A small army of red descended upon the Marsiling and Bukit Panjang housing estates to connect with our residents, and the response could not have been more encouraging.

It was great first outing since we launched our GE2015 campaign a fortnight ago. Two busloads of nearly 50 party activists, many of whom responded to our call for volunteers at our launch, mingled with residents to spread our campaign message:

In Singapore today, you are struggling to meet with your living expenses. You are competing in an overcrowded city to get a job - or simply to hold on to yours. You have to work your entire life to pay your HDB loan, and when you retire, you cannot get your CPF savings back.

We understand your concerns. Unfortunately, the government doesn’t. It ignores your views. The SDP wants the government to listen to you. We have drawn up alternatives policies to make life less stressful for you. Our plan is to:

1. Abolish the Minimum Sum so that you can get your CPF sav­ings back in full.

2. Introduce a policy where employers give priority to Singapo­reans when it comes to hiring.

3. Lower the cost of living by reducing rates for utilities, public transport, and healthcare.

The SDP has plans for you and your family to be more secure, prosperous and happier. To achieve a better tomorrow, support the SDP.

NSP Elects new Secretary-General to lead them into next GE

The National Solidarity Party (NSP) recently held their elections for their central executive committee (CEC) and elected a new secretary general to lead them into the next GE.

The vote was held with about 40 members at the party’s headquarters yesterday.

According to TNP, the present secretary-general, Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss, has been voted out and in her place, fellow lawyer Tan Lam Siong ,53, has been voted as the man to lead the party.

The newly elected secretary general, Mr Tan had worked closely with Jeannette for her election campaign in GE2011.

Mr Tan, a father of three is a lawyer who also has qualifications in psychology and clinical hypnotherapy.

The party’s president did not change as Sebastian Teo, 66, was re-elected to remain as the party president, a role he has held for 6 terms.

The Workers' Party Town Council has released a report about its actual S&CC arrears rate explaining that hte previous rate recorded at 29.4% was actually a result of an error.

Read the full statement below:

AHPETC wishes to announce that its S&CC arrears rate (for 3 months and above) for residential units as of Sep 30, 2014, is 5.66 per cent of households. The corresponding arrears rate for commercial units for the same period is 7.24 per cent.

We wish to explain that we are sharing the information now rather than earlier, as time was needed to have the data and process reviewed both internally and also by our consultants before release. AHPETC had also undertaken to explain further its arrears situation and management, which we now do.

Our review has found that the above S&CC arrears rates are generated from valid S&CC records that are maintained in the AHPETC’s financial system.

What AHPETC lacks is a fully operational computer system to assist AHPETC to do aggregated S&CC arrears reporting in the format required by the Ministry of National Development (MND). In the absence of such a system, all reports submitted to MND before this were prepared by staff based on data generated by AHPETC’s IT system and extracted through manual sorting and counting.

AHPETC acknowledges that this manual process is not the most ideal and efficient way of doing aggregated arrears reporting, as the data size is voluminous. The former Hougang Town Council was able to do such manual reporting in the past as the number of households under management then was a fraction of what AHPETC is handling.

Such a process is tedious and subject to reporting and human errors. In the aftermath of the withdrawal of the then-computer system in 2011, that was the only way for AHPETC to comply with the aggregated arrears reporting requirements from MND until AHPETC’s own system could be enhanced. AHPETC was thus submitting arrears reports to HDB late. In addition, on Jun 18, 2013, AHPETC informed HDB that it was still unable to submit the April 2013 arrears report as it was sorting out a bug in its IT programme for generating arrears reports.

The arrears rate of 29.4 per cent for April 2013 submitted to MND was an instance of reporting and human errors. An additional step of sorting to avoid double-counting of the same household was inadvertently omitted. A comparison of the arrears report submitted for March 2013 and April 2013 would have shown up the error, as the amount of arrears owed for 3 or more months for April 2013 came down by about S$88,000 from March 2013, but the percentage of households in arrears of 3 or more months increased drastically from 7.42 per cent for March 2013 to 29.4 per cent for April 2013. Please see table:

KUALA LUMPUR, Jan 26 — Umno Youth chief Khairy Jamaluddin disagreed today that caning of children should be criminalised, insisting that using it for education and child abuse are two different things.

The Youth and Sports minister said Eastern and Western parents employ different ways to educate their children, with many Malaysians agreeing that caning is one of the ways to do so.

“For me, when we say that caning children is a crime, most people would not agree,” he said in a press conference here after chairing an Umno Youth meeting.

“For us in Umno and Umno Youth, if said that caning is a crime, I don’t think we agree with that,” he added.

Khairy said caning children is “common” among Malaysians, adding that parenting methods here are different from those in the West where parents cannot lay a finger on the children.

But the Rembau MP also warned against potential child abuse that might arise from caning, urging control among parents while teaching their children lessons.

On Saturday, Women, Family and Community Development Minister Datuk Seri Rohani Abdul Karim said caning could be an offence under a new law to replace the Child Act 2001.

She later clarified that the provision proposed by the ministry under the new Child Act is not meant to outlaw all forms of caning of children, only those meted out on child offenders in court.

Dr Chee Soon Juan talked about the kind of leadership Singapore needs at the Foreign Correspondents Association (FCA) lunch which took place at the Pan Pacific Hotel yesterday. Below are excerpts:

Mr Lee Hsien Loong is in the unique position which few politicians are: As prime minister he inherited a political system that is neither open nor democratic – one, I might add, that is faltering, but he also possesses the power to change it. Depending on what he does, the future of Singapore could grow even stronger or it could meet a dismal fate.

