NSP Statement on Running of Town Councils by Members of Parliament

1. The National Solidarity Party ("NSP") adheres to a principled and balanced-approach in politics and aspires to nurture a positive political culture in Singapore.

2. NSP has been following the recent debate into the motion calling on Parliament to support the strengthening of the legislative framework for town councils in order to uphold those responsible for their good management to proper account [1]. The motion follows the national audit of a town council carried out by the Auditor-General’s Office (“AGO”) on the Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (“AHPETC”).

3. The debate has brought to surface a few major concerns relating to the welfare of residents and the management of town councils by Members of Parliament ("MPs"). This statement is issued with regards to such concerns. 

Residents’ plight

4. NSP notes with concern the government's decision to withhold the Service and Conservancy Charges (“S&CC”) grant to AHPETC in the light of the adverse findings against the town councillors [2].

5. AHPETC has 71,760 HDB households and the S&CC grants to town councils are based on the number of HDB flat units and the flat types [3]. As it is, the collection of S&CC charges from residential and commercial units is insufficient to cover all town council expenses and hence a government grant is required. Any withholding of the S&CC grant amounting to S$ 7 million per year will therefore affect residents if AHPETC is unable to pay for essential services.

6. Although the government has said that it is prepared to consider paying out the S&CC grants in full or at least in half if it receives assurance that the grants will be properly used, the government should not withhold but continue to disburse the grants to pay for such essential services directly through appropriate means at its disposal. This will prevent the residents from being unfairly penalised for the findings of the AGO's report. 

Tightening the Town Council Framework

7. NSP supports the move to enforce greater standards of accountability and governance. However, NSP is concerned about the proposal to put in place a penalty 2 framework in the management of town councils in relation to its impact on town councillors who are, first and foremost, Members of Parliament (“MPs”).

8. A MP’s fundamental duty is to represent his constituents who elected him or her and to participate in the functions of Parliament. This duty cannot and should never be subjugated to any other duty. By putting in place a penalty framework in relation to town councillors who are also MPs, the concern is whether such a framework would lead to their secondary role as town councillors overshadowing and undermining their primary role as MPs. 

Depoliticising the Town Council

9. NSP notes the political imperative given by the government in imposing upon MPs the duty of managing town councils which is to test their ability to govern the country. As observed, the management of town councils by MPs, especially those under the non-ruling party, has been constantly plagued with accusations of an un-level playing field and political bias.

10. NSP hopes that the government will re-examine the political wisdom of the notion that the competency of political parties aspiring to form the national government can be tested through their management of town councils. Such a notion has no empirical basis. The ability to manage a town council and the ability to govern the country have no correlation whatsoever. Any suggestion of a correlation would imply that the best people to govern the country are town planners and estate managers, which cannot be true.

Elections in Southeast Asia occur in a wide spectrum of regimes, with varying degrees of political freedoms. The one-party states of Viet Nam and Lao PDR hold national elections with some degree of (intra-party) competition. The electoral autocracies in Singapore, Malaysia, and Cambodia – some more hegemonic, some more competitive – call to the polls with varying degrees of contestation. Elections in the Philippines have a history of more than 100 years, while Myanmar is just emerging from some decades of dictatorship. Indonesia and Timor-Leste seem to be on a remarkable and fast trajectory towards liberal democracy, while Thailand – after what now seems as an interim period of electoral democracy – has slid back into dictatorship once more. Finally, Brunei is one of only five states globally that does not provide for any representative national election to the legislature at all.

The meaning of elections varies considerably in such a diverse group of countries, not least due to the fact that some elections provide more choices than others. But are there any common trends discernible among Southeast Asian countries?

The expert survey on ‘Perceptions of Electoral Integrity’

The Electoral Integrity Project based at Harvard and Sydney Universities has just released a new report and dataset for The Year in Elections 2014 that can help answer that question.

Expert assessments evaluate the state of the world’s elections each year. The third release of the Perceptions of Electoral Integrity (PEI) data-set covers 127 national parliamentary and presidential contests held from 1 July 2012 to 31 December 2014 in 107 countries worldwide. More elections will be evaluated as they are held in future years.

Evidence is gathered from a global survey of 1,429 domestic and international election experts (with a response rate of 29%). Immediately after each contest, the quality of each election is evaluated based on 49 indicators. Responses are clustered into eleven stages occurring throughout the electoral cycle and then summed to construct an overall 100-point expert Perception of Electoral Integrity (PEI) index and ranking.

Electoral integrity in Southeast Asia

Six Southeast Asian contests were evaluated in the PEI survey in from 2012 to 2014. The striking result is that Southeast Asia performs worse on overall electoral integrity than any other region in the world. The average PEI Index for Southeast Asia is 56 out of 100 (compared to a global average of 64). This means the region ranks below Western and Central Africa and the Middle East – other places rife with flawed or failed elections. Southeast Asia also scored lowest among all world regions on the sub-indices on electoral procedures (score of 59 compared to global mean of 73),voter registration (Southeast Asia: 46; global mean: 62), media coverage (Southeast Asia: 53; global mean: 60), results (Southeast Asia: 53; global mean: 72), and electoral authorities (Southeast Asia: 55; global mean: 69). Table 1 shows overall levels of electoral integrity of Southeast Asian countries compared to other regions. See here for a global comparison of all elections worldwide.

Minimum wage (the lowest level of wages an employer may legally pay an employee) is an important policy tool that balances the needs of an economy with those of low-income workers so that economic growth occurs in a just and sustainable manner.

A wage structure that is out of kilter with the cost of living and productivity is inimical to long-term growth.

Under the SDP 's A New Economic Vision for Singapore, the government will establish a Wage Equity Commission (WEC) to recommend the minimum wage level.

The WEC will comprise representatives from trade unions, chambers of commerce, professional associations, social work organisations, and academe.

The determination of the minimum wage level will be based on a basket of factors including the cost of living index and inflation rate.

Based on a wage level that would allow a worker working full-time (44 hours per week) to afford basic necessities, the SDP recommends the official minimum wage to be $7 per hour. This works out to be $1,232 per month for a full-time job of 44 per week. The amount would be subject to review by the WEC.

Following the enactment of the Minimum Wage Act, the WEC will assess the impact of the policy on a basket of indicators (see box on right) and publish annual reports to monitor the situation.

In addition, the WEC will be empowered to deal with complaints of wage manipulation and non-compliance by employers.

The Progressive Wage Model recently introduced by the PAP targets only a small number of low-wage workers in the cleaning and security industries. What about workers in other sectors who are paid below a fair, living wage?

There is also no mechanism to stop employees from manipulating the system by paying workers more but extending their work hours.

