By MP for Hougang SMC, Png Eng Huat
[Delivered in Parliament on 4 Mar 2015]

Madam Speaker, I welcome the initiatives outlined in Budget 2015 to support and invest in the development of Singaporeans, young and old, and to help working class Singaporeans save more for retirement.

It is also fundamental that the government has recognized that beyond the safety net offered by the Public Assistance Scheme for the neediest in our society, there lies at the fringe a group of older Singaporeans who need help to make ends meet in retirement amidst rising costs of living.

Silver Support Scheme

The proposed Silver Support Scheme highlighted in the Budget is supposed to help address the issue of retirement adequacy for older Singaporeans who are asset-rich and cash-poor in retirement.  The scheme as we were told will become a permanent feature in our social security system.

The Minister has said the scheme aims to support the “bottom 20 per cent of Singaporeans aged 65 and above with a smaller degree of support extended to cover up to 30 per cent of seniors.”  Although these people will fall outside the Public Assistance Scheme, the criteria to qualify for the Silver Support Scheme are no less stringent as the assistance offered under the scheme is meant to go to those with lesser means to subsist especially for those who have retired with little or no savings and family support.

The three factors for older Singaporeans to qualify for the Silver Support Scheme are – their lifetime wages, the level of household support they have today, and the type of housing they live in.  So anyone who has undergone the thorough assessment and qualifies for the scheme will be deserving of assistance.  The payout will be done quarterly similar to the Workfare Scheme

Madam, a worker receiving quarterly Workfare payout can still subsist monthly as long as he stays employed.  Furthermore, Workfare payout is contingent on a minimum period the worker must remain employed.  So a quarterly payout in this instance may not affect the worker adversely.

The proposed Silver Support Scheme has put in place clearly defined criteria which will point to only one conclusion if an elderly Singaporean qualifies for the scheme – and that is the person is truly in need of help.  A monthly payout in this instance would be more appropriate.

While the Government has stated that the aim of the Silver Support Scheme is to “supplement incomes in a modest but meaningful way” and not to substitute other sources of income, the fact of the matter is any elderly Singaporean who fulfils the three criteria under the scheme would probably be living hand to mouth every month with very little margin for life’s unexpected turns and surprises.

A monthly supplement income will certainly go some way to help these elderly Singaporeans pay their bills and lessen their money woes.  I urge the Government to make the Silver Support payout monthly rather than quarterly.

CPF

Next, I would like to talk about the CPF changes.

With longer life expectancy, life no longer begins at 40.  Some say life begins at 50 now.  Although older unemployed workers are finding it increasingly difficult to get back into work at the same pay and position, our CPF policy should not lend weight to the stigma that older workers are supposed to be cheaper workers.

Tweaking the CPF Contribution rate to make older workers cheaper to hire does not help prevent discrimination against these workers in their mid-40s and 50s.  In fact, it does the opposite.  It ingrains the notion older workers are a liability rather than an asset to hire so there must be some tradeoff.   This is certainly not aiding the effort to eliminate ageism in hiring especially in an aging society like ours.

The restoration of the CPF contribution rate for workers aged 50 to 55 is therefore a step in the right direction to restore the dignity of our mature workforce.  While it may be a reality that older workers will get lesser salaries due to a change of job scope, they should not be saving anything lesser in their CPF for retirement.

For that, I support the extra one per cent interest on the first $30,000 of CPF balances for workers aged 55 and above.

Madam, the ownership of our CPF savings is never in doubt.  The monies in the CPF belong to each and every one of us but this ownership assurance is cold comfort to people who cannot access their life savings due to moving targets caused by inflation, life expectancy, and the intended pegging of the Draw Down Age to Retirement Age.

Speech Delivered by SPP NCMP Lina Chiam in Parliament during the Budget Debate:

Yes, Budget 2015 is a breakthrough Budget, but there is a need to identify who this breakthrough is for. "There is no free lunch", this has been the mantra of this Government for a very long time. In keeping with this mantra, for about 50 years, assistance schemes have been kept measly and targeted at a small group of people.

The reality however is that, in any society, some people need free lunches. After pressures from, various quarters and especially from the people of Singapore, there seem to be a mind-shift in the top-echelon  about doing more for the less-abled. So, the breakthrough is more for the ruling Party, the Budget is a testament to that, and so must be welcomed.