So far, I see little to be of good cheer. Mr Lee continues to prosecute legitimate political activity, sues his critics for defamation, even adds teeth to legislation to further deprive citizens of their constitutional rights – all remnant tactics of his father's reign.

It seems that there is a genuine lack of appreciation for the real concerns and aspirations of the Singaporean people who are done with being talked down to in a system that is far from transparent and accountable.

Times have changed, society has changed. Leadership must also change, we need to motivate, not instil even more conformity. We need to create a climate of freedom – the freedom to think different (to borrow the phrase from Apple), to question, to debate, to dissent.

In other words, we need to reform the way we conduct politics in this country. The political culture of fear and domination must give way to one of inspiration and inclusiveness.

This is why the SDP has put in so much effort to draw up our policies. We want to elevate the level of political engagement in Singapore. We must dispense with the politics of name-calling and character assassination and contest each other on the logic, soundness and power of our ideas.

SDP has issued an official response to the recent TRS article JEREMY CHEN: WHY I LEFT THE SINGAPORE DEMOCRATIC PARTY which covered a fairly critical post written by Jeremy Chen, a former SDP member, on why he chose to leave SDP.

SDP explained that it was Mr Chen's Facebook posts which caused SDP to have to take action.

See the full response from SDP's Asst. Secretary-General Christopher Ang below:
 

Jeremy Chen's FB posts reason for SDP action

We have, in the past, received numerous complaints with screenshots from our members and netizens regarding Jeremy Chen's Facebook posts. Some of these include Jeremy:

• calling Roy Ngerng “deceitful”, saying that the funds that he raised were “ill-gotten”, mentioning ISIS murderers' and rapists' justifications with Roy's matter, and comparing him to Yang Yin,

• writing that Vincent Wijeysinghe should “stop pretending to be hurt for personal publicity”,

• making uncalled for remarks against other opposition parties such as saying that the NSP lacked principles, questioning the general character of SingFirst, and calling out WP's Sylvia Lim's argument as being “very silly”,

• likening PAP's Heng Swee Keat to Judas Iscariot

• putting up a tasteless caption of a photo of Lee Kuan Yew

• saying that, “some religious people are stupid”

• casting aspersions on SMU's teaching system

• saying that one “...can rob, rape, murder...just say that you are against the PAP and anything also can. No need to take responsibility.”

I want to thank A Concerned Singaporean for his feedback in his article I SUPPORT SDP BUT I ALSO THINK THERE'S ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT.

The writer points out correctly that it is difficult to make "significant inroads in two GRCs in just 4 hours." This is why over and above these walkabouts, we conduct block parties, house visits, coffee sessions and townhall meetings on a regular basis. We been doing this over the past three-and-a-half years since the last GE. 

We are aware that walkabouts do not allow us to spend sufficient time to properly interact with voters. However, this activity allows us to meet and greet residents in greater numbers and to sell our party newspaper, The New Democrat, and spread our message. In this way, walkabouts are important.

To make up for the lack of quality interaction in walkabouts, we organised house-visits. This activity provides us with opportunities to interact with residents, understand their concerns and receive feedback on national and municipal issues. The reach is, of course, much more limited. We also use house-visits to conduct surveys, the feedback which we have used to good effect.

This is why a combination of the two types of ground activities is needed. 

By Non-Constituency MP, Gerald Giam
[Delivered in Parliament on 29 Jan 2015]

This Bill gives effect to the MediShield Life Scheme, which was debated in this House in July 2014. It spells out the framework for the disclosure of an individual’s confidential health and financial information, recovering outstanding premiums, and the offences and penalties for false declarations and claims.

I have several concerns to raise regarding the disclosure of information and the recovery of outstanding premiums.

DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION

First, on the disclosure of information described in Part 5 of the Bill.

The Bill authorises certain “authorised persons”, including public servants from the Central Provident Fund Board (CPF), the Ministry of Health (MOH) and public hospitals, to tap into various government databases to extract an individual’s confidential health information for two purposes: One, to assess whether a person has pre-existing medical conditions for which premium loading may apply; and two, to assess the person’s benefit claims under MediShield Life.

The Bill also permits these authorised persons to request for, access, use or disclose to other authorised persons the “means information” of an individual, which could include monthly income, information on assets, residential address and household composition.

My queries and concerns on this Part of the Bill fall into four categories:

1. The means testing process;
2. The extent of access, disclosure and use of confidential data;
3. The process and consequences of opting out; and
4. Safeguards to prevent illegal disclosure.

Means testing process

First on means testing. I understand the rationale for authorising the disclosure of health and means information is to facilitate the smoother and more seamless execution of the MediShield Life Scheme.

I raised the matter of means-tested premium subsidies in both my adjournment motion on healthcare affordability in November 2013 and during the MediShield Life White Paper debate last July. I had asked for premium subsidies to be provided automatically to households that have already undergone means-testing for other government assistance schemes like CHAS (Community Health Assist Scheme). I also asked for the appropriate level of premium subsidies to be automatically extended to all vulnerable groups of Singaporeans, without requiring them to apply separately. This is so that all individuals who are eligible for premium subsidies will receive them with minimal paperwork.

Can the Minister confirm if the provisions in this Bill will enable means testing to be automated, such that individuals do not have to submit any additional forms to receive the premium subsidies?

If not, what would be the procedure for individuals to apply for premium subsidies, and how will MOH ensure that the process is simple and convenient, especially for the elderly, people with disabilities or those with lower levels of literacy?

