in our region and beyond. We are an open economy and society. The reality is that the current terrorist threat has proven to be a resilient one. Terrorist elements have adapted and evolved their organisation and network even as the security actions by the States are stepped up against them. So the threat remains real and significant. What about the threat of his network? Sir, with Mas Selamat in custody, as I said earlier, there is just one person less in the leadership element circulating in the network. But Singapore has been and will continue to remain a target in the eyes of the terrorist network.”
“As to how he eventually escaped from Singapore to Malaysia, this is something which the current investigations are looking into. In this connection, Mas Selamat has not given a completely reliable account of how he evaded detection while a manhunt was launched to find him and how he made his way to Malaysia. As this is the part of his escape which is still under active investigation, I am not able to share any details at this stage other than to say that the investigators are not closing any option. The CID and ISD investigators are not taking anything for granted in this case. They will keep an open mind and persist. Sir, when Mas Selamat escaped, ISD officers never gave up and did not rest until they managed to track him down to where he was hiding in Malaysia. Likewise, I am confident that our officers will continue to persevere in what has been a difficult and challenging investigation. Underestimating Mas Selamat and the resilience of JI sympathisers and elements would be most dangerous folly. Indeed, it is people like Mas Selamat who underscore how persistently real the threat of terrorism continues to be for Singapore and Singaporeans. *Cols. 1435-1436; 1437-1438; 1439-1440; 1441-1442.”
“He was first taken to the toilet before seeing his family. He went into the specific toilet cubicle which he knew had the unsecured ventilation window. One guard went into the toilet with him and waited outside the cubicle. Another guard waited outside the toilet. Mas Selamat then went through his routine of closing the cubicle door, hanging a pair of pants over the top of the cubicle door, and turning on the tap. He then pushed open the unsecured window and climbed out of the toilet cubicle window, as in the photo displayed on the screens [Photo A3* displayed]. He said that he threw two packets of toilet rolls that were in the cubicle out of the window to cushion his landing. When he was standing outside the toilet, he observed that the fences to the left and in front of him were too high to scale. He made his way to the right hand side and came to a slope where two fences met. Members can see the photo [Photo A4* displayed]. One of the fences had a roof next to it; he climbed the fence and threw one of the packets of toilet rolls onto the roof, before climbing onto the roof. He made his way to the edge of the roof and threw the bag of toilet rolls onto the grass on the external side of the fence to cushion his landing, then jumped off the roof over the fence and landed on the grass outside of the WRDC. Having escaped from the WRDC, he headed into the forested area. Mas Selamat said that while he was in the forested area, he took off the light green baju kurung and threw it on the ground, as the guards had seen him in that garb and he did not want to be recognised or detected. These disclosures were generally consistent with the findings of the COI which enquired into how Mas Selamat escaped from the WRDC.”
“There was indeed significant renovation work going on at the WRDC at the time. The renovation work was done in order to enhance old facilities to accommodate and manage the detainees. Mas Selamat also revealed that when he was brought to use a toilet in a renovated and different block from the regular one used in the past for family visits, he noticed that the window to one of the toilet cubicles was not grilled. Members can see the photo displayed on the screens [Photo A1* displayed]. On his second visit to the toilet, he managed to open the window of this toilet cubicle by turning the lever even though the handle had been sawn off, as Members can see on the screens [Photo A2* displayed]. Noting this critical security weakness, he then actively planned to escape. He began a routine to close the door of that toilet cubicle and turn on the tap in the cubicle on his next visits. He was trying to get the guards used to this routine during his family visits. He also started hanging his pants over the top of the cubicle door, so as to deceive the guards into thinking that if his pants were still hanging over the top of the door, he was still inside the cubicle. He planned his escape during his family visit on 27th February 2008. On that day, when he was brought out of his cell to a changing room to change into civilian clothes in preparation for his weekly family visit, he did not take off his WRDC uniform but instead put on another two layers of civilian clothing over the uniform – he first put on a dark green baju kurung and dark blue pants, and then a light green baju kurung and grey pants. He claimed that he had put on three layers of clothing. Mas Selamat was then brought by two Gurkha guards to the Family Visitation Block.”
