I would like to seek 2 clarifications on the Bill.

First, the new S2 (1B) defines ‘dormant account’ as one where a member has reached a prescribed age, prescribed circumstances exist, and he has not responded to the Board to confirm that he is alive. According to the new S 13 (7B), this dormant status would trigger off a count-down towards a transfer to General Moneys, where the member’s moneys will not attract interest payments.

There will be some concern about ensuring that elderly and frail CPF members, including those with stroke, dementia or who are illiterate, are not unfairly deprived of interest because they did not respond to the Board’s request. What sort of due diligence will the Board exercise before making the transfer to General Moneys? Would there be a link-up to nursing homes, welfare homes etc to account for those in care? Will there be personal visits by CPF Board officials to the member’s last known address?

Secondly, under Clause 16(a), the new S 27L(1A) provides that CPF members who have already paid premiums for CPF Life annuities when they reached 55, will be required to pay additional premiums just before they reach draw-down age (to be 65). These additional premiums will only be told to them 2 months before they reach draw-down age.

At age 55, the member would have made his selection of CPF Life annuity plan based on the premium and projections told to him then. To require him to pay additional premiums just before draw down age seems to be a retroactive requirement, since he cannot change his annuity plan unless he gets special permission then. Should the member not be given a choice whether or not to pay the additional premium?

–
Webmaster’s note: This speech was delivered in the Parliament on 16 Aug 2010

This Bill before Parliament now has undergone some changes from the initial Bill which was floated for public consultation. I am happy to note that some points in my submission to the Ministry have been taken into account in this revised version.

This Bill makes some progressive changes in 3 important areas: pre-trial disclosure framework, crime victims’ redress and community-based sentences.
(more…)

Sir, the Bill carries several amendments. While some of the amendments are useful, the Workers’ Party opposes the Bill because of the changes it makes to entrench the NCMP system and the introduction of the `cooling off’ period.

Increasing the number of NCMPs

This is connected with the Constitutional Amendment Bill debated earlier. I have already spoken at length under that Bill on the reasons why the Workers’ Party voted against the change. I will not repeat them but will focus on the change to introduce a cooling-off period.

The ‘cooling off’ period

The Bill seeks to introduce an additional day before Polling Day where campaigning is not allowed. This has been called the cooling-off day. On this day, no symbols or badges can be displayed (Clause 27); no election advertising can be published or uploaded (Clause 30); no canvassing is allowed (Clause 34) and no rallies can be held (Clause 35).

In our view, there is no convincing reason to show that, after all these years without a cooling off period, such a change is needed in the national interest. In addition, the change is open to abuse in the ruling party’s favour.
(more…)

The Workers’ Party opposes the Bill.

I will first discuss the change in criminal procedure before moving on to the political changes.

Video-link for remand cases

Clause 2 of the Bill will take away a very important safeguard for suspects under police investigation.

Under the existing Article 9(4) of the Constitution, a suspect arrested by police can remain in police custody for a maximum of 48 hours and any further detention for police investigations will require a court order from a Magistrate. This has required the police to transport the suspect from the police lock-up facility to the court premises, to be produced in person before a judicial officer.

This physical removal from the police facility into a court, and being in the direct physical presence of the court, gives an assurance to the suspect that he has an independent party to complain to should he be undergoing any undue hardship during investigations. The Magistrate will also be able to observe the suspect’s physical condition, the way he walks, stands, and speaks, for signs of exhaustion, or even injury. This safeguard is very important at this stage of the case. Even though the suspect has a right to counsel under Article 9(2) of the Constitution, this right has been deferred by case law and is unlikely to be given at the point of 1st remand. This is unlike the jurisdictions mentioned by DPM Wong earlier who used video conferencing – in those countries, the right to counsel is much stronger, given even at the point of arrest, unlike in Singapore where it is deferred. This makes the court oversight here even more critical at this point when the investigations are still very hot and there is pressure to solve the case.

By allowing remand orders to be given via video-link, the suspect will no longer be brought to the independent court but to perhaps another room in a police facility, guarded by police. Under such constrained circumstances, will he have the confidence to raise any issues about the investigations or complaints against the police? Neither will the Magistrate sitting miles away be able to properly observe and assess his physical condition or other causes for concern.

We should not allow the logistical inconvenience of having to transport suspects to court to be a reason to derogate from their Constitutional rights. Neither should the recent incidents of near escapes from the court be another reason to avoid transporting suspects to court.

Changing any rights under the Fundamental Liberties in our Constitution deserves the utmost justification. The reasons given by the government are weak and the change will be a serious compromise to the safeguard intended by Article 9(4).

I next move on to the changes to the composition of Parliament.
(more…)

Chairman Sir,

Visiting post office now can be quite an experience ever since the privatization and subsequent listing of SingPost on the Singapore Exchange. Over the years, Singpost has transformed itself into a multi service centre instead of just providing postal service.

To those who have not visited post office lately, let me give you a quick tour. Apart from postal service, you can buy software, computers, cameras, household appliances, and insurance. You can do remittance, get ezyCash, and borrow money from a guy named James. SingPost is even into pawn broking. You can get ‘Speedcash’ by pawning your gold jewellery. If you have no gold jewellery, you can try the outlets in Geylang and Chinatown Point. These outlets accept branded watches.

I understand the need for Singpost to move with the times to go beyond providing postal service. I also understand the listed company needs to be proactive in its commercial activities to remain viable and to create value for its shareholders, of which the Government, through Temasek Holdings, is a substantial shareholder.

However, my concern is whether Singpost is distracted by all these “higher value” services and has forgotten its Pledge of Service of providing ‘reliable, on-time, and value-for-money’ postal service.

I received feedback of long waiting time at some post offices for simple transaction of posting a registered mail or even buying stamps.

I have also received feedback that letters were not delivered to the correct address but to a neighbour’s home instead. Such incidents are not uncommon and we cannot always depend on the goodwill of our neighbours to return wrongly delivered mail.

And recently, to my surprise, even mail posted to PO box can be delivered late by a month or two.

I would like to know the role of the Government in regulating postal service and the benchmark it uses to assess the service standard delivered to the public.

(Note: this speech was delivered in Parliament on 12 Mar 2010.)

Chairman Sir,

By 2012, the re-employment legislation will require employers to offer re-employment to workers reaching 62 years of age, up to age 65, and eventually to age 67. However, the Re-employment legislation will not replace the Retirement Act of 1999.

The Retirement Act allows an employer to reduce the wages of older employees up to 10% on or at any time after the employee attains 60 years of age.

The 10% pay cut at age 60 was recommended by the Tripartite Committee on the Extension of Retirement and the justification then was to address the problem of the seniority-based-wage system.

With the Government’s call to increase productivity and the progress made in wage restructuring from a seniority-based wage system to a performance-based wage system, I would like to call upon the Government to review the Retirement Act of 1999 by removing the wage reduction option given to employers.

A wage system that moves away from seniority elements and towards job worth and performance is more than adequate to ensure an older worker is paid based on the value of the job and his contribution instead of his seniority. Given that the performance-based wage system will improve the cost competitiveness and employability of older workers, we should remove the wage reduction anomaly from the Retirement Act as older workers would have been paid market rate in the run-up to age 62.

Moreover, the Tripartite Committee’s recommendation that employer’s CPF contribution rate for employees aged 60-65 years be reduced from 7.5% to 4% and from 5% to 4% for employees aged above 65 years is sufficient to make re-employment worthwhile for employers.

Sir, any provision in our labour laws to reduce the wages of older workers upon reaching re-employment age will dampen the zeal of an ageing society to continue working beyond retirement age. 

(Note: this speech was delivered in Parliament on 11 Mar 2010.)

Chairman Sir,

As at June 2009, there were 87,400 resident employees on short term contracts of less than 3 months and 156,200 residents on part-time employment. About half of these employees are in the older age group and majority of them have lower educational qualification with a gross monthly income of below $1,000.

I am of the view that the number under this category of employees would increase over time because company wanted flexible manpower and being able to response faster to changing demand and cost variation as business environment changes. Secondly, as our society matures with an increased number of aging employees, more people may prefer such mode of employment as seniors may not want to work full time.

Contract and part-time workers may not necessary be low wage and low productivity. Some studies have shown that part-time workers can be as productive as full-time workers and companies employing part timer do not necessary suffer low productivity. I understand that in Netherlands in which a relatively large share of the workforce works part-time, achieve high labour productivity. Hence, I believe that there is much room for improvement in productivity and income of our contract and part-time workers.

