Yee Jenn Jong
Singapore
“So, can the Minister of State confirm whether the gates are considered as doors and whether they meet the BCA Code? Finally, the residents that I have communicated with in this DBSS, have complained that when they took up the design issues with the developers, they were told, and I quote, "Everything approved by HDB".”
“I thank the Minister of State for the reply. In view of the frequent occurrences of algal blooms in the past and it has become almost an annual affair, are there studies to also see if it is perhaps due to the reclamation works or other projects affecting the environment either by Singapore or by our immediate neighbours?”
“Thank you, Madam. I thank the Senior Minister of State for the answer. First of all, condolences to those who have lost their loved ones at the recent Lufthansa Germanwings incident. I would like to confirm if this multi-layered cockpit security applies to all Singapore-based airlines, including the budget airlines?”
“I thank the Minister for the reply. Just a supplementary question. I would like to check if our Government agencies have conducted studies on how Singapore's hedging product market compares to those in other countries and also, especially on the usage by our companies.”
“Thank you, Madam. I agree with the Minister that the pre-school sector is fragmented and I support the idea of consolidation. My question is, can an application for POP be from a group of operators banding together, rather than from a single operator? This may speed up the process of consolidation.”
“Is there a way for the landowner to be given an indicative value of the land before the request is made for the Government to acquire it? Is there any cost the landowner needs to pay if such a request for indicative value is allowed? And what will happen if the eventual price differs significantly from the indicative value?”
The complete record
Every one of 234 lines we hold for Yee Jenn Jong, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 5.
“1 million residents and 1.3 million non-residents in our workforce. We have two taps. As foreigners leave for whatever reasons, we turn on the non-resident tap to fill it back up. We can try to get more out of the resident tap by increasing it at 1% per annum. If the resident tap cannot fulfil that, we turn on the non-resident tap. We are not leaving the sink dry. In contrast, the Government needs to be reminded that the sink is actually quite full. Having the taps turned on too fast will flood Singapore Page: 79 with a population that we will struggle to manage in the future. We have studied the population data. You can see from the projections that by managing both taps, there could be an increase in population to 5.8 million in the worst case. This GDP trade-off will allow a more sustainable population growth of at most 500,000 people over the next 17 years. Lastly, Mr Vikram Nair seems fascinated by the way we run our Aljunied-Hougang Town Council. He is welcomed to visit us. He said he is interested because he wants to know how the Workers' Party will run this country if we are in power. He wants to know how we will use foreign manpower. I believe Mr Nair has forgotten that we are elected by the people to be in this House to establish policies and make laws, not to run businesses. This is precisely the problem I spoke about in my maiden speech in this House, that our Government runs many big businesses across our economy. When the Government itself is a big vested player, and in fact the biggest single player in the economy, it will itself take a lot of pain when the economy is restructured hard.”
“I hope MSF can consider making childcare as a public good, with open competition for all and with fairer support for all operators. MSF is already spending a lot of money on infant care and childcare. Reforming the industry may be a smarter and more efficient way to achieve affordable fees and high quality services with the same money. It will take away the uncertainty of childcare cost for young parents. Next, I like to deal with issues raised by some PAP Members. Dr Amy Khor has said our proposal will hurt businesses. Ms Jessica Tan asked if we had read the new reports that businesses are planning to leave. Yes, the economy will go through some pains but it is simplistic to say that slowing the manpower growth is what kills businesses. I know of businesses that have been killed, not by lack of manpower, but by high rentals. The Government's policy on industrial land, for example, has caused huge spikes in rents and land prices. Companies that need transport find it hard to afford vehicles due to high COE prices. The cost of many items has gone up. These are in part due to Government policies and the overcrowding of Singapore. The Government certainly has scope to re-examine its policies and to see how else it can help businesses restructure in times like this. Mr Inderjit Singh has called our proposal zero growth. Our proposal is not zero growth. Our GDP projections are just 0.5% to 1% lower than the Government's. GDP growth of 1.5% to 3.5% is decent by the standard of mature economies. We have a 1% increase in resident workforce as well. PAP Members have painted us as turning off the tap, as if leading businesses to dry up. This is an incomplete picture. The tap leads into a plugged sink, that is already filled with quite a lot of water. There are 2.”