Given the very tough premium recovery measures in Part 3 of this Bill, it is even more critical that no one misses out on their premium subsidies, if they are eligible.

Extent of use of confidential information

Next, the use of confidential information.

Will the Government be allowed to use any of the confidential information authorised under this Bill for purposes other than means testing, premium calculations and benefit claims assessments? I note there are provisions under the Bill, including in Clause 30, for the Minister to approve the access or disclosure of such information as he “considers appropriate”. This is gives very broad powers to the Minister and could potentially negate the protections spelled out in other parts of the Bill.

Can the Minister give some examples of what grounds he may consider to be appropriate for granting access or disclosure of confidential information that is not already provided for in this Bill? Can these not be spelled out in the Bill instead of giving the Minister so much discretion?

Opting out

Next, on opting out.

For those who do not consent to sharing their confidential information, how will they opt out? Will the process be made simple and explained clearly to all persons, including those who have not yet expressed a desire to opt out? The Bill does not explain the procedure for opting out, but simply that it should be in “the manner determined by the Minister”.

If individuals opt out, will they automatically have the full 30% premium load for 10 years imposed on them?

It is easy to assume that people all fall into one of only two groups: the first group being those who are willing to allow the government to access their health and means information; and the second group, those who have medical conditions that they are trying to hide so as not to attract higher premiums.

But there is a third group of individuals: Those who have no medical conditions that warrant higher premiums but still do not wish to give the State such wide ranging access to their personal information. People in this group should not be penalised for wishing to maintain their privacy, neither should they be forced to make a Hobson’s choice: Either permit access to your data, or pay higher premiums.

For individuals who are concerned about privacy, can the Government allow them to opt out from giving access to their health information, and then make a statutory declaration about their health status? If they declare that they have no relevant medical conditions, they would not be required to pay higher premiums. If they are untruthful in their declarations, then there are already penalties in this Bill and other laws that can be used to punish them and deter such behaviour.

I believe this would strike a fair balance between individuals’ desire for privacy and the need to ascertain their health status for premium calculations.

Safeguards to prevent illegal disclosure

Next, on safeguards.

This Bill greatly increases the potential number of people who will be authorised to access confidential information of individuals. We have seen examples in other countries where public officers who were given wide-ranging access to confidential information misused that information and even disclosed it publicly. We have also seen large organisations have their computer systems breached by hackers and suffer massive losses of confidential information, including health information of their employees or credit card numbers of their customers.

I note that there are penalties in the Bill for unauthorised disclosure. But it is not always easy to track down the source of a leak, and in any case, once confidential information is leaked, the damage would have already been done.

With the introduction in this Bill of such extensive authorisation to access confidential information, do the relevant agencies plan to significantly beef up the security of their computer systems to prevent unauthorised data access, either by external hackers or by disgruntled insiders?

Can the Minister assure us that authorised persons will be given access only on a strictly “need-to-know” basis, regardless of their seniority, and that the data in their possession is removed as soon as it is no longer needed?

I note that a new Cyber Security Agency (CSA) has been set up under the PMO. Will the security of confidential information covered in this Bill come under the purview of the CSA?

By MP for Punggol East SMC, Lee Li Lian
[Delivered in Parliament on 29 Jan 2015]

This Bill sets out the legislative framework and powers for the implementation and administration of the MediShield Life Scheme. I support this bill but I have several clarifications and concerns which I will elaborate as I move on.

Penalty for late payment of premiums

According to clause 11, interests may be imposed from time to time on outstanding premiums for that insurance period for those who default on payments. And in clause 17, a penalty may also be added on to the premiums and interests. I would like to find out under what circumstances will interests and/ or penalties be imposed?

The total amount of penalties and interests imposed cannot exceed 17%. According to an online article from Channel News Asia, these recovery measures are meant to clamp down on wilful defaulters with the means to pay their premiums, and are adapted from existing income tax legislation. On what basis did Medishield Life decide to adopt such measure from the income tax legislation and how is medical insurance premium comparable to income tax?

Will the insured lose their cover if the payment is still not recovered despite multiple reminders and interest incurred? I would like to assume that they would not since this is a compulsory national insurance but still I would like to seek a confirmation. And if the insurance is indeed lapsed, is there a function to reinstate the policy?

Will this scheme allow premium holidays for insured that genuinely cannot pay for their premiums? These could be individuals who lose their job and stop contributing to their CPF Medisave. Some may argue that although the insured becomes unemployed, Medisave savings will be able to see them through the difficult period. However, let us not forget that there are individuals who are paying for the premiums of their children, spouse and parents from their own Medisave account.

Access to health information

Under clause 27, an authorized person, certified by the Minister, can have access to an individual health information or history. I can understand the need to have access for such information for the purpose of determining loading factor to the premiums as stated in clause 27, sub section 1a.

However, like many Singaporeans, I am concerned about how much information is available and accessible to those given the authority to assess the database. What security measures are put in place to ensure that the abuse of medical information is kept to the minimum?

An individual can choose to opt out of the system if he/ she does not want to give such access to the Ministry. Once an individual is out, will all details be removed from viewing? Or only partial information? Apart from not being able to enjoy premiums subsidies, what other benefits are they not entitled to? Will there be any implications to their claims? At which point of the application process would the insured be able to opt out?