To a man (and woman), all five branch chairmen of Aljunied GRC are determined to wrest it back from the opposition. They tell Petir what motivates them to venture into Aljunied

Victor Lye, chairman of the Bedok Reservoir-Punggol branch of Aljunied GRC, has not always agreed with the ruling People's Action Party (PAP).

In fact, at some points, such as during the 1997-financial crisis, he doubted that the party cared enough for Singaporeans.

However, he is convinced that Aljunied GRC would be better off with the PAP running it and is determined to win the GRC back for the party at the next general elections.

Mr Lye, 52 the chief executive officer of an insurance company, revealed that he had a chance to enter politics in the mid 1990s, but declined the opportunity because of the way he was approached.

"I was interviewed for it as if it were a job," said Mr Lye. "That made me feel very uncomfortable and I rejected it in the end."

He added: "To me, being an MP is not about a job. It's about helping people and wanting to serve for the good of society."

After the 1997 financial crisis, Mr Lye decided to "go to the ground" and do grassroots work.

And while he did not always agree with the PAP then, he joined former Foreign Affairs Minister George Yeo in Aljunied GRC, as he "wanted to do grassroots work".

"He was a good man and I felt he had a very open mind," said Mr Lye. "I was not keen to join the PAP, I was only keen to help but because there was no other mechanism to help at that time, I decided to join the party."

Mr Lye has been volunteering at Aljunied since 1999 and even though the PAP lost the GRC in 2011 to the Workers' Party, Mr Lye stayed on.

"I couldn't turn my back when George Yeo lost," he said. "At least I can say I never left and I didn't quit."

He added: "We are here because we believe we can make a difference. Within the PAP, there must be more people who are there not because they can win an election, but because they can serve the people well."

It was also their desire to help Singapore that prompted the other four branch chairmen under Aljunied GRC to accept the posts.

Taking on Aljunied to serve the people

For Mr Chua Eng Leong, chairman of the Eunos branch, it was his concern for the future of the younger generation that made him take the step up.

"All the young have the good life and they are asking for more, such as things like freedom of speech and so on," said the 43-year-old, whose father is former Cabinet Minister Chua Sian Chin.

"But if we are not careful with that, the next generation might run loose. And Singapore cannot afford to let that happen."

Ms Chan Hui Yuh, who has helmed the Serangoon branch since April 2014, said the WP was not helping residents in the ward.

"They are there just because they are the opposition. They are not there to serve residents," said the 38-year-old director of a construction firm.

Lawyer K. Muralidharan Pillai from Rajah and Tann, who heads the Paya Lebar branch, said: "All of us came into this knowing that we'd be going up against the odds. But we are people who came in not aspiring to be MPs, but out of the desire to do good for the residents."

Kaki Bukit branch chairman Mohamad Kahar Abu Hassan, 46, said he is motivated by the activists in his branch who stayed on the ground in Aljunied. And more join their ranks every month, he added.

"Many of those who are coming forward to join us are from the younger generation as well," said Mr Mohamad Kahar, who is SMRT's deputy director of infrastructure.

Other branches within Aljunied also report growing number of activists.

Turning adversity into strength

Mr Murali, 47, said: "After 2011, there were some who refused to come to Aljunied. But if you are truly interested in politics, you would come to Aljunied because here is where you'll see a real fight to win over the residents and remind everyone about what politics is about at the end of the day."

But even though the five branch chairmen are willing to sacrifice to win back Aljunied GRC, they know the odds may be stacked against them.

Mr Chua, who has two sons, said they had quizzed him when he wore all white one day when going to the branch to do some grassroots work.

Many of the young don't think it's cool to support the PAP. But that's exactly the kind of opinions that we're aiming to change," said the bank officer.

Mr Lye believes the "angst" in Aljunied against the PAP is not permanent. "If residents know that they have a sincere government and party that will make changes which will benefit the residents, they will return to our side again."

He also believes that the loss of Aljunied in 2011 would be worth it if the constituency can provide the platform that will transform the party.

"Too much success may have dulled the political acumen of some politicians," he conceded. "We have to go back to basics. We can turn the adversity here into strength."

A team that cares

In PAP wards, every GRC is helmed by a Cabinet Minister.

This is not the case in Aljunied GRC, where former Foreign Affairs Minister George Yeo had to step down after losing the 2011 general elections.

Singapore celebrates 50 years of independence this year. In that half-a-century, the country has made significant progress especially on the economic front.

In the past, the economic prowess of the country was attributed to a highly disciplined workforce, aided by a populace that (purportedly) preferred economic growth over democratic rights, and enabled by a no-nonsense, autocratic style of governance. Ironically, such a regimented approach is undoing much of what has been accomplished.

Take the case of labor productivity whose levels have been languishing for the past decade, hovering at around 0%. And because wages must increase in tandem with productivity growth, income levels remained largely stagnant.

A workforce driven to working harder and harder at un-progressive wage levels will result in diminished happiness and, consequently, productivity. A survey conducted by the Randstad Group in 2014 showed that Singaporean workers were the least happy in Asia. One of the reasons the respondents cited for the unhappiness was working harder for less.

The Singapore government acknowledges the severity of the productivity problem. But instead of drawing up viable solutions, it resorted to importing large numbers of foreign workers in the hope that they would boost falling productivity and competitiveness so that the economy would remain attractive to investors from around the world. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong admitted as much when he said in 2011 that "Without the foreign workers, we would not have attracted [investments]."

Singapore is facing political uncertainty with the dominating figure of Lee Kuan Yew in hospital on life support and his son, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, undergoing surgery for cancer last week. Their People’s Action Party (PAP) has ruled the island state since 1959, but had its worst result ever in the 2011 elections. Chee Soon Juan has emerged as a key figure in the fight for change and John Keane interviews the opposition leader about his political convictions and hopes for a democratic Singapore.

The interview is part of a series on political leadership for the Democracy Futures project, a joint global initiative with the Sydney Democracy Network. The project aims to stimulate fresh thinking about the many challenges facing democracies in the 21st century.

--------

John Keane: Dr Chee Soon Juan, you find yourself in the thick of Singapore politics, but it wasn’t always so. What made you a political animal?

Chee Soon Juan: It happened in the most unexpected way. When I was in my early 20s, the government introduced what they called the “Graduate Mother’s Scheme”. It specified that “intelligent” women with university degrees could have as many children as they wished. Women lacking a university degree would be penalised if they had more than two children. I found the policy most repulsive.

In his 2015 Budget, Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam has shifted the Government towards a less extreme elitist position.

Two initiatives bear this out: The raising of taxes on the top 5% income earners and the Silver Support Scheme where quarterly hand-outs are given to senior citizens who are unable to support themselves.