“Parents even send children for tuition to get them into the Gifted Education Programme because GEP has the Direct School Admission (DSA) advantage into top Secondary schools. While some level of stress is healthy to keep students diligent, many parents have cited stress in our education system and the high cost of tuition as important factors for not having more children. We are often told that Singapore parents are kiasu. I believe the system has made them so. I will elaborate on future occasions when I make proposals for the education system. Next, infant care and childcare are important for young parents. Last month, the Government announced a slew of goodies in this area. I welcome the fact that the Government is willing to put more money into the industry. I had made various proposals in the adjournment Motion on childcare last year. While a lot more money is now added, there is no change to the structure of the industry, which I consider is flawed. It is flawed because the industry is left to private market mechanisms. This is made worse by hugely disproportionate Government grants for a small number of Anchor Operators that give them Page: 78 incredible advantages over other players in the industry. I fear that the monies injected will inflate rents and fees. We had seen that before. In 2008, the Government doubled monthly subsidies to working mothers. Fees quickly went up after that. Under this new subsidy framework, the situation will be worse for higher income families. Those near to, or above $7,500 in monthly family income will get little or no additional subsidies. Private market forces will escalate fees. These parents will end up paying more for childcare.”
“However, MOE is struggling against many of their entrenched policies that have added unnecessary stress and cost to education. The Primary 1 registration gives priority to alumni, to those living in the immediate vicinities of schools Page: 77 and to parent volunteers. Getting children into what parents perceive as good schools is a stressful process. And while MOE tells parents that every school is good, parents know which schools are better. From MOE's data, we see that the results achieved by students at PSLE are vastly different across schools. Two days ago, we were told that median 2012 PSLE T-scores in schools range from 160 to 247, a wide difference in standards. So, parents try very hard to get their children into what they perceive as better schools. Unnecessary examinations such as for giftedness add to parents pushing their children hard right from entry into Primary schools. Secondary school admission is almost entirely based on the T-score achieved at the PSLE. Today, Secondary schools and academic streams are highly differentiated. Students are sorted into schools of different status and into different academic streams. Parents push children hard at high stake examinations to get them into desired schools or to avoid certain academic streams. Often, they take leave from work to coach their children. Even Minister Grace Fu had said that she took leave to coach her children for the PSLE. Some get so exhausted in the process that they decide not to have more children. Many parents have deemed it necessary to get private tuition for their children. A Sunday Times poll five years ago of 100 students showed that 97 of them had tuition. The situation is no better today.”
“Taking in too many new citizens too fast will only give us a false sense of complacency that we have a strong Singapore Core when we do not have a strong one. Before we open the floodgates for new citizens, we have to learn how to integrate new citizens properly. True integration is difficult. The pace needs to be more manageable. Anecdotally, a pace of around 10,000 a year, which was what Singapore had before 2005, is perhaps more sustainable. Our immigration policy takes into account factors such as the individual's family ties, economic contributions, qualifications, age, family profile, ability to contribute and integrate into our society, and commitment to Singapore. How exactly are these factors being computed? Can we have a more transparent point system like that of other countries? I ask this because all Members must have seen many people during their Meet-the-People Sessions to appeal for LTVP, LTVP+ and PR for their foreign spouses. Some have been married for years to Singaporeans and have Singaporean children, yet they continue to be denied PR and sometimes LTVP+. We were often not told why in the rejection letters. Next, I wish to touch on increasing TFR. Challenging as it may be, increasing our TFR is still the best way to sustain a Singapore Core. My party colleagues have made various suggestions earlier. I would like to focus on education and childcare. These can influence young couples in their decision to have children or have more children. Yesterday, Minister Grace Fu said that the National Population and Talent Division (NPTD) is working with MOE to reduce stress and to provide holistic education for students. I am glad MOE wants every school to be a good school.”