By MP for Aljunied GRC, Sylvia Lim
[Delivered in Parliament on 30 Jan 2015]

As mentioned by my party colleagues before me, the Workers’ Party agrees that there is a need to strengthen liquor controls and, in particular, the consumption of alcohol in public. While we support the Bill, we believe the Bill may cover too much and ask for particular areas to be relooked. For my speech, I will touch on protecting the quality of life in neighbourhoods, takeaway sales of alcohol, and the policing approach to the Bill.

Protecting Quality of Life in Neighbourhoods

The need to have tighter alcohol controls stems largely from the density of human activity in Singapore. The scarcity of land has led to intensified and mixed land use, where residential and commercial spaces co-exist side by side. Over the last few years, the increased density of population has seen alcohol-related public nuisances and disorder spill over into residential spaces, affecting the quality of life in neighbourhoods. While it is true that many drinkers are responsible and do not disturb anyone, others camp at HDB void deck tables, merry-making into the wee hours and leaving broken bottles and unfinished food in their wake. In private residential estates too, spillovers can happen, especially in areas where there are nearby nightspots and liquor sale points. Thus, having a prohibition on alcohol consumption in public places after 10.30 pm will be welcome.

Nevertheless, I am of the view that the status quo need not change for public places such as hawker centres, where retailers sell alcohol till midnight and patrons consume the drinks purchased within the hawker centres. Can we not preserve this, which is a self-contained space and an important outlet for Singaporeans of all income levels?

Another concern is community events where alcohol is served, such as Seven Month Dinners, a point brought up by Mr Baey Yam Keng earlier. While the permits or permission for such events require the events to stop at 10.30 pm, it is common in these social gatherings for bottles of alcohol to be shared in the course of the evening. Even after the events formally end, it is common for attendees to stay back to quietly finish up their drinks together after 10.30 pm. To now say that it is illegal to drink after 10.30 pm would mean everyone would have to either waste their drinks or drink up to meet the timeline, which would be harmful, and an overkill. Can the government not accommodate this innocuous activity?

There are also other aspects of the Bill that I am concerned about.

Takeaway Sales

Let me first touch on the proposed prohibition against sales after 10.30 pm for takeaway consumption. This will be stipulated by police as a licensing condition for alcohol retailers.

Currently, most retailers of alcohol for off-premise consumption are able to sell alcohol until midnight e.g. convenience stores, supermarkets and petrol stations. I am not convinced that this should change.

Many consumers purchase alcohol for takeaway between 10.30 pm to 12 midnight, to drink at home, or at bring along to social gatherings at the homes of relatives and friends. Since alcohol consumption in public after 10.30 pm will soon be outlawed, one will no longer be permitted to hang around a public place to consume alcohol after 10.30 pm. Therefore, the main concern about disamenities caused by public drinking late at night would have been significantly addressed. On the other hand, by prohibiting takeaway sales between 10.30 pm and midnight, a person who wants some drinks, say after working late, can no longer purchase takeaway alcohol for consumption at home; he or she but will have to go to a licensed premise to consume the alcohol there before the journey back. This may inadvertently lead to a higher incidence of persons riding or driving under the influence of alcohol.

Since the Bill will already curtail consumption at public places after 10.30 pm, I do not see the need to have a general prohibition on takeaway sales between 10.30 pm and midnight, for private consumption.

Policing Approach

Let me move to some questions about the intended policing approach.

First: For public places in general that are not Liquor Control Zones, will the 10.30 pm rule against consumption be actively policed, e.g. do we expect to have foot patrols searching for violators, or will the police only act on complaints?

Secondly, what will be the approach to persons found drinking in public after 10.30 pm but do not appear drunk and are not creating any annoyance to anyone? Under Clause 12 (4), such an individual commits an offence of prohibited consumption. How will the police handle this? Will the police just ask the persons to leave, with no questions asked, or will records be kept? As for persons found drunk and incapable or drunk and causing annoyance, Clause 14 (3) seems to favour an approach of just directing the person to go away and pouring away the alcohol. Are there expected to be further follow-up steps after these? Or will the authorities prosecute only when persons do not comply with directions of the police to leave the place?

Another matter of interest is the division of work between the police and the auxiliary police. The Act distinguishes between police officers and auxiliary police, the latter of whom are termed “approved persons” under Clause 3 of Bill. While there are some powers under the Bill that can be used by both police and auxiliary police, under Clause 30 of the Bill, only a police officer may arrest without warrant a person committing an offence in the police officer’s line of sight. Thus, if an offence of drunken trespass under Clause 14 is committed in front of auxiliary police officers, it would seem that these auxiliary officers cannot arrest the suspect but can only direct the person to leave the place; if he does not, it is not clear what, if anything, the auxiliary police officers can do at the scene. Accordingly, I would like to ask if the proposed mode of operation is to team up both police and auxiliary police officers in joint patrols, or to respond to cases jointly? If they are to be working separately, there could be some awkward situations where auxiliary police may have to wait for police to arrive to take certain actions, by which time harm may already have been caused.

Finally, I would make a general observation about the approach to enforcement. During the Committee of Inquiry into the Little India riot, the then Commissioner of Police spoke about the policing challenges in Geylang and noted that there was open hostility and antagonism towards the police in Geylang. He called Geylang a “potential powder keg”. Have the police thought about how the open hostility and antagonism can be ameliorated?

The Medishield Life Bill that was just passed in Parliament contained some really good points. What's interesting is its uncanny resemblance to the SDP's National Healthcare Plan published in 2012.

Question: Why do PAP Ministers demand that they be paid millions of dollars (and then appoint a committee to do the work) when you can get similar results for free from the SDP?

