FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

TOWN COUNCIL MANAGEMENT – WHAT IS REALLY AT STAKE

During the debate in Parliament on Town Councils on 13 May 2013, Parliament discussed the controversial sale of the Town Council Management System (TCMS) to Action Information Management Pte Ltd (AIM), a company wholly-owned by the PAP, allowing AIM to terminate the TCMS with one month’s notice should there be a material change in the membership of the Town Council.

WP had raised this issue inside and outside Parliament as it viewed the transaction as jeopardising the public interest. We could not see any justification for the sale to a third party, let alone a company owned by a political party, of the most critical town management IT system developed with public funds, leaving a Town Council powerless and at the risk of disruption of services.

It is most regrettable that Minister for National Development Khaw Boon Wan and Dr Teo Ho Pin have decided to distract the public by casting aspersions on WP’s management of the Town Council and on its Managing Agent, FM Solutions and Services Pte Ltd (FMSS). It is disappointing that the Ministry, too, has been drawn into the fray.

Many of Dr Teo’s latest allegations and questions have already been addressed in Parliament or in media statements issued by Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council.

Among Dr Teo’s latest allegations and questions is why we chose to appoint a Managing Agent to run a Town Council rather than hire staff directly as was done in Hougang Town Council. We find it odd that he should ask this question. The reasons should be clear to Dr Teo, as almost all PAP Town Councils have chosen to appoint Managing Agents as well.

Dr Teo also misrepresents my response in Parliament concerning the comparisons of MA rates cited by Minister Khaw. He said that I was “not sure of the unit rates paid by AHTC to FMSS”. I am surprised, as this is clearly different from what was correctly recorded in the draft Hansard which all MPs had received by Tuesday 14 May. What was clearly reflected in Hansard was that I said I needed to double-check the prices the Minister quoted on property units because I thought there might be some errors in the prices that he mentioned, and that we needed to ensure that the comparisons were made on the same basis, that we were comparing apples with apples. Indeed, as it turns out, there were discrepancies between the Minister’s figures and our computation methods, as seen in the subsequent media exchanges between MND and AHPETC.

The repeated reference to Tampines Town Council’s MA rates for 2012 alone is clearly not relevant, since the same Managing Agent quoted a much higher rate for Aljunied in 2010. Whether Tampines is an outlier in MA rates has not been answered.

Discerning members of the public have already seen the clear distinction between the AIM transaction and the appointment of FMSS, and some have even come up with their comparison charts. To summarise, the key differences are tabulated below:

If the Minister, Dr Teo or the Ministry believe there was any wrongdoing in WP’s management of the Town Council, we invite them to make a report to the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau or other relevant agencies to investigate the matter, rather than to make these suggestions and insinuations. We assure these agencies of our full co-operation.

SYLVIA LIM
CHAIRMAN
WORKERS’ PARTY AND
ALJUNIED-HOUGANG-PUNGGOL EAST TOWN COUNCIL

Ms Sylvia Lim (Chairman of the WP and AHPETC, MP for Aljunied GRC) and Mr Pritam Singh (Vice-chairman of AHPETC, MP for Aljunied GRC) responded in Parliament to the Minister. The following is a summary of the key clarifications raised:

FMSS’ alleged party affiliations and preferential treatment

Following the General Election in May 2011, then-managing agent, CPG Facilities Management, had asked to be released from its contract with Aljunied Town Council (ATC). CPG was concurrently contracted as an MA with another PAP Town Council (TC) and felt that they could not work for both PAP and WP TCs. Hence there was a need to engage a new managing agent for the newly constituted Aljunied-Hougang Town Council (AHTC).

At that time, there were only a few companies in the market that provided town management for HDB estates: Esmaco, EM Services and CPG, all of which also had existing contracts with PAP Town Councils. The set-up of FMSS was due to the very real possibility that WP would be faced with no other company to manage AHTC.

None of FMSS’ shareholders and directors are WP members and FMSS is not a WP-owned company. FMSS was engaged based on its directors’ experience in property management, professional skills and track record in running Hougang Town Council. One of the directors of FMSS was the former General Manager of Hougang Town Council.

Managing agent contract tendering process

In 2011, Ms Lim exercised her rights as Chairman of the TC to waive a tender for the MA contract when it was first awarded after the GE. The Town Council Financial Rules provide for tender process to be waived in certain circumstances. The reason for the waiver was the urgency in the public interest to put in place a Managing Agent to handle the handover in time.

In 2012, Aljunied-Hougang Town Council (AHTC) issued an open tender for a new MA contract. There were three companies that picked up the tender documents, but only FMSS submitted a tender. AHTC was aware of its duties when dealing with a sole tenderer, and that the TC needed to ensure value for money for its residents. AHTC had also commissioned a special external audit of the tender award as an additional assurance of compliance and good governace practices, and that steps had been taken to ensure value for money.

This debate has been triggered by the controversy surrounding the sale of town council management software (TCMS) by 14 Town Councils managed by the People’s Action Party (PAP) to Action Information Management Pte Ltd (AIM) in 2011 prior to the General Elections.

I would like to thank the Prime Minister for acknowledging the public interest in this matter and for ordering the Ministry of National Development (MND) to investigate and to do a broader based review of the nature of Town Councils (TCs). I would also like to record thanks to the Ministry officials for their efforts.

Where do we stand today, after the review? MND’s findings cleared the AIM transaction but highlighted areas for strategic review of TCs. It seems, however, that members of the public who have been tracking this issue are still asking critical questions, and many are not convinced that the 14 PAP TCs acted in the public interest when they sold the TCMS to AIM.

It is necessary to debate this matter calmly and clearly, to enable the public to understand the issues more fully and realize what is at stake. That was why I re-filed an adjournment motion last week. The government’s subsequent decision to enable the matter to be debated under Standing Order 44 is belated, but it is the correct thing to do.

WP’s and AHPETC’s Basic Position on MND’s findings

Let me first summarise how the Workers’ Party and Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC) view the MND findings before elaborating. I shall thereafter make recommendations for the review.

First, we do not agree with the findings regarding the AIM transaction that public funds were safeguarded and residents’ interests had not been compromised.

From our reading of the documents available to us, there were aspects of tender suggesting it failed to follow the spirit of what an open tender should be. Further, the terms of the sale of the most critical town management IT system had unnecessarily endangered public welfare, particularly the relinquishing of ownership to AIM with the one-month termination clause. MND fell short in not admonishing the PAP TCs for risking disruption to the public in the name of politics. MND also did not take cognizance of the wastage of public funds incurred when such terminations required replacement systems to be set up. In addition, the one-year sale and leaseback was clearly an underestimate of the time needed to re-develop a new TCMS; the fact that the one year happened to straddle GE 2011 suggests that whatever “good faith” the TCs had in the sale to AIM, there were political objectives in crippling any new TC leadership of a different political affiliation, hence endangering the public in the process.

Second, as regards the MND’s recommendations for a review of TCs, we find that while they will improve continuity of services during a handover of TC management, the recommendations do not go far enough to prevent wastages of public funds. MND should entrench principles to recognize the public nature of assets being handled by TCs which should be safeguarded for public benefit, regardless of party politics.

Genesis: Why TC issues were raised by WP and AHTC in December 2012

Before I go further, I should at the onset state WP’s position concerning town management and why we brought the AIM sale to public knowledge in December last year.

WP MPs are committed to being politically accountable to voters for town management under the current regime. Whatever else is done in other countries, the responsibility for town management has been legislated to the MPs under the Town Councils Act. We accept this responsibility and have pledged during elections to manage towns entrusted to us to the best of our ability. We intend to continue keeping this promise.

We raised the sale to AIM after the MND released its banding of town councils under the revised TC Management Review framework in Dec 2012. Contrary to what some PAP members have charged, it was not raised as an excuse for non-performance, nor are we asking anybody to wait 24 or 30 months or 5 years for us to perform. AHTC was actually ranked well and comparably by MND in the areas of cleanliness, maintenance and lift breakdowns – the critical functions residents care most about. The main point which required public explanation was that the new indicator of “Corporate Governance” was graded as “pending”, as our auditors took much longer to complete their work. This was due to the need to reconcile accounts being kept under two different IT systems with differing nomenclature.

We do not believe that the AIM sale served the public interest, and the public deserved to know about this and assess it for themselves. We find it unacceptable for any TC to relinquish control over critical TC assets developed with public funds to third parties, who can cut the TC off from using the assets to service residents. In our view, the PAP TCs had unjustifiably risked a disruption to public services and that this should not be allowed to recur. I am relieved to read that the MND recognized the need to preserve continuity of public services as a paramount priority. The question is: why did the PAP TCs not recognize the risk of service disruption when selling the TCMS to AIM?

AIM Transaction

Let me now go into some detail about our misgivings concerning the AIM transaction.

Reasons for the sale

The reasons given by the PAP TCs for the sale of software and the intellectual property (IP) raise more questions than answers.

They told MND (MND report paras 17 to 19) that having the software rights reside in a single entity was better than having the vendor deal with 14 TCs which would be “cumbersome and inefficient”. But surely this can be easily overcome, since the PAP TCs have a Co-ordinating Chairman who can co-ordinate to ensure the proper authorisations? The TCMS was developed with $23.8 million of TC operating funds (MND report para 13); surely there is reason to retain ownership and control over it for the residents in the 82 electoral wards then under their charge? Much ado is being made in the report that the second generation (2G) TCMS was “almost obsolete and had limited value” (MND report para 19), but does this mean it is of limited value to the TCs using it now? If the system ceased to function without replacement, TC operations would grind to a halt! Another incomprehensible justification is the saving of $8,000 for the 14 TCs that arose from the sale (MND report para 26(a)). The $8,000 saving is the difference between the $140,000 paid by AIM and the sums paid by the TCs back to AIM during the one year leaseback. This total “saving” of $8,000 shared among 14 TCs amounts to about $571 per TC. Is saving $571 significant enough reason for a TC to sell a system?

Tender Terms

It was emphasized in the MND report that the choice of AIM was made after an open tender (MND report para 20, 21). Was it an open tender in substance?

The tender was advertised and 5 companies picked up the documents. However, a closer look at the Conditions of Contract will reveal that the specifications required each of the directors of the tendering company to have “adequate experience with the operations and functions of a Town Council”. I wonder how many companies in the software business in Singapore can say that all their directors have TC experience – perhaps only AIM?

The tender period was advertised as 14 days (MND report para 20), shorter than the minimum period of 3 weeks for local tenders required under the TC Financial Rule 74(6). It was then extended by another week to give 3 weeks. Why the initial period advertised was one week less than the minimum was not explained at all in the MND report.

In addition, one of the companies which picked up the tender forms had told the media that there was insufficient information in the tender documents to make a decision whether to tender (The New Paper, 5 Jan 2013, page 6).

Risk assessment of AIM

The PAP TCs told MND that one of the key reasons for selling the software to AIM was that AIM agreed to bear the risk of any price increases by NCS in maintaining the software, even after the original contract with NCS expired (MND report para 25(b)). We have not been able to find this exact clause in our documents. However, even assuming so, on what objective basis did the PAP TCs assess that it was safe to entrust this risk of cost increases to a company with a paid-up capital of $2? Who will pay in the event of a cost increase? What about the risk of AIM being wound up?

The PAP TCs highlighted AIM’s “track record”, but based on the tender documents we have seen, AIM listed only one prior project, also a sale and leaseback. When AIM was asked to fill in a table indicating the identities of their key technical and professional staff, a line was drawn across the table with only one word typed in: “Outsourced”.

Duration and timing of sale and leaseback

MND noted (para 5) that the TCs “underestimated the complexity of the task of developing the new generation TCMS software”. We find this quite puzzling, since the TCs had experience in developing the 1st and 2nd generation TCMS and should have known that one year was too short. Now, as MND has noted, 2 extensions were required after that (para 5), and a fresh tender was only called this year in 2013. Was there any re-development work from 2011 to now?

The timing of the sale to commence a few months before the General Elections in 2011 also calls for explanation. Was it a pure coincidence? Or was there simply a need to sell the software quickly, so that termination can be effected if political seats were lost? Let me now turn to the termination clause.

Termination clause

The reasons given by the PAP TCs for the one-month termination clause (MND report, para 3(e)) are plainly unconvincing.

First, no attempt was made to explain why a material change in membership of TC should allow unilateral termination by the contractor with one month’s notice. It is unfortunate that MND did not seem to query this, as this is the crux of the exchange between the PAP and WP. Could it be that there is simply no good reason to give?

Some attempt was made to explain why termination may be fair in the case of a change in boundaries: it was said that the contractor might be faced with a much larger town than anticipated, but be held to a fixed price to his detriment (MND report para 3(e)). I am not sure why there was this worry. At that time, the TCMS was being developed for the whole of Singapore except 2 SMCs viz. Potong Pasir and Hougang. In addition, the contract itself already provided for a variation in price based on the number of property units!

The real sting of the termination clause lay in its one-month notice period. Is a one-month termination reasonable for a critical IT system? It is quite clear that time is needed to develop a system of this complexity – in the PAP’s own estimation, 18 to 24 months. Did the PAP TCs not realize that this aspect of the AIM transaction endangered the continuity of public services? Or perhaps that was the intention in the case of a change in political leadership?

It was fortunate indeed that the WP could use the IT system in place in Hougang TC and upscale it within a much-abridged time to cater for a town of GRC magnitude. What if a constituency was won by a political party not running any TC, or by an independent candidate? Or is the continuity of public services not important to the PAP once they lose a constituency?

Wastage of Public Funds

No finding has been made about the wastage of public funds caused by the need to replace IT systems due to a change in political leadership. Once a system has been developed with TC funds, the residents have a beneficial interest in it, since they contribute to TC funds via Service and Conservancy Charges. Why should they pay again, for a replacement system, just because the town council management has changed hands? Even those who live in private estates have asked me about the wastage, since TCs are also funded by government grants that they, as taxpayers, contribute to. MND has made a finding that there was no loss of public funds caused by the AIM transaction, but what about the wastage of public funds which the transaction brings about? Residents and taxpayers pay twice for political intrigue – how is that justifiable?

Nature of TCs and AHPETC

Let me now move to the nature of Town Councils and the recommendations for strategic review.

Town Councils provide essential public services to HDB dwellers via public funding. As custodians of public funds, all MPs must act in the best interests of residents, regardless of which political party they support. At the same time, TCs unavoidably have some political elements. The manner and quality of town management is one factor in a voter’s choice of MP, and MPs wish to do well in town management in order to get re-elected. However, it does not mean that MPs can allow TC assets to be endangered or cut off from TC use for political reasons.

Let me at this juncture share some essential facts about AHPETC and correct some misconceptions.

The IT system in use in AHPETC belongs to the TC and will be there for use even if there were to be a change in political leadership. There are no equivalent termination clauses unlike the AIM transaction. In fact, I understand that Potong Pasir TC is still using the IT system developed before the change in political leadership in 2011.

I also take strong issue with a misleading release by MND on our Managing Agent, FM Solutions and Services Pte Ltd. The Straits Times of 7 May 2013 reported that “MND gave examples of how politics and town councils sometimes mix” which included, in our case, the former General Manager of Hougang TC and her husband setting up a company to provide town management services to AHTC. We find this insinuation mischievous, as neither she, nor her husband, nor any of the directors and shareholders of the company, are WP members. They were hired based on their experience in property management, professional skills and track record in running Hougang TC. What is MND implying? The Minister should explain.

Recommendations for TC review

I now come to the final part of my speech – our key recommendations for the review of Town Councils.

First, restrictions should be in place in the TC Act to prohibit the sale of critical assets / systems still needed for TC’s operations to third parties. On no account should TCs relinquish control over the use of the assets, which should survive any change in political leadership. The most critical system would be the IT system for town management. Ownership of the town management software system and its intellectual property rights should reside with the Town Council.

Second, town management systems which serve several constituencies should be configured to be easily segregable at low cost in event of boundary change or leadership change. This should be ensured for the 3G TCMS.

Third, another important IT system which should be safeguarded for continuity is the telemonitoring system (TMS), which monitors lift breakdowns and lift rescue. All TCs are currently using the TMS from the same provider, and at the minimum, the existing termination period of 3 months is too short and should be reviewed.

Fourth, important service contracts such as those for Managing Agent and Essential Maintenance and Services Unit (commonly called EMSU) should provide for a longer termination period to allow for a fresh tender to be called, if necessary, after a handover.

Finally, unilateral terminations by contractors of essential contracts due to a change in political leadership should be disallowed. Should there be a need to put in place another contractor due to business considerations, a mutual discharge can be agreed between the TC and the contractor.

We are ready to provide further input if needed.

Conclusion

We believe that the sale of the TCMS by the PAP TCs, whatever its other ancillary benefits, was to enable AIM to cut off any non-PAP TC from using the TCMS at short notice, crippling the TC. By doing so, they acted in their party political interest and jeopardised the public interest, using a critical asset developed with public funds.

In this light, I cannot help but recall the Parliamentary debate in 1988 when the Town Council Bill was first presented for the Second Reading. At that debate, the then First Deputy Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong justified the introduction of Town Councils as providing political stabilisers to the political system. He said there was a need to protect the public by ensuring that political parties which aspired to be government should first prove that they could run a Town Council for a constituency. He said: “If a new party finds itself unexpectedly in government, it would be like an aspiring pilot taking over an SIA jumbo jet in mid-air before he has flown solo in a Cessna. This cannot be in the interest of passengers in the jumbo… TCs are the Cessnas of our political system”. He also highlighted that some PAP MPs had expressed a fear that opposition MPs could win “some seats, prove themselves” (able to run the Town Councils) and thereafter “fan out to other constituencies in subsequent elections” (Hansard, 28 June 1988).

Is this what this whole AIM episode is about – ensuring that the passengers in the Cessnas have bumpy rides or even crash land? Does the government even care about the passengers in the Cessnas, or are they simply collateral damage in a bigger political game?

The MND Town Council Review has left many questions unanswered despite providing a lot of background information on the AIM transaction. While the report has concluded that the sale of the Town Council Management System (TCMS) to a PAP-owned company was nothing more than a business deal, the intentions behind the AIM transaction were not thoroughly scrutinized and explained.

The MND Review also did not look into the possibility that some of the decisions made in the AIM transaction could be politically motivated since MND has acknowledged that Town Councils, by virtue of their leadership, are politicized already.

While the AIM transaction is deemed legal and permissible under the law, the rationale behind the sale of the Intellectual Property (IP) rights to the TCMS to a PAP-owned company and the provision of the Termination Clause in the contract remains unclear and unconvincing in the review. Today I wish to speak on these 2 issues.

Termination Clause
The MND review has not fully addressed how public interest is being served when a vital piece of software for town management, developed at a combined cost of $23.8 million (page 15), was offloaded to a PAP-owned company for $140,000 with an unusual Termination Clause made in favour of the new owner.

The Termination Clause reads:
“The Contractor may in its absolute discretion terminate his services during the contract by giving three (3) months prior notice in writing to the Town Council. However, in the event that there are material changes to the membership of the Town Council or there are material changes to the scope and duties of the Town Council, including but not limited to changes to its present boundaries the Contractor may give a month’s notice in writing, if he wishes to terminate the services during the contract period.”

I find it hard to comprehend that after selling the TCMS to a vendor, the PAP Town Councils also found it imperative to give the same vendor absolute discretion to terminate its services which are vital to the operations of their own towns. How are the interests of the residents protected in such an arrangement?

And what are ‘material changes’ and why it is so important that if such changes were to happen, AIM could just give a month’s notice to terminate its services to any town council.

In the official explanation of the Termination Clause, the PAP Town Council has failed to fully address the meaning of ‘material changes.’ Nonetheless, the PAP Town Councils felt that the provision of such a one-sided Termination clause was ‘fair and reasonable as the vendor would have priced its bid on the basis of the existing TC and Town boundaries. However, should this change materially, the vendor could end up providing services to a TC comprising a much larger area and a larger population of residents, but is held to do so at the same fixed price since a key feature of the contract was that there should be no price change to the TCs even for extensions. The TCs felt that this would be unfair to the prospective vendors, and a clause explicitly addressing such changes would reduce the business risk to the vendor. This would help fetch a better tender price for the TCs’ old software.’

While the above explanation may sound logical, I will explain to this House, point by point, why the provision of the Termination Clause is ill-conceived and makes absolutely no sense at all.

First, there will always be changes made to the size and population of a town because of Build-to-Order (BTO) flats, Selective En bloc Redevelopment (SER) Scheme, private developments and the constant redrawing of our electoral boundaries. Is it then prudent to allow AIM or any new owner of the TCMS to simply walk away from this critical contract citing ‘material changes’ and leaving an entire town in a lurch? How is public interest protected with such a one-sided Termination Clause?

Second, in its original contract, AIM proposed a Lease-Back payment schedule that did not take into consideration the size and population of a town council. All the 14 PAP Town Councils, regardless of their size and population, were required to pay an equal amount of $785 per TC per month as lease-back payment for the use of the TCMS. Thus, it does not matter if you are running a small GRC like Moulmein-Kallang or a big GRC like Ang Mo Kio, each town council pays AIM the same amount of subscription fee. So was AIM concerned about the size and population of a town when pricing the TCMS subscription fee? The answer is obvious. And if AIM is not even worried about such business risk, why would the 14 PAP Town Councils lose sleep over this and want AIM to address such risk? After all, the PAP Town Councils had assessed that AIM is ‘a company with an established track record in TCs and IT services’ and they had confidence the company would deliver on its commitments.

Third, the above explanation of the Termination Clause sounds even more ludicrous when one finds out that there is a clause in the same contract that allows for variation and AIM would be paid in accordance to a method of calculation based on industry practice. In short, AIM is covered if ‘material changes’ in size and population of a town council were to happen for whatever reason. So why was there a need to give AIM the absolute discretion to cite ‘material changes’ to terminate its services to a town council when ‘material changes’ were already covered under the Variation Clause? Can the Minister explain this anomaly?

The provision of this one-sided Termination Clause in the AIM transaction makes no sense because the interests of the residents were not protected at all. Our towns are always in a constant flux of change due to the dynamics of our public and private housing schemes and the redrawing of our electoral boundaries. Residents should not be made to suffer unnecessarily as a result of such ‘material changes’.

The one-sided Termination Clause has caused so much confusion that even the Minister is confused as he has said earlier that the letter of 10 June 2011 sent by the Interim Secretary of the Aljunied-Hougang Town Council was a request to terminate the use of the TCMS. On the contrary, the letter was a request to continue the use of the software of the software till 31 Aug 2011. The Aljunied-Hougang Town Council has no power to initiate any termination based on ‘material changes’. AIM was the one which was given the power to terminate and did exercise it 12 days later on 22 June 2011 according to its own timeline. The question is why PAP Town Councils allowed town councils to be powerless and at the mercy of AIM?

Sale of Intellectual Property Rights
The review report has also concluded that the AIM transaction complied with the Town Council Act and Financial Rules. However, there is a misplaced trust that the sale of the IP of the software to a PAP-owned company was done in the best interests of the residents.

Would any member in this House want to spend $23.8m of your residents’ money to develop a vital piece of software and then offload the IP to a third party knowing very well that future developments and upgrades of the system may depend on the use of the original IP rights?

The risks of system obsolescence are common problems faced by people or companies who depend a lot on the use of IT in their operations. Thus everything from software to hardware can be rendered obsolete in a short space of time but the IP will not. The knowledge system that went into developing the IP for the $23.8 million TCMS is valuable and critical. The TCMS may have zero book value but its real operational value is immeasurable. Right at this moment as we debate in this parliament, the TCMS is keeping almost the entire Singapore humming along, processing payments, managing arrears, handling residents’ feedback and facilities bookings, keeping the financial in check, keeping the communications flowing, and more. The rights to the use of the TCMS must remain open to a town council no matter what or when ‘material changes’ take place.

In the interest of the public, can the Minister state who will own the IP rights to the $17.6 million 3rd generation TCMS that is currently being developed by NEC Asia Pacific? Will AIM be holding any IP rights, direct or derivative, to the new system that is being developed and funded with town council money?

The official explanation of the sale of the TCMS to AIM was to consolidate the IP rights under a single entity for ease of management, future development, and securing extensions of the NCS contract at no extra cost to the PAP Town Councils until such time when the current system is replaced.

As AIM outsourced its IT services to other vendors, it is basically playing the role of a project manager and project managers do not need to own the IP rights to the project they managed especially when those projects are vital to the operation of our towns and developed with public money.

It also appears incredulous that the 14 PAP Town Councils would need an external company, who is technically a competitor of NCS, to help them negotiate and secure extensions of the NCS contract at no extra cost to the PAP Town Councils even though the town councils have a longstanding working relationship with NCS going back to 2003 when they first awarded the multi-million project to the IT company.

How hard it is for the PAP Town Councils to secure extensions of the NCS contract at no extra cost on goodwill? Did the PAP Town Councils try to approach NCS directly?

Conclusion
The relationship between the PAP Town Councils and AIM is an uneasy one. It was reported that AIM was set up by the PAP in 1991 to specifically support PAP MPs in the running of their TCs and estates. The company does not seek to make profit from its work done for the PAP Town Councils and only charges management fee based on cost-recovery. Thus, any transaction done between the PAP Town Councils and AIM has very little business consideration, mostly political I presumed.

The MND Review has stated that ‘given the political character of the town council’s leadership and the political implications attached to the management of the town council, it is inevitable that the town council function is carried out in a competitive politicised context.’

The AIM transaction had all the trappings of a high stake political game where the interests of the residents are of the least concern. So how should MND classify the sale of the TCMS to AIM and the provision of the one-sided Termination Clause in this review, business or political?

Finally, I believe whatever that was written in black and white in the AIM transaction has been reviewed by the committee but whatever intention that was written in the hearts of the people that were involved in this transaction will remain hidden for their conscience and makers to judge.

The Town Councils Act of 1989 was passed with reference to Singapore politics of the 1980s, when non-People’s Action Party (PAP) Members of Parliament (MPs) were elected to check the government, ending the one-party rule of the PAP in parliament. Whatever the stated intent and objectives of the Act, government entities could make life difficult for elected non-PAP MPs from carrying out their duties; For example, by refusing to allow the non-PAP MP to use the existing Town Council (TC) office after securing the people’s mandate at the polls because governing legislation like the Town Councils Act provide no safeguards against direct or indirect actions by a PAP government that is intent on obstructing non-PAP TCs.

The Ministry of National Development’s (MND) findings have cleared Action Information Management Pte Ltd (AIM), a fully owned PAP company from any wrongdoing. But, in the minds of many Singaporeans, while the MND Report found nothing legally out of place with the AIM transaction, legal legitimacy under the Town Councils Act does not necessarily represent a commitment to good governance and the continuity of public services in the aftermath of general elections.

During the reading of the TC Bill, then DPM Goh Chok Tong explained the politicisation of the TCs as giving MPs increased authority and responsibility as a result of which, voters would be more likely to vote “carefully and sincerely” and choose honest and effective MPs. However, the years that followed saw other means used by the government to lower the standing of a duly elected MP, even if that individual was able to run a TC competently. Denial of upgrading projects such as the then Main Upgrading Programme and the Interim Upgrading Programme – was a ruthless psychological PAP tactic at the polls that pandered to the selfishness of the individual, at the expense of other higher order human instincts such as fair play and equality.

For all practical purposes, the PAP government of the day could jeopardise a candidate’s prospects at the ballot box and punish residents without even having to worry about the legal consequences of doing so, as there were none, forget about any protection under the Town Councils Act. So in spite of the original intent of the Act, even if an MP was honest and effective, the government of the day retained significant powers to cripple him, as it did in Hougang and Potong Pasir. Beyond the determination of the respective MPs in these wards, the thing that held the MPs in esteem was the wisdom, sense of justice and personal sacrifice of the majority of their voters.

It is through these historical lenses that many Singaporeans understood the AIM imbroglio that unfolded at the end of 2012 and the beginning of 2013, after coming to terms with the revelation that the PAP incorporated and owned a private company in 1991 that was operating in the public sector.

While the MND Report saw a “fundamental tension” between the objectives of delivering good public service and the political accountability of MPs – in the specific case of AIM unfortunately, it fell short in exploring the source of this tension. Quite simply, the source of the tension was the political profile of AIM.

The right of a fully-owned PAP company to terminate a critical piece of the then Aljunied-Hougang Town Council’s (AHTC) infrastructure with one month’s notice was not in the public interest precisely because even by the PAP’s own admission, it would have taken up to two years or even longer to establish a new Town Council Management System (TCMS). The presence of this clause, in the political context of the Town Councils, ought to have raised a conflict of interest red flag because a PAP-owned company and the PAP TCs had defined their rights and obligations by virtue of a contract that ran the real risk of undermining and prejudicing an incoming non-PAP run TC.

Many Singaporeans wonder what would happen to a TC in the absence of a working and functional TCMS. Beyond managing maintenance records, feedback management amongst other critical day-to-day operational functions, the TC would not be able to efficiently manage the collection of S&CC fees from residents. Collection would have been a cumbersome exercise, part-manual, part-electronic, and the TC would have been overwhelmed by S&CC collection, leaving little time for other tasks. Until a new TCMS was established, there would have been numerous disputes pertaining to the accurate collection of S&CC fees and potentially, a whole list of unfulfilled contractual obligations with the TC’s contractors. While the standing of the elected MP would be compromised, the real losers would be the residents who would be faced with delays with rubbish collection, dysfunctional amenities, and a very unpleasant state of affairs immediately outside their own homes, all unconnected to the competence of the incumbent MPs. The prospects of this reality would explain why the AHTC team worked in the months after May 2011 to stabilise TC operations and upscale the former Hougang Town Council’s IT management system, instead of allowing the residents of Aljunied GRC to be potentially held at ransom by a one-month termination clause in the hands of fully-owned PAP company.

The MND report justified its finding of the absence of any conflict of interest in terms of TC members having a pecuniary or direct interest in the AIM transaction, whether the interests of the TC’s residents were protected or impaired and whether there was any misuse of public funds. However, beyond our contention that the AIM transaction was not in the public interest, if one reflects on the historical context in the aftermath of the passing of the Town Councils Act, a fully-owned PAP company’s right to terminate the TCMS was in keeping with the philosophy that has defined the relationship of the PAP government with opposition-run TCs since 1988, and therein lies the inherent conflict of interest surrounding AIM – a conflict of interest that has been duly recognised by discerning Singaporeans.

In the more recent past, the PAP has moved away from denying upgrading to opposition wards, but the political calculations behind this move do not mean that a u-turn can never take place. The historical record shows that the public interest in the non-PAP TC context is usually a victim of PAP pressure on voters during parliamentary elections. There is significant opinion outside this House that this is an ethically unacceptable state of affairs.

It is for this reason that the remarks of the Permanent Secretary of the MND in his letter of 30 April 2013 to the Prime Minister, which called for a strategic and comprehensive review of TCs, ought to be welcomed. Of particular significance is MND Report’s recognition of public calls to depoliticise Town Councils, a point that was somewhat reinforced by a Straits Times poll of 7 May 2013 where 41/50 residents called for the same, the main concern for some being the lack of a political level-playing field and its impact on residents.

The question of depoliticisation is significant because it raises not just the issue of a review of the Town Councils Act, but the substantive relationship of the government towards wards which are not run by PAP TCs. For the specific purposes of this debate, depoliticisation must mean that companies owned by political parties should not tender for TC contracts – a glaring omission from the MND report. In addition to the recommendations called for by Ms Sylvia Lim, the report’s call for depoliticisation – if executed as imagined by most Singaporeans – would effectively entail inducting a new brand of politics into Singapore insofar as government-TC relations is concerned, representing a hope and desire that goes far beyond the findings of the MND report, but one that is in line with public expectations.

Some members of the public have suggested that certain TC functions like the provision of the TCMS can be the purview of agencies like HDB and that governance would improve with MND’s oversight. However, putting critical infrastructure in MND hands would be self-defeating if agencies like HDB are open to political influence in matters concerning local TC administration. If such agencies are open to political influence, they would effectively be operating like a quasi-Managing Agent, as evidenced by the HDB’s decision to lease 26 common properties under the then Aljunied Town Council to the People’s Association in the aftermath of the 2011 General Elections, to the exclusion of the incoming TC and newly elected MPs. In the AIM context, the larger point is that critical assets like the TC’s IT system and its intellectual property must remain part of the TC and cannot be terminated unilaterally. Non-PAP TCs must be allowed to effectively manage the town without political interference by HDB or MND, or have its functions compromised by policies that serve a political purpose to the advantage of the ruling party.

Madam Speaker, the findings of the MND report provides a rare opportunity for the government to look into substantively depoliticising not just TCs, but the relationship between TCs and the government. The MND report at paragraph 59 states that there were some who opined that depoliticising TCs can improve their governance and that MND can “regulate and oversee TCs without perception issues.” Unfortunately, as I have explained earlier, the historical track record of the PAP is not promising in this regard. Depoliticising TCs will not mean anything if political calculations continue to determine how MND or other agencies deal with non-PAP TCs. It will not guarantee a level playing field as sought by Singaporeans, nor will it be reflective of the ‘new normal’ we operate in today where an expectation of transparency, accountability and equality ought to represent the guiding principles of a good governance. I look forward to the tabling of the TC amendment bill where these matters will inevitably be debated in greater detail. For the immediate term, it would only be appropriate, in light of the findings of the MND Report for the Minister to direct that companies fully-owned by political parties ought to have no business dealing with TCs.

Thank you.

For over five decades, the Workers’ Party has given our workers a voice with which they can be empowered, protected and heard. We have pointed out that job creation and economic growth must benefit Singaporeans first. We have said that the creation of more value-added jobs which will pay our workers better should be a key outcome of a successful productivity and training effort. In Parliament, our MPs have pressed the Government to ensure that companies pay their workers fairly and adequately, prevent discrimination against Singaporeans in hiring and promotion decisions, promote better work-life balance, and better track the outcomes of training programmes to ensure that they benefit workers. We have also called on the Government to provide better employment and training opportunities for older workers, retirees and homemakers. We have emphasised the need for stronger social safety nets and to reduce the widening income inequality in Singapore.

The Workers’ Party has noted that in Budget 2013, the Government has responded more positively to our calls and the needs of Singaporean workers. It has put forward more measures to improve the standing of Singaporeans in the job market and to raise the incomes of lower-wage workers through further wage subsidies, industry upgrading and training programmes for workers. More must still be done to ease the burden of the rising cost of living and to increase the wages of our workers.

We urge businesses and employers to make full use of new measures announced in this year’s Budget to improve the efficiency of their business processes and upgrade the skills of their workers. This will enable them to move up the economic value chain, boost productivity and pay their workers more. We acknowledge the challenges small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) face as our economy undergoes restructuring. We urge the Government, especially the Ministry of Manpower and economic agencies, to assist SMEs and workers through this difficult transition period.

The Workers’ Party will continue to speak up for Singaporeans and hold the Government accountable to the people in a rational, responsible and respectable manner. We are confident that the perseverance of Singaporean workers, together with the strong cooperation of the business community, will help our country to move towards a more equal and just society, and a more developed economy.

The Workers’ Party wishes all workers in Singapore a Happy Labour Day.

GERALD GIAM
CHAIR, MEDIA TEAM
THE WORKERS’ PARTY

To see the list of speeches by Workers’ Party MPs in Parliament, click on this link

Madam Speaker,

This Bill seeks to amend the existing Child Development Co-Savings Act to implement some of the measures in the Marriage and Parenthood Package that were announced earlier this year.

I welcome the amendments and I am glad to see the introduction of paternity leave. This was something I appealed for during last year’s Committee of Supply (COS) debate. I urge all new fathers to fully utilise the one week of paternity leave to bond with their newborn babies and help their wives during their confinement period. I’m glad I was able to take paternity leave when my two babies were born a few years ago and I’m grateful to my company for providing it even before the Government mandated it.

I think the Government is moving in the right direction by extending paid childcare leave to all single mothers. However, the Baby Bonus and equal maternity leave, which are two of the biggest and most helpful parenthood benefits, are still being denied to single unwed mothers. My colleague, Ms Lee Li Lian, advocated on behalf of single mothers and for the equalisation of maternity leave during the COS debate for MSF and I would like to add to her calls.

Currently, unwed mothers get eight weeks of employer-paid maternity leave and their companies are required to give them an additional four weeks’ of unpaid leave. Essentially, the Government bears no cost for the maternity leave of unwed mothers. This is unlike married, widowed or divorced mothers, who enjoy eight weeks of employer-paid leave followed by eight weeks of Government-paid leave.

Unwed mothers also do not receive the Baby Bonus cash gift of $6,000 and the Government co-matching contribution of up to $6,000 in the baby’s Child Development Account (CDA). There are also several tax benefits are not available to mothers of what IRAS calls an “illegitimate child”, including the Parenthood Tax Rebate, Qualifying Child Relief, Handicapped Child Relief, Working Mother Child Relief and Grandparent Caregiver Relief. Unwed mothers also do not qualify for public rental flats from the HDB, a point raised by Mr Png Eng Huat’s during the COS debate for MND.

Madam, I would like to ask for unwed mothers to receive the same 16 weeks of paid maternity leave, including the last eight weeks paid for by the Government. The Baby Bonus cash gift and the Government co-matching contribution in the CDA account should also be extended to them. The Baby Bonus scheme, as stated on the MSF website, is to (quote) “support parents’ decision to have more children by helping to lighten the financial costs of raising children” (unquote). It is therefore not a reward for having children, but a financial assistance scheme.

I note that for the other new measures in the Marriage and Parenthood Package, like extended childcare leave, the Medisave Grant for Newborns and MediShield coverage for congenital and neonatal conditions, the same benefits are extended to unwed mothers or their children. Why not take the next logical step of equalising the remaining parenthood benefits?

Equalising benefits for unwed mothers helps not just the mother, but her child as well. The Ministry should take a child-centric view of the family, and not make the child pay the price for the past actions of his or her parents. Unwed mothers have made the choice to keep and raise their child, despite their difficult circumstances and the options of abortion or adoption. We should give them the due recognition for making this difficult choice.

I note that a single unwed mother can become eligible for the Baby Bonus if she marries the biological father of her child before her child turns 12. However some single mothers may not end up marrying the man for various reasons, and this should not prevent them from receiving the same benefits.

Providing these benefits will help reduce their financial burden, which for some unmarried women expecting a child, could tip the scales in favour of keeping the child instead of choosing to undergo an abortion. It is certainly not a silver bullet to reduce our high abortion rates, but if just one more life is saved, I think it is worth providing the benefits.

During the COS debate on 14 March, I pointed out that the issue out-of-wedlock births is a complex moral and social one, that needs to be tackled in ways other than through selective social benefits. In response, the Acting Minister assured me that the Government does not judge people by their status. I was glad to hear this, because I took it to mean that the Government is not trying to shape moral behaviour using parenthood benefits.

The Acting Minister also told me that there will always be some help that we give to married couples and there will be another package of help that we give to singles. That being the case, what alternative package of help is the Government giving to unwed mothers? I don’t think there is any universal package available, apart from means-tested social assistance.

I believe it is important that as a society, we continue to uphold the centrality of a two-parent household within the institution of marriage. This norm should continue to be promoted by the Government, for example through schools. However, breaking with this norm should not result in a mother and her child being denied the Baby Bonus and equal maternity leave. After all, we don’t encourage divorce but we still give divorcees the same Baby Bonus and maternity leave as married mothers.

While some may fear that providing equal benefits to unwed mothers may encourage the emergence of “welfare moms”, where single women get pregnant just so they can collect welfare cheques, I think this fear is unfounded in Singapore’s context. First, the quantum of benefits is hardly enough to make up for the high cost of raising children in Singapore. No rational woman will choose to conceive a child just to collect the Baby Bonus. Second, I am not asking the Government to provide additional benefits to single mothers as they do in some countries, just equal benefits.

Madam, unwed mothers face huge challenges raising their child on their own. I can only imagine how tough it must be, whenever I have to look after my kids on my own when my wife is away. Unwed mothers have to single-handedly care for their child, take on the role of both mother and father, and hold down a job to pay the bills. They also have to face the social stigma of being single and unmarried. On top of all that, they are denied many of the parenthood benefits that married, divorced and widowed mothers receive. This could add to their feeling of marginalisation from society.

Single unwed mothers need more of society’s support. As the Acting Minister said, many of them are from vulnerable families. They are mothers first and singles second, not the other way around. The welfare of their children should be our top priority.

Do we as a society believe in second chances? Do we believe that all children are born equal, and that every child is “legitimate”, no matter how he or she was conceived? If we do, then I urge the Government to accord to single unwed mothers the same parenthood benefits as all other Singaporean mothers.

I am in general support of the rationale for the Bill. However, I wish to seek some clarifications on Clauses 17 and 18 which require designated buildings to provide emergency response plans and to have Company Emergency Response Teams. Specifically, I wish to ask what role SCDF will play to collaborate or partner with building managements to comply with the new requirements, and whether the burden being placed on fire safety managers under the new scheme is perhaps too onerous.

First, the new requirement for emergency, not just fire, plans

Clause 17 amends Section 21 of the Act to require owners or occupiers of designated buildings to have in place not just a fire emergency plan but an emergency response plan. The new requirement is supposed to obligate building management to cater for all emergencies, not just fires, that may cause injury or loss of lives. Earlier in his Second Reading speech, Senior Minister of State mentioned that the emergencies had to be “fire-related” though I did not see this specifically in the legislation so I would appreciate some clarification on this point. Clause 18 will amend Section 22 to require that buildings which are currently required to have fire safety managers shall also have competent Company Emergency Response Teams as part of emergency preparedness (Ministry of Home Affairs Press Release 14 Jan 2013).

The need to prepare response plans for emergencies is self-evident, and this is especially so in our high-density urban environment. In addition, the proximity of our homes, work places and recreational spaces means that when emergency plans are drawn up for buildings, they should be able to respond to not just critical incidents from within the building but those which could potentially come from nearby facilities and even the external natural environment.

Next, what is SCDF’s optimal collaborative role in emergency planning?

The law currently places the responsibility for emergency planning squarely on the building owners and occupiers. Under the Act as well as Fire Safety (Fire Emergency Plan) Regulations 2008, they have to prepare and execute the emergency plans, conduct regular drills, and gather tenants to form Fire Safety Committees. The role of the SCDF itself is reflected as issuing of guidelines about the contents of plans, reviewing records and so on. SCDF’s role appears to be as regulator and auditor. Under this Bill, building management will have an even more onerous statutory obligation, with wider coverage to include non-fire emergencies, which will require more specialized expertise. What will SCDF do to assist building management in drawing up the required emergency response plans?

Even though the building management should bear the primary responsibility for the plans, the benefits of SCDF being involved in drawing up the emergency response plans would be tremendous. SCDF could advise on matters which the building management has no knowledge or control over. Examples of such matters would include: the potential emergencies from outside the building which the management should plan for; whether there is potential to share emergency resources with nearby facilities; and even which open areas to use as assembly points, especially at our blistering pace of urban renewal. Worldwide it is increasingly recognized that public-private partnerships in emergency planning, involving both government and private organisations, will improve the quality and practicality of the emergency plans. At the same time, through joint efforts, SCDF would have a good grasp of the private sector expertise and resources available which could be tapped upon in national emergencies.

Could Ministry explain how SCDF will collaborate with the building managements to comply with the new requirement and to improve the quality of emergency plans? For instance, would SCDF provide a template for building managements to use and adapt?

Finally, the role of Fire Safety Managers and CERTs

Clause 18 will amend Section 22 to require buildings with fire safety managers to now have Company Emergency Response Teams (CERTs) with competent in-house staff. The proposed Section 22 (3A) states that it is the building owners or occupiers are required to maintain the CERTs. However, the MHA Press Release 14 Jan 2013 indicates that it will be the responsibility of Fire Safety Managers (FSMs) to ensure that the response plan guidelines are complied with, including upgrading the competencies of the in-house teams to form CERTs.

Is this task too onerous for the FSM to be held responsible for? The FSM in a building is likely to be a mid-level employee with several corporate roles e.g. he could be an occupational safety and health officer doubling up as an FSM. To place on him the responsibility of ensuring that competent CERTs are in place which comply with SCDF guidelines on emergency response seems too onerous.

Will the government assist building managements to comply with this new requirement for CERTs and if so, how? For instance, are there any plans to develop new training courses in emergency response planning to cater specifically to the new statutory requirement for CERTs?

By MP for Aljunied GRC, Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap
[Delivered in Committee of Supply on 14 March 2013]

Puan saya ingin mengutarakan 2 cadangan mengenai TTFS.

Yang pertama Puan, Menteri Yacob dalam menjawab soalan parlimen saya mengatakan bahawa jumlah dana TTFS yang tidak diagih disalurkan kepada Dana Pendidikan Mendaki (EDF) dimana dana ini digunakan untuk skim bantuan pendidikan dan program pendidikan yang dikendalikan oleh Mendaki. Disini, saya ingin mencadangan agar sebahagian dari lebihan dana TTFS diketepikan dan dibentuk sebuah Biasiswa Pos-Graduan atau Post Graduate Scholarship.

Biasiswa Pos-Graduan ini boleh diperuntukkan serta dikhaskan kepada bidang-bidang pengajian yang khusus yang boleh melahirkan pakar-pakar yang memberi manfaat kepada masyarakat Melayu Singapura seperti bidang Ekonomi dan Siosologi.

Puan, Menteri Yacob pernah mengatakan dalam sebuah sesi temuduga melalui Radio Warna pada April 2010 bahawa Masyarakat Melayu kekurangan pakar-pakar dalam menangani isu-isu sosial yang membelenggu masyarakat kita. Beliau juga mengatakan bahwa lebih banyak pakar-pakar Melayu diperlukan untuk mengatasi masalah keluarga pincang serta gejala dadah.

Saya rasa dengan adanya bantuan biasiswa ini, ia boleh merangsang serta membantu individu-individu untuk melanjutkan pengajian keperingkat ynag lebih tinggi dalam bidang-bidang yang khusus ini agar akan terlahir kelak pakar-pakar yang diperlukan untuk menangani isu-isu sosial masyarakat Melayu di Singapura.

Puan, Seterusnya, saya berharap Pemerintah dapat mempertimbangkan untuk membenarkan golongan individu-individu dari keturunan campuran atau ‘mixed parentage’ seperti sesetengah kaum India Islam diberi peluang untuk meraih memanfaat daripada TTFS.

Puan, saya amat memahami bahawa TTFS hanya diperuntukkan kepada masyarakat Melayu sahaja. Namun seperti yang diketahui, sebilangan besar kaum India Islam dan golongan keturunan campuran yang lain di Singapura menjalani kehidupan yang sama seperti masyarakat Melayu. Bahasa utama mereka adalah Melayu dan mereka juga mengamalkan adat-budaya Melayu. Malah sebahagian besar berwajah seperti orang Melayu. Hanya kad pengenalan yang menandakan mereka sebagai India Islam dan sebagainya kerana mengikut bangsa ayah mereka.

Bagi isu ini, saya mencadangkan agar ditubuhkan sebuah Jawatankuasa dimana peranan Jawatankuasa ini semestinya seiras dengan peranan Jawatankuasa Masyarakat Melayu (Malay Community Committee) yang menentukan samaada seseorang individu itu layak untuk bertanding dalam Pilihanraya di Kawasan Undi Berkumpulan (GRC) sebagai Calon Minoriti Melayu. Golongan yang saya sebutkan tadi boleh membuat permohonan kepada JawatanKuasa ini dan jika perlu ditemuduga untuk menentukan samaada layak untuk menerima TTFS atau sebaliknya.

Puan memandang kehadapan, saya rasa penubuhan Jawatankuasa seperti ini adalah munasabah terutama sekali tren perkahwinan antara kaum serta perkahwinan antara rakyat Melayu Singapura dan rakyat asing semakin meningkat.

By MP for Aljunied GRC, Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap
[Delivered in Committee of Supply on 14 March 2013]

Mdm, many pro-family policies and workplace initiatives have been rolled out over the last two years towards the strengthening of family ties and fostering a more conducive environment for the family. This includes paternity leave and the extended childcare leave introduced by this government through the Marriage and Parenthood Package. These measures are certainly a welcome relief for many working families.

As a society, it is important to have in place a support system to nurture the young in our society and prepare them to undertake the leadership of this nation in the future. It is also essential to provide our older generations who have contributed so much to Singapore’s nation-building sufficient care in their retired years. At the same time, our disabled must also be able to lead a dignified life in Singapore with support from the state wherever possible.

Mdm, there have been many improvements made to prepare our society for the aging population. Facilities have been enhanced to enable the disabled to travel far more easily within our urban environment. Much has been done, but much remains to be done especially with regard to the care that these groups receive from their own family. Family is often the first line of support and it is important for us to enhance the family unit and strengthen the support given to the elderly and the disabled within the family unit. This is particularly critical for many lower income families.

With the above in mind, I would like to propose to the Ministry to introduce a Family Care Leave, applicable in particular to caregivers of the elderly, the disabled and individuals with chronic illnesses such as stroke and kidney disease.

Mdm, I would like the Ministry to look into the feasibility of implementing a Family Care Leave in their employment contracts.

Thank you.

Currently CPF members are allowed to use their Ordinary Accounts (OA) to service their housing mortgage loans up to Valuation Limit (VL) of the property.

CPF members below age 55, who have reached the VL in using the CPF OA, must set aside half of the prevailing Minimum Sum in their OA and Special Account (SA) before they are allowed to continue using their CPF monies to finance their mortgage loans.

I have come across cases where the CPF members’ OA balances were sufficient or more than sufficient to make full redemption of their outstanding CPF mortgage loan balances and free themselves from the financial burden of servicing their home mortgages.

Unfortunately, they were not allowed to do so because of the Minimum Sum requirement.

If these CPF members were allowed to make the full or partial redemption of the mortgage loans using their available CPF OA balances, they would save considerable sums on their mortgage interest.

The loan value determined by the CPF is the lower of the purchase price or the valuation price of the HDB flat at the time of purchase. For many of these CPF members, the valuation price of their flats was low relative to today’s HDB flat prices. Hence, there is little risk of such CPF members in using their CPF OA balances exceeding the market value of the flat since it was capped at the lower of purchase price or valuation at time of purchase.

Also most of them would continue to work beyond the age of 55 and could continue to contribute to their retirement account savings.

I urge the Minister to consider allowing such CPF members to continue using their CPF OA balances to make full or partial redemption of their mortgage loans.

The Minimum Sum amount was set at $80,000[1] in 2003 and targeted to reach $120,000 by 2015. In order to maintain the Minimum Sum amount value in 2003 dollars, the sum is adjusted yearly for inflation.

In 2012, due to higher movement in the Consumer Price Index (CPI), the increase in 2013 was supposed to be $12,000 but MOM decided to moderate the increase.

Although the Government decided not to factor in the full increase based on the CPI, and instead, to spread the increase over the next few years and to shift the target of reaching Minimum Sum to 2015, the Minimum Sum now looks to be a moving target. To most Singaporeans, we wonder what would be the eventual amount for the Minimum Sum when we reach our time to retire.

I am of the view that it is timely to review the Minimum Sum and to establish a reasonable yearly adjustment rate that is not only based on increase in CPI.

The CPI may not be the best indicator for the computation of inflation for the CPF Minimum Sum as components such as imputed rental and private road transport are not as relevant to retirees for their retirement needs.

There is anxiety amongst middle lower and lower income wage earners that the amount of money they can withdraw from their own CPF savings at the age of 55 would decrease with the ever-corresponding increase in the Minimum Sum.

Low wage workers especially those with little education or qualifications need help beyond government funded top ups, training, and re-training.  They need to know their basic rights as contract, hourly-rated, or part-time workers. And more importantly, they need government intervention to ensure they have a fair chance of making a decent wage to support their families.

Some of these workers earn only $5 an hour and work on contractual or daily-rated basis i.e. no work, no money.  Many will not be given medical benefits as well.

At my second MPS, right after I was elected, an elderly man waited hours to share with me about his experience as a low wage worker.  He works as a security guard and earns a basic salary of $700 a month.  From the look on his face, one could easily tell he had a hard life.  He just turn 63 this year and I believe the enhanced WIS as announced in Budget 2013 will bring some relief to him.

Over the past 9 months, I met more low wage workers and even had a good look at some of their pay slips.  From the way some of their salaries are structured, these workers will need to clock a lot of overtime work if they want to take home more than $1,000 a month in pay.

The salary structure of these workers comprises a low basic pay and a host of generous allowances for transport, attendance, etc.  But what seemed to be generous turned out to work against them when they did overtime work.  Most of them will find out on payday that the stipulated 1.5 times overtime pay is based on the low basic salary and not the total pay package.  Technically, these workers are paid less per hour for working overtime.  And financially, these low wage workers are better off taking on 2 jobs than doing overtime work.  These workers cannot seek redress except to resign as such employment terms are legal.

How is the Ministry going to uplift the salaries of these low wage workers when the incentive to earn more money through overtime work just doesn’t make sense?  Perhaps the Ministry can look into changing the computation of overtime pay for salaries below a certain threshold to comprise all allowances.

I believe if low wage workers have the resolve to move up the social ladder by working harder and longer, they should be adequately compensated.

CPF Members who have reached 55 years old, will see a portion of their Ordinary Account and Special Account savings transferred to their Retirement Account to meet the Minimum Sum.  Funds from the Retirement Account can only be used to pay for these individuals’ housing mortgages after setting aside their Minimum Sum cash component.

I come across such cases every week during my MPS, where residents above 55 years are unable to pay their housing loans through their Retirement Account because they have insufficient funds left over and above the Minimum Sum, and they struggle to find additional funds to pay off their housing loan installments.

One such resident Mr Ang, had about $20,000 transferred from his CPF-OA to his Retirement Account when he turned 55 last year.  His monthly instalment for his housing loan is $700. He appealed to CPF to allow him to use the funds in his Retirement Account to pay for the instalments but was rejected.  This leaves him with the only option of forking out cash for the installments.  This is a heavy burden for him whose take home pay is less than $2000, on top of that he needs to finance his children’s tertiary education.

In a written answer to a PQ filed in 2011, Minister Khaw Boon Wan said that there are about 1,250 HDB flat lessees who are age 55 and above, and are in mortgage arrears for 3 months or more.

It is important to set aside sufficient funds for retirement. However, at the same time we must acknowledge that there are immediate financial concerns that warrant exceptions to present rules. I urge the Minister to consider allowing CPF members to use their Retirement Account to continue to pay for their outstanding loan, even if they do not meet the Minimum Sum so as not to create sudden additional financial burden to them. We can look at this easing of the restriction specifically for repayments of existing loans by taking a minimum number of years back, and not for more recent purchases.

The Workforce Skills Qualifications (WSQ) framework aims to professionalise industry sectors and improve labour mobility into and within these sectors. WSQ is also meant to be “a powerful business tool for employers to access and maintain a skilled workforce.” Given these highly industry-centric goals, it is important to track if those trained are contributing to the industries they are trained for or at least using their skills for the economy.

Currently, the Approved Training Organizations (ATOs) are required to conduct post-course evaluations using Kirkpatrick’s 4-level evaluation. I also note that the Institute for Adult Learning has issued a Note to Practitioners in 2011 on the need to monitor and evaluate CET activities to ensure accountability for tax dollars spent. How is the Workforce Development Agency tracking whether those trained are contributing to the industries or to the economy generally? If so, what does the data show and are there areas to review to minimize resource wastage?

The government has been promoting work-life harmony for more than a decade. The Tripartite Committee on Work-Life Strategy was set up in 2000, under the Singapore National Employers Federation (SNEF). Other schemes include the Work-Life Works! Fund and the Flexi-Works! In total, over 1200 companies have participated in these schemes. However, it is unclear whether these initiatives have made significant impact on the working environment.

A study by MSF found that only 23% of workplaces offer flexible working hours. It found that work-life harmony has not improved in the past six years. The research clearly shows that we need to re-focus our efforts.

I would like to re-iterate my call for an independent commission to look into work-life balance practices for a more family-friendly Singapore. What I am proposing is to make the family a central, not secondary objective. While a balance must be struck, current efforts focus more on how to achieve productivity, over and above how to support families achieve better balance in their lives. Please do not get me wrong, I’m not saying that productivity is not important but both approach are equally essential and that’s why a better balance must be struck.

We must move away from the mindset that flexible work practices would negatively affect productivity. The MSF study itself found that those who scored higher on work-life harmony were more likely to be engaged and productive in the workplace, have better physical and mental health, and reported better family relationships and desire for more children. A better family life is the cornerstone to a motivated and productive worker, and a healthier economy.

Madam, this house has on many occasion reiterate that the declining TFR poses a serious population problem for Singapore. If we are committed to reversing this trend, we must make the fostering of a conducive family environment a priority when we look at work-life balance.

Mdm Chair,

When Singapore ramped up its industrialisation in the 1960s, one key reason for attracting MNCs, in addition to driving growth and creating jobs, was for these companies to transfer managerial and technical skills to Singaporeans. Subsequent decades saw the many companies transition from expatriate to local leadership, and many Singaporeans rose up the ranks.

However, with the influx of foreign skilled workers in the last decade, we have seen a reversal of progress in this area. Many private sector companies now have their professional and managerial ranks filled with foreigners, although many of them would be classified as ‘locals’ because they have obtained Singapore PR (permanent residence) or citizenship. Even the junior professional positions are often staffed by foreigners, when our local graduates should have no problem meeting the job requirements.

The Tripartite Alliance for Fair Employment Practices (TAFEP) said that half of the employment-related complaints they received last year were to do with alleged discrimination against locals[1]. Many Singaporeans have also expressed frustration at the enclaves of employees from the same country found in some companies[2].

The cause of the problem may lie not with human resource managers and recruiters, but with hiring managers, who are often foreign middle managers who may prefer recruiting fellow countrymen to work under them. If TAFEP is to be effective in tackling this problem, it will need to reach out beyond the HR department and educate these middle managers to hire based on merit rather than nationality.

A mindset change is needed in the way many of our companies recruit and promote talent. Foreign talent is not automatically better than local talent. I call on the government to take more robust steps to address these concerns, and ensure that Singaporeans do not lose out unfairly to foreigners, and we can build a stronger Singaporean core in all our companies.

Madam, today a married woman is given 16 weeks of paid maternity leave. The situation for single mothers is very different. Single mothers are currently only entitled to 8 weeks of paid maternity leave from the state [1].

The bond between a mother and her child is special and often indescribable. Mothers in this house can certainly attest to it. Women today have many responsibilities both in the workplace and at home. All the more, the time a mother can share with her child is especially precious and when managed well, can strengthen the psychological and emotional attachment of the mother and her child. Maternity leave is particularly important for the child as well as the mother to recuperate physically and emotionally from child bearing. A mother’s marital status is irrelevant. They may be single by chance, but mothers by choice.

We must remember that such discrepancies in maternity leave only hurt the child, who has to suffer from lack of time with his or her parents simply because they are not married. It is unfair to penalize the child for whatever decisions parents may have made that the state frowns upon. Children, whether born to married parents or single-parent homes, require the same amount of love, care and support from the parents they have.

I certainly hope that the government does not view an additional 8 weeks of paid maternity leave to single mothers as a financial burden. Rather, I hope that the government will appreciate the needs of the child, as well as the value of the bond between a mother and her child, which is non-measurable in monetary terms. This is not about encouraging more single mothers, but ensuring better and fair support for children who have been born to them.

As such, I call upon the Ministry to consider extending the benefits of 16 weeks of paid maternity leave to single mothers and also look into granting paternity leave for single fathers.

Madam, childcare is an integral part of a couple’s plans for raising their children. More often than not, for families where both parents are working, the cost and availability of quality childcare facilities are top concerns.

As anchor operators, the PAP Community Foundation and the NTUC My First Skool receive heavy set-up and operating grants, and in the process prevent fair competition in the childcare market. This will gradually reduce the choices and viable options for parents. My fellow Workers’ Party colleague, Mr. Yee Jenn Jong suggested making childcare services available to all Singaporeans as a public good. In response, the Minister for Social and Family Development, Mr. Chan Chun Sing stated that the scheme is currently under review and the Implementation Committee for Enhancing Pre-school education will be announcing the details in due course.

Many parents in my ward of Punggol East will be anxiously waiting for the outcome of this review. There are insufficient childcare facilities in Punggol East to meet the demand of the ward. A look at the number of vacancies at each centre as well as the estimated waiting time would be a good determinant of whether there are enough childcare facilities available on the ground. Considering that Punggol East has a relatively younger population as compared to more mature estates, the demand for childcare facilities will consequently be higher.

Madam, the demand for childcare facilities in Punggol East will only continue to increase with the increase in houses in the vicinity and hopefully with more young couples, encouraged by recent moves, having more children. As such, I call upon the Ministry to prioritise the building of childcare facilities in younger estates, and to also factor child care spaces into the design of BTO flats in all new towns. I would also like to ask the Minister if there are any specific plans to develop additional childcare facilities in Punggol East SMC.

Madam,

Currently, the Government gives child care subsidies to working and non-working mothers whose children are enrolled in licensed child care centres.  Working mothers are given a maximum subsidy of $300 while mothers who are not working are also eligible for the subsidies but at a reduced rate.

The call to give care-givers more recognition and support is ringing loud in this Budget Debate.  Therefore, I urge the Ministry to give care-givers access to full subsidy for child care under certain circumstances.

Would the Minister consider extending the full rate of Basic Child Care Subsidy to non-working mothers as well as grant them the Additional Subsidy if they have valid reasons to stay home as a care giver to a family member in need of it?  This is especially crucial to the lower income families as they would not have the means to employ a domestic helper to look after their aged or disabled parents.

In some instances, only the father can work because the mother may be hampered by illnesses or disability that prevents her from seeking employment.  Would the Minister consider these special circumstances and grant these mothers full Basic Subsidy as well as Additional Subsidy?

By Non-Constituency MP Gerald Giam
[Delivered in Committee of Supply on 14 March 2013]

Mdm Chair,

Childcare is one of the biggest concerns of parents with young children. Many still face long waiting lists when registering their children and may end up having to settle for more expensive centres situated further from their homes. For this reason, I am looking forward to the 200 new childcare centres that are in the pipeline over the next 5 years.

While a lot of focus is on childcare, and rightly so, the government also needs to invest more resources into improving the supply, accessibility, affordability and quality of student care.

Childcare needs do not suddenly change when a child enters Primary One; parents still need to work and the child is still unable to care for himself. Student care should be seen as a natural extension of childcare. This will help both parents to remain in the workforce and reduce the demand for foreign maids, while providing a safe and nurturing environment for the children.

I would like to suggest that student care be brought under the purview of the Early Childhood Development Agency, so that the government can better regulate and promote the sector.

I welcome the government’s move to increase the number of school-based student care centres (SCCs). However, SCCs should not only be set up within schools, as parents with children attending different schools will have to rush to multiple locations to pick up their kids after work before the 7pm closing time.

Some of the new SCCs should be located in housing estates and near MRT stations, to make them more accessible. The government should also provide subsidies for student care, in addition to the ComCare fee assistance for the low-income, just like it does for childcare, as this will ease the financial burdens on many middle-income families.

By Non-Constituency MP Yee Jenn Jong
[Delivered in Committee of Supply on 14 March 2013]

Madam, I declare my interest as a supplier of services to education institutions.

I have previously stated my concerns over the way the childcare industry is organised. The government has stated that Anchor Operators (or AOPs) must be non-profit, non-religious and non-racial based. I do not think these criteria are necessary as long as operators accept students of any race and religion and follow strict rules which I will elaborate. MSF can dictate outcomes. It can define fees and expected quality of services instead of being concerned if operators are race or religion based or are private entities. With appropriate rules, MOE and MOT have found it acceptable to work with such entities for schools and public transport respectively . The AOP scheme has caused serious imbalance in the industry by loading a few selected operators with huge operating advantages over others.

I repeat the proposal I made last year for MSF to revamp the AOP scheme and to make childcare as a public good, with open contest by all operators.

Firstly, available sites can be clustered as a package for open bidding. Each tender can be for around 10 centres, with rental cost tied to what non-profit operators currently pay. Bidders should prove their ability to operate centres well, such as having good track record and being SPARK-accredited. Operators can propose the style of programmes and fees to be charged, but fees should be within an acceptable guideline around existing price charged by current AOPs.

Once an operator is awarded, it cannot change fees without approval by MSF. To achieve investment payback, operating period can be for a period of say 10 years, with interim review every 3-4 years. This is to ensure operators will continue to innovate and provide quality services. After the operating period, the sites are re-opened for bidding again by all.

The key advantage of this over the existing AOP scheme is that it allows newer operators who have proven themselves in the market to join in continuously when sites are available. This provides greater diversity of choices. Competition spurs innovation. The current scheme kills competition and freezes AOP players to the few based on the time of selection. It limits choices for consumers requiring affordable fees. Ten centres per tender will allow sufficient economies of scale, and a good operator can win several clusters of sites over time.

To speed up more new sites, I repeat my earlier suggestion that the government can negotiate as main tenant with large landlords of malls and industrial sites with spaces suitable for childcare. It can then open these sites for bidding under this new scheme. It can also turn disused schools and old community centres into mega childcare sites with different operators under one roof.

By MP for Hougang SMC, Png Eng Huat
[Delivered in Committee of Supply on 13 March 2013]

Madam,

Budget 2013’s promise of a better Singapore with an inclusive society is a vision that probably means a lot to Singaporeans with disabilities or special needs children. Today, I just want to highlight one particular group of special needs citizens who could live that vision to the fullest if given more opportunity and support – Singaporeans with Down syndrome.

When a 13-year old with Down syndrome passed her PSLE in 2009, a newspaper reporter wanted to find out the number of such children who took PSLE before but the effort drew a blank with the Ministry of Education and Down Syndrome Association (DSA).

Some parents of children with Down syndrome do feel that their children are like forgotten citizens. There are currently no official statistics on the number of Singaporeans born with Down syndrome each year and nobody seems to know for certain how many Singaporeans with Down syndrome are there in our current population.

Some adults with Down syndrome can be economically active but doing so can be a costly affair for them. Currently, they do not enjoy concessions for public transport. When they go to work, unless there is arranged transport, the caregiver will have to accompany them to take public transport to work thereby incurring double expense as a result.

The Fare Review Mechanism Committee (FRMC) will decide on the concessions for the various communities soon. I urge the Ministry to help lobby for adults with Down syndrome to be considered for concession as well.

Last, care-givers of children and adults with Down syndrome do need assistance too. A mother of a grown up child with Down syndrome, her only child, shared this with me. She said it is a tough job to bring up a kid with disabilities. She quit her job many years ago and has exhausted her lifesavings to look after her special needs child. There are no subsidies for her son. Her only son pays full adult fare for public transport.