“What will become of Singapore's culture? Whose culture will influence whose? Singapore only established the National Integration Council in 2009, four years ago. Our programmes for integration lag behind those of other countries and cities. In other multicultural immigrant countries like Australia, Canada and the USA, immigrants have to show that they are integrated before they get citizenship. Ability to integrate should be a key consideration to grant citizenship and not as an afterthought, after getting citizenship. Mdm Speaker, I have a tale of two videos – two widely watched National Day videos last year. The first is the Government's official video, showing beautiful buildings, magnificent skylines, luscious gardens and beautiful homes. The second is an informal video made by teachers and students of a college. It speaks of the heart of the people, what makes Singapore Singapore: HDB flats, children playing together in a humble playground, getting stuck in traffic jams, being packed in MRT trains, coffeeshop scenes and more. Page: 76 The first showed beautiful hardware, like the infrastructure in the Land Use Plan. The second speaks to our hearts, loving Singapore in spite of the problems we face. It is getting Singaporeans to love Singapore for what it is, loving the mix of people in our midst, loving the common things that we do every day. The White Paper has proposed a lot of infrastructure. Yes, it is important to have good infrastructure. Beyond the hardware, we need to build a strong Singapore Core that shares common values, world views, culture and a sense of identity. These can only be cultivated over time.”
“I have two problems with this. My first objection is that 55% will cross the psychological 60% threshold of citizens forming our population. This is a line that is not crossed by the global cities we are comparing ourselves against, including New York and London. The percentage of citizens in our population has steadily declined from 74% in year 2000 to 62% today. It will decline further to 55% by 2030. Will it go below Page: 75 50% soon? My second objection is who the Paper defines as the Singaporeans that will form our core. We had 77,000 new citizens added in the last four years alone, an average of 19,000 a year. Already, many local-born citizens are uncomfortable with this pace. The Paper provides for new citizens growth to be as high as 25,000 a year. With current annual citizen birth rate of 31,000, this means that up to 45% of citizens added to the population yearly will be foreign-born. Mdm Speaker, I am not against foreigners who wish to become Singaporeans. Truly integrating them to become Singaporeans, as we know Singaporeans to be, will take time. To integrate, the foreigner has to spend substantial time here and should make genuine effort to understand our way of life and speak our language. How fast can we make that happen with adult immigrants? We are already facing many integration issues in Singapore today. Various enclaves with majority of residents from specific countries of birth have sprung up. New citizens often bring their parents and families along, many of whom do not speak English. They live amongst us daily. We may have 3.7 million Singapore Citizens, but just over 3 million will be local-born. This means that as low as only 45% of our population in 2030 could be local-born. True-blue Singaporeans will become the minority here.”
“Mdm Speaker, I object to the Motion. The Workers' Party is proposing an alternative model – one that is based on a dynamic population for a sustainable Singapore. What is a sustainable Singapore? Reading through the White Paper, I get a sense that Singapore is a large factory. We need 2%-5% annual economic growth. Our local workforce will shrink due to ageing and fertility issues. To achieve the targeted economic growth, the Paper worked out that we need 1%-2% yearly increases to our workforce. Based on that, Singapore will receive large number of immigrants. It could bring our population to 6.9 million within the next 17 years. This will be a 30% increase to our population in an already congested Singapore. Most of us in this House will still be around 17 years from now. This is the situation that we ourselves will face, not just our children and our grandchildren. If we are just Singapore Inc, a business that looks coldly at hard economic data and at the bottom line, the above sounds logical. However, we are not a business. We are a country, a nation. I grew up learning to be proud of my country. Proud to be called a Singaporean. I was born here in the year of our Independence, studied entirely in our local schools and went through National Service like all Singaporean males. In school, we had programmes that made us feel proud of this little red dot, proud to be part of a free and independent nation. When I travel overseas, I am happy to identify myself as a Singaporean. The first pillar of the White Paper states that Singaporeans form the core of our society and the heart of our nation. I agree with this statement. But who is a Singaporean? The Paper projects that there will be 3.7 million Singaporeans in 2030, forming roughly 55% of the population.”