It is noteworthy that while PM Lee Hsien Loong says that the opposition has not articulated an alternative plan, the Government implements ideas that the SDP proposed.

On risk-pooling

SDP: The individual contribution to the National Health Investment Fund works as in an insurance system, where individual risks are pooled.

PAP: Everyone shares in the national risk pool and plays a part supporting pooled healthcare costs.

On universal healthcare

SDP: Everything we discuss about healthcare reform must spring from and be underpinned by this fundamental principle of universal, affordable coverage.

PAP: The extension of lifelong, universal coverage and better benefits for all Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents.

On coverage of pre-existing illnesses

SDP: Under the current system a large number of pre-existing illnesses are excluded.

PAP: MediShield Life will provide universal and basic coverage for all, including for those with pre-existing conditions.

On catastrophic illnesses

SDP: For a long time, Singaporeans know that healthcare is extremely expensive and many, if not most, find it unaffordable – especially if one, or one's loved one, meets with a catastrophic or chronic illness.

PAP: Singaporeans do worry about “catastrophic” bills — bills so large as to cause financial stress to them or their families.

“Universal and basic coverage for all”, “reducing out-of-pocket payment”, “look at ways to help the elderly”. These are some of the buzzwords that the Government has used to sell its Medishield Life Bill. Now let's take a look at the reality.

Essentially, what Medishield Life has done is to take a portion of funds from your Medisave to pay for bills of patients who end up with catastrophic or chronic illnesses which require expensive treatments.

Many of these patients cannot afford to pay these bills and the hospitals end up having to write these debts off. In 2011, Singaporeans owed $110 million to public hospitals.

This presents the PAP with two problems: One, the Government is unable to collect the money because many of these patients genuinely cannot afford to pay the bills and, two, it makes the Government look heartless by making Singaporeans go into debt because of medical expenses.

The introduction of Medishield Life will allow the Government to take the Medisave funds from Singaporeans through Medishield Life premiums to pay for these debts. It will top up the shortfall of funds by about $800 million a year.

In principle, this is a step in the right direction. It is what the SDP proposes – everyone shares in the stake of the health of our fellow citizens by pooling the risks in a national healthcare insurance scheme.

The difference between the SDP's plan and the PAP's Medishield Life – and it's an important one – is that the PAP continues to place the burden of paying for healthcare on the people.

While the SDP proposes that Medisave be scrapped and the funds of $43,500 be returned to our CPF, the PAP insists that the Government retains this amount to pay for our healthcare expenses.

On top of this, Medisave payments are restricted, making the people pay even more from out of our pockets.

Also, the deductibles – the portion of the hospital bill that must be paid out of pocket before Medishield Life will pay the remaining expense – remains unchanged between $2,000-$3,000. Most routine hospitalisations fall into this category.

What's more, the Government claims that it subdises medical expenses. The SDP has questioned the Government's prices because subsidy of inflated prices is a gimmick (see here). By doing this, the Government not only makes the people pay more but also inflates its subsidy levels.

Such practices has allowed the PAP Government to shirk its responsibility and use public funds to do business all over the world through Temasek Holdings instead of focusing on  the people's health.

The chart on the right says it all. While governments in most industrialised economies pay about 70% of the country's total healthcare expenditure, our Government pays only 30%.

Even with the added $800 million a year, its portion comes up to only 40%. The Government collects this amount in road tax alone.

Stop profiting from the people

Another point that Singaporeans must remember is that our public healthcare system is still a profit-making one. The PAP euphemistically calls this approach “cost recovery”.

This is consistent with its philosophy that nothing in Singapore is free, meaning that this Government considers itself more like a corporate entity than a steward of public interests and monies; it treats the people more like customers rather than citizens.

Singapore’s economy has registered dramatic growth in the last half-a-century. This expansion has, however, come at a cost. Because of the PAP's obsession with GDP-growth-at-all cost, serious problems have emerged.

Income inequality is troublingly wide, our workforce is dispirited, we are not innovative, our productivity level is languishing, we are overly reliant on foreign labour, our retirees don't have enough to retire on, our middle-class also live from paycheck to to paycheck, our household debt is the highest in Asia...

All these have raised questions about the sustainability of our present economic direction.

Singapore needs a new economic strategy that will take us into a new era of sustainable growth, one that will allow us to compete on the international stage, not consign our workers to a cycle of working harder and longer for less and less; that uplifts the people, not dumb them down; and whose priority is the well-being of all the people, not just the rich.

Material gain must have a collective social good. Gain for its own sake can be destructive to social processes and to a community. And social good can only come about when the people are not alienated from the decision-making process and when community bonds are strengthened instead of weakened.

In other words, we must work towards an enlightened economic system.

The SDP has drawn up an alternative economic programme titled A New Economic Vision: Towards Innovation, Equal Opportunity and Compassion that will allow us to achieve our goals. It will address the everyday concerns of Singaporeans as well as plan for the long-term needs of the country.

The policy paper, which will be launched this Saturday, is one that is people-centric and has as its prime objective the well-being and happiness of the Singaporean people.

In it, we spell out details on key areas on how Singapore can:

• Implement Minimum Wage for all low-income workers
• Introduce retrenchment benefits for an increasing number of Singaporeans who are laid-off
• Fix our abused and misused CPF scheme
• Make our sovereign wealth funds transparent and accountable
• Foster innovation and boost productivity

GOH MENG SENG: Someone asked me the question “If u are given the chance to be the PM. What 5 things you will do for Singapore”, I have given the following answers. In summary, I think the the top priority is to CHANGE the system of governance before we can talk about individual policy changes:

You have raised a good question although most probably I will not be PM of Singapore in my lifetime.