I have said in my main budget speech that how we take care of the weak, the disabled, the needy, and the least will determine how much we have progressed as a developed nation. I urge the ministry to do more to help Singaporeans with Down syndrome see and feel that we are indeed a developed nation; that we are indeed an inclusive society.

By MP for Aljunied GRC, Chen Show Mao
[Delivered in Committee of Supply on 13 March 2013]

Sir,

Much has been said in this House about active ageing. The World Health Organization defines active ageing as not merely being physically active or to be actively employed in the workforce, but to “continue participation in social, economic, cultural, spiritual and civic affairs”.

Could we explore, using a “whole of government” approach, concessions and benefits that help promote active ageing, for example in areas such as transport, visits to attractions and community activities.

For transport, we should consider granting free travel on public transport to all Singaporean residents aged 70 and above to encourage them to move around more and lead lifestyles. It will also, and I think more importantly, serve as a mark of our respect and gesture of our thanks to our senior citizens. For all that they have done for us, our community and our nation. This would also be in line with the pledge made by the Government to do more to build a better, more inclusive society which includes the elderly.

As we know, seniors in several other civilized societies in different continents currently enjoy similar concessions. Would the Government consider working together with the public transport operators to assess how such a scheme could be brought about?

Likewise, we should also take a leaf out of the books of the National Heritage Board museums, which currently offer year-round free entry to elderly citizens and permanent residents. Could the Government encourage and support other museums and also attractions like the Gardens By the Bay and the Zoological Gardens to offer morungenerous concessions on entry for older visitors?

Similarly, could the Government, perhaps through the Active Ageing Council, look into the possibility of more generous concessions, in one form or another, for our senior citizens to attend classes and activities offered by Community Centres, in order to encourage more of them to take part?

Taken together, these will make it easier and more attractive for older Singaporeans to pursue more activities and hobbies, to allow them to age actively and independently. And more importantly, for us to express our gratitude and our values of respect for our elders.

Sir, may I continue in Chinese?

我呼吁政府与业者共同研究如何推动让七十岁以上的长者，免费乘搭公共交通工具的方案。以便真正落实政府“活跃乐龄”的政策。

我认为，让老人家在交通、文化娱乐及其它方面享受到一些优惠, 除了使老人家生活质量得到进一步提高，还有更深一层的意义。它们是我们社会敬老的象征，增强我们社会尊老敬老的意识、弘扬我国各种族尊老敬老的传统美德、更进一步帮助我们 营造尊老敬老的良好社会风尚。

By MP for Aljunied GRC, Chen Show Mao
[Delivered in Committee of Supply on 13 March 2013]

Madam,

As a Southeast Asian nation, Singapore shares much of our history and heritage with our neighbours. There is much to be gained by closer exchanges between the students of our countries, and we should offer more opportunities for Singaporean students to do so.

At present, the Ministry of Education offers an ASEAN scholarship programme to citizens of some ASEAN countries to undertake studies in our local schools at the pre-tertiary and undergraduate levels. The Ministry gives out around 150 pre-tertiary and 170 undergraduate ASEAN scholarships each year, at about $14,000 for a pre-tertiary student and between $18,000 and $25,000 for an undergraduate.

The Minister said that ASEAN scholarships are offered to promising ASEAN students to “promote mutual understanding and goodwill in the region” and that “ASEAN students add diversity and vibrancy to our educational institutions. Singaporean students interacting with international students enjoy the opportunity to learn from other cultures and experiences and become more prepared for the global marketplace.”

Singaporean students too will benefit from the diversity of educational institutions in our neighbouring countries, and the Minister’s aims of closer understanding and goodwill can also be achieved by offering similar opportunities to Singaporean students to study in neighbouring countries (much like under the ASEAN scholarships) and also by having more Singaporean students study the region around us (much like under the current Regional Studies Programme Scholarship at the pre-university level, which is restricted to three schools and offered to a select group of students for two years. It covers Singapore school fees of up to $2,400 and gives an allowance of $1,000 per annum.)

Could this programme be expanded to allow more students – both at the secondary and university levels – the opportunity to learn more about our surrounding region, and to also offer more chances for our students to go on visits to and take part in exchange programmes with our neighbouring countries?

By encouraging more of such exchanges to take place at the individual level through scholarship studies, we will also be facilitating Singapore’s foreign relations through our students’ engagement with their peers in other countries in meaningful dialogue.

By Non-Constituency MP Yee Jenn Jong
[Delivered in Committee of Supply on 13 March 2013]

Student care services are now in 80 out of some 190 primary schools. It is commendable that MOE has stepped up efforts to have more student care facilities within schools. Student care had been given low priority in the past, and a poor cousin to child care which has more attention and funding support.

With more dual-income working parents, the demand for student care will follow the rise we saw in child care.

Student care has the potential to be a social leveler by providing homework coaching and lessons, as well as much needed nutrition for children from disadvantaged families.

Unlike childcare, there is no general fee subsidy for student care other than for the low income. Also, it is not mandatory for student care teachers to go for training. There is a Certificate in Student Care course but it is not widely promoted or mandatory for centres to have trained staff.

Some schools are constrained by space. Student care facilities should be viewed as essential school infrastructure and factored into the design of all schools.

Schools waiting for such facilities can work with nearby student care centres. MOE and MSF can work together to help secure new facilities if there are no nearby operators.

I hope MOE and MSF can work together, just as they are doing for preschool to provide better accessibility, affordability and quality in student care.

By Non-Constituency MP Yee Jenn Jong
[Delivered in Committee of Supply on 13 March 2013]

Many see PSLE as a high pressure sorting exam that determines the future of their children. Some will settle for nothing less than the very top secondary schools while others fear their children being placed into undesirable academic streams.

The PSLE T-score is used for admission into Secondary Schools and academic streams, notwithstanding DSA exceptions. I call this the sorting method, using a single score to sort students into schools.

MOE is currently reviewing the PSLE. There are two ways to view this. The first is to explore how to modify exams and results reporting, and how secondary schools will use these for admission. Currently, PSLE is held over a few days. There is no consideration for how the child had performed throughout primary school. One can argue for continuous assessment and add school scores to the T-Score. But some will feel that schools will not be objective.

Or results can be reported as grades only, so secondary schools will admit based on PSLE grades, school leaving testimonials, CCA achievements and other results. Instead of being a sorting test, PSLE then becomes a signaling tool. It signals the ability of the child in each subject and the secondary school has the discretion for other considerations.

The second way is to do away with the need for PSLE. Last year, I proposed for pilot schools with 10-year integrated programme from primary 1. This is to cater to parents like myself who do not think it is critical to send my children to top schools and that students of different abilities can mix together. I am happy to note that Mr Laurence Lien and Ms Denise Phua have made similar calls.

I appreciate that this is an emotive issue. Over the years, we have sorted students finely at various junctures of schooling and branded and banded schools to an extreme. I am for a system like Finland where students of all abilities progress through the same school and all schools are about the same. However, that may take a while for parents to accept. We can have start with 8 such schools; two for each zone. Meanwhile we can de-stress PSLE by changing it into a signaling tool, and spread students of different abilities across schools.

Lastly, I hope MOE can review the DSA system, especially DSA of GEP students into top independent schools.

By Non-Constituency MP Yee Jenn Jong
[Delivered in Committee of Supply on 13 March 2013]

I declare that I am an Advisory Board member of a junior college (or JC). Observations in this cut are not from that JC.

I am concerned with a trend I noted in JC year 1 promotion exams, or the promo. There is no universal standard. Some JCs fail more than 50% of students at the promo. There will be a re-test, of which I found that in some JCs, the number of students retained or left JC after year 1, is very high. The highest I found is around 200 students in a cohort of some 800 year 1s.

Ironically, it is not the JCs that take in the weakest students that have the highest failing rate. Some are mid-tier JCs taking around the 10-pointers. The high failure rate seems not to be about students’ abilities but the standard imposed by each JC. MOE has left schools to decide their promos. Are standards too high in some? Is high exam failure rate consistent with MOE’s vision of holistic development? Is there a need for MOE to moderate?

I also find that there are many who favour the JC route because it seems more prestigious. I commend MOE for making polytechnic into a viable and respectable path for the skills-inclined students to be able to enter universities. Perhaps this can be communicated more strongly to clear some biasness that polytechnic graduates will find it hard to enter university, and for secondary schools to engage in guidance and counseling to better explain the JC and polytechnic options to students.

By Non-Constituency MP Yee Jenn Jong
[Delivered in Committee of Supply on 13 March 2013]

While MOE wants every school to be a good school, there is great disparity in results between schools. The highest and lowest median PSLE T-scores amongst schools last year are 247 and 160 respectively, a difference of 87. Mr Lee Kuan Yew had observed that admission to primary schools is based on the social class of parents. Six out of 10 pupils in six of the top primary schools live in private houses.

It is useful to review the primary 1 admission system. It is a stressful process for some, shifting house and doing volunteer work to get their children into top schools. I agree that priority should be given to those with siblings already in a school for the sake of convenience. Beyond that, we can consider a system with higher balloting chances for alumni, school volunteers and those living near the school, but it need not guarantee their position over others like in the phased system today.

I feel community leaders need not be given priority. Being a community leader for the purpose of getting into top primary schools does not gel with the spirit of community service.

With the change, we will have a better mix of students of different social backgrounds in our schools, allowing better integration amongst pupils.

I hope MOE can better spread resources across schools, reduce class size and review the need to centralise gifted students in top schools. Then, there may not be as much stress over which primary schools to enter.

By Non-Constituency MP Yee Jenn Jong
[Delivered in Committee of Supply on 13 March 2013]

Most schools in Singapore have a class size of around 40, while Primary 1 and 2 classes have 30 students. This is large compared to the OECD’s average of 21 per class.

There are drawbacks of a large class. Teachers have to deal with more disciplinary and administrative issues, while weaker children risked being marginalised because the teacher’s time is divided amongst many students. MOE has previously said that “empirical evidence on the benefits of a smaller class size remains inconclusive.”

The Brookings Institution notes that large class-size reductions can have significant long-term effects on students’ achievement. These effects seem to be largest when introduced earlier, and for students from less advantaged backgrounds.

The Tennessee STAR and the follow-up Wisconsin SAGE projects demonstrated the positive effects of smaller classes on students’ cognitive and non-cognitive outcomes. These effects persisted throughout the school life of the students. Other studies also show smaller classes have benefited disadvantaged students.

Class size reduction is not the magic bullet to better student development. It has to be implemented together with other holistic policies.

MOE saw it beneficial to have class size of 25 for gifted students. I hope such benefits can apply to all primary levels. I urge MOE to extend class size of 30 to primary 3 and 4 and eventually across all primary levels.

By MP for Aljunied GRC, Low Thia Khiang
[Delivered in Committee of Supply on 13 March 2013]

At the budget debate last year, Minister for Education seemed to suggest that tuition is quite normal as it happens everywhere all over the world and that this is a sign of parents having high aspirations for their children’s success in education.

While this may be true, is the Minister not concerned when private tuition appears to have virtually become a parallel system to our publicly funded education system?

The Household Expenditure Survey 2007 suggested that families spend more on private tuition then on university tuition fee. Private tuition fee has become a financial burden to many families, especially those from the middle-income group.

The stressful education system and the costs of educating children today contribute to the challenges in encouraging Singaporeans to start families.

I have come across parents who send their children for private tuition not because they want their children to top the class or to get into a branded school, but because their children’s test or examination results were not good and they worry that their children may fail the subject or be unable to cope with the school curriculum.

If our schools could provide the additional support for weaker students to boost their academic results to assure parents that their children are able to cope with schoolwork, it would ease the anxiety of parents from sending their children for tuition and thus incurring additional household expenditure.

Schools should also be mindful not to feed the anxiety of parents and putting unnecessary pressure on students by purposely setting difficult questions in routine assessment test to fail students in order to spur them to work harder.

MOE must reclaim the confidence of parents that the school can and will be able to educate their children and bring out their best and full potential without the need for parents to seek private tuition outside school education.

By MP for Hougang SMC, Png Eng Huat
[Delivered in Committee of Supply on 13 March 2013]

Madam,
The Edusave Scheme was started in 1993 to provide equal educational opportunity for school children including access to enrichment programmes run by the schools. Over the years, its scope has been expanded to benefit more students through Edusave awards and scholarships.

Correspondingly, enrichment programmes under the Edusave Pupils Fund have also been expanded to include more activities. Some enrichment programmes engaged external professional instructors and may come with accredited certification at the end of the course.

With this development, many activities do not come cheap anymore. Even taking non-competitive CCA can deplete the Edusave Pupils Fund account rather rapidly. If we factor in the paraphernalia parents sometimes have to buy for their children to support the selected activities, the out of pocket expenses for these activities can be a financial burden for low and middle income families.

I would like to ask MOE what the guidelines are for schools to ensure Edusave money is well utilised i.e. low and middle income families will not need to fork out additional cash payment for their children to enjoy some of these enrichment programmes. Are there additional help for children whose Edusave accounts may not have enough to sign up for such programmes?

By MP for Aljunied GRC, Pritam Singh
[Delivered in Committee of Supply on 13 March 2013]

Madam Chairperson,

Cycling remains a popular and convenient means of transport over short distances for many Singaporeans and even foreign workers near industrial areas. Its popularity as a sport has also increased markedly over the years. The extension of the National Cycling Plan (NCP) to seven HDB towns in the very near future is also likely to increase ridership. Unfortunately, the popularity of cycling to run chores, for work or leisure has also resulted in a larger number of accidents, brushes and near misses both on our roads and in our housing estates. In fact, a Straits Times report last month observed that the general level of safety awareness has not kept up with cycling initiatives.

Would the Ministry consider an inter-agency educational campaign covering cycling etiquette and other personal road safety measures for cyclists on our roads, as part of a national safe cycling framework? In working towards a review of the safety related aspects of cycling for work or leisure, there would also be scope for cooperation with other Ministries like the Ministry of National Development to address ridership patterns on the common properties of Town Councils as well. Even though existing Town Council by-laws technically prohibit cycling in some common areas, these are difficult to enforce in practice and some cyclists and teenagers in particular innocuously flout this rule, putting children and older Singaporeans who are not able to react quickly at harm. A national safe cycling framework can support Town Council efforts in educating cyclists to dismount from one’s bicycle and to push it along under HDB void decks in particular. To this end, would the Ministry consider a legislative review of the Road Traffic (Bicycles) Rules, and more importantly work towards greater exposure and public awareness of these rules for the community at large?

I would also like to ask the Minister, as the National Cycling Plan (NCP) is rolled out in seven HDB towns by next year, are there any plans of rolling out this initiative to other constituencies?

By MP for Hougang SMC, Png Eng Huat
[Delivered in Committee of Supply on 13 March 2013]

Madam,
A life is a terrible thing to waste on the road no matter how the statistics read. And while we can continue to teach our young about road safety, we must take caution that no amount of education can prevent children from running across the road on impulse.

Although there are fewer fatal and injury accidents in 2012, we must always ensure our roads remain safe for all users especially for vulnerable groups like elderly and young pedestrians. It doesn’t really matter who has the right of way because when flesh and metal collide, the consequences are devastating.

Today I wish to speak on 3 areas of concerns; namely school zone, zebra crossing, and signalised junction.

The LTA has launched a Zero Accident Movement for its contractors to tighten up safety processes at their worksites in 2012. Likewise, can LTA start a Zero Accident Movement for our school zones as well? The update by the Second Minister for Home Affairs last February shows a decline in the number of accidents within school zones involving an injury or fatality. There were 16 accidents in 2011, down from 28 the previous year. Can we reduce this number to zero? I believe we can.

Thus, I propose we should make it mandatory for primary schools to have dedicated school crossing patrol wardens at critical school hours. Having a warden is the only way to ensure vehicles travelling in both directions will stop and remain stationary at the zebra crossing until the whole crossing is clear as stipulated in our Road Traffic Act. For signalised pedestrian crossings, the warden can also ensure children will not attempt to cross the road in an unsafe manner.

Second, all zebra crossings should be raised island wide with speed regulating strips leading to and away from such crossings. This will educate drivers in the long run that they will have to slow down whenever they approach a zebra crossing regardless of whether there are pedestrians at the crossing or not. This is a good driving habit to inculcate.

Third, signalised junctions should be programmed with some degree of predictability. Currently, there are different signalling sequences governing such junctions. Some junctions allow motorists to turn right when it is safe to so. Other junctions do not allow turning unless the green arrow lights up. There is even a junction that allows motorists 2 chances to turn – one at the beginning and one at the end of the green light cycle. All these while, the pedestrians are also in the permutation for the right of way to cross the junction.

Many times, we have seen turning motorists moving forward at junctions even though they are not supposed to do so. We have also seen motorists getting caught in the middle of the junctions because of the confusion. The most dangerous part of it all is when turning vehicles, while keeping an eye for oncoming traffic, forgot about the pedestrians’ right of way at the turn.

There are about 170 accidents involving pedestrians at signalised junctions per year in the past five years from 2007 to 2011. The number of traffic accidents at such junctions that do not involve pedestrians is about 7 times higher.

I urge the Ministry to look into making the signalised junctions more predictable. I believe when we take the guesswork out of using these junctions, motorists and pedestrians will make fewer mistakes.

We may end up spending a little more time on the road but cultivating a little patience in the interest of road safety is a good thing. Courtesy on the road is about giving way to fellow road users and exercising a little patience is all that is to it.

By MP for Aljunied GRC, Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap
[Delivered in Committee of Supply on 12 March 2013]

Madam, the issue of granting similar transport concessions to polytechnic students vis-à-vis those currently enjoyed by their counterparts in the junior colleges and the Institute of Technical Education (ITE) is not a new one. In fact, it has been an issue of concern to past and present members of this House. It is a perennial issue going as far back to 2001 when Mr. Yeo Cheow Tong was Transport Minister.

Certainly, many polytechnic students look forward to the day when the transport concessions granted to them can be harmonized to the level that is currently enjoyed by their peers in JCs and ITEs. Thus far, there has been nothing but disappointment.

Madam Speaker, as more and more of our students makes polytechnic education a natural choice of study after their O levels, the government must ensure that their choice in education should not become an inequitable one when it comes to transport fares and in light of a yawning income gap, which affects many of the parents of polytechnic students. It must also be noted that the dividends paid out by the two transport operators to their shareholders per share has been increasing over the years. A better and more inclusive Singapore would take heed of the concerns of polytechnic students and seek to actively address them.

With this in mind and the context firmly established, I would like to call upon the Ministry, the Public Transport Council, Transitlink and the two transport operators to finally grant similar concessions currently enjoyed by JCs and ITEs students to their polytechnic counterparts.

By MP for Aljunied GRC, Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap
[Delivered in Committee of Supply on 12 March 2013]

Madam, there are currently two types of ambulance services in Singapore, (i) the Emergency Ambulance Service (EAS) operated by the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) and (ii) the Non-Emergency Ambulance Services managed by private entities.

The Non-Emergency ambulances provide services such as ferrying patients to-and-fro hospitals, polyclinics and medical centres for their checks, scheduled appointments and follow-ups. The non-emergency ambulance service costs a family between $60 and $120 for a one-way trip. For two-way trips, the cost for basic transport services is between $70 and $180. Additional surcharges would be imposed in the event that additional medical attention is required.

Madam, I would like to touch upon a family of three that I came across recently. The sole breadwinner was previously employed and earns about $1,500 a month. However, due to his wife’s medical condition, he left his job to take care of his wife, who is wheelchair bound and has multiple medical conditions. Her condition requires her to frequent the hospital for her check-up and in order to ensure smooth and safe transfer to-and-fro the hospital a private ambulance is engaged. I subsequently wrote an appeal letter to the Agency for Integrated Care (AIC) but I was informed that there are currently no subsidies in place for families who engage a private ambulance. For this family and many other families who have to use these services on a regular basis, the cost of hiring a private ambulance constitutes a financial burden for them.

As such, I urge the Ministry to introduce a Non-Emergency ambulance subsidy scheme for families with a monthly household income of $1,700 and below or a per capita income of $550.

Thank you.

By MP for Aljunied GRC, Low Thia Khiang
[Delivered in Committee of Supply on 12 March 2013]

The Ministry of Health website states that: restructured hospitals are different from the other private hospitals …. AND they “are to be managed like not for profit organizations”.

At present, restructured hospitals appear to be managed like profit-driven companies. International Medical Services that solicit business from foreign patients are present in most of the restructured hospitals. The common argument is that money earned from private and foreign patients is used to support treatment for local, subsidized patients. If so, then what proportion of the overall patient load should private and foreign patients constitute – 20%, 30% or more? Who provides and overseas the implementation of the guidelines?

If they are such guidelines, does it based on department-specific or hospital-specific? I understand that while the hospital as a whole may see more subsidized patients than private/ foreign patients, how about individual departments? Moreover, given the current patient load of restructured hospitals, is it justifiable to allocate resource to serve foreign patients?

Next, I would like to discuss remuneration scheme of specialist doctors. Many specialists in restructured hospitals are under a remuneration scheme that rewards them for treating private patients, i.e non-subsidized patients.

I believe that the remuneration scheme is one of the factors hindering the hospital to improve the situation of long waiting time, especially for subsidized patients. Despite the long waiting times to consult a specialist in the hospital, there is little incentive for hospital to re-appropriate the ratio of subsidized to private out-patient specialist clinics.

There is also a policy for selected specialists from SGH to see private patients at Gleneagles and Mount Elizabeth hospitals. The Minister for Health explained that this frees up physical resources for subsidized patients. However, if the specialists are outside of SGH to treat these “off-loaded” private patients, then one may assume that junior doctors have been delegated to treat the subsidized patients in SGH.

The waiting time for surgery is also long, especially for subsidized patients. This is because the current remuneration scheme favours shorter waiting times for private patients. In addition, subsidized patients may also be encouraged to upgrade to a private status.

I am of the view that the current remuneration scheme incentivizes specialists to treat private patients over subsidized patients. As a result, there is unequal distribution of workload among specialists. Morale drops and specialists leave.  Over the years, pay increases alone have not been able to stem this tide of resignation.

Other remuneration schemes should be considered to incentivize doctors to treat both subsidized and private patients equally. Perhaps, remuneration should be based on the number of patients seen AND the complexity of patients managed.

A variant of this scheme already exists in some restructured hospitals where specialists accumulate “points” for care/ service rendered. Each “point” has a monetary value. However, such scheme has been overshadowed by the more favourable incentives to treat private/ foreign patients over subsidized patients. I think it is timely for restructured hospitals to remove the incentives for the treatment of private/ foreign patients and to move to a “point-based” remuneration scheme.

中医管理委员会决定在今年开始实施为期两年的自愿性中医延续教育计划。 依据委员会所发布的指南，参与这个延续教育课程是自愿性的。

然而，注册中医师的一般理解是第一、第二年是试验性阶段， 但第三年，2015年起，则为强制性，不发行医执照给分数不达标者。

我请问卫生部长到底这个中医延续教育计划的目的是什么？是否被误解成是为了减少注册中医师人数的一种手段？或者卫生部真的认为只要中医师不肯接受延续教育，就必须被淘汰？

我国中医界除了职业医师，也有许多义务的医师。义务医师通常是利用业余的每周几个小时行医。他们的担忧是，如果必须强制性地通过累积学分才可以更新执照，对在繁忙的工作之中拨出时间义务行医的医师是一种挑战。 更何况，义务医师还必须为了进修而自掏腰包付学费。而且，就算这一年学分足够更新执照，下一年还是有同样的顾虑。在这种情况下，义务医师们能维持得了多久呢？如果义务医师人数因而减少，对提供中医服务的自愿福利团体又会有什么影响呢？

以目前中医界的具体情况来看， 如果中医管理委员会的目的是提升中医的专业水准，增强中医的专业知识和技能，哪我建议设立中医专科医师注册制度，订立比现在中医注册更高、更严格的要求，也可把这一套延续教育计划包括在内。

By MP for Aljunied GRC, Low Thia Khiang
[Delivered in Committee of Supply on 12 March 2013]

During last year’s budget, the Minister for Health spoke about strategies to improve the quality of healthcare delivery. The twin pillars to achieving this goal are the Regional Health System and the National Electronic Health Records.

With regards to the Regional Health System, I would like an update on the progress of the formation of this system. One such example is the Eastern Health Alliance that was established in late 2011. What are the main lessons learnt from the initial planning to the final implementation of the Eastern Health Alliance? How have patients benefited either directly or indirectly from this Regional Health System? How does the Regional Health System address the overall health issues of the community that it serves? And what are the plans for the other regions of Singapore?

With regards to the National Electronic Health Records, to what extent has this programme been developed? Is it a single system applicable to all institutions across different health clusters or multiple systems stitched together?

To what extent have we achieved the goal of shared electronic medical records between government restructured hospitals, community hospitals, nursing homes, private practitioners and other users such as the Agency for Integrated Care (AIC)? What information is shared through the National Electronic Health Records? e.g. laboratory results, radiology results, histopathology results and clinical notes.

Lastly, has the National Electronic Health Records been able to reduce the need to print out hard copies of patients’ records thus reducing the carbon footprint of our healthcare system?

The increasing and ageing population has further stressed our current healthcare delivery system. The mechanism for referral to subsidized specialist healthcare in the government-restructured hospitals can be improved.

I understand that currently, the provision of primary healthcare is shared between the government run polyclinics and the private general practitioners (GP). Polyclinics provide only 20% of the primary healthcare while GPs provide 80%. There is thus a much higher chance that a patient will consult a GP rather than a polyclinic doctor.

However, if a patient sees his GP and is deemed to need a specialist consultation at the government-restructured hospital, he will not be considered as subsidized patient by the specialist clinics of the hospital on the basis of his GP’s referral.

To qualify for subsidized out-patient specialist care, he has to make a trip to the polyclinic, wait many hours to see the polyclinic doctor and pay for this additional consultation in order to get a referral letter that allows him to be seen as a subsidized out-patient at the hospital.

Such a cumbersome referral system increases both direct and indirect healthcare costs i.e. double consultation with two primary healthcare doctors in addition to time lost from work for the patient and possibly for the accompanying family member. With the increasing and ageing population, the limitations in the current system will be aggravated.

I believe that it is timely for MOH to review the referral system and allow patients the same default subsidized status for out-patient specialist care regardless of their referring primary healthcare doctor.

Madam, I would like to ask the Ministry to look into expanding the scope of outpatient treatment which can be covered by Medisave.

Last year, the Ministry of Health announced an increase in the withdrawal of Medisave for outpatient treatments for approved chronic diseases, raising it up to $400 a year.  However, the list of ‘approved chronic conditions’ did not change.  Currently, there are 10 ‘approved chronic conditions’ that one must suffer from, in order to be entitled to use Medisave for outpatient treatment.

Many elderly suffer from other common ailments, which though not an approved chronic condition, are health problems that are persistent and require continual medication to control or manage. These health problems may include cataract, osteoporosis or Parkinson’s disease to name a few.  Some of these age-related health problems may be controlled or managed with long term medication, while other problems may require further tests or health screenings in order to detect them.

A more flexible use of Medisave would greatly benefit the elderly, since many of them may not suffer from an approved chronic condition, but have other illnesses that require costly long-term care and constant medical attention.

The cost of healthcare for elderly Singaporeans is a real concern. Many elderly I have spoken to during the course of my MPS sessions in both Eunos and Punggol East, and also in the course of my recent election campaign tell me that they struggle with high medical costs and wish they could use their medisave to cover age-related illnesses that are currently not on the approved chronic condition list.

I urge the Minister to consider expanding the scope of treatment, as it is not just chronic illnesses that are problematic and costly, and our elderly can have a peace of mind knowing that they have the ability to cover any illnesses that plague them today.

Mdm Chair,

Currently, all hospitals and nursing homes conduct means-testing to determine a patient’s eligibility for government subsidies. Patients have to submit documentation to prove their income and that of their family members. These include up to three months’ of payslips, CPF contribution statements or income tax returns.

Obtaining salary documentation is onerous for some patients, including those who are not IT-literate, who do not have a SingPass to retrieve their CPF statements, or are odd job workers who are not issued payslips. Some need to contact their employers to request for letters to prove their income. Others may have difficulty obtaining the documentation from family members, who may not want to reveal their income or may be estranged from the patient.

All these present administrative and emotional burdens to patients, at a time when they are already saddled with worry and pain from their illnesses. As a result, many of them do not complete their applications and lose out on receiving subsidies that could ease the cost of their treatment.

I hope MOH will review its means-testing process to ensure that it does not burden patients or their family members, so that patients receive all the subsidies that they are eligible for.

To reduce the hassle for patients, can means-testing be conducted without the need for the patient or his family to submit their income documentation? The process should be automated so that the patient and his family only need to give their consent for the hospital to access their income records with CPF Board or IRAS. This is much more convenient for the patient, and it better preserves their confidentiality.

I note that this is already being done for CHAS (Community Health Assist Scheme) applications[1]. Can the same be done for all hospital and nursing home means-testing?

Madam, my colleague, Mr Yee Jenn Jong, had during the COS debate last year stated that it was opportune time to review the need for concession travel to be extended for the physically disabled as well as for polytechnic students. I would like to take this opportunity to echo the call by Mr Yee and other MPs in the past for fare concessions to be extended to the disabled. The disabled community has been calling for concessions for over 13 years to no avail. I hope that the concession to be given to the disabled will be significant and will ease the financial burden on this group of individuals who tend to have lower incomes and higher expenses due to their disabilities. I also hope that the Fare Review Mechanism Committee would also consider giving the same travel concessions not just to those who have physical disabilities, but to those with special needs, such as Down Syndrome.

My next point is on the affordability of taxi services. While taxis continue to be viewed as private transport, they in fact fall mid-way between vehicle ownership and public transport, and is a service used by many Singaporeans.

While it is the government’s position that taxi services should be left to the free market, the free market is constrained by quotas on taxis and taxi driver licenses. What further affects the competitiveness of the industry is that it is currently led by one major player, ComfortDelgro and several much smaller companies. This leaves the smaller players with less room to set competitive fares or rentals. According to a report from Asiaone.com, the National Taxi Association urged all other players to follow ComfortDelgro’s upward revisions to surcharge and fares in 2011[1]. Following these revisions, the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) raised concerns, asking ComfortDelGro to justify its taxi fare revision[2]. This points to a need to re-look at how this industry is regulated, to strike a better balance in terms of benefits for both commuters and drivers.  I would like to ask the ministry to call for a review of taxi service provision, taking into deeper consideration the following 2 points:

1. Affordable pricing for commuters

We must ensure that taxi services continue to be priced reasonably for the consumer. Taxi fares have of late increased significantly, not just due to increments in ERP, but also the extension of taxi surcharges to the point where commuters have to pay surcharges from 6pm in the evening all the way till 9.30am the next morning, including the midnight surcharge.

2. Tangible benefits to the real incomes of taxi drivers

A report in the Business Times on 15 Dec 2012 analysed ComfortDelgro and SMRT’s financials, it concluded that both transport operators can actually afford to raise salaries internally, without having to pass costs on to the commuters. Taxi companies should be obligated to demonstrate how fare increases corresponds with benefits for taxi drivers, should there be any in order to justify fare increments. This review should also look into alternative ways to reduce the cost to drivers, such as lowering taxi rentals, instead of just increasing fares for commuters.

Mdm Chair,

MOT recently said that it was exploring private bus operators’ interest in new, shorter services that feed to MRT stations, and that these new feeder services could be outside of the current Bus Services Enhancement Programme (BSEP)[1].

During last year’s Budget, it was announced that of the $1.1 billion budgeted for the BSEP, $280 million had been budgeted for the purchase of 550 buses over the next five years, and $820 million was budgeted to cover the net operating costs of these buses for 10 years[2]. My understanding then was that the BSEP budget was to supply additional buses and drivers to the two current public transport operators (PTOs). How do the new bus services contracted out to private bus operators fit into this budget?

Can the Minister share what the estimated cost of this latest initiative will be?

Is this latest move being undertaken because the two PTOs are unable or unwilling to ramp up bus service coverage?

While I welcome additional buses and bus routes to ease congestion and reduce waiting and travelling time for commuters, do these new service contracts amount to a further government subsidy of the two PTOs?

Could the Minister share more details about how these new contracts are structured? I understand the private bus operators are paid a fixed contract price, and the fares collected will go to the government. Hence the operators will not bear any revenue risk.

Will there be penalties for not meeting quality of service standards, or bonus payments for exceeding standards? If so what will these penalties and bonuses be like, and how will the Ministry ensure that service standards will meet the expectations of commuters?

Madam Chairperson,

In 1999, the then-Ministry of Environment set up a Rodent Eradication and Control Committee after identifying 11 areas in Singapore, which included HDB estates, overrun with rats. In 2004, a Straits Times report noted that 8,631 rat holes had been identified across the island, while separately noting that the Ministry had spent $280,000 to address the problem that year in five estates with NEA footing 75% of the bill, and Town Councils paying the other 25%. In 2009, a Sunday Times report observed that the rat problem in the Orchard Road shopping belt had worsened, and in 2010, NEA found 1,687 areas in Singapore populated by rats, three times more than the 443 that were found in 2009. More recently in November last year, Ang Mo Kio Hub was also hit by a rat problem.

With increased construction activity all over Singapore, there is a growing perception that the rat problem requires greater attention from the Ministry. The Minister only last month noted that 900 mosquito-breeding offences were detected in construction sites in 2012, with 626 being first-time offenders. This suggests that there is scope for greater public health scrutiny of construction sites in general, especially those that are located in or close to HDB housing estates. With larger numbers of people on the island anticipated in the years to come, and more food sources inevitably available, there is a concern that the number of rats will be on the rise in future. I would like to request the Ministry to step up in its anti-rodent enforcement and education efforts, and to consider raising the profile of these efforts to the level of its anti-dengue efforts, so as to work towards a cleaner Singapore going forward. It would also be helpful if the Minister could update us on the number of annual cases of leptospirosis and murine typhus infections – both being rat-transmitted diseases – which was reported in 2008 as being between 10 to 30. In addition, as many anti-rodent education efforts centre on the proper disposal of waste, there are likely to be other positive public health spin-offs than can buttress the effort to keep Singapore clean.

Singapore is currently subject to another onslaught of the dengue virus.  It seems that the current dengue outbreak has peaked at an unusual time of year – at end 2012 and the start of 2013, rather than the usual July-August periods of the past.  The affected areas appear to be mostly in the eastern and north-eastern sectors of Singapore, including residential estates in the Yio Chu Kang and Serangoon area.

I would first like to acknowledge the tireless efforts by the teams at the National Environment Agency (NEA) in their outreach and enforcement efforts, going door to door in their inspections and public education.  NEA has also collaborated with Aljunied-Hougang Town Council and our MPs regularly in responding to the dengue situation.

NEA’s work in surveillance, public education and enforcement are well-known.  However, according to the NEA’s dengue website (www.dengue.gov.sg), one of the key thrusts of its approach to dengue includes research.  I understand that NEA has been active in research under the auspices of its Environmental Health Institute.  In 2011, the EHI has been recognized by the World Health Organisation as a global centre for reference and research.

Research is critical to improve the current treatment responses, as there is no drug to treat or prevent dengue yet.  Sufferers have to wait for the disease to play out and be “treated” via fluid replacement.

It was reported that last year, a team of researchers from our university medical schools and the Defence Science Organisation laboratories managed to discover a human anti-body which may have the potential of limiting the damage caused by the dengue virus serotype 1 while inside the human body.

Does NEA collaborate with such external agencies to synergise its research efforts, especially regarding prevention and treatment responses?  What are its current research priorities concerning dengue generally?  A breakthrough in research may finally remove the impotence with which those affected by dengue meet their fates.

Madam Chairperson,

National Service (NS) has remained a bedrock of nation-building since 1967. With the government opening the door to large numbers of foreigners in a short space of time over the last decade, foreigners and new citizens have, to varying degrees, been accused of enjoying a security umbrella without the need to serve NS. In addition, government data released through parliamentary questioning reveal that about 25% of all who give up their citizenship each year from 2007 to 2011 were naturalized citizens. These perceptions and realities should prompt us to looking at ways to increase the prospects of integration, at least between Singaporeans and new citizens for nation-building purposes.

The unique role of NS as a social adhesive boasts a generational track record. So far, the government’s efforts have been tailored towards putting the contribution of NSmen into distinct relief by sharpening the difference between Singaporeans and foreigners through a monetary approach. In 2010, the government announced details of the NS Recognition Award (NSRA) which saw every Singaporean NSman getting up to either $9,000 or $10,500, deposited into their Post-Secondary Education and CPF accounts over 10 years. Even then, the limits of monetary incentives and monetary solutions were aptly put by a Straits Times reporter who addressed the issue succinctly, “…money cannot be the only language that Singaporeans speak. People want to feel proud of being Singaporean.”

Earlier in 2010, in response to proposals that new citizens should be made to serve some form of NS, the Defence Minister, Mr Ng Eng Hen came out to say that NS was meant to serve a critical national need, not to fulfil social goals. Three years later, with a perceptibly strong and negative undercurrent to the government’s population policies today, a reassessment of NS’ utility as a tool of integration is necessary.

At its heart is the question of public buy-in towards the government’s immigration policies – buy-in which has so far remained very fitful. As MINDEF takes up the largest chuck of the country’s budget, it would be worthwhile looking at the role NS can play in the integration of new citizens, especially since it can be equally argued that integration is not just a social objective, but that it serves –  especially with the passing of the population white paper – a critical national purpose too.

The pace of integration between citizens and new citizens is slow. Taken on its own, there is nothing wrong with this, since integration should not be hurried. It also is quite difficult to have an absolute fix on the depth and quality of integration so far, except the visceral outbursts against foreigners that many in this house have come to know of. But integration can be enhanced and deepened by common experiences and shared values – and in this regard, NS presents itself as a ready platform.

Today, Singaporean males have accepted that they can be called up for NS for up to 40 days a year for 10 years, and that is after they have completed their 2-year full-time NS stint. The point about NS is that Singaporean males do not just serve 2 years of NS, they serve a 10-year NS training cycle when they enter the workforce as well. While it may be operationally and bureaucratically inefficient to get new citizens to serve full-time NS for two years, it is not in the realm of imagination to conceive of new citizens up to the age of 30, serving a 10-year NS cycle till they are 40 years old, which is the current statutory age limit of service for many Singaporean NSmen.

Recently, the SAF has raised some battalions specifically for the purposes of protection of key installation duty, with a specific vocation raised for this – the security trooper. These soldiers, amongst other duties, help patrol key installations and places like Changi airport and Jurong Island. Without undermining the importance of such responsibilities, one can conceive the development of a training program implemented to train new citizens for NS duties over a 10-year NS training cycle with the first 3 years (effectively up to 40 days a year) set aside to train new citizen soldiers on the rules of engagement, and specific vocational training relevant to the protection of key installations. When deployed, these new citizens can be envisaged to patrol jointly with Singaporean NSmen vocationally trained as security troopers who have completed their 2-year cycle, so no distinction is made between new or old citizens, and they perform their duties as Singaporeans.

Madam Chairperson, this is just one example of the how the 10-year NS training cycle can be employed to serve both national and social needs. In the event there is concern by some that this requirement would deter foreigners from taking up Singapore citizenship, then an adverse inference should necessarily be drawn against that applicant.

The experience of some European countries with immigration already portends the prospects of a nasty reaction to it. Before Singapore reaches this point, the government should look towards strategies that can stand to substantively deepen the quality of integration between new citizens and Singaporeans. In my view, NS is the national institution that is uniquely placed to play to this role.

Transparency International (TI) has recently come up with a government defence anti-corruption index, where countries are ranked from A to F on corruption risk in defence.  Singapore was rated D+, which TI defines as indicating a high risk of corruption.  MINDEF has issued a response reiterating that it is prudent in managing its resources, has its own audit mechanisms, and does not tolerate corruption.

While the government’s position is well-known, it is still worth studying TI’s observations about Singapore.  Countries which fared better had higher scores for political oversight, financial corruption risk and integrity in defence procurement.  In political oversight, TI even singles out our Defence Supply Committee as being “provided with minimal information to help guide decision-making”.

I think we should continue to review how more information about MINDEF spending can be shared with Parliamentarians and the general public to reduce corruption risk.  Australia and Germany managed to be graded A, and USA was graded B, even though arguably they have equally or more compelling security concerns about transparency.  Can we be a bit more transparent?  It is interesting that every now and then, international publications such as Jane’s Intelligence Review make revelations about specific purchases of military hardware by the SAF, and yet we seem to survive the disclosure.

Has the government closed its mind on this issue, or is it studying how MINDEF can move towards more oversight to minimise corruption risk?

By Non-Constituency MP Gerald Giam
[Delivered in Committee of Supply on 11 March 2013]

Mdm Chair,

It is common for high income earners to earn much more from capital gains and other investments than from their wages and salaries. In the United States, where income inequality is almost as high as Singapore’s, economist Joseph Stiglitz has pointed out that salaries and wages account for only about 9% of the income of the top 400 income earners; interest and dividends account for 16% and capital gains account for a sizeable 57% of their total income [1].

According to a reply from the Finance Minister to my parliamentary question on 14 November 2012, capital gains do not need to be reported in Singapore since they are not taxable.

This being the case, is there any official data on the total income of individuals in Singapore, including salaries, wages, interest, dividends and capital gains from the sale of properties, shares and financial instruments? If not, how does the government determine the total income of individuals in Singapore for the purpose of measuring the true income and wealth distribution among the population?

In the absence of mandatory reporting of capital gains, could the government explore ways to require simple but accurate ways to report and collect this data?

I think these are important metrics to measure. They could help policymakers plan more effective and progressive redistributive policies for future budgets. These can in turn help to improve the well-being of Singaporeans, while balancing the need for Singapore to remain an attractive destination to work and invest.

[1] Stiglitz, Joseph, 2012. “The price of inequality: How today’s divided society endangers our future”, p. 72.

By Non-Constituency MP Yee Jenn Jong
[Delivered in Committee of Supply on 11 March 2013]

Madam, the service economy is increasingly important to Singapore. Excluding Financial and Insurance, the service sector had 135,000 enterprises and employed 1.35 million workers in 2010.

The 2012 SME Development Survey highlighted that 50% more service sector SMEs found bank financing a challenge compared to the previous year. This is despite the availability of government-backed loans through financial institutions. The survey also found more SMEs facing cash flow and liquidity problems.

Service sector SMEs generally require working capital financing such as supplier invoice financing, working capital term loans and factoring. They are generally asset light with little collaterals. Financial institutions are cautious and tend to make unsecured lending only to bigger mid-sized SMEs. With the Basel III minimum adequacy requirement, banks are likely to tighten loans to smaller and riskier SMEs.

Government lending to SMEs has been implemented in countries such as USA, South Korea and Malaysia to address market failure in working capital financing loans to SMEs. A government-led SME bank will be useful for the following:

1. SMEs with track record of less than 3 years. SMEs have highlighted that banks generally offer financing to SMEs with more than 3 years of track record.
2. SMEs with small scale operations. Financial institutions tend to focus on mid-sized enterprises.
3. SMEs with intangible assets. Many knowledge or technology-based companies have intangible intellectual properties which banks are unable to assess. I understand there was previously a government backed unsecured loans to tech start-ups through the now defunct Keppel-Tat Lee Bank called TechFinancing. Is the government supporting more of such schemes?

To alleviate concern that the SME bank will crowd out private sector lenders, the SME bank can be a lender of last resort to the under-served small SMEs. Alternatively, the government can form tighter partnerships with existing financial institutions to serve this market.

By Non-Constituency MP Yee Jenn Jong
[Delivered in Committee of Supply on 11 March 2013]

Madam, it has been some years since the government identified clean energy as a key economic growth area. Since 2007, the government has invested $350 million to fund the development, testing and export of clean energy solutions. By 2015, the government expects the clean energy industry to contribute $1.7 billion to Singapore’s GDP and employ around 7,000 people. It is now 2013. How far are we from this target? We have a dozen tidal, wind, and solar energy MNCs setting up largely R&D facilities here, but how many sizeable Singapore enterprises have sprung up to export clean energy solutions?

Solar power currently represents just 0.1% of electricity generating capacity in Singapore. This is very low and could be the reason why local enterprises have not taken off. We are too focused on development and testing. Germany is the global leader in the solar energy production. The German solar energy industry was enabled not just by R&D but also lessons learned in system adoption and use because of the aggressive promotion of the alternative energy market.

Solar energy capability is not just about producing and exporting panels. Clean energy solutions is a post-industrial service industry where hardware and software have to be coupled with customization and after-sales service. Without a sizeable local deployment, it would be very difficult for Singapore to export our clean energy solutions expertise.

Currently, we only have two small scale schemes for private companies, one to encourage test bedding in government facilities and the other to offset the capital costs of installation. We need to scale up system adoption and use in the private sector to develop the industry and make the market.

I propose the government look into three areas. One, Feed-In Tariffs for solar energy producers selling their electricity back to the grid on long-term guaranteed contract at a slightly marked-up price. Two, Rooftop Leasing to encourage building owners to lease out their rooftops to solar energy companies to produce electricity. Three, Solar Leasing to encourage building owners to rent panels from solar energy companies.

The government has said that it is not fair to subsidize electricity generation producers. However, the government provides funding and subsidies in many creative forms to develop promising industries. MTI should study the viability of these schemes and experiment with solar leasing, rooftop leasing and FITs.

By MP for Aljunied GRC, Chen Show Mao
[Delivered in Committee of Supply on 11 March 2013]

Madam,

The demographic trend of our ageing population is highlighted in part of the recent Budget. The Budget has two parts – “Quality growth” and “an Inclusive society.” They contain pillars of the government’s Economic and Social strategies, respectively.

When speaking about the Social part of the budget – an inclusive society – the Budget acknowledges as “key concerns” the issues facing older workers and retirees.

I hope the government will similarly keep older Singaporeans closer to the centre of the Economic part of the budget – for “quality growth”.

Singapore should promote our silver industries, which produce goods and services for the elderly, as a key plank of our restructuring, evolving economy. For example, the Budget refers to funds set aside for Collaborative Industry Projects for productivity growth, where industry wide collaboration provides scale that individual firms lack. There is also the Partners for Capability Transformation (PACT) Scheme to foster SME collaboration with large enterprises so as to enable capability upgrading and sharing of best practices.

In addition to productivity growth and capability upgrading, which are the objects of these schemes, could we foster similar collaboration to address the economic opportunities presented by an ageing population, first within Singapore, as a test-bed to develop robust and innovative silver products and services, before then exporting them to regional markets. China in particular is an economy that is expected to age very rapidly – from 100 million seniors (aged 65 and above) in 2010, to 350 million in 2050.

This will benefit both our businesses and our seniors.

In addition to industry collaboration and collaboration between SMEs and large enterprises, we should also foster synergistic collaboration by firms with companies outside their own industries and by firms with senior citizens themselves as consumers and key stakeholders to offer co-creative solutions to the challenges of an aging population – such as Japan has been doing with robotics – we can focus on solutions in elder care, elder housing and elder living.

We can be both hopeful and realistic, that one day the popular science fiction saying may very well be true in Singapore: “live long and prosper!”

By Non-Constituency MP Gerald Giam
[Delivered in Committee of Supply on 11 March 2013]

Mdm Chair,

Many of the government’s productivity assistance schemes focus on helping SMEs improve productivity within their companies. But in order to raise productivity on a larger scale within industries, the government should look into funding and building more common infrastructure and systems that SMEs can tap on. These large scale systems are often beyond the ability of individual SMEs to develop on their own.

An example of such a system is the National Electronic Health Records (NEHR) developed by MOH. This is not only used by hospitals, but in the pipeline also many private GP clinics, to share patient information and increase the efficiency and accuracy of diagnoses.

Next, the government is one of the biggest buyers of goods and services from SMEs. It can better support companies as they strive to increase productivity, through the way tender requirement specifications are structured. For example, government tender requirements for the development and maintenance of enterprise IT systems sometimes specify that vendors’ personnel must work on-site, when some roles can be run from offsite using secure remote access, saving travelling time. Providing more flexibility in tender specifications for companies to innovate can result in not only improved productivity but can also reduce costs for the government.

Lastly, the government should provide more incentives to help SMEs recruit local staff and talent. This is at the top of many SMEs’ wish list for Budget 2013, according to an ASME (Association of Small and Medium Enterprises) survey. I had earlier proposed a New Hire Wage Credit that will pay for a quarter of the salaries of new Singaporean hires for half a year, provided they have been unemployed or out of the workforce for at least four months. I hope the government will seriously consider this proposal because I believe it can help SMEs attract more Singaporeans, and reduce reliance on foreign workers.

By MP for Aljunied GRC, Sylvia Lim
[Delivered in Committee of Supply on 11 March 2013]

Many Singaporeans worry about rising electricity bills. According to the Singapore Energy Statistics (SES) 2012 released by Energy Market Authority (EMA), the price index for electricity tariff that applies to households has seen an increase of about 47% from 2005 to 2011.

The current formula for electricity tariff has managed to protect households from wide fluctuations last seen in 2008. However, we have to continue to look for ways to help Singaporean households manage their expenditure on electricity.

Since 2000, the government has liberalised the retail electricity market in phases and believes that competition among the retailers of electricity benefits consumers with greater efficiency and competitive prices.

To date, the household market, which accounts for about 25% of the total electricity demand, is still not yet contestable. The EMA says that Full Retail Contestability is still under review.

This issue was raised in earlier Committees of Supply under MTI. In 2007, the government indicated that there was a study on an Electricity Vending System (EVS) which will help to reduce administration and business costs. At last year’s COS, the response was that to have full retail contestability, there is a need for a system like the Intelligent Energy System (IES). I understand Phase 1 of the IES pilot has been completed and Phase 2 is on with some testing in households in Punggol.

May I ask what has happened to the EVS? Could MTI also give a preliminary assessment of IES and whether full retail contestability is likely in the near future?

Mdm, in my previous cut on the housing resale levy issue, I have depicted the circumstances in which lower income families have been requested to sell off their property. This sets in place a 30-months long debarment period for flat owners who intend to rent a flat directly from the HDB.

I recall one of my residents who came to seek my help at my Meet-the-People session. He is a low-income earner with 5 young children under his care. He was left stranded and homeless and his family has to resort to sleeping in a tentage by the beach after he had exhausted all of his sales proceeds on renting a flat from the open market. Officers from the Ministry of Social and Family Development subsequently picked him up and his family was placed in a community shelter. During the 30-months long period in which he was unable to rent a flat from the HDB, he built up another series of arrears as a result of his tight financial situation where the bulk of his proceeds went to servicing his rental commitments. Today even though he has been allocated a HDB rental flat, he is still struggling to pay off the arrears he accumulated during the 30 months long period. The family remains trapped in the debt cycle.

The case I have illustrated is not unique. In fact, many members of this House would have come across similar cases during the course of their work. We can and should do more for lower income Singaporeans. I would like to call upon the Minister to consider to exempt the lower income family from the debarment policy or at least reducing the debarment period for renting a HDB flat from the current 30 months to a period not exceeding 12 months, preferably between 10 to 12 months. Such a move would be most welcomed by many lower income families.

Mdm, I understand that the resale levy is introduced to reduce the subsidy on the 2nd subsidised flat with the function of exercising fairness in the granting of housing subsidies between 1st and 2nd-timer citizen families and to grant priority to 1^st timers who have more urgent housing needs.

The resale levy itself constitutes a financial burden to owners with a monthly income of $1,500 and below. Often during my Meet-the-People sessions, I have come across many lower income families who have been advised by the HDB to sell off their flat due to outstanding arrears or owners who have been ordered by the Court to sell off their matrimonial flat due to a broken marriage.

Under the circumstances depicted above, it is noteworthy to highlight that the owner has little or no choice, as a result of evolving life circumstances to sell off their property. In the first place, these families already face considerable financial difficulties and the proceeds from the sale of the flat would provide some much-needed financial breathing space. At the same time, the owner has been debarred from renting a flat directly from the HDB and hence has to resort to paying open market rental rates. Any sales proceeds received would then be depleted by exorbitant rental rates. Moreover, by the time the owner decides to obtain a new flat, he would not have the financial means to pay for his resale levy. This has the effect of limiting his housing options and his desire for a new start.

Hence, I would like to call upon the Ministry to consider allowing the resale levy to be incorporated into the new housing mortgage to be paid together with the monthly mortgage installment for lower-income families.

Mdm, many members in this house have written countless letters to the HDB on behalf of their respective constituents on many related issues such as rental housing, waiver of housing levy or the lowering of rental fees.

During the course of my work as a Member of Parliament, I have familiarise myself with the generic responses offered by the HDB to my residents. Allow me to cite two examples. In situations where an appeal by elderly Singaporeans for a rental flat is not successful, HDB would cite the support of his children whilst advising him to stay with his children as the basis for the rejection. In the event of soured relations in the family, HDB would refer the family to seek counseling to resolve their outstanding issues. Under circumstances where an owner has just sold his flat due to outstanding arrears or a broken marriage, the 30-months long debarment period would be cited as the basis for not granting a HDB rental flat. HDB would also remind the residents of the proceeds from the sale of his previous flat. Such responses itself are not wrong, but I urge the ministry to exercise more care, greater due diligence and demonstrate a greater level of compassion for each individual appeal.

Each appeal letter represents a hope and a bond of trust that the resident has placed in the judgment and abilities of the ministry and its officials to alleviate their most immediate problems. More care should be given and more time should be spent in assessing cases and the nature of the appeal. Each family is different and the situation of members in each family is unique and hence more time and flexibility need to be exercised when assessing the eligibility and merits of each appeal. Under such a circumstance, voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs) and family service centres (FSCs) on the ground, equipped with the relevant resources and human expertise can work with the ministry to better assess the needs of each resident. This can add a human face and a compassionate touch to the lives of our people when they deal with agencies and bureaucracies.

I call upon the ministry to enhance their collaboration and engagement between the HDB, VWOs and FSC and seek their advice and professional assessment during the process of determining the validity of a particular appeal.

Madam,

Although the government will continue to encourage all Singaporeans to own their homes, there will always be a group of Singaporeans who are unable to do so for various reasons.  For these Singaporeans, the only option left is either to rent from the open market or HDB.

For families with household income of $2,000 and below, renting a flat from the open market is not a financially prudent thing to do.  The latest median rents for a 3-room flat range from $1,750 to $2,400 depending on locations. ⁽¹⁾ For some of these families with young children and belongings, renting just a room is also not a conducive arrangement.

Another group of Singaporeans who need assistance in housings are single parents with children born out of wedlock.  For low wage earners in this group, renting a room is already a strain on their pockets.  As the children grow and the need for bigger space arises, renting a small flat from the open market is virtually out of reach.

A third group of Singaporeans are elderly with no or very little income.  Some have no children while others cannot depend on their children.

In the above examples, some of the families are waiting for their BTO flats while some are technically homeless.  Some are finding it hard to make ends meet renting from the open market while others are living on the goodwill of their relatives and friends to house them temporarily.

Some families are barred from renting because one of the partners may have sold a flat or two due to previous broken marriages.  Some are barred because the children are born out of wedlock and they do not constitute a family nucleus.  Some basically do not qualify because of the household income ceiling.

Budget 2013 has promised to do more for Singaporeans and to build a more inclusive society.  I welcome the move by the government to provide temporary housing for first-timer married couples with or without children.

I would like to ask HDB what other measures are there to help Singaporeans, some of whom are caught in between policies, to find a place to call home whether on a temporary or long term basis.

Can HDB look into relaxing the income ceiling criteria for families with children for a start?  Can HDB relax its family nucleus criteria for single parents with young children born out of wedlock as well?

(1)  http://www.hdb.gov.sg/fi10/fi10323p.nsf/w/RentOpenMktStatisticRent

Madam,

Like many Singaporeans, my family moved into a HDB flat in the early seventies.  It was not easy for many of us, being kampong dwellers, to adapt to a new and strange high rise living environment.  I remembered one family brought along their chickens to live with them.

In the early years, HDB did well to ensure resettled residents would not need to adjust too much to living in a concrete jungle.  So there were shops below most of the flats and a wet market and hawker centre nearby.

To a certain extent, the planners tried their best to transplant our way of life from the kampongs to the HDB estates.  Some semblances of kampong life continue in the local provision shop, the corner coffee shop, the wet market, the hawker centre and even the tiny convenience store at the void deck.

But such simple amenities are sorely missed in the new estates.  A visit to Punggol East early this year gave me a feeling that future HDB estates will see less and less of such features.

If you were to take a tour of the older estates today, you will see a world of difference.  You will also feel the heartbeat of the community around those simple amenities built years ago for the benefit of the residents.

As we embark to remake Singapore, I urge the Ministry to incorporate the heartbeat of old Singapore into the designs of new towns.  I also urge the Ministry do the same to existing estates lacking in such amenities in the next phase of estate renewal.  Every precinct should house some neighbourhood shops, eateries, or even just a small convenience store at the void deck.

We must try to preserve what is important to keep our way of life, culture and community going.  Such efforts should not be driven purely by commercial considerations.  We must make haste to ensure such old world charms and trades will not become a relic of an era gone by.

By Non-Constituency MP Yee Jenn Jong
[Delivered in Committee of Supply on 11 March 2013]

Madam, much has been said about infrastructure in the Land Use Plan. Livability is not just about buildable infrastructure. Sustainability of our natural habitat is also important.

Apart from being a habitat for flora and fauna, natural environments alleviate drainage issues by retaining water and slowing surface runoff, and can moderate ambient temperatures. The 2012 Expert Panel on Drainage Design and Flood Prevention Measures found that large-scale rapid urbanization is a key contributor to the recent increase of flooding.

A comprehensive environmental impact assessment (or EIA) should precede major developments. Many countries already require EIA before starting on projects. By alerting us to the potential hazards that may arise, precautionary measures can be taken. An example is the urbanization of a grass knoll to house Ion Orchard. Preventive measures could have been taken if nearby complexes and authorities were alerted to potential problems arising from the development.

Another effect of urbanization is the increase in ground temperatures due to the loss of trees. EIAs can help us better understand this issue, and help planners plan the siting and even method of development to minimise this.

The Nature Society of Singapore has noted that Singapore has a higher carbon footprint than other developed countries. Naturally wooded areas help absorb this carbon. If more naturally wooded areas like Bukit Brown and Pasir Ris wetlands go away, our carbon footprint may become larger.

I hope EIA can be a pre-condition for all major developments and findings made available to the public.

By MP for Punggol East SMC, Lee Li Lian
[Delivered in Committee of Supply on 11 March 2013]

Madam, Minister S Iswaran told Parliament on 5 March 2013 that there were 11,736 foreign spouses of Singapore citizens who were on LTVP and LTVP Plus.

11,736 may not appear to be a huge number compared to our total population. However we should not look at it as just 11,000 individuals, but 11,000 families or families to be.

Singaporean citizens whose spouses hold LTVPs are disqualified from applying for a rental flat under the HDB’s Public Rental Scheme. On 25 February 2013, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary. Dr Maliki Osman, said in Parliament that the HDB rental scheme treats a citizen married to another citizen differently from a citizen married to a foreigner. He also said that HDB will consider the merit of each case and exercise flexibility to help those truly in need.

Madam, I have seen such cases every week at the Meet The People Session in Punggol East. These families who seek rental housing are typically those already in need and not financially well-off. While the government would like to exercise flexibility, it must also understand that such flexibility creates uncertainty and instability for such families.

Minister Khaw Boon Wan said on 2 March 2012 that he was mulling over how to help groups faced with special circumstances, and he specifically mentioned foreign spouses. He said that he has not forgotten these groups.

I hope that the Minister has started to think deeply about this issue and can share with us, from the appeals that HDB receives, under what conditions or criteria has the HDB granted a rental flat to a Singapore citizen with a foreign spouse? If not, what other alternatives are there for them?

By MP for Hougang SMC, Png Eng Huat
[Delivered in Committee of Supply on 8 March 2013]

Sir, while having lift access on every floor is a given for new HDB flats, many residents living in flats built before 1990 have to live without that convenience due to what HDB claimed was ‘to meet demands for privacy’. While HDB did not reveal how it arrived at that conclusion, that decision impacted many residents especially the elderly and disabled.

The Lift Upgrading Progamme (LUP) was subsequently rolled out to address the lift access issue. The LUP provides direct lift access to those pre-1990 flats but it comes with a heavy price that Town Councils and residents will have to bear going forward.

The LUP, while providing convenience to residents, has created a whole new set of issues to contend with. Some flats had to open up another doorway in the living room in order to access the new LUP lifts. Other oddities of LUP include lift landings with no escape stairwells and emergency buttons on the inside and outside of the lifts. The emergency button outside the lift is required because residents can get trapped outside the lift lobby as there is no escape stairwell provided in the LUP design for some of these flats.

Maintaining lift lobbies for some LUP flats has also become a challenge. Without a stairwell and water point, washing the lift landings is now a tedious and time consuming process.

To add to the maintenance costs, some flats ended up with 10 to 14 lifts per block, up from 3 to 4 lifts before LUP.

However, the LUP anomalies I mentioned are not found across the board. Some better designed flats implemented direct lift access without increasing the number of lifts. Thus, HDB must acknowledge that the designs of some older flats are complicated to begin with and that implementing LUP for those types of flats will lead to rising maintenance costs.

Residents and town councils are already made to co-pay for these new lifts so they should not be made to bear additional increases in lift maintenance costs due to a strange design decision taken by in HDB in the past.

Preliminary estimates for some LUP blocks in Hougang alone have already seen a doubling of the routine maintenance cost for the newly added lifts. I am sure other town councils will also experience a phenomenal rise in maintenance costs for those LUP blocks that ended up with more lifts than before.

I therefore call upon HDB to review and raise its grant for 3-room, 4-room, and 5-room LUP flats to take into consideration the additional costs required to maintain those flats with additional LUP lifts.

by MP for Aljunied GRC, Low Thia Khiang
[Delivered in Committee of Supply on 8 March 2013]

I understand that the HDB has launched the Greenprint initiative last year and works under the scope will be carried out in 2013 and 2014 under the pilot project at Jurong East.

I would like to request the MND to consider rolling out the following initiatives as soon as possible to all eligible HDB Towns in view of the national push towards productivity and escalating costs of town maintenance.

I think many precincts could benefit from the following Greenprint initiative:

1. Pneumatic refuse collection system
   The old design of individual bin chute system in older HDB estate with daily manual collection is a low productivity design and is not cost effective. Residents also often have to live with foul smell during the collection. A modified centralized refuse collection system would increase productivity in town maintenance and reduce the cost of manpower in conservancy work.
2. Energy and water saving solutions for common area.
   Water and electricity cost is one the big expenditure items in Town Council management. Initiative on water saving device and exploring new source of energy for common area not only can achieve the green effect, but also save cost.

I would like to ask MND for its future plans for the Greenprint initiative.

Will there be more pilot projects to be conducted and if so, what are the criteria for the selection of precincts for such pilot projects?

What is the timeframe to roll out the initiative?

by MP for Aljunied GRC, Low Thia Khiang
[Delivered in Committee of Supply on 8 March 2013]

Ministry of Manpower (MOM) announced at last year Budget COS that the Tripartite Committee on Work-Life Strategy had formed a workgroup on homeshoring.  The workgroup comprises representatives from MOM, IDA, NTUC and SNEF. 

The workgroup would identify jobs that leverage on Singapore’s increased infocomm technology capacity and recommend measures to encourage companies to “homeshore” these jobs. IDA is to drive the initiative under the Next Generation Services Innovation Programme (NGSIP), which was developed in consultation with the partners.
 
In April 2012, IDA launched a Call-for-Collaboration (CFC) to conduct pilots with industry partners in home-based work and the setting up of Smart Work Centres, to encourage employers to adopt flexible working arrangements through the use of infocomm technology.

The key to the initiative is for Next Gen Nationwide Broadband Network (Next Gen NBN) to connect 95% of Singapore by mid-2012 to further support and encourage home-based work initiatives.

I would like to ask the Minister what milestone has been achieved and what progress has been made since?

Apart from connecting homes to Next Gen broadband network, other factors such as Internet speed is also critical to support Home-Based Work initiatives. Is there a reason why speed is not included as one of the compliance KPI for IDA’s quality standard?

Although IDA stated that it is monitoring the issue of speed, could IDA provide its own data on multiple and single TCP speed, instead of relying on information providing by third party such as Ookla and Akamai.

I would also like to know is there a roadmap on the initiative given that the MOM had published “An Employer’s Guide in Implementing ICT-Enabled Home-Based Work”?

At the outset, I wish to clarify that my cut today will not touch on matters currently being studied by MND under the review ordered by the Prime Minister.  As the review is still in progress and I am assisting in the review, those matters will be deferred to after the review.  For today, I wish to focus attention elsewhere, on something foundational to the Town Council’s functions – the concept of “common property” under the Town Councils Act (TCA).

Town Councils exist to control, manage and improve the common property of HDB estates. I will argue that the definition of common property under the TCA is inadequate, and should be reviewed e.g. to bring it in line with the definition of common property under the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act (BMSMA).

For a Town Council, the definition of what constitutes “common property” is of paramount importance as it has legal responsibility for it and must bear the cost of maintaining it.  Under the TCA, the definition of “common property” is any property which is not comprised in the flats, subject to certain named inclusions and exclusions.

I believe this definition of “common property” is too simplistic and has given rise to many practical problems.  There are items which may be outside a flat but be used by the occupants of just one flat alone rather than be for “common” use, e.g. bamboo pole holders and air-con ledges and panels.  HDB in fact had to issue a circular in March 2007 to TCs with Standard Operating Procedures on who is responsible for what.  So for bamboo pole holders, the flat lessee is responsible for routine maintenance, but cost of replacement is to be shared between the lessee and Town Councils.  As for air-con ledges and panels, Town Councils are responsible where an air-conditioner has not been installed but where it has been, the responsibility for repairs and replacement rests with the flat lessee.  HDB has made a gallant and intriguing attempt to guide Town Councils and flat lessees through what is caused by an inadequate definition of “common property” under the TCA.

In comparison, the definition of “common property” under the BMSMA is much more practical and clear.  In addition to being “not comprised in any lot”, property is only deemed “common” if it is “used or capable of being used or enjoyed by occupiers of 2 or more lots” i.e. units.   If this definition was adopted for HDB estates, the bamboo pole holders and air-con panels or ledges would not be common property but would be properly the responsibility of HDB or the lessee. Such a definition would enable Town Councils to focus on property for common use and give rise to a more equitable allocation of expenses.  I hope the government will review the definition of common property under TCA for better management of HDB estates.

Sir, the gist of this cut is to understand the HDB’s plans for larger BTO flats going forward and separately, the size of flats for Singaporeans in future. The latter issue continues to be discussed, even more so in the aftermath of the discussion covering the population white paper, and with the high cost of private housing in mind.