“Mdm Speaker, I have two follow-up questions. The first is regarding the use of the subsidies to benefit the mass market. I definitely agree with the Acting Minister that the subsidies should benefit the mass market, but I have difficulty reconciling this to why religious and race-based groups cannot be supported because many of them have operated for a very long time. They have benefited the people with their programmes and, usually, at very low fees as well. MOE has been very comfortable dealing with them as long as they do not overly promote religious views. And even for private operators, if he can set certain criteria such that they be monitored to see how much they are charging, to compete with what the Anchor Operators are charging, then I do not see the fear of them over-profiting because they will profit as much as what the Anchors are profiting. The second supplementary question is: the Minister said that for the Anchor Operators, the Ministry monitors their fees so that they cannot go above the industry median. We know that the industry median comprises of the private operators and the non-profit operators, and the private operators get very little support. They pay very high rents, so, obviously their fees will be very high. Would the Minister agree that it is better to compare their fees against the median of the non-profit operators rather than across the industry?”
“I thank the Acting Minister for the answers. I have three supplementary questions – one for each of the Parliamentary Questions I filed. The first is that I want to understand the policy ideas versus other Government policies. For example, MOE is quite generous in supporting schools that have religious affiliations. They are the Government-aided schools and they get very generous support. Also, in the transport industry, public transport is run by private companies with very generous Government support. There appears to be some inconsistency with the Government policies here and I would like a clarification from the Acting Minister. The second clarification is whether centres do need to get MSF permission if they wish to raise fees. And if they still raise fees after all the monitoring by MSF and after all these generous grants have been given out, what is MSF's position on this? Does MSF impose certain curbs on excessive fee increases? The third clarification is that I am rather concerned, looking at past data, because of the very few numbers of void deck centres that are available for private operators to bid for. It has resulted in centres being bidded up to $45,000 per month rental. Anybody who operates in the industry knows that this is definitely not a viable model. But if going forward, there are too few centres allocated for the other operators and all centres have gone to the Anchor Operators, then we will have another bidding war and we will see the rents of centres going up. Page: 9”
“Mdm Speaker, I would like to ask the Acting Minister to elaborate on the type of avenues that the 29 SMRT bus drivers got prior to their deportation at short notice. Should they not have been given some sort of independent hearing and its findings made public? Would such an inquiry into the incidents have offered insights into all employers in Singapore on the need to and the mechanisms for proper grievance handling?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I refer to Minister Iswaran's answer. I am glad that the Government is also considering the performance of operators in implementing social safeguards when renewing the licence. I would like to know, what is the Government's definition of poor performance in implementing social safeguards? After two years of operations, what is the Government's report card on these two operators? Have they done well, given that there have been various reports of violations and even charges that are being filed on some of the executives? Page: 1484”
“Yes. I just want to know what sort of blueprint we have to develop our local abilities to be able to export our expertise in solar energy installation.”
“I thank the Minister for the answer. The reason I have been asking questions about the solar situation in Singapore is because I feel that this represents an opportunity for Singapore to be able to develop our own capability to export overseas even though we have limited capability —”
“Sir, I thank the Senior Minister of State for the answer. Just a quick question, whether this programme has resulted in savings in the S&CC for the residents. If not, whether it is because we are still in the pilot phase and if we have to scale this project up to a much larger scale across Singapore to get the economies of scale that will result in direct savings to residents in the fees that they have to pay.”
“I thank the Minister of State for the answers. I would like to find out, given that the Circle Line is only three years old, there have been various problems, particularly revolving around the cables. After the studies, was it determined that, perhaps, it was a design fault in the specification or was it the contractors that had failed in providing the correct kind of cables that had caused these problems? And what are the kinds of lessons that we can learn in the future lines that we are building, particularly the Downtown Line and the Thomson Line?”
“I thank the Acting Minister for the answer. I noted some statistics that have been shared in the press and in previous parliamentary answers. Thirty-nine out of 330 PCF centres are Singapore Pre-school Accreditation Framework (SPARK) accredited. Twenty-seven PCF and NTUC Centres, out of the approximately 210 combined centres, are SPARK-accredited. That is about 12% of all the centres that are owned by these anchor operators. This is way short of the target of 85% of the centres to be SPARK-tested by 2013, as shared in this House in November 2010. The first supplementary question that I would like to ask the Acting Minister: does he feel that these statistics show that the anchor operators have also not met the kind of quality standards that are expected by MCYS? Page: 1219 The second supplementary question: should there be a greater link between the grant disbursement and certain published objectives? For example, one of the intentions is that the grant allows operators to recruit and retain better staff. But from earlier answers, I have also gathered that there is no direct link between how much they have to spend on various parts of the targets to be met. I hope that the Acting Minister can clarify this.”