“Sir, on 21st April 2008, I had given this House a detailed account of the findings of the Committee of Inquiry (COI) that was convened to establish, based on the facts available then, how Mas Selamat Kastari escaped from the Whitley Road Detention Centre (WRDC) on 27th February 2008. Mas Selamat is now back in our custody. He was handed over to ISD by the Malaysian Special Task Force (STF) on 24th September 2010. He was then arrested by ISD under the ISA and an Order of Detention for two years has just been issued against him. There are two primary issues which investigators in this case are pursuing at present. A team of investigators from the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) has been assigned to question Mas Selamat on his escape from the WRDC. Another team of investigators and analysts from ISD is investigating the case from a security or counter-terrorism angle. This includes both determining the terrorist attack plans that had surfaced in investigations by the Malaysian security agencies and identifying the residual elements of the JI network, whether Singaporeans or others, with whom Mas Selamat had made contact and sought to regroup and collaborate to develop such plans. The CID and ISD teams work in parallel but keep each other apprised of key disclosures or discoveries. Although the investigations into Mas Selamat's escape from WRDC in 2008 are continuing, to date what Mas Selamat has disclosed has not been very much more than what he has revealed to the Malaysian authorities. This version of his escape from the WRDC is essentially consistent with the findings of the COI which have been reported and made public. Mas Selamat revealed to investigators that he had observed that there was renovation work going on in the WRDC.”
“There are a large number of resale flat transactions in the open market, averaging about 30,000 units annually, in different locations, with a wide range of flat types and prices. Sellers who are affected by the EIP limits should have no problem finding buyers from the eligible ethnic groups as long as they are realistic in setting their asking price.”
“The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development (Dr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman) (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Ethnic Integration Policy (EIP) was implemented in 1989 to prevent the formation of racial enclaves and promote racial harmony in HDB housing estates. With the EIP, we ensure a good mix of residents of different races in different neighbourhoods and blocks of an HDB estate. The EIP limits are applied consistently across all ethnic groups, and are reviewed regularly to ensure that they remain relevant. Just recently, we increased the EIP limits for the "Indian and Others" category by 2% points, to address demographic changes. When the EIP limit for a particular ethnic group is not reached, there are no restrictions on the sale and purchase of an HDB resale flat. As at September 2010, 86% of 162 HDB neighbourhoods have not reached any EIP limits. In other words, potential flat sellers may face limitations in 14% of HDB neighbourhoods only. And even when the EIP limit for a particular ethnic group is reached, sellers can still sell their flats to buyers from the same ethnic group, as it will not increase the ethnic group's proportion. Resale flat transactions take place on a willing buyer-willing seller basis. The resale price is an outcome of the different attributes of the flat such as location, age, extent of renovation and the prevailing market conditions. EIP is not the only factor that affects the resale price. It is also difficult to attribute the resale price to any single factor. HDB does not take back flats from lessees who have completed the minimum occupation period for resale, as they may sell their flats in the open market.”
“I think we do not need to set up any special channel for inputs from Singaporeans on how they feel about the inflow of people. We see that every day. We hear that every day. We read about it every day. We can see that in our television news and newspapers. We can hear that in dialogues and in sessions that Ministers and Members of Parliament hold with their residents. There are enough channels of inputs. In fact, we conduct briefings to our grassroots organisations and that is also a channel for them to give us their views on how they feel about such issues. It is not as straightforward an issue as to say, to take in foreigners and then help to integrate them and so on. We have to create the space for both groups to get together and for them to understand one another, and understand why there is a need for us to continue to keep our doors open to attract people to come and work here and support and contribute to our economy. ETHNIC INTEGRATION POLICY IN HDB ESTATES (Impact on sale of flats) 7. Mr Viswa Sadasivan asked the Minister for National Development (a) how does the Government address the issue of HDB flat owners, especially ethnic minority owners, who have difficulty selling their flats because of the restrictions under the Ethnic Integration Policy; (b) how many such owners have had to sell their flats below market valuation; and (c) whether in such cases, the Government will consider buying back the flat from the owners at market valuation or offer a cash top up equal to the deficit, to demonstrate that such owners will not be unduly penalised because of restrictions resulting from a Government policy.”