There are many things I wanted to change but few of them will take top priorities:

1) Govt getting out of business in Singapore.

There is a great conflict of interests when the Govt itself is the regulator as well as the business owners of those companies which are supposedly to be regulated. This should stop. For management of CPF or sovereign wealth fund, the Govt’s entity should not hold more than 15% of any commercial entities. GLCs have created a very unhealthy system which crowded out local entrepreneurship and innovations.

2) Ministerial salary should be cut further to peg to the lowest 10 percentile as well as the middle income level.

Ministerial post is Public Service and over paying ministers will make them clinging onto their positions for far too long. This will breed cronyism and eventually unwanted troubles.

3) Consultation system should be made efficient and thorough for important issues.

Priorities should be given to big decisions like population strategy. The 6.9 Population White Paper is one example that inadequate public consultation that causes public uproar. Institutionalize a good system of opinion poll by the universities to enhance quick feedback via poll and in order to have a trusted result, govt should not meddle with academic freedom.

Any attempts of interference by the Govt to pressure universities should be resisted and condemned. Same applies for the Press. The recent contradicting poll results done by the Govt vs public poll done by ST on the alcohol ban is a glaring example of how Govt could lose public trust by such manipulation of sampling in polls. In this fast changing globalized world, direct democracy via serious independent polling may be a necessity but in order for that to develop, it must gain public trust and Govt should not be seen as manipulating or interfere with such processes.

4) The electoral process should be modified and a system of dual representation should be implemented.

It is really counter productive to assign parliamentarians to run Town Councils. District Councillors should be elected and assigned to that function. Parliamentary system should change as well. In Hong Kong, Legco members are involved in a lot more process of policy making, scrutiny of govt management, budgets etc. They have WEEKLY sitting of Legco to discuss current policy issues as well as other sub committees which a lot more debates and discussion all year round.

In contrast, our MPs has become over-paid estate managers instead of spending more time in parliamentary and policy matters. This has to be changed and modified. Furthermore, in order to be more inclusive, the electoral system will have to changed to proportional representation.

12 January 2011

Could the new Thaipusam regulations be a knee-jerk response to the gang-related street violence in recent months? The announcement of the restrictions by the Hindu Endowments Board (HEB) seems to suggest so.

Under the new rules, no singing or music is allowed in the procession, and portable music equipment are banned as well. The 2011 guidelines states that "shouting and other forms of unruly behavior is prohibited; participants shall not paint their faces or bodies or wear any form of disguise".

Is shouting considered unruly behaviour? If it is, what do we do about people screaming (often vulgarity) during a football match? And if painting one's face is prohibited, then those who paint their faces during National Day Parades should be disallowed too. What about disguise? Are we also going to ban the lion dance and the bighead doll that accompanies the lion? What about the guy in the Tua Pek Kong costume giving out ang pows?

This is the problem with Singapore. The Government makes rules that arbitrarily discriminate against certain sections of the community. This creates resentment among the people.

When the authorities should be relaxing rules to allow for more spontaneity and expression, it does the opposite and enforces even more conformity in our society.

Singaporeans are, by and large, a tolerant people when it comes to religious and ethnic ceremonies. Hungry Ghost Festival getais, deity processions, Malay weddings, and Chinese funerals have been taking place frequently in our midst and for many decades.

So it seemed more than a little strange that one of the reasons cited was that "residents of new homes along the processions 4km route" had complained about the Thaipusam festival. The procession courses through parts of Orchard Road and Tank Road which means that it does not affect Singaporean heartlanders. So who are the real complainants? Are they Singaporeans?

Singapore Inventors and Patent Rights

Use Mediation not Courts to settle disputes.

I read ST’s article of 2nd Feb.2015 involving our local inventor Dr Ting Choon Meng and Mindef over infringement of patent rights and the exchanges between the two parties. It is indeed sad that the issue has turned sour and legal action was resorted to.

The latest global report in debt published by the McKinsey Global Institute shows that Singapore is the third largest debtor nation in the world at a Debt-to-GDP ratio of 382%.

A country's overall debt includes debt of the government, non-financial corporations, and households. A large part of Singapore's debt comes from the corporate sector. This is not surprising with so many MNCs setting up their base in Singapore.

The report states that

High debt levels, whether in the public or private sector, have historically placed a drag on growth and raised the risk of financial crises that spark deep economic recessions.

But what should be of especial concern to Singaporeans is the third component: household debt. The report shows that Singapore's household debt – that is, the debt incurred by Singaporeans primarily through housing loans – is one of the highest in the world.

In fact, our percentage change in household debt-to-income ratio between 2007–2013 saw the biggest jump worldwide (see chart on right).

It must be pointed out that the difference between Singapore and other countries is that our housing system is predominantly controlled by the PAP Government.

In other words, in the more than 50 years that the PAP Government has been in control, it has engineered the system to the point where the people have become the biggest debtors in the world – to the PAP Government.

The report also states that “Household debt relative to income has continued to grow rapidly in some countries and may be unsustainable...”

With our retirees having insufficient to funds to live on and with our greying population, the above statement seems particularly ominous.

We are extremely disappointed by the recommendations of the CPF Advisory Panel, which have been accepted by the Government. The recommended changes amount to the mildest of tweaks to a flawed and conflicted system. In the case of the new tiers (Basic, Full and Enhanced Retirement Sums), which replace the current Minimum Sum, there is no relaxation of the rules just a name change. The Government continues to require Singaporeans to pledge their property if they only have the Basic Retirement Sum at 55.