Silver Support Scheme

The Silver support is a permanent feature of Singapore social safety net which gives assurance in retirement. The scheme will disperse annual payouts targeted for needy elderly Singaporeans which comprise of the bottom 30% lower income and sandwich class aged 65 and older, will cost $350 million for the first year and likely to be raised over the years when more Singaporeans turn 65 and the cost of living rises.

This Scheme is specially welcomed. It is a signature Scheme which the Government officially acknowledges that there are a sizeable number of senior citizens who receive meagre income for sustenance. About 150,000 people will benefit from this scheme.

The scheme should be reviewed every 4 years for future batches of the elderly to prevent under declaring their income which defeats the purpose of promoting strong work ethics.

Senior Citizen Allowance Scheme

While the silver support Scheme is commendable, it benefits a relatively small group of senior citizens. Many citizens over the age of 65 have contributed much to Singapore in their younger days. The Government could have recognised the contributions of these older citizens by a Senior Citizen Allowance Scheme which will give all citizens above the age of 65 $500 two-times in a year. Such a Scheme will be on-top of the Silver Support Scheme. The Scheme should cost the Government about $450 million in the first year.

Budget 2015 should also mention the Social Service Sector, an important sector which provides for social and community services in Singapore.

The government should help this sector to achieve sustainable economies while using resources productively instead of just depending on charity for funding their objectives.

Revise HDB's Resale Levy Policy

Since the intent of HDB's Resale Levy Policy is to reduce the second subsidy for second-time HDB flat buyers, it is a fair policy to have. It is the desire of many middle-income families to move to a slightly larger HDB flat. To a considerable number of citizens who aspire to upgrade to a bigger flat, the resale levy, which has to be paid upfront, remains a obstacle. The Resale Levy Policy could be revised where the levy (of between $15,000 to $50,000 depending on the type of flat first-owned) is added to the price of the 2nd-flat, and the 2nd-timer be given an option either upfront in cash or monthly throughout the duration of his mortgage loan.

Car ownership

In Singapore, car ownership is a necessity rather than a luxury for needy commuters. They need a car for various reasons.  The bigger upfront fees (cap on car financing loan) and deposit quantums mean many middle-income commuters who want a car will be priced out of the market. At the time of introducing the curbs on car financing the Finance Minister said that the measures were not permanent and were meant to keep a lid on inflationary pressures and rein in borrowing, As concerns of inflation have now lessened, and as car loans are not unsecured, the Government should lift the cap car loans at up to 60 per cent of purchase price.

The Government should also consider moving away from the Certificate of Entitlement system  which curbs car ownership, to a system which is premised on car usage.[1]

Unemployment Insurance

In the Our Singapore Conversation job security emerged as the top 3 concerns of Singapore.[2] In a recent Nielsen Survey Job Security topped the list of concerns for Singaporeans.[3] Even if unemployment rate in Singapore among citizens remain relatively low at 2.6 percent, the Union reported that:

"At the national level, 7,710 workers were retrenched in the first three quarters of 2014, based on figures from the Ministry of Manpower. This is higher than the 7,220 laid off in the corresponding period a year before, as more workers were retrenched in the services sector last year."

The Budget could have called for the establishment of an insurance scheme as a safety net for middle-income Singaporeans for whom the security of continuous employment is increasingly being thrown into question. The Korean Employment Insurance Scheme (EIS) be studied as a model.[4]

Personal Income Tax Rebate

The Budget will provide for a Personal Income Tax Rebate of 50 per cent, with a cap of $1,000. It must be noted that the majority of Singaporeans (55%) do not pay income tax.[5] So, even if most squeezed middle-income families will not cheer this tax rebate, it will nevertheless benefit a sizeable number of middle-middle income and the high-middle income famili

Foreign Domestic Worker Concessionary Levy

The Budget halves the foreign domestic worker (FDW) concessionary levy - from the current S$120 to S$60 - to help families who are taking care of the elderly, from May 1. The concessionary levy will also be extended to households with children aged below 16 - up from below 12. This levy could  be totally waived for the first FDW for households who employ such workers to care for senior citizens. This would not only further lessen the burden on such households, but will also help the elderly to age in place rather than in a nursing home.