It is important to note, however, that these measures are not a result of a change of PAP's ideology. For decades, the Government has constructed an elitist system that has benefited the rich while stingeing on the rest of Singapore. This has not changed.

But because elections are not far away, the PAP needs to stem erosion of its support which has accelerated in recent years. Hence, Budget 2015.

The SDP has made it plain that we will be campaigning on our policies at the next elections, among which are the raising of taxes on the super-rich (top 1% earners) to pay for social programmes such as financial asistance for the elderly poor.

We have, through the years, repeated these ideas in our manifesto It's About You (2010), in our Shadow Budgets (2011, 2012 and 2013) and, most recently, in our economic policyA New Economic Vision: Toward Innovation, Equal Opportunity and Compassion (2015).

Singaporeans must note that it is the sustained push by the SDP for a more compassionate, less elitist system that the PAP now feels compelled to adopt its present stance. It is not a coincidence that this Government remained obstinate for 50 years, relenting only when the social media exposed the economic injustice of its policies.

In 2015 Budget, DPM and Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam has shifted the government focus towards more of caring and support to the middle/lower income groups.

There are increase of CPF Ceiling to $6,000, enhancing of interest rate in retirement, Silver Support Scheme for the Elderly and Lifelong Learning. They are either shifting their goal post as election is drawing near or pressure from ground.

However, as good as the budget can be, it show the government are still living in the Ivory Tower. 

1. With the CPF Ceiling increase to $6,000, it actually cost more for the company to engage Singaporeans. This make hiring foreigners even more attractive as they still paying zero levy if they are on the EP. 

2. Those businesses that are struggling to engage workers is labour-intensive industries like construction, shipping and service line. With Singaporeans getting more educated, these industries no longer appeal to them. As such, in order for these industries to survive in Singapore, the levy for foreign workers should be lowered with more foreign quota.

In his Budget, Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam said that the Government would raise taxes on the top 5% of income-earners.

This was what the SDP proposed in 2010 when we published our economic manifesto It's About You in which we said: “Singapore should bring up its tax bracket for top earners closer to the 30-percent mark.”

We repeated this measure in our latest economic paper A New Vision for Singapore in which we call for the personal income tax rate for the top 1% earners to be raised to 28%.

In the 2011 general elections, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan who was leading the PAP team in the Holland-Bukit Timah GRC, criticised us for proposing to raise income taxes and the GST for luxury items. This was the Straits Times report:

“If you had to choose between the opposition parties who would be the most middle-class unfriendly of them, (the SDP) would certainly be in that shortlist,” says Dr Balakrishnan, pointing to proposals to raise income taxes and the goods and services tax for luxury items, among others.

(In the first place, how did the top 1% become the middle-class?)

Fast forward to 2015 and we have Mr Tharman doing exactly what Dr Balakrishnan attacked the SDP for. This is becoming a familiar trend: the SDP proposes policies which the PAP first criticises and later implements. Other examples are:

Minimum wage 

SDP proposes: Minimum wage in 2001.
PAP criticises: Minister Lim Swee Say criticises that Minimum Wage will erode Singapore's competitiveness.
PAP copies: Government introduces the Progressive Wage Model where some low-income workers are paid a minimum wage of $1,000.

Universal healthcare

SDP proposes: Individual healthcare risks are pooled.
PAP criticises: Mr Lee Kuan Yew said: “...nobody derails the idea of having individual accounts for CPF and Medisave. Whatever you earn, it’s yours.

NSP Statement on Singapore Budget 2015 

1. The Singapore Budget 2015 was announced by the Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister in Parliament on Monday, 23 February 2015.

2. The Minister declared that the focus of the budget is on building Singapore’s future [1] and announced a slew of measures that consists of top-ups, rebates, waivers and concessions under a variety of schemes [2]. The measures further include changes to the CPF rate, petrol duty and increase in the income tax rate for high-income earners.

3. The National Solidarity Party (“NSP”) welcomes the measures to provide greater financial support and assistance to the elderly, families and the working class. However, it has certain reservations and sentiments about some of the measures and the overall impact of the budget. These reservations and sentiments are set out in this statement.

Support for the elderly – A Matter of Urgency

4. The Silver Support Scheme provides financial support for the poorest elderly Singaporeans and is in fact, long overdue. Cash payouts on a regular and permanent basis to the bottom 20% of Singaporeans aged 65 and older are more than just a boost to social security net. Hence, they matter a lot to this needy group of citizens and are a lifeline to them.

5. The scheme may have been inspired by Hong Kong government’s Old Age Allowance (or “fruit money”) Scheme which is a social security scheme which started in 1973 and provides Hong Kong residents who are at least 65 years old with a monthly cash allowance on a monthly basis to meet their needs arising from old age [3].

6. The Silver Support Scheme starts only in the first quarter of next year, pays a comparatively lower amount quarterly and is further subject to a means testing which consists of a 3-factor criterion: flat type, the amount of household support that the elderly person has, and lifetime wages as reflected in Central Fund contributions.

7. NSP believes that as the payouts represent a lifeline to many of the poorest elderly, it is imperative that the scheme takes effect without any delay and those payouts are made every month instead of every 3 months. 

8. Further, since those under the Pioneer Generation Package do not even receive any such cash payouts, the Silver Support scheme should live up to its name and all means testing should be removed so that all Singaporeans aged 65 and older shall be entitled to the payouts in recognition of their contributions in building our nation and reserves. Higher taxes for top income earners but Higher Petrol Duty – Indirectly taxing the lower income group

9. NSP sees the increase in the personal income tax for high income earners as a step taken towards more progressivity in taxes. This is a sign of the recognition and acceptance by the government of the need to look at income redistribution so as to address the undesirable effects of a serious widening income gap.

10. Singapore’s income inequality is amongst the highest in the world [4] and a continuing effort is required to narrow the gap. The increase in the personal income tax rate of the top 5% of income earners takes effect from 2017 is one small measure but necessary. NSP believes that more effective measures can be taken by the government to lessen the income divide. Address the real issues - Cut the costs of living for lower and middle income groups

11. For the middle income group, the objective of extending financial help comes in terms of childcare and education, maid costs, GST vouchers, rebates on service and conservancy charges, training and continuing education grants and subsidies and personal income tax rebate. However, the increase in petrol duty, which takes immediate effect, effectively counteracts this objective.

12. Domestically, Singaporeans from the low and middle income groups are facing multiple challenges daily as a result of over-population and rising cost of living. Overpopulation has led to an intense competition for jobs, housing, food and transportation. Many Singaporeans have been displaced from their jobs as a result. Many more have missed out on their promotions, bonuses and pay increments. They are emotionally upset and are frustrated at having to compete with foreigners for jobs in their own country especially when they are equally competent and skilled.