“The key function of the Population and Talent Division (PTD) is to formulate, coordinate and review whole of Government policies related to population and talent. PTD's responsibilities will encompass three main policy areas that are currently under the purview of the National Population Secretariat, the National Integration Council and other Ministries, such as the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports, the Ministry of Manpower and the Ministry of Trade and Industry. These are: (i) population augmentation, (ii) talent attraction, immigration, naturalisation and integration; and (iii) engaging overseas Singaporeans. These policy issues have close linkages with one another. PTD's formation will bring them together under one management and centre of responsibility, and enable policy responses to be considered and addressed more holistically. The National Population Secretariat is working towards the inauguration of PTD at the beginning of next year. As time is needed to work with the various Ministries on portfolio changes and the staff movements, more details will be made available when these are completed. Assoc. Prof. Paulin Tay Straughan: Just one supplementary question, Sir. Part of the PTD's aim is to manage the inflow of foreign labour and foreign visitors. In the fabric of Singapore society, given that the frustration with immigration concerns seems to stem from the ground, how would the PTD receive inputs from regular Singaporeans at the base level?”
“Sir, with your permission, I would like to answer Question Nos.5 and 6 together.”
“They are also recruiting people by offering them scholarships. So, we hope more of our companies can do that. Hopefully they come here to work for a while and, if they like our place, they may want to settle down. This is a place which they can think about. POPULATION AND TALENT DIVISION 5. Assoc. Prof. Paulin Tay Straughan asked the Prime Minister what is the primary function of the Population and Talent Division and how will it complement the roles of the National Population Committee and the National Integration Council. 6. Mr Teo Siong Seng asked the Prime Minister (a) when will the Population and Talent Division be set up; and (b) what kind of programmes will be put in place to manage the impact of Singapore's immigration policy.”
“Sir, the second question first. The total fertility rate (TFR) for the Malay population has been declining over the last few years. Many years ago it was still quite high and now it has trended down but still it is much higher than that for the Indians and the Chinese. For the Chinese, TFR has gone to below 1.1; for the Indians, it is not too far from that. For the Malays, it is 1.82. It is still quite high compared to the other races. As to how to attract Malay talents from around the region: there are job opportunities in Singapore and those who live around here know that we operate a different system, we have meritocracy and the job markets are available and opportunities are equal for all and people are rewarded by their performance, not by their particular relations with any particular group of people in power. In order for us to make our place attractive, we are already different. What we cannot do is to go overseas and target specific ethnic groups to come to Singapore. And what we do not have are immigration consultants, like for some countries, openly going to other countries to advertise and help and facilitate residents or nationals there to migrate to another country. I think we can read that in our own newspapers that there are immigration consultants giving advice to Singaporeans and facilitating their migration to other countries. We have not done that. We understand the sensitivities involved but what we can do and have done is to make scholarships available. We have ASEAN scholarships, for example, and we have companies who are out there recruiting people and they are also interested in having a heterogeneous, multinational workforce because they have operations, companies and businesses in other countries.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the share of Malays in the resident population, which includes citizens and permanent residents, has decreased marginally over the last 40 years, as noted by Mdm Halimah. In absolute terms, however, the Malay resident population has increased from 298,000 to 504,000 over the same period. If we only consider the citizen population, the share of Malays among the citizen population has grown from 14.1% in 1970 to 15.1% in year 2010. Overall, they remain the second largest ethnic group following the Chinese. The key factors influencing the population mix are local fertility and immigration. While the Malay resident fertility rate has been declining in recent years, it has remained higher than that of the Chinese and Indians. As fertility rates for all ethnic groups have fallen below replacement levels, I encourage all Singaporeans to avail themselves of the measures supporting marriage and parenthood. Nonetheless, reversing fertility trends will take time and, in the interim, immigration is necessary to augment our local population. We welcome immigrants of all ethnic groups who can contribute to our economy and integrate well into our society. At the same time we are careful not to allow the inflow of immigrants to upset the current mix of races among our population.”