“I thank the Minister for the answers. I have a supplementary question. I noted that in the press report, it says that one of the measures that LTA is taking is to invite more firms to bid for the projects, to make it more competitive. I would like to ask whether that was done so previously, as in how many companies took part in the earlier bids and how competitive were these bids.”
“Mr Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister to share under what circumstances will scholarships be terminated, and what scope does MOE have under its terms of scholarship to recover monies from scholars for bad behaviour or poor academic performances. Page: 1051”
“Sir, I have two supplementary questions. The Minister in his reply said that the Non-profit Anchor Operators get a recurrent grant for recruitment and retention of staff. I would like to know exactly how are recurrent grants used. For example, is it being used to pay a certain percentage of the salaries of the new recruits and how is it being used to retain staff? For example, is it used to give bonuses to staff or maybe there are other methods? The next question is whether the MCYS has observed that in these two years since the Anchor Operators Scheme has come in, whether there is any noticeable flow of teachers from the other operators to the Anchor Operators because of this advantage that they have. Page: 954”
“Yes, Sir, I do have some supplementary questions. I thank the Minister for answering the questions. At last month's meeting, it was said that the ASEAN Environment Ministers met and talked about the identifications of these companies. I would like to know if in the identification of these companies, are any of these companies listed in Singapore or are owned by Singaporeans or have their subsidiaries based in Singapore. What can the Singapore Government do to these companies that are Singapore-owned or Singapore-operated? Also, what particular methods can we use to prosecute these companies?”
“The Government will regain control over the fee process to ensure affordability. Government can better direct its key programmes. MCYS had found it hard to get private operators to go along with some of its programmes, such as SPARK. Last month, we were told only 115 pre-schools had attained SPARK accreditation, of which just 39 were private operators. This is way, way below the target of 85% of all centres to be SPARK-tested by 2013, a figure established by Minister of State for Education, Mr Masagos in November 2010. We can allow only SPARK-accredited operators to contest these sites. There may not even be a need for state-run pre-schools. The call for nationalisation was made by many frustrated with differing standards and high costs. We can improve quality even at the low-cost segment by having a critical mass of centres available in this public-good model, and the state regulates to steer quality and pricing. It can designate some centres for the low-income group by packaging centres for different market segments in each tender exercise. While this proposal is in the context of childcare, it can also be used for kindergartens. In summary, I am calling for childcare to be a public good with fair contestability of sites at managed rents for all types of operators, with tighter control of fees and quality by the state. This will benefit all Singaporeans as fees will drop industry-wide while preserving diversity and driving up quality and innovation. I hope the Government can carefully consider this proposal.”
“New HDB sites are so few compared to unannounced sites for Anchors. Anchor Operators could lure their staff away with scholarships. Instead of encouraging other operators to step up, it can cause some to think short term and extract as much out of their investment while they can. We can apply contestability. Contest clusters of sites openly based on concept rather than on rent. This was done before, when Government building sites charged token rent and selection was on other factors, such as quality and fees. There is no need for a one-time selection of new Anchor which will only strengthen a few selected ones and weaken everyone else. Worst, it may become impossible for new operators to enter the market, killing off future innovation. We need active and fair competition to raise standards and to continuously drive innovation. Recurrent and other grants should apply to all qualifying participants as long as they meet strict selection criteria on fees and quality. There should be no differentiation between private and non-profit operators. We already know what the current Anchors can do with the support they had been given. Why have we been limiting ourselves to think only selected non-profit players can bring cost down? Let us open up and see how all others, including private operators, can benefit from that in terms of price and quality, if given similar support. I believe fair competition may even force current Anchor Operators to better their pricing, ultimately benefiting consumers. Page: 648 New operators can surface from time to time. Small operators may band together into economic groups to better compete. Contestability will drive diversity and quality. Operators cannot increase fees without approval.”