13. The cost of living has been rising dramatically across the board. Even middle income earners are beginning to feel more insecure by the day [5]. Prices of food continue to increase unabatedly and now eateries are even charging 30 cents to 80 cents for a glass of plain water [6], Not too long ago, plain water was provided free of charge. 

14. Divorce rates are on the rise [7] and the corollary of that is that there are more single-parent families whose plight has been largely overlooked. These families are often faced with greater financial challenges and their children are mostly unhappy and troubled [8].

15. Whilst top-ups, rebates, waivers and concessions are good as they always provide a welcomed reprieve for the ordinary citizen, they are often treated as government “hand-outs”. By their very nature, government handouts are not permanent and are invariably subject to conditions. Further, government handouts often invite public suspicions of the motivations behind them, especially in or approaching an election year.

16. NSP believes that the need for government handouts would be greatly diminished if substantive measures are taken to effectively lower the cost of living such as reducing indirect taxes like the Goods and Services Tax. In this vein, the increase in petrol duty is a completely misguided. Such a move unwittingly adds to the woes of the lower income group that the budget seeks to help.

17. Transport cost has always been a heavy component for low and middle income earners as well as businesses. The increase in petrol duty reduces the amount of ready cash that is needed to meet day-to-day living expenses. Indubitably, it will bring about a spiral effect that leads to higher inflation and cost of living, which will be aggravated further when fuel prices rise again. Plight of low-income earners – Relieve burden of high motorcycle COEs

18. One of the key components of rising inflation is the premium for Certificate of Entitlements (COE). The COE system is intended to control the vehicle population. Whilst owning a car may arguably be a luxury, such an argument may not hold when one speaks of a small capacity motorcycle. And the majority of these motorcyclists are low-income earners who deserve some attention in the budget.

19. For people engaging in delivery work such as despatch riders and those working in remote locations that are inaccessible by public transport, a motorcycle becomes indispensable. According to one source, the majority of motorcycles (73%) in Singapore are of small capacity under 200cc (Class 2B) and the owners are low-income earners who cannot afford a car [9] and they are the ones who are hurt most by higher COE premiums.

Remove Evening ERP charges– Encourage family dinners

20. The purpose of having evening ERP charges has never been fully appreciated by the motoring public. Motorists hoping to avoid paying evening ERP charges will have to either leave work early or return home much later. In the latter case, family bonding time is reduced.

21. In line with the government’s recent call to build strong family ties with the government’s support [10], NSP believes that it is timely for evening ERP charges to be eliminated so as to encourage parents and working children to get home early to join their family for dinner. Save businesses from closing down – Help lower rental costs

22. The high costs of doing business in Singapore remain a major concern [11]. Besides high manpower costs, prohibitive high rental has led to many local businesses, including several old restaurants, closing down [12] [13].

23. The impact of these businesses closing down or may have to close down because of highly unfavourable rental conditions is that many low and middle income earners lose their jobs. The government, being the largest landlord in Singapore, can take the lead by lowering rent substantially for properties that are owned by the government or government-linked companies. This will help to save jobs for low and middle-income families.

24. As a further measure, the government may consider initiatives to support businesses that seek to maximise customer satisfaction and not maximise profits as their corporate philosophy. This will promote a positive business environment that augurs well for our economy in the long run. As the saying goes, what goes around, comes around.

Control Government Spending – Spend more on the people

25. NSP notes that the total government expenditure in the current budget will run into S$ 68.2 billion, which is S$ 11 billion or 19.3% more than the previous year’s budget.

26. This expenditure will see a bumper deficit of $ 6.7 billion (which is equivalent to 1.7% of gross domestic product) mainly due to S$ 6 billion set aside for investments in Changi Airport, research and productivity and not because of social welfare spending.

27. NSP further notes the heavy expenditure for Defence to the tune of S$ 13.1 billion which includes additional funds for the expanded scale of the SG50 National Day Parade. There is also a provision of S$5 billion for new buildings for new buildings under the Home Affairs Ministry.

28. A sum of S$2.7 billion has also been set aside for the Culture, Community and Youth which includes provisions for SEA Games, Asean Para Games and again, SG50. Surprisingly, this sum is the same as that set aside for the National Development Ministry to finance higher grants to the Housing Board to build more flats.

29. As a matter of principle in spending taxpayers’ monies, NSP would like to urge the government to exercise greater frugality whenever possible and to curb wastages and excesses [14] so that more funds can be channelled to help lower the cost of living for the low and middle income groups and to provide a stronger social safety network for those in need.

Pursue knowledge for the love of knowledge

30. The budget provides for the waiver of fees for major examinations – the Primary School Leaving Examinations (“PSLE”) as well as O, N, A-level examinations.

31. Learning for the love of knowledge is the key to developing a resilient and sustainable economy. Learning for the sake of passing examinations destroys the joy of learning. Fostering a culture of life-long learning requires more than setting up a fund or a committee or to disburse training grants.

32. NSP agrees with the Minister’s view when he said in presenting the budget [15]: “We must become a meritocracy of skills, not a hierarchy of grades earned early in life.”

33. There is a need to carry out a total review of our education system, in particular, the dominating role played by the PSLE which has turned our primary school education into a rat race. An overly stressful education system in early years will not produce a population that will embrace knowledge for the love of knowledge, let alone life–long learning.

34. NSP is concerned that the current mindset of most of our students is to study for the sake of doing well in examinations and to clinch their desired job or career. Once they have achieved their objective, they begin to lose interest in acquiring knowledge and begin their pursuit of materialism and high living.

I have always been a fan of Mr Chiam See Tong, and from the time I was with TOC, have had very good relationship with the Chiams. My personal friendship with Jeannette was one major reason why I eventually decided on another Party than the one headed by the Chiams. 

Now together with Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss, Osman Sulaiman and Bryan Long, I have decided to start afresh with the Chiams. Not because I have some misgivings about the political party that I have previously been associated with. (With whatever little resources they have and under tight constraints, they are up against a behemoth.) But because the other Party has decided to walk a certain path in trying to defeat the Goliath. Neither is wrong, but one is more innovative than the other and having a preference for change, the innovative approach appeals more to me,

In my opinion, Mrs Lina Chiam has carried herself well since she was appointed as NCMP. She has spoken up on several issues, challenging status-quo - the latest being the Bill on alcohol restrictions - and I can align myself with that. 

Singapore's productivity level is in a woeful state. The last decade has seen our labour productivity languishing near the zero-percent mark even as the PAP throws money at the problem.

One of the major causes of our productivity lag is our inability to cultivate an entrepreneurial sector where creative minds lead the economy by coming up with new and better ways to do things.