“It would not because we are only living in the very small part of the world. Whatever we do, we also have to bear in mind the impact on us of what goes on around us and what we can do in order to continue to survive and to prosper in the bigger world. MALAYS IN RESIDENT POPULATION 4. Mdm Halimah Yacob asked the Prime Minister in light of the 2010 Census which shows that the Malay share of the resident population has slipped from 14.8% in 1970 to 13.4% this year (a) what can be done to prevent the present population mix which has contributed to racial and religious harmony from further declining; and (b) what measures have been taken to attract Malay foreign talent into Singapore.”
“Sir, certainly with the new criteria, it will mean that we will have fewer new PRs compared to the last five years. That means that, in future, the rate of increase will decline and at the same time the pool of people who are available and eligible to become citizens can also decline. Right now, we already have more than half a million PRs and with the numbers we are getting, we will continue to see an increase of that pool. But we are going to watch that very carefully to ensure that number of PRs we see in the future is not going to be significantly large and overwhelming the Singapore citizen population. We have to watch that very carefully and, of course, like all policies, we will have to review and if there is a need for adjustment, we will continue to adjust. What is the ideal population size? We have to take into account the size of our country. It is 700 plus square kilometres. There is certainly a limit to what we can absorb new residents. We have to provide space, not just for housing, but for industries, services, schools, hospitals, parks and for the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) and many other needs in order to support a population. Therefore, while we do not have a target as such, to say that we must have so many people by year 'X', we also need to make sure that when we grow our population, it must be a sustainable one, such that we can support it. Whatever size of population we have, there will be a trade-off which we will have to make. What sort of trade-offs will we make? I think that is an issue that needs further study because it means trading off space, growth rate and many other possibilities. So it is not such a simple issue as to say, "we shall have X number of people and then all our problems be solved".”
“It requires to be tackled well ahead, several decades ahead, of the problems manifesting themselves. Members will know that countries which now face declining population also, as a result, face serious economic challenges. We do not want to be in that situation. Apart from immigration, we have made extensive efforts to tackle declining birth rates in our bid to address the challenges of an ageing population and to improve the old-age support ratio. Measures such as the Marriage and Parenthood initiatives have been introduced to provide support to couples in getting married and having children. While such initiatives have helped to cushion the decline in our birth rates, our TFR still shows a downward trend. Unless there is a significant shift in attitudes towards marriage and parenthood, and we see improved birth rates, we will continue to need immigrants for Singapore to remain a vibrant and competitive economy. Assoc. Prof. Paulin Tay Straughan (Nominated Member): Thank you, Deputy Prime Minister for your kind elaboration. I have two supplementary questions. The first is, with the more stringent criteria that we have now put in place, will this have implications on the flow of Permanent Residents (PRs) who are likely to take up citizenship and, therefore, what are the implications on the number of new citizens Singapore is likely to receive in the next five to 10 years? My second supplementary question is whether the Deputy Prime Minister can comment on the ideal resident population that we are targeting in the short term.