Parliament has also seen a similar range of queries dealing with ECs, HDB EMs, amongst others in this session of parliament. In Oct 2012, the Minister stated in a parliamentary reply that the HDB stopped building Executive Maisonettes (EMs) in 1995 and that Executive Condominiums (EC) have effectively replaced this segment of flats that seek to accommodate buyers who want to purchase larger flats. While the old HDB EMs ranged from 138 to 243 square metres, ECs have unit sizes ranging from 69 to 160 square metres, a reduction from in excess of 300 sq metres because of large ECs units that have come close to $2m recently. The Minister also remarked not too long ago that as ECs are better placed to meet the diverse needs of Singaporeans, there is no need to re-introduce executive flats, even though the idea of ECs as mooted by then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong in 1995 was as a means to shorten the queue for HDB executive flats and to meet Singaporeans’ demand for affordable, private property.

In view of the high cost an executive-flat sized apartment in new EC launches, can the HDB consider a pilot scheme to factor building a small number of larger apartments in new BTO launches, be it in mature or non-mature estates, so second or even first timers who want to purchase apartments larger than 5-room flats are not restricted from doing so by the price differential that comes with ECs of the same size? As most BTO flat applicants today are younger couples and smaller families, it may be argued that there is a risk of oversupply if larger flats are built again. But in light of modern construction techniques it would be helpful if new BTO flats could be designed in such way that two adjoining flats can be easily converted as it were, to form an executive apartment, and for allowance for this to be made for this prior to construction – giving added meaning for term BTO. For example, prior to construction, the HDB can set aside a percentage of any new launch for such flats, say 10% of the total. In the event the demand is not met, the flats can easily be reverted to ordinary 3-room flat without significant cost implications.

Sir, it is quite common to hear of middle-aged Singaporeans talking about how small new 3, 4 or 5 room HDB flats are. This is an old issue but it still required the government to say not too long ago that the size of HDB flats have not shrunk since 1997. Nonetheless, the government’s commitment to plan for a 6.9 m population does bring this issue back to the fore. The government has previously said that smaller flats do not have to mean a lower quality of living because the living space per person has actually increased over time due to smaller families. But after the passing of the population white paper, there is an irony in this position. In light of our urgent need to raise our TFR and to encourage families to have more children and separately, the government’s stated intention for a larger population, wouldn’t there be an argument for the government consider building HDB flats which were of the size of those built prior to 1997, so as to plan for flat sizes that anticipate and even encourage a rise in TFR?

Finally, I would be much obliged if the Minister could give an update on the government’s plan on the DBSS scheme in light of the suspension of DBSS land sales for the last six months.

Deputy Chairman,

 Last year, the MND announced its plans to build lifts for all HDB multi-storey carparks (MSCP) with the project expected to be completed by 2017. The Minister also stated that priority will be accorded to MSCPs with high parking demand and that the HDB will dovetail the lift installations with upcoming improvement works in the precinct, so as to minimise inconvenience to the residents. Some of the blocks in my ward, specifically those at Jalan Damai between block 650 and 672 are less than 20 years old. As it stands, they are not likely to be eligible for major upgrading soon as there are other older blocks in the Town that are in more urgent need of upgrading. As the precinct I mention is only served by MSCPs, and not open carparks like in older HDB estates, it is inevitable that the parking demand is very high – a point that is repeatedly made to me by residents during housevisits. Can I ask the Minister if the HDB has planned for a schedule when the MSCPs in such precincts throughout Singapore will get their lifts?

By Non-Constituency MP Gerald Giam
[Delivered in Committee of Supply on 8 March 2013]

In January 2013, the HDB introduced the Parenthood Priority Scheme (PPS) to give priority allocation for new flats to “first-timer” married couples with children. Under this scheme, 30% of BTO (Built-to-Order) flats and 50% of SBF (Sale of Balance Flats) flats will be set aside for this group.

I agree that Singaporean couples with children should get priority in flat allocation, because they not only have to house themselves, but also their children.

However, the proportion of flats set aside for all first-timers remains unchanged at 85% for BTO flats in non-mature estates1. This means that other first timers, including married couples who do not have children yet, will effectively have a lower proportion of the flats set aside for them.

If the goal of the PPS is to raise birth rates, then it might be necessary to also include married couples without children, because many of these couples may be waiting to get their own home before having kids.

The Minister has said that once the HDB clears the backlog of first-timer married couples with children, the HDB can extend the PPS to married couples without children. Will this mean that all first-timer married couples—with or without children—will be allocated 30% of BTO flats and 50% of SBF flats, or will married couples without children have a separate allocation? I think more clarity on this will help prospective home buyers better plan their flat applications.

To get a sense of the size of the backlog, for the BTO launch in January 2013 during which PPS was first offered, what proportion of PPS applicants had unsuccessful applications for previous BTO launches?

Can the Minister provide an estimate of when this backlog married couples with children is expected to be cleared, and when married couples without children can start to benefit from PPS?

Lastly, will PPS be a permanent scheme or will it only be in place until the current backlog of flat applicants is cleared?

By Non-Constituency MP Gerald Giam
[Delivered in Committee of Supply on 8 March 2013]

Mdm Chair,

The Minister said in February this year that the prices of new HDB flats have been “delinked” from resale flat prices by varying the quantum of discounts applied to the selling price. He said that HDB will continue with this pricing policy for as long as “property remains hot”.

What is the criteria he will use to determine if the housing market is cool enough, resulting in the prices of new and resale flats being “linked” once again?

Would HDB consider permanently delinking the price of new and resale flats, so new flat buyers are not at the mercy of resale flat prices, which the Minister has said he is not able to control?

I understand from the Minister’s earlier replies in this House are that the factors used to determine the selling price of new flats include the typical household income of the families who buy them, the market price of similar resale flats in the vicinity and the attributes of the flats including their size and location. He said that HDB applies a discount to this price and gives housing grants to eligible buyers.

Could the Minister share with us what is the exact pricing formula used to string all these factors together to determine the selling price for new flats?

More specifically, what is the formula used to calculate the discount or “market subsidy”?

For future launches, could HDB publish the price of each new flat before and after the discount, so that home buyers will have a clearer picture of the market price of the new flats, and discounts that they are receiving from HDB?

By MP for Punggol East SMC, Lee Li Lian
[Delivered in Committee of Supply on 8 March 2013]

Madam, in September 2012, M1, SingTel and StarHub did not comply with Quality of Service (QoS) standards for 3G mobile telephone services. As such, IDA fined these three operators $10, 000 each for not meeting the QoS standards, underwhich, at least 99 per cent service coverage must be provided.

As an industry regulator, the purpose of IDA is to provide greater incentives for telecommunication services and infocomm to grow and help Singapore become a dynamic and vibrant global Infocomm hub to enhance Singapore’s economic and social development.

I would like to ask MCI to elaborate on how IDA determines the sum of $10,000 as penalty for operators not meeting IDA’s QoS standards?

How much Capital Expenditure (CAPEX) and Operational Expenditure (OPEX) does the Ministry expect the operators will require in order to achieve QoS Standards?

As commercial entities, the three operators will understandably seek to provide the greatest shareholder returns and profit margins. In order to improve their coverage and service quality, they will have to invest in additional hardware and related services which will lead to an increase in CAPEX and OPEX. From the perspective of a commercial entity, the S$10,000 fine may be a more cost effective alternative, than investing in the improvement of their network infrastructure for the benefit of Singapore’s economic and social development.

I would like to ask the Minister if $10,000 is a sufficient penalty to push operators to improve their network services?

By MP for Aljunied GRC, Sylvia Lim
[Delivered in Committee of Supply on 8 March 2013]

An integral part of evolving Singapore’s identity must include encouraging the creation and promotion of local music. Original music tells the world about local rhythms and sounds. When words are put to music, the lyrics paint a picture about Singapore, Singaporeans, our relationships and our way of life. These are powerful anchors for Singaporeans as well, unifying us in ways which words alone cannot. Local songs are part of our unique legacy.

Local songwriters, however, cannot live on love and fresh air. The viability of their careers hinges on how much they can earn from their work, and how wide a reach they have.

I believe that for those who create original work, especially songs, the government could take a simple measure to boost the sustainability of their careers. This move will ensure that local music is played constantly and consistently, which will provide sustenance for the song creators to take their careers further, even internationally.

Currently, songwriters receive royalties when their songs are played in public, whether the songs are played in CD form or are played live. All organizations playing music or songs in public as part of their business or ambience must pay the song-music owners through COMPASS or the Composers and Authors Society of Singapore. When foreign works are played, the royalty money flows out of Singapore. To channel more royalties to flow to Singaporeans, the government can take the lead to encourage consistent and significant playing of local music.

Currently, the government plays music in its building lobbies, phone systems, and at events and occasions. At all these occasions, the government can direct its organisations to routinely include local works as often as possible. This will not increase costs for the government, as it would have had to pay royalties for music played anyway. However, this move will ensure that our local songs / music account for a good share of the royalties paid. This will also increase their public following, with more members of the public recognizing and appreciating local songs.

I believe such a simple move can be documented easily to ensure that our local songwriters get the royalty payments due to them. I urge the government to consider this suggestion to give our creative musicians a leg up.

By MP for Aljunied GRC, Sylvia Lim
[Delivered in Committee of Supply on 8 March 2013]

I would like to raise 2 areas for review concerning the investigation and pre-trial stages of criminal cases.

First, I would like to re-visit the suggestion to video-record the statements given by accused persons in custody. This practice of video-recording is in place in several advanced jurisdictions including Australia, the United Kingdom, South Korea and Taiwan. Its purpose is as a safeguard, to ensure that the person in custody gave his statement voluntarily and that the words in the statement fell from the accused’s own lips and were not force-fed.

I first raised this issue during MinLaw’s COS 5 years ago, in 2008. At that time, the government response was that video-recording does not ensure that statements are voluntarily given. In 2011, MinLaw made a similar response after the Ismil Kadar case.

While I agree that video-recording is not a fool-proof guarantee against impropriety during investigations, the benefits of doing so are undeniable and accrue to both the state and the defence. For the state, it offers significant protection to our law enforcement officers against groundless allegations that they threatened the accused or subjected the accused to duress. Footage of the statement recording will show the demeanour of the accused and the recording officer, to enable the court to come to certain conclusions about whether the accused’s will was sapped through sleep deprivation or he was not in a proper frame of mind during the recording. Furthermore, statements are often challenged by the defence on the ground that the words in the statement were put in by the recording officer and did not come from the accused. A video-record would settle that question decisively.

In other countries, video recording has been found to save police and court time, as both sides may decide not to pursue certain matters after viewing the recording. At the same time, it is a safeguard to maintaining high standards of law enforcement. We in Singapore may need this safeguard even more, since an arrested person’s right to see counsel under arrest is so limited. Would the government at least re-think its position on this issue, or pilot some trials?

Secondly, the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 introduced a new pre-trial case disclosure regime where both prosecution and defence are required to disclose evidence relevant to the case well ahead of the trial. Since its implementation, I have assisted as defence counsel in a few court cases under the framework, and I can see its value and contribution towards a fair trial. Currently, only District Court cases under the Penal Code and selected statutes come under the disclosure regime. Other cases, e.g. those charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act, have not been brought under the framework yet. As the framework has proven useful and successful, when will its scope be expanded to cover other laws like the PCA?

By MP for Aljunied GRC, Sylvia Lim
[Delivered in Committee of Supply on 7 March 2013]

Policing models worldwide are evolving.  Most countries start off with traditional, reactive models, which focus on solving crimes after they occur and responding to calls for assistance.  As countries develop, there is increasingly evolution towards proactive models which focus on crime prevention.

There is a wide body of research from developed countries on the effectiveness of different policing strategies in crime reduction.  For instance, evidence from the United States generally shows that community policing in and of itself is not effective in crime reduction, though it is useful in promoting good relations with the public.  On the other hand, there is clear evidence that problem-oriented policing and hot spot policing show strong results in crime reduction.  The general thrust of the research is that successful policing strategies combine two elements – focus on specific problems, and diverse approaches which involve not just law enforcement but other stakeholders.  For instance, if a neighbourhood has a high incidence of housebreaking, successful responses typically involve the police focusing on the problem area and working with the local housing authorities, citizens and the local councils to approach the problem from many fronts.  (e.g. Clarke and Eck (2005).  Crime Analysis for Problem Solvers.  Washington DC: US Bureau of Justice.)

In Singapore, our policing models have gone through several milestones.  Community policing was introduced in the 1980s via the Neighbourhood Police Post system, which was then replaced by the Neighbourhood Police Centre model by around the year 2000.  After more than 10 years of the NPC model, we now have the recently unveiled COPS or Community Policing System.

It has been publicly stated that the reason for the change to COPS was to adjust to new population trends and to devolve more authority to the local units.  I would like government to clarify whether the decision was based on any evidence of what has or has not worked in Singapore or in other countries i.e. to what extent was the decision evidence-based?

During the opening of this Parliament in 2011, the Prime Minister said it was necessary to take a more open approach to Government and to governance. In particular, he mentioned that the government would need to share more information with the public, including information on population trends. He said that while not everything could be disclosed, wherever possible, it would disclose more rather than less.

One area worthy of review is information about our population. Singaporeans have an interest to know who lives among us and in what numbers.

The government annually releases data on the size of the population and some demographic details. However, the government has not been willing to disclose certain other details such as the country of origin of persons in Singapore e.g. the numbers of PRs taken in from specific countries each year. Even at the Parliamentary level, when Members of Parliament had filed questions on how many persons from specific countries had been granted PR status, the standard government answer was that it was unable to provide the data. Instead, answers given provided numbers from broader regions like the total numbers from Southeast Asian countries, and the total numbers other Asian countries.

By contrast, there are other governments which are more transparent e.g. Australia publishes annual breakdowns of their new citizens, indicating the former citizenships held by the new citizens. Will our government be prepared to do so as well, or at least to answer Parliamentary questions to this effect, in line with the PM’s indication of greater openness? Or would the government elaborate on what concerns it has about releasing such information?

Since Chinese New Year last year, Singaporeans have been gripped by the investigations and subsequent prosecution of several top civil servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act. There have been recent reports of corruption complaints against other public officials e.g. an assistant director from the Media Development Authority is suspected of borrowing money from applicants for MDA grants. Now, an assistant director of Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau itself is under investigation for alleged embezzlement.

This series of announcements naturally arouses public concern. On the one hand, we can certainly take comfort in the fact that the complaints came to light and are being investigated and prosecuted. On the other hand, some may worry whether there is cause for concern about slipping standards of conduct in the public service.

The most recent report of the CPIB available on its website is for the year 2011. It shows that from 2007 to 2011, there had been a steady fall in the number of corruption-related complaints to CPIB. During this period, the number of CPIB investigations also declined significantly, from 323 in 2007 to 138 in 2011. As 2012 appears to have been a busy year for CPIB, could the government confirm whether the declining trend has now been reversed i.e. has there been an increase in the number of corruption complaints and prosecutions in 2012?

At the international level, Singapore’s reputation of having a public service low in corruption is still well-maintained, having been in the list of top 5 on Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index for at least a decade. However, while we were rated joint number 1 in 2010, we have been ranked 5^th for the last 2 years. Though we do not want to be obsessed with rankings, has the government studied Transparency International’s methodology and examined the reasons why Singapore was recently rated below Denmark, Finland, New Zealand and Sweden?

Puan pengerusi,

Parlimen baru sahaja mendebatkan tentang Kertas Putih Kependudukan baru-baru ini. Saya ada beberapa soalan mengenai isu tentang kadar kaum Melayu di Singapura.

Pada hari terakhir perdebatan Kertas Putih Kependudukan bulan lepas, Perdana Menteri, dalam ucapan beliau, telah memberi kepastian bahawa Pemerintah akan berusaha untuk memastikan kestabilan peratusan kaum Melayu di Singapura namun beliau tidak menjelaskan apakah langkah-langkah yang akan diambil oleh pemerintah dalam perkara ini. Perdana Menteri juga pernah mengulas pada Disember lalu di sebuah sesi Perbincangan Singapura Kita’  bahawa Pemerintah berusaha bersungguh-sungguh dan bekerja keras untuk menarik bakat Melayu dari Malaysia dan Indonesia namun bilangannya amat kecil setiap tahun.  Oleh itu, soalan (i)  pertama saya adalah apakah langkah-langkah yang telah diambil oleh pemerintah selama ini dalam menarik bakat Melayu dari Malaysia dan Indonesia namun tidak mendatangkan hasil yang baik dan apakah langkah-langkah yang akan diambil oleh pemerintah seterusnya dalam usaha menarik bakat-bakat Melayu ini.

Pada sesi debat yang sama, Menteri, Puan Grace Foo, telah menyatakan bahawa peratusan kaum Melayu dalam Populasi Kerakyatan Singapura (Citizen Population) iaitu tidak termasuk Penduduk Tetap adalah stabil, dimana pada tahun 2000 ,14.9% dan pada 2010 kenaikan kepada 15.1%. Kenyataan ini amat memberangsangkan namun jika kita lihat kepada keseluruhan dari sudut Populasi Penduduk Singapura (Resident Population) yang merangkumi Warga Negara serta Penduduk Tetap Singapura, peratusan kaum Melayu telah mengalami kemerosotan dari 13.9% pada tahun 2000 ke 13.4% pada tahun 2010.

Soalan (ii) kedua saya adalah apakah faktor-faktor penyebab kemerosotan pada peratusan kaum Melayu dari sudut ‘Resident Population’ walaupun ada peningkatan pada peratusan kaum Melayu dari sudut ‘Citizen Population’ .

Didalam ucapan saya pada debat Kertas Putih Kependudukan, saya ada menyatakan bahawa saya berpandangan, kemungkinan Penghijrahan adalah satu daripada faktor-faktor yang mungkin menyebabkan kemerosotan dalam peratusan kaum Melayu di Singapura. Soalan (iii) ketiga saya, adakah tren penghijrahan kaum Melayu meningkat dalam sepuluh tahun kebelakangan ini dan berapa jumlah tahunan individu-individu Melayu yang telah berhijrah keluar dari Singapura dan adakah ia satu faktor utama yang menyumbang kepada kemerosotan peratusan kaum Melayu.

Memetik dari ucapan Menteri Puan Grace Foo pada debat Kertas Putih Kependudukan, bahawa pemerintah akur tentang pentingnya mengekalkan kesimbangan kaum dalam populasi Singapura demi untuk mengekalkan atau memelihara kestabilan sosial.

Atas dasar ini, saya meminta agar Pemerintah dapat melaksanakan langkah-langkah yang lebih efektif dalam isu kadar komposisi kaum Melayu di Singapura.

Terima kasih.

Mdm Chair,

Currently parents of Singaporean children under age seven are entitled to six days of paid childcare leave [1].

Younger children tend to fall ill more frequently than older children, particularly when they first start attending childcare. One bout of HFMD, which requires the child to stay at home for at least a week, can wipe out an entire childcare leave entitlement for the year. While the law provides for six days of unpaid infant care leave [2] for children under two, the fact that it is unpaid renders it of little value to most employees.

Furthermore, whether a parent has one or three children under age seven, his or her paid childcare leave entitlement is the same.

Would the Government therefore consider granting parents about two additional days of Government-paid childcare leave for each child under the age of three? This will not only help parents of younger children, but also give greater benefits to parents who choose to have more children.

Next, unmarried single parents are entitled to only two days of childcare leave, and employers are not reimbursed for this. It is ironic that single parents have fewer childcare leave benefits, even though they probably need them more than married couples because they have no spouse to share the childcare load with.

In order to make our childcare leave scheme more effective and equitable, can the Government give all parents of Singaporean children, including single parents, equal childcare leave benefits?

Madam Chairperson, two parallel concerns are the reason behind the filing of this cut. First, in my parliamentary speech on the population white paper, I made reference to DPM Tharman’s observations a few months ago where the DPM stated that the government could be more transparent about how it approves PR applications. Secondly, many in this house would have come across the experience of meeting residents at their Meet-the-People sessions requesting to re-appeal a decision made by the ICA to reject their spouse’s or a family member’s PR or citizenship application. MPs would also have come across other cases which appear, on the surface at least, to be an inexplicable rejection for an apparently qualified applicant. A consistent gripe of affected Singaporeans and some of my residents with foreign spouses in particular, is that the ICA does not reveal the reasons why their spouses have been rejected even though complete applications may have been submitted.

In the recent debate on the population white paper, Minister Grace Fu stated that when assessing applications, the government considers a holistic set of criteria to evaluate applicants not only their economic contributions, but also the years they have spent in Singapore, their ability to integrate, their linkages and their family ties. But as it stands, Singaporeans do not have any idea how each of these factors are evaluated or whether one is weighted more heavily than the other, to say nothing of subjective criteria like ability to integrate, especially since our experience has suggested that integration cannot happen overnight.

The gist of this cut is therefore to query the PMO as to why the ICA does not give reasons for rejection, to call for a change of this policy, and to explore the prospects of introducing a more transparent system so applicants are well informed of their PR and citizenship prospects before application. Such a system would also streamline not just the selection process, but the appeals process as well, and reduce insecurity especially for Singaporeans married to foreign spouses and applicants in general.

On the government side, a transparent PR and citizenship application regime could greatly assist with the government’s efforts to support integration and would build trust between citizens and the government on the population policy. On the citizen end, it is my belief that a more open and accountable system that would allow Singaporeans to better appreciate who our neighbours are, where they are from and on what basis they were selected would in turn contribute to a more inclusive Singapore and ease the emotional and visceral worries many Singaporeans have to contend with, an emotion that is usually exemplified with remarks like – I don’t recognize Singapore anymore.

To this end, I would like to suggest that the PMO look at the experiences of other immigrant-destination countries like Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom that assess applicants for permanent residence and citizenship amongst others.

In the Canadian case, the Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) website is the main portal where new immigrants and PRs/citizens can get specific information, like checking status of their application, looking at the different programs that allow them to immigrate to Canada permanently, and to understand the eligibility rules for each category of applications. For example, under the skilled workers and professionals category, the eligibility rules are stated very clearly. There are basic rules, work experience rules and six selection factors in the skilled worker points grid. Anyone can take this test and you are informed of your score immediately. The test also specifies what is meant by adaptability by requiring the applicant to state the education level or his or her spouse, whether one’s spouse has studied or worked in Canada, whether the applicant has family in Canada and whether the applicant has arranged employment. A somewhat similar system operates in the Australian case with six different visa categories. Madam Chairperson, it is my belief that a similar system can work in the Singapore context, one which immediately informs applicants of their prospects for success prior to the submission of documents.

The British experience is also noteworthy. The United Kingdom Border Agency under the auspices of the Home Office introduced a test in 2005 known as the “Life in the UK” test comprising 24 questions that have to be answered in 45 minutes. Applicants who seek to apply for naturalization as British citizens, or seek indefinite leave to remain in Britain are required to take the test as are workers under the skilled or highly skilled categories. The test also requires an intermediate level of competency in English. The questions are not particularly onerous, ranging from electoral and parliamentary matters to food, sport, council matters and even movie classification – questions that are essentially synonymous with a functioning participatory democracy. One sentence stood out on the UK government website that hosted information on the test – “Being a British citizen ….doesn’t mean you have to lose your own identity. There will, however, be things about life in the UK that you should know about before making a long-term commitment to the country.” In effect, the test is a real reminder of the obligations and requirements of PR and/or citizenship, and in the Singapore context, a similar test could present a useful opportunity to highlight the importance of multiracialism amongst other shared values that Singaporeans stand for.

Madam Chairperson, are there downsides to a more open and transparent PR and citizenship approval regime?

Can a more open system be gamed? While this cannot be ruled out, the prospects of this can be significantly mitigated by a well-defined application system. A system that corresponds to the experience of commonwealth countries with modifications that suit the Singaporean context will lay out the government’s criteria out for all applicants to see. This, in turn, can calm the fears in some quarters of any ulterior motive for the government’s immigration policy. The benefits of a more open system will also put to rest many unsubstantiated myths about the immigration system, rather than the status quo which gives maximum discretion to the executive.

Second, who sets the criteria? A points system is bound to attract controversy, regardless of how high or how broad it may be. How do we ensure that such a system is fair and that the public buys into the system, knowing that it may be impossible to please everyone. In this event, a Committee that consists of civil servants, members of the general public and other relevant interest groups can be formed to determine the pass mark and the criteria. It would be imperative for the proceedings of such a Committee to be made public and published to ensure the transparency with regards to the pass mark and the criteria.

Thirdly, who has the final say? This is really about the balance between discretion and fixed criteria. Should there be a prospect for appeal? Instinctively, a transparent and accountable system should invest in such an avenue. In this case, the judicial branch may well be best placed to come into the picture with a serving or retired judge appointed to make the final call by virtue of a citizenship hearing.

Madam Chairperson, thank you.

Madam, I am glad to hear from Minister Tharman this afternoon that MAS will create temporary exemptions for the recently announced car loan restrictions for the disabled and their caregivers which partially addresses the original intent of my cut.

I have a few clarifications to make based on this announcement.

1. How long will the exemption last, since these are temporary.
2. Why this should be temporary rather than a long-term exemption especially if the affected member is permanently disabled.
3. Whether these exemptions can be extended to Families with elderly dependents who have problems with mobility. These families also rely the most on cars and will be affected by these changes.

Thank you.

By MP for Punggol East SMC, Lee Li Lian
[Delivered in Committee of Supply on 7 March 2013]

Madam, the Baby Bonus scheme introduced in April 2001 is a government-led initiative to support parents’ decision to have more children by helping to lighten the financial costs of raising children.

The recent enhancements to Parenthood Package offers higher baby bonus pay-outs.  The increase in the cash gift quantum appears to be a welcome relief for parents in lower-income families as it could potentially mean a greater cash inflow for them. However, the dollar-for dollar bonus structure tends to favour higher-income groups over those who may be more in need of extra financial help to raise children. Many of the lower-income and middle-income families presently have many financial obligations to meet, leaving them with little cash flow for the month.

Thus, it would not be a surprise that given such circumstances, many lower and even middle income families are not able to put down $6,000 or more in order to receive bonuses from the state.

This House has discussed the urgent need for TFR to rise. If we are truly committed to pushing the TFR up, it is important to revisit the way the baby bonus scheme is structured, to cater to a larger segment of couples who can be persuaded to have children.

Madam, I would like to call upon the Ministry to consider removing the dollar-matching requirement for a couple’s first two children in light of the financial realities that I have highlighted above.

Mdm Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to be a part of this debate.

Singapore is not a welfare state but we should certainly be a state concerned with the welfare of its people, in particular lower and middle income Singaporeans. Our social compact is one of Singapore’s prized assets and it is the duty of any government of the day to ensure that it is not left exposed to market forces. With this in mind, I appreciate the series of assistance rolled out in this year’s budget to alleviate the burden of daily living in an increasingly unequal society for lower and middle-income families. However, I hope that this year’s budget will set motion a rethinking on the part of the government to place more emphasis on the social compact to improve the nation’s well being.

In my speech last year, I raised three issues: empowering our social workers and other professionals in the social service sector; two reaching out to the vulnerable; three, adopting a holistic approach in the forging of an inclusive society. My speech this year will build on my speech last year and I will be raising three more issues; first, assistance for students from disadvantaged and less well-to-do backgrounds, second; support for the public assistance scheme and lastly, the introduction of the social services office.

Social attitudes towards the social service sector must evolve with an increasingly ageing population. In February last year, the acting Minister for Community, Youth and Sports Mr. Chan Chun Sing said, “within the next one, two years, we should be able to close that salary (gap) very substantially, to eliminate the gap, so from a remunerative perspective, it is competitive.” I applaud the government’s intention to increase the pay of professionals in the social services sector but I believe more can be done and the process can be further accelerated to enhance the competitiveness of the industry vis-à-vis the teaching sector, as stated in my speech last year. The government should also look at enhancing the recognition and salaries of support staff in the industry such as the early intervention teaching assistant, the special education teaching assistant and the social service assistant. They play a crucial and integral role to the smooth running of the social services sector and they should be recognised for it.

My first point is on financial assistance for students from disadvantaged and less well-to-do families. The Deputy Prime Minister in his budget speech has reiterated the importance of social mobility and he intends to improve it by providing children from less well-to-do families at the pre-school and primary school level with a leg up. He also recognised that meritocracy alone is not sufficient in the sustenance of social mobility.

Undoubtedly, there are many financial assistance schemes currently in place to assist these students at both the pre-school and primary school levels. For pre-school students, KiFAS or Kindergarten Financial Assistance Scheme has been the lifeline of many families. I am glad to know that such assistance is available and tapped upon by families. Indeed as someone who worked in a Family Service Centre before, I have seen many children benefitting from this scheme. However, many in this House would know that KiFAS is only made available mainly for students in PAP community foundation kindergartens.

In January 2012, my fellow Workers’ Party colleague Mr. Yee Jenn Jong asked a Parliamentary Question on KIFAS. He asked whether the eligibility for KiFAS could be extended to private preschool operators and not-for-profit religious or racial groups.

In his written answer, the Minister pointed out that there are currently about 240 kindergartens where families can apply for KiFAS. At the same time, it is a known fact that PCF kindergartens are eligible for KIFAS. Incidentally, a quick check on the PCF website would indicate that there are 247 PCF kindergartens in Singapore.

We must understand the various considerations a parent has in enrolling his/ her child in a preschool. Among the many factors are proximity and the environment provided by the school. Some parents may for convenience sake choose to send their child to a non-PCF kindergarten. For example, in my Kaki Bukit ward, some parents who are unable to obtain a placement at a PCF Kindgarten at Block 519, Bedok North Avenue 1 would have to send their child to a non-PCF kindergarten. Parents would also like to have their children receive their education in their preferred environment in accordance to their beliefs and values. As such, there are parents who send their children to kindergartens run and managed by religious organisations or religious based voluntary welfare organisations.

My view is simple and I hope that KiFAS can be expanded to all families who are in need. It should be about providing assistance in accordance to economic needs rather than in accordance to one’s choice of kindergartens. KiFAS should be made available to all students who require it and should not be limited solely to the 247 PCF kindergartens.

Mdm Speaker, I will continue in Malay.

Puan, Selain skim KIFAS, satu lagi skim yang ingin utarakan adalah Skim Edusave Kementerian Pelajaran. Saya dan juga AP bagi GRC Pasir-Ris Punggol, Encik Zainal Sapari telah menyuarakan tentang isu ini pada sesi COS tahun lalu. Kedua-dua kami telah memberi pandangan masing-masing mengapa seharusnya Skim Edusave ini harus dilanjutkan kepada pelajar-pelajar yang menunut dimadrasah sepenuh masa. Puan, Membina masyrakat Inklusif adalah antara objektif utama Belanjawan 2012 and juga pada belanjawan tahun ini. Timbalan Perdana Menteri, Encik Tharman telah mengatakan di dalam ucapan beliau bahawa ‘Kita (iaitu pemerintah) sedang mengambil langkah-langkah ‘Utama’ atau ‘Major steps’ untuk memastikan pembentukan masyarakat yang adil dan yang lebih inklusif. Puan, Diatas laungan ‘Masyrakat yang lebih Inklusif’ ini, sekali lagi saya ingin menyeru kepada Kementerian Pelajaran agar merealisasikan laungan Timbalan Perdana Menteri Encik Tharman dengan melanjutkan Skim Edusave kepada pelajar-pelajar Madrasah sepenuh masa.

Mdm Speaker, I will continue the rest of my speech in English.

Allow me to move on to my second issue on the public assistance (PA) scheme. I welcome the government’s move in enhancing this scheme. Any amount of increase means a lot to the beneficiaries. I also welcomed the multi-tiered approach to the PA scheme. Under the secondary tier, health-care assistance such as adult diapers, stoma bags, milk supplements etc is long overdue as expenses on these items are not cheap to the affected families. I have also noted the scale of the increment, ranging from $50 per month for a 1-person PA household to $130 per month for a 4-person PA household. However, greater clarification and explanation as to how the increment is considered, tabulated and arrived at is required from the relevant ministry.

The Public Assistance Scheme and other ComCare assistance schemes that are currently in place are meant to ease the burden of needy Singaporeans and these assistance schemes come under the purview, management and administration of the Community Development Councils or CDCs in short. Apart from enhancing the various components of assistance, it is also crucial to ensure that the administration of the aid is thorough and effective.

In my last budget speech, I have expressed my concerns that only 6% of the investigative officers from the CDCs are social work trained. This is not only unfortunate but also worrying at the same time. Investigative officers on the ground have to make judgment calls that require the aptitude of trained social work professionals who are able to evaluate the needs of the vulnerable with compassion. With the intake of social work students at the university level remaining constant at about 200 each year, I hope to see more plans to make social work and the study of social services a more attractive option for A levels and polytechnic graduates. There is an urgent need to increase the current pool of social work professionals in the industry. This can come in the form of more scholarships and greater societal and remunerative recognition of their contributions, especially in the context of a rapidly ageing Singapore. I believe that the quality of social services rendered to our people should not be compromised and it is important to have a professionally trained sector so as to minimise the numbers of Singaporeans who falls through the cracks and hence move Singapore a step closer towards a more inclusive society.

DPM Tharman announced that about 20 social service offices would be established to improve the manner in which the government delivers social services. In a Straits Times article on 26 February 2013, it is explained that the social service offices serves as a one-stop centre located closer to homes with the function of planning and coordinating social services to ensure that families get holistic support. In short, it is hoped that the administration of social services can be integrated and any duplication avoided.

However, I remain puzzled by the introduction of another level of bureaucracy to the existing layers of social service structures and support network. While we frown upon a welfare state, we seem to embrace increased bureaucratization in the administration of social welfare support. There are far too many questions than answers and I hope that these questions can be properly addressed.

First, I would like to know which organisations would be given the responsibilities to run and manage these offices. Second, social workers that I have spoken to are interested to know more about the functions of this office and the roles of the officers stationed at these offices and thirdly, is there a requirement for these officers to be social work-trained?

The social service offices appear at first sight, without much explanation to be duplicating the services offered by the Family Service Centres (FSC). From my tenure as a counselor at a FSC, I am aware that a FSC provides Information and Referrals Services (I&R). It also assumes the role as a one-stop centre for residents who are seeking assistance. Basically, the role of a FSC, apart from providing counseling and casework management, is to provide information on the types of community services that are available and wherever necessary conduct the appropriate assessment and recommend referrals to relevant government agencies. There needs to be a clear definition between the different case management roles played by the respective agencies, namely, the CDCs, FSCs and the social service offices. If the social service office does the coordination, then what happens to the case manager at the FSC? How does it differentiate from the Intensive Case Management System being put in place now? Seen in this light, may I ask what makes the social service offices different from the current family service centres that we have and what improvements can social workers on the ground expect from the establishment of a social service office. What would happen to the existing CDCs, FSCs and VWOs structures that are currently in place, recognised and accepted by the people whom we want to help. I hope the DPM can assure social workers and industry professionals on the ground that the social service offices are not merely satellite CDCs, which would then defeat the purpose of the proposal to set up 20 social service offices.

I am of the view that it is far more productive to channel the resources in establishing the social service offices towards enhancing the functions and capabilities of the FSC, which incidentally are located in the neighbourhood. As a member of parliament for Kaki Bukit ward of Aljunied GRC , I can attest to the good work done by the staff and volunteers at the Moral Family Service Centre at Block 534, Bedok North Street 3 and any enhancements of the functions and capabilities of its centre would be most welcome by residents and social workers alike staying and working in my constituency. From my experience as a counselor, greater support would also be welcomed by all concerned and aware of the situation in many of the FSCs across the island. An efficient and productive FSC would be in line with the fourth Pillar of Social Strategy painted by DPM Tharman in his budget speech, that of the role of the community and the government providing strong support for community initiatives by partnering with community bodies and groups of citizens to improve the lives of Singaporeans.

The issues I raised during last year’s and this year’s budgets are not mutually exclusive from one another. In fact in striving for an inclusive society, which is the core principle in last year’s and this year’s budget, these issues are integral and intrinsic components. However, there are no quick solutions to complex issues, especially when it comes to issues over social welfare and the role of the government in welfare support. But as long as any government of the day puts the welfare of its people at the core of its policies, exercising compassion with flexible management of resources while strengthening the social compact, nothing is too difficult to overcome in our quest for a better and more inclusive Singapore.

Thank you Madam Speaker.

My speech is divided into two parts. The first assesses the budget’s attempts to create a more inclusive Singapore with the second focused on changes to our car ownership policy as a result of budget announcements on the same.

Madam Speaker, a simple ‘Control F’ of the budget speech and a search for the words “do more” reveals seven matches. According to the budget, the government will “do more” for retirees, Singaporeans who need help with their medical expenses, seniors so they have a sense of economic security and fulfilment in their retirement years and also for children at the pre-school and primary level. The government also wants to do more against rising inequality to tilt the balance in favour of the lower and middle income, and for older Singaporeans with enhancements to Workfare and CPF.

The timing of these changes are significant too, three years before the next General Elections – with enough lead time for these proposals to take effect. Be that as it may, the government’s efforts to improve social mobility and reduce inequality are a necessary step, especially in view of how the global economy and more importantly, forces beyond this government’s control are shaping up, chief among which are inequality and economic insecurity.

For the longest time, the state discourse in Singapore has eschewed any reference to welfare. Similarly, the state has tended to place meritocracy on a pedestal. In fact, the political leadership has tended to frame both issues in the extreme, with welfare representing the bad, and meritocracy, representing the good. However, this budget was noteworthy because meritocracy came with a caveat. The DPM’s budget speech noted that meritocracy alone will not assure Singaporeans of social mobility and that government policy seeks to level up children that come from poorer or less-stable families. This is a significant statement, as it appears to premonition a shift in the state discourse. Equally noteworthy, the budget speech established that while overall healthcare expenditure will go up, government policy envisages a reduction in Singaporeans’ out-of-pocket share of medical costs, with the Government taking on a larger share. Whatever the reason for these shifts to the left, they are in line with the long-held belief of the Workers’ Party and many Singaporeans that for a country with a per capita income of about USD45,000, the government can do much more on the social front for Singaporeans.

Madam Speaker one subject covered in the budget that affects many middle-class Singaporeans are changes to the government’s policies on car ownership. The significance of the budget and associated changes to the government’s car ownership policy led the executive director of a leading dealership to say, “in my 28 years in the trade, this is the most serious development I’ve seen”, while an accounting partner of a big four firm was quoted as saying, “the minister is riding through Singapore’s Sherwood Forest to tax the rich who own high-end property and drive luxury cars.” While I would not take it as far as the accounting partner, as there is much more room for greater progressivity in our tax system, I am in favour of higher taxes paid by those who drive luxury cars.

It was telling that as the Minister spoke about the tiered ARF in his budget, an MAS circular about a cap on loan-to-valuation (LTV) ratios also started making its rounds. The circular established that the new loan quantum for a car with an OMV of less than $20,000 would be 60% of the car price and 50% if the OMV is higher. Significantly, the maximum loan repayment period is now only five years from ten years previously. On one level, the Finance Minister’s budget speech on changes to the ARF appears to continue with the theme of progressive taxation. But the possible effects of the budget announcement and MAS circular taken together leads me to conclude the opposite, that the rich will benefit from the latest changes to our car ownership policies as the latest changes do not address the high disposal income of the rich. In the context of the budget statement, it would have been helpful if the Minister had addressed the changes to the ARF with the policy intent of MAS circular, especially since the two are so inextricably linked.

If these changes were implemented to force Singaporeans to use public transport, the system as it stands, leaves much to be desired, particularly during peak hours. I am not sure what the effects of these latest changes to our car ownership policies will be, as there are differing views on the impact of the latest policy changes on COE prices and as a result, the price of cars. But the effect of the new LTV ratio is likely to felt most acutely by families with two or more children, those with elderly family members or the disabled who need the mobility provided by a car, but are unable to raise the down payment since a larger household size necessarily entails a lower disposable income set aside for the higher down payment required.

There is also the tangential concern about the inability of larger families to purchase a vehicle, which from a policy perspective may well indirectly stymie efforts to promote our Total Fertility Rate (TFR) since the lack of mobility for family leisure, travel and support may well factor into a person’s decision to have fewer children and prejudice those who already have large families. It would be imperative for the government to look at possible tweaks to the system if indeed larger families and families that include disabled Singaporeans, or elderly parents are genuinely affected, as the effects of the new policy kick in over the next few months. One specific way could be to raise the LTV ratio for cars back to 70% as it was previously, but only for families with 2 or more children so as to buttress and incentivise the government’s efforts to raise TFR.

Madam Speaker, it would be a tragedy if younger Singaporeans included the inability to purchase a car as a reason for wanting to look abroad for greener pastures, in addition to the visceral insecurity of a more crowded Singapore in future. It may be helpful for the government to solicit feedback from Singaporeans about our car ownership policy going forward particularly on the aspirations of owning a car, even if the stated objective of this policy is to discourage Singaporeans from over-leveraging. This may even entail a deeper look into the COE system or even larger national considerations such as the future population size of Singapore, so that the policy fear of a more crowded Singapore does not operate to scupper the aspirations of Singaporeans to own the car of their dreams; unless of course, the government’s intention, be it directly or indirectly, is to remove the dream of car ownership for middle-class Singaporeans.

On the flip side, I am encouraged by tweaks to the COE policy that give greater business flexibility to SMEs. In January 2013, I asked the Minister for Transport in a parliamentary question whether the Ministry will consider reviewing the COE bidding system for goods vehicles and buses to alleviate the costs of doing business for small businesses and SMEs. While the Minister replied that there were no plans to review the COE system for the said category, he did say that as part of Budget 2013, his Ministry would carefully consider if more help was needed.

To this extent, I welcome the flexibility granted to commercial vehicle owners whose vehicles reach the end of their ten-year COE, as they can now choose to renew their COEs for five years in the first instance, and a further five years later. Likewise the granting of a one-year 30% road tax rebate for goods vehicles, buses and taxis is also welcome. It would be helpful if the government could make the extension of such road tax grants permanent, especially for the mom-and-pop SMEs with a headcount of 5 or less when COE prices reach astronomically high levels, as they have been in the recent past for Cat C COEs. In addition, as some SMEs owners, particularly hawkers and sundry store owners work with narrow margins, it may be useful to look into allowing Cat C COE holders to extend their COE every 30 months (two and a half years) rather than every five years as the budget has announced. Such a move would allow for even greater flexibility for SMEs and also indirectly nudge SME owners to consider putting an older vehicle off the road since the decision making cycle on renewing a COE would be shorter.

Madam Speaker, post-budget, the Finance Minister acknowledged that the country continues to be in an unhappy part of the property cycle, following up from the budget speech that reiterates the government will spare no effort resolving the pressing challenges facing housing and transport. While I look forward to the resolution of these problems, it would be equally important for the government to explain the reasons behind significant policy shifts instead of leaving Singaporeans to second-guess the government’s real purpose, as has been the feedback for MAS’ changes to the car-ownership policy. Such engagement would help reduce unpredictability, encourage a more participatory democracy and allow Singaporeans to plan for their future with more certainty.

Thank you.

By MP for Punggol East SMC, Lee Li Lian
[Delivered in Parliament on 6 March 2013]

“Distribute the role of caregiving, to build stronger and sustainable families”

Madam Speaker,

This year’s budget efforts to ensure stronger support for the lower-income groups and the elderly is a good step in the right direction towards creating a more inclusive society which looks into the needs of the less fortunate and less-able amongst us.

Today, families with dependents – those with young children, or those supporting disabled or elderly relatives, face many challenges that need to be addressed. With today’s costs of living, it is a necessity for both parents to work in order to support the family. At the same time, these families require someoneto be able to be at home, caring fordependents. Caregiving is a role that is often understated and goes unnoticed in society, yet it is a job that requires a huge amount of dedication and sacrifice, particularly when it comes to looking after the elderly and disabled. Sadly, despite being important pillar of strength for the family and playing a valuable role in society, they do not get sufficient support despite the manypersonal sacrifices and reduced income that itself can take a toll on the family.

Another struggle facing families today is that of having to balance long working hours with numerous family responsibilities. Parents have many responsibilities apart from work to contend with – looking after their children and being there during their most formative years, caring for elderly parents, and also having some much needed personal time. Unable to balance these responsibilities, parents have to turn to paid help which brings about additional costs. At present, parents are squeezed by both high costs of living which require them to both work, and long working hours. Parents often feel caught between stepping back from work and diminishing their career prospects, or neglecting their families while struggling in the rat race.

The lack of support for families when it comes to caregiving and work-like balance continues to put tremendous stress on the family. In order to provide more sustainable and holistic support to families who have dependents, I believe that the budget must better support caregivers, who in turn are pillars of support for the family, and institutionalise better work life balance. Caregiving is integral to the family. In addition to parents to young children, who are also considered caregivers, there were over 200, 000 caregivers looking after children with special needs, the disabled, seniors and the sickly in 2004. While there are currently no updated statistics available today, this number is projected to increase along with changing ageing demographics. Caregiving is a full-time job, and can be both emotionally and physically draining. On average, caregivers provide close to 7 hours of care per day. Just as caregivers are a pillar of support for their dependents, they too need support, relief and personal time to pursue their own interests and careers.

These caregivers are often family members, many of who stay at home or work part-time because they are unable to afford hired help, and have an obligation to care for their young kids, ageing parents, or a disabled child. We must look at more ways to ease the immense burden on caregivers and recognise their integral role within the family and in society too. We must remember that the

burden on a caregiver is inevitably a burden on the family. and I would like to identify several ways to better distribute the role of caregiving, to build stronger and sustainable families.

1. Waiving foreign domestic worker levy for certain groups of families

I welcome the budget’s initiative to reduce the Foreign Domestic Worker levy from $170 to $120. This will ease costs for many families in Singapore who currently hire domestic helpers.However, especially for families with young children, and those who are looking after the disabled or the elderly, having domestic help is a necessity. For such families it is not a matter of luxury but of pure need, and we should consider waiving the levy for them.

During my house visits in Punggol East SMC, I have seen many wheelchair-bound elderly folks at home being looked after by domestic helpers while their sons and daughters are at work. Later, these helpers pick up the children from school and tend to them as well. Many families have shared with me how despite the fact that they have hired domestic helpers to cope with the many responsibilities of running a family while both parents are working, they struggle with the costs.

Families today are saddled with so many expenses- housing, transport, education, childcare and medical. Many need helpers, but simply can’t afford it. The only option then is for a family member, typically the woman, to quit her jobs to become a caregiver.

According to a report in 2011, only 14% of caregivers currently receive support from domestic helpers. More affordable access to foreign domestic workers mean that more caregivers can get assistance and some respite from their responsibilities. This is also in the best interest of caregiver dependents as it reduces the risk of caregivers being burnt out.

Caregivers with assistance from domestic helpers can also consider remaining employed either on a part-time or full-time basis. It is reported that 43% of women who are economically inactive have cited care giving and family responsibilities as reasons. Greater access to assistance could help a portion of these women return back to work. This benefits not just the caregiver, who may want to seek personal fulfilment through work, his or her dependent, and also the economy.

2. Better access to training for caregivers

It is not easy to be a caregiver for the disabled, those with special needs or the elderly. Caregivers require specific skills and knowledge to help the caregiver feel empowered and be well-equipped to provide support to his or her dependents.

The Caregiver’s Training Grant, which is the only support scheme available to caregivers, currently offers an annual training grant of $200 per year to attend training programmes that CEL has pre-approved. However, caregiver courses can range from $50 – $1300 for disabled training. Elderly caregiver training courses range from $10 – $400. Subsidies should be accorded in proportion to the cost of the course, rather than a standard $200 grant which may often not be sufficient to help a family cover the costs, given they also have to cope with medical bills and special arrangements to accommodate a sick child or elderly person in the home.

3. Promoting work-life balance, introduce flexi-work arrangements

Singaporean workers have been known to work the longest hours. A survey in 2012 found that the Singaporean’s average working hours is 46 hours a week.

Work-life balance is important not just for couples considering having children or more children, but also those who currently have children, or who also support disabled family members or elderly parents. They too need to work, not just for income but self-fulfilment. Flexible work means that the responsibility of care is not placed unduly on one member of the family, but can be shared amongst working family members. There continues to be a perceived stigma about working mothers and caregivers, as well as concerns amongst employees that asking for flexible work may be seen as a negative sign by their bosses who might lose confidence in whether they will be able to do their jobs well. We need to support a shift in mindsets, which can be brought about if the government takes meaningful steps to institutionalise better flexible work practices.

Flexible work can support higher productivity

Despite Singaporeans working long hours, Singapore’s productivity is low and is a problem today. At the same time, companies in Singapore are among the slowest in the world to implement flexible work practices. Perhaps it is time to reconsider the long-held assumption that the longer one works, the more productive he or she would be.

There is plenty of research to show this over the years, and it is also telling that some of the most successful and sought-after companies today to work in like Google, Facebook and Hitachi, for example, are proud advocates of flexible work practices for their employees. Many studies, including the most recent one conducted by Stanford University and the University of Beijing showed that the availability of flexible work arrangements such as telecommuting and working from home resulted in higher job satisfaction, and greater productivity and efficiency.

Businesses today should not see flexi-work arrangements as an unwelcomed cost, but an investment in its own future in a changing society. Being able to adapt to a changing environment will ensure that businesses are more sustainable and able to adapt to changes, enhances workplace productivity, creates better gender equality, and helps companies retain talent.This was affirmed by a recent report released in 2012 by the Diversity Council of Australia. We should also continue to encourage businesses to play an active and positive role in the community. Singapore, our top priority given the declining fertility rates and the consequences that brings to the population should be to ensure Singapore becomes more conducive for raising families.

The need for an independent commission on work-life balance

I would like to reiterate my call for an independent commission to look into work-life balance practices for equal opportunities for women and a more family-friendly Singapore. Partners and membership should extend to government, key business leaders, employers, business associations, civil society groups, and regular Singaporeans in order to take an integrated approach to work-life balance solutions.

The setting up of this commission will signal a commitment to looking into the complex issue of work-life balance, taking into consideration the needs of not just businesses but the larger society. The objectives of this commission would be to lead public discussions on family friendly work practices,

develop research and promote global best practices to enhance work-life balance, and to develop pro-family business practice resources to help businesses shift towards a more pro-family environment. It is simply because the issues are complex that we should dedicate sufficient time and resources to look into solutions in-depth, for the long-term, and not go for the “one-size fits all approach”.

Conclusion

Madam Speaker, Raising a family in Singapore has become increasingly tough. The number one concern of families is how to manage the high cost of living. The accumulated costs are immense – from financing a house, buying a car to transport young children, paying for childcare, supporting the medical expenses, and a host of other bills. What more for families who are also taking care of disabled or elderly relatives?

Today we want to encourage younger Singaporeans to realise the joys of family, and to settle down and start families of their own. Yet what these young Singaporeans see today are high expenses and parents being stretched by unlimited demands at home and in the workplace. When the balance is tilted too far, raising a family can be seen as an opportunity cost rather than a joy.

Madam Speaker, families are the cornerstone of our society. All the more, we must take stronger efforts to relieve some of the burdens they face, and commit to refocusing policies to put families in mind first.

Thank you.

By MP for Aljunied GRC, Sylvia Lim
[Delivered in Parliament on 5 March 2013]

Evolving Singapore’s tax system – progressivity as a tool to promote cohesion and to mitigate the cost of living

This year’s Budget makes several important statements about the need for social cohesion amidst rising inequality.  While income inequality is also large in other global cities, the government has explicitly recognised that “further steps to temper inequality” must be taken, because we are not just a city but a nation (Budget Statement (BS), para B14).  Indeed, the concept of being a nation implies a people with a common identity, bound together psychologically in community; after all, we are all in the same boat.

While some inequality is useful to provide incentives to invest and to work, high levels of inequality are undesirable.  Apart from the socially devastating effects of high inequality, there may be negative impacts on economic growth itself.  An IMF Staff Discussion Note in 2011 observed that high income inequality was associated with shorter spells of economic growth; the authors found that countries were better able to sustain growth over longer periods of time when levels of inequality were reduced (Berg, A.G. and Austry, J.D. (2011).  Inequality and unsustainable growth: Two sides of the same coin?  IMF Staff Discussion Note SDN/11/08, April 8, 2011.  Washington D.C.: International Monetary Fund.)

We face the twin challenge of needing to improve lives and yet keeping our country cohesive.  What makes a society a “good” one?  The influential philosopher John Rawls argued that a good society redistributes its wealth so that all its citizens have the same opportunity for future success in the form of equal access to public goods, such as quality education and health care.  To this end, it is widely acknowledged that key government responses to inequality should include targeting subsidies to those who need it, and a progressive tax system (Berg and Austry, 2011).

This year’s Budget continues to target subsidies to households to mitigate the rising cost of living. These include higher WIS (Workfare Income Supplement) payouts, double GST vouchers for lower and middle-income households this year, and S&CC rebates.  These are in principle good measures.  The government has also indicated that it is thoroughly reviewing the financing framework for healthcare.  The stated aim of this review is stated is to bring down Singaporeans’ out-of-pocket share of medical costs while the Government takes on a larger share (BS, para D84),  again focused on the lower to middle income groups.  This is welcome. The issues of healthcare costs and healthcare inflation are indeed uppermost in Singaporeans’ minds, especially with our aging population; it is also a topic I have spoken about in previous Budgets.  I look forward to the fleshing out of the directions of the review as promised.

The other strategy which is key to mitigating inequalities is a progressive tax system. Simply put, a progressive tax system should aim to require those who have more to contribute more to the national coffers, which will then be used as general revenue and for re-distribution to those in need.   I believe Singaporeans on the whole see the wisdom and need for this, including those who are better off.  There should be a fair contribution towards our fellow citizens and to the country as a whole.

In my speech, I wish to urge the government to continue to look for ways to make our tax system more progressive and suggest that there is still room to do so, without unraveling our economic strategies.

Benefits of progressive tax system

What would be the benefits of making our tax system even more progressive? Besides the benefit of mitigating inequalities through re-distribution, having a more progressive tax system is symbolically and psychologically important at the national level.  It signifies that Singaporeans are journeying together as one people towards the future, with the stronger helping the weaker.

There was a recent study of 54 nations by social psychologist Professor Shigehiro Oishi and others entitled “Progressive taxation and the subjective well-being of nations”.  The study analysed data from 54 countries, including Singapore, and concluded that progressive taxation was positively associated with a nation’s sense of well-being. (Oishi et al (2012).  Progressive Taxation and the Subjective Well-Being of Nations. Psychological Science 23(1) 86–92.)  It was shown that, generally, countries with higher degrees of progressive taxation had citizens showing more satisfaction with their lives, as they evaluated their lives at higher scores.

According to this study, Singapore was rated in the lower half of the countries surveyed in terms of progressivity of the tax system i.e. more than half of the other countries’ tax systems were rated as more progressive than Singapore’s.  As for life satisfaction, Singaporeans ranked their lives less optimistically than those in many developed jurisdictions such as Israel, United States and countries in Europe.  Though the study measured a subjective index viz. citizens’ sense of well-being, this measure is important.  One’s sense of well-being would affect one’s morale and confidence in the future; these would in turn affect one’s desire to procreate, something high on our national agenda.

Enhancing progressivity in Singapore’s tax system

What is the state of progressivity of our tax system currently?  According to IRAS data, the top 11% of earners already contribute almost 80% of total tax takings in Singapore (A/Prof Chia Ngee Choon, “How Progressive is the New Tax Structure”? The Straits Times, 28/2/13).  It was noted by Assoc Prof Chia Ngee Choon that Budget 2013 makes a further progressive move, by implementing a ‘decisive shift’ towards taxing wealth viz. luxury cars and homes, rather than just taxing incomes (ST 28/2/13). Despite these new moves in the progressive direction, I would like to highlight two areas which I believe will make our tax system fairer and more progressive.

First, our regime of personal income taxes.  Currently, our personal income tax system is already progressive.  For instance, those earning less than $20,000 per year do not pay any income tax.  Thereafter, there is a tiered system, where higher rates of taxes apply to income earned above certain thresholds.  Finally, at the top end, those earning an annual income of more than $320,000 are taxed at 20%.  It has been noted by several economists that there is room for further tiering above the $320,000 threshold, as the current tiering catches a wide range of income earners in this top bracket – ranging from a university professor who just makes it to this bracket and a banker who earns millions of dollars a year.  I understand that this cut-off of $320,000 has not been adjusted for around a decade, while in the meantime, incomes at the higher ends have soared.  There is clearly scope to have more tiers and higher rates, say up to 25%, for those who earn above certain higher thresholds.  For instance, those earning above $320,000 and up to $500,000 could continue to be taxed at 20%, those earning between $500,000 to $700,000 at 22%; between $700,000 to $1m at 24%, and above $1m – 25%.  Even at a maximum income tax rate of say 25%, such a top rate would still be low globally.  While some may argue that such a move might reduce our attractiveness as a destination to high-earners, I believe Singapore would still have major selling points to them, such as the ease of doing business and low corporate tax rates.

My second point relates to one of this year’s Budget proposals  - the move is the introduction of tiered property tax for residential properties.

For owner-occupied homes, higher tax rates are being introduced that raise the tax rates for homes from the current top rate of 6% to a new top rate of 16% by Jan 2015. It was stated (BS, para D60) that “most retirees will end up paying less property taxes”.  I would like to ask for clarification about the basis of this statement about retirees.  Is it based simply on the fact that only 12,000 residential homes fall within the annual values which will now attract higher taxes?  (BS, para D64).  Or is the statement about retirees based on some analysis of the age of persons currently living in the higher value homes?  The Budget attachment entitled “Measures for Households” states that owner-occupied homes of Annual Value of less than $59,000 will enjoy lower property taxes (Budget 2013 Key Initiatives 2 – Measures for Households para B5). I am advised that the cut-off Annual Value of $59,000 for higher taxes could conceivably include an older home in a good location, which retirees may have purchased long ago or which they themselves may have inherited.  The government has explicitly acknowledged in the Budget Statement (D60) that there are retirees who are not cash rich, though they may live in homes of significant value.  Some  consideration and concession should be given for this.

For non-owner occupied residential units, this Budget will replace the current flat rate of tax of 10% to introduce a tiered rate based on the Annual Value of the property, ranging from 11% to 19% from 1 Jan 2014, and from 1 Jan 2015, 12% to 20%. This tiered system being introduced is admittedly more progressive than the status quo. However, as noted in the Budget Statement, the increase will only be significant for investment properties at the high-end (BS, para D68).  In addition, the tiers proposed also expose a potential loophole which can be exploited.  It assumes that wealthy people will invest only in high-end properties, and does not address the fact that a wealthy person could well buy multiple units of mid-range properties which enjoy lower tax rates.  A wealthy person may well do this as mid-range properties may be easier to rent out.  Under the proposed tiers of property tax, it seems that a person’s potentially vast cumulative property wealth falls under the radar and will be taxed at a lower rate than someone who has just one high-end investment property.

Would it not have been fairer, as a wealth tax, to assess a person’s cumulative property interests rather than to have a per-property, stand-alone approach?  While it may require more administration, I believe the relevant government land registries have exhaustive records of who owns residential properties and in what proportions.

Conclusion

To sum up, I acknowledge the government’s attempts in this budget to introduce further progressivity into our tax system and its focus on targeted help, which will go some way to mitigate the inequalities faced by Singaporeans.

What is of utmost concern to most Singaporeans is worry over the rising cost of living. This should give us even greater incentive to have more progressive taxes, which will reduce the need to raise other kinds of taxes which increase the overall cost of living, such as the GST.  In this regard, I urge the government to continue to look at ways to introduce more progressivity into our tax system for the well-being of our society and the nation as a whole.

Many members in this House have praised meritocracy and shared stories of how the system has brought them to where they are today.  But we are humans and who we are and what we become is also determined by those people around us and the environment we live in.

If you are stuck in a deep hole, no amount of talent or ability is going get you out of that predicament if no one lends you a helping hand and throws you a lifeline to get you out of there.

So I am pleased to know that this government recognizes that meritocracy has its limits in sustaining social mobility, that it is going to do more to ensure a fair and inclusive society, and that it will take steps to mitigate the growing income inequality in our country. ⁽¹⁾

Low Wage Workers

To low income families, it does not matter whether we should view our high GINI coefficient in the context of a global city or a country, a hard day’s work must equate to a fair living wage.  In short, the wage must make ends meet and allow for some cash savings for emergency use and for that little indulgence in eating out or shopping once in a while.

Low wage workers have seen their wages stagnated in the last decade.  These Singaporeans will see their wages shrink further when they hit their mid-forties. ⁽²⁾  For them, when it rains, it pours because these low wage workers will also be hit with lower Employer CPF contribution once they reach 35 years old.  I, therefore, welcome the restoration of the CPF rates for these workers as announced in Budget 2013.

The increase in Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) payout with 40 per cent of it in cash is also a welcome measure but I urge the government to seriously think about increasing the cash component to 50 per cent or more for good reasons.

The example of the 45-year old earning $800 a month cited in the budget speech will see his take home pay shrink by 3.5 per cent or $28 after factoring the revised Employee CPF contribution rate.  Using the online Workfare calculator, the difference between the current and new maximum WIS cash payout for this worker is about $38. ⁽³⁾  So effectively, this 45-year old low wage worker will see an increase of only 1.4 per cent in take home pay or an extra $10 a month for Budget 2013.

With core inflation expected to average 2 to 3 per cent for the whole of 2013 ⁽⁴⁾, the extra $10 a month is as good as gone.   Although there are measures like GST Vouchers and S&CC rebates to help Singaporean families cope with rising cost of living, having some cash at hand before the next pay day comes is what low income families would welcome more.

I am also not too optimistic that the Wage Credit Scheme (WCS) is going to benefit low wage workers significantly and in the near term.  These workers are traditionally hired by companies with low productivity and profitability and may be heavily dependent on cheap foreign labour to stay afloat. ⁽⁵⁾ Would these employers want to further erode their profit margin by participating in a state-funded wage scheme knowing very well that 60 per cent of the pay increase would still come out from their own pockets?

The tenet of increasing the cash component of WIS and introducing the WCS is to ensure low wage workers will have more disposable cash to beat inflation.  While the WIS is a sure thing, the WCS is not.  If employers do not warm up to the Wage Credit Scheme for low wage workers, their salaries will remain stagnant again.

Therefore I call upon the government to monitor the situation closely and raise the cash component of WIS, if necessary, so that our low wage workers do not have to skip a meal or medical appointment just to make ends meet.

Cost of Living – Rental Housing

While the budget has addressed the issue of saving more for retirement for low wage workers by increasing their CPF contribution rates, it has not addressed much on containing the rising cost of living.  With rising income, low wage workers living in rental flats will also see a corresponding increase in rental rates.

Take the example of the 45-year old low wage worker again.  If his employer decides to adopt the NWC Guidelines for 2012/2013 to give a $50 wage increase to those earning up to $1,000 ⁽⁷⁾, his salary will be $850 a month.  But unfortunately, if he is living in a 1-room rental flat, his rent will also go up by at least $57 from $33 a month to $90 a month. ⁽⁶⁾  The entire net increase of $40 in his take home pay is not even enough to service his new rental.

We must also bear in mind this low wage worker is taking home less pay now because his CPF contribution rate has been revised from 17 to 20 per cent.  Factoring in the $70 from his maximum WIS payout ⁽⁸⁾ and the subsequent increase in rental, he is better off forgoing the NWC recommended wage increase because he will end up $17 poorer every month. ⁽⁹⁾

Most low wage workers living in rental flats will have mixed feelings about having pay rise.  “What the left hand giveth, the right hand taketh away” is probably what some of them will feel.

The same 45-year old worker can only savour his wage increase until his existing rental contract runs out.  After that, like many of his peers, he will receive a ‘rental shock’ when his contract comes up for renewal.

I am sure some MPs in this House have written to HDB to appeal for a stay or a review of rental rates on behalf of your residents.  I believe this government can do more to ensure that when the salaries of low wage workers are finally moving up, their celebrations will not be short-lived.

The 2.7 times jump in the published rental from $33 to $90 a month for someone whose salary crosses the $800 mark is just too drastic to begin with. ⁽⁶⁾  I urge the Ministry to look into this and come up with a more reasonable tier so that low wage workers living in rental flats can truly appreciate the benefits of Budget 2013 and any wage increments that come with it.  This is the least the government can do for these Singaporeans to make up for those lost years of their working lives earning meagre salaries while helping Singapore to grow.

Cost of Living – Food

Next I wish to talk about one component of inflation which Singaporeans like a lot i.e. food.  Many Singaporeans eat out at hawker centres.  And most of them especially low wage workers will have an inkling of what inflation is like from that cup of coffee or plate of chicken rice they ordered at meal time.

When the Minister announced that 10 new hawker centres will be built and run on a not-for-profit basis in 2011, ⁽¹⁰⁾ I thought it would be a good idea to offer these stalls to enterprising or unemployed Singaporeans, young or old, to try their hands at running a small business selling affordable cooked food.

My hope was short-lived as it was later made known that NTUC Foodfare, a social cooperative, was appointed to run the first new hawker center in Bukit Panjang. ⁽¹¹⁾  Nonetheless, I still hope the government will open the remaining 9 new hawker centres to enterprising Singaporeans to run as small businesses on their own.

While NTUC Foodfare is touted as a social cooperative, it is still a Members Only organization.  To enjoy special prices and value meals, you need to be a union member. ⁽¹²⁾  If the co-operative is enjoying subsidized rental, then it must benefit all.  I am sure inflation bites everyone and not just NTUC union members.

The cost pressures on cooked food prices are rental, staff costs, utilities and ingredient costs.  As long as NEA keeps rental reasonable or subsidized, any enterprising Singaporean hawker will have a fair chance to keep cooked food prices affordable.  First and second generation hawkers on subsidized rentals do sell cheaper food items when compared to commercialized food stalls.

I know of one such food stall along Jalan Bukit Merah that sells very delectable vegetarian food.   The stall is owner operated and it has 3 local staff.  The cheapest plate of vegetarian bee hoon there is only $1.50 complete with ingredients like cabbage, mocked char siew, crispy bean curd skins and condiments.

This stall has been selling vegetarian bee hoon at cheap prices for the longest time.  It is neither a no-frill meal nor a marketing gimmick.  And you do not need to be a NTUC union member, Public Assistance card holder, or senior citizen to enjoy cheap and healthy food.

This is what we need in our hawker centres to fight inflation.  Fix the rental of these new stalls at $320 a month, which is the high end of the subsidized rental, and allow Singaporeans to ballot for them.  This will create jobs, keep hawker food affordable, and ensure Singaporeans, young or old, remain economically active.

Conclusion

Cost of living affects everyone.  Low income families especially will be hardest hit by any price movements, no matter how small, because they do not have any margin for errors when budgeting for living expenses.