“We can have mega childcare sites as long as we ensure it is within easy access by parents, with roads and parking well planned. We can utilise unused land parcels next to primary schools. There are small plots around some primary schools which are not big enough for meaningful commercial projects. We can tap on the infrastructure of the schools to add new pre-school facilities. This will make use of unutilised space, save on infrastructure costs and cultivate exchange between Primary school and pre-school. The Government can negotiate as main tenant with large private landlords for sites as a bloc to supplement their bank of childcare sites. It can work with property developers who get additional Floor Area when they set aside pre-school space at cheap rents and let the Government use the space for any type of operators. We should actively pursue all options to increase the State's childcare bank to cater to the mass market. How do we allocate these centres? Rather than have more Anchors, I have another suggestion. The Anchor concept has skewed the market. It is like giving a boxer super gloves and energy boosters while tying the hands of the competitor and asking them to fight each other. The stated objective of the Anchor Operators was to "develop childcare operators that would set the benchmark for quality and affordable childcare services." It may have allowed Anchor Operators to achieve higher quality as they get resources, economy of scale, and certainty of their leases. Is it fair to expect other operators to keep pace? Other operators get little or no state funding. They hesitate to invest, worried if others will outbid them for their centres at each renewal, which will wipe out sunk investment.”
“The Government has announced new measures for the industry. While they may be initiated with good intent, I fear it could end up creating more unfair competition, destroying the diversity and innovation in our current system. I have a proposal to bring costs down while pushing for quality and diversity – childcare as a public good with private partnership through contestability. I noted that in delivering public goods such as transport, the Government has pumped billions in rail and bus investments without expecting payback from private operators or charging infrastructure at market rent to them. We are told this is to bring the cost of public transport to a level that the public can accept. If we wish for young working couples to be able to afford childcare and be encouraged to have more children, then we have a case to use a public good's approach for childcare. Government can build and lease out centres at managed low rent. All existing centres can come under this model. Based on answers in Parliament, there are 290 void deck centres for non-profit and 176 for private operators in void decks and JTC buildings, and another 52 in Government buildings. That is 518 centres, roughly 52.4% of all childcare centres in Singapore. With 200 more new centres to be built mostly in Government-controlled spaces, the share of sites under Government control will rise. Page: 647 Old schools, disused community centres and other SLA spaces can be purpose-built by the Government into mega childcare facilities, even housing different operators under one roof. Childcare generally should be within 2-3 km of workplaces or homes. Many small void decks in new HDB blocks are not ideal for childcare, limiting options in new towns.”
“PCF secured the site at low rent, and can enjoy other grants. EtonHouse is responsible for programme delivery, set-up and pedagogy. According to a speech by Mr Wong Kan Seng in 2009, EtonHouse manages the centre and was selected because PCF wanted to work with a private operator who could deliver "high quality programmes". While there could be variations in operations compared to a typical EtonHouse centre, the fact is, EtonHouse could deliver "high quality programmes" at less than half of its usual fees when it operates in a void deck that enjoys subsidised rents and grants. In the 1990s, Government buildings started to provide for workplace childcare. There was an interesting practice then to charge $1 or other token monthly rent for purpose-built childcare facilities which catered to children of staff working in the building. Bids were called. I noted that in open competition, these sites went to established private players whose own centres charged in the mid to upper price range. The condition for low rent then was that the fees for children of staff in the buildings must be kept low. Premium private operators could match the prevailing fees of non-profit operators. Today, costs are escalating due mainly to rent and manpower. Manpower cost affects all in the industry. Anchors with recurrent grants can better retain staff, head-hunt from other centres and deal with rising costs. Rent is steadily rising in our competitive market. This has caused fees to rise. Out-of-pocket payments by parents in many private centres today are higher than before subsidies were increased in 2008. MCYS has no control over fees. Centres just need to give "ample" notice to parents, which MCYS recommends as three months, and then fees will go up.”
“The main start-up cost is renovation, fitting out, and investment in resources. Set-up cost can be high, running into a few hundred thousand dollars per centre. In a typical centre paying competitive rents, manpower and rent account for some 80% of all on-going operating costs. Private operators function from landed houses, commercial and Government-owned buildings or purpose-built HDB void decks. Tenancy is often subjected to bidding. When tenancy expires, there is usually open bidding or adjustments to market rent. Competition has caused rents to be in excess of $10,000 to even as high as over $40,000 per month in recent tenders. Anchor Operators get choice new sites regularly at highly subsidised rents. They receive start-up, furnishing, maintenance and recurrent grants. These give them huge operating benefits over competitors. The difference in monthly rent between non-profit and private operators can be $15,000 per month or more. Divide $15,000 by a typical centre enrolment of 75 children, that works out to around $200 cost advantage per child per month. With setup grants, Anchor Operators need to provide less for amortisation of investments. They get ongoing grants to defray costs. Yet, with these cost advantages, non-profit's median fee is currently just two hundred over dollars lower than that of private operators. We can find private centres whose fees are not much higher than that of the Anchors. Are the Anchors, with these cost advantages, really doing enough to keep fees affordable? Page: 646 Sir, there are other industry data to support my claim. In a parliamentary reply this year, MCYS disclosed that EtonHouse, a premium operator whose fee is $1,500 per month, charges only $728 at its Hampton Preschool. The centre is a collaboration with PCF.”
“They are called Anchor Operators, so determined after an exercise in 2009. The criteria used included: (a) $5 million paid-up capital, (b) non-profit, and (c) without any religious or racial affiliation. Anchor Operators function mostly from HDB void decks, at rents of between $2 and $4 per square metre, as disclosed by MCYS. For a typical centre of 400-500 sqm, this means monthly rent of $1,000 onwards. They receive generous set-up and furnishing grants for each new centre. In addition, they get recurrent grants for manpower development and learning programmes, estimated to go into $30 million per year. MCYS publishes upcoming new centres from HDB and SLA. From its website, I see just a few centres available to private and non-profit operators. Yet, at the opening of the 100th NTUC centre in October last year, NTUC declared it will open 50 new centres over the next two years, which is one every fortnight. PCF, too, had been growing just as rapidly in the last three years. Just five years ago, PCF was a small childcare player. Today, it is number two with 90 centres, just behind NTUC. The many new centres by these two operators do not match the small number of published centres available to non-profit operators. Are they given unpublished quotas? We are told that the role of non-profit and Anchor Operators is to bring cost down while maintaining quality. Sir, there is no magic in non-profit or in Anchor Operators. The lower fees they provide can be matched by private operators. I will now demonstrate that if private operators get the same benefits as non-profit and, indeed, Anchor Operators, they had shown that they could match the fees of non-profit peers. Financial modelling for childcare is straightforward.”
“This number is similar to 93,000 who are enrolled in kindergartens. Enrolment for kindergartens has been decreasing steadily over the past few years. If this trend persists, there will be more children enrolled in childcare centres instead of kindergartens. In fact, childcare centres now play a very important role in our society. At the start of 2004, the average fee for full-day childcare services was $572, but this has increased to $699 by the end of 2008. Currently, the average fee is $831. In 2008, the Government increased childcare subsidies. The monthly subsidy for full-day childcare services increased from $150 to $300. Now, based on the above statistics, we can see that average fees for childcare services has increased in tandem with the increase in Government subsidies. If we were to look at the fees of private childcare centres, I am sure that the fees have increased much more than the increase in Government subsidies, because their labour and manpower costs have gone up rapidly. Today, an article in Lianhe Zaobao reported on the rental woes faced by private operators of childcare centres. According to a recent survey by Lien Foundation, 90% of users of childcare services feel that pre-school education is expensive or very expensive. The survey also pointed to a serious problem: childcare fees are so high that it is deterring many married couples from having more children. Page: 645 Is it possible for us to have good, affordable childcare services for the masses? I believe it is possible. Now, let me elaborate in English. (In English): In the childcare industry, there are many private operators, most with one or a few centres, while several run chain stores. We also have non-profit operators, dominated by NTUC First Campus and PCF Sparkletots.”