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, last year, the Immigration & Checkpoints Authority (ICA) received a total of 132,200 applications for Permanent Residence or PR. A total of 115,900 PR applications were processed in 2009, of which 59,500 or 51% were successful. With the tightening of the immigration criteria since the end of last year, the number of PRs to be granted in 2010 will be noticeably less than that in 2009. The Member also asked for the profile of those who were successful in their PR applications. Of those granted PR, the majority of them qualified under the Professional, Technical and Skilled Workers Scheme where they are contributing to Singapore's economy. Others who were granted PR are dependants of Singapore Citizens or are dependants of these economic PRs. We will continue to be stringent in our requirements for PR. PR will be granted to those of suitable quality, are able to contribute to Singapore and integrate well into our society. An inflow of immigrants helps to improve the old-age support ratio by increasing the number of economically active residents. Let me illustrate. In 1970, when our TFR was above the replacement rate of 2.1, each elderly person was supported by 17 working adults. Currently, we have about 8.2 working adults in the resident population supporting one elderly person. If there were no PRs, we would have slightly fewer adults, at 7.2 working adults supporting one elderly person. If we were to close our doors to immigrants tomorrow, we can expect the old-age support ratio to fall very fast. In short, we would still need immigration to make up for the shortfall of babies and help ease the pressure of an ageing population. We will carefully manage the numbers to ensure the quality of immigrants. Sir, declining population is a long-term issue.”
“FLOOD PREVENTION AT LIAT TOWERS 4. Mdm Ho Geok Choo asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) whether the Ministry approves of the plan to erect a wall in front of Liat Towers to alleviate potential or likely floods; (b) whether it will recommend the building of such walls outside buildings prone to flood waters; and (c) what other alternatives are being explored. Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: Besides providing adequate drainage infrastructure, another aspect of flood alleviation and protection is to require buildings to be built to appropriate platform and crest levels. The four buildings along Orchard Road affected by the recent intense storms were older developments with inadequate flood protection measures. PUB has met with the managements of these buildings, including Liat Towers, and recommended various types of flood barriers to achieve higher crest levels. The management of Liat Towers has since engaged a consultant who has finalised the design of a flood barrier for the building. PUB will continue to assist the building managements with technical advice and work with them to implement the measures. Besides erecting a wall with flood gates, other forms of flood barriers include portable metal flood boards and raising the steps at the entrances that lead to the basements. GOVERNMENT-PAID MATERNITY LEAVE 5. Mdm Halimah Yacob asked the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (a) what is the total amount of Government-paid maternity leave reimbursed over the last two years; (b) how many women benefited from the scheme and what were their profiles; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider loosening the criteria for eligibility so that more women can benefit from the enhanced maternity benefits.”
“Drug syndicates are typically trans-national criminal organisations. Yong Vui Kong was a member of such a trafficking syndicate and was part of the chain of operations, specifically to smuggle the drugs he was caught with into Singapore. Apart from Yong, there were indeed others who were part of the syndicate. Several have been prosecuted for trafficking. One has been detained under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act (CLTPA) for drug trafficking activities. We will not hesitate to take action against every member of a drug syndicate regardless of the role he plays. Our preferred approach is to proceed by way of prosecution. However, in cases where there is a lack of evidence that can be adduced in court, typically because witnesses are unwilling to testify in court for fear of reprisal, but there is strong and reliable intelligence implicating an individual as a member of such a drug syndicate, we are prepared to use the CLTPA. We will not allow such a criminal to go free and continue to pose a threat to society through his activities. Preventive detention under the CLTPA ensures that the threat the individual poses to society is neutralised by his removal into custody. The threat of a ready supply of drugs to Singapore is real. We are a regional transport hub and located near the Golden Triangle where narcotics are produced. There are also clandestine laboratories producing synthetic drugs in the region. Hence, a key pillar of our drug control strategy is to tackle the supply side by eradicating trafficking activities through tough laws and robust enforcement. While our operations aim to cripple syndicates as a whole, our immediate defence each day is always to stop the drugs from entering Singapore and directly threatening the well-being of our people.”