A trip to the doctor, a rise in rental, an increase in food prices, or even a day on medical leave could spell trouble for these families.  And looking at the latest Report on Wages, we have about 186,000 people earning $800 and below. ⁽¹³⁾  I urge the government to look into improving their lives as we restructure our economy.

How we take care of the weak, the disabled, the needy, and the least will determine how much we have progressed as a developed nation.

References

(1)       http://www.singaporebudget.gov.sg/budget_2013/pb.html#s4 (B21)

(2)       http://www.mom.gov.sg/Documents/statistics-publications/wages2011/mrsd_2011ROW.pdf (Pg 46)

(3)       https://www.cpf.gov.sg/cpf_trans/ssl/financial_model/wis/wis_calc2.asp?EmpType=emp

WIS cash: Budget (Annex B-1): ($2100×0.40)/12 = $70; Current (calculated) = ($95×4)/12 = $32; Net = $38

(4)       http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporebusinessnews/view/1249665/1/.html

(5)       http://www.singaporebudget.gov.sg/budget_2013/pc.html (C18, C20, C21)

(6)       http://www.hdb.gov.sg/fi10/fi10323p.nsf/w/RentDirectHDBRentDeposit?OpenDocument#SecondTimer

(7)       http://www.mom.gov.sg/newsroom/Pages/PressReleasesDetail.aspx?listid=428 (Para 15)

(8)       http://www.singaporebudget.gov.sg/budget_2013/speech_toc/download/annexb1.pdf

WIS cash payout for 45-54 age group: ($2100 x 0.40)/12 = $70

(9)       At $850: ($850 x 0.8)+$70-$90 (new rent) = $660; At $800: ($800 x 0.8)+$70-$33 (old rent) = $677

(10)    http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1158019/1/.html

(11)    http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1220095/1/.html

(12)    http://www.foodfare.com.sg/foodfare/website/upload/file/2011-2012%20Social%20Report.pdf

(13)    http://www.mom.gov.sg/Documents/statistics-publications/wages2011/mrsd_2011ROW.pdf (Pg 192)

Mr Deputy Speaker,

Despite what was described as an “inclusive” budget last year aimed at creating more opportunities for lower- and middle-income Singaporeans, Singapore’s income gap widened in 2012. According to the Department of Statistics, after adjusting for government transfers and taxes, Singapore’s Gini coefficient rose from 0.448 in 2011 to 0.459 last year, indicating increased income inequality. It was much higher than the average of 0.311 in the OECD (a grouping of 34 mostly high-income, developed countries), after adjustments for taxes and transfers (OECD 2012).

In his Budget speech, the DPM and Finance Minister correctly pointed out that income inequality poses a risk to social cohesion. However it is not just social cohesion that is threatened by inequality.

Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz (2012) has pointed out that inequality could stifle economic growth, and could result in lower economic efficiency and productivity. A high level of inequality can also lead to lower levels of trust in government and business, an effect that we are clearly witnessing in Singapore. High inequality contributes to slowing social mobility. This in turn devalues the concept of meritocracy that we hold so dear to in Singapore. A study by several World Bank economists found that an increase in income inequality has a “significant and robust effect of raising crime rates” (Fajnzylber et al. 2002).

I am glad to note the DPM’s view that meritocracy alone will not guarantee social mobility. For too long, we have been told that we can attain the “Singapore Dream” as long as we work hard and have the talent. This is not necessarily so. There are many other factors that hold an individual back, many of which are beyond his or her control. Some have to do with an individual’s socio-economic background, and others are institutional like our high stakes examination system which often depends so much on expensive tuition to excel in.

I welcome the moves towards making our tax system more progressive. This is an important step towards a fairer society. Comments from some analysts that this a “Robin Hood budget” are misplaced. Singapore still trails behind many other developed countries in the progressivity of its tax system (Oishi et al. 2011).

The first step towards building a truly “democratic society based on justice and equality” is to acknowledge that we are all in this together. The wealthy in Singapore – and we have the world’s highest percentage of millionaires and the second-highest percentage of ultra-high-net-worth households (BCG 2012) – must be prepared to contribute their fair share of taxes.

The rich do not exist in a vacuum. They need employees who are engaged and working productively to increase their companies’ output and profits. They also need good public infrastructure from the transport networks to the National Broadband Network, all of which are financed largely by tax dollars, to lubricate the gears of our economy.

WAGE CREDIT SCHEME AND WAGE SUBSIDIES

Sir, I support the idea of providing temporary wage subsidies to firms to help them to employ Singaporeans and to improve the pay of their local employees.

The Wage Credit Scheme (WCS) is a generous scheme aimed at encouraging companies to share their productivity gains with their employees. While I believe the WCS will help to raise wages of some workers, I am not sure how effective it will be at raising productivity, which the DPM has said is our “most important economic priority”.

Perhaps the government expects that the productivity initiatives like the PIC (Productivity and Innovation Credit) will see a high uptake and as these companies benefit from productivity increases, the WCS will encourage them to raise wages. But productivity investments made now will only bear fruit some time down the road, by which time the WCS would be about to expire.

The WCS will certainly help firms which already plan to raise wages now. But these are likely to be companies which are already profitable, and will include a disproportionate number of MNCs and GLCs, rather than SMEs. Those which are experiencing a squeeze in profits are unlikely to raise wages even with the WCS, since they will still have to foot 60% of the wage increases for the next three years, and 100% thereafter.

“NEW HIRE WAGE CREDIT”

The WCS also does not help firms to hire new local workers in the wake of a tightened foreign worker inflow, since it only subsidises salary increases for existing workers. This is a need which has not been adequately addressed in this Budget.

Many SMEs lament that they cannot find locals to fill their vacancies; they say many Singaporeans prefer to work for MNCs. However, SMEs often have difficulty matching the payscales of MNCs.

To help SMEs hire more Singaporeans, I would like to propose that the government provide a temporary wage subsidy for SMEs to hire economically inactive and out-of-work Singaporeans. These include homemakers, the unemployed, and some senior citizens and persons with disabilities. This subsidy should be in addition to the existing Special Employment Credit for persons with disabilities and older workers.

I will call this the “New Hire Wage Credit” scheme. It could pay for one-quarter of the first six months’ salary of each new hire and should be available for the next three years.

The New Hire Wage Credit would be available to workers earning less than $4,000 per month or the equivalent in part-time pay, and only SMEs should benefit from it. Companies would only be able to claim the New Hire Wage Credit for a particular position once, and for new hires who have not benefited from the scheme in previous jobs. This would encourage the SME to put in place good HR practices that help retain the staff, and the new hire to stay on the job longer. In addition, to prevent workers from changing jobs just to take advantage of this scheme, companies would only be eligible to claim under this scheme if they hire someone who has been unemployed for at least the last four months.

With this scheme, SMEs will firstly be able to attract more Singaporeans by offering a higher starting pay. This will help to meet SMEs’ current manpower needs without having to increase the overall foreign worker headcount. Secondly, it will help increase the resident labour force participation rate (LFPR) by increasing the opportunity costs of not working. And thirdly, it will help unemployed Singaporeans to secure jobs.

I estimate this scheme will cost about $396 million over the next three years, an amount which can be covered under this year’s budget[1].

PRODUCTIVITY

Mr Deputy Speaker, I would now like to speak briefly about productivity. Since 2010, the government has set itself a goal of raising productivity by 2 to 3% per annum on average over 10 years. It has committed $5.5 billion from 2010 to 2014 to help achieve this. The government set up the National Productivity and Continuing Education Council (NPCEC) in April 2010 to galvanise the nation to achieve this national productivity growth target[2].

The Council has identified 16 priority sectors to improve productivity in. Topping this list is the construction industry, which benefits from a $250 million Construction Productivity and Capability Fund (CPCF) to boost productivity growth.

In his Budget speech, the DPM has said that raising productivity is our “most important economic priority”.

But what has our productivity drive achieved so far? In 2010, productivity growth was 11.1%, which was a rebound after two years of negative growth of -7.3% and -3.6% in 2008 and 2009 respectively (DOS 2012). In 2011, productivity growth dropped to 1.3%. Last year it dropped further to -2.5% on the back of five consecutive quarters of decline. This latest drop was broad-based, with manufacturing, construction and services sectors all experiencing declines (CNA 2013, MTI 2012). In the construction sector, annual productivity growth fell to -0.2% in 2012 despite all the focus of the NPCEC.

Based on current trends, it is hard to see how we are going to achieve the target of 2 to 3% per annum average productivity growth over 10 years. The government itself does not seem very optimistic. The DPM said that this target is “ambitious but we must make every effort to achieve it”. The recent Population White Paper qualified at least twice that it is “an ambitious stretch target”.

I can understand that some productivity initiatives have a long gestation period, but how long will it be before we can start seeing results? Each year that passes with low productivity is one more year that our companies are getting less competitive, and one more year in which our workers will experience slow growth in their incomes.

This year’s budget seems to be focused on enhancing the existing PIC scheme. Is the government satisfied that the PIC is effective in producing the desired outcomes? If productivity continues to languish below 1 or 2% for a further two quarters this year, will the government consider more drastic measures before the end of this year to boost productivity?

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, this Budget has the right focus on economic restructuring, reducing our reliance on foreign manpower and raising the incomes of Singaporeans. I have outlined in my speech some suggestions on how we can better help SMEs through their restructuring journey, while at the same time helping economically inactive and unemployed Singaporeans to find jobs. I hope that with a more distributive budget, we will start to narrow the income gap and improve the well-being of all Singaporeans.

References

BCG (Boston Consulting Group), 2012. “Global Wealth 2012: The Battle to Regain Strength”. May 2012.

CNA (Channel NewsAsia), 2013. “Singapore’s labour productivity drops 2.6% in 2012”. Saifulbahri Ismail. 22 February 2013. Retrieved from http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporebusinessnews/view/1255860/1/.html.

DOS (Department of Statistics), 2008. “Household Expenditure Survey, 1997/98 – 2007/08”. Retrieved from http://www.singstat.gov.sg/stats/themes/people/hes.pdf.

DOS, 2012. “Yearbook in Statistics 2012”. Retrieved from http://www.singstat.gov.sg/pubn/reference/yos12/statsT-labour2.pdf.

Fajnzylber, Pablo, Daniel Lederman and Norman Loayza, 2002. “Inequality and Violent Crime”. Journal of Law and Economics, vol XLV (April 2002).

MTI (Ministry of Trade and Industry), 2012. “Economic Survey of Singapore 2012”. Retrieved from http://www.mti.gov.sg/ResearchRoom/SiteAssets/Pages/Economic-Survey-of-Singapore-2012/FullReport_AES2012.pdf.

OECD, 2012. OECD.StatExtracts. Retrieved from http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?QueryId=26068.

Oishi, Shigehiro, Ulrich Shimmack and Ed Diener, 2011. “Progressive Taxation and the Subjective Well-Being of Nations”. Psychological Science. Dec. 8, 2011.

Stiglitz, Joseph, 2012. “The price of inequality: How today’s divided society endangers our future”.

Stiglitz, Joseph, 2013. “Inequality is holding back the recovery”. New York Times. Jan. 19, 2013.

Madam Speaker, I wish to touch on three areas in this year’s budget – SMEs, new industries and preschools.

I wish to declare that I own and operate private companies classified as SMEs. I have previously managed and owned childcare centres though I no longer do so now. Part of my current business supplies products and services to education institutions.

SMEs

SMEs form 99% of business entities in Singapore, employ 70% of all Singaporean workers and contribute 50% to the GDP (1). SMEs are facing great challenges due to higher rents, higher cost of goods and services and a manpower crunch.

DPM Tharman spoke of the pain that companies, particularly SMEs will go through as the economy restructures to one that’s based on higher productivity. Some companies will not survive the restructuring. I’d like to share about the pains of restructuring and some lessons we can learn when an industry restructures. I happened to have been in an industry segment that underwent very severe restructuring and experienced one of the highest rates of company closures.

During Singapore’s dotcom peak, I started a company developing e-learning solutions for education institutions. It could not have been at a worst time. From 1999-2000, there were suddenly some 50 companies in this space, most of them new start-ups fuelled by dotcom investments. Funding very quickly dried up after the NASDAQ crash of April 2000.

But the companies were already formed and operational. The industry demand was much smaller than what these companies had thought it was. These 50 companies fought tooth and nail over the meager market, for customers who were then not yet ready for the services being offered. I witnessed many companies shutting down, merging or being acquired. Companies tried different ways to stay relevant to the market. We too experimented with different business models and products, and had to go through the painful process of chopping off unprofitable business segments and to let go of excess headcount at our darkest hour, just to stay afloat.

Within seven years, the 50 companies were withered to around 10, and I reckon less than 5 had respectable growth and profitability. There are some lessons that I have learnt observing this brutal industry restructuring first hand.

The first lesson is that those that survived had adapted their business processes to merge certain job functions to stay lean. Faced with poor prospects for better revenue, companies had to look internally to keep costs down. Being in a human resource driven knowledge industry, the biggest cost was manpower. Companies had to re-examine business processes to see which job functions could be merged or reinvented to cut costs. Company structures were flattened and employees empowered to do more.

A second and important lesson was that surviving companies had to find new business models to try to create new revenue sources. There is a limit to how much cost one can cut to be more productive. Revenue had to increase and companies had to find these revenue sources. Some companies merged or acquired other smaller players to achieve better economies of scale or used their combined strengths to create new business models.

The government is calling for companies to be more productive to overcome the immediate challenges. What is productivity?

Productivity is output divided by input. Financial output divided by labour input is also known as labour productivity, or value added per worker. Output is commonly measured as revenue less cost of purchased goods and services. (2)

In the context of my restructuring experience, survivors changed business processes to become lean. By reducing labour input while maintaining the same financial output, there will be productivity gains. But more critically, to make quantum leaps in productivity, financial output has to be significantly increased without corresponding increase in workforce. This can be done either by expanding the current market or modifying business models to gain new revenue sources or by merger and acquisition.

I believe these lessons can apply to other industries. For example, in the F&B industry, we have heard feedback about the lack of Singaporeans wanting to work in the industry. In his budget speech, DPM Tharman said that over the past 5 years, the F&B workforce has increased by 31% with Singaporeans actually making up half of the increase. So Singaporeans do enter this industry. Yet we hear of a shortage of manpower. The boss of Jumbo restaurant was pictured in the Straits Times clearing dishes.

DPM Tharman cited F&B as an example of a fragmented industry structure. Could there be too many F&B outlets in this industry chasing the limited customers’ dollar? Is there too much mall and shop spaces allocated for F&B? When an industry consolidates, manpower that is not fully utilized will be redeployed to companies that most urgently need them to cope with the bustling business. Or some companies may have to reinvent their business model or product offerings to generate new revenue streams.

Given Singapore’s limited market size, for meaningful productivity to be sustained through revenue growth, there should also be increased efforts to secure new overseas markets. The role of agencies such as IE Singapore becomes even more important. Singapore firms will need to create strong expertise and brands around products that have high demand in new markets. We have some success in areas such as oil rigs, food, and water technologies. The challenge is for the government to help identify more industry clusters and match that with emerging new markets.

The government has implemented various new schemes to help locals companies. The Productivity and Innovation Credit, or PIC was introduced two years ago. This year we have an interesting Wage Credit Scheme or WCS.

While WCS’s objective is to help companies share the fruits of productivity increases with workers, I believe it is intended to also provide companies with extra cash. Employers generally give increments to retain workers. WCS will run for the next 3 years. The 40% share by the government will be given back to employers only after the end of the year, which will impact the company’s cash flow. This means that employers will be careful not to give wage increases unless they have to and can afford to. Employers will likely be giving regular wage increases as they would generally have done so even without this scheme. Cash strapped companies will still resist wage increases.

Madam, I welcome any scheme that can help local companies cope with the current economic challenges. It will be interesting though to see which companies will benefit from WCS. MNCs, larger companies and more profitable companies have been and will be able to make wage increases. Smaller and struggling SMEs will still not do so. Perhaps the DPM can share what type of companies will likely benefit most from WCS looking at wage data from the past 2 years of CPF records. What is the government’s expectation of SME’s share of the $3.6 billion payout? If in reality, WCS ends up not helping SMEs much, the government will need to find more targeted ways to support them.

PIC is given a new push with the new one-for-one top-up grant of $5,000 per year. It’s a generous payout over and above the earlier PIC payouts. I think that should get many more smaller companies to use PIC as they will get more cash than what they have invested.

The PIC process is relatively easy to administer compared to most other government grant schemes. While PIC is useful to provide some relief to companies, it is limited in effectiveness for some types of companies which really need a major transformation. It is not always automation that will help companies restructure. Sometimes, it requires drastic changes to business processes, organization structures and to business models.

I would like the government to consider additional ways to help companies restructure. One is in the area of M&A.

In fragmented industries where there are too many companies chasing the market, it makes sense to consolidate. Merger and acquisition done strategically could boost revenues or result in greater manpower efficiency. In Budget2010, the government implemented the mergers and acquisitions, or M&A scheme (3). The scheme is hardly attractive as it allows M&A allowance of 5% of the value of acquisition as tax allowance. Budget2012 provided for 200% tax allowance on transaction costs. Transaction costs cover professional fees, legal fees and valuation fees.

These two provisions benefit mainly large transactions. To encourage M&A activities amongst SMEs, we need the scheme to be more targeted. The M&A scheme could be graduated to allow higher allowances for smaller SME consolidation and M&A transactions. For example allowance could be 30% for deal size of $500,000 or below, another scale at $1 million, and a further lower rate at say $5 million. This would cover the typical deal size for acquisition of smaller SMEs.

The current scheme allows only for outright purchase of shares. Many acquirers prefer to buy over operations and businesses of SMEs, but not the entire company as they do not wish to be entangled with liabilities that may be associated with the target company. We can loosen the definition of M&A to include such type of acquisitions.

We can also incentivise the acquirers to automate the operations of their acquired businesses to achieve greater productivity and to change old business models. We already have the PIC scheme with its schedule of qualifying activities. We can look at allowing even higher than 400% tax allowances for investment in automation and higher than the existing cap of $400,000 in tax allowances for merged business entities to get them to speed up investments for productivity improvements.

New Industries

I am glad the government is constantly looking at new industries to develop as the economic landscape is rapidly changing due to globalization and technological advancement. This is important as Singapore companies continue to seek areas it can fill a niche in.

One area I hope the government can give more attention to is renewable energy.  Last Saturday, the Straits Times reported energy scenario projections by Shell. The report projected that total energy demand could double in the next 50 years as the world’s population rises to 9.5 billion. In a high energy demand scenario, Shell predicted a strong push for the development of solar power as an alternative source of energy. By 2070, solar photovoltaic panels could become the world’s largest primary source of energy.

Singapore is constrained by a small land size. We have been told that even if all our rooftops and building surfaces are covered with photovoltaic panels, we could only have up to 14% of our energy needs being met.

I think that should not stop us from aggressively promoting and pursuing renewable energy installation expertise and technologies at a faster pace so that our companies can export their renewable energy products and services to fast developing countries in regions hungry for more energy.

Our public projects can be more aggressive in using renewable energy. The government can actively support local companies to build up their abilities to install such set-ups. Just as we had supported local companies to build up capabilities in water technologies that allowed them to become global players in this field, we can do likewise now in renewable energy.

Preschools and Student Care

Finally, preschools and student care.

The government has planned to more than double its spending to $3 billion for the preschool sector over the next 5 years. It is good that the government is acknowledging the importance of early childhood education and is putting significant investment into it. It is forming the Early Childhood Development Agency to combine the preschool functions of MSF and MOE. This is something that many industry players, experts and observers had been calling for.

The government plans to bring more operators onto the Anchor Operator or AOP scheme. At last year’s national day rally, the Prime Minister had said there will be 2 or 3 more AOPs. There will be an additional 16,000 places by AOPs to add to the existing 17,000 places. (4)

I have previously spoken on this issue and I believe this will drastically alter Singapore’s childcare landscape. It is currently being served by a diverse number of private and non-profit operators, with a good deal of variety and innovation. The AOP scheme was initiated in 2009. It provides AOPs with easy availability of new centres at typically under 10% of prevailing monthly rental cost of private operators, a generous combination of start-up grants which I worked out to be around $600,000 per new centre and grants for teacher training and scholarships. (5)

In return, AOP are expected to charge fees below the industry median. That’s hardly any challenge at all, given that the generous grants and low rents will easily allow them to achieve this without having to be innovative or be cost conscious. The dearth of remaining new sites for non AOPs have seen rents being bided to highly unsustainable levels. This budget has increased salary grants to AOPs. This will accelerate the outflow of teachers from non-AOP centres to AOPs. There are 2 important things necessary for operators to succeed in this industry: Location and Teachers. Non AOPs will be choked off in these two key areas.

While it is good that the government is pumping a lot of money into this sector, the industry is wrongly structured and the huge grants will worsen the situation. There will be negative consequences arising from the current AOP scheme. It will wipe out many existing players, especially operators charging fees that cater to lower and middle income families. The 2 current and 2-3 new AOPs will not have to compete hard to be innovative. A healthy level of competition is needed for operators to be innovative, to continue to offer high quality services at competitively affordable prices. I believe we can instead structure childcare as a public good, with regular competition by all operators for packages of sites at fees regulated by MSF. With the same level of investment the government has planned, I believe it will achieve in better outcomes for affordability, accessibility and quality.

The higher number of working parents has seen fast rising demand for childcare. These same parents will also need good quality and affordable student care facilities.  It will be another important area as a social leveler.

I will touch on childcare and student care further in my COS cuts on MSF. Thank you.

References

1. Spotlight On SMPs and SMEs – The SMP, SME http://www.icpas.org.sg/mediacentre/admin/upload/20120522022044634732932440629198.pdf

2.  A Guide to Productivity Measurement http://www.spring.gov.sg/resources/documents/guidebook_productivity_measurement.pdf)

3. http://www.iras.gov.sg/irashome/ma-allowance.aspx

4. http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/govt-raises-funding-pre-school-sector-s3b

5. http://app.msf.gov.sg/PressRoom/Disbursementofgrantstononprofitchildcare.aspx and http://app.msf.gov.sg/PressRoom/Allocationofnewvoiddeckchildcarecentres.aspx

早报2月15日言论版刊登李叶明君标题“刘程强在说什么？”的文章。以下是我和工人党的议员在五天里国会辩论人口白皮书所说的主要内容。为了方便国会议员和公众了解工人党的主要论述和建议，我在国会以英语作总结演讲时分发了以下的对照表，显示了工人党所建议的方案和白皮书的不同。（英文的原版发布在工人党的网站内）

我感到遗憾的是叶明君在他的长篇大论中对我在国会的演讲断章取义，选择性地解读来配合其论点以期达到危言耸听的目的。

叶明君在文中质问，“为什么新加坡允许多一些外劳和女佣，就会稀释新加坡人核心呢？” 针对新加坡人核心的问题，我们所指的是政府批准外国人成为公民的数目，所关注的是数量的问题，请搞清楚，所讨论的对象是新加坡公民，不是非公民的外劳和女佣。我在国会的英文演讲中提到“以目前政府每年批准2万5千个外来移民成为新加坡公民来看，和我国公民每年生育3万个婴儿相比，每年所新增加的外来公民和新生婴儿的公民比率接近一比一。”

关于外来移民的磨合问题。叶明君花了大篇幅问了许多似是而非的问题，但又没表示自己的看法，然后总结的问题是“为什么刘程强认为，作为一个传统的移民社会，新加坡连每年增加不到1％的新公民都难以接纳、无法磨合？” 我不晓得他根据什么得出1％的结论。我请他再读一遍我在国会的演讲内容，我说：“别忘了，我们不单须要磨合成为公民的新公民，也必须面对还未成为公民的外来人民，当我们因为外来总人口数量太多而无法有效磨合时，新加坡人口的整体个性和素质也会改变。我想大家都知道量变会造成质变的道理。”

叶明君接着词锋一转又问“把公民刻意分成土生和非土生，是不是在分化新加坡人？” 他大概也忘记了我在演讲中很清楚地说：“我不是要特意分别土生土长的新加坡公民和新公民。我们应该对获得公民权的新公民一视同仁，至少他们愿意放弃原本的公民而成为新加坡公民。然而，请记得的是，这些都是人，人的价值观、人生观、世界观和生活的习惯都因环境、国情和习俗的不同而有异，需要时间磨合，也需要适当的磨合环境。”我想读者诸君读了这段话应该很清楚地知道我所要表达的意思。但是叶明君选择断章取义，把分化新加坡人的罪名硬加在我身上。

我相信大多数新加坡人的分析能力是很强的，也懂得分辨是非曲直。工人党所提出的替代方案，没有排斥外劳，也注重经济增长，更是为了新加坡有可持续的未来。着重点在于不过度依赖外劳和外来人口，加大力度提高新加坡人的生育率，增加居民人口的就业参与率，维持新加坡人核心的特性与凝聚力，建设一个人丁兴旺，可持续的新加坡。

令我感到震惊的是，叶明君还想致工人党于死地。他在文章总结时说：“ 煽动排外不是爱国…”这条“煽动”的罪名使我想起过去政府就是用类似的罪名逮捕政见不同的人。在过去的时代，发表和政府不同政见的人往往就会被冠上分化社会、煽动人民或不同族群、反国家和有损国家利益的各种罪状。这造成了难以抹灭的恐惧感，也制造了一波又一波的白色恐怖，一个人民怕政府，在强权中为了生活和经济发展唯唯诺诺，最终失去自动自发自强的社会。

我决定参政，所希望看到的是我们有一个正常的国家和民主社会。一个以民为主，人民关心政治，敢参与政治的历程，在文明的争论中产生共识而有凝聚力的社会，一个人民对国家有认同感的新加坡。

刘程强

MR PATRICK Liew Siow Gian (“WP needs to decide on its stand – and stick to it”; Thursday) wrote that during the Budget debate last year, Workers’ Party (WP) secretary-general Low Thia Khiang had criticised government measures to tighten the foreign worker inflow and argued that this was done too quickly, yet the WP now advocates a freeze on foreign worker numbers.

Mr Liew has read the above out of context. What Mr Low highlighted during the Budget debate last year concerned the allocation of foreign manpower for specific industries, not the overall foreign worker growth rate.

The statements described by Mr Liew were made during an exchange between Mr Low and Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam on the issue of whether the dependency ratio ceiling for foreign workers could be managed by specific industries instead of by broad industry clusters.

It was not a debate on the growth rate of foreign workers or the input of foreign workers to the workforce.

In fact, Mr Low made clear his stand on foreign workers in his speech in Parliament during the same Budget debate last year.

He said: “I agree we should not be over-reliant on foreign workers; we should not allow foreign workers to take away Singaporeans’ rice bowls. This is not protectionism, but a responsibility of the Government to the people. However, we also know that we have limited population, (and) we need foreign workers to fill up the gap in our domestic labour market.”

This is consistent with the WP’s position taken during the Population White Paper debate, in which we called for the overall number of foreign workers to be capped if we can achieve a 1 per cent annual growth rate in the local workforce. Based on June 2012 data, there were already 1.5 million non-residents in Singapore, of which 1.2 million were foreign workers.

The WP is not calling for zero foreign workers in Singapore, but zero growth in foreign workers if we can increase the resident labour force participation rate and rely on the expected natural increase in the number of working-age residents (due to more residents entering the workforce than retiring) over the next few years.

The WP has raised concerns and suggestions at both the macro and micro levels of foreign labour policies. Put together, they do not reflect an inconsistency or contradiction in the WP’s stand.

Gerald Giam
Chair, Media Team
The Workers’ Party

The Workers’ Party wishes all a Happy & Prosperous Lunar New Year!

The Workers’ Party MPs voted against the Amended Motion in Parliament today.  Although the Amended Motion captures some of the Workers’ Party’s concerns about the White Paper, fundamentally the White Paper still forms the basis of the roadmap forward to 2030, which the House was asked to endorse.

The Workers’ Party believes that the path proposed by the White Paper will further dilute the Singaporean core and weaken our national identity.  It will also lead us to require unsustainable population injections in the future.  We believe that the greater well-being of Singaporeans lies in sustainable economic growth driven by increases in our productivity and in our resident workforce, rather than further increases in our dependency on imported foreign labour.

Singapore’s demographic challenges must be addressed fundamentally and urgently by focusing on increasing the total fertility rate (TFR) and growing our resident labour force participation rate.  In short, we should instead strive for “A Dynamic Population for a Sustainable Singapore”.

Sylvia Lim
Chairman
The Workers’ Party

8 February 2013

by MP for Aljunied GRC, Low Thia Khiang
[Delivered in Parliament on 7 Feb 2013]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the debate with wonder in the last few days. At first, the PAP seemed content on debating the Workers’ Party’s proposal more than the white paper. Then, some PAP MPs began to echo Workers’ Party positions. I appreciate the honour that is bestowed on the Workers’ Party by this kind of attention.

Mdm, I must remind the House that what is called a roadmap on a white paper requesting this house to endorse will change Singapore drastically in less than 20 years time.

Driving with an Upside-Down Roadmap

The Workers’ Party thinks that this roadmap is wrong. The PAP government is driving with an upside-down roadmap. We are not trying to be funny when we change the title around to “A Dynamic Population for a Sustainable Singapore”. As a rational and responsible co-driver, it is our duty to tell the driver that he is reading the roadmap upside down. Madam speaker, allow me to distribute a table to show the differences between the Government’s proposal and the Workers’ Party’s proposal. [Table of Different Solutions to the Problems]

The first problem is that Singapore has seen declining birth rates for nearly 40 years. Yet, all the government is doing in the latest enhancement to the Marriage and Parenthood Package is to increase incentives to get young couples to have more babies. Why is the government continuing to use a method that has not worked? Why does it not see there are serious roadblocks such as high housing costs, lack of family and social support, lack of quality childcare options, and bad work-life balance that are preventing young couples from marrying earlier and having more babies?

The second problem is that low birth rates are leading to a shrinking citizen core. Instead of focusing on removing the roadblocks to set birth rates on the path to recovery, the government wants to use immigration to top up shortfalls. At the highest rate of handling out new citizenships at current birth rates, there will be 25,000 new citizens to 30,000 citizen births a year. This is almost one is to one.

The third problem is immigrant integration. Given the friction between Singaporeans and immigrants in recent years, my confidence in the government to solve this problem is not very strong. The best way to integrate immigrants is organically through the family and the school; not the highly politicized People’s Association.

The fourth problem is the ageing population. Here, the government needs to have a serious mindset change. The government sees our senior citizens as fiscal and healthcare burdens. The government’s solution is again immigration, as though by increasing the support ratio, our senior citizens will be magically supported.

Is the government admitting that the CPF scheme is causing insufficient savings that our senior citizens will become a burden? Is the government admitting that healthcare costs are spiraling out of control that our senior citizens will need to be subsidized heavily?

The fifth problem is a slowing economy. The key plank in the Workers’ Party’s proposal is to increase the resident workforce through promotion of labour force participation of women and seniors. Like the government, we aim for the same stretch rate of productivity growth. But the government’s solution is contradictory. It tells businesses that they are addicted to cheap foreign workers and need to improve their productivity instead. Yet, the government is proposing to use foreign workforce growth to boost the slowing economy. Would not foreign workforce growth suppress productivity growth? This is like trying to go forward and backward at the same time.

The sixth problem is infrastructural strain. The Prime Minister recently admitted that the government lacked 20/20 foresight and failed to prepare the urban infrastructure to accommodate sudden immigration inflow. Instead of rethinking the immigration policy, it now promises to build ahead to accommodate more immigrants. The land use plan promises to build a high quality living environment for all Singaporeans. But the plan is drawn up to support the future population, which will be majority immigrants.

Kicking the Can Down the Road

The trouble with the government is not that it lacks 20/20 foresight in infrastructural development, but that it fails to recognize that the problem is its immigration policy in the first place. The problems of low birth rates and ageing population lie in a social and physical environment that is not conducive for family life. Therefore, the solutions must be sought by focusing on promoting the quality of life of Singaporean families. By focusing on immigration, the government is using the cause of the problems today as the solution for tomorrow.

What the government is doing is kicking the can down the road. The government has been using immigration to grow the workforce in the past 30 years. It is proposing to continue to do so for the next 20 years. The government said that it HOPES for an increase in the TFR to 1.4 or 1.5. This is a matter of national survival, and the government is only weakly hoping with an ambiguous target with no specified timetable. Without a TFR recovery plan with clear targets, our birth rates are not going to go up. So when 2030 arrives, what solution are we going to turn to?

Immigration again? Another white paper to project a population size of 10 million in 2050 as a roadmap? Anyway, let me tell this house, if we travel down this roadmap, Singaporeans will become a minority in their own country.

In 2001, the United Nations published a study to consider whether Replacement Migration is a viable solution to a declining and ageing population. The study warned that “The levels of migration needed to offset population ageing are extremely large, and in all cases entail vastly more immigration than occurred in the past.”

The study argued that comprehensive reassessments of many established economic, social and political policies and programmes in a long-term perspective are needed to address the challenges.

20/20 foresight requires the government to think long term and this must be 50 years down the road, not a mere 17 years. Birth rate recovery takes a long time. We need to start now. Stop kicking the can down the road. As long as immigration continues to be an easy option, there is nothing to stop the government from taking the easy path.

Focus on TFR recovery now. While we move towards TFR recovery, the Workers’ Party proposes that we increase labour- force participation rates to grow the resident workforce without adding to the population.

This is a much more sustainable solution than an ever-growing population on a small island. And let’s not forget Singapore is a nation, not a city in a big nation. A sustainable Singapore is one that keeps its national identity strong and this requires the population to be made up of majority Singaporeans.

Continued dependence on foreign workforce growth will just kick the can of economic restructuring down the road. Economic restructuring is necessarily painful. Immigration prevents us from moving away from labour-intensive industries to develop an innovative and entrepreneurial economy with capital-intensive medium enterprises. The government can help ease the pain by providing more support to local SMEs as we go through this economic transition.

Ultimately, the tradeoff is not between 0.5% GDP growth and 1 million more people. The tradeoff is between short-term economic dynamism or long-term economic sustainability.

A Roadmap without a Destination

The government has tried to downplay the 6.9 million population number for 2030. It is now a projection, a planning parameter, a worst-case scenario. Can the government clarify once and for all whether it has control over immigration or is immigration an impending tsunami we have to plan for? I don’t understand how 6.9 million can be a worst-case scenario. Don’t we have to pass through the best-case scenario of 5.8 million to get to 6.9 million? The government seems to be saying that it doesn’t have control of the bus it is driving Singaporeans to town, and is not able to stop at the good part of town and we may all end up in the bad part of town. This is unacceptable.

But even before we can talk about getting to town, does the government have a destination to bring us to? It has a roadmap, but a roadmap is useless without a destination. The government’s roadmap is saying, “just continue to drive straight ahead at the same speed”. But the Workers’ Party wants to arrive in a sustainable Singapore with a dynamic Singaporean majority.

阿裕尼集选区国会议员－刘程强

议长,

人民是国家的组成核心,没有人民,哪有国家。人口是立国之基,也是一个国家兴衰盛旺的核心因素。因此,人口问题是一个很重要的问题,但也是一个非常复杂的问题,牵一发而动全身。更重要的是,不能把人口的问题当成如一般的政策,依据统计数字的宏观分析来看问题和处理问题。因为人不是物品,不能被当成数目字来看待。

政府所发布的白皮书估算我国人口到 2030 年时会介于 650 万和 690 万之间。政府的有关部门,接着也发布了如何发展我国的基础设施以应付所预测的人口增长,并保证国人会有优质的生活环境。

副总理张志贤在发布人口白皮书的记者招待会上说:这是政府首次绘制出一个全面的人口发展路线图,以为我国人口政策争取最好的平衡。后来,有的部长说, 690 万人口只是“最糟情况”时才会出现,国会开始辩论白皮书后,又有行动党议员提出修正动议,删除动议中把白皮书当成是“人口政策“的路线,把 690 万人口的数目字当成只是建设未来基础设施的规划指标。

所以,白皮书内掷地有声的 690 万未来人口的预测变成是“最糟情况”时才会出现,那请问如果是在不太糟的情况下,2030 年的人口是多少呢?如果是最佳的情况,那人口又会是多少?

就算白皮书中的 690 万人口只是规划的目标,但如果到 2030 年时,人口总数就如工人党所预算的 580 万,那基础设施多规划了 1 百万人的需要,可不是浪费了宝贵的资源?这和新加坡小国寡民,资源有限,必须有效应用宝贵资源的原则不符。

早报网上有网民写文章问政府:“在开什么玩笑呢?要知道的是,政府的公权力掌握了开放移民和引进外劳的钥匙。要多还是要少,要快还是要慢,就像要往水池放水,水喉的开关控制一样。都在政府的决策里。要 500 万,还是要 600 万,如果连这个也不能确定,那么这份堂皇大观的《人口白皮书》,岂不是立即变成一堆废纸?”

白皮书内的主要建议是批准外来移民成为新加坡公民,添补本地人口增长的不足,然后把这些成为新加坡公民的新移民当成是“新加坡人核心“。因此,这个所谓的新加坡人核心到底有多少是道地的新加坡人已经是个问题,更何况,到了 2030 年时,这个所谓的新加坡人核心只占 690 万总人口的 55%。所以,土生土长的新加坡人到底真正占我们总人口的多少百分比呢?

我不是要特意分别土生土长的新加坡公民和新公民。我们应该对获得公民权的新公民一视同仁,至少他们愿意放弃原本的公民而成为新加坡公民。然而,请记得的是,这些都是人,人的价值观、人生观、世界观和生活的习惯都因环境、国情和习俗的不同而有异,需要时间磨合,也需要适当的磨合环境。

以我国生活的紧张步伐和新组屋区各家自理,邻居都可能认识不完的环境,没有磨合新移民的条件。在时间方面,白皮书的人口数量预估每十年就大约增加 1 百万人口,以我们的人口比例,我认为我们的社会无法消化这么大量的外来人口。

我们的祖先都是外来移民,政府花了几十年的心血,逐渐使国民对新加坡有归属感,产生了国家的观念,也使我们慢慢地成为今天有凝聚力的社会,人民现在也有了法治的观念。我们应该珍惜和大力维护我们在建国历程中所获得的,这些超越经济发展和物质的成就。

各位,我很担心这种依赖大量外来人口来填补国人因为不生育,而造成人口短缺的策略会使我们的国家走上不归路。

别忘了,我们不单须要磨合成为公民的新公民,也必须面对还未成为公民的外来人民,当我们因为外来总人口数量太多而无法有效磨合时,新加坡人口的整体个性和素质也会改变。我想大家都知道量变会造成质变的道理。

行动党的部长和大多数议员都支持这种填补本地人口不足的策略。他们认为我国本来就是由外来移民组成的,我们的祖先也是外来移民,现在我们也可以接受外来移民,再来组成新加坡国民的核心。

这个逻辑和理论其实犯了时空上的失忆症。请不要忘记,虽然新加坡人的祖先大都来自中国,印度和邻近的国家,但是我们经历过了几十年的建国历程以后,这一代的新加坡人已经可以算是道地的新加坡人,也有了一定的认同感。在国外,即使互不相识,我们也可以发现到、感觉到哪一些是新加坡人。

如果逻辑是以前我们曾经是外来移民,所以现在就应该、也能够接受外来移民,那么,同样的,我们也曾经是马来西亚的一份子,今天我们是不是也可以回归马来西亚而毫无疑问呢?

在建国的时代,因为担心人口增长得太快,经济增长不足以让政府可以应付人口增长所需的基础设施和社会建设,雷厉风行地执行人口绝育政策。现在则因为人口不足以支撑经济增长而需要以大量的外来人口来补充。

不允许国民多生育而半强制性地逼人民绝育可能还勉强在哪个时代行得通。但 20 年后,如果发现人口过多,又比现在老化得更快,则不能把他们杀掉。所以我说这是一条不归路。

工人党不同意政府冒这个险。我们会反对到底。我再清楚地说一次工人党反对这份白皮书,也不会支持在动议字句上添加修饰的修正动议。

by MP for Hougang, Png Eng Huat
[Delivered in Parliament on 7 Feb 2013]

From day 1 when the Population White Paper was released, the reaction from the ground is swift and negative. Whether the 6.9 million figure is a population projection or target, the White Paper is still a roadmap for Singapore’s population policies from now to 2030.

This government had released a few such roadmaps in the past under the URA Concept Plans. We were told in this House the population projections in those plans are based on foreseeable trends in economic growth, fertility rates, migration rates, etc over a long period of 40 to 50 years. But alarmingly, this government has developed a knack for getting the population projection wrong; not in the numbers but in the time taken to reach those numbers.

In the 1991 Concept Plan, this government was doing long-term planning based on a population figure of 4 million. We started that decade with 3 million people and a Singaporean core of 86 per cent. We ended that decade with 4 million people and the Singaporean core at 74 per cent.

In 2001, this government put up another Concept Plan with a higher population projection of 5.5 million as a basis for land use and transportation planning. Again at that time, we were told in this House that the projected population figure over a period of 40 to 50 years was not a target but a planning parameter or what is known in recent days as a worst case scenario.

By 2010, in a short span of 10 years, we reached 91 per cent of the 2001 projected worst case scenario population with 30 to 40 years to spare. Our Singaporean core went down by another 10 percentage point to 64 per cent. So what was projected to happen in 40 to 50 years in 1991 and 2001 became a reality in less than one quarter of time envisaged.

In 2007, the ex-Minister for National Development quickly revised the long-term population projection to 6.5 million, which is at the low end of the projected population for 2030 in the Population White Paper.

Today, Singaporeans are confronted with a stark population projection again. The Population White Paper, unlike the 40 to 50-year Concept Plan, has projected our population to hit 6.5 to 6.9 million over a period of just 18 years. And the percentage of Singaporean core would be almost halved.

Repeating like clockwork, the National Development Minister was quick to point out that the 6.9 million figure is not a target but a worst case scenario. His predecessor had this to add when he raised the long-term population projection to 6.5 million. The ex-Minister said in 2007 that the government had decided “that 6.5 million is a realistic number for the next 40 to 50 years.  Whether and when we achieve this figure will depend on many factors.”

If such 40 to 50-year worst case scenarios can manifest in less than 10 years from projection twice, Singaporeans have every good reason to worry about the 6.9 million projection going forward.

Over the last 2 decades, this government has been likened to run Singapore like a company due to its opportunistic approach to grow at all costs. It has grown our population by almost a million a decade since 1991. It did not matter if the infrastructures were not up to scratch, opportunities and money came first.

Based on the upper end figures in the White Paper, our population is again expected to grow by about a million a decade until 2030 and the Singaporean core will drop to almost 50 per cent. The White Paper is not maintaining a strong Singaporean core. It is shrinking it further.

If the experience in 1991 and 2001 is anything to go by, the 6.9 million projection may not be a worst case scenario but could well be the worst nightmare for Singapore come 2030. The trust between the people and this government had been shaken twice because the line between a projected population and a target population is no longer distinct. Singaporeans do not want to be shaken a third time.

Already, we have one of highest population density in the world and increasing our population further cannot be good for liveability. It cannot be good for quality of life. This government has tried to be creative with statistics to allay the fear that we might go the way of Hong Kong and pack Singaporeans into tiny apartments when our population hit 6.9 million.

But we are already packed like sardines everywhere today; in the trains, buses, hawker centres, shopping centres and more. Any population increase above 6 million is just unthinkable. If we were to compute the population density for public housing alone, we will understand how dense it is to live in Singapore today.

In 2010, it was reported that 82 per cent of our resident population or about 3.1 million people lived in HDB flats. The 2010 figure on land use shows that public housing took up only 7 per cent of the total land mass or about 5,000 hectares in Singapore. This gives us a staggering actual population density of 62,000 people per square kilometer for public housing alone. We even beat the densest district in Hong Kong which comes in at slightly above 55,000 people per square kilometer.

When this government allocates only 7 per cent of the land to accommodate 82 per cent of our resident population, how do you think Singaporeans, whom the White Paper addressed as ‘the core of our society and the heart of our nation’, would feel at the prospect of living with 6.9 million people by 2030? How liveable can Singapore be going forward with more and more people?

According to a Forbes report in 2012, the most stressful cities in the United States are also among the biggest and densest. How is this government going to convince our young Singaporeans to stay and procreate when commuting to work every day is such a stressful thing to do?

I read with a deep concern that this government intends to optimize our limited land space just to accommodate 6.9 million people by building more housing units in mature estates on whatever pockets of housing land it can find.

Madam Speaker, the government sees these pockets of land as opportunities but many of us see these as essential green spaces to keep the sanity of living in a concrete jungle in check. If every piece of green space in a mature estate is measured by a number or a value, then we have missed the meaning of quality of life.

The top 10 cities in the Mercer’s 2012 Quality of Living Index all have lower population densities than Singapore with the exception of Geneva, Switzerland. Geneva is nested in a region of beautiful lakes, hills, and mountains for citizens to escape to away from the stress of high density urban living. We do not have the luxury of such open spaces so we should preserve whatever pockets of greenery out there especially in mature estates so as to mitigate the stress of living in one of the densest city in the world.

Different cities in the world have different priorities to become liveable and sustainable. What are our priorities? In the pursuit for growth, this government has acknowledged that it had neglected to pay close attention to the comfort level of the Singaporean core in areas like transport, housing, and other environmental and cultural issues.

While the people should give the government some time to fix its 20/20 foresight, the government should also give the people more time to experience what it is really like to live in a country with 5.3 million with all the shortcomings fixed. Because when yesterday’s problems are not fixed, the vision for a better tomorrow is a hard sell.

The irony of the Mercer survey is Singapore is ranked number 1 in infrastructure but 25th in Quality of Living. What that means to me in plain English is we are way too overcrowded here.

This government may have put its heart and soul into building a dynamic economy for people to come from all over the world to make money here but has it done the same to building our nation? In this context, the Workers Party is asking the government to do the hard things first i.e. to put its heart and soul to grow the TFR. When young Singaporeans want to have more children here, we would have a nation to call home. Opening the tap to immigrants is not that hard. This government has grown our population by about a million a decade since 1991 with relative speed and ease.

We all take different risks in life. This government wants Singapore to take a risk with 6.9 million people. We, the Workers’ Party, want to work with a smaller number and a stronger emphasis on Singaporean core. But no matter what numbers we project, the government of the day has to subject itself to do the will of the people who elected it. I am sure the will of people can be felt in your MPS, dialogue sessions, feedback sessions and even at the recent polls.

We can’t change the past but we can change the future. For that I oppose the motion.

by MP Lee Li Lian
[Delivered in Parliament on 6 Feb 2013]

Dear Madam Speaker,

The recently released Population White Paper seeks to address two challenges-ageing population and low Total Fertility Rate (TFR), by bringing in more immigrants. With projected figures of between 6.5 million to 6.9 million in 2030, it is no wonder that many ordinary Singaporeans have been concerned about the possible decline in the quality of life. The proposed method of importing immigrants to make up for TFR shortfall is not a long term solution.

I believe that much more can be done to encourage Singaporeans to have more children. We have not yet shown enough political will to remove the institutional and structural obstacles that are discouraging young Singaporeans from having children.

If we are going to consider aggressive immigration policies as a way to correct the problem of low TFR and replacement rates, we should also at the same time be considering more aggressive attempts to support the development of Singaporean families to boost the TFR. Even though we may not see the immediate effects of an increasing TFR till beyond 2030, we are talking about long-term, sustainable solutions. Without tackling TFR directly, we will continually have to increase the population by way of immigrants, and this will be a never-ending cycle.

There are three areas in which we must do more. Firstly, we must support and invest in all children, regardless of background. Second, we must support a more equal distribution of family responsibilities between men and women in the family and thirdly, we must institutionalise better work-life balance.

The Workers’ Party acknowledges that a declining TFR is a serious problem for Singapore. However, we disagree that the solution should be to support a much larger foreign population before we have ensured that we are doing enough to support all children in Singapore, regardless of their background or parentage.

The government has spent billions of dollars on incentives like Baby Bonuses, subsidies for IVF treatment and childcare. I believe it can go further in extending financial support and recognition for families, parents and children that are at the margins of society.

The first group in need of more support are low-income families.

While the increase in baby bonuses under the Baby Bonus scheme are a welcome relief on parents, the dollar-for dollar bonus structure tends to favour higher-income groups over those who may be more in need of extra financial help to raise children.

The recent Parenthood Package offers higher baby bonus pay-outs, matching dollar for dollar up to $6,000 each for a couple’s 1st and 2nd child, up to $12,000 each for their 3rd and 4th child, and up to $18,000 each from the 5th child onwards.

The question we must ask is, how many families are able to put down $6,000 or more in order to receive bonuses? How many families are we leaving out of this incentive scheme?

The second group of Singaporeans that tend to be neglected are single parents.

A single mother is under 35, is disqualified from buying a HDB flat until she reaches 35 years of age. Even then, she only qualifies to buy under the “singles” scheme. She is only entitled to 8 weeks paid maternity leave, unlike the 16 weeks for a married woman, and a further 4 weeks of unpaid maternity leave with no government funding.

An unmarried single mom will not qualify for the tax relief for a foreign domestic worker and is entitled to only 2 days of childcare leave per year for a child below the age of 7. Her child is considered “illegitimate” by the government. Despite this she will still need to pay taxes and her son will still need to do national service.

In a recent ST report, Singapore sees an average of 12,000 abortions a year, and 4 out of 10 women who went for abortions were single women. Reducing the discrimination against single mothers may reduce the likelihood of single mothers having to resort to terminating their pregnancies for fear of lack of support. Furthermore, for a country suffering from a fertility crisis, each child should be valued, and not punished simply because he or she is born to unmarried parents.

We must plan for the future, there is no doubt about that. However, before we invest heavily in developing infrastructure to accommodate extensive immigration which is a “worst-case scenario” that the government says they are hoping will not happen, we must ask whether we have done enough to support all Singaporean families that live in Singapore and their children, and to tackle the problems that are here and now. Not investing enough in our own people is what will cause the real worst-case scenario.

In addition to investing fully in our families, we must also look at ensuring a family-friendly environment in Singapore.

Parents-to-be have many concerns, especially given the high cost of living and increasingly competitive environment we live in. This includes the loss of income when they have to drop out of work to look after their children, or experiencing a drop in their career prospects, when they have worked so hard from school days to make a successful career. Many parents are concerned about financial insecurity and how to balance having children and their careers, especially so for mothers.

We must do more to tip the balance in favour of having more children, by reducing these concerns. This can be done by encouraging a culture of equality in the family, and encouraging better work-life balance.

One of the often cited reasons for women not having children or having more children is the lack of support from their husbands. The Marriage and Parenthood survey (2012) noted that 99% of married respondents agreed that fathers and mothers are equally important caregivers.

Given the high-levels of education amongst our women, it is not surprising that many would be concerned about their careers after having a child. Having both parents sharing the responsibilities of childcare can help facilitate the mother’s earlier return to work, and reduces the anxiety and concern she has about being unemployed, or her career prospects going forward.

The introduction of Paternity Leave to one week is a step in the right direction towards the greater involvement of fathers. But more can be done to bring balance to the roles fathers and mothers play in looking after their children.

The current Paternity Leave of one week per year is designed for emergencies and can be broken up into seven days over a year. I would like to propose the introduction of Bonding Leave for fathers in addition to the Paternity Leave. A two week Bonding Leave, where the father can take a week of leave each time to take care of each child, would allow them to care for their children for extended periods in order to share the responsibilities of childcare with their wives and to develop stronger father-child relationships. The cost of this should be shared by the state and the employer. If the scheme is well received, Bonding leave could be further extended to encourage a more equal distribution of responsibilities between mother and father.

Given our woes over declining fertility, it is time to consider going beyond mere tweaks, to ensure that sharing family responsibilities is something feasible for couples to be able to do.

Singaporeans work some of the longest hours in the world.

A recent survey by Jobstreet.com on work-life balance found that nearly nine out of 10 Singaporeans worked beyond their official hours. After office hours, 70 per cent chose to complete unfinished work in the office while the remaining 30 per cent chose to bring work home. Almost half of them believed that their companies only pay lip service to work-life balance.

Quite clearly, greater government encouragement is needed in the form of corporate tax relief and enforcement of policies to ensure more companies seriously promote work-life balance complete work place. We cannot leave it to private businesses to promote work-life balance on their own, and until bold government measures are introduced, we will always be stuck in this rut.

Many women also feel that even before they have had their babies, they may be stigmatised by their employers. Many tend to immediately cast doubts over whether a woman can have children and also balance a high-demanding career. I know this from my own personal experience. Just recently during the by-election campaign, many were asking whether it would be possible for me to be an MP and have children at the same time. I can imagine many women face the anxiety of wondering whether their bosses feel the same, and consider them a liability if they were to become pregnant, and whether they would be able to come back easily after a long period of leave taken to stay at home with their children.

Apart from working remotely, another option for flexible-work life balance is to make part-time work more mainstream. According to an OECD report, birth rates are higher when there are more part-time jobs available to women, in order to facilitate both work and family responsibilities.

This is practiced in many Scandinavian countries, for example Norway. An important factor in making part-time work a viable option is making sure employees can retain their employment and state benefits. This ensures that part-time work remains desirable and is not considered marginalised labour, but regular employment.

The government must support a mind-set change in terms of how companies can contribute to the larger society. Today, we see many companies in Singapore and around the world embarking on Corporate Social Responsibility campaigns, committing to being part of solutions to problems facing societies. Agilent Technologies, LinkedIn and Hitachi are some examples of companies that were top-ranked by Forbes Magazine for enabling flexible work schedules. We should study these companies to identify what incentivises such highly successful, profit-making entitles to be active proponents of work-life balance and see how they can be applied in the Singapore context.

There may be no immediate solution, or any country that is a shining beacon of success. However, that does not mean we should be resigned to there being no workable solution, hence moving to more drastic measures such as rapid influx of foreigners. The European Union for example, has recognised the need to ensure flexible work arrangements and has set up committees like EU Expert Group on Gender and Employment which conducts dedicated research and provides valuable insight into how to better balance work and family life, as a sign of continued commitment to resolving a complex problem. We should commit resources to an independent commission that looks into long-term solutions work-life balance.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker, the Singapore story is about achieving the impossible. This is why we should not so easily give up on our people and their role in driving Singapore’s success. I do not claim to have all the answers, in my proposals here today. However we are all here speaking with the best interests of Singaporeans at heart, and it is worth considering different points of views on this White Paper, since we have been facing the problem of low TFR and an ageing population for years, and policy amendments up to this point have seen few results. We should consider all options, and not immediately opt for quick-fix solutions through foreign immigration that will have long-term consequences. We already feel many of these consequences today, and they have yet to be resolved. Do we want to pass this burden off onto our children? Do we want them to become minorities in their own country?

Helping support the growth of Singaporean families is what will keep the dynamism of a society going, as people feel they have options and the freedom to pursue their hopes and dreams without being overly bound by never-ending costs, both financial and otherwise. This is the way forward towards creating sustainable policies that will do Singapore well in the long-term.

We should be working towards a dynamic population for a sustainable Singapore.

With that, Madam Speaker, I oppose the motion.

by NCMP Yee Jenn Jong
[Delivered in Parliament on 6 Feb 2013]

A Singapore Core
Madam Speaker. I object 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. There will be a population increase of up to 30% in an already congested Singapore. Most of us in this House will still be around 17 years from now. It will be a situation that we ourselves will face, not just our children and 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. 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 further decline to 55% by 2030. Will it go below 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 4 years alone, an average of over 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.

Madam Speaker, I am not against foreigners who wish to become Singaporean. Truly integrating them to become Singaporeans as we know Singaporeans to be, will be 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. What would 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 our 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 giving citizenship.

Madam 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.

The first showed beautiful hardware, like the infrastructure in this 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 share common values, worldviews, culture and a sense of identity. These can only be cultivated over time. Taking in too many new citizens too fast will only give us a false sense of complacency that we have a Singaporean core when we actually do not have a strong one.

Before we open the floodgate 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 in other countries? I ask this because all MPs 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.

Education and childcare
Next, I wish to touch on increasing TFR. Challenging as it may be, increasing our TFR is still the best way to sustain a Singaporean 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 the National Population and Talent Division (NPTD) is working with MOE to reduce stress and provide holistic education for students. I am glad MOE wants every school to be a good school. 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 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, reflecting 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 avoid certain academic streams. Often, they take work leave to coach their children. Even Minister Grace Fu has 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 5 years ago of 100 students showed that 97 of them had tuition. The situation is no better today. Parents even send children for tuition to hope to enter gifted education, because GEP provides the Direct School Admission 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 and child care 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 an 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 support for a small number of anchor operators that gives them 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 with 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 child care. I hope MSF can consider making child care 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 and child care. 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 child care cost for young parents.

Impact to Businesses
Next, I like to deal with issues raised by some PAP MPs. 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 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 spike 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 0.5-1% lower than the government’s. GDP growth of 1.5 – 3.5% is decent by the standard of matured economies. We have a 1% increase in residents workforce.

PAP MPs have painted us as turning off the tap, as if leaving 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 2.1 million residents and 1.3 million non-residents in our workforce. We have 2 taps. As foreigners leave for whatever reasons, we turn on the non-resident tap to fill it back up. We 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 up the non-resident tap. We are not leaving the sink dry. In contrast, the government needs to be reminded that the sink is quite full. Having the taps on too fast may flood Singapore with a population we will struggle to manage in the future.

We have studied the population data. You can see from our 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 with 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 WP will run this country if we are in power. He wants to know how we 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 is itself a big vested player, and in fact the single biggest player in the economy, it will itself take a lot of pain when the economy is restructured hard.

Mr Nair may like to know that the WP is interested to get policies right for the people of Singapore and not to run businesses, whether with foreign or local staff.

In conclusion, PAP MPs spoke of the pain to SMEs with our proposal. I should know. I have owned and run private companies for the last 13 years. Yet, I am also reminded that I am a father to three children. I think of what Singapore will be like for them and their children 17 years from now with 6.9 million people. I think of what Singapore will be like for all of us when we ramp up our population so fast, leaving just 4% of our land as reserved space. Would we reach a population cliff by 2030?

Singaporeans are told that there are trade-offs. We are told that a population of up to 6.9 million may be required because this government believes we need 2-5% economic growth yearly. Unlike the government, we present a model for sustainable growth, more consistent with fostering a strong Singapore core.

If there’s a trade-off, are Singaporeans given any choice? Perhaps there is an overwhelming majority of Singaporeans who do not wish to become the minority in their own country? Perhaps Singaporeans will rather make do with a more manageable growth to keep their birthrights?

We had already moved too fast in the past eight years. The decisions made today cannot be reversed. We will sooner or later face the constraint of our land size. If this government moves too fast again, what will be left to sustain future generations? I urge the government to reconsider its plan and opt for a more manageable growth that will allow us to keep Singapore as the Singapore we know.

Madam Speaker, I oppose the motion.

by MP for Aljunied GRC, Pritam Singh
[Delivered in Parliament on 6 Feb 2013]

Thank you Madam Speaker.

The government ‘s population white paper has been met by a barrage of criticism from ordinary Singaporeans. The government in the last week and Deputy Prime Minister Teo in his opening speech on this motion have been at pains to stress that 6.5-6.9 million is not a target. I, like many Singaporeans who have grown up with the PAP, find this very hard to believe.

It is hard to conceive of a PAP government resisting the temptation of opening the doors to immigration, and then turning back at Singaporeans to say the PAP has brought high economic growth to Singapore and that Singaporeans should be thankful. As the last few years have shown us, GDP growth means little if Singaporeans are not the ones that benefit from it. GDP growth means little if Singaporeans can’t afford cars, and houses are out of reach. What this population white paper ultimately highlights and what it will be remembered for, is how out of touch the PAP government has become with ordinary Singaporeans.

Madam Speaker, I oppose the motion, and urge the DPM to take this white paper back to the drawing board but only after the views of ordinary Singaporeans are prominently represented in it. But before that, I would like to present some perspectives for the government to consider as it ruminates over the overwhelmingly negative public feedback on this white paper.

The government has already admitted that it did not plan ahead to prepare infrastructure for a larger population. As we have 5.3 million people on our island home today, the government should make clear how many more MRT lines, hospital beds and housing units, amongst other indicators have to come on-stream to bring infrastructure in line with – our current population size. This will give Singaporeans a better idea and feel of the future, and what the PAP government means by a high quality of living in 2030, and what Singapore will be like with another 1.6 million people.

A critical plank of the white paper deals with raising our TFR. But in this regard the white paper has not gone far enough to ask why Singaporeans are having fewer children. Madam Speaker, in my view, a large part of this is down a compendium of factors linked to our work culture, cost of living especially for the low and middle-income, and the sense of reducing physical space in Singapore. In the final reckoning, there are a confluence of factors, but rather than just look at more paternity leave and financial incentives, the white paper was an opportunity for the government to bite the bullet and introduce far reaching changes to address our TFR problem for the long-run.

Like both the property cooling measures which is in its seventh instalment with no moderation of prices in sight, and the marriage and parenthood package which is now into its fourth instalment, I am sceptical about the likely effects of these policy changes as they are not radical enough and do not address the root causes of our low TFR.

What the government should do is to table a comprehensive white paper on increasing our TFR with a corollary plan on getting our non-working population into the workforce. Instead, by introducing a narrow set of measures, the government has gone for a half-hearted approach, one that ultimately threatens a self-fulfilling prophecy. A less than vigorous attempt at raising TFR like what is currently presented in the white paper will lead the government to open the tap to immigration, on the grounds that measures to raise TFR have failed.

In Tuesday’s Straits Times, there was a piece about some Punggol residents fighting to save a small knoll from development. Last month, another group of residents in Pasir Ris were fighting to save a wooded area two football fields in size from being chopped down for the construction of an international school. Think about it, not a big cemetery like Bukit Brown or the railway corridor, but we are now talking of small knolls and football fields. And this sort of bottom-up citizen driven campaigns are already taking place with 5.3m population size.

Singapore is already a very small place. Ordinary Singaporeans have seen their flats shrink over the years. Now their public spaces for recreation and more importantly, rejuvenation, will also shrink whatever promises are made about the quality of life. There is a heart-warming picture of a family having a picnic on page 17 of the white paper. I wonder how the family will come to the beach in 2030, picnic basket and a happy family in tow. Did they take the MRT? Perhaps some will. Whatever the case, I hope they don’t choose to go to the beach over the weekend for it is simply too crowded today. Be that as it may, it is an inescapable reality that if one has a big family, one needs a car or some form of transport in Singapore – to bring to kids to and from childcare, to take them out over the weekends, to meet their extended family, and for little excursions around the island. The MND Minister has come out to say that cycling should be encouraged. But it still does not change the fact that most families need a vehicle. It is my belief that the quality of life that is outlined in the white paper with 6.5-6.9 million Singaporeans will not deliver the high quality of life promised.

A regional mall in Seletar, Tampines North or Tengah will probably look exactly like Tampines Mall and Jurong Point, including the brands on show. Housing estates are also likely to be crammed in line with the higher plot ratios in newer HDB estates, and yes, the rooms in our flats will continue to be small – on this account, I would like to ask if the government had factored in the future size of our flats in this white paper, as any increases are likely to go some way to creating a better sense of home and promoting larger families especially since the justification for smaller flats has been smaller families.

Another central plank of a relook at the government’s TFR strategies should have been the workplace. It is a known-fact that culturally, many Singaporeans work late hours, effectively ridiculing the notion of an 8-hour workday. Shirley Sun, an academic at NTU in a 2013 publication titled Population Policy and Reproduction in Singapore: Making Future Citizens, opined that “encouraging childbirth among citizens is not solely a matter of providing economic resources or parental leave from work but in the construction of ideal citizens, and that if “individual competitiveness” reigns, particularly in the face of scarce resources, parents and prospective parents are likely to limit childbearing.”

Employers and middle-managers, being businessmen and careerists, are unlikely to have an overriding reason to ask their staff to go home on time. Far from becoming productive, these employees, in the national schema, are singularly unproductive, spending time that could have been better spent with family. I know of many in various professions who fear they will receive an adverse grade if they leave before the boss. Numerous calls have been made for work-life balance but the work culture remains a problem and the softly-softly approach of the government will not make much headway. Private employees are bound by shareholders and the structural reality of unlocking shareholder value making the call for work-life balance in Singapore a shallow one. It’s time for the government to step in aggressively. Lets consider going back to basics – would the government consider legislating the 8 hour workday after which an employer is expected to pay OT across all professions, and not just limited to those earning below $4500 as under the Employment Act currently?

It is a radical proposal, deserves deeper study for sure, but it is the sort of radical thinking insofar as employer and employee attitudes at the workplace that the government should be proposing, to raise the quality of life of Singaporeans with a view to boost TFR rates aggressively. Along with more productivity incentives and wage and rental grants for companies especially SMEs and exempt private companies that hire Singaporean workers, we need to think out of the box to ensure that Singaporeans do not end up becoming a minority in their own country of birth.

There will be those who ask where the money for more productivity incentives and measures to help SMEs etc. will come from. In light of the existential challenge ahead of us, we should not rule out a deliberate and planned drawn-down of our reserves. Madam Speaker, the rainy day is upon us and we need to really address the TFR problem far more aggressively than we have ever done before especially since our future of the Singapore, as we know it, is on the line.

This brings me to the point about how successful the government has been so far at integrating new citizens. On this account, the jury is still out but Singaporeans remain uncomfortable at the thought of more foreigners coming on board even as new citizens slowly integrate into our society. This slow pace of integration should not come as a surprise to anyone. It’s is not the fault of Singaporeans or new citizens. Integration takes time and if we have not been able to do it over the last 20 years with our population rising from 3 to 5 million, it inevitable that this government will only increase the insecurity to Singaporeans if it proceeds with the population projection numbers set out in this white paper.

Some months ago, DPM Tharman noted that the government could be more transparent about how it approves PR applications. This would be of great benefit as Singaporeans would be able to understand who our neighbours are, where are they from and on what basis they were selected – akin to the transparency standards of immigrant friendly countries like Australia and Canada. Again, this was another odd omission from the White Paper, even though a DPM no less spoke of the need for greater transparency on the selection criterion for PRs.

Probably the most obvious proof of the how underwhelming the white paper has been was highlighted on page 28. While mention was made of communication in a common language to better integrate new arrivals, no real direction was made to ensure new immigrants can effectively communicate in English, even though this feedback has been repeatedly put to the government in light of our previously liberal immigration policy. A very telling sentence stated that there are ample opportunities for these wishing to learn English, such as through courses run by, PA and NTUC. Why not encourage the economically inactive like the former teachers in our population to teach English and get them in the workforce, with the appropriate regulatory standards in place? Surely the government can take the lead in and encourage greater labour force participation through simple initiatives that promote private sector business participation instead of relying on quasi-government entities.

Where the white paper and the land use paper have been sorely lacking has been in academic rigour on quality of life indicia. Over the years, many advances have been made in this field of social science.

Madam Speaker, I refer to a 2013 publication by two Singaporean academics at the NUS Business School, Siok Kuan Tambyah and Tan Soo Jiuan titled Happiness and Wellbeing: The Singaporean Experience. Their research covers a large scale survey of 1500 citizens conducted between May and June 2011 that provides insights into Singaporeans’ satisfaction with life and living in Singapore, happiness, enjoyment, achievement, emotional wellbeing, psychological flourishing, economic wellbeing, overall wellbeing, personal values, spirituality, value orientations, national identity, rights, and the role of government. The survey also dovetails with similar work done in 1996 and 2001 and is part of a field of study known as subjective wellbeing research, which focuses on measuring an individual’s cognitive and affective reaction to his or her while life as well as to specific domains of life.

Their 2011 survey showed that Singaporeans were generally satisfied with their lives in general, but less so with living in Singapore. In the words of the authors, Singaporeans had achieved quite a lot but Singaporeans did not necessarily feel happier or enjoyed life more. Apart from calling for a more inclusive growth model, the future Singapore would be one where its citizens feel that they have a stake in and where their voices are heard and appreciated. There should have been a big section in the white paper for such details and in the accompanying land use paper – these omissions are stark and incongruous especially since the government promises a high quality of life going forward.

Derek Bok, the long-time President of Harvard University wrote a seminal book in 2010 titled the Politics of Happiness: What Government can learn from the new research on well-being and happiness. He too identifies the evolution of social science research and the doubts researchers have raised about the value of growth and how it should not necessarily override other aspects of life that can contribute importantly to well-being. He calls on government officials to draw upon new research to rethink priorities and make a more balanced effort to promote wellbeing. How is this to be done? Bok identifies strengthening the family and marriage, encouraging active forms of leisure, cushioning the shock of unemployment, universal health care and a more secure retirement, improvements in child care and pre-school education, treatment of mental illnesses, focus of education policy and other broader goals. Such a progressive approach, in line with raising the quality of life as defined in the land use supplement to the white paper is sorely missing.

Madam Speaker, we have heard many local and foreign business federations and chambers of commerce raise their objections to the white paper. This should not be surprising. Companies are answerable to shareholders, not the people of Singapore. But the white paper needs to take views of Singaporeans first and get that aspect of the equation right. The Workers’ Party is ultimately answerable to the people of Singapore first.

Nimble businesses and intelligent business folk will adjust and restructure businesses taking into advantage of the workforce that is currently unemployed, especially since the government has announced the foreign worker tightening strategies for some time already. Some companies may well relocate to Iskandar, but isn’t that what the Government has been subtly encouraging?

Far from throwing SMEs under the bus with our proposal, we envisage the government significantly reducing the prospects of unpredictability for SMEs with our proposals, not just with productivity and tax incentives, but also with rental grants, and other costs indicia that severely affect SMEs. But industries like construction need to appreciate that the old days of massive foreign labour influx are well and truly over. They have to make do with what they have, and Singaporeans must accept a slower pace of construction as a result. Some businesses may well be spooked by the prospects of this, but this is one bullet we are better off biting now because of our strong fiscal position. When the bosses of these SMEs appreciate that the Singapore of the future will be a more sustainable one, they would have understood this turn was one that we have to negotiate as a country, in spite of the turbulence it causes. We will stand with SMEs by pressing the government to do more for them especially on rentals, so they can devote more resources to productivity.

Madam Speaker, this white paper has jarred the average Singaporean. So it should be no surprise that a backbencher has introduced an amendment to the motion and a Minister has endorsed the same. But the amendment still does not alter the substance of the white paper and the lacuna therein. Given the urgency of the issue, the white paper needs to be reworked with more aggressive measures to raise TFR as a start and it has to be populated with more detail about the quality of life of Singaporeans should anticipate with the projected figure is reached. The public cynicism surrounding the white paper remains high – it is an emotion the government cannot afford to ignore to achieve a dynamic population for a sustainable Singapore.

Thank you.

by MP for Aljunied GRC, Chen Show Mao
[Delivered in Parliament on 5 Feb 2013]

Madam Speaker, the White Paper states that “To be a strong and cohesive society, we must have a strong Singaporean core.”
议长女士，白皮书指出‘ 新加坡人是国家和社会的核心成员’， 还有‘我们要有一个坚强和团结的社会，就必须由新加坡人组成坚 实的核心。’

It also states that＂our population and workforce must support a dynamic economy that can steadily create good jobs and opportunities.＂
白皮书也指出 ’我国的人口和劳动队伍的组合必须有利经济发展，使经济保持蓬勃，为国人创造良好的就业与进取的机会‘

Our experience over the past few years suggests that to achieve these objectives would require much planning.
我们过去几年的经验挑战了政府的智慧，也让我们看见，要达到这些目标，需要预先好好的规划。

Our population will eventually reach the limit of our island’s space.
It would be more responsible to plan now for economic growth that would rely on fewer labour inputs, while maintaining a Singapore core, than to leave the underlying economic and social issues till later.
我们的人口迟早会达到这个岛国有限的空间。
我们现在就得开始规划一个减少依赖外来劳动力 的经济成长，同时维持一个新加坡核心的劳动队伍， 这是一种负责任的态度。

The Workers’ Party proposes that we target to increase our resident workforce growth by up to 1% per year from now until 2030. This includes Singapore citizens and permanent residents.  The foreign workforce should be held constant and increase when we do not achieve our target for growth in the resident labour force.
工人党提呈的建议是，我们要规划，使得居民劳动力增长能达到每年1％的目标，从现在开始，持续到2030。这里说到的居民，包括新加坡公民和永久居民。外籍劳工，则在居民劳动力增长不到每年1%的情况下才增加人数。

We should focus on growing our Singapore core of workers over time through efforts to increase our TFR (total fertility rate) and LFPR (labour force participation rate).
在短期，我们依靠每年进入劳动队伍的新加坡居民及必需引进的外劳来扩大我们的劳动力。长期来看，我们应藉着提高总生育率和劳动人口参与率 ，建立一个以新加坡人为核心的劳
动队伍。

The government has recently announced additional incentives for having babies. However, there are structural problems that require longer term solutions, which also affect Singaporeans’ decisions to have babies. These include the lack of work-life balance, escalating housing prices, the stressful education system and even a crowded environment and others. Other governments have been more committed and have shown significant success in reversing declining fertility.
政府最近宣布了一连串鼓励生育的措施与条例，但是还有许多影响结婚生子意愿的结构性问题，需要长期的解决方案。这些问题包括了工作与家居生活的平衡，节节上升的房价，充满压力的教育制度，和日益拥挤的居住环境等等。我们看到一些其他的国家致力于扭转生育率下降，而且也取得一定的成效。

How will we grow our resident workforce if the number of new entrants is not increasing due to declining fertility trends? We need to look into ways to increase our labour force participation rate, so that more residents of working age are encouraged to enter the workforce. Our current labour force participation rate was 66.6% in 2012.
在生育率下降的趋势下，我们要如何增加我们的劳动队伍？我们要找到方法来提高我们的劳动人口参与率，鼓励更多在工作年龄的人民加入劳动队伍。根据2012年的数据，我国目前的劳动力参与率为66.6％。

There are 1,063,400 economically inactive residents, 306,100 or 29% due to family responsibilities, 163,800 or 15% are retired. The numbers for the latter will increase due to ageing workforce. Both represent scope for LFPR increase — getting stay-at-home parents to reenter/enter workforce and reemploying elderly workers.
在我们当中有100零6万的人没有从事所谓“经济活动”，其中的29% 是因为要照顾家庭，另外有15% 为退休人士，随着人口老化退休人口将逐年增加。鼓励这两个群体重入职场应该是提升劳动人口参与率的重点。

Historically, in the last 10 years from 2003 to 2012, LFPR increased by 3.4% points, or 0.34% points per year. We should focus on fostering LFPR increase in the future.
2003至2012的10年中，我们的劳动人口参与率上升了3.4％点，也就是每年0.34％的增长。我们应努力促进将来劳动人口参与率的上升。

Under the WP proposal, assuming the Government meets its current productivity growth target, we could enjoy 2.5 to 3.5% GDP growth per year up to 2020, and 1.5 to 2.5% GDP growth per year from 2021 to 2030, which is in line with the growth rates of most mature economies.
在工人党的建议中，假设政府能够达到目前所设的生产力增长目标，一直到2020年我们可以有每年2.5至3.5％国民生产总值的增长。2021到2030年也有每年1.5至2.5％的国民生产总值的增长。这其实是符合一般成熟经济体的增长率。

In this scenario, we are looking at a projected population of 5.3 to 5.4 million in 2020, and 5.6 to 5.8 million in 2030. Most importantly, we will not need to take in so many foreign workers and immigrants to supplement the local workforce, which will help us maintain a Singapore core.
在这种情况下，我们预计在2020年人口为530万至540万，2030年为560万至580万。这是低于政府的建议。更重要的是，我们不需要引进众多的外国劳工和移民，来补充劳动力，这将有助于保持我们的新加坡核心。

The Workers’ Party does not endorse proceeding headlong into the government’s suggested path.

Underlying its plan is that population injections of that magnitude are required for a dynamic economy. Instead, we believe we should focus on growth through a Singapore core. To quote a population expert, immigration is “essentially a one-way policy tool with permanent or long-term social, economic and environmental consequences, and it cannot be reversed without human rights violations” . The land use data prepared by the Urban Redevelopment Authority shows how little room we have to move if the White Paper is endorsed. Under the plan, we will use up significantly more land, with only 4% of land reserve left for future generations. By then, we would be even worse positioned to meet the challenges of a sustainable population policy, we will have less room for error in planning, with a population of 6.9 million on the island.

At this critical time, we urge calmness and caution.

工人党不认同政府所建议的路径。在那计划下，引进大量人口才可以带来充满活力的经济。相反的，我们认为，我们应着眼于增长新加坡核心来带动我们的经
济。引用人口专家的话：移民“本质上是一个单向政策工具，要逆转它往往要作出侵犯人权的行为”。市区重建局土地使用数据中，我们看到在白皮书的计划下，我们将只有4％的土地储备留给我们的下一代。 到那时，我们将在一个更艰难的处境面对如何继续发展新加坡的挑战。当我们有690万人口时，我们将会更没有任何犯错的空间。。。
我们常说“留得青山在…”
在这个关键时刻，我们呼吁谨慎，三思。

Unlocking Existing Value In Our Current Population

Madam, The Workers’ Party is not being facetious when we reversed the wording of the white paper title to A Dynamic Population for a Sustainable Singapore to describe our alternative approach.

For the White Paper, population growth has to be sustained to feed into a dynamic economy like so many pieces of coal into the furnace to drive the Orient Express. For the Workers’ Party, the people is the heart and soul of the nation, and it the duty of the government to provide the conditions for a dynamic people to thrive. A sustainable economy is a must, but it must be one that serves a dynamic Singaporean workforce, not the other way round.

Our model hinges on resident workforce growth over the long term through the encouragement of local labour force participation, the principal aim of which is to get more Singaporeans to be economically active and independent.  And also structural reforms to set the Total Fertility Rate on the path of recovery to replacement rate.
For the Workers’ Party, A dynamic Singaporean population is the very purpose and meaning of our existence as a nation and economy, an existence that should be sustainable.

We believe that any labour force growth should take place via a targeted 1% per annum growth in the resident labour force. Over the short term, our resident labour force grows only when young citizens or permanent residents enter the labour force. Over the longer term we should target to increase the existing Labour Force Participation Rate — currently at 66.7% — instead of immediately turning towards importing new workers to supplement any shortfall in the growth in the resident labour force.

We can target three groups of our existing population that are currently economically inactive and remove the barriers that may be keeping them from entering or even re-entering the labour force. These are: resident foreign spouses, stay-at-home parents and also the elderly.

At present, resident foreign spouses who are on Long-Term Visit Passes or Dependant’s Passes are not eligible to take up employment. If they want to do so, they must apply for work passes and be subject to the qualification criteria and are tied in to a specific job. Those on the new LTVP+ scheme do not need to apply for work passes but instead need to apply for a Letter of Consent. Relaxing some of these requirements may make it more likely for LTVP and LTVP+ holders to enter the labour force. And indeed an average of 19.5% of Work Pass applications by these foreign spouses on LTVP are unsuccessful. It could be even more difficult for these foreign spouses to meet MOM’s requirements if they are hoping to work part-time or on a flexible basis because they have other responsibilities at home.

As for stay-at-home parents, encouraging them to re-enter the workforce can be in the form of introducing better, more affordable and convenient childcare and support, perhaps in conjunction with incentives to employers, and as some have mentioned, also in terms of making flexible working arrangements (for example job-sharing arrangements, increased availability of part-time jobs or working from home) more available and even making them the norm for parents of young children. We see several OECD economies with both higher TFR and higher Female Labour Force Participation Rates than Singapore. Clearly more can be done, and the public sector should lead the way. While current government programmes such as work-life and flexible-work initiatives aim at providing incentives to get economically inactive Singaporeans into the workforce, more can be done in this area and structural changes may be needed in our family-friendly support structures in order to allow a greater proportion to beyond the 35 per cent of employers who were offering at least one form of work-life arrangement in 2010.

Independent Active Ageing

The last group that we should look at are the elderly.

The government has been trying to get more elderly people to remain in the workforce for a longer period and indeed the employment rate for older workers aged 55-64 has increased in recent years. But as we pointed out before in parliament, these numbers only tell us these workers are employed, but not whether there is under-employment.

Studies have shown that older Singaporeans are also healthier.

We believe that our elderly should be able to work for as long as they want to and are able to.

And there is scope for older workers to help grow the resident workforce. The male Labour Force Participation Rate for those aged 60-64 was 74.6%, and 52.6% for those aged 65-69% in 2012. For women, the figures are 41.7% and 26.3%.

Yet, age discrimination in hiring and in the workplace is a common concern of many Singaporeans. The Singapore Workforce reports mention ‘Employers’ discrimination (e.g. prefer younger workers)’ as major reasons why discouraged workers have given up their search for a job.

We should actively investigate if additional administrative or legislative measures could be taken to remove this impediment to our older workers entering or staying in the labour force.

In addition, government incentives for businesses to redesign jobs, processes and also workplaces specifically for older workers should play a larger role in the government’s measures to improve productivity. More targeted measures can be done to help older workers remain as productive as their younger counterparts. When older workers are able to be more productive, employers would be more inclined to retain or hire them.

We have all been shown the charts for growing old-age dependency ratio, which is the ratio of persons aged 20-64 years to persons aged 65 years and over. When we look at it, we should also bear in mind that with improvements in health and life expectancy, many of our elders are healthy and able to work longer, and indeed many want to. Not to mention that many have other economic resources of their own.  They are not all economically dependent.

Madam, An ageing population is a triumph of development.

We should stop seeing elderly Singaporeans as just a drain on our economy and as a hindrance to our goal to keep Singapore dynamic. Older Singaporeans have much to offer us, and not all of it can be measured in economic terms.

In fact, our elderly Singaporeans are essential to maintaining a Singapore core.  Older Singaporeans are custodians of culture and, as some have suggested, can be employed in schools to teach subjects such as social studies and national education, or encouraged to volunteer to do so. This is also a way of encouraging cross-generational sharing and learning, particularly in a society where family trends are shifting and there may be less opportunities for inter-generational sharing within the family.

Stopping the Waves of Emigration

The White Paper warns us:
“A shrinking and ageing population would also mean a smaller, less energetic workforce, and a less vibrant and innovative economy. [...] Young people would leave for more exciting and growing global cities.”

We need to ask ourselves the reasons why Singaporeans are leaving? Are they leaving because they feel Singapore does not offer them the right economic opportunities? That they would need to support their ageing parents or other elderly Singaporeans if they stayed?  Or are many of them leaving because they feel Singapore is becoming too crowded, costly and competitive, that they would like to live somewhere and bring their children up in a place with more space and greater well-being? How does increasing the population to up to 6.9 million by 2030 allay these concerns and make it less likely for Singaporeans to decide they have to leave the country of their birth in search of a better life for themselves and their children?

Madam, the assumptions and conclusions laid out in the White Paper need to be looked into again.  I oppose the motion.

by NCMP Gerald Giam
[Delivered in Parliament on 5 Feb 2013]

Madam Speaker,

Over the past decade, Singapore’s population has grown by over 1.2 million people to reach 5.3 million last year. While GDP growth figures were rosy for most of the past decade, income inequality has risen significantly. The wages of the bottom income earners were held down in part by the influx of foreign labour while higher income earners enjoyed huge gains in their income and wealth during this period.

The much-anticipated White Paper on Population projects population growth of another 1.6 million, largely through immigration and foreign workers, over the next 18 years to reach up to 6.9 million by 2030. The Paper positions population growth as necessary for economic growth. Singaporeans are then given a Hobson’s choice: Accept more new immigrants and foreign workers, or face a declining economy and lower quality of life.

This is a false dilemma. In my speech today, I will explain how I believe we can stabilise the population size, while improving our economic dynamism and ensuring a more sustainable Singapore for future generations to enjoy.

The White Paper sets a goal for Singapore to become a “leading city” that can attract talent and enterprise, and set the pace for other cities (White Paper 2013, 16). It is this goal that seems to be driving the GDP growth target of 3 to 5% per year. This GDP growth probably cannot be achieved by productivity growth alone, so a high rate of mostly foreign labour force growth is needed. This in turn will drive up our population size.

Does being a leading city or global city improve the quality of life of all Singaporeans? Global cities attract many young migrants from their hinterlands and around the world. Even though their fertility rates are low, their populations continue to increase through immigration. But it is expensive to live in a global city. Many cannot afford to live in such expensive places upon retirement, so they move to other parts of their country with lower costs of living.

Will our retirees have such options when they are too old to work, since Singapore does not have any hinterland to speak of?

The cost of population growth

The Government needs to better explain to Singaporeans not only the benefits of population growth, but also the attendant costs that citizens will have to bear. With a larger population, businesses benefit from a larger pool of customers. Their profits increase, and their owners, top managers and shareholders reap the dividends and bonuses.

On the other hand, the negative effects of population growth are mostly borne by ordinary citizens. They have to suffer through overcrowded MRT trains, buses and public spaces. They continue to pay high prices for housing. They have to compete for jobs with foreigners, and their wage expectations must be lowered in order to remain competitive. The higher transportation demand pushes up COE prices, which puts cars out of reach for many. Taxpayers also have to bear the cost of infrastructure development to accommodate a larger population.

Has the Government calculated overall cost per new immigrant compared to per capita benefits which accrue to citizens? The Government has spelled out the expected GDP growth, but has it done any projections for real income growth of workers come 2030?

Productivity as a driver of growth

For the last decade in Singapore, GDP growth has been driven mainly by labour inputs. The generous supply of foreign workers has lowered the bargaining power of local workers, forcing them to accept lower wages in order to be competitive. This has led to much of the benefits of our stellar GDP growth accruing to company profits instead of workers’ wages. Our workers’ wage share as a percentage of GDP is relatively small compared with most other developed countries. In 2011, just 42.3% of Singapore’s GDP went to workers’ wages (SingStat 2012, 9). In contrast, according to OECD data, the wage share is 47.5% in Australia, 49.2% in the European Union and 52.3% in Canada (OECD 2011). If companies here continue to rely heavily on foreign workers, there will be little incentive for employers to think hard about ways to boost productivity.

But if growth is driven mainly by productivity gains, it would lead to higher real wage increases for workers. In a tight labour market, companies will need to pay their local workers more to retain them, as well as to restructure themselves to become more productive. Therefore higher productivity growth is critical for our next phase of growth, and we should not let up in our pursuit of our productivity targets.

WP’s population proposal

Our population has grown from about 3 million in 1990 to 4 million in 2000 to 5 million in 2010. This is an increase of about 1 million per decade. The White Paper projects the population to continue growing by about the same quantum. It is projected to grow to almost 6 million by 2020 and almost 7 million by 2030. What will happen after 2030? Will we grow to 8 million in 2040 and 9 million in 2050?

I am concerned that the Government seems to be proposing a “population growth forever” model, whereby each successive generation requires a larger workforce to keep expanding the GDP. This is simply not sustainable.

Our population will eventually reach the limit of our island’s space. Eventually all the reserve land will be used up and we would have reclaimed land to its limit. When that happens, we will have to settle for zero population growth because of constraints in Singapore’s physical size.

If we head down the path spelled out in the White Paper, as we approach 2030 we will again be debating about how to maintain economic growth without growing our population. The main difference then is that we would be bursting at the seams with close to 7 million people crammed on this island. We will have much less room for error in planning. That would be a truly worrying situation.

It would be more responsible to restructure our economy now to grow with fewer labour inputs, than to leave it to future governments to deal with this problem.

We need to start planning for an economy that assumes a stabilised population, rather than to rely on perpetual increases in labour through immigration and foreign workers. We must invest more in developing the skills of our people, improving our technology and investing in more capital so as to be able to increase productivity and raise wages.

The Workers’ Party is proposing a more moderate pace of growth of our labour force, compared to what the Government has planned in its White Paper. We envision a workforce which grows mainly through local instead of foreign labour force growth.

Madam Speaker, with your permission, I would like to request the Clerk to distribute a table listing our projected GDP, labour force and population growth numbers. [Table: WP Labour Force, GDP and Population Growth Projections]

We will target to increase our local labour force growth by up to 1% per year from now until 2030. We should strive to keep our foreign labour force constant between now and 2020, depending on our success in growing the local labour force. It does not mean that we shut the doors to foreign workers. Instead, new work passes will be issued only to replace expiring work passes or to supplement shortfalls in the local labour force. Companies will have to find ways to hire more Singaporeans.

How will we grow our resident labour force if the number of new entrants is not increasing due to declining fertility trends? One way would be to increase our labour force participation rate, so that more residents of working age are encouraged to work. The Labour Force Survey 2012 found that there are 418,000 economically inactive residents of working age, of which 90,000 are willing to work. This is a valuable pool of labour that can be tapped.

With slower labour force growth, our economy will rely mainly on productivity improvements to grow. If the Government meets its 2 to 3% per year productivity growth target, we could enjoy 2.5 to 3.5% GDP growth per year up to 2020, which is far better than the 1.2% we achieved last year and the 1.8% average achieved by OECD countries in 2011.

Between 2020 and 2030, if we maintain labour force growth of 1% per year, and productivity grows by the Government’s 1 to 2% target during this period, this will generate 1.5 to 2.5% GDP growth per year, which is in line with the growth rates of most mature economies.

In this scenario, we are looking at a projected population of 5.3 to 5.4 million by 2020, and 5.6 to 5.8 million by 2030. This is significantly lower than the 6.5 to 6.9 million that the Government is projecting by 2030. More importantly, we will not need so many foreign workers and immigrants to supplement the local labour force, which will help us better preserve the Singaporean core.

What would be the trade-offs of having a slower inflow of foreign workers? The Singapore Business Federation has said that slower labour force growth in Singapore will have “devastating consequences for many companies” and that if businesses go under, jobs will be lost and Singaporeans will be affected (CNA 2013).

I empathise with the concerns of many businesses, especially SMEs, which will be impacted by further curbs in foreign labour. For many businesses it will mean lower profits, as they will need to pay higher wages to their Singaporean workers to attract and retain them. However, companies which are dependent on low wage foreign labour will face the greatest difficulties and will have to restructure.

Economic restructuring is painful but it is critically important for our nation’s future. The Government should commit to supporting companies and workers through the restructuring process, as well as retraining workers to provide them with the right skills to make a transition to another industry.

Conclusion

Madam Speaker, the Population White Paper proposes a population policy that continues to increase our reliance on foreign labour, leading to large increases in our population, which is unsustainable in the long run. I cannot accept this as the roadmap to address Singapore’s demographic challenge, and therefore I oppose this motion.

The Workers’ Party instead proposes a plan which places less emphasis on foreign workforce growth and focuses more on local workforce and productivity growth. This will increase the dynamism and real incomes of our local workers, while putting Singapore on a path towards more stable and sustainable population growth trajectory. Under the Workers’ Party’s plan, I am confident we will have a more dynamic population for a sustainable Singapore.

PART I

Mdm Speaker,

The Singapore pledge is an oath of allegiance to this nation. My eldest son and my second son together with many other students across the island recite the pledge every morning. They end off with the following creed, “to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation.” Members of this house will agree with me that this is neither youthful idealism nor an ideological aspiration. It is a promise made by all Singaporeans to their fellow Singaporeans, a promise to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for Singapore.

Our government has placed its nation building emphasis on our economy and the relentless pursuit of GDP growth. Singaporeans have been reminded time and again that a healthy GDP will bring about a better life for all. The negative consequences will be minimised and relieved with the onset of economic growth. It was on this note that between 2008 and 2011, our Government widened its door and allowed the large influx of foreigners and immigrants into this tiny nation state. The Government argued that we need a critical mass in our workforce to ensure the vibrancy of the economy. However, Singaporeans today face a widening income gap, a rising cost of living, increased social friction, unhappiness at the direction this country is taking, worried about their employment prospects.

Singapore ranks consistently near the top in any international benchmark on GDP per capita but sadly, many people do not seem to be happy. What went wrong?

This is my understanding of the White Paper. In order for Singapore to have critical mass for its continued economic growth, there is a need to attract more immigrants and enlarge the foreign workforce, especially in light of the current Total Fertility Rate of 1.2. This will ensure that Singapore continues to stay relevant in the midst of globalised pressures.

I am for a dynamic population for a sustainable Singapore, buttressed by a Singaporean core, a Singaporean Singapore. Here, I would like to express my grave concern on the approach that the Government is adopting and the direction that this Government is bringing the country.

As a parent of three, I can empathise with the fears, discomfort, anxieties and insecurities that many Singaporean parents share about the future that is in store for their children in a 6.9 million Singapore. The fears, anxieties and insecurities are not irrational. You can feel it, especially so when the rate of immigration is exceeding the capacity of the country’s infrastructure. Despite the many pleas by the Government to not worry, there is no doubt that parents are concerned about the future of their children as the Singaporean core gets increasingly diluted. What will happen to the Singapore that we have grown up to know and loved? In 2030, is Singapore still worth fighting for? These are concerns that the government must adequately address. Singaporeans must believe in Singapore again.

PART II 

The Economist observed in 2006 that the world’s lowest fertility rates are in super-crowded Hong Kong, Macau and Singapore.  That suggests the role density plays in affecting the fertility rate of a country. Given that Singapore will become increasingly denser by 2030, this is an issue that we must address.

A recent study in 2010 also indicated the negative correlation between density and fertility. Professor Francis T. Lui from the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology pointed out that “the small size of Hong Kong’s residential quarters is likely one of the factors causing the low fertility rate.” This is also consistent with the findings in a recent paper by Murphy, Simon, and Tamura (2008), which provides evidence indicating that population density, or price of space, is negatively correlated with fertility rate in the United States.

What is my point? In 2030, there will be a denser Singapore and as these reputable studies points out, a reduction in Singapore’s total fertility rate. The most worrying aspect of this is the increase in the non-Singaporean portion in the population, especially with immigration top-ups. The Singaporean core will be compromised. The fact is we will be further from a Singaporean Singapore in 2030 than what this government envisions in 2013. In the 18 years leading up to 2030, I think we will see this worrying trend developing before our very eyes. The government has thus far failed to address this relationship between density and fertility, which has wide ranging implications on the identity of Singapore and Singaporeans in 2030.

As things stand now with this White Paper, there is a fundamental disconnect between the aspirations of Singaporeans and their children with this 6.9 million figure.

PART III

It is stated in this White Paper that one of the three key pillars for a sustainable population is that of Singaporeans forming the core of our society. The best way or approach to maintain a Singaporean core that is strongly Singaporean is to improve the Total Fertility Rate (TFR). I believe that as long as there is the easy and enticing option for immigration top-up, there is the moral hazard of taking the path of least resistance that will end up with half-hearted promotion of TFR recovery. And sadly, I can say that this is already happening.

It is natural for two individuals who are in love to get married and procreate. It is the dream of every couple to start their own family and see their own children grow up under their nurturing care. Many surveys have indicated that most Singaporeans want to get married and have more than two children however circumstances pose as obstacles to them.

The current Marriage and Parenthood Package has its criticisms. Critics mentioned that this package is an expensive third-round of band-aid solutions that do not address the structural problems causing the low TFR in the first place. Among the structural problems are (i) the lack of work-life balance and (ii) the lack of financial security due to the escalating housing costs and the long housing wait for newlyweds.

My work experience as a marriage counselor has provided me with many insights and enable me to understand very well the worries, concerns and fears of young Singaporeans who intend to marry and start a family as well as the problem face by married couple. The most common issue raised is the factor of time.

Couples which I have came across in the course of my work shared with me that while they have anticipated the demands of work and marriage on their family life, this lack of time has often taken a toll on them and prevented them from carrying out their spousal roles and parental responsibilities. The emotions and psychological needs are affected and the quality of family life is consequently compromised.

I acknowledge that the Government has expressed its support for policies to improve work-life balance and increase flexi-work options. But I believe that the Government can do more and they must make a stronger commitment in this area.

The House may wonder, what is the price that Singapore may have to pay as a result of half-hearted social policies? In a study on emigration attitudes of young Singaporeans in 2010 conducted by the Institute of Policy Studies, it pointed out that,

“In the endeavour to retain Singaporeans, it is important for policymakers to complement the current emphasis on national obligations with policies that would encourage stronger family and friendship ties, which emerged as critical factors of rootedness. It is also necessary for policymakers to address the work-life balance in Singapore, which came up as a key area of dissatisfaction in the study.”

Our next generation cannot afford for this generation of leaders to get this issue wrong. A Singaporean Singapore is at stake here and the stakes are high.

The Government should commit to reducing the number of working hours to 40 hours a week. I have called for this in one of my previous speeches in this House. This can be done by improving productivity by adopting technological innovations and changing our work practices.

I am of the view that, if the Government is serious about improving the work-life balance of Singaporeans, then it must lead the way through action and legislation.

The Government should increase the support and create stronger incentives for employers to implement better work-life balance practices and flexi-work arrangements. The civil service should set the example for the private sector to follow.

Apart from a healthy work-life balance, ownership of a house is also high on the priority list for couples, especially newly weds. A house provides a comfortable and conducive environment for the development of a family nucleus. Social scientists have long traced a connection between housing and fertility. When a home is scarce or beyond the means of young couples, couples delay marriage or have fewer children.

Newly wed couples also find it challenging to own a house due to high costs. On this matter, I would like to propose the government to grant a housing grant of $10,000 for the birth of the first child, $15,000 for the birth of the second child and $20,000 for the birth of the 3rd child. The availability of these grants may help to lessen the financial burden in their consideration to start a family. According to Seth Sanders, director of the Maryland Population Research Centre at the University of Maryland in a New York Times article published in 2008,  “If you lower the cost of housing, you’re going to lower the cost of raising a child.”

In conclusion, population is a complex issue and there are no easy answers to such a multi-faceted issue. The White Paper attempts to strike a judicious balance to achieve a sustainable population and a dynamic Singapore. No efforts should be spared to improve Singapore’s total fertility rate and the infrastructure to cope with the projected increase in our population. However, this must be done with the well being of Singaporeans at its core.  The government must know that this is an irreversible process and generations after may suffer the missteps this government is taking in 2013.

Dalam laporan Berita Harian tarikh 30 Januari 2013,  Menteri Bertanggungjawab bagi Hal Ehwal Masyarakat Islam, Dr Yacob Ibrahim, telah memberi jaminan bahawa Perdana Menteri telah berjanji akan mengekalkan kesimbangan nisbah kaum selepas pihak pemerintah mengeluarkan Saranan Kertas Putih mengenai Kependudukan. Dr Yacob seterusnya mengatakan bahawa Perdana Menteri telah bercakap mengenainya sebanyak dua kali.

Saya ingin menanyakan kepada pemerintah dua soalan tentang perkara ini. Yang pertama, apakah langkah-langakah atau cara-cara yang akan diambil oleh pemerintah dalam mengimbangi nisbah kaum ini agar misbah kaum Melayu tidak terjejas atau berkurangan. Ini memandangkan situasi dimana, (i) kadar Kelahiran (Total Fertility Rate) masyarakat Melayu terus berkurangan tahun demi tahun dan (ii) Perdana Menteri pernah mengatakan di satu sesi ‘Perbincangan Singapura Kita’ pada Disember lalu bahawa Pemerintah telah berusaha bersungguh-sungguh dan bekerja keras untuk menarik bakat Melayu dari Malaysia dan Indonesia namun bilangannya amat kecil setiap tahun.

Soalan kedua, berapakah jumlah atau kadar pendatang Melayu yang dirancangkan atau dianggarkan oleh pemerintah untuk mengekalkan keseimbangan kaum ini.

Satu lagi perkara yang menyumbang kepada kemerosotan peratusan kaum Melayu adalah penghijrahan. Dalam menjawab Soalan Parlimen yang saya ketengahkan tentang berapakah jumlah Rakyat Singapura yang telah melucutkan status kerakyatan mereka dari tahun 2001 hingga ke  2011 serta pecahannya dari segi kaum. Timbalan Perdana Menteri Encik Teo, mengatakan sejumlah 10,900 Rakyat Singapura telah melucutkan kerakyatan mereka. Dimana dalam purata 1000 dalam setahun. Pecahan dari segi kaum adalah seperti berikut, separuh, iaitu 500, dari kaum Cina dan lainnya, sebanyak 500, adalah campuran dari kaum Melayu, India dan kaum-kaum lain. Puan, Walaupun jawaban yang diberi tidak menunjukan bilangan kaum Melayu secara tepat, namun dari pengamatan saya jumlahnya agak banyak.

Semasa saya menuntut di Melbourne Australia selama tiga tahun, saya dapati ramai keluarga-keluarga Melayu yang berhijrah kesana. Setelah bertanyakan kepada keluarga-keluarga ini saya dapati antara sebab-sebab mereka membuat keputusan untuk berhijrah adalah mereka merasakan tidak diberi peluang yang saksama semasa ditanah air Singapura.

Merujuk kepada muka surat hadapan Berita Minggu, semalam, di bawah tajuk ‘Aspirasi bina masa depan lebih baik’. Artikel ini melaporkan Pengerusi ‘Suara Musyawarah’, Encik Sallim Abdul Kadir, mengatakan bahawa rumusan daripada para peserta forum yang baru-baru ini diadakan adalah tentang isu ‘Peluang Saksama’ dan bukan mengenai isu diskriminasi. Selanjutnya beliau mengatakan bahawa ‘Ini adalah satu isu yang baru kita perhatikan yang menjadi topik perbincangan dalam sesi dialog Suara Musyawarah’.

Mungkin isu saksama adalah sesuatu yang baru bagi sesi dialog Suara Musyawarah. Namun menerusi interaksi, pengalaman dan pengamatan saya, isu saksama adalah suatu isu yang telah wujud sekian lama di kalangan masyarakat Melayu Singapura.

Pada Mac 2012, dalam ucapan AP Encik Zaqy Mohamed pada debat COS, beliau telah menyuarakan tentang perbincangan diantara beberapa individu-individu Melayu yang menyoalkan tentang dasar pemerintah mengenai peranan atau kedudukan masyarakat Melayu di dalam Angkatan Bersenjata Singapura (SAF) dan beliau telah meminta agar Kementerian dapat memberi penjelasan tentang perkara ini.

Rakan saya pula Puan Sylvia Lim pernah menanyakan di dalam dewan ini tentang sama ada wujudnya dasar pemerintah yang memberi ‘exemption’ atau perlepasan dari perkhidmatan negara (NS) bagi  graduan-graduan Madrasah. Sementara itu, saya sendiri pernah bertanya tentang sama ada wujudnya kuota kaum dalam pengambilan pelajar-pelajar di university awam di Singapura.

Soalan-soalan ini diajukan kerana ini adalah maklum balas-maklum balas yang saya dan rakan-rakan AP terima dari masyarakat Melayu. Dari maklum balas-maklum balas sedemikian, kita harus akui isu Saksama masih bermain-main di minda masyarakat Melayu.

Kertas Putih Pemerintah bertajuk “A Sustainable Population For A Dynamic Singapore” menerangkan, demi untuk pembangunan Singapura yang dinamik kita harus mempunyai jumlah penduduk yang Mampan atau substantial.

Kami, Parti Pekerja, berpendapat sebaliknya. Kami percaya untuk mencapai Singapura yang mampan, ia memerlukan pembinaan populasi atau masyrakat yang dinamik,

Ahirkata, Saya berpandangan bahawa untuk membina sebuah masyarakat yang dinamik dan Singapura yang mampan , sifat Inklusif, yang selalu diwarwarkan oleh Pemerintah, harus diaplikasikan dengan betul dan ikhlas, dalam erti kata setiap lapisan masyarakat tidak kira bangsa, bahasa dan agama diberikan hak yang Saksama dalam segala aspek kehidupan di tanahair kita ini. Puan, akhiri ucapan ini dengnan mengatakan saya menyangkal usulan ini.

Terima Kasih.

Since 1990, Singaporeans have been subject to drastic population increases in a short time. From a population of 3 million in 1990, we had 4 million in the year 2000, and in 2010, 5 million. The share of Singapore citizens now stands at 62%, meaning that out of every 10 people, nearly 4 are foreigners. Indigenous Singaporeans feel under siege, wondering what happened to the Singapore they grew up in and whether they have a place at the table.

The Workers’ Party does not endorse the White Paper on Population as the population policy roadmap to address Singapore’s demographic challenge. The roadmap proposed in the White Paper will further dilute our national identity; it will also place us on a course towards needing even larger population injections in the future, which we do not believe is sustainable. While we accept that trade-offs have to be made, we believe such trade-offs should be made in favour of the well-being of Singaporeans and not GDP targets. Let me elaborate.

What is a Singaporean “Core”?

A key plank of the White Paper is its claim that it is proposing to keep a Singaporean “core” in the roadmap. It is proposing that Singapore citizens form 55% of the population as at 2030, which is significantly down from the 62% currently. 55% is too close to the all important threshold of 50% majority. Furthermore, a closer reading will also show that this 55% includes new citizens. Singapore citizens are projected to make up 3.7 million at 2030. If we were to look at the number of new citizenships given out since 2004, and add the new citizenships to be given out from now till 2030, what % of the population would be Singaporeans who have grown up here? Wouldn’t this figure be below 50%? Is this what the government means by retaining a Singaporean “core”?

The White Paper states that “Singaporeans form the core of our society and the heart of the nation”, with the word “heart” printed in bold italics. It further states that “To be a strong and cohesive society, we must have a strong Singaporean core.” Madam Speaker, instant citizens can be Singaporean in name and have all citizenship rights, but for the Singapore core to be strong, the core must be strongly Singaporean in values, worldview, culture, sense of place and history, and network of friends and family. This can only be cultivated over time, in institutional settings such as schooling, national service and community service. A strong Singaporean core should be made up of Singaporeans who grow up in and with Singapore.

Therefore, the policy of “topping up” shortfalls in our total fertility rate (TFR) with younger immigrants to make up the Singaporean “core” is flawed. The fact is that we are already facing integration issues with the new citizens we have, with a government department looking into the matter. Madam, you yourself as a backbencher had raised concerns about how new citizenships were given out and whether tests should be instituted to ensure that the new citizens understood our way of life. Speaking personally, I count some new citizens as my friends; while they make good contributions to Singapore’s economy, I know they see Singapore through a different lens, and can equally make a decision to leave if the circumstances change.

Accordingly, we do not agree with the government’s definition of what constitutes a Singaporean “core”. Under the roadmap proposed, Singaporeans who grew up here would fall below 50%, which would change the character of Singapore forever.

Focus instead on TFR recovery

How then, should we ensure a Singaporean core in our population? In our view, the best way is to improve Singaporean total fertility rate (TFR). The government has invested somewhat in marriage and procreation incentives. However, so long as immigration remains the government’s key plank for population growth, the measures to improve TFR will remain half-hearted, since one can always resort to immigration top-ups.

Why is Singapore a global champion in low fertility rate? There are structural problems which have not been addressed. These include lack of work-life balance, escalating housing prices, the stressful education system and others. The government seems resigned that TFR is not within their power to raise, saying it “hopes” to reverse the trend. However, other governments have been more committed and have shown significant success in reversing declining fertility.

For instance, South Korea too was facing a low fertility rate. However, it has been successful in reversing the declining trend and its TFR recovered by 0.15 in 5 years, from 1.08 in 2005 to 1.23 in 2010. Instead of just “hoping”, the Korean government recognized that procreation was being discouraged not by individual choice but due to structural institutional factors. The Korean government then set explicit hard targets to remove institutional obstacles to boosting TFR. These targets centred on providing institutional support for family life and promoting gender equity within the family. The government tracked hard statistics such as reducing parents’ share of childrearing costs, increasing GDP share of family-related spending, promoting arrangements for mothers to continue working, and even encouraging fathers to share housework. The commitment and approach of the Korean government is worth study.

My colleagues will speak more about the TFR issue later in the debate.

Promoting Singaporean-Friendly Immigration

We are not against immigrants becoming Singaporeans per se. One way to do this in a natural, organic manner is to prioritise citizenships to those who marry Singaporeans. As noted in the White Paper, 40% of marriages today are between a Singaporean and a foreigner. These non-Singaporean spouses are much more likely to integrate and be committed to Singapore. They will interact with Singaporeans, and be parents of Singaporean children.

Currently, many Singaporeans apply repeatedly, year after year, for their foreign spouses to be given citizenship status. Many are on Long Term Visit Pass which makes employment very difficult. Has the government studied how far this pool of foreign spouses in Singapore is an untapped economic resource? Could this be a good alternative to bringing in more foreign labour?

Do we really need a population of up to 6.9 million?

Since the release of the White Paper last Tuesday, the public has been fixated on largely one issue – the prospect of Singapore having a population of 6.9 million. The government has justified the population growth projection largely due to its GDP targets. It is gunning for GDP growth of 3-4% from now to 2020, and 2-3% growth from 2020 to 2030. The government also justifies these targets by citing the aging population and the declining old-age support ratio.

The Workers’ Party does not endorse proceeding headlong into the government’s suggested path.

Underlying its plan is that population injections of that magnitude are required for a dynamic economy. The proposal has severe ramifications. First, the economy is but one aspect of the nation’s quality of life. To quote population expert, Frederick Meyerson, immigration is “essentially a one-way policy tool with permanent or long-term social, economic and environmental consequences, and it cannot be reversed without human rights violations” (Meyerson, F. (2001). Replacement Migration: A Questionable Tactic for Delaying the Inevitable Effects of Fertility Transition. Population and Environment, 22:4. 401-409.). Second, immigrants grow old and consume public services as well, adding to the burden of the national budget. Who will support them when they grow old? By that time, it may be very difficult to try to solve our population needs through improving TFR, but instead have another White Paper to justify bringing in even larger numbers of immigrants.

What about land resources? The implications of planning for 6.9 million on our land use is instructive, and worrying. If we follow the White Paper proposal, the land use data prepared by the Urban Redevelopment Authority shows how little room we would have left to move. Under the plan for a population of 6.9 million, we will use up significantly more land. From 2010 to 2030, we will consume much more of our land bank, leaving the balance land under the “Others” category down from 14% to just 4% for future generations to cope with.

In short, are we simply kicking a big can down the road for our grandchildren?

At this critical time, we urge calmness and caution. It is still not too late now to continue the discussion with Singaporeans on this fundamental issue, instead of pushing this White Paper through.

Madam, on our part, the Workers’ Party would like to suggest an alternative approach to address the demographic challenge. Instead of the trade-off proposed by the government to achieve its GDP growth targets, we propose a trade-off of having a more moderate GDP growth, lower by 0.5% to 1% below what the government is proposing. This approach will reduce the population injections required to churn the economy. Let me sketch this out and let my colleagues expand further in the coming days.

We believe that Singapore should instead work towards a more modest GDP growth of 2.5 to 3.5% per year up to 2020, and from 2020 to 2030, 1.5 to 2.5% per year. We believe this rate can be achieved with productivity improvements at the same rate as that proposed in the White Paper, but with less population injections, if we can utilise more of our existing population. We could target to grow our resident workforce by 1% per year, by getting more foreign spouses, home-makers and seniors back to work. Second, our senior citizens may not be as much of a burden as the government makes out. Using the old-age support ratio to justify the need for higher GDP growth ignores the fact that, increasingly over time, many of our seniors would have their own economic resources to live on, reducing their need to be supported. Many seniors are also retiring later. Indeed, there is potential to tap our seniors further as a resource, rather than view them as a burden. Third, the more modest growth rate would consume less resources and be in line with sustainable development, preserving our precious land reserves for future generations.

This more modest GDP growth rate from now to 2030 would require a lower population to sustain it. We have done some estimates and believe that this is achievable with a population at 2030 of 5.9 million or less. My colleagues will elaborate on these projections later in the debate.

Our proposed trade-off is having 1 million less people than the government’s projections, in exchange for a reduction of GDP growth of 0.5% to 1%. This trade-off will mean less overcrowding, better integration of newcomers, a stronger Singapore identity, and less stressful labour market competition. This, in turn, is likely to have knock-on effects on TFR recovery. It will also not be at the expense of market competitiveness, as our economy continues to restructure to push the proportion of Singaporeans in PMET jobs from half to two-thirds.

Conclusion

What the government is proposing in this White Paper is to aim for its GDP targets and grow the population to achieve it. The Workers’ Party believes that the well-being of Singaporeans, our quality of life and our very identity will be put at peril under the government’s proposal. Is it worth it?

The government’s White Paper is entitled: “A Sustainable Population for a Dynamic Singapore”. While sustainability and dynamism are indeed important, we believe the government has gotten these priorities the wrong way round. Instead of having a sustainable population for a dynamic Singapore, we should have “A Dynamic Population for a Sustainable Singapore”.

For these reasons, the Workers’ Party does not endorse the White Paper on Population and will oppose the Motion.

During my walkabouts, I have been asked by residents, young and old alike what I will do if I am elected. I have no million and multi-million projects to announce today, neither am I going to make you empty and false promises. If I am elected, the immediate and most important thing is to take over the town council and ensure a smooth operation, to serve Punggol East residents and take good care of the constituency; a most privileged role, if entrusted to me by the residents of Punggol East.

Today, I would like to speak to you about 3 issues.

Singapore has 5.31 million residents. Approximately 1.49 million of these are foreigners; 530,000 are PRs; and the remaining 3.29 million are Singaporean citizens.

Recently, the Prime Minister said that Singapore can accommodate 6 million people.

The Workers’ Party is not anti-immigrant. We welcome foreigners who can contribute to Singapore and enhance our quality of life. We are grateful to those who do the jobs that Singaporeans do not want to do. Their rights should be protected and we should ensure they enjoy decent and safe working and living conditions.

However, the speed of immigration in the last 10 years has taken many of us by surprise. In 2000, we had a total population of 4 million. In 2005, the population was 4.2 million. From 2005 to 2013, the population jumped from 4.2 million to 5.3 million.  Over 1 million people in just 8 years! And while the PAP government has opened the floodgate, they were ill-prepared for the influx and we, the people, have to pay a heavy price for this.

Our trains are overcrowded to the point of danger. In order to cope with the huge crowds, the frequency of train services had to be increased. This increased frequency led to strain on the train infrastructure. This strain increased wear and tear, and led to many train breakdowns.

The pace of the influx of foreigners must not exceed the development of infrastructure, like public transport networks, hospitals and schools. Unfortunately, for the past 10 years, infrastructure development has lagged behind population growth, which is the cause of so much unhappiness among Singaporeans. We also have to keep in mind Singaporeans’ sense of well-being and identity, as we allow in so many foreigners.

However, we do not believe that immigration is a long term solution to our population problems.

The next 2 issues have been brought up several times by Singaporeans but nothing gets done! I have also mentioned this in my rally speeches in GE2011.

1^st group, stay at home parents,

Work fare bonus is only meant for people with an income.  As an inclusive society, have we forgotten ‘stay at home parents’ who do not earn an income?

These stay at home parents or home makers have chosen to stay at home to take care of the house and family so that other members of the family can go out to work or attend school, and have piping hot meals served to them when they come home.  They are the CEO of the HOUSE but they are given none or very little recognition for their valuable contribution to home and society.

They have chosen a profession that is no less important than any salaried job, and have often put their careers on hold to nurture the next generation.  They should not be forgotten!

The Workers’ Party proposes that stay at home parents should receive the same infant care and childcare subsidies as other working parents!

Our inclusive society has also forgotten the 2^nd group, single parents, who are Singapore citizens and whose daughter and son will bear and nurture future generations as well as serve National Service.

Did you know that single parents can only purchase HDB BTO Flats only when they are 35 and above?

Regardless of marital status, all parents love and want to provide their children with the best they possibly can.  Some single parents need caregivers too, but they are excluded from working mothers’ child relief, grandparent caregiver relief and foreign maid-levy relief.

Babies from single parents are also not eligible for Baby Bonus.

While having children outside of marriage should continue to be discouraged in our society, children born to single parents should not be denied the benefits that children of married parents receive.  The children are innocent parties and should not start life being disadvantaged.  Single parents should receive the same parenthood benefits packages as married parents.

Allow me to quote our pledge, ‘happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation’.  How can there be actual progress when stay at home parents and single parents are being left behind! We, the citizens of Singapore should move together as one people under one Flag!

Currently, the Parliament is made up of 80 PAP MPs vs 6 elected Opposition MPs.  There is a great imbalance in Parliament right now.  That is why there is an urgent need to vote more Workers’ Party candidates into Parliament.

On 26^th Jan 2013, your ballot paper is not just a piece of paper with a cross on it. It is a piece of paper that will send a signal to the ruling party that all is not well.  We need more constructive changes!

Voters of Punggol East, Vote Workers’ Party! Vote for Lee Li Lian!

Undilah Parti Pekerja! Undilah Lee Li Lian!

晚上好！我们又见面了！

很快地，我们来到最后一场群众大会。我要感谢榜鹅东居民，来自新加坡各地的朋友，也要感谢很多工作人员，尤其是义工，以及媒体记者朋友们，这一个多星期来，知道大家都辛苦了。谢谢你们。

我今晚要跟大家谈的。首先是大家非常关注的外来人口。

新加坡的总人口现在是531万人，外国居民有149万，永久居民53万人，剩下的329万人，才是新加坡公民。也就是说，差不多每四个新加坡人当中，就有一个是外国人。

总理最近刚说过，新加坡人口还可以继续增加，到600万人。

大家不要误会，工人党从来不排外，也不反对引进，能帮助建设新加坡，帮助提高我们的生活素质的，外来人口。新加坡人不喜欢做的一些工作，客工进来填补空缺，我们应该维护客工应有的权益，让他们能在安全有尊严的情况下，在我们这里工作和生活。我相信大多数新加坡人也和工人党一样，都有这样的包容心，去容纳外来人口。

但是大家还记不记得，我们十年前的人口有多少？2000年，总人口400万；2005年，增加一点点，420万。但是从2005年到2013年，人口突然三级跳，从420万增加到530万！短短八年，人口增加了100万！

谁也没想到的是，我们的行动党政府眼光竟是如此短浅，一边打开大门，大量引进外来人才，却完全没有同时对外来人口涌进来后所带来的种种社会负担做好准备。搞到现在阵脚大乱，然后，一切的后果和代价，要我们人民来承担！

结果怎样呢？地铁上人挤人，为了让地铁不那么拥挤，只好增加地铁班次。但是班次增加了，就表示地铁用得多了；东西用得多当然也就容易坏，所以地铁就常常发生故障！使到上班族叫苦连天，学生也迟到。

重点是，过去十年，我们国家的基础设施的发展，例如公共交通、医院、学校等等，完全跟不上外来人口大量进来后，所带来的额外需求。外来人口越来越多，也让新加坡人的身份认同变得模糊。这些，才真正是人民不满的原因！ 2011年大选之后，工人党夺下了阿裕尼集选区，行动党政府才好像被掴了一巴掌，才愿意醒过来！

另一个我想要谈的是，放弃工作，全职在家照顾孩子的家长。

现在，只有那些有工作，有收入的人，才有资格领取“Workfare Bonus”，就业奖励花红。 那么，那些为了照顾家庭，照顾子女，而放弃工作的人，他们怎么办呢？他们放弃工作，待在家里，把一家大小照顾妥当，把子女好好抚养成人。这些全职父母的贡献，难道就不重要吗？难道我们就可以把他们排除在外吗？

所以，我 建议没有工作，待在家里帮忙照料孩子的家长，能够和有工作的家长一样享受育儿津贴。

国会目前有80位行动党议员和6位当选的在野党议员。

大家觉得这是一个成熟的民主社会应该有的国会吗？

6 位在野党议员就够了吗？

一党独大的局面，是我们想要的吗？

今天是榜鹅东补选的最后一场群众大会。请榜鹅东选民，给我一个机会，给工人党一个机会，为您服务。我会尽心尽力维护您的权利，也会管理好市镇会。

一月二十六日， 投工人党一票，投李丽连一票,迈向第一世界国会!

After the rally last night, DPM Teo Chee Hean posted on his facebook and I quote “WP has avoided taking a stand on major issues, for example, population or foreign workers where tough trade-offs are needed. Have they offered credible alternatives on the best way forward?”, unquote.

Best way forward ah? Vote Workers’ Party lah!

In fact, I did state my stand on foreign workers. I said in Parliament “I agree we should not be over-reliant on foreign workers; we should not allow foreign workers to take away Singaporeans’ rice bowls. This is not protectionism, but a responsibility of the government to the people.”

This is recorded on Parliamentary report Volume No: 88.

In March last year, I also raised the issue about the need and rate of tightening of foreign workers dependency ratio in Parliament during budget debate. I suggested that there is a need to micro-plan, to engage specific industries to determine which industries require more or less foreign workers. Deputy Prime Minister Tharman’s stand is that the government …..

will find it very hard to determine who needs more and who needs less, therefore the planning should be based on Macro level of economic sector instead of specific industry.

Here, I have made a suggestion on policy, I believe it is in the interest of Singaporeans and our economy that the government should calibrate the dependency ratio of foreign workers by specific industry in order to be  more effective in managing the inflow of foreign workers without hurting the business and our economy too much.

I am also worried that too abrupt tightening of the foreign workers will result in high manpower cost and inflation; but my suggestion is not taken up. The govt does not think it is the best way forward.

Therefore, DPM Teo and the PAP should stop misleading the voters about WP’s stand on major issues. It is without question that the WP has so far been trying as hard as possible to think of ways to fix the mistakes made by the PAP!

The  Workers’ Party has also made clear our stand on immigation in our manifesto. It is stated that “WP is not an anti-immigration party. We welcome immigrants who contribute to the economic vibrancy, diversity and future population growth of our nation.” We also said that “the most important objective for our immigration policies should be to improve the well-being of individual Singaporeans and their families.”

Is this not clear enough? The WP manifesto is our stand on many issues. I invite the PAP and everyone to take a look.

I advise the Deputy Prime Minister not to waste too much time finding fault with the Workers’ Party. There are pressing tasks ahead for the government to look into.

I would like to tell the Government this. Singaporeans are made to run and strive for better results, but are we even allowed to take a rest for a short breath? Can you truly be confident that you are allowed to find some time off from work to pursue a quality family life without being branded as a lazy Singaporean at work? Would you be allowed to ask for a reasonable pay rise without being branded as an expensive labour? Would you be allowed to start a family without being seen as a waste of resource at work?

5 to 10 years down the road, with the increasing competition coupled with rising cost of living, rising housing cost and rising healthcare cost, maybe Khaw Boon Wan’s suggestion to send your parents to JB nursing home may one day come true!

WP’s stand on policy making and alternative solutions are clear, every policy made must be made with the objective of improving the lives of the Nation as a whole, and not only for a small group. If the result is such, then the policy has failed. Society must be inclusive, or this small nation of ours will quickly lose its identity and soul.

We cannot afford to put our lives in the hands of a sleepy driver, do not put another sleepy driver into parliament.

Finally, I would like to borrow Png Eng Huat’s words, may this by-election provide the Punggol slap which the PAP will never forget.

Vote Lee Lian, Vote Workers’ Party!

各位榜鹅东的选民，各位支持者，大家晚上好。

我经常在国会中批评行动党政府是个经济挂帅的政府。因为政府把一些公共服务都转成私营化，以企业的方式来管理，以赚钱为目的。

昨晚李丽连在群众大会上提到公共交通费的问题。大多数的新加坡人都依赖公共交通，是生活中不可或缺的，但政府却把公共交通商业化，让以赚钱为第一目标的私人企业来经营。私人企业讲求的是投资回报率，比如投资1千万元，要求每年要有10％的回报率，那每年就得赚回1百万元。这1百万元就得从公司的商业运作，包括你每天所支付的车资中赚来。以此类推，所赚的可以是天文数字，而你所要支付的，也就会慢慢地变成日常开销的大数目。每个月拿回的薪水也会在不知不觉中缩水。许多人不明白，为什么公共交通企业每年都赚这么多钱，车资还要涨，因为他们赚得不够。你知道这些公共交通企业背后的大老板是谁吗？ （政府 － 淡马锡控股）

还有，许多人都投诉水电费很贵。 政府的税收是一个因素。比如说水费，除了支付你所用的水量的费用，还有什么水务费和每一个厕所的收费，然后再加上消费税。如果水用多了，还得另外再支付附加税。我在国会提过这个问题，政府的回答是政府花了很多钱发展我国整个水务系统，所收取得水费不足以弥补开销。这样的算法人民就有难了，政府向人民征税，用人民的钱来发展水务系统，然后把它当成是投资来和人民算账。合理吗？

不合理你也办法，因为它是政府，你只有在选举的时候有机会和政府算帐。

电费方面呢？我们的发电厂也卖了，所卖的钱进入了政府的口袋。整个能源供应系统现在也私营化了。当然，商业的用电商业化，只要市场运作合理，我没有异议，但家庭用电也开始受电供商业化的影响，我很担心以后的电费收费率会是多少。你们知道能源公司的大老板是谁吗？ （就是PAP政府）

还有，政府卖地赚大钱。不过，所赚的钱不算在每年政府的例常收入里面。我在2010年曾经在国会要求政府在适当的地点拨出地皮兴建巴刹和小贩中心，由政府管理，不要让私人企业投标兴建和拥有巴刹和小贩中心。私人企业以赚钱为目的，肯定要从巴刹和小贩中心的摊位租金里赚一把，租金高昂，你认为东西可能卖便宜吗？

我国人民目前面对高生活成本，政府的思维是个关键。只要是政府少赚的，就等于是津贴，PAP的精英们甚至发明了“市场津贴”。比如说，现在新建的政府组屋，政府认为在市场上可以卖50万，政府定价30万卖给你，它就算是津贴了你20万。还有，政府少赚钱，也算是津贴。比如最近政府把好些工业用途的厂房卖给私人企业经营，这间公司是丰树（Mapletree），接着这间公司就根据市场可支撑的租金价格提高租金，许多受影响的小商家都叫苦连天。你们知道谁是老板吗？（Mapletree 是100％ 由政府公司淡马锡控股所拥有。）

各位，本来政府有效管理国家的资产，并使国家的资产可以增值是正确的作法，但当一个政府把人民日常生活所需的基本公共服务和会影响人民生活费的服务和设施都商业化，以营利为目标，那就会造成人民的生活负担越来越重。经济情况好，各种收费要涨价，因为工人的薪金提高，人力成本增加。经济不好，公司的盈利减少， 也要涨价，因为生意不佳造成运作成本提高。结果是受薪阶级的收入总是永远追不上各种不断提高的收费。

我这些话不是现在才讲的，在国会里也苦口婆心说了许多年，但政府当成耳边风。2011年大选，阿裕尼的选民敲醒了行动党，我希望行动党好好检讨如何降低人民生活的压力。

年纪比较大的，关心政治的国人就会知道，现在的PAP和以前的PAP 不一样了。他们告诉我，PAP 政府现在什么都讲钱，斤斤计较，平时与民争利，大选时就以各种利益引诱选民，使新加坡成为一个高度自私与功利主义的社会。PAP政府只有在大选的时候才跟你讲人情。

我刚刚踏入政坛的时候，总理还是李光耀先生。我中选的时候是吴作栋当总理，现在是李显龙总理。我也多多少少也看到了行动党的变化。现在的行动党和以前李光耀时代的行动党已经有很大的不同。

“榜鹅东会需要补选”因为行动党议员出问题而需要补选，这是有史以来第一次。行动党所选出来的国会议长因为出这样的问题而必须重新再选议长也是新加坡独立以来前所未有的。还有，在上一届大选的时候，行动党其中的一名候选人突然在提名日退选也是有史以来的第一次。这些种种迹象都显示行动党已经不再像是过去的行动党。

我认为，新加坡人以前对行动党的绝对信任，那种“你办事，我放心”的心态是危险的。在未来的日子里，当李显龙不再是总理的时代到来，行动党是不是还有这样的政治意志力为新加坡人的长远利益着想，到时新一代的部长和议员的可靠性和服务人民的诚意，是不是还能够继续保有一定的水准，没有人会知道。新加坡人民信赖PAP，它做政府也做了这么久，他已经忘了谁才是国家的主人。

所以我要奉劝国人的是，为了你的将来和你的下一代，你的孩子的将来，我们必须建立一个有效的监督机制，而且现在就要开始努力，未雨绸缪，让工人党可以逐渐站稳阵脚，以便在必要的时候可以发挥作用。不要等到行动党腐败时，才像其他国家的人民那样来暴动和示威，新加坡承受不起这样的动乱。

如果我们不在阿裕尼集选区中选，也不会知道行动党所管理的市镇会到底如何运作 。新加坡人也不会知道有AIM这间公司，也不知道原来行动党也组织公司做生意 。因此，有反对党中选进入国会，管理市镇理事会，参与政府的事务，对人民是一种保障 。

工人党需要新血，使它可以继续为人民提供一个政治保护网，使人民在选举时有可靠的选择。 李丽莲是工人党的新生代，她是党中央执委成员，也是工人党的领导之一，她如果中选，将会进一步加强工人党的领导能力。

最近，行动党自己爆料，承认榜鹅东的选情告急。请在场的各位帮忙说服你住在榜鹅东的亲朋戚友，投工人党一票，每一票都是关键性的一票。

1月26日，为工人党再增添一位女议员，请投工人党一票。

Vote for a More Equal Society

At last night’s rally, I spoke about the controversial sale of computing systems belonging to PAP Town Councils to AIM just before the General Election in 2011.  Late last night, the PAP HQ issued a short statement on the matter, on behalf of Dr Teo Ho Pin, the co-ordinating Chairman of the PAP Town Councils.  Dr Teo must have been on standby.  Though there is nothing new in the statement, I think it is necessary to debunk once and for all the question of who terminated the software agreement with our Town Council.

Dr Teo now says it was we, the Aljunied-Hougang Town Council, who terminated the agreement.  What he is now saying contradicts his own earlier statement, issued on Christmas Eve, where he stated: “After GE2011, the software contract with AIM remained in place for the PAP TCs. However, AIM decided to end the contract with the Aljunied-Hougang Town Council (AHTC).”  We have also already released AIM’s official notice of termination to us dated on 22 June 2011, which has been widely circulated.  In any case, if Dr Teo has read the termination clause, he would know that it does not give the town council the right to terminate the agreement under such circumstances.  So I don’t know what Dr Teo is trying to say.

In any case, it is quite clear that the bigger question of public interest is the sale of the software to AIM in the first place.  The fact that the Prime Minister has seen it fit to order a review of the transaction shows that there are serious questions and the public deserves answers!

Tonight is our last rally.  We had badly wanted to have a rally tomorrow, the last day of campaigning.  Unfortunately, there are only 2 rally sites, and the balloting system caused us to lose out to PAP and the Reform Party.

Tonight I wish to talk to you about using your vote to build a more equal society.

Singapore has changed a lot.  When I was growing up, I used to visit my school friends living in kampongs in the Punggol area, and could smell the aroma of pig farms behind my own home in Seletar Hills.  Now, life in Singapore is considered first world.  I am proud of what Singapore has achieved in my lifetime, but yet worried at the same time.

Singapore has become a very unequal society.  There was a recent study of world economies by Knight Frank and Citi Private Bank.  According to their Wealth Report 2012, Singapore was listed as the world’s most affluent, with a GDP (gross domestic product) per capita of about $70,000 in 2010, beating Norway and the USA!  It was stated that Singapore had the highest GDP per capita in 2010 globally, and will likely remain at the top spot as far as 2050.  Fellow Singaporeans, do you feel rich?  The fact is that there is a big divide between the haves and have-nots.

Last month, the PSLE results were released.  Two different sets of parents came to see me about their children’s postings to secondary schools.   On the one hand, Couple A who was quite well-off had a child who did brilliantly.  They wanted to change schools, so as to give their child maximum flexibility in career options in the future.  Perfectly understandable.  On the other hand, a single mother came with her son.  He did not do well, and did not get posted to the school of his choice.  The school he was posted to did not offer his mother tongue subject in-house.  His mother explained to me that she needed to work two jobs, and she was worried that her son would fall into bad company if he had to travel outside school for his language classes.  Her one and only concern was that he not ruin his future by getting into trouble with the law.  This, my friends, is a snapshot of the two different worlds we have in Singapore.

The population in Singapore has also changed drastically in the last 20 years.  In 1990, there were about 3 million people here.  In 2000, about 4 million.  And in 2010, about 5 million.  Only about 62% are Singapore citizens.  What else is coming, we await in anticipation…. The government had said it would release the White Paper on Population this month, but it seems that it is being held back till after the by-election!

It is totally understandable that Singaporeans feel insecure in this environment.  Sometimes when I am waiting at traffic lights to cross the road, I close my eyes and listen to people talking around me, and can imagine myself in a different country!  What future will our children have in Singapore?  Can they afford to live here?   There seems to be so much insecurity and worry these days.

The Workers’ Party believes that the way forward is to ensure that the country’s governing principles take into account not just economic growth, but well-being and happiness as well.  Sustainable development, retirement security, social safety nets – all these are critical if we are to move forward as a united people.  What we need are MPs who can empathise with the struggles that you face daily.

Li Lian was not a brilliant student; she did her GCE N Levels, went on to O Levels and then got into Ngee Ann Polytechnic.  She got her university degree through part-time studies while she was working.  Some of you in Punggol East have told me that her story is similar to yours.

In sunny Singapore, some citizens’ voices are louder than others.  Life in Singapore is a breeze for the rich; but for the poor, it can be hell.  Elections are the only time when the voice of a labourer is as loud as the voice of a CEO – both have just one vote.  Use your vote to bring about a more equal society.  Let Parliament be a microcosm of society – with more MPs from the non-elite class, to speak for the people.

Even if Dr Koh Poh Koon does not get elected, he can return to his comfortable life as a colorectal surgeon holding multiple appointments.  He has only been in the PAP for a few weeks, so he has not invested too much time.  Anyway from today’s papers, he initially said No to the Prime Minister, meaning he was not too keen to stand in Punggol East in the first place.

Li Lian has been Pritam Singh’s Legislative Assistant for 1.5 years.  Pritam once told me: “Li Lian is one in a million”.  I agree.  This morning I got a message that well-wishers had gone to the Waterloo Street temple to pray for Li Lian’s success in this by-election.  Thank you very much.

The Workers’ Party believes that electing Li Lian carries more promise for a secure future for Punggol East and for Singapore.  Do not waste this chance to fight for a more equal society.  Vote Lee Li Lian.  Vote Workers’ Party!

榜鹅东的选民 ！ 大家晚上好！

感谢大家的出席工人党的群众大会！

我相信在场的许多国人都经历过在打雷和“闪电”暴风雨中下过的日子，真的越来越难挨了 ！

我们需要更多一把强而有力声音把国人的意愿和心声带入国会。

来自普通家庭的李丽莲亲身体验过许多选民所面对的切身问题。例如生活费的高涨、交通费不断的上升 、国人的就业机会、孩子的教育问题等等 。还有最让国人头痛的住屋问题，组屋价格无天理的飚高，这和原来建屋局“居者有其屋”的政策简直就是背道而驰！

就因为是亲身的经历，她能真正的体会到你们的困境。李丽莲肯定能现身说法，为你们在国会请命。

在此恳请大家把李丽莲送入国会，多一把铁锤监视执政党的同时也敲醒更多在空中楼阁作梦的决策者！

各位榜鹅东的选民，希望你们给我们机会，双“莲“ 合拼，一起出击！为国人争取更多应得的福利、让人人得到平等的对待！请投工人党一票！谢谢大家！

Good evening to you.

Over the weekend, I was helping my colleague and candidate for Punggol East, Lee Li Lian, campaign in the estate. I met the residents at Blk 122 which is located at the junction of Sengkang East Drive and Sengkang East Way. If you look out from this block, you will see the beautiful sight of the Serangoon River and the forested area beyond.

In the middle of last year, the residents of Pasir Ris Heights went to their MP, who is DPM Teo Chee Hean because they wanted to preserve a forested green area the size of about two football fields that had been set aside for the construction of an international school. Six out of nine residents interviewed by a Today reporter said they were in favor of preserving the green woodland. Earlier this month on the 9th of Jan 2013, the residents at Pasir Ris Heights stopped to prevent HDB contractors from chopping down a tree which was home to about 90 parrots at this very site. The MND said that it was unable to accede to residents requests to preserve this woodland about the size of two football fields.

Now my friends, many of you may be wondering why this little episode is so significant for all Singaporeans especially those of us who live near pockets of greenery and green lungs like in Pasir Ris or Bukit Brown or Punggol.

DPM Teo said yesterday that the WP has avoided taking a stand on major issues, for example on population. Before one can take a stand on an issue, it’s important to be fully transparent about the facts and realities about the trade-offs that Singaporeans have to make with regard to the PAP government’s population plans. So far the government’s interpretation of these trade offs have been heavily weighted in economic terms. This is a relevant consideration but there are many other considerations that the government needs to look into because they are related to the quality of our life, especially if the government plans to increase the population to 7 or 8 or 9 million.

Our elites may enjoy themselves in the gardens of their landed properties, but the rest of us rely on public spaces to relax and rejuvenate. The PAP elites do not see and feel the reality of a large number of foreigners and immigrants in HDB estates on a daily basis, but ordinary Singaporeans like us do.

Singaporeans do not hate new immigrants and foreigners, but we do have a right to say how much is too much.

Instead of blaming Singaporeans for being anti-foreigner, maybe the government can put itself in our shoes and ask itself how it would feel if a piece of woodland or greenery that brought peace and comfort to us was taken away in the name of development today. Or if road congestion because of high COE prices makes cars and light vehicles unaffordable for the average Singaporean.

The government says that to plan for a larger population is the responsible thing to do – but isn’t it also responsible to accept what your limits are and to ensure the quality of life of your people does not suffer?

Don’t just ask those who have enough money to retire overseas or scholars who have two or three properties earning a rental income what is the ideal population size for Singapore; Ask your heart lander, who has to stay in his HDB flat, and take crowded public transport in the morning and evening and has to see his dreams of upgrading his home or buying a bigger flat vanish before his eyes, since the prices of properties have doubled since 2006, but his salary has not.

MND Minister Khaw Boon Wan recently announced that 200,000 new units will be ready in the years to come and that property prices should moderate as a result. But if the government plans to bring in more new immigrants in the next few years, will these additional units be taken up? What then? Will prices moderate? Or can we expect another round of property cooling measures to satisfy Singaporeans and scare developers? The developers are not scared.

After the government’s introduction of the 7th round of cooling measures last week, some developers have already offered discounts to fight the government’s cooling measures just as they did after the government’s six previous failed attempts to cool the market. Even the governments policies don’t seem to be moderating prices. If prices continue to rise, and make the rich-poor gap even wider, I hope the government doesn’t come out and say we did not anticipate this.

Unlike other immigrant-friendly countries that have a countryside where its citizens can relax and retire to, this little red dot is all we have. DPM Teo says the WP has not taken a stand on the major issues.

I would like to ask the DPM to take a stand on the population size the PAP is working towards and how it plans to retain a patriotism for Singapore, integrating new immigrants and preserving our way of life without dividing Singaporeans.

In October last year, I asked DPM Teo whether his Ministry had considered the reality of more immigrants creating an even larger elderly population for future generations of Singaporeans to look after because the latest census 2010 data reveal that even new immigrants are not replacing themselves.

The point is this – you can bring in more people but are you simply pushing the problem into the hands of the next generation by increasing your population size? Even immigrants will get old. What becomes the solution then, in 20 or 30 years time – increase the population again? I certainly hope to see some answers in the government’s white paper on population and you can be sure the WP MPs will be speaking up in parliament about this when the population white paper is debated.

Residents of Punggol East, the Workers Party will continue to hold the government to account and serve you to the best of our abilities. We will constantly press the government for more information especially since it is so selective with the information it releases.

Since GE2011, an opposition presence in parliament has led to the uncovering of interesting details about governance in Singapore under the PAP. During the AIM saga that took place a few weeks ago, for the first time in the history of Singapore, we all got to know that there was such a thing as a fully-owned PAP company.

What many fair minded Singaporeans want to know is how many fully owned PAP companies are there in Singapore and abroad? What are their names? Who are their directors? These questions, raised by many Singaporeans in the name of good governance have so far gone unanswered. While the PM has ordered an investigation under the auspices of the MND, it is not known if this aspect of the AIM affair will be answered. I, like many Singaporeans certainly hope it is.

We have a lot more to do in this journey to bring balance to Singapore politics, with a view to greater social equity and fairness. Everybody needs to play their part. Make a commitment to be more politically active and take an interest in national issues because they affect all of us. As we play our part, lets make sure the Government does its job.

As this is the last rally, I want to read out a comment that was posted on a Yahoo article titled: Workers’ Party has redefined Singapore politics.

“I was there at the rally on 19 Jan 2013 at around 8pm.

Before reaching the field from Rumbia LRT, being considerate, a regular middle aged guy was directing people to the left through the blocks of flats saying that it was a drier route to the rally site.

One guy dropped his phone in the muddy field and a stranger spotted it and told him even providing him a pack of tissue to clean it.”

Residents of Punggol East, who are these people that this person saw, helping each other?

They are you. They are all of us. They are the face of Singapore. Ordinary men and women who came to support the courage and determination of Lee Li Lian.

The PAP will never be able understand this emotion, because the elitist road which they are on, with a lack of accountability and transparency, ignores the ordinary Singaporeans. Lets bring some balance back into parliament, and full it up with people who speak up for ordinary Singaporeans.

Come 26 Jan vote for the Workers’ Party, and vote for Lee Li Lian!

Last night, almost immediately after Mr Low Thia Khiang spoke on the performance of Workers’ Party MPs in Parliament, Mr Teo Chee Hean, the Deputy Prime Minister, responded and said that PAP MPs offered “many more constructive suggestions”.

We do not dispute that but there are 80 PAP MPs and only 6 elected WP MPs.  If the 6 of us together the 3 NCMPs can match the 80 of them in providing the same number of constructive suggestions, then I think DPM Teo may not sleep well at night.

Last night, you have also heard our Chairman, Miss Sylvia Lim, talked about the ownership issue of Town Council Management Software and the AIM issue.  Tonight, let me share with you what will happen if there is a material change in the management of a Workers’ Party constituency.

If another party were to win Hougang SMC, the new management will take over a town council completely intact with the original software.  The new management can then decide to continue to use the software, enhance it or discard it all at its own time and bidding because the software belongs to the town council.

The Workers’ Party believes the interest of the residents must be above politics.  We will never put a town at risk or make the residents suffer unnecessarily for political gains.  We will live to fight another day and we will fight fairly and justly because we truly believe in building a democratic society based on justice and equality.

These are values we want to inculcate into our society. So when you vote for a Workers’ Party candidate, you know you are voting for a rational and responsible party and nothing less.

Right now the Workers’ Party has 6 elected MPs.  If the voters of Punggol East are willing, we will have number 7 on 26 January.   I can understand why the PAP is so worried because the Prime Minister had said in 2006 that if there are 10 or more Opposition members in Parliament, he cannot function very well.  He said he would have to spend all his time thinking about what is the right way to fix us.

If Singaporeans chose to have more opposition members in Parliament, it can only mean one thing – the PAP policies are hurting Singaporeans. What the PM needs to do is to spend his time to fix these policies and not to fix Opposition MPs.

We know Singaporeans are hurting because we meet them all the time at our Meet-the-People sessions.  From zero income to middle-income, Singaporeans from all walks of life are facing problems with housing, immigration, medical costs and rising costs of living.

I have a resident who said he had tried many times to apply for PR for his wife since 1985 when he was 37 years old.  Now he is 65 years old and he said the immigration authority said he has exceeded the age criterion for PR application.  He has been married to his foreign wife for 29 years.   And when foreign talents with no roots here are given PR so easily, it makes you wonder about the value of our citizenship in the eyes of the PAP government.

I have another needy resident who is unable to work full-time because of medical problems and he requested CPF to allow him to withdraw more of his hard-earned money for living expenses.  The CPF said, after setting aside the required amounts in his Retirement Account, he can withdraw less than $40.

I have seen young couples starting out in life but not getting much help from the government in buying their first HDB flats.  Some of these couples are not even asking for more subsidies.  They are asking for higher loan quantum which they will pay back with interests so that they can own one of those so called affordable HDB flats.

We know many Singaporeans expect the Workers’ Party to take on more issues but there is only that much 6 elected MPs can do for the community.  But we want to do more.  For that we need to grow and we need the voters of Punggol East to help us grow.

The result on 26 January will not change the balance of power in the government.  The PAP will still have total control of your life.  It will still tell you HDB flats are affordable.  It will still tell you how to spend your hard-earned CPF money.  It will continue to grow the population through immigration.  It will still bring in foreign competition for Singaporeans at all levels of our society – from primary school all the way to your working life.

But the result on 26 January can send a powerful message to the PAP government.  I have said last Saturday that having one more Workers’ Party MP sends a powerful message to the PAP government that all is still not well.

I read in the papers that Dr Koh Poh Koon wants to be the change from within PAP.  Many had gone before him but no has succeeded.  PAP still preaches and practices divisive politics.  PAP is still a big bully.  We know they fear no one except that ballot paper in your hand.

I noticed Punggol East and Hougang do share something in common.  While I was campaigning for Li Lian, I came across some Punggol East residents who used to live in Hougang.  I also met some residents with relatives living in Hougang.  And when I was visiting the coffee shops in Hougang, I met residents from Punggol East.  So now you know what I meant when I said last Saturday I told Li Lian I can smell Punggol East from Hougang and the smell is still sweet!

Voters of Punggol East, you will have the ultimate National Conversation with the PAP government on 26 January.  You will have in your hand an instrument of change.  You can vote for the PAP or vote for real change – a change that will liberate you from the bondage of PAP.  A change that your children and grandchildren will read about with pride in the history books of Singapore.

Someone posted in my Facebook that the word Punggol in Malay means “hurling sticks at the branches of fruit trees to bring them down to the ground”.  She added that “the ground is sweet for those who are with sticks, and some say hammer!”

Voters of Punggol East, please do the honour and write a new chapter in the history of Singapore for all Singaporeans to celebrate on 26 January!

Vote Workers’ Party, Vote Lee Li Lian!

Selamat datang. Terima kasih atas kehadiran anda.

Thank you for coming. We are grateful for your support.

Please allow me to begin in Chinese.

我们常说“敬老尊贤”。

新加坡立国后一直没有偏离的一项政策，围绕着一个英文词。这词世界上大多数人翻译成“精英统治“，我们新加坡官方的翻译则是“任人以贤”，也就是说“政府只用有能力的人”。就是当官靠文凭啦。

所以可以说，敬老尊贤的尊贤我门的社会一直努力希望做到，也愿意付出很高的代价–包括全世界最高的政府部长薪水。

可是敬老呢？

李丽连提出了两点建议：

一，让八十岁以上的年长者，免费乘搭公共交通。公共交通的各种设施，也应该更符合年长者的需要。以真正落实政府“活跃乐龄”的政策？改善公共交通服务，就方便他们多出外走动，可以活得更充实。

二，超过七十五岁的长者，在动用保健储蓄户口时，应该取消所有限制。

丽连说：我们的国家，我们的政府，在照顾年长者方面所做的，远远不够。要建立更具包容的社会，要称得上是先进的发达国家，绝对不能只顾着往前冲，绝对不能忽略了任劳任怨为我们贡献一辈子的年长者。

我认为，让老人家在交通、医疗及其它方面享受到一些优惠，让他们共享我国历年来经济增长的成果，是无可厚非的。合情合理的。

尊敬我们的长辈，跟尊敬我们社会上有贤能的人，难道有那么大的落差吗？

这些优惠的政策，除了使老年人生活质量得到进一步提高，还有另外的作用。它们增强我们社会尊老敬老的意识，弘扬我国各种族尊老敬老传统美德。

这道理很简单。就像我们乘搭的新加坡地铁系统一样。新加坡地铁不单单满足我们公共交通的需求，它更是一个摩登都会的象征，新加坡人引以为豪，它增强我们的国家共同感。

俗话说：家有一老，如有一宝。一个国家也一样。我们应该透过各项优惠优待政策，营造尊敬老人家的良好社会风尚。

让我们朝这方向共同努力，请投工人党李丽连一票。

Ladies and gentlemen,

Tonight, I would like to talk about empowering older Singaporeans.

We at the Workers’ Party believe that it is firstly about enabling older Singaporeans to live out their golden years with enough security and freedom from worry about survival.

First, we believe that our older workers should be allowed to continue to work if they wish and are able to, without fear of losing their jobs due to their old age, and without having to take pay cuts for doing the same jobs that younger workers do.

Companies can be encouraged to do more to redesign workplaces to make older workers more productive.

As for families, Mr Low Thia Khiang asked last night which parents do not wish to live with their children, to be supported by their children? Yet, this may not be possible for some, either because they do not have families, or because support is no longer possible from their children who are struggling themselves, or who have fallen out with them.

Many policies in Singapore risk leaving some of our elders behind.

For example, public rental housing would not be allocated to elderly Singaporeans who have children with homes, as the elderly are expected to live with their children.

As for medical care for the elderly, the CPF board will ask for top-ups or ‘ask a working family member to pay for their premiums before their policies lapse’. Medishield premiums are currently $1,123 a year for those aged between 80-85, and this will be increased in March. We cannot and should not assume that most elderly would have working family members who are able or willing to help out.

So, while we continue to emphasise the importance of family and its support for the elderly in Singapore, we should recognize that our families are changing in many ways, and not just in family size, which has been shrinking for decades.  This is why we need to strengthen our social safety nets to ensure that no old person falls through the cracks. I believe that this will ultimately promote inclusiveness and help to reinforce our sense of nationhood.

So let’s work on it together. The welfare of the elderly is close to Li Lian’s heart.  Come January 26, vote the Workers’ Party, vote for Lee Li Lian.

Saudara-saudari sekalian, salam hormat!

Voters of Punggol East, friends and fellow Singaporeans, good evening!

Thank you for coming to attend our last rally of this election. We are very grateful for your support. For those who are still deciding who to vote for, and have come to listen to what we have to say, I hope we can convince you tonight that Lee Li Lian from the Workers’ Party is the best candidate to manage your constituency and represent you in Parliament.

PAP leaders have made a number of statements in response to issues that the Workers’ Party has raised during this campaign. I am glad to note that, at least for these nine days, the PAP is listening, because they know their political survival in Punggol East is at stake.

On Sunday, Mr Heng Swee Keat, told the media that this by-election is “about electing the right candidate who can best serve residents of Punggol East” and “not about voting more opposition into Parliament”.

My response to Mr Heng is: Why can’t we do both? You have a chance this Saturday to elect the right candidate to serve you and also vote more opposition into Parliament, if you vote for Lee Li Lian.

Mr Heng also asked you to look at what MPs have contributed in their constituencies and in Parliament, and said you should come to a conclusion to “vote for the PAP to make the Workers’ Party work harder for you”.

I really don’t understand his logic. How can voting for the PAP candidate make the Workers’ Party work harder for you? If you vote for the PAP candidate, how will Lee Li Lian have the opportunity to serve you effectively?

But if you vote for Lee Li Lian, you will be putting her to work. And she will work very hard for you, with the full backing of the Workers’ Party when she runs your town council and improves your neighbourhood. And yes, you will make the PAP work harder to win back the ward the next time round!

Mr Teo Chee Hean yesterday said that residents should compare what the PAP candidate has to offer with what other candidates can offer. He then listed out the material benefits that their candidate has promised to the ward.

This is a well-known PAP election tactic: Dangle material goodies before voters and expect them to take the bait like a fish to a worm. But I urge you: think carefully before you bite, because there could be a sharp hook behind it to catch you.

In any case, Dr Koh Poh Koon is not promising multi-million dollar HDB upgrading programmes, but more modest amenity improvements like new childcare centres and a job placement centre. Yet he cannot build these himself. He will have to work with the government authorities to get these built.

In her speech yesterday, Li Lian already identified many of the problems faced by residents in Punggol East, even down to the detail of having more halal food stalls in the ward. If she is elected, you can be sure she will raise these concerns with the relevant authorities to press them to take action, and if they refuse to take action, she can raise them in Parliament.

Last night, after our rally, Mr Teo Chee Hean wrote on his Facebook that “WP has avoided taking a stand on major issues, for example, population or foreign workers”.

I beg to differ with Mr Teo. Our Manifesto has large sections dedicated to these major issues. If you look at the dozens of Parliament speeches posted on our website over the past year, all our MPs have raised issues and stated their positions on the major issues of the day, including education, housing, transport, population and foreign workers.

Mr Teo feels that PAP MPs have offered more constructive suggestions, and have been prepared to take a stand. I think what is important for voters in this by-election to know is: What is Dr Koh Poh Koon’s stand on all these major issues?

In the last few days, we have been hearing announcement after announcement of goodies being rolled out by the government. Enhanced marriage and parenthood package. MediShield coverage for babies with congenital conditions. Paternity leave. More childcare subsidies. These have been things that the Workers’ Party and many other Singaporeans have been calling for. And now they are being announced just before this by-election. The timing is perfect, isn’t it?

This all proves that it is the voice of the people – through your vote – that is the most powerful force to move government policy.

However, there is one announcement which has been long awaited, and should have been made weeks ago. I’m referring to the government White Paper on Population. This was supposed to be released at the end of last year and it will be debated in Parliament in just over a week’s time. Why has this paper not been released yet? Is the PAP afraid that people will be unhappy with its contents and vote against them? Maybe the PAP wants us to hear only the good stuff before the election.

Voters of Punggol East, if you vote for Lee Li Lian in this by-election, you will get three key benefits:

Number one, you will get an MP who is energetic, enthusiastic and empathetic. Someone you can relate to. Someone who will work tirelessly to take care of you. You will get another Workers’ Party MP in Parliament who will speak up against poor government policies. She will pressure the government to improve – for your benefit.

Number two, you will get an experienced Party to run your town council and manage your constituency. The Workers’ Party has over 20 years of experience in managing town councils well. And not just small town councils, but a huge GRC town council in Aljunied. We know the ins and outs of running a constituency. Even when obstacles were thrown in our path to trip us up, we have still managed to ensure residents’ needs are well taken care of. Just ask your friends or relatives in Hougang and Aljunied.

And three, you will be part of a movement to bring about change to Singapore. Not just change for the sake of it, but real change that improves your life, and the lives of your children. With more credible opposition MPs in Parliament, you will have greater bargaining power to force the government to be more responsive to your needs and concerns.

Come join us on this exciting journey and play a part in shaping Singapore’s future.

Voters of Punggol East, this is not an ordinary by-election, just as Punggol East is not an ordinary constituency. It is special.

We in the Workers’ Party take this election very seriously. That’s why so many of our members, volunteers and all our MPs have been out in force, campaigning for our candidate, Lee Li Lian, both on the ground and online.

The Workers’ Party values every one of your votes in this by-election, because this by-election is so critical in bringing about progress to our beloved nation of Singapore.

Help make history in Singapore. This Saturday, please cast your vote for Lee Li Lian. Vote for the Workers’ Party.

This is my first rally speech, so let me tell you a bit about myself. My name is Daniel Goh. I graduated from NUS in 1998 and completed my PhD in sociology in the United States in 2005. I have been teaching in NUS since and I am currently associate professor there. My students call me Dr Goh or simply Prof. My friends call me Daniel, so please call me Daniel.

I started volunteering with the Workers’ Party during GE2011. Since then, I have been helping Mr Chen Show Mao at his Meet-the-People Sessions. I joined the Workers’ Party as a member this year.

Many of my friends and family members asked why I joined the Workers’ Party. Some were afraid for me. They asked me, “Is it really safe for you to do this?”. But I told them life is too short and too precious, don’t waste time being kiasu, kiasi and kiagui.

Some wondered about my motives. They say, “You are a professor, you got a comfortable life, if you idealistic, go join the PAP, change the system from inside.” I told them change does not come from inside or from outside, but from the correct side. This is the co-driver side where we tell the driver he is heading down the wrong side of the road!

Some laughed at me because they know I am not the slapping type. They say, “Hah, you can slap meh, you are a bookworm.” I told them, even bookworms think of their children and would stand up for them.

This, my fellow citizens, is why I joined the Workers’ Party: I became a father in June last year.

When I volunteered with the Workers’ Party in 2011, I volunteered because I felt it was an extension of my national service. Volunteering with the Workers’ Party was the way I could serve Singapore and help my fellow Singaporeans.

When I became a father, something changed. It was no longer enough to volunteer. I needed to join the Workers’ Party to fight for a Singapore that I want my son and all children and young people to inherit. It is now a long-term commitment to a cause. The cause is not to oppose for opposing sake, or to bring down the government. The cause is to change mindset.

The PAP likes to tell Singaporeans that we need to change our mindset.

When it comes to PSLE, the government resisted calls for reform and is only just starting to do a review. Instead, they tell us we are the problem, that we need to change our so-called kiasu mindset.

Wrong!

Kiasu parents don’t make the PSLE exist. It is the PSLE that makes parents kiasu!

When it comes to BTO for HDB flats, the government tells Singaporeans not to be choosy and to stay in non-mature towns like Sengkang and Punggol. But it doesn’t realize that young families need the amenities of a mature town and many of us wish to stay close to our parents.

So, on one hand, the government tells us to have more babies and to take care of our parents. On the other hand we are not supposed to be choosy and to stay in a place that is difficult to raise a family and be filial? It has become very frustrating because people are being blamed for problems caused by policy.

Sengkang is a beautiful town. I live just across from you in Punggol town, just over there in the blue estate by the TPE, and I often walk across the overhead bridge to come to Rivervale Mall or take a bus to Compass Point. The problem is that towns like ours are kept from maturing faster. Lack of childcare centres, eldercare facilities, feeder bus services, coffee shops, properly run hawker centres, these are just some of the issues. These are not just local issues, they are policy issues affecting everyone in Singapore, whether you are in Sengkang, Punggol, Chua Chu Kang, or Bedok. Amenities are built only when the government believes enough people are in the town to service them.

Again, wrong!

Amenities should be serving the people, not the people serving amenities!

When it comes to marriage and having more babies, again we are told that we need to change our mindset, that we should marry earlier and have more children. But surveys after surveys conducted show that most Singaporeans want to marry and have more than 2 children. Our mindset concerning marriage and parenthood is fine. So please, the PAP should stop following us into our bedroom. Stop preaching to the converted!

Why do Singaporeans end up marrying later and have only 1.5 children on average?

What is stopping Singaporeans from marrying earlier and having more babies is the lack of financial security. Wages have not kept up with inflation and rising cost of living. HDB resale prices increased by 109% in the last 10 years. Let me ask you this, have your salaries increased by 100% in the last 10 years? Because prices of new BTO flats are affected by resale prices, many young couples have to wait longer before they feel secure enough to settle down.

Work-life balance is bad because the government’s approach is to sayang businesses to adopt work-life harmony practices. At the same time, the government is telling us to change our mindset about the right conditions to start a family. Can’t the PAP understand that it is because we Singaporeans are very responsible people, that’s why we work hard to achieve financial security for our family, and so we end up working too hard? So stop blaming us.

The Baby Bonus given by the PAP government is okay. It very recently got better, just a bit, but it can never keep up with runaway   inflation and the rising cost of living. We can’t keep throwing money at problems. There is a need for structural reforms in housing, childcare and work-life harmony to tackle the problem. Decreasing costs and increasing time for Singaporeans to start their families are the keys to solving the problem.

What I am trying to say is this. It is not us Singaporeans who need to change our mindset, it is the PAP government that needs to change its mindset!

The government should start solving the structural causes of the problems we face.

I don’t want my son to grow up in a Singapore where he has to work 12 hours a day just to have enough to retire and have no time and no money to fall in love, marry and start a family. Do you want that for your children?

Let me finish by telling you how I see Li Lian this by-election.

Some of my friends challenged me, “Li Lian has not been seen in Punggol East since GE2011, can the residents trust her to serve them?”

This is what I said, Li Lian went to train under Kung Fu Pritam.

She is now much more powerful and has returned to fight for the people of the Valley of Punggol East.

Li Lian is a young woman who understands the problems of starting and raising a family.

She is one of us.

She has an amazing sense of dedication because she is willing to stand up to fight for us.

She is one of the young leaders in the Workers’ Party who inspired me to join the Party to work for the Singapore we want.

We are here to fight for the Singapore we all deserve!

Residents and friends of Punggol East, I am proud to be your neighbour.

And I am envious, because you had the chance to vote for the Workers’ Party in GE2011, and you have another chance now!

Please cast your vote wisely.

Don’t vote for status quo because it is not good enough for us.

Vote for our future, vote for your children’s future, vote for the Workers’ Party, vote for Lee Li Lian!

三晚来， 你们都一直来支持我们。感谢多多！

两年前我在竞选时， 我朗诵了一首潮州民谣。

今晚，让我再朗诵一遍。

(潮州民谣)

“…谁的爸母不疼骇？

谁的公婆不疼孙？”

几晚来，我们一直在讨论孩子上childcare和幼稚园的事。

在补选前，我们在国会里提了好几次。

在工人党的党纲里，我们也有提到。(我们可以去读读看。)

但是，PAP有没有听到人民的心声？没听到？

这几天似乎有听到嘛。是吗？

两天前不是有登(在)报纸吗？

似乎听到了。

或许他(们)怕了。怕么？

怕人民手上这张票。

那我们就不管他(们)害怕还是不害怕，

我们照旧在1月26日,

我们去投谁？

我们去投铁锤!

1月26日, 请大家 – 榜鹅区的选民和别区的朋友帮忙宣传，

请投工人党的李丽连一票！

感谢！

现在，我以英语演说。

Good evening, supporters from Punggol East and other parts of Singapore!

Thank you once again for making your way here.

It’s a weekday. It’s not easy. Many of us are feeling tired after work.

Some of us have not eaten. Workers’ Party appreciates all your years of support. Thank you so much!

Since I recited a Teochew poem which I recited in GE2011, let me continue with another story from 2011. This story is not from me. This story is taken from somebody we contested against.

A story was told by our current Transport Minister Mr Lui Tuck Yew.
Let us recall:

He shared about a village that was sheltered by SPECIAL TALL TREES.

The villagers were tempted by mushrooms which sprouted only every 5 years

The WISE OLD MAN said, these wild mushrooms will

WEAKEN us,

STUNT our growth, and

RETARD our development.

Leave them alone, protect the trees, these trees are special trees’.”

The villagers invested much time to help the special trees grow.

And the fruit has to be taken care of and villagers have done that to allow it to specially ripen. And so,

the village is prosperous,

the trees are well-loved

and the future is bright.

Rounding up his story, Mr Lui said The Wise Man’s final word of warning was, “Protect the trees, avoid the mushrooms”. “PROTECT the trees, AVOID the mushrooms”. In his speech, Mr Lui was referring to PAP as the SPECIAL TALL TREES and the opposition parties to be the mushrooms.

Don’t you think it was an interesting illustration?

Let’s consider the 3 points he highlighted:

1)   The village is prosperous

2)   The trees are well-loved

3)   The future is bright

1) The village has been prosperous.

From 2007 to 2012, Singapore GDP Growth Rate averaged 5.17. We enjoy a per capita GDP higher than that of most developed countries.

BUT it has been prosperous at what cost? The prosperity did not come easily. It came with many price tags. Increase in mental health illnesses. Increase in stress level. And there was a report by CNN. I’ll let us decide if we can be proud of this. CNN reported in 2007, a list of cities in 32 countries was studied for the rate of walking. How fast people walk in Singapore? How well do you think we ranked? What was our position? Make a guess.

Singapore was ranked NUMBER ONE for the world’s fastest walkers.

Was that good news?  It was reported that because of our infrastructure that was very well built, there was no obstacles and hence, people could walk faster. If you have a choice, would you prefer to walk leisurely or walk very fast? Most of us would prefer to walk leisurely. Relaxed.

The pace of life in Singapore is very fast, very rushed and very harsh.

Do we enjoy this pace of living?

Our MP Mr Faisal had brought up in The Parliament about work-life balance issues. Life is so rushed here. There’s no time to talk about work-life balance or even to think about it.

2)      The trees have been well-loved too

If the trees referred to the PAP, then in GE 2011, it did seem that they were well-loved. PAP won 81 out of the 87 elected seats in The Parliament. Would you continue loving them? The Tall Trees seem to have heard the ground during election time. Would you continue to love them? Or would you like to love Lee Li Lian? So, vote her into The Parliament on 26 January.

Thank you.

各位亲爱的榜鹅东选民，各位来自新加坡各区的支持者，大家晚上好!

Vanakam.

Dear voters of Punggol East, dear Singaporeans. Thank you for coming tonight.

Yesterday, Dr Koh of the PAP said he initially rejected the Prime Minister when he was asked to be their candidate for Punggol East. Dr Koh said, and I quote “I don’t want to do populist politics. I want to do real work.” Unquote.

Dr Koh, if you want to do real work, join the Workers’ Party! Lee Li Lian joined WP in 2006 as a volunteer. Through hard work, she worked her way up into the Central Executive Committee and held various posts such as Assistant Treasurer, Youth Wing President and Deputy Webmaster. She worked as legislative assistant in the Eunos Division of Aljunied. She was not parachuted into Punggol East. She campaigned here in 2011. She is doing a lot of real work, Dr Koh!

Yesterday, our chairman, Ms Sylvia Lim shared about what happened when we took over the Aljunied Town Council. There are some contracts that seem to be designed to trip up any opposition party that dares to take over a PAP territory. When the PAP candidate wins, he will have the grassroots organisation paid for by the government to work for him. He will have unrestricted access to community facilities. He can continue with all the contracts of third parties with the Town Council, including for the Town Council Software Management System. No one will threaten to terminate his contract, just because he has won.

Dr Koh will be on a travolator, assisted in his journey by the system. But not for WP. We will be on an inclined threadmill. We have to work a lot harder to do real work. But we will do it because the type of politics that the PAP has put in place in our beloved country cannot be allowed. The Workers’ Party is willing to do real work for you. Lee Li Lian is willing to work for you.

Today, I want to talk about education. Many of you have school-going children. It is an important subject because it affects our future. Children are the future of our country.

We have made many proposals on education in The Workers’ Party manifesto. The WP MPs and I have also raised many issues relating to education in parliament.

Education has been a way to enable people to climb up the social ladder, and many have done so in the past.

Today, a bright and hardworking person can still move up socially by doing well in school and progress onto a good career. However, over the years schools had been ranked and branded to create schools of different class status. Systems are created to sort students through various pressurising high stake examinations.  This has created an elitist system that has made it harder for those with lower income to climb up.

It also resulted in a culture where parents resort to extensive tuition for their children. Five years ago, Sunday Times reported that 97 out of 100 children surveyed had tuition. Today, the situation is just as bad. We even have people trying hard to get their children into the Gifted Education Programme, or GEP through tuition. You may recall the scandal last year when a tutor faked his credentials and fooled many parents into paying a lot to him to train their children for the GEP.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew observed two years ago that more than half the students at top schools had fathers who were university graduates. On the other hand, he noted from data he had that less than 13.1 per cent of students in neighbourhood schools had university graduate fathers.

Mr Lee also said that admission into primary school is not meritocratic, as it is based on the social class of the parents. Two months ago, we were told that 60% of students in 6 top primary schools live in private houses.

While MOE may want all schools to be good schools, their policies divide people into social classes.  From the Primary 1 enrolment policy to the way schools are structured, MOE has created various categories of schools and sort students very finely into each of these types of schools. The latest is secondary schools just for normal technical students.

I fear this will lead to a greater divide of social classes. A survey by the Straits Times last year found that the majority of students in top schools do not have close friends who live in small HDB flats, nor friends in the Normal Stream, nor friends of other races. If they move on to become leaders in our country, how do they empathise with the people at the lower rungs of society or with people of other races?

The Workers’ Party wants to see policies that will develop our children well and will provide equal opportunities for all. Some of the issues we have raised include:

• bilingual education;
• preschool education;
• better support for special needs in mainstream schools and for special education schools;
• reviewing centralised gifted education and DSA from GEP into top secondary schools;
• reducing class size for more effective teaching;
• and more support in local universities for Singaporeans.

I also made an alternative proposal for pilot schools that provide through-train from primary through secondary. These schools can develop children holistically without the distraction of a high stake PSLE sorting examination at the tender age of 12.  I believe this is workable as other countries with such system have done well in international benchmark as well. It will put more emphasis back to nurturing students rather than to prepare them from one sorting examination to another.

I have also probed into how much our government spends on foreign scholarship. This is not because I am anti-foreign scholars, but because I feel we are spending too much with questionable returns. Through a series of parliament questions, I figured the government gives out more than 2,000 new scholarships to international students each year. As each scholarship is valid for 4 years, there would be over 8,000 international scholars in Singapore. I worked out that it cost our government at least $144 million each year. This figure excludes the scholarships given by Government Linked Companies, which MOE is unable to provide data for, and other allowances which may not be included in the answers.

We were also told that a third of the scholars did not achieve at least a 2nd upper honours, the usual standard expected of scholars. When asked in parliament, the Minister said that MOE has strict criteria for scholarship renewal, which include achieving consistent academic performance throughout. Yet from the results achieved by the scholars, MOE does not appear to be strict in enforcing this. The Workers’ Party has spoken out on this.

Dear Voters of Punggol East, the Workers’ Party will use parliament processes to scrutinize the government to make them accountable to the people.

We will also contribute in other ways as long it it is pro-Singapore. Some of the WP MPs have been invited to contribute ideas for policy input or to sit on committees. Last year, I accepted an invitation to be on the ACE committee which looks after entrepreneurship development in Singapore. Every month, we look at proposals from aspiring new entrepreneurs to determine the type of support we can give. On my own, I share freely in talks on this topic in education institutions and with new entrepreneurs. I believe this can be my little contribution towards developing the business startup scene in Singapore.

At the same time, I have also spoken out against policies that have caused industrial rents to become so high and against government linked companies and large cooperatives crowding out SMEs. These are hurting the development of entrepreneurs.

I know Li Lian and her views. I have confidence she will play the role of a constructive, responsible and rational opposition when you elect her as your MP.

Finally, I like to address two groups of people today. The first is the 41% who voted for Li Lian in 2011. Thank you for placing your faith in her. Li Lian has returned, with 2 years of solid experience in Aljunied behind her. She is now more experienced to serve you better. Continue to place your faith in her.

The second are those who did not vote for Li Lian. Perhaps you were uncertain if The Workers’ Party could manage your town council. You can see that we have handled Aljunied and Hougang well. Or perhaps you were afraid that the government may be suddenly changed. This is a By-Election. The PAP is already the government.

You now have the chance to tell the PAP that you are still unhappy. You want a Singapore that’s fairer and kinder to you. Stay firm in your resolve to vote for change. Stay firm in your resolve to tell the PAP that their brand of politics must be taken down. Vote for change. Vote the Workers’ Party. Vote for Lee Li Lian!

How well has the PAP done since the last General Elections? At the last GE the PAP got a historic low of only 60% of the votes. Soon after the elections, the PAP promised to do better. Have they really done better? Let me recollect.

Life of ordinary Singaporeans

Have the lives of ordinary Singaporeans improved since the last GE? Are you able to get a job without intense competition from foreigners? Even if you have a job, is your job stable, is it paying you enough to maintain your family, to keep up with inflation? Are you able to afford an HDB flat? Have your transport costs remained the same? Are you able to complete your bus or train journey without unexpected disruptions? Are you able to come home on time and spend quality time with your family?

In short, are you happy? If the PAP has done a good job, then the answer to all those questions would be “Yes!” But speaking with a good number of Singaporeans, I found that the answer to most of the questions, sadly, was “no”.

But I tell you, there are some questions to which the answer is a definite “yes”. Has the government given enough emphasis to economic growth and neglected its people’s needs? Yes. Do we need more WP MPs in Parliament so that the people’s voice is stronger? Yes

PR for foreign spouses

Tonight, let me speak on a topic I spoken on in GE2011.

More and more Singaporeans are marrying foreign spouses. And many of them face difficulties in getting Long Term Visit Passes, PR, and work permits for their foreign spouses. Our MPs often get residents coming to them for help in this area at their meet-the-people sessions. But we do not know how many Singaporeans are affected by this.

We now know, because of a question filed by Workers’ Party MP Faisal Manap in Parliament. The answer is that between 2000 to 2010, the number of Singaporeans who applied for Long-Term Visit Passes and Permanent Residence for their foreign spouses each year averaged 12,100 and 8,700 respectively. Over the same period, an average of 10,300 and 4,600 foreign spouses of Singaporeans were granted LTVP and PR respectively each year. This means that nearly 6,000 immigrants who want to be with their Singaporean families and want to make Singapore their home are prevented from doing so.

Only a few days ago, a newspaper’s headlines said a foreign woman, married to a Singaporean for 19 years, with 5 children born here in Singapore, is still unable to get PR – even after trying 5 times. I know many Singaporean men, well qualified and financially well off, with Singaporean children but whose wives are not even PR. Is this a family-friendly policy?

We need to know why so many applications are rejected each year and how this can be improved. Even though Singapore needs to cut down on our reliance on foreign workers, we must give our support to foreign spouses of Singaporeans, so as to safeguard our family life. After all, foreigner or not, these are the fathers and mothers of Singaporean children.

Our Manifesto for GE2011 proposes that, for the sake of the unity of the family and to encourage couples to have more children, “all foreign spouses of Singaporeans should be issued with residential visas and be allowed to work locally.” It is good that in April 2012, the Government introduced the LTVP-Plus scheme to help Singaporean families with foreign spouses. LTVP-Plus holders have a longer period of residency and are eligible for healthcare and employment benefits, which is what our Manifesto calls for.

But this is only half the solution. Many foreign spouses on long-term visit passes and LTVP-plus have Singaporean children. If the spouse’s long term pass is not extended, then he or she has to leave Singapore. What will happen to the children then? If the long-term visa is regularly extended, wouldn’t it be equivalent to permanent residence?  Then why not give PR and grant the couples the sense of security to bring up good Singaporean children?

Conclusion

The government keeps saying that it wants to increase the “citizen core” – it wants more Singaporean babies. They just announced more money for babies born since Aug last year to encourage Singaporeans to have more children. The government also announced a week’s leave for new fathers. More protection against unfair dismissal of employed pregnant women will be implemented. These are some of the measures that our MPs have been lobbying for. Is this enough to make couples have more children? Certainly not. But it is a good start.

With more WP MPs in Parliament we can certainly force the government to work harder for the people. One such person is Lee Li Lian.

I have known Li Lian since 2006. She is a hardworking party member. As legislative assistant to MP Pritam Singh, she has seen the problems of residents of Eunos and knows the duties of an MP and therefore has the necessary experience to help you.

Vote for Workers’ Party! Vote for the Hammer and vote for Lee Li Lian!

Thank you!

Yesterday, we saw some good news for young couples. Finally, the government has decided to grant government-paid paternity leave for one week.

This has been an issue raised by the Workers’ Party and other NGOs time and again. In our GE2011 Manifesto, we proposed, “To recognise the important role of fathers in sharing the responsibilities of infant care, paternity leave of at least 6 days, half of which will be funded by the government, should be introduced and legislated.” Workers’ Party MP for Aljunied GRC Mr Faisal raised this in parliament in August last year.

My fellow Singaporeans, this is what the Workers’ Party will do for you. Together with you, we will push hard on issues that matter to you, until we see policy changes that will serve you better. We pushed for 6 days, and the government decided on 7 days. Next time we better ask for 14 days, maybe we will get 18 days!

National issues are indeed important and they affect all Singaporeans, but local and municipal issues are just as crucial. They have immediate impact on your quality of life as well as that of your families.

Tonight, allow me to speak directly to you and address your concerns.

Residents I met on my house visits and walkabouts told me that there are too few feeder bus services within Punggol East. As such, there is a heavy reliance on the LRT.

At the LRT stations, the carriages are too small to accommodate everyone, forcing commuters to wait for carriage after carriage.  All these contribute to the crowding at train stations.  To make matters worse, buses are often held up by traffic jams.

We need to tackle this problem and the issue on transportation costs as well.

SMRT made huge profits, should we pay more for bus fares?

The government pumped in an additional S$1.1 billion of tax-payers money last year to purchase new buses, should you and I pay more bus fares?

Next, there are too few public amenities and coffeeshops in Punggol East.

Punggol East has mostly food courts which are more expensive. With inflation on food prices adding to the expenditures of families, it is important to have affordable food available in the ward. Young professionals and working adults returning late in the evening should still be able to have hot-piping food.

Many of our muslim friends in Punggol East will tell you that there is a lack of variety in their food choices. Most eateries that are halal certified are fast food restaurants.

The lack of the wet markets in the area also contribute much to the higher household expenditure of many families. The needs of the residents of Punggol East can be better served with another wet market in the ward. It can help to keep costs lower and improve the quality of living in Punggol East.

We need to have more facilities and public amenities to meet the needs of the residents. These issues were highlighted in GE2011 but did the PAP government listen to you?

Another issue of concern in the Punggol East ward is the existing renovation problems at Rivervale Plaza.

You can hear the hacking and drilling while corridors have become narrower. The renovation works constitute a safety hazard to the users of the plaza, especially for the elderly and young families with children.

Rivervale Plaza is in a mess. It is the utmost concern of many residents and tenants to get this matter resolved without any delay. I will work with the relevant agencies to ensure the completion of the works on time. I was asked this question during my walkabout. ‘If I vote for you, will the renovation be delayed again?’  My answer to this lady is, ‘My election as your member of parliament will not and should not be the excuse for any further delay. The needs and interests of the residents of Punggol East must come first, beyond any partisan disagreements.  Let’s not forget the renovation was stalled under a PAP MP!’

This situation has persisted for months and it is only during a by-election that the PAP is finally spurred into action. Where were they before the by-election?

More work awaits me but with the experience I have gained working at Hougang SMC and Aljunied GRC, I am best placed to serve the needs of the residents.

Even as we allocate precious resources for our young, we must not forget our senior citizens, our valued elders.

Our elderly citizens, our grandparents and parents worked hard in their younger days to contribute to the building of this nation. Brick by brick, pillar by pillar, their hands built this country and raised up a whole new generation. Now, in their twilight years, after all they have sacrificed for this nation, it is only right that we provide them the first class care they deserve. This country must take care of our elderly and serve them as well as they’ve served us.

There are so many things that we can do to make their lives pleasant and more meaningful.  Such as:

1. Public transport to commuters who are 80 years old and above should be free. If we want to encourage active ageing it is important to help our elderly move around more easily. By making transportation facilities more elderly-friendly and providing free public transport will encourage our senior citizens to lead a more fulfilling life.

2. I’ve mentioned this before, elderly who are above 75 years old should be allowed to use their Medisave for medical treatment without restriction.

3. Elderly patients should be able to receive subsidised rates at specialist clinics at public hospitals with or without referrals from the polyclinics.

Indeed, our country can and must do more for our elderly. This is the least we can do to give back to them and serve them with distinction.

If WP wins Punggol East, I am confident that we will manage the Town Council competently. WP has had more than 20 years of experience managing Hougang SMC. After GE 2011, we quickly adapted to take charge of Aljunied GRC under a very short time frame.

We will take over the Town Council functions with as little disruption as possible to the residents.  As such, we will work with the existing Managing Agent and term contractors to ensure continuity of services to residents. Cleanliness of the estate is one of the top priorities, as it has a great impact on residents’ daily lives. Wherever possible, we will retain existing vendors, service providers and software systems but if needed, we have contingency plans and necessary resources to put replacements in place.

Once we have settled in, we will work with residents to assess what improvements are needed and to enhance their living environment.  I will look into both the physical and social aspects, and establish an identity for Punggol East SMC.

Friends and residents in Punggol East, you worry about the cost of living, like any other Singaporean. Many of you are here tonight. I hear your concerns.

You feel the pinch of rising food prices, rising transport fares, rising childcare and education fees. I understand your pain.

Every increase makes it that much more difficult to care for yourselves, your children, and your parents. I know what it means.

I will listen to you and serve you to the best of my abilities.

I have the experience and the know-how in running a Town Council. Give me an opportunity to serve you.

With your support, I will make your interests be heard in Parliament. With your support, I will address your concerns on the ground. Come 26^th January 2013, vote for me, Lee Li Lian and send me into Parliament.

Vote Workers’ Party!

榜鹅东的选民，大家晚上好！

过去一星期，我走访了榜鹅东选区。

榜鹅东的朋友，你们的心声我都清楚听到了。

所以今天晚上，我想和大家谈一谈你们最关心的几个问题。

第一 ：公共交通

这里的支线巴士服务很少，造成居民出门时只能靠轻轨列车。但是轻轨列车的车厢太小了！上下班时间非常拥挤。

改善轻轨列车服务，是我们必须尽快解决的首要问题。

在这里，我郑重地强调：改善交通服务不应该成为调高公共车资的借口！

一家公共交通服务公司的责任应该是为人民的基本需求服务,而不是只顾赚钱！

刘程强先生在上一场群众大会说，政府在榜鹅东的每个邻里建居委会办公室，却不愿花钱建咖啡店。许宝琨医生反驳说，居委会是为人民服务的，咖啡店只是设施，不能混为一谈。请问大家：你们认为在日常生活里，咖啡店重要还是居委会重要？

榜鹅东的居民，不能在住家附近找到经济实惠的餐饮，解决三餐的问题。这是我们所要的基本居住条件。湿巴刹，也是另一个头痛问题。

榜鹅东一些基本设施的不足，间接增加了居民的生活成本和负担。这些问题其实不是现在才出现的，早在2011年大选时候都已经提出来了。

行动党议员当选后，到底为榜鹅东做了什么改进呢？这是大家有目共睹的！

讲到鲤河大厦，那边的翻新又让大家头痛了多久？

现在呢？鲤河大厦只能说是乱成一团。这是行动党议员在任时管理的，竟然管到这样！

装修工程的灰尘满天飞、吵个不停、部分走廊被封，这些情况，不只为居民带来不方便，更会对榜鹅东的老年人和小孩子造成危险。

鲤河大厦的翻新工程不能再拖下去了。如果中选，我会与相关各方保持联系和跟进，确保工程不再延误，如期完工。

有些居民会担心如果工人党当选，翻新工程就会立刻停止了。大家不必担心，李总理已经亲自来过这里关心民情，答应翻新工程一定会完工。

我在这里向大家保证，我若当选，绝对不会造成翻新工程又中止。除非行动党政府把政党斗争与利益，看得比榜鹅东选民的权益还重要！

还有一个让我一直十分关心的课题是，我们应该照顾我们的年长者，确保他们不会被忽略，让他们活得更好、更有尊严。

我有两点建议：

一，让八十岁以上的年长者，免费乘搭公共交通。公共交通的各种设施，也应该更符合年长者的需要。政府不是一直在鼓励“活跃乐龄”吗？改善公共交通服务，就方便他们多出外走动，可以活得更充实。

二，我在上一场的群众大会提过，超过七十五岁的长辈，在动用保健储蓄户口时，应该取消所有限制。

我们的国家，我们的政府，在照顾年长者方面所做的，远远不够。要建立更具包容的社会，要称得上是先进的发达国家，绝对不能只顾着往前冲，绝对不能忽略了任劳任怨为我们贡献一辈子的年长者。

最后，让我谈一谈市镇会。 如果工人党在榜鹅东当选，市镇会的交接工作会马上展开。

工人党会尽最大努力，确保交接过程不会对居民造成任何干扰，我们承诺会跟市镇会管理公司及各个承包商保持沟通与密切合作，确保为居民提供的服务不会中断，特别是区内的清洁工作。

顺利交接后，我会集中精神与居民一起研究如何解决各种问题，全面改善榜鹅东的生活品质。不只硬件上的设施，还有社会与精神层面的。我们要一起打造一个有特色、有个性的榜鹅东！

我对眼前的任务和挑战，充满了期待。再一次, 请榜鹅东选民，给我一个机会，给工人党一个机会，为您服务。我会尽心尽力维护您的权利，也会管理好市镇会。为榜鹅东，为新加坡，投工人党一票！投李丽连一票！

谢谢大家！

Recently, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong descended upon Punggol East. He visited Riverale Plaza. He did not have much comments to make but he did mention two things:

1. WP does not have alternative policies.

2. WP does not have strong views.

I must thank PM Lee for reminding all of us that the Workers’ Party is still not large enough to have the resources to make alternative policies. In the Westminster parliamentary system, an alternative government must be complete with a shadow cabinet and ample resources for policy research to verify and propose alternative policies. Currently, we have a small group of professionals and academics working behind the scenes to help MPs scrutinise government policies. But expecting a party with 6 elected MPs to form an alternative government is premature and unrealistic.

We will not oppose for the sake of opposing when policies are sound and in the interests of the nation. But we will not hesitate to confront the government when policies are not in the interests of the people.

On the second point, PM Lee is trying to mislead voters to think that the Workers’ Party does not bring up views or issues in the Parliament. Despite being only slightly more than a year into their term, the new MPs from the Workers’ Party are active in Parliament.

Let me give you some examples here:

MP Chen Show Mao raised issues regarding integrated care for the elderly and suggested industrial segmentation for dependency ratio for foreign workers.

MP Pritam Singh raised several issues on governance matters, including the issue of NParks buying high class branded mountain bikes for its staff to use. He also spoke about rental housing allocation for minority communities.

MP Faisal raised issues relating to Malay Community as well as improvement to Social Services, increment of Social Workers’ income and lesser workload.

NCMP Yee Jenn Jong had covered education issues such as pre-school and PSLE and NCMP Gerald Giam raised issues on healthcare affordability, public transport service quality, rental housing, and suggested ways to improve Singapore’s fertility rate.

Even newly-minted MP for Hougang, Png Eng Huat, has also asked about government tender process, childcare, manpower and casino issues.

Since the new term of Parliament sat in Oct 2011, the Workers’ Party as a whole, had raised issues pertaining to flooding and drainage, child care, immigration and infrastructure, pricing of drugs at public hospitals, housing, high rental costs, foreign manpower inflow calibration, public transport, taxi and COE bidding. We invite the public to search the parliamentary reports or visit the Workers’ Party website personally.

PM Lee remarked that the Workers’ Party does not have strong views. Perhaps he has not been paying attention to what the Workers’ Party has been raising. Is this because we have only 6 MPs in Parliament and the voice is not loud enough?

Actually, bringing up issues in Parliament is one thing, but whether the government is prepared to listen and to modify its policy is another. I know Punggol East residents are complaining about high food prices around the area and relatively higher price for some market produce.

In fact, I had raised this point of concern in Parliament in 2010. I cautioned the government “against looking at all available resources from the economic benefit perspective” and should instead ensure that wet markets and hawker centers continue providing low cost market produce and food options for citizens. I urged the government to stop the new trend of releasing land for tender by private developers and instead let NEA continue operating markets and food centres.

Unfortunately, the government believed in supermarkets and food courts. In a reply to my speech in Parliament, the Minister answered flatly, and I quote: “the Government sets aside land in the new towns for commercial development by the private sector. This gives private operators the flexibility to decide on the type of eating and marketing facilities to meet the changing needs of residents.”

Residents of Punggol East, what you are facing today is not just a local issue; it is a result of national policy.

The core of many issues today stems from the government’s mindset. PM Lee advised voters not to vote tactically, but should instead vote in what they believe in. I agree.

So if you believe in having a rational and responsible party to check on the government for the betterment of Singapore, come 26 Jan, vote for Li Lian, vote for the Workers’ Party.

各位榜鹅东的选民，各位支持者，大家好。

各位，新加坡目前面对低生育率的问题，政府赶在榜鹅东投票日之前，也为了鼓励生育，提出了奖励生育的配套，表面上看起来还相当有吸引力，但内容和细节我们还需要进一步研究。

一个国家的国民生育率关系到国家的未来和经济的前景，政府本来就应该优先考虑和处理。我认为，政府接下来应该把焦点专注在人口老龄化和乐龄人士所面对的问题。

在过去，政府常以儒家思想的价值观提倡敬老尊贤，然而，曾几何时，年龄大的国人却开始在工作场所因为年龄大而受到歧视，政府也开始担心人口老龄化的开支。

年长的新加坡人目前主要面对三方面的担忧。第一，医疗的问题。第二，住屋的问题。第三， 省吃俭用，就算有储蓄，也抵不过生活费的不断高涨。

在医疗方面，虽然政府提出了增建疗养院和老人院，也承诺提早兴建盛港医院，但是到今天都还没有落实，这些只是硬体设施。

那些病况比较严重，经过政府诊疗所医生诊断需要到医院看专科医生的老年病人，一般上都需要等上6个月。有经济能力的就转去私人医院看专科医生，那些没经济能力的年老病人就只好等到病重了，由救伤车送到医院的紧急部门。更有一些等不及看专科医生就这样走了。这个问题不是个新的问题，病人需要长时间等待看医生的问题我在过去也曾在国会提出，但是，问题始终没有解决。

在住屋方面，需要直接向政府申请租赁组屋的人通常都被劝告和孩子住在一起 。HDB甚至还可以告诉你，你已婚的孩子住在几房式，有空的房间。有那一个父母不希望和孩子同住？在有需要时有子女在旁照料，也可帮忙照顾孙子。不想和孩子同住，要自己独立居住当然有不得以的苦衷。政府硬把年长的父母和孩子通过政策捆绑在同一屋掾下造成许多年长者无可奈何，饱受生活摩擦的煎熬 。

年长一代的新加坡人，有许多人没有公积金。比如早期的菜农，花农和养猪为生的国民，他们虽然有儿女，但儿女有自己的家庭，也必须面对生活的负担，能供给父母亲养老的生活费也有限。他们虽然不算一穷二白，但日子也不好过，政府也应该设法协助改善他们的经济。

新加坡能有今天的经济繁荣，国家有先进的建设，上一代人的勤奋和努力是我国进步的基础，他们甚至在我国发展的过程中面对土地被政府征用，被逼转行而必须适应新的环境。他们所作出的牺牲应该得到回报。

工人党正在观察政府对民生问题的反应和所推出的方案，也会在恰当的时候指出问题。榜鹅东候选人李丽连是个扮演监督政府的正确人选，她为人直率，敢说敢作，但又不会失去理性；符合工人党理性问政，负责任的要求。

从政这么多年来，2011年大选以后，我有被前后夹攻的感觉。前面所面对的是行动党，背后则是各种各类的批评和似是而非的各种指责，尤其在互联网上。欲加之罪，何患无词。

例如，在这次补选提名日之前，工人党就被指责高傲，不顾其他反对党要参选的意愿，不为反对党阵营的团结着想。我今晚就和大家谈谈反对党团结的问题。

首先，如果反对党阵营能够团结的话，那新加坡今天就不会有那么多的政党。组织和注册一个政党不难，要能够持续运作，坚持下去则没那么简单。我国在独立的前后就已经有不少政党，但生存到现在而还活跃、而且有进展的，除了行动党，就剩下工人党。

在行动党一党专政的新加坡政治环境里，其他的政党要能够抬头和成长，是一件非常非常不容易的事情。我在1982年从政，加入工人党，接近30年的今天才看到工人党有一定的起色。我接触过许多支持反对党的人，希望看到新加坡民主有所进展的人，他们常常感到痛心，恨铁不成钢，因为反对党阵营总是出现种种的状况。我理解他们的失望与期待。

反对党其实是一个很复杂的阵营。不同的人，不同的领导，不同的问政方式。1991年可算是现代新加坡民主进程最令人鼓舞的时代，当时国会里有4位反对党议员，新加坡民主党是最强的政党。可是，后来，民主党闹分裂。在1997年的大选，行动党就趁机把所有的反对党都捆绑在一起， 一枝竹竿打翻一船人，大选结果是4个反对党议员只剩下2个，之后反对党士气一落千丈。

从1997年大选以后，工人党就决定走自己的路。后来好些反对党成立了新加坡民主联盟，工人党也决定不加入。

新加坡是个民主国家，任何人都能创立政党参加竞选。每个政党都有不同的方向和理想，即使都对政策有意见，也不一定有同样的想法和做法。 此外，对于怎样的反对党和政治的模式才对新加坡最有利，才适合我们的国情也不一定会有一致的意见。所以，以新加坡目前的政治状况，要所有反对党团结成为一股力量是个不可行的概念。

俗话说：“道不同，不相为谋。”政党和人一样，如果性格不同却勉强在一起，后果会如何呢？不但不会幸福，还会误人误事。所谓的反对党团结，只怕到最后不但不能同步前进，反而落到四分五裂的地步。这样的结果只会让人民再次对反对党失去信心，成为新加坡民主发展的绊脚石。

工人党坚持走自己要走的路，一条备受批评的崎岖路，不是高傲，也不是不尊重其他的参政者；而是为了避免历史重演，避免再次让人民失望，避免再次对，为了建设民主机制，努力无私付出的国人，造成伤害。

工人党誓言做个受人尊重，有理性和负责任的政党。我们重视每个选举，选民的信任和支持更时时提醒我们不能辜负选民的委托。

大家可以看到，刚刚起步的工人党，在2011年大选以后，就发生了很多事情。不少有心人都在等着看戏。后港补选的时候就有人想要通过各种手段制造工人党发生分裂的现象，打击新加坡人对工人党的信心。

不过，这些小人白费心机了，我们越过了种种的障碍，继续成长。但是，这个成长过程还是需要大家的大力扶持。所以，我希望榜鹅东的选民能协助工人党，使工人党能发展成为一股政治力量，能够平衡行动党，不让行动党继续专横下去，为所欲为；使新加坡的民主制度能够正常的操作 。

李显龙总理最近访问了榜鹅东，他批评工人党“在国会并没见反对党对新政策有强烈的看法或替代建议。“ 他的这种批评其实是对工人党的肯定。他没有攻击工人党在国会里浪费纳税人的钱，拖延国会的辩论，为反对而反对，使国会不能有效运作，他也没说工人党把庄严的国会变成斗鸡场。

其实，在过去的一年多里，工人党的议员都参与各种议题的辩论，也提出质询。这些课题包括幼儿、教育、组屋、交通、药物津贴等等。我鼓励大家亲自到国会或是工人党的网站查阅。

工人党有一组由学术人员和专业人士所组成的研究小组，协助议员审查议案，也针对政策提供意见和可能的改善建议。 我认为，我们现阶段的重点应该根据我们所获得的民情和所了解的问题，分析与研究，提出批评与建设性的意见供政府参考以改善政策。只要工人党继续壮大，在国会里拥有更多的议席，就会如李总理所希望看到的，有可能成为替代政府，那就应该有一整套的替代政策。所以榜鹅东的选民千万别辜负总理对工人党的期望，1月26日，把票投给工人党。

The PAP campaign in Punggol East seems to have taken a different turn at the weekend. Last Sunday, as some of you know, I bumped into Dr Koh Poh Koon outside St Anne’s Church, next to St Joseph’s Convent. He seemed friendly, running his own campaign, being “his own man”. After I left the church, I went to do house visits and surprisingly ran into quite a number of PAP MPs in the area; MPs not just from neighbouring Pasir-Ris Punggol GRC but even from the West as well. Some were visiting residents, others were wandering around food courts. After lying low for half the campaign and leaving the campaign to branch activists, the PAP has suddenly decided to wake-up and take you seriously. Point to note: the PAP will only take you seriously when their feet are held to the fire!

Tonight, I would like to spend some time on an MP’s work in Town Council management. I will deal with some broader issues, and leave it to Li Lian to talk about her priorities for Punggol East.

MPs in Singapore manage Town Councils in HDB estates. Under the Town Councils Act, elected MPs are to manage and improve the common property in the town, which includes roofs, lifts, and other common facilities. A large part of a town council’s income comes from the residents, by way of S&CC or service and conservancy charges; town councils also receive government grants, which are funded by taxpayers. Being custodians of such public monies, MPs should use town council funds to advance the residents’ interests and not for partisan advantage.

At GE 2011, the Workers’ Party won Aljunied GRC, and the Aljunied MPs appointed me as the Chairman of the new Aljunied-Hougang Town Council. Being Chairman of AHTC has been an eye-opening experience. For the first time, an opposition party was able to dig into documents showing how the PAP Town Councils had been managing HDB towns. While many of the systems and processes were sensible, there were other aspects that showed how political town management had become. It has gotten to the point that residents may become pawns for political gain, or simply, collateral damage.

For instance, I have come across a few contracts signed by town councils carrying a clause allowing for termination of services if there should be a change in composition of the Town Council management i.e. a change of political leadership. In other words, if a PAP ward is lost to an opposition party, the contract may be terminated within a short time. Let us pause for a moment and ponder. Why is there such a clause in Town Council contracts? I have been cracking my head over this. Will the service provider be unable to perform, just because the MPs have changed? Or is the clause there in case constituencies are lost by the PAP, to trip up incoming opposition MPs? And do they want to trip us up so much, that they do not consider the possible disruptions and suffering inflicted on the residents? How is such a clause in the public interest? I have asked this question publicly several times in recent weeks, and have not seen any convincing answer so far.

Many of you may have been following the recent issue raised by us concerning the sale of computer software owned by the PAP Town Councils to a company called AIM – Action Information Management Pte Ltd – which I shall call Aim for short. This sale took place a few months before GE 2011. Aim is not just an ordinary company, but a company fully-owned by the PAP. Interestingly, AIM’s paid-up capital is only $2, but the PAP Town Councils assessed that AIM was a safe bet to deal with as it was fully-backed by the PAP. Even though the software systems had been developed at significant cost with public funds, the PAP Town Councils decided to give up their ownership of the systems, and transfer ownership to their own political party. AIM was also allowed to terminate the software agreements with any town council on one month’s notice, if there was a change in the composition of the town council.

So what is the big deal about terminating the software agreements for any town council? Well, that’s like sending soldiers to battle but removing the ammo while they are in the field! The software systems cover a host of critical functions such as collection of payments, processing of works orders, arrears management, property information and the cyclical works system. Terminating all these without replacement would practically grind the town council operations to a halt! Luckily, our WP soldiers could still fight, because WP had an old ammo dump in Hougang!

Some people have asked why we did not make this issue public earlier, since we knew about it in 2011. Some PAP members even said we were using AIM as an excuse for town council problems. Well, the reason why we did not raise it earlier is simple – after the GE, we were simply obsessed with taking over the town council under a tight timeline, with minimum disruption to residents. We had also gotten help to have a one-month extension from AIM, and did not want to jeopardise that. After that, we were too busy getting things up and running for the first year. But when the Ministry of National Development announced in December that our audit process was taking longer than the other town councils, we had to explain the reason for the delay.

Since this AIM issue became public, there has been a lot of public questioning about the role of town councils and the AIM transaction. Even prominent citizens like Presidential candidate Dr Tan Cheng Bock voiced grave concerns. The questions centred around how a system developed with public monies could be sold to a political party, allowing it to terminate the system with one month’s notice, for possibly political reasons. I even had taxpayers from private estates asking me whether the government grants to Town Councils were being wasted by having to replicate software systems which had been terminated. Various PAP representatives and the Chairman of AIM tried to give some explanation, but the key questions were still unanswered. I therefore decided to force the issue in Parliament by filing an adjournment motion on the afternoon of Tuesday 8 January 2013 on the topic: “Safeguarding the Public Interest in Town Council Management”. A few hours later, in the evening, the Prime Minister’s Office issued a statement that he had directed the Ministry of National Development to do a broad-based review, examining the AIM transaction and the fundamental nature of town councils. The PMO statement said that the government needed to satisfy itself that public funds were safeguarded and residents’ interests were not compromised.

This action by the Prime Minister marked a turn of events. Since the PM had seen it fit to order the review, the Workers’ Party considered it in the public interest to allow the review to proceed first before taking up the matter further. I also indicated that our Town Council would give its input for the review, as we are likely to be the ones who can offer a fresh perspective on the issues. I have also said that we will consider whether to take the matter up in Parliament again, after the review findings are known.

Dear Singaporeans, this episode illustrates the way Workers’ Party works. We will press the government on matters of public interest, using all tools available including the Parliamentary process. At the same time, if the government recognizes the problem and takes some action, we would want to allow it the opportunity to put things right. This also illustrates the value of political competition in furthering the public interest.

Dear friends, we only discovered the AIM transaction because we had been elected as MPs of Aljunied GRC. We had the opportunity to come by the information. As a young lawyer, one of the things I learned about questioning witnesses is that you can only be effective in cross-examination if you can confront the witness with specific evidence. It is the same with checking the government – we need specific information to question them. Unlike in other countries, citizens in Singapore do not have freedom of information laws to compel the government to reveal information which it deems sensitive. Voting for a non-PAP MP will promote good governance. It will provide more avenues to press for transparency and accountability.

DPM Teo recently criticized Workers’ Party for using a by-election strategy in Punggol East. Well, it is a by-election, right? Dear Punggol East voters, voting for Dr Koh Poh Koon will be voting for more of the same. There are enough of his ilk in Parliament. Instead, vote for greater accountability. Vote for a Parliament which better represents who you are. Vote for Lee Li Lian. Vote for the Workers’ Party.

Selamat datang. Terima kasih atas kehadiran anda.

Please allow me to begin in Chinese.

榜鹅东的居民，大家好。
每晚好几千名新加坡人，头冒着雨，脚踏着泥， 出席工人党的群众大会， 为的是什么？
民愿 。民怨。
先不说是一股怨气。
说是人民的心愿。
希望政府能做得更好，施政时更能听取民意。

各位选民，你必须用你的一票， 给政府这股动力。

部长们说： 不需要，政府很自动。 影响全国人民生活的议题，政府已经在关心了，已经在处理了。

可是我认为投票最好谨慎一点。

要政府有行动，人民一定要走在前头。有人民才有行动。

这次补选， 请善用你的一票，让政府听得更清楚；让政府更在乎；让政府采取更多的措施来改善民生。

请投工人党李丽连 一票。

Residents of Punggol East, fellow Singaporeans,

This evening, I would like to talk to you about our older workers. You know, being an older worker is a lot like attending this rally. You have your reasons for being here. You know there’s just a few more hours to go. But, with the traffic, the crowd, the standing in the rain, and the mud… They sure don’t make it easy for you.

Singapore has an international reputation for being an economic success story. We should remember that earlier generations of Singaporeans laid the foundations for our economic success. What we enjoy today we owe in large part to them, whether they were factory workers, civil servants, business people or others.

Now, many of them are entering the later stages of their lives. It is not easy. Many are worried about their jobs. Surveys show that many workers believe that age discrimination is strong in the workplace. Older workers are retrenched at a higher rate than average, and also find it harder to get re-employed. Competition from foreign workers does not make things easier.

That’s why the Workers’ Party believes that helping older Singaporeans stay employed must be a priority. We simply cannot afford to lose our most experienced workers when our future workforce is already expected to shrink. The number of Singaporeans aged above 65 will triple to 900,000 in 20 years.

The Government calls our ageing society a ‘silver tsunami’. A ‘silver tsunami’!? As if we are going to be drowned in a sea of old people! But the Workers’ Party believes that among other things it is an opportunity.

An opportunity to invest in our people now for future gain.

We owe it to our older workers to continue investing in them today. We owe it to our children to make that investment now, so that they may better cope with their work when they too grow old. Society will benefit from not just the economic payoffs, but from the wider social and cultural contributions that a healthy, engaged group of older workers will be able to make.

First, we should help older workers who can and wish to work to stay in employment. That is why the Workers’ Party has consistently called for the rights and dignity of older workers to be respected and promoted. In Parliament, we advocated changing the Retirement and Re-employment Act to provide stronger protection for older workers.

Next, we believe that there could be more efforts to help employers restructure the workplace to help Singapore’s ageing workforce.

Look, older workers are not like younger workers, we know that. The government has suggested that older workers may take the place of some foreign workers. The question is, can we do more to bring out the best in older workers as older workers.

The German car maker BMW did just that. It consulted its older workers and laid new factory floors, outfitted workers with special shoes, installed adjustable height benches and movable computer screens with larger type and magnifying glass, let the workers sit instead of stand, and piped in more daylight. They also employed physiotherapists on the factory floor to help workers stay limber on the assembly line, and have the workers change tasks after two hours within each shift so that workers could keep their focus by regularly switching jobs.

And what’s the result? According to BMW, “the older workers’ assembly line became as productive as the younger ones, and the quality was higher.”

All these, I believe, are ultimately driven by a motivation to keep their workforce. We should be similarly motivated, because our people should be valued.

How best to retain our older workers?

Instead of just asking our older workers to accept lower wages for current jobs, our government could, through means such as productivity-related incentives tied specifically to older workers, encourage our businesses to redesign jobs and workplaces so that our older workers can contribute just as much as younger ones.

As I said in Parliament, let us start now and engage in long-term sustainable investment in our people.

That is what Li Lian will champion — an issue close to her heart is the welfare of the elderly.

Vote Workers’ Party, vote for Lee Li Lian!

In this by-election you will be faced with a choice again. To choose a candidate that can best represent not just the interests of Punggol East residents, but a candidate that can ensure we have a government that listens to its people.

The choice is between an opposition party and the PAP. To many fair minded Singaporeans, a by-election is a good opportunity to bring more political balance to Singapore. The ruling party brings with it a tried and tested approach to things. Like in Aljunied in GE2011, where it promised residents that one of its candidates may become a Minister, another a potential Speaker. It has done so again in Punggol East by touting Dr Koh to be a potential office holder.

For its part, the WP continues to set the foundations of establishing a credible and responsible opposition force that brings checks and balances to Singapore, coupled with a desire to raise the level of transparency and accountability in Singapore.

In a few years from now in 2015, Singapore will celebrate its 50th year of independence. The old ways of a one-party dominant political system are likely to still be around. But Singaporeans must think seriously about having a more well represented parliament, at least in line with the 40% of Singaporeans who voted in the recent General Elections – who wish to see a multi-party democracy develop in Singapore. And there is no better place to start than in Punggol-East.

In the meantime, there are some among us who want the process of change to be much faster while others prefer a more evolutionary approach to our politics. This difference of opinion is understandable especially since we have been under a one-party dominant system for so long.

In the UK as well as in other Commonwealth countries, the parliamentary opposition is referred to as Her Majesty’s loyal opposition – not because the opposition is supposed to be loyal to the ruling party, but because it should be loyal to the head of state and to fellow citizens. So far, there has been no such concept of a loyal opposition in Singapore politics. The PAP certainly does not want to recognise such a concept, as it has long said there is not enough talent for a two-party system to take root. In fact, the PAP would much prefer a continuation of its elite-based politics.

So the opposition in Singapore today has to establish its loyalty to the state and to our people through other means – and we in the Workers’ Party have done so; standing by our brand of responsible and rational politics.

The road to a more balanced parliament will be tough and may even be long, but I believe as long as Singaporeans stand up and have the courage and the desire to make this a better place – a more just, a more tolerant and a more equal society for their fellow men and women, Singaporeans should have no fear about the prospects of a multi-party democracy in Singapore, let alone a two-party system.

Let me share my own experience with you in the short 18-odd months since I became an MP. After about a year of conducting my MPS sessions, sometime in May and June last year, I reviewed all my MPS cases and began to identify those cases which repeatedly came up. One particular issue was very glaring. That was the case of rental housing affecting Malay families. They usually had to wait very long for before they got they got their flat and more worryingly for me, many were being rejected by the HDB.

Like HDB public housing which is for sale, rental housing is controlled by the Ethnic Integration Policy introduced in 1989 which stipulates how many Chinese, Indian or Malay residents can occupy a typical block of flats. My uppermost concern was the current limit for Malay residents, and whether it had been reached.

No PAP MP had asked this question, so I filed it to MND Minister Khaw Boon Wan for reply in the July 2012 sitting of parliament. The Minister replied with the numbers. The quota limit for a rental block was 25% for Malays, 87% for Chinese and 15% for Indian and others. But more worryingly, in providing his answer, the Minister stated that the 25% quota limit for Malays had already been reached. This explained the answer to my additional question on the waiting time for Chinese, Malay, Indian and other applicants. Unsurprisingly, Malay applicants and families had to wait the longest from all the races as their quota limit had already been reached.

Residents of Punggol East, rental flat appellants comprise of Singaporeans of all races who are in dire straits and they are in the low-income bracket with the total household income less than $1500 a month. Some of us worry about the cost of living and the impact of high property prices on our children’s generation. But I ask you to pause for a minute and just think of the reality of living a family which lives on less than $1500 a month.

Many rental tenants unfortunately are caught in a poverty trap. Some move from one contract job to another. Others are divorcees with children, then there are also ex-prisoners who have been shunned by family members who need people to take a second chance on them because they want to be self-sufficient. Many come from families where family relationships have broken down and irreconcilable differences have come to the fore. I had one most unfortunate case where the applicant was a transvestite and who needed an accommodation of his own but was unable to find a suitable partner. For Singaporeans with spouses who are foreigners, they are not eligible for rental housing – a situation that causes much difficulties given how out of control the property market is right now.

With the Minister’s answer in hand, I went to the Aljunied-Hougang Town Council and checked up with some of my fellow MPs about the number of rental blocks in their wards. Some interesting facts came up – the percentage of Malay households in many of the rental blocks in Aljunied-Hougang Town Council was actually between 30-40%, well beyond the 25% limit established by Minister Khaw in parliament. In one block, it was close to 50%. I decided to ask a follow up question in parliament for the August sitting. With knowledge of the situation in Aljunied-Hougang town, I asked the Minister how many rental blocks at the national level had reached the 25% limit for rental housing for Malay applicants.

In response to my question, Minister Khaw replied that about 60% of all rental blocks in Singapore had reached their quota for Malay applicants. But interestingly, and in fairness to the Minister, he said that HDB was now reviewing the ethnic integration policy quota for rental flats because of demand from the various ethnic groups. This was a good result to my review of all my MPS cases earlier in May 2012, and I certainly look forward to the result of the HDB’s review of the Ethnic Integration Policy quota for rental flats.

My friends, policy change can be slow, it may take time for policies to take effect on the ground. But that does not mean we give up on change or give up on making Singapore a better place for Singaporeans, regardless of race, language or religion, especially for those in need.

A few days ago, Prime Minister Lee said that did not see any strong views or alternatives being presented but the opposition in parliament. I can understand why the Prime Minister would make a remark like this.

He was not speaking as the Prime Minister of Singapore, but as the Secretary-General of the PAP.

But we just have to look back at the national announcements made just in the last week or so. More MRT lines by 2030, a promise to investigate and review the relationship between a fully-owned PAP company and the Town Councils, and a promise to allocate more HDB flats for first timers, a new revised family and parenthood package – All of these announcements were strategically made just before the Punggol by-election or during the Punggol by-election hustings. The PAP makes strategic calculations during elections, but they tell voters not to vote tactically to introduce more alternative views into parliament. The PAP forgets that even ordinary voters have the choice to vote strategically, not just tactically, in the interests of Singapore.

My fellow Singaporeans, nothing reaches the ears of PAP faster the power of your vote. There is alot more scope for a larger opposition presence in parliament so that any ruling party, not just the PAP works hard for all Singaporeans. The Workers’ Party has done well to get along this road and we hope you consider voting an opposition candidate into parliament for the betterment of all Singaporeans. One more PAP candidate will send them the message that all is well in Singapore. Do you think the PAP has done enough? Can it do more? The PAP will do so only do more if it always has to look over its shoulder, knowing full well that are Singaporeans with a hammer of alternative views behind it.

Residents of Punggol East, an opposition presence in parliament is vital for Singapore’s continued prosperity and success. We are a mature economy now. We must continue down the path of transparency and accountability, and transform ourselves into a mature democracy. As a people, as a country and as a society, we will all be better for it.

Vote for the Workers’ Party. Vote Lee Li Lian for Punggol East!

We have said this many times before that if you vote for the Workers’ Party, you will end up with 2 MPs serving you – an elected Workers’ Party MP and an appointed Grassroots Advisor who acts like an MP.

I read in the papers that Dr Koh Poh Koon, the PAP candidate, doesn’t think so.  He said “It’s a fallacy to believe that you can have the best of both worlds – choose a person to make a statement, but hope that the other person who is voted out is going to have all the resources, all the authority to get the work done for you.”

Well, I got bad news for Dr Koh.  This is not a fallacy.  This is a fact.  You will have 2 MPs serving you when you vote for the Workers’ Party because this has been the case in Hougang for the past 22 years!

The PAP has designed a system that will make its candidates look good no matter what the outcome of the election is.  If they win, they become MPs and Grassroots Advisers.  If they lose, they just become Grassroots Advisers.

If you go around Hougang today, you may think that the 2012 Hougang By-election was won by the PAP.  You can see the defeated PAP candidate’s photograph everywhere on posters and banners greeting residents all year round simply because he is the Grassroots Adviser.

And Grassroots Advisers will have a fully-funded office, community centres and full-time staff at their disposal courtesy of the People’s Association.  And how much taxpayer money did People’s Association spent in FY2010 – $409 million of which $189 million went into paying staff salaries.

Let me share with you what grassroots advisers do in opposition wards.  They conduct ‘Meet-the-People’ sessions and write appeal letters on behalf of residents.  They give out bursary awards and are invited as Guest-of-Honour for PA events.  And who do you first approach if you want some money for community improvement projects – The grassroots advisers!

So you see Dr Koh Poh Koon is wrong.  He will have all the resources and authority to serve Punggol East if you vote for Lee Li Lian.  We can forgive him for his ignorance because he has just joined PAP less than a month ago.

If you go to the PAP website and search for Mr Desmond Choo, the Hougang Grassroots Adviser, right on top of his photograph says ‘MP Profile’.  So there you have it, what more proof do we need that there will be 2 MPs to serve Punggol East if you vote for the Workers’ Party!

But the question on many people’s mind is why opposition MPs cannot be appointed Grassroots Advisers?  The answer came in a letter to The Straits Times Forum in 2011, right after we won Aljunied GRC.

The People’s Association spokesperson said: “Besides connecting people to people, grassroots advisers are required to help the government connect with people and help promote government policies and programmes such as anti-dengue and active ageing.

Hence, the government has to appoint grassroots advisers who support its programmes and can play this role well.  Opposition MPs cannot be expected to do this and thus cannot become advisers to GROs.”

This is not about role-playing.  This is divisive politics.

I want to let the People’s Association, whose chairman is the Prime Minister, know that Workers’ Party MPs support anti-dengue and active ageing programmes wholeheartedly even when we are not grassroots advisers.

I receive email alerts on dengue cases in Hougang from NEA from time to time.  I will then alert the town council to be vigilant and help NEA to look out for mosquito breeding spots.  I will also visit some dengue cluster hotspots as well.

And when the National Council for Social Service wanted to build a senior activity centre in Hougang, we gave it the full support.

So you can see that Workers’ Party MPs are pro-Singapore and we have been that way since day ONE.  We do not believe in divisive politics and we want to work towards the day when such practice will cease.

But the only way to end divisive politics is to have less PAP MPs and not more.  The PAP is known to preach and practise divisive politics all the time with no shame.  Residents of Hougang and Potong Pasir will know this very well.  They had been threatened in so many ways you can imagine in almost every election.

Let me read to you this declaration by an ex-National Development Minister – “As far as the HDB is concerned, constituencies which elected PAP Members will receive priority on maintenance works over constituencies which elected Opposition Members. This is the HDB policy and also the Government policy.”

That audacious statement, made in Parliament in 1985, polarised the nation along political lines and angered a generation growing up in the eighties.  Today, the PAP is still the government, the nation remains divided and the threats and intimidations have not disappeared.

When asked if he is not elected what will happen to his plans to set up a wellness centre for seniors within a soon-to-be-built Community Centre in Punggol East, the PAP candidate said the funding effort may be affected if he is not elected.

Voters of Punggol East, do you smell a threat here?  If the PAP is not elected some programmes may be affected again.  The people of Hougang rejected such threats for 22 years and rightly so because such divisive politics involving public funding cannot be allowed to take root in our country.

A lot of the issues we heard in our campaign can be solved, should be solved and will be solved by the authorities so let no one threaten you with delays and uncertainties if PAP is not elected in Punggol East.

The Minister of State for Transport already confirmed that the single-car LRT system in Sengkang and Punggol East will be converted into a two-car system by 2016.  Another Minister of State has also confirmed the mess at Rivervale Plaza will be fixed by mid-2013.  So let no one threaten you with any more delay if the votes do not go the PAP way.

Voters of Punggol East – who we vote on 26 January will determine the type of country we want our children to grow up in.  Who we vote will tell the government we want more of the same or we want a change.   And who we vote on 26 January will tell the government we love Singapore more than the PAP does and we want our country back!

So, vote Workers’ Party, vote Lee Li Lian!

On Sunday, Education Minister Heng Swee Kiat told you to vote for PAP so that the Workers’ Party will work harder. The Education Minister has got it all wrong! Which party is in government and has created the policies that are hurting you? The PAP! The PAP needs to work harder to improve their policies and to improve your lives.

Mr Heng has forgotten that whether they win or lose, the PAP’s candidate will still be the grassroots advisor. He has forgotten that the losing PAP candidate will still get access to community facilities to continue his party’s work. THESE will not be given to the WP if we lose.

Mr Heng has also forgotten that the elections department reports to the Prime Minister, who is the secretary-general of his party. The PAP can do wonderful magic. They can tear up a constituency and move it around. They can make constituencies disappear just before a general election. Only when you vote an opposition in can you vote one and get one free, because PAP will start to treasure you and work doubly hard for you. Only when you vote an opposition in can you ensure that Punggol East will stay as its own constituency.

Dr Koh, the candidate of the PAP, has said he wanted to have more childcare facilities here. He’s right that there should be more childcare centres here. Dr Koh will, however, have to content with a PAP’s policy that is flawed.

Childcare services have certainly become important. Over the past 8 years, with more working parents, the number of children enrolled in child & infant care centres has doubled to 76,000.

Childcare fees have also gone up. Over the same 8 years, the average fee has shot up by some 50%. Many centres, especially those in new towns like Punggol East are full. You sometimes have to wait more than a year to get your child into a centre that is more reasonably affordable. This is an issue that affects many Singaporeans.

Last week, the Prime Minister said the opposition has not presented any alternatives in parliament. Well, I remember presenting an alternative childcare policy in September as an adjournment motion. I also remember that the government has yet to answer many of the issues I had raised on this matter. Let me elaborate.

In 2009, the government came up with the Anchor Childcare Operator scheme. Conditions were set such that many long established and reputable operators in the childcare industry could not qualify. Only the PAP Community Foundation (or PCF) and NTUC’s My First Skool became anchor operators.

The government said that grants given to anchor operators will be $30 million every year. Anchor operators have opened over 132 new void deck sites in the 3 years since the scheme started. In this same period, only a few HDB sites were available for bidding by private and other non-profit operators.

From parliament answers, I calculated that Anchor Operators received grants averaging $600,000 per new centre. Their centres in HDB void decks pay rents 10-20 times lower than what is paid by private operators in similar void decks, based on results from recent tenders. Because there are so few HDB sites now available for non-anchor operators, rents have been bidded sky high, causing fees to rise rapidly. In fact, the void deck childcare with the highest rent in Singapore is here in Punggol.

The stated purpose for Anchor operators is to provide affordable, accessible, and high quality childcare. But all these are not happening with PAP’s policy. The fees charged by our two Anchor Operators are in some instances higher than that charged by some private and non-profit centres that do not get such generous grants or have to pay more in rent. In other words, the two anchor operators are protected from competition. They do not need to work as hard as they should to make fees as low as they can.

In the Lien foundation survey last year, there are more parents happier with the services of any other category of centres compared to that of PCF and NTUC. So despite huge grants available only to PCF and NTUC, satisfaction of their customers is lower than others. In 2010, the government started SPARK accreditation to raise the quality of preschools. Their aim is to have 85% of all centres to be SPARK-tested by 2013, which is this year. Guess what? Only 12% of the centres operated by anchors met the SPARK criteria as of last year when I questioned the Minister in parliament. The anchors are so far off the government’s target, yet they continue to receive huge grants.

After studying these data, I presented an alternative proposal in parliament. It is to make childcare as a public good, with active competition by all. These include the government making all sites operating on government spaces to be at low managed rents, and for the government to be able to directly regulate fees of centres that benefit from grants and subsidized rents. This can be done because the majority of all childcare centres operate on government owned sites.

Right now, the government is toothless to control fees. It gives out a lot of money but cannot stop fees from rising. It can only advise operators to give three months’ notice before increasing fees. Rather than rely on just two operators, the government should open up for competition to all operators based on a more reasonable set of anchor qualifying criteria, and to push these operators to do more to improve quality and to tightly regulate their fees.

With this alternative model, competition will keep all operators on their toes. They will need to be innovative and affordable. This will benefit all of you.

So the solution is not for Dr Koh to ask for a new centre here and a new centre there. Think… If it was so easy, why is it a nationwide problem? Why couldn’t your previous MP do that for you? This is because the PAP’s childcare policy is in need of fixing, just as there are many PAP’s policies that need fixing. The Workers’ Party has spoken out in Parliament on this. And the Workers’ Party will continue to push the government when we find policies that need fixing.

Vote Lee Li Lian into parliament. She will be a good and hardworking MP for you. She will be your voice in parliament. Come 26 Jan, vote The Workers Party. Vote for Lee Li Lian.

各位亲爱的榜鹅东选民，各位来之新加坡各区的工人党支持者，大家晚上好。

在2011年的大选中，选民很明确地表达了他们希望在新加坡的政治上有改革。人民行动党得到了独立以来最低的票数。

在去年的后港补选里，选民又再一次拒绝了人民行动党。人民行动党开始害怕了。所以他们想跟你们交谈，想和您进行全国对话。

英文有一句话说“Action speaks louder than words”。行动比语言更有说服力。你们现在有机会向他们传达一个更强烈的信号。1月26号 就是榜鹅东选民的机会了。只有这样，他们才会真正地听你们的心声, 才会真正地想办法了解人民的辛苦。

我入党已经两年了。在这两年里，我有机会与党员李丽连一起工作。她充满了活力。在党的各种活动，她时常作为主持人，讲话非常有自信。大选过后，丽连成为友诺士区 Pritam Singh议员的国会助理。 她组织基层活动，安排见面会，帮忙解决居民的问题，又同时当工人党青年团的主席。此外，她还有一份要求很高的全职工作。我称她为“Energizer”，应为她就像“Energizer” 电池一样，浑身是劲。

从她认真办事中可以看的出，她有一颗为人民的心。我相信她会成为一位好议员。

1月26号，你们要继续传达政治改革的讯息。请支持工人党！请投李丽连一票！谢谢！

Dear voters of Punggol East SMC, supporters of the Workers’ Party and fellow Singaporeans, a very good evening!

各位亲爱的榜鹅东选民，各位工人党的支持者，大家晚上好.

小弟姓陈, 名叫立峰, 独立的立, 山峰的峰. 我的职业是律师. 我在2011年大选的时候开始参于工人党义工活动.

Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Dennis Tan. I work as a lawyer.

I have been volunteering with the Workers’ Party since the 2011 General Election. Before GE 2011, I was like many Singaporeans: unhappy with the PAP government policies, worried about where this country is going. I was and I am still not convinced that the PAP way is the right way.

When the 2011 General Election came along, I felt that, instead of feeling frustrated, I should do something about it and volunteered to help the Workers’ Party in their election efforts.

Transport

Punggol East residents have complained about the lack of feeder buses and the long off peak waiting time for LRT and bus services. The bus service and the LRT are all operated by the same operator: SBS Transit which is part of the ComfortDelgro group.

SBS Transit and ComfortDelgro are listed companies. Do they even care that there are not enough buses? Or that Punggol East residents have to wait some time for buses and LRT?  Or are they more concerned about packing the buses and trains to maximize profits for their shareholders?

Punggol East is not a new estate. Why has this problem remain unsolved in the past few years? What has the previous PAP MP done about it?

The transport problem in Punggol East is not a local issue. It is part of the problems of our national public transport system. It is part of the PAP government’s legacy of allowing the public transport to be privatized and be run by two so-called government linked companies.

My colleague Toh Hong Boon spoke at our Saturday rally about the train disruptions including the latest one involving the North East Line 2 weeks ago.

In the past few years, we have encountered so many MRT breakdowns on all the MRT lines, not just the North East Lines. Do these train disruptions affect you Punggol East residents?  Of course they do.

Each time there is a breakdown, the train operator and the LTA will provide a reason for the breakdown: for the North East Line in January, it was three “U” bolts.

Now what the PAP government has not told us is why are the newer North East Line and Circle Line experiencing this frequency of breakdowns so soon?

Don’t just tell us it is because this nut was loose or that nut was loose?

Tell us whether the newer lines have breakdowns because of the poor quality of the trains or the equipment used or due to poor management of the systems?

Or is it because the systems were not designed to cope with a higher passenger load that came with the sudden increase in population in the past few years and the Ministry of Transport was not warned about it? Left hand not talking to right hand?

And will the government please tell us what they intend to do to make sure that these frequent breakdowns will stop!?

Last year, the PAP government came up with the Bus Services Enhancement Fund where the government planned to spend S$1.1bn of our taxpayers’ money to buy 550 buses and fund their operation.

You know why? Because the bus operators will not use their own money to buy and operate these buses. Yet, the government has allowed the train operators to keep their fat profits and even allowed fare increases in October 2011, right after the General Election where the PM had said sorry.

The PAP likes to privatise everything. So has the privatisation of public transport worked in Singapore? Are you happy with our public transport?

When the bus services enhancement fund was introduced under the Land Transport Amendment Bill last year, the Workers’ Party MPs were present at the debate and spoke on the bill. When a vote had to be taken on the bill, there were not enough MPs in Parliament. There were only 21 MPs present. The Deputy Speaker chairing the session had to postpone the vote to the following day. Such an important bill where the government was going to spend S$1.1bn on buses and not enough MPs to vote? So where were all the missing PAP MPs?

What is the point of voting for one more PAP MP?

Vote for the Workers’ Party to allow us to make greater efforts to engage the government on important issues like transport.

Lee Li Lian

Dear voters of Punggol East, I give you 3 good reasons why you should vote for Lee Li Lian.

Firstly, Lee Li Lian contested in Punggol East during GE2011. She is now back again this election.  She is NOT parachuted in at short notice. She did NOT just join the Workers’ Party 3 weeks ago.

Second, as the Legislative Assistant to MP Pritam Singh at the Eunos ward of Aljunied GRC since 2011, she has assisted with Pritam’s Meet the People Sessions, running grassroots events, handling residents’ problems and assisted with his parliamentary duties. Her experience has put her in a good position to hit the ground running, if you vote her into Parliament on 26 January. She is the best  qualified candidate for Punggol East.

Thirdly, if Lee Li Lian is voted in as the MP of Punggol East, the people of Punggol East will also get a new team of energetic and passionate grassroots volunteers.

As you all know, the People’s Association and the Citizens’ Consultative Committees and the Residents’ Committees only work with PAP MPs.

The Workers’ Party MPs do not have the help of Constituency Directors and other paid staff from the People’s Association or the support of the CCCs and the RCs.

We have to form our own grassroots volunteer network.  Our volunteers are Singaporeans from all walks of life, men, women, young, old, students, working adults, housewives, retirees, and from all races, Indian, Malay, Chinese, Eurasian.

Some live in Hougang and Aljunied, others come from different areas of Singapore, from Jurong to East Coast, from Sembawang to Tanjong Pagar.

Our volunteers do not need privileges to serve. There is no free parking, no priority for primary one places for their children, no public service awards, no Istana tea party. We peel our own parking coupons when we go help out at our grassroots events.

Our volunteers serve because, like the Workers’ Party, they also believe in Building for a New Generation of Singapore. Those of you who attended our Workers’ Party Bricks in Blue concert two weeks ago may remember the theme of the concert: Building for a New Generation. I like the Chinese translation even better -建设新一代的新加坡.

This is what the Workers’ Party is working towards, for Hougang, for Aljunied, for Punggol East and indeed for the whole of Singapore: Building for a new Generation of Singapore -建设新一代的新加坡.

Dear voters of Punggol East, on 26 January, help to build a new Generation of Singapore, vote for Lee Li Lian, vote for the Workers’ Party. Thank you.

让我们一起建设新一代的新加坡!请投工人党一票, 把李丽连送进国会!

上个星期三，榜鹅东的选民，收到了4份工作申请表格，申请一份来照顾大家，帮助大家，代表大家的工作。

有一位，是精英制度下产生的医生。

有一位，是大有来头的经济学家。

有一位，是位首席工程师。

其中最显眼的一位，不是因为她是万绿丛中一点红的唯一女性，而是因为她，和在场的各位一样，是一位普通的新加坡人。

她的名字是李丽连。

我和丽连一样，是在2006年大选后加入工人党。

还记得我们第一次认识时一样是党里的新人，在工人党卖铁锤报时，被分配到同一组。
她尽力推售铁锤报，细心地向走过的人介绍铁锤报。
我看到丽连的不遗余力。

后来我们在同一届被选入工人党青年团执委，一起主办了许多活动。
丽连当时在后港选区委员会主办的社区活动里，也非常活跃。阿裕尼国会议员毕丹星在上次的群众大会也形容了他在一日游里和丽连的第一次合作。丽连和居民们的互动，毕丹星形容为好像是认识多年的邻居。
我看到了丽连的亲和力。

丽连在2008年进入中央执委担任副财政。
那年，我们也开始随着党的指示，到工人党有兴趣竞选的地区做沿户访问。
在2011年代表工人党分别派我到盛港西和丽连到榜鹅东这儿竞选。
群众大会上的她，表现出色，让人印象深刻。
我看到了丽连的爆发力。

大选之后，丽连担任青年团主席，带领青年团主办活动。
她也受委任为毕丹星的国会助理。
除了每周的接见选民活动，也主办区内大大小小的活动，
召集义工，为居民办事，有条有理，让居民们非常满意。
在市镇理事会和居民之间充当桥梁。
我看到了丽连的 号召能力和办事能力。

好长的履历表啊

Come support the Workers’ Party and our candidate Ms Lee Li Lian! See you there!

Date: 23 Jan 2013 (Wed)

Time: 7pm

Venue: Open Field in front of Blk 183C Rivervale Crescent

–
Transport Advisory
Dear Supporters, as there will be road closure and expected traffic congestion near the rally site, you are strongly encouraged to take public transport to the rally site.

You can take the Sengkang East Loop LRT (Green Line) from Sengkang Station and alight at Rumbia LRT Station (SE2).

Please remember to bring an umbrella in case it rains and wear appropriate footwear in case the field is muddy.

See you soon!

–

Come support the Workers’ Party and our candidate Ms Lee Li Lian! See you there!

Date: 22 Jan 2013 (Tue)

Time: 7pm

Venue: Open Field in front of Blk 183C Rivervale Crescent

–
Transport Advisory
Dear Supporters, as there will be road closure and expected traffic congestion near the rally site, you are strongly encouraged to take public transport to the rally site.

You can take the Sengkang East Loop LRT (Green Line) from Sengkang Station and alight at Rumbia LRT Station (SE2).

Please remember to bring an umbrella in case it rains and wear appropriate footwear in case the field is muddy.

See you soon!

–

I am very happy to be here to speak to you again. Thank you for coming tonight to show us your support!

I joined the Workers’ Party in 2006, more than six years ago. I met many of you in my walkabouts in GE2011 and you have shared your concerns with me. And you gave me 41 per cent of the votes. Thank you for your faith – I hope I can build on this for this by-election.

I have been working in the Eunos division of Aljunied GRC with MP Pritam Singh. During these past two years, I gained valuable experience in addressing the problems of many ordinary Singaporeans left behind by the PAP’s policies. This will better help me serve you as your MP.

I have met with young families who cannot afford to buy their own HDB flats or struggle to pay off their loans; elderly Singaporeans who have no savings or are struggling to pay their medical bills; parents who worry about the rising cost of education and increasing competition and  families who struggle to take care of both their children and elderly parents. I worry if our children can afford to live in Singapore 20 years down the road?

My fellow Singaporeans, like you, I am a heartlander working hard to make a living. I share many of these concerns.

Tonight I would like to talk about some of the problems that many Singaporeans, young and old are facing. Many of you shared some of these problems with me in 2011 when I was walking the ground then. Now 2 years later, many of these concerns still remain.

Punggol East has many young families – couples who are thinking of having children, or parents who already have children. Many also have to take care of their elderly parents.

Do you know that fees of childcare centres have gone up 34% in just five years?

In 2007, the average fee for a full-day childcare and infant-care programme was $680 a month. In 2012 it was about $914 a month.

In the same period, the number of childcare centres grew from 743 to 1,009. Usually greater competition means better prices. But this is in fact the opposite! Why? Because of rental costs.

Since 2009, “Anchor Operators” have dominated the childcare industry in Singapore. These Anchor Operators enjoy many public subsidies. They enjoy grants for:

(a)  rental cost;

(b)  set-up and furnishing cost;

(c)  teacher recruitment; and

(d)  manpower training.

These grants come up to an estimated $69 million since 2009. This is over half-a-million dollars of taxpayer subsidies per new childcare centre built by the Anchor Operators. In addition, Anchor Operators operate mostly from HDB void decks at rents of between $2 and $4 per square metre!

There are only two childcare centre operators that qualify as Anchor Operators. They are My First Skool – run by the NTUC; and PCF Sparkletots – affiliated to the ruling People’s Action Party.

If NTUC and PCF enjoy such huge public subsidies, why are childcare centre fees going up?

Young fathers today want to contribute to caring for their babies and easing the burden of their wives. Survey after survey shows that younger men are more involved in taking care of their children.

A number of businesses have signalled to the government that they are open to the idea of government-supported paternity leave because this is likely to increase productivity and well-being in the long-run. Wives have already expressed their support for longer paternity leave for their husbands.

So what is the government waiting for?

After worrying about the costs of living and having children, we then have to worry about our stressful education system. The PSLE in particular seems to end up being a hugely stressful experience for both children and parents.  Please do not get me wrong. I believe that healthy competition can be good.

But should a 12 year old child face the most important examination of his pre-teens life – an examination that may affect his entire future?

We are seeing unhealthy stress levels in our education system. We have students committing suicides because they did not do well enough for their exams. An estimated 1 in 10 children aged 6 to 16 suffer from mental health disorders. One child lost is one child too many.

While it is good that the Ministry of Education has decided not to name the top PSLE students in the media, to help reduce  competitiveness and stress, much more can still be done.

PSLE is still a high-stakes examination. If you do not do well at PSLE, you will always be struggling to catch up with your peers because of secondary school streaming. The formative years of our young children should also be better spent on nurturing their many talents and interests rather than forcing preparations for high-stakes examinations on them. We should study the feasibility of a primary-secondary school integrated programme and other ways to reduce the pressure to perform in the PSLE.

While Punggol East is a relatively young estate, we must not forget our senior citizens who have worked hard and contributed to nation building and growth of our country.

At the age of 75, most of our senior citizens are unemployed.  For those who are employed, they can hardly make ends meet.  This is why our seniors who are 75 and above should be allowed to use their Medisave for medical treatment without restriction. Medical cost has become a huge necessity as one grows older. At the age of 75 Medisave should be used to support immediate needs. Life expectancy in Singapore is 82 years. If our seniors cannot used their Medisave funds for immediate medical needs when they are 75 years old, when can they use it?

Allowing unrestricted use of Medisave for them will also ease the burden on families who have to take care of elderly parents and young children as well.

My fellow Singaporeans and residents of Punggol East, if we want to build strong and stable families and truly invest in the future of our nation, we need to get our policies right.

I am also an ordinary Singaporean. I grew up in a three room HDB flat. I am not a high-flier or government scholar. I did not do very well earlier in my schooling years but I worked hard and made it to Ngee Ann Poly and eventually graduated from Curtin University in Australia. In order to ease the financial burden on my parents, I did part-time work when I was just 15 years old.

I am running for this by-election because I want a better Singapore not only for us, but also for our children.

Residents of Punggol East, WP has the experience to manage the estate and constituency and I will strive to build a strong and engaged community in Punggol East. I will work my hardest to represent you and be your voice in Parliament.

Vote for our future. Vote for the Workers’ Party, and vote for me, Lee Li Lian, on polling day next Saturday, 26^th of January.

各位榜鹅东的选民，我是李丽连， 工人党 榜鹅东单选区的候选人。 大家晚上好！ 我很高兴又再次和大家见面。 离全国大选只是两年的时间，想不到我又代表工人党在此演讲。

我在沿户访问的时候，和许多人碰过面，许多人也和我分享了他们所关心的问题。 我也很感谢您对我的信任和支持，在2011年大选给了我41％的选票。我希望得到更多的支持，获得您的委托，进入国会为您请命。

2011年大选过后，党建议我到阿裕尼集选区的友诺士区协助比丹星议员。做为国会助理的两年里，我累积了不少经验，也看到了许多在行动党的政策下，跟不上我国经济发展步伐的新加坡人。

我遇到购买不起组屋的年轻家庭。我接触到没有储蓄、无家可归的年长者。我也见过负担不起昂贵物价的新加坡人。我碰到担心负担不起学费，担心孩子将来是否有经济能力继续居住在新加坡的年轻父母。

其实，虽然我国经济每年有增长，生活水准也是第一世界国家的水准，但生活上的压力确实很大。

例如，托儿所和学前教育的收费一直在上升，对年轻的家庭来说，是个负担。你们知道吗？过去五年内，托儿所的学费增加了34%.

虽然政府提供津贴，给提供托儿所服务的两大集团，就是全国职工总会（NTUC）旗下的「幼乐园」(My First Skool) 和人民行动党社区基金会（PCF）经营的Sparkletots，但学费还是不断往上涨。这些都是我会研究与关注的课题。

此外，教育的压力也是我所关心的问题。孩子一上学，父母亲接着就得应付挑战，就是我们的教育制度所造成的压力。

工人党党纲说明：「小六会考对小孩、家长，一样造成极大压力。十二岁的孩子，就要面临他青少年期之前最重要的考试。这是有可能完全决定他的未来的一场考试。」

因此，我赞成教育部停止对媒体公布小六会考榜首的决定。但是，在这些方面，我们还能做得更多。小六会考毕竟是一场高风险的考试。我们应该把小朋友成长最关键的时光，投资在培养他们的兴趣，让他们开始有终生学习的态度，而不是强逼他们面对高风险、高压力的考试。

年长一代的新加坡人是我们国家成功的基础，没有上一代人的刻苦耐劳，就没有今天的繁荣，是他们用血和汗换回来今日的新加坡。现在应该是我们的前辈可以好好安享晚年的时候。可是，物价高涨，特别是医疗费用一直不断的上升，让我们的乐龄人士不但乐不起来，还需常常为生活负担和医药费担忧。

在医药费方面，我认为，应该考虑取消年龄七十五岁以上的公民利用保健储蓄户口的限制。这个年龄层的乐龄人士，一般上比较需要医疗服务，他们也已经不能工作。况且，目前我国的平均寿命是82岁， 过了七十五岁还不能完全动用保健储蓄户口，那应该什么时候才用？

各位，一个国家如果要她的国民能够安居乐业，要国民能够好好地生儿育女，培养下一代，那就应该先有正确的政策。

我跟大多数的新加坡人一样，在普通的家庭里长大。为了减轻父母的负担，我15岁就开始半工半读。但我还是努力完成理工学院的学业，然后完成大学教育。

我的学历虽然比不上有精英程度的其他候选人，但是，我相信榜鹅东的选民会看到我的诚意与自信，为你们和孩子争取到更美好的未来。

1月26日，请投工人党一票，请投李丽连一票，送我进国会。

谢谢大家。

It is good that you have come personally to look at us and to listen to what we have to say rather than taking what is fed to you by the media or speculations online.

For the residents of Punggol East, the Workers’ Party would like to thank you for your support at the 2011 General Elections. Despite a 3-corner fight, many of you gave your support to our candidate and we obtained good results. We are here again to offer you a choice.

The PAP has taken you for granted for far too long. Singapore is in its current state because the PAP did not think far enough, and they did not put themselves in the shoes of the people enough. As reported in Wanbao before nomination day, Dr Koh said he could well join the opposition and “make the same noise”, but that would not be effective. He refers to your voice as noise! So, what change to the attitude of the PAP can you expect by putting one more PAP MP into Parliament?

One concrete example is Punggol East. I was assigned to visit some blocks by the party to help our candidate Lee Li Lian. I see a lot of facilities for Residents’ Committees to organize activities; and every cluster of blocks has a RC centre. It seems to me the RC has become so important that it is even built into the design of the HDB town. Very convenient for the PAP to “serve” you through the RC. How about facilities that you need most? Coffeeshops? Convenience stalls, etc? Your need and convenience in daily life is not on the mind of the government in the design of the estate. Your needs have obviously been neglected!

I am sure the residents of Punggol East must have feedback to their RC or to their MP about the inconvenience but what is the result? The Punggol East estate has been part of Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC for a long time until GE 2011 when it was crafted out to become a SMC in GE 2011 and the voters decided to return a PAP candidate. Think again, since 2 years ago, has any real effort been made to improve the Punggol East estate?

Many of you have been faithfully supporting the PAP all these years. What have the PAP offered you? In fact, not only did the conveniences of Punggol East not improve by much, renovation works to Rivervale Plaza, the ONLY “market place” in this town, is allowed to be delayed. It is time you ask yourselves whether the PAP appreciates your support; or do you want to send a message to the PAP government that you don’t want your support to be taken for granted anymore!
Elections are the best way to safeguard your rights and interest and to make the government work for you. After the last election, the PAP has obviously worked harder. Let us make sure that after this by-election and the next General Election, they will work as if their lives depended on you!

Now, lets bring the spotlight back to Li Lian. How can she take care of Punggol East if she is elected?

From what I know her, I believe she will be totally immersed in the lives of the people of Punggol East. Drawing from our experiences, she would have no problems running the Town Council. Your issues will be championed and escalated when the need arises. This is how the Workers’ Party work; if we cannot resolve issues on the ground for the benefit of the resident, we would escalate it to Parliament.

One such example is the problem of midges at Bedok Reservoir which is in my division in Aljunied GRC. The midges infestation problem existed before I was elected. I thought something would have been done for a long term solution, but to my surprise, similar problems recurred and I found out there was obviously no long term solution in sight. Then, I brought the issue up in Parliament and the government outlined what they are and will be doing.

This year, the situation has improved but not completely solved. Since then, PUB and NEA have put in much effort in managing the problem with the Town Council and engaging the residents who are affected. The Workers’ Party does not aim to breed bad relationships with the government agencies; we want to be able to make Singapore a better place to live in. Regardless of political affiliation, we are able to competently run the Town Council to the best benefit of the residents.

Workers’ Party has been running Town Council in Hougang SMC for years against all odds, we worked with Hougang residents and relevant government agencies during the Sars period and to fight dengue fever outbreak. So if Li Lian is elected, you do not need to worry about management of your estate.

The Workers’ Party is a rational and responsible party. We do not only position ourselves in that way to gain your support. We do what we say and believe in what we say. It is my belief that it is in the interest of Singapore to have a credible party which is reasonable and responsible to check on the government, to keep the government on its toes and to make them responsive to the needs of the people in a responsible way. I will explain more of this at our subsequent rally.

So, do remember, why you should vote for Li Lian: 1) because your support for the PAP has not been appreciated, and 2) Li Lian is a credible and competent member of the Workers’ Party.

Come 26 Jan, vote Workers’ Party!

各位工人党的支持者，晚上好。

没想到我们这么快又在群众大会上见面了。我想大家应该知道，这次的补选是为了什么而补选吧！真是世事难料。
很感谢大家前来支持工人党。即使在群众大会场地这么遭的情况下，大家也前来支持。我要特别感谢榜鹅东的选民前来聆听我们的群众大会。

亲自前来听我们的群众大会才可以真正完全地听到我们所说的话，也看到我们的表现。

最近，我为候选人李丽连助选。我发现，这个组屋区的最大特色就是在每一个邻里都为居民委员会设立了办事处和活动中心。看来，建屋发展局的整个市镇设计重心是放在居民委员会。行动党通过建屋发展局给予它的基层组织如此的方便，然而，对居民所需要的设施，比如咖啡店、杂货店，这些看来在政府设计市镇的时候都没有放在心上。

榜鹅东向来是白沙-榜鹅集选区的一个部分，而在上届大选的时候被划分成为单选区。榜鹅东的选民也决定继续支持行动党的候选人。

我想问一下榜鹅东的选民，你这么多年来都非常支持行动党，在上届大选也继续支持行动党，而行动党又给了你什么呢？是居民委员会所主办的各种活动？还是鲤河大厦装修的手尾？鲤河大厦是榜鹅东这里唯一的商业中心，也是住在这里的居民常常去的地方，工程竟然可以延误到这种地步，等到现在要补选了才临时抱佛脚。如果没有这一次的补选，完工的日期不知道要等到何年何月。

所以，行动党已经把榜鹅东选民的支持当成是理所当然的。榜鹅东选民是不是应该考虑，转为支持工人党？给行动党一个教训，让她清楚知道不能把人民的支持当成是理所当然的。

不过，也许有人会认为，选行动党的候选人是最安全的选择。因为行动党是政府；是执政党。不过，也正因为这样，你更不应该把票投给行动党。因为行动党已经执政，它已经成为政府。在国会里面，它拥有绝大多数的议员。在87个议席里面， 超过百分之90的议席全由行动党包办。行动党已经是一个很强的政党。有需要让它更强吗？使它更不把人民的需求放在心上吗？

许多新加坡人都看到，行动党失去阿裕尼集选区的效果。对行动党来说，失去一个集选区是一个大打击，也是对它的一个警告。它现在知道，它们忽略了人民的要求和新加坡人所面对的生活困境。在过去许多年来，行动党都不肯对新加坡人的要求做出反应，那是因为没有一个政党有能力在竞选的时候向它挑战，并让它面对在竞选的时候失去议席的后果。

把票投给工人党，培养工人党成为一个比较有力量，在竞选的时候可以面对强大行动党的政党，才能保护人民的权利和你的利益。 只要工人党有能力在选举时挑战行动党，行动党就不敢看轻你的选票的力量，它才会正视你所面对的问题，才会好好的为您服务。

行动党政府现在已经开始改变它的施政方针和它的政策。比如增加医药的开销，也对外来移民采取了更严格的态度。他们这样做因为他们担心这些不受欢迎的政策会使到他们在下届大选中失去更多议席。

其实，还有许多需要改善的政策使人民的生活更好过。比如说，生活的成本太高，公共交通，组屋，对老人的照顾，还有低收入家庭的一些问题都需要我们去关注。

你是否要行动党政府做的更多，做得更好？那你应该用你手头上的一票，使到他们更努力的工作。

1月26日，把工人党候选人李丽连送进国会。

Dear Residents of Punggol East,

These last days must have been a new experience for you. Suddenly, the whole of Singapore is interested in you. People hand you stacks to read, knock on your door, ask for your opinion. You are so important to so many people at this time. It can be bewildering. I came across a lady 2 days ago who said this to me: “Everybody says they are the best candidate. How are we going to choose who really is the best?”

This evening, I want to answer her question. Who is the best candidate for Punggol East?

Some of you may think that voting for the PAP candidate is a safe choice, because he is from the political party which runs the government. But, dear friends, this is exactly why you should not vote for the PAP candidate. His political party is already running the show. They already have an overwhelming majority in Parliament, holding 80 out of 87 elected seats. That’s already 92% control! Does the PAP need to be stronger?

Many Singaporeans have noticed the effect of the PAP losing Aljunied GRC in 2011. It was a big blow to them. The PAP government has been trying to win back voters by making some changes to its policies, such as increasing healthcare funding and tightening its liberal foreign worker policies. Why are they doing this? Because they are afraid of losing more votes from their unpopular policies. Last night DPM Teo Chee Hean said that after GE 2011, the government “had taken the initiative and moved ahead” on some issues. Are you satisfied with their progress so far? There is still a lot to be done to make life better in Singapore. Public transport, public housing, care for the elderly, low-income workers, all these still need attention. Do you want the government to work harder to fix problems? We have to help the government work harder. So use your vote to make them work!

The next question you might ask is this: What can Lee Li Lian offer to Punggol East residents and to the nation, as a WP MP?

First of all, Punggol East is a logical place of interest to the Workers’ Party. It is close to our wards in Hougang SMC and Aljunied GRC. Many of our residents have family members living here. Li Lian’s family lives in Buangkok, which is nearby. And even I found that my former secondary school, St Joseph’s Convent, is now within Punggol East SMC!

If Li Lian is elected, she will be running Meet the People sessions to assist Punggol East residents in their dealings with government departments. The other day a gentleman asked me whether the government departments would react differently if they received a letter from a WP MP. Well, from what I know, it is the duty of government departments to respond to WP MPs according to the same policies which apply to residents in PAP constituencies. If they don’t, we will just file a Parliamentary question for the Minister to answer!

If Li Lian is elected, she will also take over the Town Council. We do not expect this to be a problem. WP has been running the Town Council in Hougang SMC for 22 years, against many obstacles thrown its way. Hougang voters found the town well-managed – unlike what former PM Lee Kuan Yew predicted, their rubbish did not pile up to the 3rd storey! Since 2011, WP has been running Aljunied-Hougang Town, at the GRC level. Despite the short time for take-over and some unnecessary contract terminations, we rose to the challenge and did not let Aljunied voters down. Today if you visit Aljunied-Hougang Town, it does not look much different from other towns of the same era. Punggol East is an SMC, much smaller than Aljunied GRC. Punggol East residents can be assured that if we need to take over the town council for Punggol East, we are confident we can handle it. We will talk more about the Town Council at a later rally.

Now what about at the national level – what can a WP MP do that a PAP MP cannot do? Our job as opposition MPs is to ensure that the government performs and hold the government to account when it fails to perform. WP believes in constructive opposition. We play our role in Parliament by scrutinizing government actions, confronting the government when we have to, and voting against actions which we do not believe to be in the public interest. In the last few years, WP has voted against certain Constitutional amendments and legislation, and pressured the government on various matters such as their astronomical Ministerial salaries, healthcare funding, and social justice issues. On the other hand, even though we are an opposition party, WP does not believe in crippling the government, which will hurt Singaporeans. In fact, from time to time, WP has submitted its alternative suggestions on certain policies to the Ministries for their consideration behind closed doors. Our brand of opposition politics is pro-Singapore. We do not want the ship to sink, because we are on board as well!

This by-election is about who should represent Punggol East voters in Parliament. It is also about which candidate can contribute more at the national level, by bringing something fresh to the table. Do you know how many male PAP MPs we already have in Parliament? 62! Do we really need another PAP man? Do you know how many Workers’ Party women there are in Parliament? Well, you are looking at her… What we need is another Workers’ Party woman! I can tell you one thing about Workers’ Party women – we work! Lee Li Lian is 34, young, energetic, dynamic. And she can do something that I can’t do – run in high heels!

Fellow Singaporeans, Singapore is our home. The Workers’ Party wants Singapore to succeed. Singapore can be better. If you believe the Workers’ Party has played a useful role in promoting good governance in Singapore, now is the time for you to play your part. It is your turn now. The PAP will still be a juggernaut even if they lose Punggol East. There is more than enough of White around. Instead, vote for a Singapore of many colours and many voices.

As Li Lian said on Nomination Day, she will serve you wholeheartedly. This is a 4-cornered fight, every vote counts. So come January 26, vote for a better Singapore, a brighter future. Vote for the Woman – Vote for Lee Li Lian as MP for Punggol East! Vote for the Workers’ Party!

Dear voters of Punggol East, supporters of the Workers’ Party, a very good evening to you!

In my family, we eat a lot of fruits. My wife does her marketing in a market nearby. Most of the time, she buys from the same fruit seller. This has been so for many years.

My fruit seller will make suggestions: try this apple from S Africa; try that dragon fruit from Malaysia. Try the dates from China; they are in season. Sometimes, his recommendation bombed out. What is supposed to be sweet turns out to be sour. My wife will tell him firmly; that way, he will not take our business for granted and betray our trust.

I have just read the beginning part of Mr Khaw Boon Wan’s speech from the Hougang By-Election in 2012. The PAP Chairman in that speech likened the Workers’ Party to a ‘dishonest fruit seller’. He probably never knew that his speech can be used again for this By-Election but not by the same party.

It seems like just yesterday when I was standing on a stage before you, asking you to vote for me in a by-election. Back then, the people of Hougang put their faith in the Workers’ Party and me, and we successfully defended our seat in Parliament.

Tonight, I stand before you on this rally stage once again asking you, the voters of Punggol East, to put your faith in the Workers’ Party and send Lee Li Lian into parliament!

The headline in the one of the newspapers today said the government is delivering on its General Election promises. It says ‘it will keep its word’ and ‘it has already moved ahead on housing, transport, education and health care.’

The way I see it, this government is just trying to rectify all these problems which the people had highlighted to them in the past but to no avail until the voters of Aljunied decided to give the PAP a tight slap. And it was a good slap! The Aljunied Slap in 2011 even pushed the PAP government to start a National Conversation to engage Singaporeans in a heart-to-heart talk.

But we are dealing with an elitist government. It is not easy to make them sit up and listen to you unless election is near.

Did we not tell the government that there were not enough new flats when Mr Mah Bow Tan was in charged? And when the current National Development Minister said that one of the reasons for the current pent-up demand and market imbalance for residential flats is caused by under-building in the past, it just makes you shake your head in disbelief.

Since 2011 General Election, have you found it easier and cheaper to move around by public transport, to buy a small car for the family, to find a roof over your heads, to bring up your children, to pay for their education and care?

Just this month, COE prices have risen yet again. COE prices for small cars smashed the previous record set in December last year. It practically doubled from over $46,000 in May 2011 to over $92,000 this month.

And a few months after the 2011 General Election, there was a bus and MRT fare increase. There were also hefty fare hikes for taxis at the end of 2011, which took place just as Singaporeans were struggling to get home in the midst of massive train breakdowns. And to top it all, our Transport Minister said last December that there will be another public transport fare review this year.

Is this government listening to you at all?

A recent Straits Times report found that the average cost for full day infant-care now stands at $1,318 a month, a 14 per cent rise from 2007, with most operators raising their fees between 10% and 20% over the last few years.

HDB’s resale price index rose 2.5% in the fourth quarter, the highest increase in 2012. And just a week ago, the Government introduced the SEVENTH round of cooling measures to slow down runaway property prices for BOTH private and public housing. Something is fundamentally wrong when a government needs to introduce cooling measures for public housing.

Is this government listening to you at all?

The Workers’ Party MPs have spoken up on these rising costs of living. On the topic of possible bus fare hikes, the Workers’ Party said that “Commuters should not be expected to pay higher fares, especially when service standards remain unsatisfactory, as they have been since the last fare hike. The Government and PTOs must put the public interest before shareholders’ interests. “

Do SMRT and SBS Transit need a bus fare hike to remain viable? The local operations of Comfort DelGro, which runs SBS Transit, ended 2011 with an operating profit of about $240 million. SMRT had an operating profit of almost $150 million in 2012. Both companies are very profitable! There is no reason for them to raise bus fare.

On childcare, Mr Yee Jenn Jong filed an adjournment motion in Parliament in September last year, where he outlined the high infant care costs that Singaporean parents are facing. He called for child care to be a public good, with tighter control of fees and quality by the Government, but cheaper rentals overall for all operators. Recently, the Government announced it is reviewing the affordability of infant care.

Had Aljunied not stood up to tell the PAP government that enough is enough; would there be any policy reviews at all? Will they be building more new homes for our children? Will they ever acknowledge that our infrastructure is not built to cater for our ridiculous population growth in recent years?

One more Workers’ Party MP in parliament means one more set of eyes to scrutinise our Government, and one extra voice to speak out against policies that hurt Singaporeans. Having one more Workers’ Party MP sends a powerful message to the PAP government that all is still not well. All is still not forgotten. And all is still not fixed.

The PAP government will still have 80 seats in Parliament without Punggol East. It will still control and run your life as it chooses. But if the people of Punggol East decide to make a stand on 26 January and vote for the Workers’ Party, it will signal to the Government that we, the citizens of Singapore, have a strong desire to safeguard our future and the future of our children. And we want this Government to take note of that when they plan to grow our population through immigration.

The Aljunied Slap is not the end but only the beginning. The voice of the people cannot be silenced anymore. The Hougang By-election result says it all that the march towards a First World Parliament cannot be stopped.

Voters of Punggol East, will you join us and write a new chapter in the history of Singapore? A Singapore that you can be proud of and a Singapore that your children will want to come home to no matter where they are in this world.

The Workers’ Party will serve you wholeheartedly. The Workers’ Party will also manage your estate diligently. And the Workers’ Party will also stand up for your rights constantly just as Li Lian had said in her nomination speech. These are not grand statements to score political points. These are promises that we have kept in Anson, Hougang, and Aljunied.

I told Li Lian I can smell Punggol East from Hougang and the smell is sweet!

Voters of Punggol East, Vote for the Workers’ Party, vote Lee Li Lian!

Thank you for joining us at this rally tonight. We really appreciate you being with us.

Some of you may have made the effort to leave work a little earlier. Thank you so much for your effort.

Some of you may have loved ones waiting for you at home. We will do our best to end on time.

Some of you may have brought your family with you. Thank you very much for your support.

As the Workers’ Party, we know that we Singaporeans treasure our family and loved ones. We know that we work hard at our jobs because we want to provide for our parents, our children, and our future.

The Most Valuable Gift

Singaporeans are one of the hardest working people in the world. Statistics show that since 2001, the number of official hours worked a week is 46. This means about 40% of our time is spent at work.

Assuming we sleep for 7 hours a day, this means that we sleep roughly 30% of our time. This leaves us only with another 30% for other activities. Mind you, the 40% of our time spent at work is only for official hours, not actual hours worked, and all the time spent on emails at home or using the mobile.

To make those numbers easier to understand, let’s think of Monday to Friday as 1 hour.

In that 1 hour, you sleep for 18 minutes, you wake up and you work for another 24 minutes. And then you have just 18 minutes to travel to and from work, play with your children, have dinner with your family, go out with your friends, and do whatever you want to do.

18 minutes…

Some of you may say that there’s Saturday and Sunday. But let us not live our lives waiting for the weekends to come.

Your children are not your children only on Saturdays and Sundays.

Your children are your children everyday.

And the most valuable gift you can give to the people you love is time.

The Government must lead the way

We are not asking you to work less hard.

We are asking for employers in Singapore to understand that your employee’s life is more than just his job. In fact, once employers understand that, your employees will likely be more productive, committed and motivated to work for you.

We are also asking that, if the Government is serious about improving the work-life balance of Singaporeans, then it must lead the way through action and legislation.

The Government should improve the work-life balance policies of the public sector to set an example for the private sector to follow.

Let’s talk about what the Government can do more in.

40-hour work week by 2020

Firstly, let’s reduce the number of working hours per week.

Let’s bring down official working hour to 40 a week. It means that if we take Monday to Friday as 1 hour, then instead of 18 minutes for our loved ones, we will have now 24 minutes. A 33% increase.

And let’s set a target for it. Let’s do it by 2020.

I asked about this in Parliament in September last year. The Government replied that it requires careful study.

We feel that it’s time for an update. Because if we say that family is our top priority, then it must be reflected in the time we spend with them.

Blue Sky Days

Secondly, let’s talk about blue skies. “Blue Sky Days” was implemented in 2006 to encourage public service agencies to let their employees leave work earlier or on time when the sky is still blue.

This is important because employees can go home early to have dinner with their family and spent quality time after that. Blue sky means family time.

In Parliament in September last year, I asked the Government if it would consider encouraging Ministries and Statutory Boards to practise “Blue Sky Days” on a weekly basis.

The Government’s reply was that 35 public service agencies have introduced “Blue Sky Days” on a weekly basis.

It is positive that “Blue Sky Days” is gaining traction. But there are over 60 public service agencies. For the government to set the right example to the private sector, as many public service agencies as possible must adopt this practice. Also, shouldn’t we work towards everyday being a “Blue Sky Day”?

Paternity Leave

Secondly, let’s talk about being a father.

I have three young children of my own. I believe that many of you who are fathers remember the days when your wife gave birth to your child. Some of you might have taken annual leave, or even no-pay leave, to take care of your wife and new-born.

As society progresses, and as families become smaller, the role of the father becomes just as important as the mother. And we need our laws to reflect that. Mothers have maternity leave enshrined in the Employment Act. Fathers do not.

In Parliament in August last year, I asked the Government for the percentage of companies offering paternity leave, and whether the Government intends to legislate paternity leave of at least six days.

The Government replied that the percentage of companies with at least 25 employees that offered paternity leave has been steadily increasing from 40% in 2004 to 48% in 2010.

This shows that companies are already changing their mindsets, it is about time the Government changed its mindset and legislate for paternity leave as soon as possible.

Conclusion

The Workers’ Party acknowledges that the Government has expressed support for policies to improve work-life balance. And we believe that the Government must make a stronger commitment in this area.

The Government must commit to reducing the number of working hours, without reducing the quality of services to the public.

The Government must commit to improving productivity by adopting technological innovations and changing our work practices, so that the goal of a 40-hour work week can be achieved.

It’s time for our country to move forward to achieve a sustainable work-life balance.

It’s time for our country and voters of Punggol East to elect a person who shares many of the hopes and dreams that you have.

As a woman balancing her career and starting out her own family, Li Lian understands the concerns of many couples who are beginning to start a life of their own.

Her life experience and her experience on the ground for the past many years are testament to her abilities and dedication to serve.

Li Lian will be a strong and committed Member of Parliament for all Singaporeans and especially for you, the voters of Punggol East.

Vote Workers’ Party!

Vote Lee Li Lian as your Member of Parliament for Punggol East SMC!

Saudara-saudari,

Perkara yang ingin saya sampaikan pada hari ini menyentuh tentang isu kesimbangan antara waktu bekerja dan kehidpuan berkeluarga.

Berkenaan isu ini, saya ingin kongsikan tiga perkara yang telah saya kemukakan di parlimen.

Waktu Pekerjaan

Yang pertama, saya telah menanyakan kepada Pemerintah samada waktu pekerjaan secara amnya di Singapura dapat dikurangkan dairpada 46 jam ke 40 jam seminggu. Dalam menjawab soalan saya, pemerintah mengatakan bahawa perkara ini perlukan sebuah kajian yang mendalam jika ia hendak dilaksanakan. Saya rasa masanya sudah sesuai untuk pemerintah membuat kajian terutama sekali dengan tertubuhnya Kementerian Pembangunan Keluarga dan Masyarakat.

Blue Sky Days

Kedua, saya telah mencadangkan agar pemerintah melanjutkan program ‘Blue Sky Days’ secara mingguan kepada lebih banyak Kementerian serta Badan-badan pemerintah.

Program ini membolehkan para pekerja pulang kerumah masing-masing sebelum terbenam matahari dimana langit masih kebiruan.

Pemerintah mengatakan bahawa sejak program ini di perkenalkan pada 2006, 35 buah agensi pemerintah telah melaksanakan program ini secara mingguan. Walaupun ini  adalah satu langkah yang positif oleh Pemerintah, namun saya harap agar lebih banyak lagi agensi-agensi pemerintah akan melaksanakan program ‘Blue Sky Days’ ini kerana saya fahami pada keseluruhannya ada sekurang-kurangnya 60 agensi pemerintah.

Cuti ‘Paternity’

Perkara yang ketiga adalah Cuti ‘Paternity’ atau ‘Paternity Leave’.

Soalan yang saya ajukan di parlimen adalah berapakah peratusan syarikat-syarikat yang menawarkan cuti ini dan samada Pemerintah ada berhasrat untuk mengeluarkan rang undang-undang yang memperuntukkan sekurang-kurang 6 hari Cuti ‘Paternity’.

Jawapan yang diberi ialah peratusan syarikat-syarikat yang mempunyai sekurang-kurangnya 25 para pekerja, yang menawarkan Cuti Paternity ini  telah meningkat dari 40% pada tahun 2004 kepada 48% pada 2010.

Peningkatan peratusan ini menunjukkan syarikat-syarikat swasta telah mula merubah minda dan prihatin tentang perlu adanya keseimbangan antara  pekerjaan dan berkeluarga. Oleh itu, saya percaya sudah sampai masanya Pemerintah juga harus merubah minda dan mengadakan rang undang-undang yang memperuntukkan Cuti ‘Paternity’ secepat mungkin.

Hadirin sekalian, saya pernah bekerja sepenuh masa sebagai seorang Kaunselor rumahtangga selama 4 tahun sebelum ini. Dalam menjalankan sesi kaunseling dan kursus rumahtangga, perkara yang selalu di dibincangkan oleh pasangan adalah faktor kekurangan masa. Pasangan-pasangan ini akur akan kewajiban untuk mencari nafkah keluarga dan harus bekerja keras untuk menampung kos kehidupan yang tinggi di Singapura, namun mereka juga sedar tentang pentingnya masa untuk bekeluarga. Tetapi, reliatinya di Singapura ramai pasangan suami-isteri mempunyai hanya sedikit masa untuk waktu bekeluarga.

Hadirin sekalian, memenuhi nafkah fizikal yakni keperluan asas kehidupan adalah penting namun memenuhi nafkah batin seperti keperluan emosi, psikologi serta rohani juga sama penting. Untuk memenuhi segala keperluan-keperluan ini, kita amat memerlukan keseimbangan dalam waktu bekerja dan berkeluarga.

Akhirkata, Cik Li Lilian sebagai seorang isteri beliau amat memahami tentang keprihatinan ramai pasangan muda yang baru ingin memulakan kehidpuan berkeluarga dan beliau juga amat prihatin tentang isu ‘Work-life balance’ ini.

Hadirin sekalian, saya dan Cik Li Lilian telah menjadi rakan seperjuangan selama 6 tahun. Pengalaman kehidupan beliau serta pengalaman beliau sebagai penolong perundangan kepada Encik Pritam Singh dibahagian Eunos di GRC Aljunied adalah satu testimoni yang menunjukkan tahap kebolehan serta dedikasi beliau.

Oleh itu penduduk Punggol East, pada 26 Januari nanti Undi lah Cik Li Lilian untuk menjadi suara anda di parlimen.

Undi lah Parti Pekerja.

Assalamualaikum.

Da Jia, wan shang hao

I am going to speak to you today about my legislative assistant, and good friend Lee Li Lian.

I first met Li Lian almost 3 years ago when the both of us were serving as bus leaders for a one-day tour organized by the Hougang constituency committee. It was the first time I was a bus I/C and it was the first time Li Lian was guiding a new bus IC. The bus was full of many Chinese-speaking folks from Hougang. As someone one who did not speak a word of Mandarin then – although ei tien tien wor ming pai lah – it nonetheless remained a unique challenge for me.