We need radical reform to CPF, which is now widely seen for what it is: a forced savings scheme that exploits middle- to low-income Singaporeans.

Fundamental Conflict of Interest

There is a fundamental conflict of interest between the interests of Singaporeans as savers and investors and the interests of the Government in borrowing as cheaply as possible. We pointed this out in our White Paper on CPF Reform published in June 2014.

The money is lent to GIC (and indirectly allows the Government to inject money into Temasek. The SWFs are able to arbitrage the difference between what we are paid and the yields on higher-risk assets. Many of the assets GIC and Temasek invest in are illiquid and difficult to value. This is the real reason why the PAP keep increasing the Minimum Sum making it more difficult for you to withdraw your money.

The PAP claim that your CPF savings are invested in AAA securities issued by the Government. However they are only rated AAA because if the SWFs lose the money through bad investments you would have to repay the money lent to them through higher taxes. Ultimately you are guaranteeing yourself. If the value of GIC’s investments fell by30-40%, as happened during the 2009 financial crisis, there would not be enough money to repay CPF holders and the PAP Government would need to raise taxes.

PM and Wife Should Not Head Our SWFs

The conflict of interest is made worse by the fact that the PM is Chairman of GIC and his wife is CEO of Temasek. As Chairman of GIC he must act in GIC’s best interests which conflicts with his responsibility to ensure Singaporeans’ interests are protected. The Government refuses to disclose how much the PM’s wife is paid though this is likely to be much more than the PM. However we know that Temasek’s management’s bonuses are dependent on achieving better than a hurdle rate of return. This hurdle will undoubtedly be linked to the Government’s cost of borrowing, which in turn is determined by how low it sets the rates paid to CPF account holders.

Unfairness of Current CPF Scheme

The Special Advisory Panel has not addressed this fundamental conflict of interest. Nor has it put right the broken promise to return our CPF at 55 or help middle- and low-income Singaporeans deal with financial hardship caused by the PAP policies of needless austerity. As we said in our White Paper, the CPF scheme is inequitable for the following reasons:

• It is regressive because of the upper income limit of $85,000 on CPF contributions
• It represents a form of taxation because Singaporeans’ savings are locked up till at least 55. Even then we cannot withdraw any money unless we have the minimum sum in our accounts or have a terminal illness. The interest rates paid are well below what we would be able to earn on AAA investments with similar restrictions on withdrawal.
• Allowing us to use CPF funds to purchase housing has just boosted the price of housing. The supply of housing is controlled by the government through its ownership of land and the position of HDB as the monopoly house builder to 90% of the population. The rise in property prices has more than negated the value of the rise in our savings.
• Expats and foreigners are not required to pay CPF.

Excess Government Savings

Nor does the Advisory Panel address our macroeconomic problem, which is one of excess savings. This is a global problem but particularly acute in Singapore. At the same time many Singaporeans struggle to make ends meet, go without seeing a doctor or buying needed medicines and send their children to school hungry or without money to buy lunch.

The PAP Government already runs a Budget surplus of 8-10% of GDP. According to the Monthly Digest of Statistics (MDS) for January 2015, the Government had surplus cash flow over and above its spending commitments of $36 billion in 2011 and $29 billion in 2012. The figure for 2013 has not been released yet but is likely to be of the same size. According to the PAP government’s figures, it has huge external assets of over $800 billion and net assets (after CPF liabilities) of roughly $360 billion. This represents accumulated net assets of over $110,000 per citizen over and above what every Singaporean has in his or her CPF account.

In the context of these staggering and immoral surpluses, it is difficult to understand why the PAP Government insists on all Singaporeans, especially the elderly, disabled, and median- to low-income families with children, undergoing unnecessary financial hardship. This is especially true given the low returns achieved by Temasek and GIC over the past few years when converted back into Singapore dollars.

In particular why are Singaporeans not allowed to withdraw their CPF in the Special and Ordinary Accounts at the age of 55 as was originally promised? It is not as though the withdrawal of the money will place a fiscal burden on the state.

It is only through our citizens’ hard work and sacrifice in going without free education, health care, help for children and dependents, old age pensions and other benefits that citizens of rich countries take for granted that has enabled the PAP to make such huge and immoral surpluses. There is a global glut of savings, which results in low to negative returns on investment. In addition we expect productivity to increase exponentially over the coming decade due to the advance of Artificial Intelligence and automation resulting in higher living standards for all. As a result these surpluses no longer make any sense if they ever did.

Special Advisory Panel Recommendations Just A Rebranding Exercise

The recommendation of the Special Advisory Panel to allow us to withdraw 20% of our CPF at 65 is totally inadequate.

In addition the introduction of three tiers for savings is largely just a cosmetic change without real substance. Singaporeans are already required to pledge their property if bought with CPF savings for half the Minimum Sum if they fall short of the total sum.   The Advisory Panel new tier at 50% of the current Minimum Sum allowing you to withdraw money above that level if you pledge your property is theoretically slightly less restrictive than the old rule by which if you failed to meet the full Minimum Sum your property was automatically pledged. This is just the reintroduction of the 50% Withdrawal Rule which the PAP Government scrapped in 2009 when Temasek and GIC had sustained large losses.