And the reason why we are unable to develop innovative minds is our heavy dependence on multinational corporations (MNCs). Not only do MNCs crowd out local entrepreneurs, they are also heavily dependent on cheap foreign labour.

Even PAP MPs question Singapore's reliance on MNCs (see here).

On the domestic front, our economy is dominated by Government-linked companies (GLCs). Like MNCs, GLCs are also overly reliant on low-income foreign workers to keep wages down and boost profit margins.

The combination of MNCs and GLCs stifle the emergence of SMEs in Singapore, creating a situation where conglomerates and their mega-rich owners dominate our economic landscape. It is no surprise, therefore, that the Crony-Capitalist Index compiled by The Economist ranks Singapore 5^th out of 23 economies.

The 'use-by' date of such a model has long passed. If we fail to rethink our economic strategy and stick with this outdated PAP approach, Singapore's economy will continue its downward drift.

The SDP has proposed in our alternative economic paper A New Economic Vision: Towards Innovation, Equal Opportunity and Compassion a set of comprehensive measures to address the problem

Our policy, as the name suggests, focuses on how to foster innovation and develop an entrepreneurial sector in Singapore. To achieve this, small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the country must be allowed to flourish.

Below are ways that we can help local businesses boost productivity and innovation:

• Increase the credit supply for SMEs especially to fledgling businesses which have a hard time getting bank loans.
• Re-structure the tax regime to differentiate between MNCs and SMEs. Foreign multinationals should shoulder a bigger burden of taxes paid to offset a decreased tax rate for local SMEs.
• Being the biggest landlord in Singapore, the government needs to ensure that rental – one of the biggest costs for local businesses – is kept low for SMEs.
• To make the transition from a state-dominated economy to an economy in which private individuals take the lead, the government must also scale back the GLCs. (See here)

When Mature People Meet….. Collaboration Becomes Possible

The walkabout at Taman Jurong Market and Food Centre on Sunday saw SingFirst achieving several “firsts”. This is what we mean:

1. First walkabout when we met a minister making his round at the same location

2. First attempt in getting the members and supporters to take public transport to the walkabout location

3. First largest turn out by our members and supporters

4. First ever longest walkabout route

5. First ever most photo requests by members of the public with our chairman and secretary general

Taking the public transport to the location was our first attempt in building the bond and rapport between the members and supporters. This arrangement also allowed us to gain exposure and to publicise our party name. Everyone was enthusiastic and admitted that it was indeed a refreshing idea.

This walkabout was by far the largest turn out by our member and supporters. A total of 25 of us gathered at Lakeside MRT before making our way to Taman Jurong Market and Food Centre. SingFirst is encouraged by the great support by our members! It goes to show that we are growing in terms of membership.

By MP for Aljunied GRC, Sylvia Lim
[Delivered in Parliament on 3 Mar 2015]

Social Solidarity @ SG50? A Work in Progress

As I listened to the Deputy Prime Minister deliver Budget 2015, I noted some difference in tone and approach from the past. From a traditional stance of emphasizing individual responsibility and treating cross-subsidies with disdain, we see the language of “collective responsibility”, giving Singaporeans “greater assurance at each stage of life”, “strengthening our social security system” and using not just “hard heads” but “warm hearts”.

In this landmark year when we celebrate 50 years of nationhood, it is timely to reflect upon the government philosophy of budgeting and the role of the people in nation building. We want to move together as one united people. How can we use the Budget to build social solidarity?

Left is Right

This Budget explicitly talks about strengthening social safety nets. This suggests a shift to the left, a direction that I believe is right. A shift to the left is not desired for its own sake, but because it can build confidence in the people. People who have safety nets are more willing to make choices with longer-term pay-offs, like taking time out for training, becoming an entrepreneur or taking risks to innovate at work. Countries with good records on innovation and productivity tend to have strong safety nets. A shift left does not necessarily undermine economic performance, but could well enhance it.

A shift left is also important to mitigate Singapore’s income and wealth inequality. As at 2014, our Gini Coefficient measuring income distribution was 0.464 before government transfers and 0.412 after transfers (Household Income Trends 2014 published by Singstats). Though the coefficient has now come down from the highs of 2007 and 2012, it is still high. As for wealth inequality, the government has said that it does not measure the wealth gap (Parliamentary answer in August 2014). However, our global image over the last 10 years seems to have morphed into being a playground for the rich, with Singapore being termed “the world’s newest Monaco” in a 2013 article of Wall Street Journal (Mahtani, S. Wealth over the Edge: Singapore. The Wall Street Journal. Mar 7, 2013).

One particular concern is to avoid poverty becoming entrenched across generations, where children of poor parents are more likely to end up poor as well. I have come across poor young families in my ward, and see a real risk that the children may be distracted or demoralized by the challenges their families face and not do well in school, affecting their prospects for social mobility. Indeed, the Prime Minister himself acknowledged this challenge in Singapore, with fewer of children from lower income families rising to the top.

Two of the key thrusts of this years’ Budget are the SkillsFuture initiative and the Silver Support scheme. These two initiatives are important for social solidarity, as they have the potential to mitigate inequality in Singapore.

Enhancing Solidarity through Skills Future

The DPM said that the aim was to “create a meritocracy of skills, moving away from academic credentialism around grades earned early in life”. SkillsFuture emphasises lifelong learning, and the pursuit of non-graduate pathways to skills mastery. Put another way, there is a national attempt to enable someone who may not have had the best school results to try to catch up and find a niche in Singapore. SkillsFuture should thus not just be about upskilling the workforce. It should also be about increasing social mobility.

As someone who was involved in Continuing Education and working with adult learners for more than twelve years, I have seen the drive of Singaporeans when given an opportunity to earn a higher qualification. While some do so in order to do their jobs better, most are aspiring towards promotions, better prospects and better salaries. In high-cost Singapore, it is still a rat race. SkillsFuture has the potential to be a social leveler, if the qualifications and products of SkillsFuture courses earn the respect of employers and significantly improve wages.

We have had skills-based certificates and diplomas around for decades, and it cannot be that SkillsFuture is more of the same. For SkillsFuture to truly impact lives, the scissor must have 2 blades. The first is to change employer mindsets and foster real career paths tied to skills-attainment milestones. The second is that SkillsFuture courses must be rigorous. The training sector must have the capacity and quality needed to deliver good skills training. We are not ready yet, as the government has acknowledged that it needs more time to develop quality offerings in the SkillsFuture landscape. To this end, it was mentioned that the SkillsFuture Credit could be used for a broad range of courses supported by government agencies. Besides the courses run by Institutes of Higher Learning and accredited education and training providers, it will be useful to know how what other courses might be funded by the Workforce Development Agency and how it will go about ensuring the quality of the programmes and trainers.

Enhancing Solidarity through Silver Support

The other initiative that has the potential to mitigate inequality is the Silver Support Scheme. This scheme comes as a surprise to most because it embodies what the PAP government has always eschewed – having any form of rights-based “defined benefits” welfare scheme. Up to now, government assistance schemes were usually temporary and subject to continuous means testing and conditions, with applicants needing to fill forms and provide documentary proof of illness and family income. Now, with Silver Support, between 20 to 30% of elderly aged 65 will get some form of cash support for the rest of their lives, once they qualify. They do not even need to apply. Silver Support is thus a limited pension for up to 30% of the elderly population. It is an important gesture of gratitude from society to our seniors, and will give some an option not to work in their old age.

While I welcome Silver Support, I see it as an acknowledgement by the government that the CPF system and family support are not sufficient to provide retirement adequacy to about 30% of our seniors. This is worrying. As seen from various surveys, the top concerns of Singaporeans are usually about the cost of living and the cost of healthcare. These are likely to be what seniors especially worry about. Besides Silver Support, can we do a broader review of policies, to give our seniors more peace of mind? One example is Medisave usage for outpatient treatment. We commonly come across seniors in their seventies and eighties requiring medical treatment and drugs, and yet have to stomach going to their children for cash when they have tens of thousands locked in their Medisave accounts. It seems absurd to deny an elderly person the use of his own Medisave savings for medical needs, in his twilight years. I am glad that the government has finally taken some steps to relax Medisave usage for seniors. Can we relax this further for the very old? If more policies like such could be reviewed to ease the burden on families, it would go a long way to give Singaporeans the “greater assurance” that they need.

The budget is being debated in parliament today and the workers party has called on the CPF to be even more flexible than the PAP has proposed.

WP called on the draw-down age to be lowered to 60 so that CPF members can start to enjoy monthly payouts from 60 rather than the current 64 or 65 for those turning this age in 2018.

However, while the called for more flexibility, WP supported the PAP in terms of being against allowing full withdrawal at once.

This was explained by NCMP Gerald Giam who explained that many CPF members have a "genuine need" to withdraw earlier, especially for those who may have lost their jobs or were unable to continue working for whatever reason.

For these people, they may be left with no money as they are unable to work and unable to withdraw from CPF.

In particular, Mr Giam pointed out that there was a mismatch as the current retirement age was 62 but CPF members could only withdraw their savings at 64 or 65. 

In order to finance the early withdrawal, the WP proposed that those who choose to withdraw earlier will have to sacrifice the amount of their monthly withdrawals so that their CPF can last until later on in their life.

By Non-Constituency MP, Gerald Giam
[Delivered in Parliament on 3 Mar 2015]

Mdm Speaker,

The DPM and Finance Minister has laid out the key thrusts for the Government in his Budget statement. My speech will focus on retirement adequacy and the CPF scheme in particular.

Th CPF scheme has a long history in Singapore that pre-dates our independence. The Central Provident Fund Bill was introduced by the Singapore Progressive Party in the Legislative Council in 1951, while Singapore was still a British Colony. The CPF scheme provides a mandatory retirement savings plan for local workers. It is a “defined contribution” scheme, whereby every member takes out only what he has contributed. This has helped the Government avoid the heavy burden of Budget-financed pension liabilities that many other countries face.

While CPF provides a basic payout for retirees, it does not assure full retirement adequacy, particularly for those in the lowest income groups, including home-makers and people with disabilities.

Minimum Sum

The Minimum Sum requirement, which has been renamed to “Retirement Sum” by the CPF Advisory Panel, was introduced in 1987. It prevents CPF members from withdrawing their entire CPF savings in one lump sum when they retire. They are only allowed to withdraw amounts in excess of the Minimum Sum, plus another $5,000, at age 55.

This has been deeply unpopular among many Singaporeans. Many feel that since the money in our CPF accounts belongs to us, why should the Government control when and how much we can withdraw? “We’re not children after all,” some would say. A recent poll by Channel NewsAsia found that the majority of respondents would like a choice to withdraw all of their CPF money at age 55.[1]

I empathise and identify with these sentiments. I too would like to be able to withdraw all my CPF when I turn 55. Apart from paying off day-to-day expenses, I feel confident of being able to manage my own money well and not squander it. However, the reality for me, and I think many other working Singaporeans, is that if not for the forced savings that CPF has imposed, we would probably have saved much less for retirement.

As pointed out by Mr Donald Low from the LKY School of Public Policy in a commentary in The Straits Times last week, faced with a choice between an immediate reward and a larger delayed benefit, people often choose the former.

Also, even if CPF members make an effort to invest their retirement savings after they are withdrawn, not many have investment skills that are good enough to consistently beat the current 4% CPF Retirement Account interest rate in the long term.

We also have to be on guard against swindlers who will try to find ways to persuade vulnerable elderly folks to part with their CPF money if they withdraw the full amount at one go.

Therefore, while we understand Singaporeans’ strong sentiments about the Minimum Sum “locking up” our CPF money, for the reasons I just mentioned, the Workers’ Party is not asking for CPF members to be allowed to withdraw all their CPF money in a lump sum, except under special circumstances.

Flexibility in Draw-Down Age

Having said that, there is still room for providing CPF members with more flexibility in determining when to start receiving monthly payouts from their CPF. Currently, members can start drawing down their CPF only upon reaching their DrawDown Age, now known as the Payout Eligibility Age, which will be 65 from 2018 onwards.

Some CPF members may have genuine reasons for needing monthly payouts to start earlier than age 65. For example, they may have been retrenched and, because of a skills mismatch or age discrimination, may not be able to secure another job. Or they may be labourers who are simply be too old to do manual work. When I observed the young men who helped me move the heavy furniture in my home recently, I wondered how long they would be able to continue in that role, and what jobs they would do once they are not strong enough to carry such heavy loads.

The Workers’ Party therefore proposes lowering the Payout Eligibility Age to 60. This will give CPF members the flexibility to start receiving CPF monthly payouts earlier, if they need to, instead of having to wait until age 65. This was a call made by my colleague, the Member for Hougang, Mr Png Eng Huat, in May 2014.

I agree with the CPF Advisory Panel’s recommendation to give members flexibility to defer their Payout Start Age to as late as 70, with a permanent 6 to 7% increase in monthly payouts for every year that they defer.[2] In line with this, under the Workers’ Party’s proposal, there would be a permanent 6 to 7%decrease in payouts for every year that members choose to bring forward their Payout Start Age. Members must be made aware that their monthly payouts could be significantly less should they choose this early payout option.

De-link Payout Eligibility Age from Retirement / Re-employment Age

Many Singaporeans have expressed frustration about the constantly increasing Payout Eligibility Age. It is was 63 last year, 64 this year and will be 65 in 2018. It seems to be moving up together with the Re-employment Age. Perhaps it is assumed that people are able to work until the Re-employment Age and do not need to draw down their CPF savings before that.

However, just because the Re-employment Age has been raised does not mean that everyone will be able to work until 65, as I explained earlier. Furthermore, the statutory Retirement Age is now only 62. This leaves a gap of 3 years that a retiree will have to tide over, should his company not offer him re-employment until 65.

I would like to reiterate the Workers’ Party’s earlier calls for the Payout Eligibility Age to be de-linked from either the Retirement Age or the Re-employment Age. Even if the Retirement Age is increased, the Payout Eligibility Age should remain constant at 60. This will provide members with more assurance of when they are eligible to start drawing from their CPF, regardless of their employment status, instead of wondering when the target will move again.

Public education on CPF system

Madam, I would like to touch on the public education aspects of the CPF scheme. The CPF Scheme is not easy to understand, regardless of one’s level of education. The large amount of technical jargon, acronyms, figures and different conditions that apply to people with different birth years, all add to the confusion.

There is a pressing need to increase and improve public education about the CPF scheme. The CPF Advisory Panel has also recommended that more public education on CPF is needed.

A recent poll by REACH, the government feedback unit, found that only 13% of respondents under 55 were able to provide the estimated monthly payout amount under CPF LIFE if one met the Minimum Sum requirement. With greater choices provided in the CPF scheme, it is important that CPF members are fully aware of the implications of their choices, including the lower payouts if they choose to start withdrawals earlier or withdraw a lump sum.

I am aware that there are many ways in which CPF Board tries to get its message out, including pamphlets, public seminars and even advertisements on YouTube. However, none of these ensures that a CPF member is fully aware of the choices he has to make at critical junctures, like at age 55 and 65. A letter is sent to CPF members just 1 to 2 months before they turn 55, to inform them that they can apply to withdraw their CPF. This may not give them enough time and information to consider their choices carefully.

My observation is that public education on CPF currently focuses a lot on how CPF benefits Singaporeans, or to clarify misunderstandings about CPF. The questions asked in the REACH poll are quite telling. They include questions like “If you do not meet your Minimum Sum requirement, do you need to top up the shortfall in cash?” and “Do you think you will receive a monthly payout from age 65 if you do not meet the full Minimum Sum?”

Public education on CPF should be more tailored to individual members, focusing on the information and numbers that are directly relevant to them and the choices they have to make. We should not confuse people with numbers that are irrelevant to them, like the different Minimum Sum amounts and Draw-Down Ages for different age groups. While the CPF website has a number of useful calculators, not every retiree is technically-savvy enough to access and use them correctly.

I would therefore like to suggest that before reaching the age of 55, every CPF member should be invited to meet one-on-one with a CPF Board officer, who should explain the details of the scheme, including howmuch he has in his account, how much he can withdraw, when he can withdraw, the choices of CPF LIFE plans and what his monthly payouts will be. This should be conducted in a language or dialect that he is comfortable with, and he should be allowed to bring a few family members to the meeting. It should be done at least a 3 months before the member becomes eligible to withdraw his CPF.

Speaking in parliament during the budget debate, MP for Marine Parade GRC Tin Pei Ling explained that Singaporeans should not become overly dependent on the revenues generated from our national reserves.

She said that we should not take such money for granted. 

Her warning comes after Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam explained that they would be adding the investment returns of Temasek Holdings into the Net Investment Returns (NIR) framework so that the government can use the money from Temasek's investments.

Under the Net Investment Returns framework, the government's annual budget comes from a percentage of the long-term investment returns gained by our sovereign wealth funds. 

Previously only MAS and GIC were included in the NIR framework to calculate the government's revenue to use for its budget. As the government increases its spending this year, the inclusion of Temasek Holdings is expected to boost government funds by $4 billion to $5 billion each year.

On the change, Ms Tin Pei Ling raised concerns about the risks involved: "I appreciate that this would give the Government more resources to implement its programmes and help more Singaporeans. However, with the uncertainties in the global economy, to which ours is inextricably linked, are we being too aggressive now to include Temasek into the NIR framework?" 

Finance Minister Thraman Shanmugaratnam announced a Silver Support Scheme designed to give permanent payouts to the poor elderly who do not have enough in CPF Savings to get by in old age.

Raising concerns about the scheme in the budget debate, PAP MP Chia Shi-Lu from Tanjong Pagar GRC asked if this was sustainable in the long-term.

While he supported the scheme, he said that Singapore has an ageing population and it also means that there will be an increasing burden for Singapore to continue funding the elderly as the working population shrinks in proportion.

Separately, Dr Chia also raised concerns about the Skills Future initiative asking whether there will be enough regulation of the awards and fellowships granted to those who wish to further their training and education.

“I am concerned that this could perhaps lead to the mushrooming of various fellowships or courses of widely differing and varying merit, and this may not necessarily translate into giving our workforce the right training for the right circumstances,” he said.

By MP for Aljunied GRC, Pritam Singh
[Delivered in Parliament on 4 Mar 2015]

Madam Speaker,

A major theme of this year’s Budget revolves around preparing Singapore and Singaporeans for the future. The two aspects of the Budget that are the focus of my speech are SkillsFuture and more briefly, the inclusion of Temasek in the Net Investment Returns (NIR) framework. On both fronts, the government has considerable experience to call upon and Singapore is not starting from a zero base. First, SkillsFuture.

Skills upgrading before SkillsFuture

As a national philosophy, upgrading of skills and lifelong learning are not a new phenomenon. Almost 35 years ago, then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew announced at the 1979 National Day Rally that a Skills Development Fund would set up compelling employers to pay a percentage of wages in to Skills Development Fund as recommended by the National Wages Council. A month later, Finance Minister Hon Sui Sen informed parliament that the introduction of the Skills Development Levy was a necessary intervention as the Singapore economy had to be upgraded and restructured promptly, for Singapore to move up economic value chain.

The Skills Development Levy Act of 1979 legislated skills upgrading primarily at low-level workers, but also included mid-level workers and managers too, with some, especially those involved in technology work sent overseas for training by the early 1980s. Since the Skills Development Levy was introduced in 1979, an entire ecosystem of training and skills upgrading has been part of the governance firmament in Singapore.

Lifelong learning since 2000

Lifelong Learning is also not new phenomenon. The Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund was first announced by then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong in the year 2000 to promote and support lifelong learning in Singapore and to provide assistance and opportunities for Singaporeans to meet the needs of a knowledge-based economy and cope with the threat of structural unemployment. Last year, during Budget 2014, it was announced that the fund would be topped up by $500m bringing the fund size up to a total of $4.6b.

A decade later by 2010, the National Productivity Fund (NPF) was launched with a $1b injection. This year’s budget will also see another injection of $1.5b into the fund.

Over the years, the Workforce Skills Qualifications (WSQ) framework, a key component of the Continuing Education and Traning (CET) system allowed Singaporeans to improve their qualifications in various industries from certificate up to diploma level, and even graduate diplomas for certain industries. In industries where there has been an acute of shortage of skilled professionals, the Workforce Development Agency (WDA) has even introduced scholarships at the post-graduate level, thus providing opportunities for professionals who wish to upgrade themselves further. There are currently 34 WSQ frameworks covering the manufacturing and services sectors such as Precision Engineering, Aerospace, Retail, Hospitality, Community and Social Services, Financial Services, Infocomm and Logistics, some of which have also been identified under SkillsFuture initiatives, in particular Earn and Learn.

When the Skills Development Levy Act was amended in 2008 to cover all employees including those earning more than $2000 a month, in a functional way, the seeds were sown for SkillsFuture with the Skills Development Levy acting as the primary tool to better support the CET system supporting all workers, regardless of age, skill or education level, to upgrade and seize new opportunities as they progressed in their careers.

SkillsFuture – What makes it different from earlier schemes?

The long tail of experience surrounding retraining and lifelong learning makes it important for the Government to identify why and how SkillsFuture is different. How will it mark a critical shift away from the existing skills upgrading framework and what shifts in thinking among Singaporeans will be required for it to work? To this end, the identification of the starting point of the journey – in schools and the provision of career counsellors, commonplace in many Western countries like the US and Canada – is a good place to start. However, the challenge to convince hearts and minds, especially those of parents in an Asian society fixated on grades and a tuition culture will not be easy. To this end, I hope career counsellors in school work together with parents to identify the strengths and interests of students, with parents also playing their part in motivating children to aim for excellence, regardless of the paths they choose.

Even employers will need to imbibe a new mindset and to accept that skills upgrading is a fact of life. Employees are more likely to stay on in a firm if the firm also shows a readiness to upgrade itself too, and attempt to adopt work new processes. For example, appreciating the importance of work-life balance in the Singapore of today and tomorrow where the reality dual-income households can leave precious little time to raise young children and look after our elderly, to say nothing of pursuing other interests such as community volunteerism or the onset of a medical issue for a family member.

Born from the UK Leitch Review: SkillsFuture Credit

A new feature of our skills upgrading system is the creation of SkillsFuture Credit, which provides learning credits for all Singaporeans above 25 years of age, supported by regular top-ups. The SkillsFuture Credit largely mirrors the proposal made in the UK-government commissioned 2004 independent review by Lord Sandy Leitch to maximize the economic growth, skills and social justice by 2020. The Leitch Review of Skills proposed the establishment of a learner accounts as a centrepiece of what it called “adult vocational further education”. In fact, the “Earn and Learn” work-study program under SkillsFuture is also conceptually similar to the Leitch Review’s “Train to Gain” program with a focus on apprenticeships.

In fact, the creation of a SkillsFuture Credit along the lines of the UK model was also proposed in this house in 2010. However, the Government’s reply then was and I quote, “[i]nternational studies show that by providing a training account with monetary value may still not be the best and most effective way of motivating individuals to take up courses. What we have today in our system is a CET infrastructure that comprises a large number of training courses that individuals can go forward and sign up.” In view of this stated position of the Government five years ago, how does the Government envisage the provision of the SkillsFuture Credit as being enough of an incentive to motivate Singaporeans to take up courses to improve themselves?

In recommending the learner accounts, the Leitch Report noted that for about 20% of those who did not pursue upgrading in the UK, lack of funding was not a reason. In fact, high course fees, lack of childcare support and transport were some of the potential issues that workers had to take into account when deciding whether to upgrade their skills. In response, the UK government has sought to provide some basic courses for free, in addition to extending study loans repayable only after a worker exceeded a certain salary. It has also made an allowance for a support fund to provide assistance for costs such as childcare, transport, books, equipment that can mitigate the impact of financial problems workers face as they upgrade their skills. While some of these gaps are specific to the situation in the UK, in addition to applicability in the Singapore context or otherwise, there are nonetheless lessons for Singapore, and the Government should regularly review and identify reasons Singaporean workers may be hesitant to upgrade their skills, as it looks to make SkillsFuture a success.

Making SkillsFuture a Success

Madam Speaker, the SkillsFuture Council will have its hands full, as SkillsFuture cannot represent upgrading for the sake of upgrading. Minister mentioned in his speech that a key challenge of SkillsFuture is to help uplift the SMEs, and involve them in this process of skills development.

In the UK, a parliamentary Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills select committee, in wake of the Leitch Report, noted with concern that a conflation of skills and qualifications in targets could lead the UK Government to assume that a qualifications strategy is an adequate substitute or proxy for an overall skills strategy. The select committee noted that a qualifications-focused strategy which identifies the numbers of workers who have upgraded their qualifications would inadvertedly reinforce the skills gap if companies were unable to achieve high performance working practices and thereby raise productivity.

To this end, as SkillsFuture gets off the ground, it may be worthwhile for the Government to track the qualification and certification outcomes of SkillsFuture initiatives, especially for our SMEs, as to assess how the scheme has been effective in achieving the desired productivity increases and economic outcomes so as to better track the real value of the SkillsFuture initiatives for various industries.

<Pic Credit: TODAY>

During the budget debate in parliament, Nominated Member of Parliament Chia Yong Yong expressed her disapproval of giving more flexibility to CPF members to withdraw their savings.

NMP Chia warned that leaning too much to the left and giving out too many benefits will mean that we may run out of money. 

Ms Chia, who is a lawyer and the president of the SPD (a social service provider focusing on assisting those with physical disabilities), explained that Singapore should still promote personal responsibilities.

She argued that if a CPF member squandered his or her savings, then that person would become a burden on society and it would be other taxpayers who would have to support them in their twilight years.

“When we talk about personal choice, choice always comes with responsibility. Benefits come with obligations, and when we exercise our personal choice, there is a price to be paid. And Madam, I submit that price should not be paid by someone else,” said Ms Chia.

She also noted that there were many calls recently to "Return our CPF" but she said that the money in CPF was not "our" money as claimed. 

Ms Chia pointed out that the CPF savings each member has is "enhanced" and the members are not the only ones contributing to their own accounts. In particular, she argued that there is co-payment from employers and top-ups from public funds.