Sir, given the current educational profile of the employees in this group, a targeted approach is needed to improve the productivity and income. ESC proposes to introduce a broad-based incentive scheme to encourage employers to send their workers for training & develop structured program to train and place low-wage workers in better jobs, I would like to know what are the detail mechanism and new initiatives to work in line with ESC’s recommendations & to raise the productivity of this group of worker.

Next, with the likely trend of short term contract and part time workers to increase in the future, I would like to know whether MOM will develop strategy to include such employees in the productivity upgrading process.

(Note: this speech was delivered in Parliament on 11 Mar 2010.)

Disabled persons face challenges fitting into society for work, recreation and social interaction. Travel is a necessary step towards integration, to work, to socialise and to be consumers.

There are currently no public transport concessions for the disabled.

The disabled here have low earning capacity. Many do not work; those who do, earn a few hundred dollars per month, spending up to a third on travel expenses.

The government has often said that we should build an inclusive society. It therefore should not take a back seat on this issue.

Other governments are proactive. In the UK, disabled persons qualify for a special “Railcard” which entitles them to travel throughout the UK at one-third off from the normal fare. In addition, disabled persons in London can travel off-peak for free on buses, the Underground and trains.

The government cannot wash its hands off the matter by saying that the public transport system is operated commercially and it is up to the public transport operators (PTOs) to decide. The disabled have no bargaining power against the big companies.

For instance, the Land Transport Authority, as regulator, can make it a licensing condition that the PTOs recognize disabled passengers for concession travel.

According to a 2001 MOH survey, less than 2 per cent of Singaporean adults below 60 have some sort of disability. Is the number of disabled too much for the PTOs? The PTO’s operations are reaping profits of tens of millions of dollars annually and this is part of their corporate social responsibility.

(Note: this speech was delivered in Parliament on 11 Mar 2010.)

Currently, the proportion of Primary One cohort admitted into the local subsidized universities is targeted to rise to 30% by 2015, with the new university and institute coming up.

I would like to ask if MOE will review this 30% target with a view to increasing it.

I note MOE’s concerns that we should not have sudden increases in graduate numbers which may leave many unemployed or under-employed.

However, since Singapore is prioritising innovation and greater productivity, the population as a whole has to raise its game, and the jobs of the future will require different educational qualifications from currently. We are also trying to encourage the growth of entrepreneurs to find their own niches. With globalization, Singaporean graduates also have more opportunities overseas, which will still benefit their families and Singapore, directly or indirectly.

As a matter of interest, according to the OECD Factbook 2009, the 25 OECD countries were expecting to graduate on average about 37% of an age cohort from Tertiary-Type A (typical degree level) education in 2006. It was stated that there was a strong trend in increasing their cohort participation rates in the last 15 years in line with producing highly-skilled labor forces.

I agree that we need to maintain standards in university admission. However, over the years, many students who were rejected by our local universities were admitted to reputable foreign universities and did well. But this route is available only to those whose parents could afford it.

I hope the Ministry will look into revising the cohort participation rate at our local subsidized universities beyond 30%.

(Note: this speech was delivered in Parliament on 10 Mar 2010.)

主席先生，

华文B课程在2001年开始推行，之后在2004年接受了华文课程与教学法改革报告书的建议，做了一些更改。

政府在1999年宣布这项课程时，主要是针对学习华文有困难的学生，避免这些学生因为被强逼学习华文，反而对华族文化产生厌恶感。请问教育部长，华文B实施至今，有没有达到当初的预定目标？我也想知道从2001年开始至今，历年来修读华文B的学生人数是多少？及格率又是多少？

我所担心的是华文B是否会在一些情况下被滥用呢？例如，原本华文程度并不是太差的学生因为心理上排斥华文而不愿意认真学习，宁愿选择华文B这条捷径；或者为了不让学校普通华文的及格率降低而建议某些华文成绩不佳的学生选修华文B。我想知道教育部是否审查过华文B课程是否存在可能被滥用的漏洞？

国立大学中文系教授王昌伟发表过一篇文章，他说：
“利用富有创意的教学方式提高学生对华文的兴趣当然非常值得鼓励，但我们的错误，就在于以为降低要求是提高学生学习热忱的先决条件。从第二语文到华文B、到用英语教华文、到只需认字不必写字，这样一步步退让，也许当下能讨好学生，但等到学生日后需要运用华文的时候，他们是会恨我们耽误了他们的。“

我同意他的看法，也希望教育部重新检讨华文B课程的内容及其存在的利弊。

（2010年3月9日发表于国会拨款委员会辩论）