However most Singaporeans will have used their savings on purchasing their HDB and so will have less than the Basic Sum in their accounts. Thus they will be unable to withdraw any money. In addition the equity in their HDB is likely to be worth considerably more than 50% of the new Full Minimum Sum so in effect they will be pledging more security than the Minimum Sum.

Reforming CPF

The core of our proposed reforms is essentially the same as in our White Paper published in June 2014:

• Everyone should be allowed to either withdraw 100% of the money in their Special and Ordinary Accounts from, leave their money in or buy an annuity providing an income for life
• A universal comprehensive health insurance plan would replace Medisave and Medishield Life (More details on our proposed health insurance reforms shortly)
• Apart from health insurance individuals would be required to contribute a small percentage of income towards a universal basic old age pension to be paid from age 65.
• Everyone unless certified unable to work would be required to have worked a certain number of years to qualify.
• The Government would subsidise or pay the premiums and pension contributions of those on low incomes, the disabled and the elderly. Subsidies or payments would also be dependent on the value of assets owned by the individual including housing
• After these deductions, individuals to be free to choose what proportion of their income, up to the earnings limit and capped at the current 20%, to save for retirement.
• These savings to continue to be tax-exempt up to the current earnings limit of $85,000 adjusted for inflation.
• Individuals can elect to buy a private pension scheme or one provided by CPF.
• Employers to make contributions of 16% of final salary up to current earnings limit into a pension scheme of the employee’s choice. These contributions to be tax-exempt.
• Private sector pension providers (regulated by MAS) to be allowed to compete with CPF on equal terms.
• CPF no longer to be required to invest solely in Singapore Government Securities but to be allowed to invest in approved investments above a certain rating level.

Individuals to continue to be allowed to use both employee and employer CPF to fund property purchases. Subsidies and tax exemption for housing purchases have helped to fuel the housing bubble. However ending subsidies too quickly could cause a housing price collapse with severe consequences for the economy

The SDP has proposed a set of comprehensive measures to tackle the economic problems that Singapore faces. These include initiatives to tackle immediate problems such as the income inequality as well as longer-term proposals to boost productivity and increasing opportunity for Singaporeans.

SDP's Treasurer Ms Chong Wai Fung (pictured) kicked off the event by laying out the foundations of the SDP's plan. She pointed out that Singapore needed to move away from a model of GDP-growth-at-all-cost and driving our national values based on monetary considerations.

Instead, Ms Chong said, Singapore needed an economic system which emphasized fairness and compassion, so that all Singaporeans can prosper and move forward together as one nation.

Vice-Chairman John Tan highlighted the economic problems that Singapore faced the biggest of which is income inequality and the pernicious effects it wreaks on society.

He also spoke on the retirement poverty levels and lack of transparency and accountability of our sovereign wealth funds.

Dr Chee Soon Juan enumerated the specific policy ideas to address these problems. To tackle income inequality the SDP will implement:

I. Implement minimum wage. SDP recommends a minimum wage of $7 per hour as a start. The Plan also stipulates the setting up of a Wage Equity Commission (WEC) comprising of trade unions, government representatives, employers, economic experts, academics, NGOs, and professional organisations. The WEC will

1. recommend to the government the level of minimum wage at appropriate intervals,

2. monitor the impact of the law on the economy, and

3. empowered to act on non-compliance and wage manipulation.

II. Introduce retrenchment insurance. The SDP will introduce the RESTART (Re-Employment Scheme and Temporary Assistance for the ReTrenched) programme where retrenched workers will be able to get financial assistance based on the following schedule:

1.  1st 6 months after retrenchment: 75% of last drawn salary, 2nd 6 months: 50% of last drawn salary, 3rd 6 months: 25% of last drawn salary.

2.  MOM will assist participants in seeking re-employment and matching them on salary and skills to the new jobs. Participants cannot reject more than 3 job offers.

3.  The RESTART payouts will be capped of the prevailing median wage.

4.  RESTART will be funded by state (80%), employers (10%), and employees (10%). The programme will require a $2 billion budget (annualised basis).

III. Recalibrate tax structure. The current tax regime has contributed to the wide wealth divide in Singapore. In order to remedy this, the SDP proposes the following:

1. The top personal income tax rate will be returned to 28% (which was reduced to 20% in 2002) for the top 1% income earners (average annual income of $700,000). This revenue will help pay for the RESTART programme.

2. Estate duty, abolished in 2008, will be reinstated for homes of the super-rich – those with an exemption threshold of $20 million.

3. Increase the GST for luxury items and abolish GST for basic food items, school supplies, and drugs and medical treatment.

IV. Fix social security. The majority of retirees do not have enough income to retire on because their savings have been depleted through housing loan payment and Medisave deductions. The SDP plan proposes:

1. Returning CPF savings in full after retirement.

2. Introducing a strictly voluntary opt-in clause for those who want their savings returned in instalments.

3. Removing land cost from HDB price to reduce housing loans paid through the CPF. This is done through the proposed Non-Open Market flat scheme. (See here)

4. Lowering healthcare costs by scrap Medisave and return the $43,500 withheld to members' CPF accounts. The government's portion of the country's total healthcare expenditure should be increased from the current 30% to 70% (in line with international norms).

5. Increasing social spending for the elderly and the needy. Currently the government spends less that 1% of the nation's budget assisting this segment of the population while it lavishes one-third of the budget on defence, internal security and foreign affairs.

V. Make economic system transparent and accountable. The two sovereign wealth funds currently operate in a non-transparent and unaccountable manner. Also, our tax haven status undermines our international stature. To rectify these problems, the SDP plan will: