by Sylvia Lim, MP for Aljunied GRC
[Delivered in Parliament on 3 Mar 2014]

SECURING OUR PIONEERS

The Workers’ Party supports Budget 2014.

While my colleagues and I have comments and suggestions regarding certain aspects of it, we agree with the Budget’s unique emphasis on the Pioneer Generation, helping businesses restructure, and the direction towards strengthening social safety nets particularly in healthcare. The specific recognition of Persons with Disabilities is inclusive. While the details of some schemes are not available yet and should be scrutinized later, we welcome these general thrusts.

We also note the relative absence of new taxes on the revenue front. This is thanks to the expected healthy continuing contributions of Singaporeans and others in existing taxes and charges, such as income and corporate taxes, GST, COE premiums and others. However, a significant additional burden is placed on those who involved in tobacco, alcohol and gambling activities. This is expected to bring in additional revenue of nearly half a billion dollars ($0.445b). Though some may argue that indulging in some level of such activities is essential to de-stress in Singapore, one cannot really quarrel with the rationale of preventing excessive indulgence in them.

This year’s focus on supporting the Pioneer Generation for the rest of their lives is a refreshing departure from public conversations of the past. Instead of just urging respect for our elders as a virtue, some public monies are being set aside to support this special group. Instead of attributing Singapore’s progress mainly to visionary leaders, we are recognizing the contributions of everyone else on equal footing, from followers to mothers and labourers.

Many of us who grew up in Singapore are children of the Pioneer Generation. Some of us are old enough to recall the early days of nation building, and how our parents muddled through uncertain and even stormy weather to forge a future for a small country. For instance, in 1967 when the British announced that it would be withdrawing its troops from Singapore, we were left with a huge defence lacuna, and had to dig deep to find manpower and expertise to build our own army. The search for instant officers and instructors led us to draw personnel from other services including the police force. I had the privilege of witnessing some of these events personally, through the lens of my father, who was seconded from the police to the army to become the first batch of SAF officers in the 1960s.

He and his colleagues from the Ministry of Interior and Defence had to quickly build our Armed Forces. They put their noses to the grind and learned from Israeli consultants, here and in Jerusalem. The early officers set up units and drew up SOPs (Standard Operating Procedures). They also had to manage the huge undertaking of compulsory National Service for all Singaporean males. The early political leaders too, were very hands-on and kept abreast of many details. I have seen old black and white photographs of my father giving briefings to then Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, who used to visit army camps with his family dressed in shorts; these photographs told perhaps of a different working culture then, with little time for pomp and ceremony.

The contributions of the pioneer generation went beyond themselves and extended to those they coached, trained and influenced. Besides being our parents, we also encountered them in hospitals, schools, work places and in National Service. In 2006 when I was first sworn in as a Non-Constituency Member of Parliament, I had a brief conversation at the ceremony reception with the then Foreign Minister George Yeo. Mr Yeo told me that he had been taught Military Law by my father in the army, and that he believed the Prime Minister had been too. It is indeed quite mind-boggling to think of how many Singaporeans are inter-connected through their links with pioneers.

Turning now to the Pioneer Package itself, I agree that it should not be means-tested, unlike most other government schemes. This universality of entitlement is a very important recognition of all our pioneers, regardless of where they live now or how much they have earned over the years.

The focus of the Pioneer package is on healthcare financing needs. Some have reportedly lamented the lack of benefits while one is healthy. However, the pioneers I know by and large will welcome the additional financial support for illness. Sometime last year, I bumped into an elderly gentleman at Ghim Moh Hawker Centre who said he knew my father as a former colleague in the army. When I told him that my father had not been well after suffering two strokes, the gentleman replied wryly: “We are all not well”! To this end, enhancing subsidies for outpatient care at specialist clinics and polyclinics is appropriate. Including all pioneers in the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) will also benefit those living in private property who consult outpatient General Practitioners near their homes. As for those who are disabled and unable to perform at least three of the six activities of daily living, they are probably saddled with very high healthcare bills; the annual cash assistance of $1,200 or $100 a month is a small token of support.

Another component of the Pioneer Generation package is the Medishield Life subsidy. All pioneers are promised subsidies to pay the Medishield Life premiums, ranging from 40% to 60% increasing with age. I would like to seek some clarification on this. The government has announced its intention to bring all pioneers into Medishield Life. However, some pioneers who are not currently on Medishield had bought their own Medisave-approved private healthcare insurance. Will the pioneers with private healthcare insurance be given the choice to use the premium subsidies for Medishield Life for their private insurance premiums, instead of being compulsorily brought onto Medishield Life?

Finally, one significant cost item for pioneers is medication. For patients who see specialists at public hospitals for chronic conditions, the consultation fees is usually much smaller compared with the cost of medication, which patients need to take daily for the rest of their lives. The majority of our pioneers have one or more chronic conditions requiring daily medication. The Budget mentions that the government intends to enhance subsidies for medication, with a higher subsidy for the Pioneer Generation. To be of optimum benefit to the pioneers, I hope the review will identify the drugs which are usually needed by this group, and focus the higher subsidies on those drugs. We await the details of the medication subsidies in due course.

Madam Speaker, my colleagues will be speaking on other aspects of the Budget but for now, let me conclude.

As we approach our nation’s 50th anniversary of independence, it is a useful time to reflect on how we are bound by ties through the Pioneer Generation. Their high sense of commitment to Singapore lifted us through hazy beginnings and daunting odds. They had little time to complain, but just got on with what needed to be done. Their fighting spirit inspires us, their children, to defend what they have built, and to bring our country to greater heights.

By Non-Constituency MP Yee Jenn Jong
[Delivered in Parliament on 3 Mar 2014]

Mdm Speaker, In Mandarin
议长女士, 我支持今年的财政预算案.

我很高兴这个财政预算案通过”建国一代”配套来对新加坡先驱一代表示尊敬。

我的父母都是在五十年代末期从马来西亚来到新加坡。他们在当时的师资训练学院认识,在新加坡独立前结了婚,成为华校的华文教师, 他们从此在新加坡居住,也成为了新加坡公民，当了三十多年的华文老师,一直到退休。

那是个动荡的时代, 尤其是在华校里, 那是思想斗争的战场，当时新加坡正极力排除共产党的影响。

我的父母自1960年以来一直居住在同一间屋子里, 就在如今的如切单选区内。那时面对我家后院的甘榜菜市还有很多农场。

我父母亲的故事和我在如切区内遇到的许多年长居民都差不多一样. 这些居民大多数在同一间屋子里住了四十,五十多年. 很多从事平凡的工作，从岗位上退休了几十年。他们最关心的问题一直是医药费。即使他们已经多年没有收入了， 但是因为他们居住在私人屋子，就一直没有获得很多政府在医药上的津贴。

这次”建国一代”配套发給每一个合格的新加坡人，不论所居住的房屋类型，也不看收入。

在国会里有许多的议员都是”建国一代”的子女。建国一代的新加坡人没有因为当时我国面对危险的环境和生活困苦而离开新加坡。虽然他们许多只是平凡的市井小民， 干的是平凡的工作， 但今日繁荣的新加坡是他们用心血建立起来的。我们应该尊重他们，也应该感激他们对新加坡的贡献。

接下来，我要谈谈两个课题：教育和中小型企业。我会用英语继续演讲。

Madam Speaker, in the area of education, the Minister has announced that KiFAS qualifying income level has been raised so that more families can benefit too. This is welcomed. KiFAS is now extended to all MOE kindergartens and those operated by the anchor operators. Previously, only PCF qualified for KiFAS.

I am puzzled why the extension announced by the Minister is to only these few operators. There are around 500 MOE registered kindergartens in Singapore. PCF operates 235 kindergartens. MOE has five, with up to another 10 being planned for the next few years. NTUC does not operate kindergartens. The 3 new anchors are childcare operators. I believe that they operate just 7 premium kindergartens between them. In any case, the anchor operator scheme is a childcare programme and not a kindergarten scheme. The commercial operators have to setup new operating entities to separate their current operations from the childcare centres that they will operate as anchor operators.

So in effect, parents still do not have many choices of which kindergartens they can send their children to. From my understanding of the kindergarten landscape and based on what the Minister has described, they may now choose between PCF and five MOE kindergartens.

Madam, I had spoken about this before. I find it strange that the CFAC, which is the equivalent scheme for childcare, can be used on all MSF registered childcare. However when it comes to kindergarten, MSF has imposed various conditions that had prevented others from qualifying. These include conditions such as the operators cannot have any religious or racial affiliations and cannot be private operators. None of these conditions are required for CFAC. I am not sure what will be announced at the COS, but I certainly hope the scheme can be extended to many more, if not all MOE registered kindergartens.

MOE has said that character and values education are important. Many of the kindergartens with religious and racial affiliations such as those run by Buddhist groups, Huay Kuans, Muslim groups, churches and other VWOs do take in children from the public and have strong character and values education. I wish to see them being included. I will speak on this again during the COS debate.

Next, SMEs. I wish to declare that I own and operate private companies classified as SMEs.

While Singapore enjoyed 4.1% economic growth last year, this economic growth had come about solely because of the growth in manpower. GDP growth is defined as workforce growth plus productivity growth. Productivity growth last year was zero. We cannot depend on economic growth through workforce increase. The government’s long-term goal is to reach 2-3% annual productivity growth by 2020.

At last year’s budget, I spoke of the need to encourage industry consolidation. The current schemes such as PIC and now PIC+, tend to benefit the larger companies. We have over 150,000 SMEs in Singapore. Many are micro enterprises that may not even employ the three non-shareholder staff required to qualify for PIC. Even for small companies that qualify, they may not have the scale to benefit meaningful from investments in major automation.

Many of our smaller companies are struggling to stay afloat under the tight manpower and high rental cost environment. While raising their productivity and injecting innovation into their businesses should be the way to go, these companies need to scale up first. Last year, I had argued for the need to stimulate merger and acquisitions (M&A) so that enlarged companies can better take advantage of economies of scale. I wish to repeat my desire to see changes to tax incentives to encourage M&A.

There is a Merger and Acquisition scheme, first introduced in 2010 and enhanced in 2012. As of May last year, only 42 companies have used this scheme. 34 were companies which MOF classified as SMEs with annual revenue of up to $100 million, which meant many could be fairly sizeable companies. The average and median size of deals supported by the scheme was $25 million and $3 million respectively. The scheme provides meaningful tax incentives for large and mid-sized deals but not for acquiring the small and micro enterprises.

I hope to see the government encourage consolidation amongst smaller companies through enhancing the M&A scheme. The M&A scheme could be graduated to allow higher tax allowances for smaller deal sizes of up to $1 million in value.

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

We can also incentivise the acquirers to automate the operations of their acquired businesses to achieve greater productivity and to revamp old business models. We can look at allowing even higher than 400% tax allowances in PIC for investment in automation for merged entities to get them to speed up investments in productivity improvements for the acquired operations.

I noted that both the Singapore Business Federation and the Association of Small and Medium Enterprises (ASME) have also issued recent statements for the government to do more to promote M&A, including improving M&A tax allowances. They too cited the need for industry consolidation to create more breadth within industry clusters for better economies of scale and to reduce marginal costs.

Besides tax allowances, the government could also look at how financing can be made more readily accessible for M&A. For example, the ASME had called for an equity financing scheme to help SMEs fund local and overseas M&As. Such a scheme would make available the option for companies to take on loans for acquisition through pledging equity in private companies. This can be done with risk-sharing collaboration between banks and the government. This will be a useful tool for deserving ambitious companies in our midst to grow rapidly through strategic acquisitions and take on the international markets.

Next, on the innovation mindset of our companies.

SMEs are grateful that PIC has been extended for 3 more years. The scheme has helped defrayed costs and many companies have only just started to use it. As of April last year, 97% of the claims were for purchases of IT and automation equipment and for employee training. The remaining 3% were for the other 4 categories, including R&D and acquisition of intellectual properties.

I believe innovation is important if we are to derive a lot more out of our companies. I hope we can encourage investments in creating breakthrough business models and technologies.

In their pre-budget survey , professional services firm KPMG found that 50.3% of 159 companies surveyed felt that the innovation measures in PIC have had no impact on raising innovation. The same survey found that only 1.6% of the respondents were focused on driving innovation.

The survey highlighted a worry finding that SMEs and even Singapore public-listed companies have not found benefits in innovation measures. Respondents in that survey commented that IRAS has been very strict in administering incentives for innovation, favouring revolutionary development at the expense of more market-driven evolutionary development. IRAS has a very strict definition of qualifying R&D activities.

Indeed, this has been my personal experience too speaking with technology companies trying to develop the next killer App or a potentially industry game-changing software. They had not been successful in claiming PIC for their R&D manpower based on the strict PIC definition.

I hope IRAS and MTI can review the criteria and work on a more market-oriented definition of research and innovation and to drive more adoption by companies in this area.

Finally, in the area of SME financing, this budget provides for increased government risk-share on micro-loans to SMEs from 50% to 70%. In a reply to my PQ, MAS has said that it does not call for banks to require that SMEs meet a project track record or any specific requirement in order to get a loan. In evaluating loans, financial institutions all have their own criteria, some of which can make it rather difficult for companies, especially those with shorter track record to secure loans. This may be so even with government risk-sharing.

IFS loans cap has now been doubled to $30 million per company. I like to know from past evidences, if IFS and existing government-supported financing schemes had sufficiently met the overseas expansion needs of our companies. The total value of loans approved under IFS declined yearly from $378 million in 2010 to $121 million in 2012. Similarly, the Loan Insurance Scheme (LIS and LIS+), saw total value of loans approved fall from $2.3 billion in 2010 to $1.3 billion in 2012.

The Economic Strategies Committee (ESC) had called for an EXIM bank in 2010, only to be deemed not feasible by MOF a year later. There were notable disappointments from the business community then at that decision. Our companies are disadvantaged when compared with other countries like Taiwan, Japan and South Korea, where the percentage of total business credit going to SMEs range from 50%-76%, compared to 27% in Singapore. Even with the increased government risk sharing, will financial institutions still be too conservative in their approach as they still need to bear some risks and there are less risky things for them to do?

I hope the financing situation for SMEs will be closely tracked. If the new measures are not sufficient to help meet our SME’s financing and overseas expansion needs, perhaps the government can relook again into whether it is necessary to create a SME Bank or an EXIM bank.

In conclusion, as we honour the pioneers of modern Singapore in this Budget, like the honourable member Mr Laurence Lien, I too like to think of each generation as pioneering for the next. As we approach the 50th year of our independence and soon the 200th anniversary of the founding of Singapore by Sir Stamford Raffles, my wish is to see a vibrant Singapore, with innovative home-grown companies and dynamic Singaporeans establishing a new Singapore in this 21th century, so as to ensure success for our future generation.

Thank you.

In Parliament today, there was a question asked of National Development Minister, Khaw Boon Wan, about what more could be done to protect residents when their town councils fail in various areas such as corporate governance.

In response, Khaw Boon Wan explained that there are a number of rules in place on how town councils are run but they are still working out ways to properly protect public funds.

He explained that the town councils were set up as a way for MPs to be directly accountable to their residents on local issues and in extreme cases, MND can step in to run the town council if residents are at risk.

While the question itself may have been pointed toward highlighting the recent dispute over the AHPETC accounts, Minister Khaw revealed one shocking fact. That the government doesn't have a proper way of protecting the public funds that are given to town councils.

If the MND doesn't have a proper way of protecting funds given to town councils, what safeguards are in place for other groups that the government gives taxpayer money to?

How much of our tax payer money could have been misused without anyone knowing about it?

Here is Khaw Boon Wan's full parliamentary response:

Mr Alvin Yeo: To ask the Minister for National Development what measures are available to the Ministry to protect the interests of residents in relation to Town Councils who fail to observe good corporate governance and responsible accounting practices.

Answer:

Town Councils (TCs) were set up in 1989 by an act of Parliament to serve two objectives.

Firstly, TCs were set up to give authority and responsibility to elected Members of Parliament (MPs) to take charge of their constituents' estate, and allow each Town to develop its own distinctive character under the MPs' leadership.

Secondly, TCs, so set up, made MPs accountable to their voters for the running of the estate, as these voters can take the MPs' performance into account when they next go to the polls.

In line with these objectives, the Town Councils Act (TCs Act) and the Town Councils Financial Rules give the elected MPs much latitude to run the TCs, within broad and general rules of governance.

For instance, there are only three offences in the TCs Act - these relate to the misuse of TCs' funds, contravention of the TC-Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP) rules, and the wilful withholding of information required by an auditor without reasonable cause. These attract fines.

In extremis, should the TC fail to maintain the estate properly or if there is a need to remove any imminent danger to residents, the Minister for National Development can intervene in the operations of the TC and appoint someone else to perform the TC's duties.

In general, the TCs are expected to manage their own affairs and be accountable to their resident-voters.

TCs are required for instance to keep proper accounts, which must be audited annually. The audited reports must be promptly submitted by the TCs to MND for tabling to Parliament.

MND will make public its concerns and observations so that residents are informed and can hold the TC to account, in line with the objectives for setting up TCs.

To encourage strong corporate governance and promote greater public accountability, MND regularly publishes the Town Council Management Report (TCMR) so that residents know how their TCs are performing.

While the TCs Act may have limited enforcement powers, the actions of TC officials as individuals are of course subject to the laws of the land beyond the TCs Act, no different from any other person.

Criminal and civil liabilities apply when their actions amount to transgressions of such laws.

The TCs Act was drawn up to allow MPs latitude and autonomy so that they can be directly accountable to their constituents for their performance.

While residents can hold their TCs to account in areas such as cleanliness and maintenance of the estate, it is difficult for residents to exercise effective oversight in other areas of TC operations, such as financial management.

TCs are entrusted to deliver essential municipal services and manage large sums of public monies. MND is studying the framework to see what can be done to ensure better protection of public funds.

Video: IMG_0193

With Budget 2014 fresh in our minds I thought that now would be a good time to update my readers on the case of Madam L. You can read the previous blog entries from September last year, if you are not familiar with the case or need to refresh your memory. (“Homeless in Singapore’s Island Paradise” and “Homeless with a Handcart against Singapore’s Grand Prix”).

Mdm L has been homeless for 2 years, sleeping on the streets and turned away by everyone until she came to me for help.  So, I was not her first choice! But she had always been a supporter of JBJ so she came to me.  She has been living in the street on around $8:00 she earns a day, on days when she is well enough to push her trolley around collecting cardboard.

Despite repeated calls to the Social Service Office in the months following our first meetings, dealing with her case we seemed to have hit a brick wall. Despite Madam L being homeless and destitute it seemed impossible to unlock the aid to which according to the ComCare website she was entitled. ComCare promises $450 a month Public Assistance to those unable to work and without any other means of support. Madam L does have children but is estranged. In any case I went to visit her son and they have several children of their own to support and are in the low-income bracket.

The refusal of the authorities concerned to give her the support that she was promised is typical of the way our government operates. At Budget time our Finance Minister always waxes eloquent about the support given to the poor and needy in Singapore and the myriad schemes that are available but the situation on the ground doesn’t bear the fruit being promised.

Who can forget our PM’s comment at Davos:

”If you’re poor in Singapore, it’s no fun, but I think you’re less badly off than in any other country in the world, including in the US”.

This breathtaking falsehood, fed to foreign journalists, politicians and academics, has unfortunately been swallowed without any independent corroboration by Nobel Prize winners like Stiglitz. This is Stiglitz’s original article and my rebuttal, which the NY Times declined to carry.

Anyway there is some good(ish) news to report. Mdm L has now been granted an allowance of $300 a month from Comcare for a period of six months. I feel this is a measure of some small success.  It wasn’t really hard to take her around to the various agencies and to keep phoning and pushing the various parties who should be assisting her. All she needed was some guidance, hand holding and someone to unravel the bureaucracy for her.

She was adamant at all times that she didn’t want charity despite the many offers we received from readers because she lives in fear of being “put away“. She was also offered a shared room soon after I took up the case on her behalf but the proposed room-mate was unsuitable.  However, I believe that once she does have a room of her own she will be in need of your generosity to furnish that room and provide her with a buffer to pay the rent so that she can ease back into a home situation with less stress.

The aim is still to see Mdm L suitably housed. She also needs medical care. I will make sure to review with ComCare before the end of the six-month period and to pursue her other needs. Mdm L and I are due to visit HDB together next week. I hope that the evidence of offers of support and donations and the Comcare allowance will persuade HDB to find her a room, this time. I am still questioning HDB over the action they took in evicting her in the first place.

Before I finish just wanted to say a word about the much hyped Pioneer Generation Package. How does that help Madam L and the thousands like her who were never formally employed and thus do not have any CPF funds? So many like her are from the Pioneer Generation and yet are reduced to collecting cardboard and hawking tissues.

In any case the Pioneer Generation Package and its hyped $9 billion cost is a fraud. As I pointed out in Budget 2014: A Very Generous Amount of Wool Pulled over Your Eyes, the actual projected cost is more like $400 million a year of actual spending. And the actual overall cash cost is likely to be considerably less.  The Finance Minister provides no breakdown of the estimated cost of the different elements.

However 40% to 60% off Medishield Life premiums is not a cash cost when the Medishield fund is still massively in surplus. The government may recoup the cost by raising premiums for the rest of Singaporeans. In any case Madam L and many like her are not enrolled in Medishield and could not afford the premiums anyway.  The same is true with the Medisave top-ups, where only a tiny fraction of the fund is withdrawn each year. Madam L has no Medisave anyway. Finally the Disability Assistance Scheme will doubtless be as difficult to access as Public Assistance has been for Madam L.

We will be having a meeting at the Reform Party office at 18A Smith Street in Chinatown  this Monday evening from 7pm to coordinate donations and help for Madam L. All are welcome.

Mdm L was born in 1948. She is truly one of our Pioneering Generation. She wants what is her due, just a room of her own and she surely deserves that. Is that so much to ask?

Please watch the short video interview with Madam L above.

Kenneth Jeyaretnam

*As a blogger, KJ hopes to help imagine a model for a New Asian Nation to bring about a free and fair future for Singapore. KJ is a Cambridge-trained economist who could be broadly described as from the Keynesian school. He is also a successful ex-hedge fund manager and a liberal opposition politician who contested in the 2011 General Election with the Reform Party. He is currently its Secretary-General. He blogs at sonofadud.com.

SPEECH BY LAURENCE LIEN, NOMINATED MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT BUDGET DEBATE 2014, SINGAPORE PARLIAMENT, 3 MARCH 2014

Madam Speaker,

In my last budget debate, I would like to thank the Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister not just for a thoughtful budget speech, but also for being a champion of inclusiveness. Many of the new social initiatives introduced in the past few years would not have seen the light of these chambers without his support.Madam Speaker,

I would also like to thank him for listening. Last year, I asked that the minimum wage be considered for certain vocations, as a first step. This year, the progressive wage model is being mandated as licensing conditions for cleaning and security companies.

Two years ago, I asked for a Social Review Committee to create a new shared vision and new social compact. We then had ‘Our Singapore Conversation’. I also said that Singaporeans were not pooling healthcare risks enough and too much of healthcare spending was out-of-pocket from the patients. DPM then agreed that we have to think about increasing the scope for risk-pooling, and today I am glad we have the review of Medishield Life.

Certainly, I am not so deluded as to think that any of these initiatives were adopted just because of what I said; or that DPM is the only one listening. The important thing is that we are moving together in the right direction.

Every generation is a pioneer generation

At this year’s budget, one large step we are taking together is the Pioneer Generation Package, whose generosity no one outside government could anticipate. No one also seems to be questioning whether that generation deserves it. They do, for reasons we have heard and I will not repeat. I would just like to add one reason. That generation lived through periods of high personal tax rates, of up to 55%, and accumulated large budget surpluses. These went into our national reserves; and I find it fitting that it is the returns on investing these reserves that make it possible for us to afford the $8b. May be the only quibble left is, why did it take so long?

My grandfather was part of that pioneer generation. This year is the 10th Anniversary of his passing on. I only recently had a chance to read through the transcripts of 13 hours of oral history he provided to the National Archives in the 80s. I marvel at the mentality of his generation. How they were ever ready to serve the community to initiate, support and get things done. How they were creative, tenacious and self-sacrificing all at the same time. Where is that pioneering spirit today?

In family advisory work, there is always a concern for wealthy families that they would be unable to preserve human, intellectual and financial capital over generations. Hence, we have sayings like, “rice paddy to rice paddy in three generations”, and many other proverbs in different cultures. The first generation creates the wealth, the second generation maintains the status quo, and the third generation spends …. and spends, leading to decay.

These concerns apply to a nation like ours too, as we have developed so fast. When we look at inequality, we often focus on the issue of poverty, which I also have a strong interest in. We sometimes forget to think about the dangers of excess wealth, and its potential impact, like the collective loss of drive and the lack of boldness to try new things.

What would be a way out? Let me borrow an idea from James E Hughes Jr, who has advised families for decades. One way to approach this is to remind every generation that it is the first generation. Every generation is the pioneer generation of their age. Each generation must see itself as having the same power of creativity and the same capacity to energise itself, generate new progress, and establish its own identity.

Getting our social fundamentals right first

For every generation to think and behave this way, I believe we must first get our social fundamentals right. I believe we are no longer in the era where economics leads the social. The old narrative is that we need to take care of the economics first, because jobs is the best social welfare, that if we are economically weak, we won’t be able to afford our social programmes, and that if social safety nets become a hammock, we erode the work ethic.

I don’t disagree with these points. But I disagree with the notion that economic health consistently trumps social health. They are both equally important, and are inextricably linked. Their relationship is circular, not linear. In the first place, is not the end of job and wealth creation social – to provide for our loved ones and to meet human needs and aspirations?

Establishing a new social compact, adopting appropriate social safety nets, enhancing social trust and reducing social inequities do not just create the political environment in which sound economic policies can be implemented, but they also directly create the conditions for sustainable economic and corporate success.

Seen in this light, the need to manage high costs downwards for citizens, for example, is not about satisfying citizen cravings for more welfare and subsidies. It is about establishing a firm base that allows a significant majority of Singaporeans to transcend being caught up in survival-thinking that lends to discouragement and to hostile behaviour. Lower costs go towards providing the minimally acceptable conditions for the lower income to get by. But it also helps to improve the hygiene factors so that more would be willing to steer themselves from the well-trodden path to start up and create something new.

Hence, I spoke at length about social health last year. Social health complements economic health; hence, we need to measure it. But we must go beyond just doing the minimum for political expediency. It’s not just getting out of the social recession I talk about two years ago.

How does taking care of social fundamentals translate into programmes? Let me touch on a few policy areas concretely.

One, healthcare. Can we set a target percentage of healthcare spending to be financed out-of-pocket by patients? This is currently more than 50% and I believe it can be halved, with significantly more coming out of insurance, whose premiums can be substantially paid for by Medisave, and state funding. Some rationing is required so that healthcare consumption is focused on treatments that are basic and essential, rather than merely good-to-have. But first we need some clarity on what constitutes basic and essential healthcare that Singaporeans should have a right of access to.

Two, housing. Over the past few years, government has been doing much to provide affordable and available homes. I would only add one suggestion: to make available housing for singles across all adult ages, either for rental or purchase. Even though I am a strong believer of the traditional family unit, I believe we should encourage our young to achieve independence and a sense of responsibility earlier. Moving out may even motivate one to excel at the things he or she is currently seeking to do, including getting married early.

Three, education. Primary and secondary education is essentially free in Singapore. Pre-school education is receiving substantially more subsidies. Can we not simply guarantee free basic education for all between 3 to 18 years? For pre-school, a universal voucher can be provided to all children, set at the median fees charged by all operators. Tertiary education fees can be chargeable in the form of a loan whose repayment is a proportion of what the graduate actually earns in the workforce. Those going into lower paid professions, like in the nonprofit sector, can receive loan forgiveness if they are unable to make full payment at the end of their loan tenure.

Four, income security. While I am a strong advocate for reducing income inequality, I am actually not a proponent for permanent financial assistance, except in cases of people being disabled and too old, and unable to work as much as they would like to. It is important to reaffirm the dignity of work as well as the dignity of the human person to be able to stand on one’s own two feet. We must move to a point where if one puts in an honest day’s hard work, one is able to earn a living wage without working overtime.

Increasingly, I believe we need regulation more than subsidies. We can afford to shift more of the additional burden to employers and consumers. We cannot risk a potential emergence of a permanent underclass. In this regard, I don’t think the right framing of the issue is whether the government is moving left enough or too much. I think the main issue is that the on-the-ground realities do not gel with the collective values today or in yesteryears.

Reviewing our fiscal position

Let me touch on the fiscal position to show how we can already afford getting our social fundamentals right.

Having used the Net Investment Returns Contribution (NIRC) formula for six years now, I think we can incorporate NIRC into our operating revenues. The NIRC has been stable as a percentage of GDP. (Although, as an aside, I note that the NIRC has decreased as a % of GDP this and last FY; isn’t the intent that it should keep pace with GDP increases each year?) Taken together, total revenue is consistently between 17-18% of GDP.

On the expenditure side, if we can continue the long term trend of reducing security and external relations expenditure to a terminal 4% of GDP and keep economic development and government administration to around 3%, social development expenditure can comfortably rise to 9% without major tax increases. We will still have a buffer of 1-2% for short-term programmes to cater to economic, financial and social exigencies.

Today, a lot of expenditure are in special transfers and topping-up endowment funds. These account for more than $45b from FY2010-FY2014, or an average of 2.6% of GDP a year. Special transfers can be reduced in the future as transitional packages get trimmed or a significant portion is turned into recurrent operating expenditure. The topping-up of endowment funds, which is a very conservative approach, can simply be ceased.

Engendering a social renaissance & new possibilities

Getting social fundamentals right is only foundational. We need to do something significantly more to get every generation thinking it is the pioneer generation. I believe, we must engender a social renaissance; my second point.

The language of a renaissance is different from the language of today. It is about restructuring, supporting, and mitigating. It is more about reinventing, empowering and unleashing.

We need a more positive narrative that is grounded in optimism and trust in the people, away from one that focuses on scarcity, and our vulnerabilities and deficiencies. A one-sided negative view often induces discouragement, cynicism and disengagement.

Instead, we need to look further into the future, and start envisioning possibilities.

We talk of opportunities; but opportunities are different from possibilities. Opportunities are favourable options that come knocking; once you see them, you recognise the benefits. Possibilities are unstructured and ambiguous; they exist because of our imagination. It’s like every block of marble having a beautiful sculpture inside waiting for a sculptor to come to chip away the excess marble.

To see possibilities, we cannot afford to think in a limited way. If we think of Singapore as a sampan, we will not think of possibilities. We cannot go out to explore and conquer the world in a sampan. Since, a luxury liner may give a wrong connotation of rest and leisure, perhaps we can think of ourselves as a large exploration vessel, always seeking to be ahead of our time.

Singaporeans must build up more pride and self-confidence in ourselves. We may have one of the smallest populations in the world, ranked around 116th in population size. But we are ranked 35th in world (8th in Asia) in nominal GDP terms, and ranked 22nd in the world on military expenditure.

Yes, we have problems, and we must acknowledge them honestly and openly. But we have a lot more strengths, which we too must acknowledge thankfully and overtly, and leverage on them. If we embrace the pioneering spirit of the past, we can always be a pioneering nation of the world.

We need to move beyond co-creation, to open innovation. It requires a change in culture and disruption in mindset. It’s also more about instituting a new way of governance, rather than new programmes.

Each new generation must develop its own pioneering spirit, and its own agenda. They need to be trained as leaders and to engage one another to discuss the future. And collectively, we need to move from vertical relations to more horizontal relations. Government agencies need to genuinely empower. Benjamin Zander, a maestro conductor in his generation, reflects in his book, The Art of Possibility, that a conductor’s “true power derives from his ability to make other people powerful”. We must similarly move away from a zero-sum perspective of power.

We need to invest in individuals’ dreams, passions and journeys. We need to invest in the community. Here, people of all ages need to discuss strategic issues, and immerse themselves in the target issues so that possibilities may emerge. The end is to engender community ownership among citizens. Government too must participate, by releasing non-financial assets it controls like data, knowledge and policy insights.

What is one concrete step that we can take to further this project? We can begin by extending Our Singapore Conversation into a permanent platform, where the dialogue has purpose and meaning, where dialogue turns into activities are generative, and activities turn into an entire movement that harnesses the creative energies of the community to spawn programmes, policies, experiments, and enterprises. A renaissance indeed.

We can work towards 2015, with our 50th birthday as the backdrop, being the year where everyone works together, to not just celebrate, but also create change in all sectors. And maybe we would have arrived if this House can one day debate an item in the budget that is not for a pioneer generation of the past, but from a pioneer generation of the present. Can we imagine that possibility?

With this, I support the budget.

* Laurence Lien is an NMP and CEO of the National Volunteer & Philanthropy Centre (NVPC). Formerly the Director of Governance and Investment at the Ministry of Finance, Laurence served 14 years in the Singapore Administrative Service, rotating through different positions in the Ministries of Community Development, Youth and Sports, Home Affairs and Education.

Actively involved in the non-profit sector, Laurence is Chairman of Lien Foundation, and Deputy Chairman of Caritas Singapore Community Council. He is also the President of the Centre for Non-Profit Leadership, and Board Member of the Lien Centre for Social Innovation at the Singapore Management University. Laurence is currently also a Nominated Member of Parliament and will advocate for the social sector and civil society.

Laurence holds a Bachelor of Arts in Philosophy, Politics and Economics from Oxford University, a Masters in Business Administration from the National University of Singapore, and a Masters in Public Administration from the Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government. In 2010, Laurence was awarded the Eisenhower Fellowship.

Laurence is the grandson of the late Lien Ying Chow, founder of Overseas Union Bank which later merged with United Overseas Bank after the Govt-linked company DBS tried to make a hostile takeover bid for OUB in 2001.

MP For Ang Mo Kio GRC Inderjit Singh criticised the budget for ignoring the costs faced by companies but acknowledged its efforts to focus more on social needs.

He said that currently, Singapore is at a "critical stage" and business costs have a huge impact on the future of our economy.

He explained that this is a very important issue and it has an impact on our future viability.

"The reality is that cost and cash flow are bigger problems in our business landscape than some of us may imagine to be." he said.

He said that businesses are facing a lot of issues right now due to high rentals, costly utilities and a manpower crunch.

He said that the Budget has not done anything to address these issues.

Potong Pasir MP Sitoh Yih Pin described an "out of touch" politician. The label gives the impression that one is lacking in empathy and is a euphemism for elitism. Once a politician is seen to be elitist and lacking in empathy, people cannot see themselves having an engaging relationship with him which is based on mutual understanding and respect.           

Watch the video below:

Source: Channel News Asia

Just now in Parliament, MP Er Lee Bee Wah commented on coffee shops profiteering by raising beer prices well above the increased excise duty. This is a fair point.

However, she wandered off by asking if Government was also profiteering when it raised the granite stockpile price from $30 to $50 per tonne. Of course, not!

The Government did not set up the granite stockpile as a business. The issue of profit is not a relevant consideration because the motive in setting up such a stockpile is to help the industry cope with sudden shortages in granite. Release of the stock-pile is a contingency measure to help the industry cope while they contract and import from alternative sources of supply. The stockpile cannot be a convenient permanent alternative source of supply for the industry.

We import granite mainly from our immediate neighbours, as well as from other regional sources. Recently, there was a sudden, hopefully temporary, disruption in supply from Indonesia. We decided to release the stockpile at $30 per tonne to help industry tide over the disruption.

As it is not clear if the disruption was temporary or permanent, we urged the industry to ramp up supply from sources further afield. As these sources would be more costly, we served notice to the industry in early February by indicating that the stockpile price would be raised after one month. In this way, we ensured continuous operation for the industry for one month with pricing stability at $30 per tonne, while they start to make arrangements to ramp up supply from other sources.

In setting the stock-pile price, the consideration is not about profit margins but about ensuring the industry is incentivised to actively source for alternative supply sources. If the stockpile price is set too low, there will be no reason for importers to go for other (more costly) sources. And if they do not do so, we will rapidly deplete our stockpile and there will be no buffer to help the industry should a similar disruption of another supply source occur.

The new stockpile price is not to profiteer but to incentivise importers to procure and buy from distant sources, to ensure that our construction industry can continue seamlessly, despite the Indonesian disruption. The industry should fully understand this as we have made it clear from the outset when the granite stockpile was released to assist them in the transition to ramping up supply from distant sources.

Source: http://mndsingapore.wordpress.com

The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) has, perhaps not surprisingly, named Singapore the most expensive city in the world. But rather than just lash out at the PAP Government for this dubious achievement, the SDP will propose constructive measures to lower the cost of living for Singaporeans.

First, housing is extremely expensive in Singapore because of of high HDB prices. Young couples nowadays have to borrow huge amounts of money to pay off their housing loans, usually for 25 to 30 years using their CPF funds. This, of course, deprives us of our retirement income.

High property prices affect not only flat owners. Asset inflation means that workers have to be paid more so that they can make ends meet while at the same time increase commercial property prices, leading to higher office and shop rentals. Business owners also want to take home bigger profits to meet their housing expenses. All these increased costs are passed on to the consumer, jacking up living expenses for the people.

The SDP has proposed the Non-Open Market (NOM) scheme in our housing policy paper in which Singaporeans buy HDB flats at cost (minus the cost of land) which will substantially reduce the costs of flats ($120,000 for a 4-room flat as compared to twice that amount under current prices). In return, owners can only sell the flat back to the Government without profit.

Such a measure not only lets the people retain their CPF savings but will also control asset inflation with the ripple effect lowering rental for retail space. This will, ultimately, lower costs on goods.

Read also SDP unveils six-point plan to control population 

Second, much of the dramatic rise in living expenses can be traced to the massive influx of foreigners. With more people, the demand for housing and cars (COEs) escalate. At the same time, wages are depressed especially for lower-income workers.

To solve this problem. we propose in our population plan that the number of foreign workers allowed into Singapore be checked. This can be done through the Talent Track Scheme where we rigorously assess the skills and competencies of foreigners wanting to work here, and allow in only those who are genuinely qualified.

Employers can then hire from this pool but only after they demonstrate that they have tried to employ a Singaporean but are unable to find one who has the required skills/qualifications.

In this way, we don't deprive our businesses of genuine foreign talent while ensuring that we keep our population to a manageable and sustainable level. This, as a consequence, lower living expenses.

The third item that makes Singapore so expensive for our citizens is healthcare costs. The SDP has proposed in our National Healthcare Plan that the government pays the bulk of the premiums in a national insurance scheme called the National Health Investment Fund (NHIF).

Singaporeans also pay into the pool but at a much reduced rate than we do with the current Medisave scheme. Upon hospitalisation, we pay only 10 percent of the bill up to a maximum of $2,00 per year, the NHIF pays the remaining 90 percent.

Read also The SDP healthcare plan made simple

Being the most expensive city in the world is not only a burden for Singaporeans, the financial pressure is also putting a tremendous amount of strain on our social lives and relationships – and ultimately our lives.

The SDP will offer our alternative ideas to Singaporeans at the next elections. Our vision is to make Singapore the most livable city in the world, not the most expensive. 

Singapore Democrats

Source: YourSDP.org

By MP for Aljunied GRC, Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap
[Delivered in Committee of Supply on 5 March 2014]

Mdm on several occasions, the government mentioned publicly that there is a need to maintain the racial balance in Singapore’s population so as to preserve the character of our society and enhance the social fabric of this nation.

During last year’s debate on the government’s proposed population white paper, it was reported that the percentage of Malays in the resident population suffered a drop in the 10 years period, from 13.9% in 2000 to 13.4% in 2010. During this same period, Singapore saw an increase in the percentage of Malays in the citizen population from 14.9% in 2000 to 15.1% in 2010.

The government has also made it clear that they intend and will attempt their very best to attract talents and immigrants of ethnic Malay origins to Singapore to preserve and maintain the racial balance in our resident population.

Mdm Speaker, I would like to seek clarifications on the following issues:
(a) What is the projected size of the resident Malay population in Singapore in 2030?
(b) Secondly, over the period of three years between 2011 and 2013, what was the percentage of Malay applicants out of the total number of applications received for (i) permanent residency (PR) and (ii) citizenship?
(c) Thirdly, out of the total number of Malay applicants between 2011 and 2013, what was the percentage that was granted for (i) PR and (ii) citizenship respectively and for Malay individuals whose applications were rejected, what were the basis behind their unsuccessful applications?
(d) Additionally, between 2011 and 2013 how do Malay applicants for permanent residence and citizenship fared vis-à-vis non-Malay applicants?

Lastly, I would like to seek an update on the government’s efforts in reaching out and attracting talents and immigrants of Malay ethnicity to Singapore.

Source: http://wp.sg/

By MP for Aljunied GRC, Pritam Singh
[Delivered in Committee of Supply on 5 March 2014]

International media have reported that the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) was demonstrated to the SAF late last year in the US. At the last Committee of Supply, the Defence Minister stated that MINDEF was in the final stages of evaluating the JSF although the Minister did state that there were a number of caveats in assessing this purchase. Separately, towards the end of last year, it was confirmed that Indonesia had purchased advanced Apache attack choppers and the Leopard 2 Main Battle Tank, platforms that were purchased by Singapore not too long ago.

In evaluating the purchase of the JSF, how does MINDEF consider the impact of the introduction of such new defence technologies into the region? How does MINDEF assess that its purchases do not alter the strategic dynamic such that it does not overly widen the capability gap beyond that required by the SAF to protect Singapore, and paradoxically generate insecurity in our neighbourhood, and encourage tit-for-tat purchases?

Committee to Strengthen NS

I signed up to attend a session of the Committee to Strengthen National Service (CSNS) feedback session in the second half of last year. The session I attended as an NSman was facilitated by Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs, Masagoes Zulkifli and like the NSmen in my group, I found the feedback process open and helpful in terms of soliciting feedback from NSmen on how to strengthen National Service.

In fact, one of the more commendable things the committee did after each session was to publicise the summary of each consultation with NSmen on the CSNS website. It may not have been possible to accommodate everyone’s inputs but the process itself was appreciated, with the exchanges robust, frank and open. My own interactions with a handful of NSmen found that in spite of the occasional disruptions associated with National Service duties and their civilian jobs, for many of them, there was a general appreciation for the institution of National Service and its importance.

I would like to ask the Minister if MINDEF could look into supporting NSmen beyond financial measures such as the civilian utility of skills picked up in the military domain (e.g. easier and more facilitative conversion standards from military to civilian licenses, equipment with direct civilian applications etc.).

Last year I raised the prospect of new citizens performing some form of National Service. Can the Minister update the house on the plans for the SAF volunteer corps announced last year?

Source: http://wp.sg/

Nominated Member of Parliament, Laurence Lien, has said that he is not looking for an extension of his term as an NMP and is going to let someone else take on the role when his term finishes in August.

Mr Lien is the CEO of the National Volunteer and Philanthropy Centre but he also said that he will soon be stepping down from this position as well.

Explaining his thoughts,  Mr Lien said that it's time to let someone else who may be able to more fully represent the social sector to have a chance.

He hoped that another leader in the social sector would take on the role.

Related:

NMP Lien: Every Generation is a Pioneer Generation

PAP MP Janil Puthucheary shoots down NMP Lien's suggestion of Free Education

NMP Laurence Lien: We cannot throw money at Singapore’s problems

By Non-Constituency MP, Gerald Giam
[Delivered in Committee of Supply on 7 March 2014]

In the latest breakdown of economically inactive persons in Labour Force Survey 2013 [1], there were 8,600 discouraged workers. These are persons who are not actively looking for a job because they believe their job search will not yield results.

There are others who want to work but cannot because of family responsibilities like childcare, care-giving to family and relatives, and housework. Almost half of the over 300,000 economically inactive women cited these reasons [2].

There were also over 85,000 time-related underemployed residents [3]. These are part-timers who were willing and available to work additional hours but are unable to find better work.

Finally, there are underemployed workers who are doing work that they are overqualified for. Many older PMEs (professionals, managers and executives) are in this group.

May I ask the Minister:

1. What is MOM doing to help discouraged workers to find work?

2. How does MOM help the underemployed to increase their working hours or find jobs commensurate with their skills and experience?

3. And how is MOM working with companies and other agencies to remove structural impediments to employment, like lack of childcare, student care, eldercare or flexi-work arrangements?

Can MOM publish a new aggregate measure of labour under-utilisation that factors in not only the unemployment rate, but also discouraged workers, the underemployed and economically inactive persons who want to return to the workforce.

Tracking this measure will help focus minds on factors that lead to a lower labour force participation rate, which has a direct impact on economic growth and household incomes.

[1] http://stats.mom.gov.sg/iMAS_PdfLibrary/mrsd_2013LabourForce.pdf
[2] Ibid. p. 57.
[3] http://stats.mom.gov.sg/iMAS_Tables/LabourForce/LabourForce_2013/mrsd_20...

Source: http://wp.sg

By MP for Punggol East SMC, Lee Li Lian
[Delivered in Committee of Supply on 7 March 2014]

CPF proceeds are distributed according to the intestacy law if the member did not make any nomination prior to his/ her death, with the exception of our Muslim friends whose proceeds will be distributed under the Administration of Muslim Law Act [1].

The intestacy law states that when a CPF member is married, it will revoke a previous nomination. However, when a member goes through a divorce, it will not revoke the previous nomination unless the member makes a fresh nomination after the divorce or remarries [2]. Unfortunately, many CPF members are not aware of this fact.

I have come across cases in Punggol East where there is confusion amongst the immediate relatives of the deceased, uncertain about where their relation’s CPF money has been transferred to. Very often, family members approach the CPF board to understand who the beneficiaries are but are turned away as this is considered confidential information.

This allocation process may not be in line with the member’s wishes and their money may not reach the people whom the member feels need it most. For example if spouse and children are financially self-reliant, the member might have wanted to provide for their elderly parents, disabled or unemployed siblings, grandchildren or even grandparents.

I would like to suggest to the Ministry to send notices to CPF members whenever their marital status changes so as to allow members to make changes to their nominations if they choose to. This will require some additional administration but it can help to eliminate confusion and pain for CPF members and their immediate families.

Section 73 of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act (CLPA) has generated much controversy in the past [3]. One of the contributing factors was, lack of awareness, similarly to CPF nomination, members are not aware that their beneficiaries changes according to marital status. It is timely to conduct a review of the consequences of the intestacy law and greater awareness must be generated to the public on how this will affect their CPF money.

[1] http://mycpf.cpf.gov.sg/CPF/my-cpf/Losing-Loved-One/LO2.htm
[2] http://mycpf.cpf.gov.sg/NR/rdonlyres/1966CA47-EF60-42CF-B50A-064D6A274D4...
[3] http://www.ifpas.org.sg/notes/coverage/Coverage-2009-03.pdf

Source: http://wp.sg

Below is a FB status update by Minister Shanugam:

I went for a dialogue with about 1,700 property agents, organised by Propnex. They asked me, and I explained to them the government’s rationale behind some of the property cooling measures. A stable property market, which will have positive impact on our overall macroeconomic and social environment, will be in every one’s interest, including their own.

I was asked for my views on the property market. I said that I will not be able to say what will happen to the market in the short term - whether it will go up or down. But fundamentally I am optimistic about Singapore and its future – provided we have political stability, good government, good economic growth, and good jobs for our people. Further as the ASEAN Economic Community takes off , it will offer exciting economic and trade opportunities for us as a regional service hub.

Propnex also presented a donation of $100,000 to Community Chest at the dialogue. It was great to have met and listened to the agents – many were extremely warm and friendly and we took a lot of photos.

By MP for Aljunied GRC, Sylvia Lim
[Delivered in Committee of Supply on 6 March 2014]

Madam, I am concerned about many Home Team uniformed services turning to outsourcing as a response to increasing demand for services and manpower shortages.  For example, in October 2013, the SCDF added only four more emergency ambulances to increase its fleet to 50 vehicles, but doubled the number of private ambulances to 20. Today, the number of Auxiliary Police Officers stands at 6,000 officers, compared with over 8,000 regular officers in the Singapore Police Force. At the Woodlands checkpoint, APOs make up 20% of officers.  Recently, the Prisons Act was amended to expand the role of APOs to allow them to conduct inmate escort and patrols within prison premises.

Will the trend of outsourcing of police, security and emergency functions to private operators increase further?  If so, where is the line to be drawn before we see the quality of functions compromised and cost-effectiveness eroded?  Should the issues be dealt with not by outsourcing, but instead by allocating more resources and support for recruitment and retention to the Home Team? And instead of outsourcing with its limits, should we not focus on ‘best-sourcing’ instead?

I would like to point out three problems.

First, APOs do not have the same level of training as regular officers. Regular officers go through a six-month basic training course at the Home Team Academy, while auxiliary officers attend a much shorter in-house training course offered by Aetos or Certis-Cisco. Police officers also attend continuous training to keep their skill up to date with societal and criminological developments. The esprit de corps of belonging to the Home Team also instills a greater sense of purpose, pride and discipline.

Second, best sourcing is about choosing a provider, be it a public agency or a private sector provider, who could deliver the services most efficiently and effectively. Here we have a paradox.  To maintain standards, private operators have to comply with equivalent deliverables and ensure their staff are just as competent in those functions.  If the public officers also have to conduct constant auditing and supervision to ensure the outsourced entity is up to mark, as in the case of emergency ambulance services, wouldn’t it be more cost-effective to increase the regular services?

Third, best sourcing is targeted at non-strategic functions of public agencies, so as not to compromise public health and safety. But what are considered non-strategic security functions to be outsourced to auxiliary officers? As the recent breach at Woodlands Checkpoint suggests, the secondary security check by the APO is very important and has implications on public safety.  With 300,000 people and 130,000 vehicles passing Woodlands checkpoint each day, co-ordination between ICA (Immigration and Checkpoints Authority), SPF (Singapore Police Force) and APOs is a huge challenge.  Likewise, prison inmate escort within the prisons is not merely a security function but requires proper training to ensure the prisoner’s rehabilitation is not compromised. Furthermore, injuries or death of an inmate resulting from improper handling can be disastrous for the services.  In today’s complex policing environment, every police officer requires strong situational awareness and adaptive leadership skills, and foresight in exercising discretion.

Outsourcing clearly has its limits.  Should the focus instead be on Home Team manpower recruitment and retention, and ensuring they have the best resources on hand to protect our Home?

Source: WP.sg

During the Committee of Supply Debate in Parliament today, Worker's Party MP Png Eng Huat, raised the issue of crane operators still being mostly foreigners despite Khaw Boon Wan saying last year that they were looking for more local crane operators and advertising that it was a good job that could earn up to $7k.

Png raised the fact that last year, about half of all crane operators in Singapore were locals but due to a new relaxed ruling, companies can now hire 4 foreigners for each Singaporean crane operator that they hire.

This is Png Eng Huat's full speech on the issue:

Madam, in May 2013, the National Development Minister made a call for more local crane operators in the construction sector. It was reported that only half of the 3,600 crane operators here are Singaporeans and there is a need to reduce reliance on foreign workers for good reasons. These are well paying jobs that Singaporeans can do. According to the Minister, a crane operator can earn $4,000 to $7,000 a month with overtime pay and allowance.

A tower crane operator came to my MPS recently and shared his side of the story. He said many companies in the construction sector are still hiring more foreign crane operators not less. These foreign workers are cheaper and can work longer hours. As a result, salaries came down and many of his operator friends are unable to secure full time work. Some of his friends work only 2 times a week. He handed me a letter with the names of 46 tower crane operators pleading for help.

Last night, I met a fellow diner at the hawker centre near my house and I found out he is also a crane operator. He added that foreign construction companies tend to hire their own people to operate cranes. He also felt that the number of foreign crane operators has not come down despite the move to train more local crane operators.

Madam, the reliance on foreign crane operators will never come down despite the call to train and hire more Singaporeans. This is because BCA has launched a temporary initiative to relax the recruitment of foreign crane operators at the same time when it launched an initiative to attract more Singaporeans to join the trade. Under the relaxed ruling, for every 1 new local crane operator hired and trained, a company can now recruit up to 4 new foreign crane operators.

This will probably explain why people are seeing more foreign crane operators and not less. Putting the 2 initiatives side by side, the percentage of Singaporean crane operators in the construction sector will come down significantly over time. So the call to reduce reliance on foreign crane operators will not happen any time soon. I would like to ask the Minister when we can see an improvement in this sector.

Next, major clients like LTA and HDB often require tower crane operators to have at least 5 years of experience to improve safety so the idea of hiring and training new local crane operators is not going to make sense for companies bidding for major public projects.

Some have called for the 5-year experience requirement to be reviewed and replaced with the number of hours an operator clocked at work as a better gauge of safety regulation. This idea is worth exploring because an experience pilot is known for the number of flying hours he clocked and not by how long he had his licence.

I urge the authority to look into this so that more local tower crane operators can qualify to work on major projects sooner rather than later.

Madam, I also urge the minister to look into helping local crane operators find their footing in the industry and if necessary set in place rules to protect them so that they can have job security. It does not make sense for the Government to encourage more locals to become crane operators but there are few jobs for them at the end of the day.

http://wp.sg/2014/03/cos-2014-debate-mom-crane-operators-mp-png-eng-huat/

Budget 2014 Speech

By MP for Ang Mo Kio GRC Mr Inderjit Singh

1. Madam Speaker, thank you for allowing me to join the 2014 Singapore Budget debate.
2. This year's budget, like last year's, is a socially inclusive one and taken together with the budget since the last General Elections, we now have many measures to help us address the widening income gap among Singaporeans. I am particularly glad that the government no longer pursues a "growth at all cost" economic policy and instead focuses on sustainable and inclusive growth. As we approach the 50thanniversary of Singapore next year, it gives us a good reason to recognize and reward the Singaporeans before us who worked hard to build Singapore into what it is today.

Taking Care of Our Society

1. The Pioneer Package is an unprecedented budgetary measure in so many ways. Firstly, it is catered to everyone aged 65 and above and I am glad to note that the government chose not to use means testing or any other economic criteria to define the parameters of this package. Everyone who is from the pioneer batch of Singaporeans will benefit from the $8 billion fund.  That is a fair and equitable way of recognizing the efforts of all those who have contributed to our nation’s development in its early years.
2.  The Pioneer Package does not just benefit older Singaporeans but also generations after. By subsidizing healthcare costs for instance, this helps reduce the dependency ratio for younger Singaporeans going forward and reduces the economic costs of an ageing society on them.

Keeping Businesses Alive

1. While this budget can be lauded for achieving its social aims, I feel that it completely ignored a very important issue facing all Singaporeans and companies, not just SMEs. This of the high cost of living and doing business in Singapore.
2.  The government did the right thing by sticking to its productivity push as it is central to our broader economic restructuring efforts. I fully agree and support that in the long term, our economy must be supported by productivity driven growth and not one that relies on cheap input factors like cheap labour. There are two issues facing companies. One is the topline growth of revenues and business, which I believe will be best tackled by all the productivity and innovation initiatives like the PIC and PIC+ and the other good schemes announced in Budget 2014. The second and immediate issue is one of cost of doing business in Singapore. We are at a critical stage and I feel the government has underestimated the impact of high business costs on our future economy.
3. In fact this year companies are facing a triple whammy when it comes to doing business in Singapore.

            a. Business Costs have gone up, especially rentals and                                                           utilities and some others – transportation cost, for example

b. Cost of labour is going up, including the additional CPF they have to bear

            c. Shortage of workers as we close the tap on allowing foreign workers, even if                    employers are willing to pay more to hire them

1. We are just trying to do too many things too fast and this is hurting many companies. The key issue of cost is not just a concern for SMEs, it is also a big concern for larger companies. I have met with the top management of some large MNCs here and all of them have expressed their serious concerns about the unrelenting increase of the cost of doing business coupled with the unavailability of workers. Some have warned me that relocation is something on their minds. While MNCs are more mobile, SMEs have less choice and will have to try to stay and fight for their survival. But I urge the government not to take this for granted as we have a huge threat next door. Recently I made a visit to a few industrial parks in Iskandar and I was shocked to see many factories already in operation and many more coming up. And companies operating in these Iskandar industrial parks are not just SMEs but also some MNCs. If we are not careful and as more SMEs are forced to move out to Iskandar, which seems to be a saviour for many of our Singapore companies, some MNCs may also follow them to be near their suppliers and subcontractors, which are mainly our SMEs. The exodus may be larger that we imagine, and so we should not ignore the potential impact to our economy as jobs losses may become a serious national problem. We risk hollowing our economy in the future and I would like to sound an alarm that we are close to the tipping point of this happening.
2. I have heard this argument from some government agencies that they don’t mind letting some of our SMEs shut down and relocate as this would free up workers for the sectors the government would like to focus on. I say that this is too simplistic an assumption because our SMEs hire two-thirds of the work force and moreover, many of our SMEs hire the older workers which large MNCs don’t want to hire. A good number of these workers will face difficulties fitting into the sectors the government desires. I caution the government from doing too much of cherry picking of sectors and companies as we don’t know which companies will remain rooted to SINGAPORE and which may become long term winners.
3. I recently spoke with the CEO of a SINGAPORE based company which operates the world's 5th or 6th largest coffee processing plant in Iskandar and he mentioned that the lease he has to pay to JTC for one of his plants here is too high. In Iskandar, his company owns a freehold factory that is able to employ people, including foreign labour, a lot easier than here in Singapore. It is a pity, because the factory is fully automated and the type we would like to be based in Singapore. I don’t think we can ever convince such companies to come back and operate in Singapore. We risk losing such companies forever if we are not careful with our current policies.

Cost Competitiveness

1. The reality is that cost and cash flow are bigger problems in our business landscape than some of us may imagine to be. We saw a few weeks ago in the media how a sub-contractor working for Keppel Shipyard could not afford to pay wages to its workers. There are others out there who also face similar problems so we should have seen how we could have helped them improve their cash-flow so that they can survive. We already have given them the opportunities and the deterrents to ensure that they stay on the path of restructuring and productivity. But they can only do that if they even survive in the first place. We need to help them do that. We need to just look closer at the immediate needs of the SMEs and help them overcome their survival issues.
2. Two weeks ago, a middle aged SME owner came to the Prime Minister's Meet the People session. In addition to 6 Singaporeans, he has hired one foreign worker as a machinist for 7 years, while 2 other foreign workers' work permits were not renewed last year. He begged that the renewal of his specialist machinist's work permit be approved, since he has no one else to operate the machine. Otherwise his 6 Singaporeans workers and his 3 children and wife will have no means to support themselves. What do you tell this SME owner about rapid restructuring?
3. Cost has been a perpetual issue in the last 5 to 6 years and every budget has been allocating billions of dollars to help Singaporeans, and in some cases companies offset the high cost of living and doing business in Singapore. I think this is not an efficient way to manage things and the right thing to do is to go and tackle the root cause of the problem and in this case address the cost issues. The government has neglected this for too long and we are now facing big problems, therefore costing the government more by having to do special transfers for things like the GST package, medisave top up, utility top ups, etc. While I welcome all of these measures because the government had failed to address the cost issues in the past, I would like to see future budgets focus on more permanent solutions for cost reduction that will not cost the government as much as it is costing us today with all the various government transfers.
4. The high cost of business is also now affecting our ability to attract foreign multinationals to locate operations here. I recently had lunch with a senior banker of a foreign bank, which has large operations in Singapore and he expressed his worry about Singapore losing its competitiveness and the bank having to relook at their future growth strategy in Singapore.  

Government Land Divestment Policy - JTC and Rental Costs

1. Part of this loss of competitiveness is due to high rental costs for businesses and that can be boiled down to two one key reason and that is, government land divestment policy. JTC was a landlord for 18% of the industrial property some 10 years ago but today manage only 3% of the market. This is a huge shift and the government lost the ability to influence rental prices resulting in developers and investors making the money - this is passive income and not productive income benefitting the investors, including foreigners, who can afford to invest in industrial and commercial properties as an investment tool and not as a productive activity. In return, the smaller companies find they cannot manage the high rental costs and look for other means to cut cost, which inevitability leads to the squeezing of salaries of workers. This has led to the problem of Singaporeans unable to afford the high cost of living and therefore having to have the government step in year after year with transfers to help Singaporeans cope. Let me quote one employer who made this comment: “I would be much happier being generous in salaries to Singaporean staff than supporting the high rentals.”
2. It was a mistaken policy some 10 years ago for JTC to divest its properties that benefitted just a few companies, especially the large developers and investors, including the REITs, and we have to reverse this policy even if it means the government having to buy back some of the REITs. In any case the biggest REIT players are government-linked entities like Mapletree and Capital Land.  I would rather have a situation where many more productive companies benefiting from our land policies of the government than a few non-productive large investors benefitting. In the long run, if we don’t do anything to reverse the situation, we will be in deep trouble as we lose companies to other locations in Asia.
3. In fact, the cost issue is so chronic that it is timely we place great emphasis and focus on this and that the government set up a cost competiveness committee like what we did 30 years ago to address the same type of problems in 1985. It is useful that we take stock of our problems and causes, and try to find solutions that will help our people in the future.

Minimum Wage

1. I am glad that the government has finally realized the need for some form of a legislated minimum wage scheme, something I have been asking for the last few years. Failing to convince employers to pay higher wages by persuasion through the progressive wage, we now have a plan which legislates the need for a minimum $1k wage for cleaners and later security guards and this is greatly welcomed. The current approach will however add to the cost pressures for companies and therefore I feel the government could have adopted my suggestion of a government assisted - minimum wage scheme which I suggested at the last year's budget debate. Done in such a government assisted way, the progressive wage for cleaners could have kicked in without even hurting the SMEs through higher costs to them.
2. I feel we are neglecting the fact that there are similar low earning workers in many other sectors of the economy and a limited progressive wage approach will not achieve the objective of helping low income Singaporeans manage the high cost of living. We may only be helping just a fraction of Singaporeans. Furthermore, implementation of what the government has announced is going to be difficult as we already saw with the caveats announced recently even before the Progressive Wage system could be implemented for the cleaning industry. As reported in the Straits Times in the 24th of January this year, certain categories of cleaners will not benefit from the so called "progressive Wage System", as swimming pool and home cleaners, firms such as those that remove construction debris from work sites, clean building facades on gondolas and animal pens in the zoo are all exempted from the progressive wage.
3. Unless we have a universal minimum wage scheme, we will not be able to fully address all the issues related to the cost of living and the exceptionally low salaries Singaporeans are getting for a decent job that they do.

Conclusion

1. In Conclusion, while we have to pursue productivity as a growth strategy for the future, I have issues with the rate of change we desire. Similarly, while we are focused on reducing dependency on foreign workers, the rate of reduction is too steep and is causing companies huge problems. The ambitious change the government desires is resulting in a confluence of too many factors at one time - high business cost, especially rentals, increasing labour cost as a result of policy changes like progressive wage, CPF increases and a tightening labour market, and also a steep reduction of foreign workers quotas. All these are happening together and too fast. An "Instant Tree" mentality of sorts once again. We must rethink and recalibrate the rate of change if we don’t want to create serious fractures to our future economy. We must focus on 2 things - the right cost structure can cost of living and the right wage levels. Done successfully it would mean the government have done an excellent job in managing the economy and the country.
2. Budget 2014 is one that will be remembered for a long while for the Pioneer Package and several things that are good for Singapore. Taken as a whole, the past few years' budgets have been socially inclusive and helped many Singaporeans – not just the low-income and aged, but also many middle income Singaporeans. While I am disappointed that the government failed to address the cost competitiveness issues, the many initiatives in Budget 2014 make it an overall good budget.
3. Madam Speaker, I support the budget.

YourSDP.org

许多年前，人民行动党及其支持者描述民主党为一个只为反对而反对的在野党。换句话说，我们被形容为毫无建设性的政党。张志贤副总理曾抨击我党只 会”扔石头” 。

人民行动党通过国营媒体任意地抹黑我党，而我党在互联网还未出现之前，无法对这些无理取闹的指责进行反击。

今天，我们至少能利用新媒体向公众告知我党的意见和想法。其结果是，新加坡人民不仅能够看清了真相，而且我党的想法已逐渐备受肯定。连人民行动党的领袖也同意我党的观点。

例如，李显总理龙曾在去年宣布，把医疗保障计划改为全国医疗保险计划。这是抄袭我党的医疗替代方案。我党早已建议所有新加坡公民必须享有平等的医疗保健机会和无论其财务状况的下都能享有平等的治疗。换句话说，我国的卫生保健系统必须是普遍化的。

海峡时报曾在报道李总理的声明中写道， “健保双全计划是否能延伸至终生健保双全计划，取决于我国是否能推行一个普遍化的国民健康保险……。 ”

在2013年9月份，新加坡医疗协会刊登了一份由民主党的保罗· 淡比雅教授和陈立煌医生所拟写的普遍化卫生保健系统文章。如此认可我党贡献的事极为罕见。

另一项认可我党的例子就是自1990年代后期，我党一直提倡的最低工资标准。这项意见最近获得许通美教授和李光耀公共政策学院的恒汇达副教授的肯定。

副总理尚达曼为此宣布，政府将推出清洁员工的最低工资标准（尽管他否认这是一项最低工资法案） 。

全国职工总会也呼应了我党的 “新加坡人民优先”政策。更显著的是，人力部长陈川仁也在他的”公平考量框架”响应了我党的意见。

此外，民主党在本党非公开市场组屋方案所提到的把土地成本排在组屋价格以外的意见，也受到亲政府份子的青睐。

著名经济学家和新加坡经济协会副主席的 Yeoh Lam Keong 先生称赞我党的非公开市场组屋计划” 优秀”, 而且把组屋价格从土地脱钩的提议是个”很好的作法”。

我们的建议也获得了国际物业顾问公司行政总裁 Ku Swee Yong 先生的支持。Ku先生在政策研究所的网站道 ： “民主党的建议很好，而且能为有关当局在修改分配和定价机制政策上提供理论依据”。

一位在政策研究所的研究员，Tan Meng Wah 博士也建议组屋单位应以成本价格出售（扣除土地价值）。

我们强调这些例子的目的不是为了自夸，而是为了证明人民行动党如何使用国营媒体塑造民主党的误导形象。虽然我党多年来一直是个建设性的政党，可是人民行动党即使在采用我党的建议后，还是未承认我党的功劳。

不幸的是，民主党仍然被许多新加坡人民误解。我们要在下届大选来临之前纠正这个问题的时间是有限的。为此，我党恳求支持者们和富有思想的新加坡人民能帮忙揭穿这个由人民行动党所构建的神话。

我们正在努力成为新加坡人民所期盼的富有才干，建设性和同情心的政党 ，而且我们一直都是，并永远都是这样的政党。直到我党能让新加坡成为一个更好的家园时，我党是不会停歇的。

Singapore Democrats

By MP for Hougang SMC, Png Eng Huat
[Delivered in Committee of Supply on 7 March 2014]

Madam, every year, International Students receive about $12,000 to $75,000 each to study at our Institutions of Higher Learning. In total, the Government dispenses about $210 million in tuition grants per year to these students.

This is not a small sum of money and the only requirement the Government asks of these International Students is to work for a Singapore-based company for a period of 3 years upon their graduation with no other strings attached.

The grant application is so easy that even the sureties required to complete the application need not be Singaporeans nor reside here. And to fulfil the 3-year employment obligation agreement, the foreign student can work full-time or part-time, locally or overseas, give tuition at a tuition centre, and even be self-employed.

If the same student wishes to pursue a full-time undergraduate programme at our local tertiary institutions, he can defer his existing grant obligation, get another subsidy with another 3-year grant obligation, and serve both his obligations concurrently upon getting the undergraduate degree.

After pulling out all the stops for these foreign Students, how many of them took advantage of our generosity and left Singapore without serving a single day of the 3-year grant obligation?

MOE is currently unable to provide a definitive answer to this question. Even among the current group of International Students who had not started work upon graduation and/or who have not sought permission to do so, MOE did not want to reveal the number of defaulters in this group. I understand the ministry is tightening its tracking and enforcement efforts for bond fulfilment and I hope we will have a clear answer one day.

Madam, the Tuition Grant Scheme was started in 1980. The Government would have dished out billions of dollars in tuition grants to tens of thousands of International Students to date. It is hard to fathom that we do not know for sure how many foreign students took the liberty to ignore their obligations the past 34 years.

We even roll out the red carpet for these foreign students that if they become Citizens, they will be released from serving the grant obligation. For that, I would like to ask the Minister, how many of them had done so to date?

MOE cannot tighten the tracking and enforcement efforts without first tightening the terms and conditions of the Tuition Grant Scheme. Allowing an international student to have sureties living overseas is as good as having no sureties at all because we all know how hard it is to enforce our contracts beyond the shores of Singapore.

Our Government dishes out all kinds of grants to Singaporeans. In public housing, there are strict rules governing the disbursement of grants and some grants must be paid back with interests with no exception. It is certainly not acceptable for some International Students to work our system, take our grants, and make a mockery out of our generosity.

Source: WP.Sg