“Sir, I would like to add my suggestions for reforms to the childcare industry, even as the Government is looking at how to boldly transform this sector. I wish to declare that a part of my business supplies products and services to pre-schools. I have also previously managed and owned childcare centres, but have no longer been doing so for the past seven years. This proposal is to improve the industry to benefit consumers. It will not benefit my business. I will first speak in Mandarin. [Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Charles Chong) in the Chair] (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Pg 690 for Vernacular Speeches.] Childcare centres in Singapore first started in the 1970s. Back then, there were only a few private and non-profit operators in the business. Children between the age of four and six could be enrolled in childcare centres or kindergartens. However, because kindergarten school fees were much lower, kindergartens became the primary choice for parents looking for pre-school education for their children. Then in the 1990s, childcare centres started to flourish because more double-income families appeared. In the past 10 years, the childcare industry has expanded at a very fast pace. Childcare centres became a common sight at the workplace. In the beginning of the year 2004, there were 651 childcare centres. This number has increased to 987 by June this year. During this period, the number of children who enrolled in childcare centres increased from 38,000 to more than 75,000. So, you see more and more childcare centres in housing estates. There is a lot of demand for childcare centres in housing estates. In fact, the demand for childcare centres outstrips supply. Inclusive of children under infant care, childcare centres currently take care of 90,000 children.”
“Mr Speaker, may I request for the printouts to be distributed?”
“Page: 1203 Resolved, That this Parliament, pursuant to section 7 of the Civil List and Pension Act (Chapter 44), resolves that the Schedule to that Act be varied by deleting the figures "$4,267,500", "$2,068,300" and "$659,300" in the second column and substituting for them the figures "$1,568,900", "$2,762,300" and "$550,000" respectively.”
“[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), Written Answer to Question No 17 on the Order Paper is reproduced in the Appendix (Pg 1231).] Page: 1202 Civil List (Motion) The Minister of State for Finance (Mrs Josephine Teo) : Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That this Parliament, pursuant to section 7 of the Civil List and Pension Act (Chapter 44), resolves that the Schedule to that Act be varied by deleting the figures "$4,267,500", "$2,068,300" and "$659,300" in the second column and substituting for them the figures "$1,568,900", "$2,762,300" and "$550,000" respectively. For Class I expenditures, I propose a decrease of $2,698,600 to $1,646,400 from the approved FY2011 expenditure, to reflect a reduction in the Privy Purse. This reduction follows the President's acceptance of the recommendations put forth by the Ministerial Salaries Review Committee. Provisions for Class II expenditures will remain unchanged at $4,532,400. For Class III expenditures, I propose an increase of $694,000 to $2,762,300. The increased provision is to cater for higher maintenance expenses of computer systems, land and buildings, as well as higher expenses on utilities, ceremonies and celebrations due to cost inflation. For Class IV expenditures, I propose a decrease of $109,300 to $550,000. This is because one-off expenditures incurred in FY2011 are no longer applicable. Sir, it is therefore necessary to vary the provisions in the Schedule to the Civil List and Pension Act (Chapter 44) as indicated in the Motion before the House. I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to.”
“Sir, I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the answers. I have some supplementary questions. Firstly, is there any noticeable shift in the quality of scholars coming from countries that are fast-growing like China, because people may be richer and have other options to go elsewhere to study, and whether we follow a certain quota system of just maintaining a certain number from each country every year? Secondly, is there some figure that the Senior Parliamentary Secretary can share regarding the number of scholars who had their scholarships suspended as they consistently did not do well in their performance? Page: 1202 Ms Sim Ann : Sir, because the admission of foreign scholars into our system is primarily to augment our manpower pool so as to better anchor investors and employers who can in turn offer good jobs for the economy and for Singaporeans, we do take the quality of such intakes very seriously. In terms of where the scholars come from, they come from the ASEAN countries as well as China and India. Basically, this has been the mix over the years. And over the years, we have been able to maintain certain standards in the quality of such students. In terms of the number of scholarships that has been suspended due to poor performance in school, I do not have the figures at hand, but, by and large, we monitor their performance very carefully. In terms of the quality, I can share with the Member that, for instance, in terms of the number of international scholars who have been awarded Second Upper Honours and above in our universities, this has been around 45% [please see Official Report on 28 February 2012, Pg 1304], and this compares with about 32% for Singaporean citizens. 3.00 pm Mr Speaker : Order. End of Question Time.”