But Li Lian never for one minute that day made me feel uncomfortable or make me feel as if I could not contribute and help out. We spoke in the bus and almost instantly I could feel her forthrightness and sincerity. Later on I saw her at work – she was very natural – speaking to families and old folks and children and communicating with them with ease. Helping the older ones as the slowly boarded and came down from the bus. It was as if those Hougang residents had known her for years and they were communicating with Li Lian like neighbours and friends. I still remember that day very vividly; we were sitting on bus number 7. I believe it was in the fifth month of the year 2010. So those who want to buy 4d ah, you know what to do!

That first meeting with Li Lian is very fresh in my mind. Li Lian is a people-person. A people-person takes interest in the people around them. A people-person also takes the time and effort to understand and make people around them feel comfortable and to get the best of out them. The relationships people like Li Lian make are founded on empathy, friendliness and understanding, and these are very healthy qualities for any aspiring MP. This is the Li Lian I know – and I am sure the if chosen to be their MP, the residents of Punggol East will also benefit from these qualities of hers.

In late 2010, I attended Li Lian’s wedding, where I first met Jacky, Li Lian’s husband. I don’t know if Jacky remembers but I actually extended my compliments to him outside the restaurant where the wedding banquet was held. I got the chance to speak to him alone just by chance, as I was going to the gents. He was a well-spoken gentlemen and even then, like now, I only have my best wishes for the both of them.

As a married person, Li Lian is aware of the realities Singaporeans face when making tough decisions to have a family, let alone how many kids to have, especially when considered against our sky-high housing prices and hyper competitive educational environment. Singaporeans work hard but many of us are concerned of the future own children will inherit – will it be one full of stress and extra tuition classes or a life where children, in Li Lian’s words can “spread their wings and fly”, and appreciate that life must be holistic for it to be meaningful.

Residents of Punggol East, you can be assured that matters involving young families will be an issue Li Lian will focus on, especially since the structure of our economy and the reality of a high cost of living makes the decision to have a family an increasingly challenging one for the average Singaporean.

A few weeks ago, the Workers’ Party held a thank you concert for residents of Aljunied and Hougang and as part of our effort to raise money to purchase our own HQ. It was there that I met Li Lian’s father and mother. I was indeed honoured to meet them and I am very sure they must be so proud of their daughter who by contributing to public service, has also become a daughter of Singapore.

Like many of us, she went to neighbourhood schools before graduating from Ngee Ann Polytechnic and Curtin University, but she proved that with the right attitude to life, ordinary men and women, can do extraordinary things. You don’t have to be a scholar, a lawyer, a doctor or a rich businessman to be of service to your country - you can be one of course - but the example of Li Lian tells Singapore that the opportunity to stand up to serve Singapore is open to all, no matter who you are.

In her case, she stood up six years ago to join politics, even as she worked to pursue her career goals. We in Workers’ Party have benefitted from her commitment, honesty, drive and dedication, and I am very sure she will bring these same values to the residents of Punggol East.

Over the last 18 months, I have come to see and appreciate another side of Li Lian at close quarters. Shortly after GE2011, Li Lian was my legislative assistant in the Eunos ward of Aljunied GRC. We had to hit the ground running, with no grassroots, RC or People’s Association support, and with some even hoping to see us fail. Li Lian worked hard to get our MPS sessions going. My fondest memory was finishing our second MPS finished at 3.30 am in the morning along with our volunteers, where all of us worked together for 8 hours straight resolving to advise and assist residents as best we could.

Shortly thereafter, with our MPS operations stabilised and another MPS site opened to reach out to better to residents, we got our house visits going. Li Lian helped me with the Mandarin or dialect translations with older Chinese-speaking residents, so I could reach out better as a non-Chinese MP. Thanks to her, over time, I picked up a little Mandarin and started using it conversationally.

With house visits stabilised, Li Lian became a vital, if not, a centre piece in our Eunos volunteer network which organized a variety of projects such as pre-Chinese New Year and pre-Hari-Raya trips for Eunos residents, Christmas parties, monthly Saturday morning exercise session for residents, health screening for the elderly and distribution of rice for low-income Eunos residents – Li Lian was heavily involved all of these outreach efforts. An energetic and bubbly person, some of us actually wondered where she got all her energy from. And even up to today we are still wondering! The experiences and ground knowledge of how to kick start localized outreach to residents and organise community volunteers acquired in Eunos without PA grassroots support and taxpayer dollar, will hold Li Lian in good stead in Punggol East. In my mind, she has the experience and abilities to make a good MP.

Residents of Punggol East, Singapore is a democracy and one reality of democratic politics is that people are free to choose their MPs. But I do request that you find out more about Li Lian and consider her to be your voice in parliament. It is my firm belief that she will be an MP you can relate to, and one who will look after residents. With your vote, let’s put this daughter of Singapore into parliament.

Thank you.

榜鹅东的居民, 晚上好！

Voters and residents of Punggol East, good evening!

It is my pleasure and honour to be able to speak with you tonight. I stand here in support of the Workers’ Party’s candidate for Punggol East SMC, Ms Lee Li Lian.

Before I say a few words about her, I want to share with you about a topic that affects your life, whether you are young or old, rich or poor. I want to talk about the cost of healthcare in Singapore.

This is a topic that I am very concerned about. Since entering Parliament in 2011, I have raised healthcare cost issues many times with the Government.

Many senior citizens worry that it is “better to die than to fall ill in Singapore”. This is very sad. We are already a developed country by all economic measures. We have on of the highest GDP per capita in the world. If you are a senior citizen, you should not have to worry about not being able to afford your medical bills. Not after you have worked all your life to help build this nation. Yet in Singapore, this is one of the top worries of the elderly.

But it is not just old people who worry. If you are a young working adult, even you may be worried. Because very often, you have to pay for your parents’ medical expenses.

In 2010, out of the total amount of Medisave used for elderly healthcare expenses, 45% was withdrawn from their children’s Medisave accounts. These are not my numbers. This is a from a reply by the Health Minister to a question I asked in Parliament.

This means almost half of the total amount Medisave withdrawals for elderly patients come from their children. But what if their children are also struggling to make ends meet and raise their own children?

In Singapore, the elderly have to depend on their children to pay a large part their medical bills. The PAP government tells you: this is self-reliance.

The PAP government makes you set aside money in your Medisave accounts. You can only use Medisave to pay for certain types of medical expenses. Why? Because they don’t want you to use up your Medisave before you get old, and then depend on the government.

But then the PAP government tells you that you must use your Medisave before they give financial assistance to your parents for their medical expenses. What is the logic here? If you use up your Medisave paying for your parents, you will have little left for yourself when you grow old.

I have said in Parliament that if we are to achieve the goal of universal health coverage, we need to expand the coverage and increase the pay outs of our national health insurance scheme, MediShield. This will help to reduce the cash payments when you are seeking treatment.

Recently the Government announced some enhancements to the MediShield health insurance scheme. But this enhanced coverage will come at a cost – almost all of which will be borne by you, not the Government.

You will have to pay more in premiums every year, and the deductibles – the money you have to pay before receiving benefits – will increase by 50% for C-class ward patients.

Why is there a need for such steep increases in premiums and deductibles? Between 2001 and 2010, MediShield collected over $2 billion in premiums and paid out less than $1.3 billion in claims. This amounted to $850 million more collected than disbursed over the past decade. So MediShield is not exactly losing money.

The MediShield scheme has huge economies of scale and faces little competition for customers. I believe MediShield can take on greater risks on behalf of Singaporeans, while still maintaining healthy margins, if it can be operated more like a national social health insurance scheme, rather than a commercial, profit-oriented one.

The Workers’ Party will continue to press the Government to lower the healthcare burden on Singaporeans, so that if you fall ill, you don’t have to worry about financial hardship, but can just focus on getting well.

Candidate Lee Li Lian

Voters of Punggol East, we are here tonight because we are asking you to vote our candidate into Parliament – Ms Lee Li Lian!

I have worked with Li Lian in many areas of Party work since I joined the Workers’ Party. Most recently we have been working together as part of the Workers’ Party Media Team.

I have three words to describe Li Lian: energetic, enthusiastic and empathetic.

Energetic, because she is always full of life, and full of energy. This is very important if she were to become your MP, because it is a job that requires a huge amount of effort and energy, both in the constituency, and in Parliament.

Enthusiastic because she knows what needs to be done and can rally the troops to get things done. So with her as your MP, you can be sure that she will solve constituency problems with great vigour.

And finally, empathetic. Li Lian is a people person. She genuinely cares for people and tries to help them.

I am confident that Lee Li Lian will be able to serve you with the same energy, enthusiasm and empathy as she has served constituents of Hougang and Aljunied GRC and in her party positions.

When you go to the polls in one week’s time, vote in an MP who has the experience on the ground, has the heart to serve and has the ability to speak up for you in Parliament.

Vote for the Workers’ Party. Vote for Lee Li Lian!

亲爱的榜鹅东居民，还有来自各地的新加坡朋友，晚上好！我是卓鸿文。今晚，我将与英语致词。

A very good evening to residents of Punggol East, and fellow Singaporeans!

My name is Toh Hong Boon. Allow me to deliver my speech in English.

Today, I arrived early at Punggol East and decided to take a ride on the LRT system as I haven’t taken one in ages. I became worried on board. I was worried that the LRT would stall halfway and I would be stuck. Thankfully, it didn’t and I am glad to be standing here, in front of you, to deliver my speech.

Yes. Train disruptions have been a frequent occurrence nowadays. Who can forget the major disruptions on the Northsouth line in December 2011? The latest disruptions happened just last week on 11 January on the Northeast line that many of you, Punggol East residents, traveled on!

Such frequent disruptions on the MRT lines are unacceptable! I shall not comment on the technical details of the cause of the disruptions. More importantly, what could be the inherent reason for these disruptions? Could it be the inability of the whole system to cope with the great surge in our population?
Yesterday, Transport Minister Lui Tuck Yew, announced the building of 2 new rail networks. These, of course, is very much welcome, albeit a tat belated, a decade late! If more rail lines have been planned and built much earlier, perhaps all these disruptions can be minimized or prevented. Another example of bad planning is the building of the Kallang-Paya Lebar Expressway (KPE), which affects many Punggol East residents. The KPE was only fully opened in 2008, many years after the completion of Sengkang and Punggol East town. Before its completion, most Punggol East residents had to travel to town daily via the congested CTE and incur much ERP charges along the route. These reveal the poor foresight, planning and coordination of the PAP Government.

Now, Singapore public transport system is not so public! It comes under two private, profit-driven companies, namely the SMRT and SBS Transit. The Workers’ Party has, in our 2011 manifesto, suggested the nationalization of the public transport system, so as to integrate the system and reduce costs due to its non-profit nature and through lower overheads. Mr Lui defended the privatization by saying, and I quote, “Not only would people have to pay more, nationalizing the operators could result in a stagnation of service quality or efficiency over time.” Dear Singaporeans, are we not paying more now? Are we not experiencing lower service quality and efficiency now, under the operations by the two operators?

SMRT and SBS Transit remain very profitable! SMRT and SBS Transit turn a profit of $119.9 million and $36.7 million, respectively last year. Yet, bus fares have increased 8 times since the year 2000 and it is expected to increase again this year! All the applications for fare hikes by the two operators were approved by the Public Transport Council, which oversees the transport operators. To quote the media release by The Workers’ Party on the imminent fare hike, and I quote “Commuters should not be expected to pay higher fares, especially when service standards remain unsatisfactory, as they have been since the last fare hike!”

In an even more shocking move in 2012, the PAP Government decided to be generous by forking out $1.1 billion taxpayer money, for the purchase of 550 buses over the next 5 years, hiring of thousand of bus drivers, and funding for the maintenance of the fleet for the next 10 years. This is known as the Bus Services Enhancement Fund, or BSEF for short. Various WP MPs have voiced their concerns in Parliament over this funding. Why are we using taxpayer money to improve bus services when the two transport operators remain so profitable? MP for Hougang SMC, Mr Png Eng Huat, reminded the Government on the conditions of this generosity, and I quote “We must send a message to these operators that it will not be business as usual after the gifting of the 550 additional buses that comes complete with drivers and full maintenance. Because at the end of the day, the commuters should be the one smiling and not their shareholders”.

In 1998, the PAP Government decided to stop regulating taxi fares, so as to increase competition in the market, which will benefit commuters. However, did such competitions materialize? Do you choose to take a taxi from one Company because it is cheaper? NO! Because what we see today is that the fares are almost identical across all 8 taxi operators, and commuters are the ones who suffered when the taxi Companies increase their fares in tandem. WP proposes that the Government regulate taxi fares and it should be kept affordable as many families with elderly, disabled or young children depend on taxi to travel around. These are families who cannot afford to purchase a car.

Speaking about car, one cannot help but think of this acronym, COE. We just witnessed last week, a record COE price for cars below 1,600cc, at $92,100. This COE system has led to a uniquely Singaporean situation where buying a Chery QQ in Singapore can get you a Porsche in the States! I know that high COE prices must be a concern for Punggol East residents, where there are many young couples who are just starting up a family or taking care of their elderly parents. Perhaps, it is time for a review of our COE system. For a start, I hope that some form of subsidy be given to low and medium income families with infants, elderly or disabled, so as to offset the high COE prices for them to purchase a car.

As you can see, there is still much work to be done for the transport system in Singapore. I believe with more WP MPs in Parliament, we would have more alternative views to various issues. In this light, I would like to recommend Ms Lee Li Lian, my friend, my fellow party member, as the lady to add more strength to the WP lineup in Parliament.

A journalist asked me for some comments on Lilian few days ago. I guess this response sums up my impression about Lilian. “I am impressed with Lilian’s work rate. She is very efficient and can get along very well with residents. It is hard not to like her as a person. I know she will be a good MP, a people’s MP!”

让我在这以中文推荐我的这位朋友，这位党员，李丽连小姐！丽连是一位办事效力非常高的人。她和蔼可亲，人见人爱， 对吗？我深信如果当选，她将会是位好议员，一位人民的议员！亲爱的榜鹅东居民，投工人党一票，投李丽连一票，让她在国会里代表你们，并一起打造榜鹅东的未来！

谢谢！Thank you!

大家好！
Good evening, supporters from Punggol East and other parts of Singapore!
Thank you for coming tonight.

I’m Frieda Chan. Both Li Lian and I joined The Workers’ Party after GE2006. After which, we came to serve at the grassroots, WP Youth Wing ExCo and the Central Executive Council (CEC). And now, we are assisting the MPs in different divisions in Aljunied GRC.

Serving together over the years, we’ve come to know each other better. Whenever Li Lian came to know about problems that need to be solved, she would say, “OK, what should we do now?” or “OK, what can we do now?”

When she does that, we know she’s thinking about how to solve the problems. She also invites different inputs. So that, we can leverage on various expertise knowledge & resources to bring things forward.

We’ve known Li Lian to be a solution-focused person, balanced with her people-person personality. She’s a TEAM PLAYER.

In recent interviews with the media, she restated issues that burden her.

On FAMILY ISSUES – PATERNITY LEAVE

She feels the state needs to recognize fathers play an important role in raising children; she advocates for PATERNITY LEAVE.

At the moment, there is NO statutory entitlement for paternity leave under the Employment Act. The CURRENT entitlement to such leave depends on: what is in the employment contract OR what is agreed mutually between employer and employee.

Meaning to say, it is really up to you and your employer to establish some kind of agreement, if you think Paternity Leave is important.

It is time for the government to recognize in concrete terms the important role fathers play in family.

It is time for the government to seriously consider giving entitlement for Paternity Leave.

On CHILDCARE & PRE-SCHOOL ISSUES

The Workers’ Party and Li Lian have heard your concerns about the lack of facilities here. What is the current situation?

Across the country now, there are ONLY 2 Anchor Operators dominating the childcare and pre-school landscape. They are: NTUC- operated My First Skool and PAP’s PCF As Anchor Operators, they qualify for $30 million in grants per year and enjoy huge subsidies on rental. As a result, private operators are EXCLUDED.

Workers’ Party’s MP for Hougang, Mr Png Eng Huat, asked in parliament, “How many other players applied to be Anchor pre-school Operators, but were not selected.” The minister replied: “Since the scheme was introduced in 2009, 5 operators applied. But only PCF and NTUC met the full criteria.”

It is not too difficult to know why there is a shortage of childcare & pre-school centres? 1 possible reason: HIGH rental cost.

The private operators are not accorded the same low rental NTUC My First Skool and PAP’s PCF enjoy.

In The Workers’ Party manifesto, we stated the need to ensure that there should be more affordable, more conveniently-located & quality infant care and childcare facilities made available in Singapore. And that includes Punggol East.

In The Workers’ Party manifesto, we have also proposed for paternity leave of at least 6 days, half of which to be funded by the government.

Echoing Li Lian’s favorite phrases: “OK, what should we do now?” “What can we do now?”

We SHOULD VOTE for someone who can empathise with our concerns.

We CAN put a (X) in the box next to The HAMMER on 26 Jan.

VOTE for Lee Li Lian.

VOTE for The Workers’ Party!

Thank you for coming.

Today it’s my pleasure to introduce WP’s candidate for Punggol East. She actually requires little introduction to the Punggol East residents, as she contested there as our candidate in GE 2011.

Lee Li Lian grew up in Lorong Lew Lian and later moved to the Buangkok area where her parents still live. She attended Holy Innocents High School and then went on to do Business Studies at Ngee Ann Polytechnic.

After Li Lian completed her polytechnic studies, she obtained a Bachelor of Commerce degree from Curtin University of Technology, majoring in Marketing. She has about 10 years’ experience is in the finance and insurance industry, and is now an in-house trainer with a financial institution.

Li Lian has been in Workers’ Party for the last 6 years. During this time, she has shown her leadership qualities and drive. She was quickly elected by our cadre members into our Executive Council or CEC 2 years later, and re-elected into the party leadership ever since then. She has held various posts in the party including President of the WP Youth Wing, Deputy Treasurer and now Deputy Webmaster. After WP won Aljunied GRC in 2011, Li Lian has been serving as MP Pritam Singh’s Legislative Assistant, managing his Meet the People sessions and ground activities.

Over these years, we have found Li Lian to be a sincere, reliable and committed person, a team player with a heart for the people. One of her great strengths is that she is able to connect and empathise with people from diverse ages and backgrounds. She is also passionate about various issues, which she will tell you more about herself.

The party believes Li Lian is the best candidate to represent WP at this by-election. She has some understanding of the ground from her previous campaign there, and will work tirelessly to serve the residents of Punggol East. On a personal note, I certainly look forward to the prospect of more elected women in the House.

I shall now pass the floor to Li Lian, who will address you and the residents of Punggol East.

My name is Lee Li Lian.

I’m the eldest of three daughters and I grew up in a HDB 3 room flat in Lor Lew Lian. I’m happily married to a Telecommunications Consultant.

In the last GE2011, I was honoured to be chosen as the candidate for Punggol East SMC. It was my maiden election and I must say that the experience was enriching and very fulfilling. It was a natural decision that when the seat became open, I would want to have the opportunity to serve the residents of Punggol East. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the party leadership for entrusting me with this responsibility again.

As someone who is looking at starting a family, I can empathise with the considerations and concerns that young couples and young families have. Concerns such as raising children in a time where the cost of living is going up, and the environment is becoming increasingly competitive, especially in schools. The challenges that young families and single parents are facing and the welfare of our elderly folks are some of the national issues that I will be focusing on.

Given my experience as a ground activist for the past six years, I have met and interacted with people from different walks of life. This enabled me to better understand the needs of a wide spectrum of our population. I believe that I am well placed to serve the residents of Punggol East. I hope that the residents of Punggol East will give me the opportunity to represent them in Parliament.

大家好，我是李丽连。

2011年5月大选，是我第一次参选，也是我第一次走进榜鹅东的每一个角落，巴刹、商店、组屋，家家户户，接触这里的新旧居民，让我感受到这个地方的特色。

榜鹅东单选区是唯一出现三角战的选区。但是榜鹅东选民还是给了我41%的支持率，让我有信心，在两年后的今天，再度回到榜鹅东，寻求选民的委托。

我知道这是一场硬战，但是因为榜鹅东选民给我的鼓励，以及新加坡选民对工人党的支持。所以，即使选战再难打，工人党还是派我回到榜鹅东，再次为选民提供一个选择。

这一次，我希望榜鹅东的选民给我机会，一起打造榜鹅东的未来。

谢谢!

View Profile

By virtue of Article 46 of the Constitution, Mr Palmer’s Parliamentary seat for Punggol East Single Member Constituency (SMC) has become vacant.

In order that the residents of Punggol East SMC are properly represented, the Workers’ Party urges the Prime Minister to call a by-election in the constituency as soon as possible.

In the last General Election, the Workers’ Party contested Punggol East SMC. The Workers’ Party is ready to offer a choice to the voters of Punggol East SMC again in the by-election.

THE WORKERS’ PARTY
12 December 2012

We recognise that bus drivers need to be paid more and we need to attract more Singaporeans to take up this profession. However, the Government should not assume nor suggest that this cost increase must automatically be borne by commuters. The two public transport operators (PTOs) remain very profitable. SMRT and SBS Transit turned a profit of $119.9 million and $36.7 million respectively in the last financial year, while providing shareholders a return on equity (ROE) of 15.1% and 11.3% respectively over the same period. In contrast, the median ROE for Singapore Exchange-listed companies over the past year was 7.8%.

The Government recently gave the two operators a massive subsidy of $1.1 billion through the Bus Services Enhancement Fund (BSEF). Despite these glowing profits and huge subsidies, bus fares have increased eight times since 2000 and seem likely to increase once again next year. It appears taxpayers and the commuting public have been bearing the brunt of rising costs to help maintain the shareholder return of these listed companies.

Commuters should not be expected to pay higher fares, especially when service standards remain unsatisfactory, as they have been since the last fare hike. The Government and PTOs must put the public interest before shareholders’ interests. If PTOs are unable to do so because of their obligations to shareholders, public transport should be taken out of private hands and run by a not-for-profit corporation which focuses on providing efficient and quality public transport, instead of generating shareholder returns.

With Singapore facing a slowing economy coupled with persistently high inflation, a price hike will only add to the hardship faced by many middle and low income Singaporeans. We repeat our call for the Government to fund more generous public transport concessions for senior citizens and introduce fare concessions for people with disabilities.

THE WORKERS’ PARTY
9 December 2012

This is the first strike in Singapore in more than 25 years. We are disappointed that it took a strike to bring to the forefront the bus drivers’ grievances about their pay and living conditions. We believe that workers’ rights to engage in industrial action (including strikes) must only be done within the bounds of the law. Strikes should be – and usually are – a measure of last resort by workers who have exhausted all other avenues to persuade management to address their concerns.

This strike signals a failure in the labour dispute settlement process within SMRT. By its own admission, the SMRT management needs to improve the way it engages its bus drivers. While much attention this week has focused on the grievances of the bus drivers from China, SMRT must address legitimate concerns that have been raised by all its bus drivers since the recent revision of salaries and work hours. We urge SMRT to keep its commitment to improve working conditions for all its workers and ensure channels of communication between workers and management remain open.

It is in Singapore’s interests, and in line with our nation’s values, that all workers are treated fairly, so that they are motivated to perform their jobs with excellence. This is especially so for workers providing essential public services as it affects not just the local public but also Singapore’s international reputation.

As the cases of four SMRT bus drivers who have been charged with instigating the illegal strike are now before the courts, it would not be appropriate to comment on these specific cases. Our MPs will be asking the Government questions on this issue during the next sitting of Parliament.

THE WORKERS’ PARTY
30 November 2012

1. Sir, the review of the Casino Control Act is timely after almost 3 years of experience in regulating and managing the 2 casinos.

Visit Limit and Casino Entry Levy

2. The Casino Control (Amendment) Bill has introduced a new measure called Visit Limit to minimize the social impact of casino gambling.

3. Currently, there are 2 social safeguards that deal directly with casino entry – an exclusion system and the imposition of an entry levy. The exclusion system is clear cut and easily understood. The entry levy safeguard, unfortunately, creates a dichotomy between the intention of the day levy and that of the annual levy.

4. While the $100 a day levy will make people think twice about making frequent visits to the casinos, the $2,000 annual levy will encourage gamblers at risk to visit the casinos at will.

5. If you enjoy gambling, the choice is a no-brainer between paying $100 or $5.50 a day to have a go at lady luck. And every gambler knows that to recoup the annual levy paid, he would have to visit the casino at least 20 times a year. So what is the resulting effect of the annual levy? It encourages frequent visits to the casinos and not the other way around.

6. The annual levy makes daily visit to the casinos cheaper than to visit the latest Garden by the Bay attractions. The average levy per day is even cheaper than a meal at the fancy food courts outside the casinos.

7. The truth is the annual levy is undoing everything the day levy is trying to do; and that is to be an effective social safeguard against problem gambling. It is not too difficult to see that the new visit limit measure is probably targeted mainly at gamblers who bought the annual levy.

8. But Sir, if we know someone is going to get addicted to drugs, do we limit the person’s intake of drugs to address the issue? What social safeguard will the visit limit achieve in the long run? If a person is deemed at risk in gambling addiction, would limiting the patron’s visit to the casino help or make any social sense?

9. When you mix the convenience of a casino next door with a cheap entry levy in a densely populated place, the resulting concoction is not only potent but extremely harmful; potent to the gaming business but harmful to the society.

10. It was reported in the New York Times that the Resorts World Casino New York, which opened last fall, made more money from electronic slot machines than those in any of the 12 casinos in nearby Atlantic City or in Connecticut.

11. The article said, “The success of the casino, the only one in the five boroughs of New York, suggests that no matter how luxurious the accommodations or exciting the entertainment, nothing appeals more to gamblers than a casino that is nearby.”

12. The director of the University of Nevada’s Institute for the Study of Gambling and Commercial Gaming said, “Convenience and location are the driving factors today. If you put a casino in a high density population like Queens, you’ll do well.”

13. Sir, we can’t relocate the extremely profitable casinos but we can definitely relook at the ineffective entry levy safeguard.

14. I am not the first to call for the removal of the annual levy and I am sure I will not be the last. Is the annual levy an untouchable pre-condition cast in stone in the agreement with the operators that this government can do nothing with it except to come up with measures like visit limit to counter the negative impact of the misguided entry control?

15. Removing the annual levy would be a better option than to introduce a visit limit to safeguard gamblers at risk. The fact that this government collected over half a billion dollars in entry levies since the casinos became operational more than 2 years ago can only mean one thing; we need to relook at our safeguards. The day levy is a safeguard. The annual levy is a loophole. I urge the government to seriously consider doing away with the annual levy.

Advertising

16. Next, it may be time for us to tighten the issue of soft advertising by the casinos under the guise of sponsorship and donation. I once came across a residents’ corner decked with large red lanterns with “Resort World Sentosa” printed on it.

17. We all know what Resorts World and Sands are renowned for and it is definitely not about Ferris wheel or Art Museum. These companies are famous for one thing and one thing only – operating casinos.

18. Do we want to allow these casinos to soft sell their brand name, trade mark or service mark as these are identical to that of the integrated resorts which the casinos are a part of?

19. The Casino Regulatory Authority must state clearly what the casinos can do under the guise of sponsorship and donation; more so when their names are synonymous with casino gambling. It is for this same reason we do not see Philip Morris or Marlboro lanterns in our estates.

20. We are dealing with seasoned casino moguls here. I am sure these people will not hesitate to try their luck at anything to have market share and they have a deep pocket to do so.

21. While I do believe we should allow some leeway for the casinos to promote the non-gaming parts of their business, we must be mindful that beneath the façade of the family-oriented integrated resorts lies a vice that has brought untold misery to many families around the world. In this instant, the CRA must be clear on what the casinos can do in the area of soft advertising.

Jobs and Benefits Data

22. Sir, while the review of the Casino Control Act is timely, this government must also review the economic benefits promised by the casino operators.

23. When this House debated on the casino proposal in 2005, both Prime Minister and the Minister for Trade and Industry had said that the two casinos will create 35,000 jobs of which more than 10,000 are direct employment jobs.

24. Almost 3 years have passed since the casinos opened their doors to roaring business. How many Singaporeans have they hired? What kind of jobs have they given to Singaporeans? To date, those numbers remain a mystery.

25. A year ago, we were told in this House that employment figures for casinos, breakdown by foreigners, PRs and Singaporeans, are protected under the Statistics Act and Singaporeans only need to know that 70 per cent of the direct hire by the casinos are locals; a term which refers to Singapore citizens and PRs. A year later, we found out from the press that 70 per cent of the direct hire by the casinos are actually all Singaporeans. The reports even breakdown the numbers by casino.

26. My question is – could the Acting Manpower Minister verify these numbers which are supposedly protected under the Statistics Act as mentioned by his predecessor in October 2011? If yes, I find it unacceptable that such information cannot be revealed in Parliament under the guise of the Statistics Act while the press is free to report on these numbers.

27. And why are we protecting these numbers in the first place? If we allowed the casinos to make money here, surely it is of public interest to know if they are making money at the expense of jobs for Singaporeans.

28. We are not alone in worrying about jobs for our own people when a casino comes to town. A recent report in the New York Daily News said the Resorts World Casino New York City fell short of the promise it made in mid-2011 to hire 70% to 80% of its staff from the borough of Queens. The Daily News investigation has also found that residents do not get a proportionate share of high-ranking management jobs at the casino.

29. Is this government keeping a close watch over the promises made by the casinos to create jobs for Singaporeans? I urge this government to release the casino employment data in a term that all Singaporeans can understand and appreciate. Telling the people that the casinos hire 22,000 employees does not square well with the government’s initiative to make the distinction between Singaporeans and non-Singaporeans sharper.

30. And what other benefits have the casinos brought on? Can the government publish more data to substantiate the benefits? How many local SMEs and suppliers are doing roaring business with the casinos? What is their percentage share of the supply chain in dollars and cents? Can the government be more transparent in providing regular updates on gaming revenues and social impact caused by the casinos?

Conclusion

31. The Prime Minister said in 2005 that “to make an informed decision, we needed to understand what exactly an IR would entail. What sort of investment would it be? What benefits would it bring? We needed information to decide.”

32. Mr Speaker, seven years have passed and the casinos are fully operational. Singaporeans too needed information now to decide if the casinos have made an impact in their lives and in the society.

33. The reality today is that this government has asked Singaporeans to gamble big on the success and benefits of having casinos on our shores. What are the odds of Singaporeans winning the lion share of the jobs and contracts available at the casinos or is it going to be the same old story again – the house always wins?

34. Thank you.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is the Casino Control (Amendment) Bill.  Casino. Control. Now that we have the casinos as part of integrated resorts, or IRs, and they have been in operation for two years, we should try to better control their effects on our lives, our economy and our society.

For example, this bill adds as a new factor for consideration in the grant or renewal of a casino licence an evaluation of the applicant’s economic contribution to Singapore.  An evaluation panel will be set up to advise the CRA on matters such as “the visitor appeal of the integrated resort” and ”the contribution of the integrated resort to the tourism industry in Singapore” in deciding whether to grant or renew a casino licence.

These are the expected benefits of the casinos — mostly economic.  What about the costs — mostly social?  Could they be evaluated and considered in a similar fashion when deciding whether to grant or renew casino licences?  And could that be written expressly into our laws — through the Casino Control (Amendment) Bill, like the evaluation of economic benefits?   Just as the bill is trying now to help incentivize the IRs to continue to deliver economic benefits for Singapore by making it an express consideration in the grant or renewal of casino licences, we should give the same pride of place to similarly incentivizing the IRs to continue to contain and minimize the social costs incurred by the operation of casinos in Singapore.

It is not easy to quantify the social costs of operating casinos.  But researchers have tried.   There are extant surveys of the number of problem gamblers and pathological gamblers and the number of other people in society affected by them.  There are empirical studies that estimate the medical and social costs of gambling — which may include the costs of treatment, counseling of gambler and family and other social welfare services,  the costs of loansharking and other crimes and the costs of lost employment and reduced productivity. These could all inform the evaluation by a panel or decision by the CRA on whether to grant or renew a casino licence.

Individual casino operators could be evaluated in a systematic way on how well they do in an audit of their responsible gambling programmes for consumer protection.  If that evaluation is taken into account in the grant or renewal of a casino licence, it will provide enhanced incentives for the casino operators to commit to responsible gambling. Casino operators could also be evaluated on the basis of how their operations stack up against international best practices, such as the those benchmarked in the Responsible Gambling Index developed by Canada’s Responsible Gambling Council.

Sir, it is right that the casino operators shoulder their share of responsibilities to help ensure that the social costs of gambling are minimized, just as importantly as that economic benefits are delivered, and that this be reflected in our laws on the grant and renewal of casino licences.

by NCMP Gerald Giam

Mr Speaker, Sir,

Let me state categorically that I have always been strongly against having casinos in Singapore – and I have held this view long before I entered politics. Before the Government allowed in casinos seven years ago, I had written several letters to the Government, voicing my strong objections. I took part in feedback forums and even organised a petition to urge the Government not to proceed with the casino.

Regrettably, the Government proceeded to issue not just one, but two casino licences, despite strong objections from many Singaporeans. It was a dark day for many who felt that we were sacrificing some of our cherished values on the altar of economic growth.

Regardless of the economic benefits the casino may have brought, one ruined life, one bankrupt individual, or one broken family caused by casino gambling is one too many for Singapore.

Gambling, and in particular casino gambling, is a scourge to society. According to a Straits Times report last September, seven in 10 gamblers who sought help in counselling centres for their addiction said the casinos were the main reason for their money woes (Tai 2011).

The Australian Productivity Commission (APC) found that five to 10 people are affected for every individual who is a problem gambler (ScotCen 2006, 43). These include spouses, children, parents, co-workers and employers. In a survey conducted last year, Singapore’s National Council for Problem Gambling (NCPG) found that 2.6% of Singapore residents are problem or “probable pathological” gamblers (NCPG 2012, 11). This translates to over 98,500 Singapore residents (SingStat 2012, 23). Multiplied by six, which is on the conservative end of the APC estimate, there could be well over half a million people in Singapore who are directly or indirectly affected by problem gambling.

Now that the casinos are already on our shores, we need to make every effort possible to minimise the many negative social effects caused by them. This will be the focus of the rest of my speech.

Visit Limits and Exclusion Orders

The Bill introduces the concept of a Visit Limit, which allows individuals, their families or third parties to apply to limit the number of visits to the casinos by a gambler within a given month.

One of the key concerns about the Visit Limit expressed during the public consultation is that it may inadvertently increase a patron’s gambling intensity during his limited visits. To mitigate this risk, I propose that an Expenditure Limit order be imposed together with the Visit Limit. Once the expenditure limit is reached, no more bets may be placed, even if the visit quota for the month has not been reached.

I am also concerned that the Visit Limit may be used as a substitute for an Exclusion Order. Instead of taking out an Exclusion Order, the parties may go for the “soft” option of a Visit Limit. Hence the problem gambler’s habit continues to be fed, albeit at a more controlled pace.

If we introduce the option of a Visit Limit, then there should not be a heavy burden on the family to prove that the respondent is a problem gambler. I hope that applications will not be easily rejected against the desires of the family members. As such, could the Minister clarify, with examples, what constitutes (quote) “gambling activities in disregard of the needs and welfare of the respondent’s family members” (unquote), as worded in Section 163A subsection 4(a)?

This brings me to my next concern about both the Family Exclusion Order and the Family Visit Limit: Are the application procedures too onerous to be useful in practice?

According to the NCPG website, family members can take up a Family Exclusion Order only through Tanjong Pagar Family Service Centre (FSC). The Committee of Assessors convenes only once a month and would need to prove that “serious harm” was inflicted on the family due to gambling before approving the application. The Committee may also summon to a hearing “any person whom it may consider able to give evidence” (Section 158(4)).

This poses high entry barriers to family members who may wish to take up an Exclusion Order for their troubled loved ones. They might deem the process too troublesome or intrusive. It is no wonder that only 900 family exclusions have been issued as of January this year, compared to 42,700 self-exclusions, which can be obtained online instantly with a SingPass. 900 family exclusions make up barely 0.9% of the estimated number of problem and probable pathological gamblers in Singapore. This hardly makes a dent on the enormity of this problem.

Sir, for the Visit Limit applications, will families have to go through this same process? Given that a problem gambler can lose thousands of dollars a day at the casinos, one month may be too long a wait for the order to come into effect.

May I propose that Family Exclusion and Family Visit Limit applications be provisionally granted immediately upon an application by the family member. Close family members would, in the vast majority of cases, have the respondent’s best interests at heart. They would be in the best position to gauge whether the respondent has gambling problems which are affecting the family.

Only if the respondent disputes the Exclusion Order or Visit Limit, would a hearing need to be convened to make an assessment on the appeal, and repeal the order if the application is deemed to be frivolous.

This would encourage more families to apply, and ensure that their relative is immediately prevented from doing more harm to himself and his family.

How then do we prevent frivolous applications? Firstly, I don’t think we need to put too many checks and counter-checks in place to prevent these very unlikely situations. How many frivolous applications were received by NCPG in the past three years that had to be rejected?

Secondly, the rare frivolous application can be easily reversed with an appeal by the respondent and a decision by the Committee of Assessors. Being barred from the casino is not a death sentence. In fact, it will do most people’s pocketbooks some good, and one month would not be too long to wait for the order to be overturned.

Self-Exclusions

The Self-Exclusion is a good preventive measure which should be encouraged and promoted. However, I have found that most people are not aware of this self-exclusion facility. I would suggest that schools, social service and religious organisations encourage their students and members to apply for self-exclusions, just as some employers do for their foreign workers. The NCPG should better publicise these schemes so that people know they exist and are taught how to apply.

Self-exclusion should not carry a social stigma of being a problem gambler. For the record, my wife and I excluded ourselves as soon as the facility was made available, even though we don’t gamble.

Entry levy

The current casino entry levies for Singaporeans and PRs stand at $100 for a daily entry levy and $2,000 for an annual entry levy. I am disappointed that this Bill contained no review of the levies, and even more disappointed to discover that Section 116(4) locks in the current levy amounts for 10 years.

If the Government is serious about putting in place effective social safeguards against problem gambling, it should do away with the annual levy. $2,000 amounts to only a paltry $5.50 per day, and is equivalent to only 20 daily entry levies. Effectively, regular gamblers get a “discount” off their levy, while occasional gamblers have to pay a higher levy per visit. This sends the wrong message that regular gambling is preferred over occasional gambling. An annual entry levy, regardless of amount, will lead to a “buffet syndrome”; people will be incentivised to visit the casinos more just to get their levy’s worth.

With the data from actual transactions over the past two years, the Government would know how many times each annual entry levy holder has visited the casinos in a year. Anecdotally, I know that most hard-core casino gamblers buy the annual pass, rather than the daily pass. Hence, doing away with the annual levies could be a very effective step in combating excessive gambling in our casinos.

Currently the entry levy applies only to Singaporeans and PRs. The Government should extend the entry levy to all foreigners who are here to work or study in local schools, as well as Long Term Visit Pass (LTVP) holders.

The rationale for casinos targeting tourists, and not locals, is to prevent residents from developing gambling issues and causing problems in their homes and our community. However, foreign workers, including foreign maids, are effectively part of our community, unlike tourists who are here today and gone tomorrow. If foreign workers patronise the casinos and develop gambling problems, their work performance will suffer and this would affect their co-workers, employers or the families they work for.

Most foreign students in our local schools receive large tuition grants from the Ministry of Education; some are here on full scholarships. Singaporean taxpayers have made a large investment in them. They should therefore be discouraged from patronizing the casinos and gambling away our investments.

Lastly, LTVP holders are often married to Singaporeans and many are not earning an income. Their gambling problems will therefore affect local families. This is why they should also be subject to the casino entry levy.

Responsible gambling

The new Section 170B mandates that the casino operator shall establish and implement a responsible gambling programme. But can casinos really be trusted to run these programmes effectively, when it is neither in their vested interests to do so, nor is it part of their core business? Why not outsource these programmes to independent, social service organisations specializing in responsible gambling? These organisations will have an interest in reducing not just problem gambling, but gambling in general.

Compared to its counterparts in Australia, Canada and the US, the NCPG seems rather underfunded, understaffed and underdeveloped. It is now a council of 13 members supported by a secretariat from the Ministry of Social and Family Development. The NCPG does not provide help directly. It redirects problem gamblers to third parties. This is inadequate for the implementation of a comprehensive responsible gambling programme.

Sir, the NCPG needs to be transformed into a national centre run by professional staff providing research, outreach education, help services, programmes and best practices consultancy all under one roof.

Casino Junkets

Next, I would like to comment on the amended regulations of casino junkets – or “international market agents” as the Government now calls them. Junkets are essentially casino promoters, tour agents and moneylenders rolled into one. They have a notorious reputation of often being associated with organised crime (Lo 2005), which is probably why the Casino Regulatory Authority (CRA) has moved so tentatively in granting junket licences until now.

The CRA recently granted licences to two junkets (Ng 2012). These two junkets seem to have been approved because they are small operators with limited impact. Is the Government thinking of opening up the market to more junket operators? Would this be a slippery slope down to the situation in Macau, where junkets are responsible for a lot of the loansharking and other organised crime (Lo 2005)? Does the CRA have the capacity and capability to regulate an increasingly complex casino business, made more complicated by the junkets?

Our casinos are already among the most profitable in the world. Is there a need for more junket operators to prop up demand?

Evaluation Panel

This brings me to my final point on the Bill. A new Section 45A was added to empower the Minister to appoint an Evaluation Panel to evaluate the casinos on visitor appeal, international value of attractions, meeting prevailing market demand, and contribution of the casinos to Singapore’s tourism industry. The evaluation report will be used by the Government to decide whether or not to renew casino licences.

Sir, why is the Evaluation Panel only focused on the economic benefits of the casinos? Shouldn’t it also evaluate the social and crime situation caused by the casinos? This would provide a more comprehensive report of the impact of the casinos, and enable a more holistic evaluation when assessing the applications for renewal of the casino licences.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, problem gambling is a terrible scourge in any society, cousin to alcoholism and drug abuse. The introduction of casinos seems to have sent a wrong signal that gambling can be glitzy and glamorous, or worse, part and parcel of a total family entertainment package.

Some 200,000 Singaporeans visited the casinos in 2010 (Huang 2012). We already have the dubious honour of the second highest gambling losses per capita, according to the Economist magazine (2011).

We must significantly step up our efforts to stem this rising tide, or risk seeing more and more people falling prey to gambling addiction at the hands of our two casinos.

This amendment bill makes an important and overdue change regarding the sentencing of homicide cases. Overall, this is good step towards a more just sentencing regime for homicide, and I support it. Nevertheless, there are still serious issues requiring law review which I believe the government should look into in due course.

Some justice returned to sentencing in homicide
It is overdue but very welcome that the government recognises that the existing definition of murder under Section 300 of the Penal Code is just too wide to justify the death penalty in every case.

For instance, Section 300 limb (c) has long been criticised by academics for attracting the mandatory death penalty. Under this limb, a person is guilty of murder if he intentionally inflicts an injury which causes death, not necessarily knowing that the injury is of a fatal nature. A classic example is a stab wound to the thigh, which many people do not realise is usually sufficient medically to cause death due to a severance of the femoral vein (PP v Lim Poh Lye [2005] 4 SLR (R) 582). In such cases, the accused person may not have intended death and may not have even known that death was likely to result from the injury. It was clearly too harsh to have mandatory death in such cases.

Accordingly, I am pleased to note that the death penalty will no longer be mandatory for murder under S 300(c) and also for S 300(b) and (d), where the accused did not have a specific intention to kill. The alternative of life imprisonment gives the judge some room to give weight to the circumstances of each case. This is a progressive step to give some discretion to the courts, so that any mitigating circumstances can be taken into account.

Should mandatory death be maintained for 300(a)?
During the Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA) debate, I had touched on the mixed nature of studies which tried to ascertain the deterrent effect of the death penalty on homicides. I had also spoken then about how the mandatory death penalty shifts power away from the courts to the Public Prosecutor (PP), enabling him to determine the outcome of the case through the choice of charge. I note the Minister’s earlier statement during the MDA debate that former Attorney-General Walter Woon’s reservations about the mandatory death penalty shifting power to the PP applied particularly in the context of homicide cases.

Now that the Bill retains mandatory death for S 300 (a), is mandatory death justifiable as retribution for intentional killing? Having an intention to kill is certainly more blameworthy than the mental states required under S 300(b), (c) or (d) – after all, the accused in S 300(a) intended to bring about the death of the victim. However, a closer examination of situations coming within S 300(a) will show that an intention to kill can be present in a wide range of circumstances, which I would submit should not be lumped together for the same sentence of death.

At one end of the spectrum, taking the most evil of circumstances, we have mercenaries hired under contracts to kill, intending to profit from committing murder. We have also had groups who rob and kill hard-working taxi-drivers with deadly weapons. Moving to the other end of the spectrum, we find more multi-faceted scenarios where the accused is not inherently a killer. For instance, an accused kills a childhood friend whom he discovers has been having a long affair with his wife behind his back, in his matrimonial bed, and is unable to get over the betrayal despite a lapse of time. Another example is where a person who kills under a threat that his child will be killed if he does not do so, will be guilty under S 300 (a), because the defence of duress does not apply to murder. An intention to kill can also be formed on the spot. There is no requirement under S 300(a) for premeditation or any pre-arranged plan to kill, whereas in some other jurisdictions, murder which is not pre-meditated is classified as murder in the second degree.

Do all accused coming within S 300 (a) deserve to die, without exception? At the lowest, there would be a split of opinion on the matter. If I could borrow a phrase from the judgment of then Judicial Commissioner Sundaresh Menon, now our Chief Justice, in PP v Lim Ah Seng [2007] 2 SLR (R) 957: “Every killing is utterly tragic; but this does not mean that every killer is to be punished in the same way”.
It is true that persons charged with murder under S 300 (a) will not hang if they can prove that they have a valid defence under the Penal Code. For instance, if the accused can prove that he acted in self-defence, this is a full defence leading to acquittal. If he can show that he was provoked by something sudden and grave, he may have a partial defence which would reduce his sentence to a long jail term. However, these defences will only succeed if the accused is able to prove them in court on a balance of probabilities. Because the burden of proof is on him, he must convince the court and preferably find witnesses to support his case. There could be a conflict of expert evidence e.g. on whether the accused has some mental illness which would diminish his responsibility for his actions, forcing the court to choose one expert over another. In addition, defences are strictly worded and sometimes expect a person to behave in very measured ways e.g. for the partial defence of provocation, the accused must not have had time to cool off, which is construed strictly.

We can all agree that society should be clear that killing someone with an intention to kill ranks amongst the most serious crimes. I would argue that this will still be achieved if the death sentence was available to the judge, especially since a wide range of circumstances is caught under S 300(a). As a second alternative, I repeat my suggestion that the government could consider phrasing the death penalty as the presumptive sentence for S 300(a).

There are precedents elsewhere for this. For instance, in the Criminal Code of Western Australia, it is provided under S 279 that an accused found guilty of murder must be sentenced to life imprisonment unless “that sentence would be clearly unjust given the circumstances of the offence and the person; and (when) the person is unlikely to be a threat to the safety of the community when released from imprisonment”. We should consider employing such a legal device here, which would still send a strong signal to society about the seriousness of the offence of murder and yet allow judges to depart if the circumstances of the case warrant it. Factors which could be considered to allow judges to depart include the accused acting under duress, the offence not being premediated or the offender not bringing weapons to the scene.

Law Reform for homicide provisions
While I acknowledge the significance of the changes this bill brings, I believe further reform of our homicide provisions is desirable.

For instance, it remains a mystery why S 300 (c) should be classified as murder in the first place, when the accused need not have intended death nor known that death was likely. Even after this amendment bill, the judge could still impose death for S 300 (c), which is not easy to justify. It seems more appropriate to move such situations lower down the seriousness ladder, to a lesser category of homicide which does not attract death.

As a wider law reform exercise, the government may also wish to look at the broader structure of the homicide provisions. We inherited our Penal Code from our colonial days, and the drafting of the homicide provisions has been criticised by no less than eminent jurist, Sir James Fitzjames Stephen, who drafted our Criminal Procedure Code. He labelled our homicide provisions as the “weakest” part of the Penal Code, calling them “obscure” and “not fully thought out”. His criticisms were several. Homicide itself has not been defined in the Penal Code, except in the context of culpable homicide; murder is a species of culpable homicide; the definitions of murder and culpable homicide also closely resemble each other, such that it is difficult to distinguish between them. For instance, a person intending to cause injury which is sufficient to cause death is a murderer, but a person intending to cause injury likely to cause death commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

There has also been criticism from the judges of the Federal Court of Australia who had to apply our Penal Code to a homicide which took place on Christmas Island, which used to be part of Singapore territory (Chong Wooi Sing & Toh Yuh Teng v R (1989) 40 A Crim R 22). Arising from this, a law academic, Prof Stanley Yeo, has urged the Singapore legislature to act to improve the clarity of these provisions (see Stanley Yeo, “Australian Judicial Rulings on Singapore’s Homicide Provisions” [1991] Sing LRev 6).
One option the government may want to consider in due course is re-drafting the homicide provisions to exclude overlapping offences and have mutually exclusive categories. There are precedents from other countries to study e.g. the Australian states, and the UK, which both had law reforms in this area. The Americans have first and second degree murder, and then manslaughter. If a review is done to remove the overlap between culpable homicide and murder, I believe the law will be clearer; the public will also better understand the homicide provisions.

Conclusion
The government is moving in the right direction by this amendment bill, to give the judges sentencing discretion for murder cases. It should continue to do more law reform, in particular remove the mandatory death sentence from murder and make it discretionary. The government should also consider law reform to improve the homicide provisions.

This bill provides for the Court of Appeal to automatically review all death sentences passed, in cases where the accused does not lodge an appeal. I welcome this additional check by our highest court, which will confirm whether each death sentence was correctly imposed before we send anyone to the gallows.

I would like to seek 2 clarifications on the Bill.

First, Cl 7 amends S 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding what is to be done after a death sentence has been passed by a High Court judge. The proposed change to S 313 (c) will now provide that the trial judge must produce a report stating whether, in his opinion, there is any reason why the death sentence should be carried out. By contrast, the current provision states that he should give his opinion whether there is any reason why the death sentence should or should not be carried out. I would like to know why the judge now no longer needs to give his opinion as to whether the death sentence should not be carried out. I think his opinion on this is still highly relevant, since we are still retaining offences where the death penalty is mandatory, such as intentional killing under S 300(a) of the Penal Code, and for drugs and firearms offences. I note that the trial judge’s opinion on whether the death sentence is justified will later be read by the President, who has the prerogative of mercy. There may be strong mitigating circumstances which the trial judge noted, but due to the mandatory provisions, he had no choice but to impose the death sentence. However, the President can do something about it by exercising his prerogative of mercy.

My second clarification concerns the provision at S 394D. It is provided there that no party has the right to be heard in a petition of confirmation, but the court may, if it thinks fit, hear any party either personally or by advocate. If the presence of the parties is still to be discretionary, I think it is important that if the Court of Appeal wishes to hear from one party, the other party must be present as well. This will enable the other party to respond if necessary to any new matters which are raised, and make this last court appearance fair to all parties before the death sentence is confirmed.

Thank you Mr. Speaker,

The amendments proposed by the government are a step in the right direction insofar as it loosens the application of the mandatory death penalty under two specific conditions. However, this move also represents a missed opportunity to remove the mandatory death penalty from our statute books completely.

While there is significant debate in some quarters about the role and significance of the death penalty in our criminal justice system, it is viscerally apparent that many Singaporeans feel a sense of security with its continued existence in the statue books, even as others question the utility of the death penalty as deterrence.

While the death penalty per se is not of direct relevance to this Bill, it is noteworthy that a video poll conducted by TheOnlineCitizen sometime in 2011, observed that many Singaporeans did not know the difference between the application of the death penalty and the mandatory death penalty.

The distinction is structurally important especially when understood within the Dicey-an separation of powers schema between the executive and judicial arms of government.

In mandatory death sentence cases, mitigation is irrelevant as are the unique factual circumstances of an accused. The judicial process concludes upon a finding of guilt. Under an offence that carries the mandatory death penalty, our judges are straight-jacketed from exercising the powers they have been vested – to be impartial decision makers in the pursuit of justice, with the power to hear all sides of the case.

All the prosecution has to do is to prove that the accused is guilty of the charge preferred against him/her, and the hands of a judge are tied. This is even if there is evidence that can be brought to bear to suggest that an accused’s circumstances warrant a closer look to consider the imposition of a sentence other than the mandatory death penalty.

To this end, I welcome the loosening of the mandatory death penalty for couriers as it returns some judicial discretion in qualified cases, limited though they may be, to our judges. After investing millions of dollars on the development of a world-class judiciary comprising of the brightest legal minds, there ought to be no place for mandatory sentences which effectively make the role of Judiciary administrative, in favour of the executive arm of the state in the shape of the Public Prosecutor.

This is a systemic anomaly which this Bill ought to have corrected once and for all.

As iterated by the former Attorney-General, Walter Woon when it comes to the mandatory death penalty, the prosecutor, an agent of the executive, takes the hard decisions. What this Bill could have done was to ensure that the judiciary takes these hard decisions instead. This would have served the interests of accountability and would not only have strengthened the integrity of our criminal justice system, but increased public trust in it as well.

Broadly, while I welcome any move away from mandatory sentences as Section 33B of this Bill proposes, I am concerned that with the narrow and selective loosening of the mandatory death penalty regime, focus on the exercise of the Public Prosecutor’s discretion will become even more acute going forward.

In fact, with regard to section 33B of the amendment, the two specific conditions under which the death penalty will no longer be mandatory, may well put unwelcome pressure on the public prosecutor from members of the public to reveal the circumstances and reasons what specific information was revealed by an accused in the name of “substantive cooperation”.

This pressure on the Public Prosecutor is not likely to abate, but more likely brought into distinct relief by the presence of the Section 33B(4) which makes it clear that no action or proceeding shall lie against the Public Prosecutor on the determination of substantive assistance, unless it can be proved that the determination was done in bad faith or with malice.

In tandem, the circumstances that lead to the issuance of a certificate of cooperation may not be too controversial. But I am concerned that an accused who is unable to provide actionable information or the potentially subjective “substantive cooperation”, stands to be at the mercy of the Public Prosecutor’s judgment – a state of affairs that is not transparent, and not open to public scrutiny unlike the situation of a trial judge in open court.

Here, it would have been opportune for the Bill to allow an accused’s counsel to make representations when the Public Prosecutor does not issue a certificate of cooperation, and for the trial judge to determine in his/her discretion, the extent and scope of the accused’s cooperation with enforcement agencies, including the reasons for the absence of a certificate of cooperation.

This ought to be considered for the following reason: While the government’s move to rationalize the application of the mandatory death penalty is noteworthy, I do not expect the high priests of organized crime to sit idly by and they may well further tighten the compartmentalization of their operations to ensure that drug couriers only have enough information to incriminate themselves or a small cell group of anonymous drug-pushers, not the controllers and masterminds which the amended Act seeks to target as well.

Allowing a trial judge to determine the extent and scope of an accused’s cooperation with enforcement agencies if no certificate of cooperation is issued, would also be in line with the government’s stated position of giving more discretion to judges.

Like many Singaporeans and the Government, I am mindful of the impact of drugs on our people and society. I acknowledge the concerns many have over the slippery slope argument – that any perception of an easing of our drug laws may open the floodgates to negative consequences. But in the same vein, I am also quietly confident that our judges are equally, if not more sensitive and exposed to the wider societal impact of drug abuse, and the range of sentences they are able mete out to combat it.

This is especially relevant, as any move away from the mandatory death penalty does not preclude our judges from sentencing an accused to death, in the appropriate case.

I note other amendments to the Act which include strengthening the punishment framework for repeat drug offenders and those who traffic drugs to the young and vulnerable, as made out in s 12A and separately the provision of a Community Rehabilitation Centre which gives the Director of the CNB the option of allowing young abusers the option of continuing with their education or employment. The introduction of s 31A, covering the inclusion of hair tests to determine if an offender should be placed under supervision is also a step in the right direction as is the decision to target drug parties and the temporary listing of psychoactive substances.

All said, the creation of greater options to deal with drug offenders and the drug menace in a more nuanced and targeted fashion is welcomed and is likely to represent another arrow in the quiver for our enforcement officers.

In conclusion, this Bill leaves me to say a word about the special men and women who work in service of a drug-free Singapore through the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB). In fact, I do believe that it is of vital importance that Singaporeans support and recognize their unique and challenging work so as to engender a healthy trust between citizens and the executive arms of government, which include the CNB and the Attorney-General’s Chambers.

To that end, a criminal justice system that operates to give the judicial arm of government the discretion to pass judgment on persons charged under the Misuse of Drugs Act would be the preferred way forward. Our prosecutorial and evidence collecting agencies should be left to focus on their important work rather than spending time worrying about legal contortions, and trying to maneuver around offences that carry the mandatory death penalty. Let’s leave the task of passing judgment to our judges.

Mr. Speaker, my opposition to the mandatory death penalty notwithstanding, I support this Bill.

This amendment bill has several purposes. I shall first deal with the application of the death penalty, followed by some queries about other aspects of the bill.

Retention of the mandatory death penalty

In July this year, DPM Teo Chee Hean told the House that though the government had been reviewing the death penalty for drug trafficking for some months, it had concluded that “the mandatory death penalty should continue to apply in most circumstances”. Indeed, as explained by DPM Teo just now, this bill retains the mandatory death penalty for trafficking and importation of drugs, except in two circumstances which I will touch on later.

Deterrence has long been central to the government’s stance on having the death penalty and making it mandatory for certain offences. However, how far the death penalty actually deters crime has long been the subject of debate internationally. There have also been conflicting studies on whether the death penalty deters crime or not, though most of these studies were on homicide offences (e.g. Ehrlich, I. (1973). The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment: A Question of Life and Death. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper no 18; contrast Zimring, F. et al (2010). Executions, Deterrence and Homicide: A Tale of 2 cities. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 7:1. 1-29.)

I would like to ask the government whether it relied on any particular studies or its own data to conclude that the death penalty or mandatory death actually deters crime and in particular, drug trafficking.

Besides deterrence, capital punishment is sometimes justified from a retributive perspective, i.e. death is considered a just punishment for an offence which is deemed very serious. Which offences “deserve” death may be subjective, and this is a matter of judgment for each society to make. Singapore is understandably tough on drugs, having been through the 1970s when drugs caused untold harm to many families and threatened society in general.

Today, it is not my purpose to canvass the pros and cons of the death penalty per se, but to highlight the real problems caused in our system by its mandatory nature.

As the Workers’ Party has pointed out in the past, giving the sentencing judge no choice in the sentence is undesirable, as the case outcome is determined by the choice of charge, which vests in the Public Prosecutor. Discretion is thus pushed upstream. Moreover, unlike a judge’s decision, which is reached in open court, reasoned and subject to appeal, the Public Prosecutor’s decisions are opaque, not reasoned in the public, and un-appealable.

I am certain that the Public Prosecutor and all his deputies in the Attorney-General’s Chambers are very mindful of the consequences of their decisions on the choice of charge in mandatory death cases. Former Attorney-General Walter Woon summed up the dilemma succinctly in a quote published in the Straits Times of October 20th. He said:

“My problem with the mandatory death penalty is that the hard decisions are taken by the prosecutor when exercising prosecutorial discretion. You cannot imagine the contortions we had to go through to find some way to not charge a person (with a capital crime) because the judge had no discretion but the prosecution did. We did our very best to not charge people with capital offences if we could help it”.

Drug cases highlight the extent of prosecutorial discretion. The PP can decide to prefer heavier or lighter charges based on any set of facts. The PP can even artificially reduce the amount of drugs in the charge to below the actual amount found, to enable the accused to escape death. This practice was expressly recognized as legal by the Court of Appeal in Ramalingam Ravinthran v PP [2012] 2 SLR 49. It would be interesting to find out how many accused facing the death penalty on the facts have escaped death due to the PP’s decisions.

As it stands, the inherent discretion of the Public Prosecutor is already very wide. Retaining the mandatory death penalty arrogates to him the additional discretion of determining the punishment the accused should face, which is not his role; it also emasculates the judges whose role it is to mete out justice based on the facts. I submit that if the death penalty was not mandatory but left to the sentencing judge, the system would be seen to be more transparent and open to public scrutiny.

In the alternative, it would also be open to the government to provide that, for the most serious crimes, death would be the presumptive sentence, leaving an escape clause for the judge not to impose death in special circumstances. There are many precedents in other countries for using presumptive sentences e.g. in Western Australia, the presumptive sentence for murder if life imprisonment but the relevant section allows the judge not to impose it if that sentence “would be clearly unjust” given the circumstances of the offence and the person; and the offender is unlikely to be a threat to society upon release. The government could consider such a device for the most serious offences instead of mandatory death.

Amendments regarding couriers

Under the new S 33B, a courier can escape the death penalty and be sentenced to life imprisonment instead, if his case falls within 2 strictly-defined circumstances.

Certificate of assistance
The first circumstance involves couriers whom the PP will certify have co-operated with the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB). I have some concerns about this provision.

First, the new S 33B (2) requires the accused to prove that his involvement was restricted to being a transporter, sender or deliverer of the drugs in question. Does this therefore mean that S33B will only apply in cases where the accused admits or pleads guilty to a capital drug charge? Will this provision be available to those who claim trial but, during the trial, decide to admit to being a courier? Put another way, is the PP prepared to issue a certificate of assistance even when the accused claims trial to a trafficking charge?

Secondly, the PP must certify that the accused has “substantially assisted the CNB in disrupting drug trafficking activities within and outside Singapore”. The Explanatory Note to the Bill expressly clarifies that information which does not enhance the effective enforcement of the Act “will not suffice”. According to this wording, a low-level courier who knows nothing about the drug network will go to the gallows, while another courier who has more information (and is presumably closer to the higher echelons) can escape death. This would be a perverse outcome, a point highlighted by Mr Edwin Tong earlier. In addition, the phrase “substantially assisted the CNB in disrupting drug trafficking activities” suggests that the CNB should show some success in its drug operations based on the accused’s information. Is this what is intended? This would not be fair to the accused, as operations may fail due to the information being outdated or due to law enforcement incompetence. Why not simply require full co-operation, without the additional requirement of substantial assistance to disrupt drug trafficking activities?

Thirdly, the PP’s certificate of co-operation cannot be challenged except for bad faith or malice. This means that, in actual fact, the judge’s discretion under S 33B is very limited. However, it is foreseeable that some accused persons may not receive the certificate even if they were willing to provide the CNB with whatever information they had. Since this certificate is truly a life and death matter, is it not better for the judge to decide on the question of co-operation if there is a dispute? In other words, if the defence says that the accused co-operated fully with the PP but yet did not receive the PP’s certificate, the PP should provide the reasons to the court and the court could make a finding? If there is concern is about the sensitivity of operational information given, we could provide for non-publication of the details.

I have one final clarification, on cases where the couriers have already been sentenced to death. If the accused had not shared information previously with the CNB, is it open to him to do so now and hence bring himself within S 33B? It would seem just to give him this avenue, since it was not available to him previously for his consideration.

Mentally vulnerable couriers
The intention behind this change is good. However, I would like to ask why the government decided to follow the wording of diminished responsibility in the Penal Code, when this has been the subject of academic criticism and law reform in other countries? (Stanley Yeo, “Reformulating Diminished Responsibility: Learning from the New South Wales experience” [1999] 20 Sing LR 159; Michael Hor, “Murder: The Abnormal Mind – Mad or just Bad?” (2008) 20 SAcLJ 662).

For instance, during a law reform exercise in New South Wales, psychiatrists there felt that requiring them to confirm the specific cause of a person’s impairment of mind was too difficult and arbitrary. Instead, the NSW law was changed to simplify the defence to require that “the offender’s capacity to understand events, or to judge whether his actions were right or wrong, or to control himself, was substantially impaired by an abnormality of mind arising from an underlying condition, and the impairment was so substantial as to warrant liability (to be reduced)”.

It should also be remembered that accused persons who may not suffer from any psychiatric condition and yet be vulnerable and easily manipulated. In the case of Rozman bin Jusoh [1995] 3 SLR 317, an accused of subnormal intelligence was entrapped by CNB officers into delivering cannabis i.e. CNB officers instigated him to supply drugs to them. Evidence was placed before the court that his cognitive capacity to reason was borderline in that he would be unable to reason things like persons of average intelligence; that he might easily fall into difficulties and even allow others to hurt or misuse him. The Court of Appeal held that he had no defence. There should be scope in such cases for the death penalty not to be imposed.

I would urge the government to do further review of this provision in due course.

New offence of arranging / planning gatherings

Cl 4 introduces S 11A which makes it an offence to arrange or plan a gathering, knowing that a controlled drug was / was to be consumed at the gathering, if a gathering of 2 or more persons takes place. The wording only requires that there is a gathering, and not that there is a gathering where drugs are in fact present or consumed. Is it the intention to include cases where so long as a gathering takes place, the planner or arranger who thought drugs would be consumed there would be guilty even if eventually no drugs were brought?

Enhanced punishment for influencing young or vulnerable persons to traffic, import drugs

Cl 5 sets out S12A which creates a new offence of procuring a young or vulnerable person to traffic in drugs, which will attract a harsher punishment by way of a stiffer minimum penalty. I agree that an increase is justifiable at this point of time, since the government has found recent evidence that more young abusers are being introduced to drugs by their neighbours and friends who are repeat abusers.

Hair tests

Cl 11 introduces S 31A allowing CNB to conduct hair tests to determine if the suspect should be placed under supervision. The government has explained that the hair test is superior to the urine test because it has a longer detection window of 3 months after the drug is consumed, whereas the urine test has a window of about one week. According to MOS Masagos’ speech at the CNB Workplan Seminar in April, the purpose of introducing the hair test is to “deter CNB supervisees from relapsing into drug abuse as it will be very difficult to avoid detection”.

While MOS has stated that hair tests will be used on existing supervisees, it would seem that hair tests can be used on fresh cases as well. Under S 31A, so long as an officer suspects that a person has consumed drugs, he can order him to provide a hair specimen. How would this work in relation to someone who has consumed drugs overseas? Should a Singaporean who consumes cannabis in Amsterdam two months ago expect to have his hair tested upon arrival at the airport? I note that the existing S8A of the Act criminalises drug consumption overseas by Singapore citizens or permanent residents if their urine tests are positive upon return; however this amendment bill does not amend that section to say these returning residents are subject to hair tests too. Could this be clarified please?

Conclusion
This amendment bill enhances various tools and punishments to tackle trends of concern, and also takes a step in mitigating the harshness of the mandatory death penalty regime. To that end, it is to be supported. However, as mentioned at the start of my speech, I believe the government needs to continue its review of the death penalty in particular its mandatory nature. In addition, the courier clauses appear to be problematic and should be monitored closely for further review.