Raising taxes to meet the rising social expenditure

The Budget announced that top marginal income tax rate will go up to 22 per cent, from the current 20 per cent, for the highest income-earners with a chargeable income above S$320,000. There will also be smaller adjustments made to raise income tax for the others in the top 5 per cent bracket. This is done presumably to meet the rising social expenditure.

The budget will be funded by the top 5% of income earners from 2017. What will happen when the economy hits a recession? How do we fund it then?

Tax increases may also affect people's confidence in government policies when overdone and might affect Singapore competitiveness. The government have to find a balance for it.

Some analysts have predicted that the Government will further raise indirect taxes (like Goods & Services Tax [GST]) to fund the rising social spending.[6] GST is a regressive tax and the Government should not only maintain the GST at the current 7%, but should also identify essential goods and remove the GST on these essential goods.

To help cushion the impact of  the lower income earners, we should exempt GST on certain necessities such as milk powder diapers, medicines, health supplements, mobility aids and exercise equipment for the elderly. Apparently the usage of diapers were rationed in some nursing homes to reduce costs. This is very unhygienic for the wearer.

Yesterday NMP Miss Chia Yong Yong cautioned not to lean too much to the left lest we have nothing much left in social spending. While this idea seems intuitively correct and is consistent with the popular narrative of the economy, but I would also  like to point out , that between countries like Sweden which spends about 30% of their GDP on  social spending and others like Hong Kong which spends about 3%, there is a middle path. Finding the middle path is what Singapore has to get right

The need to raise revenue to meet the rising social spending though is real for the Government and it should consider the following measures:

1. Raise the top-marginal income tax rate to 25 percent. This would still be one of the lowest top-marginal income tax rate in the world and at the same time would raise a revenue of 500 million - 1 billion. The Finance Minister said that the change to top income rates is expected to raise additional revenue of $400 million per year when it comes into effect. So if it is raised by a further 3 per cent , the additional revenue would be about $1 billion.

2. Re-instate Estate Duty at 5% for total assets (without differentiating between residential properties or other assets) between $10m to $15m, and 10% for amounts above that.

3. Raise the casino tax rates to 22.5% for non-premium players and 7.5% for premium players.

4. Include capital receipts (which include revenue from sales of land and capital goods and other capital receipts) as revenue receipt.

Education

The Budget announced several measures for students from childcare to polytechnic education (e.g. new partner operating scheme, lifting of exam fees, etc) but stopped short of making major announcements for tertiary students (accept for the top-ups to Post-Secondary Education Accounts which the Finance Minister said could be used for offsetting course fees for ITE and Diploma students). This is probably because of the Government's concern about the graduate glut which it feels could result in "overeducated and underemployed" workers.

I am all for the government’s initiative to build a foundation and create an environment for life long learning which empower each Singaporean young or old to chart their own journey in life and to gain fulfillment at work and even in senior years

I myself obtained my BA in communication and media management  last year from UNISA.

CPF

The government appears to be offsetting the effect of increased interests for CPF accounts (for the first $30,000 in CPF accounts from the age of 55) by increasing the contributions of employees aged 55-65 (for both employees and employers). In toto, we believe this signifies the government’s intention to stick to a conservative approach to the CPF. We continue to urge the government towards more flexible options for the usage of CPF savings. This is increasingly because Singaporeans, starting from their late 50s, cannot afford to be cash-strapped.

What's Missing?

Singaporeans have expressed that budget concerns, especially manpower issues, are not adequately tackled in Budget.

Most importantly the issue of rising costs of business and high rental costs for SMEs was not addressed. Every type of costs should be reviewed, from skills levy, utilities, hiring of workers. For example, some restaurants cannot cope with customers because of workers crunch. This problem may lead to dip in the productivity or stay flat for sectors such as construction, retail and food & beverage.

We need to micro manage the system of hiring work permit holders not just by  giving monetary incentives to boost productivity for companies

Productivity incentives should not be positioned as subsidies. As I mentioined in my last year budget speech, the firms with low productivity should be allowed to be restructured or closed down.

As Singapore face economic uncertainty and global competition like other counties we need to foster deep skills and innovation to be positioned  amongst the leaders in Asia and globally.

The next stage of economic restructuring is to keep the economic vibrant by pushing for innovation beyond productivity.

To meet our future economic and social needs, Singapore is investing in infrastructure for the future such as embarking on the development of Changi’s Airport’s new terminal t5,

Middle income families in Singapore is the group that form the bulk of the community who are generally viewed as helping to maintain society in an even keel. It's the middle income group that we want to look after. They are also the active stakeholders with investments in infrastructure. They felt the squeeze in the rise of their monthly income compared to households from the top and bottom of the ladder.

Foreign Affairs Minister K Shanmugam warned that Singapore cannot forget the importance of staying internationally relevant. 

He noted that SG50 is a useful time to restate the realities which inform Singapore's foreign policy. He reminded parliament that Singapore is small, multi-racial, multi-religious and is captured in an evolving geo-political situation.

Mr Shanmugam noted that because of these factors, it was important that we remain relevant to the international system. One of the way that we can do this, he explained, was to "continue to be successful" so that we could continue to work with others.

However, he did not mention what exactly was meant by "success" in this context.

Speaking further about specific foreign policy issues, he noted that Singapore's advantages included its integration in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the current push towards an ASEAN economic community by the end of this year.

NSP Statement on Increase in Petrol Duty in 2015 Budget

1. It was announced in the Singapore Budget 2015 on 23 February 2015, that petrol duty rates would increase by S$0.20 to S$0.64 per litre for the premium grade and by S$0.15 to S$0.56 per litre for the intermediate grade. The increase was to take immediate effect.

2. Pump prices were immediately adjusted and on 27 February 2015, news reports appeared with the heading “Petrol firms profiteering, CASE charges” and reported [1]:

“As of Tuesday night, a litre of 98-octane-grade petrol at Shell cost S$2.28 - S$0.25 more than on Monday. Other brands also adjusted their prices, with Caltex, Esso and Singapore Petroleum Company (SPC) charging S$2.25, S$2.23 and S$2.20, respectively. The increment ranged between S$0.17 and S$0.21 for the three brands. For 95-octane-grade petrol, which is most popular with drivers, Shell raised the price byS$0.18 to S$2.04 per litre. The other three brands raised their prices to S$2.01 or S$2.02 — with the increases ranging between S$0.12 and S$0.16.”

3. On 4 March 2015, thanks to the Consumers’ Association of Singapore (“CASE”), it was highlighted in the local news that products like petrol, cigarettes and cars have duty added to them before the GST is calculated [2]. In other words, there is tax upon tax or “double taxation” on petrol. The extra tax on the increased duty is rather significant as highlighted in the following example given in one of the new reports [2].

“As an example of the current system, assuming a litre of non-premium petrol has a wholesale price of 55 cents a litre and the oil company has a gross profit margin of 80 cents on the litre, the GST of 7 per cent at this point would work out to be 9.45 cents.

But if the GST is calculated after the petrol duty of 56 cents is added, the tax comes up to 13.37 cents - more than 40 per cent higher.”

4. The National Solidarity Party (“NSP”) notes with great concern the overall impact of the increase in petrol duty on the working class and local businesses as a result of the twin effects of profiteering and double-taxation. This statement is issued to call upon the government to withdraw the increase in petrol duty and if it is unwilling to do so, to remove GST on petrol duty.

Avoid imposing unnecessary hardship on the working class and businesses – Withdraw the increase in petrol duty

5. Although Budget 2015 provides a one-off road tax rebate for a year to motorists to cushion the impact of the hike, it is hardly realistic to expect such a gesture to be an effective cushion as the rebate for a typical 1,600cc car using intermediate grade petrol is only $149 [4].

6. Oil prices started falling sharply in September last year. Until Budget 2015, motorists and businesses were beginning to enjoy lower transportation costs after many years of waiting for oil prices to decline. The resulting lower pump prices enabled the working class to have extra ready cash to spend on their other necessities. Businesses were also pleased to see a reduction in their transportation cost which has been a heavy component of their cost of doing business. However, this enjoyment was short-lived as it lasted only for a few months. It was completely eliminated, not by market forces, but by the government’s untimely imposition of additional duty on petrol.

7. As felt in these 2 weeks, the increase in petrol duty has caused great dissatisfaction. Itimposes unnecessary financial hardship on the working class and businesses and further undermines the standing of the government in the eyes of the people. It is perceived, rightly or wrongly, as being opportunistic and fuels the suspicion that the government is always giving away with one hand and taking back more with the other.

8. At a time when there is a need to lower the costs of living, NSP urges the government to exercise greater consideration for the working class and businesses by withdrawing the increase in petrol duty. It would bode well for the government to allow them the reprieve from even higher costs of transportation until such time when there is a more cogent reason for imposing additional petrol duty.

By Non-Constituency MP, Gerald Giam
[Delivered in Committee of Supply on 5 March 2015]

Mdm Chair,

In 2013, a scandal broke out in the US over reports that the National Security Agency (NSA) had been collecting telephone data of millions of its citizens, and had access to the servers of several technology companies, including Facebook and Google, to track their customers’ communications.

The scandal soon widened to Europe when it was reported that GCHQ, the UK spy agency, had tapped fibre-optic cables carrying global communications data and shared it with the NSA.

Both governments justified this mass surveillance in the name of national security and insisted they were lawful. But many people were upset that they were unaware that their private communications were being monitored. Some questioned their legality and the insufficient oversight by their courts and legislature.

The Budget debate currently going on in Parliament has shown MPs demonstrating support for the CPF Minimum Sum Scheme. This scheme is aimed at retaining the CPF savings of retirees.

The SDP reiterates our stand: We want to see all of a member's CPF savings returned to him or her at the age of 55. No 'ifs', 'ands' or 'buts'. Here's why:

The only reason the PAP has advanced for the scheme has turned out to be a flimsy excuse; its rationale is that retirees will squander their savings. But it provides no data to back up its claim. How many retirees actually blow away their nest-egg? Repeated calls for the Government to supply such information has met with stony silence.

The PAP says that it is afraid that retirees, having squandered their savings, will turn to the state for handouts. This is the reddest of red herrings. For more than half-a-century, the PAP hasn't bothered with how the poor elderly survived. Many end up have to work to feed themselves, collect cardboard for sale, or rummage through dumpsters. 

But when they want to retain our savings, all of a sudden it is concerned about poor retirees depending on the government. 

More important, do retirees have enough to survive on in the first place? Is the Minimum Sum Scheme a ploy to distract Singaporeans from the fact that most of their retirement savings have been siphoned off for housing and healthcare?

But the biggest issue with the scheme is that the Government continues to stonewall calls for it to be transparent with GIC and Temasek funds, which are widely believed to include our CPF reserves.

Workers' Party chief, Low Thia Khiang, said in Parliament today that more Singaporeans should be given a chance to take on leadership roles.

He pointed out that many large local companies actually have foreigners in top and key positions meaning that local talent is not being groomed for leadership properly.

He attributed this problem to the lax foreign labour laws which have allowed companies to fill positions with foreigners.

Speaking in Mandarin, he said, that Singaporeans are merely middle managers and many Singaporeans from the sandwiched class feel they should have better career opportunities but they aren't able to do anything about it.

Mr Low warned that allowing this to continue would be a threat to Singapore's future development and the fact that Singaporeans aren't the heads of companies shows that we have lost the leadership role.

He warned that in future, we would not be able to develop any young leaders if this continues and Singaporeans would be stuck in supporting roles.

By MP for Aljunied GRC, Low Thia Khiang
[Delivered in Committee of Supply on 5 March 2015]

Madam, the application for SAF Volunteer Corps (SAFVC) opened on 13 October 2014. I would like to ask the Minister for an update on the number of applications received and accepted so far, and the estimated expenditure for the SAFVC in its first year of operation.

I would also like to know whether deploying volunteers alongside our NSF, NSmen and regulars post security risks for SAF? Will the security vetting be sufficiently thorough especially with regards to the period of time when the applicants resided outside Singapore?

Volunteers need only to do 2 weeks BMT, 7 days qualification course training, and are liable to be called up for 7 days a year. Will the reduced training time be sufficient? Will it cause grievance for our NSmen? For example, the length of training that is required for a security trooper should be the same regardless of whether it is performed by a volunteer or an NSmen. Otherwise our NSmen will wonder why they needed to spend more time training for the same role or is every part of the training really necessary.

If you're wondering why PAP can control 81 out of 87 seats (93%) in parliament even though they garnered a much lower 60.1% of the popular vote during the last election, this article best explains the process behind "gerrymandering" - a method of drawing political boundaries to give your party a numeric advantage over your opponents:

----

Gerrymandering -- drawing political boundaries to give your party a numeric advantage over an opposing party -- is a difficult process to explain. If you find the notion confusing, check out the chart above -- adapted from one posted to Reddit this weekend -- and wonder no more.

Suppose we have a very tiny state of fifty people. Thirty of them belong to the Blue Party, and 20 belong to the Red Party. And just our luck, they all live in a nice even grid with the Blues on one side of the state and the Reds on the other.

Now, let's say we need to divide this state into five districts. Each district will send one representative to the House to represent the people. Ideally, we want the representation to be proportional: if 60 percent of our residents are Blue and 40 percent are Red, those five seats should be divvied up the same way.

Fortunately, because our citizens live in a neatly ordered grid, it's easy to draw five lengthy districts  -- two for the Reds , and three for the Blues. Voila! Perfectly proportional representation, just as the Founders intended. That's grid 1 above, "perfect representation."

By MP for Punggol East SMC, Lee Li Lian
[Delivered in Parliament on 5 Mar 2015]

Madam Speaker, Singapore has come a long way and this year we will be celebrating our nation’s first 50 years as an independent country. Our history is important. It shapes, molds and forms our country. Having said that, our future is equally critical and this year’s budget takes major steps in four areas to focus on building Singapore’s future. The Government investing more in our Nation’s most valuable assets, our people, is welcome and certainly the right thing to do.

Today I will focus my speech on the need to invest skills of the future, and empower every individual to learn and develop throughout their life.

Skills Future Credit

Technology is constantly evolving and changing the way things are being done. Processes that we considered common and had gotten used to for years can be done today more efficiently and effectively with the help of technological advancements. Jobs can be replaced by technology, never to return. When we are no longer able to change a situation, we are challenged to change ourselves. And to remain competitive, it is important for people to constantly adapt and adjust to stay relevant in an era of rapid technological advances and environmental change. To charter this course of self-development, skills upgrading and training are essential.

One of the highlights of this year’s budget is that all Singaporeans, above the age of 25, will receive an initial credit of $500 for work-related courses. That is to say even at the age of 70, one can continue to upgrade themselves. In Chinese we call this, 活到老学到老. It is true that people must be interested in getting themselves trained. They have to see the value training can bring them. If you are not willing to learn, no one can help you. If you are determined to learn, no one can stop you. However, at the same time, we can help enable the individual who is willing to take ownership of his or her life. Apart from providing a $500 credit for work-related courses we will need to address factors that might hamper the development of a culture of continued self-development. .

One reason why employees may not be going for the required skills upgrade could be the resistance they are getting from their respective companies. Training presents a prime opportunity to expand the knowledge base of all employees, but many employers find the development opportunities costly. Employees may need to be absent from work to attend a course or training, which may delay the completion of projects and scheduled work. Employers may also not be willing to bear some of the costs of training fees.

In my previous job, I was very fortunate to be in a company that valued skills and regularly sent staff for skills upgrading for both hard and soft skills. Despite the potential drawbacks, training and development provides both the company as a whole and the individual employees with benefits that make the cost and time a worthwhile investment. Training provides a series of planned learning experiences for individuals and builds their technical skills and business competencies. Training also helps to improve efficiency and can motivate employees to do well. This helps to make positive changes to the way in which they work and make decisions. It also helps individuals use the training to meet their individual needs and ambitions. Hopefully with the government formalizing skills upgrading, we can change employers’ mindset.

This leads me to the cost of taking up courses and whether $500 is sufficient for PMETs to adequately upgrade themselves. Many valuable courses may well-exceed $500. I understand from the Labour Minister yesterday in this house that, these credits are to be use to pay the net value of courses that are heavily funded. Will there be a sufficient and robust list of approved courses for individuals to choose from that can be covered by the $500? While I acknowledge that self-development and upgrading must be rooted in personal self-interest, and that for some no amount is really enough, we must also acknowledge the cost-of-living issues that many Singaporeans face today. Many working individuals will have to make tough decisions on whether to fork out a sum of money to invest in themselves or to save that money or use it for family expenses. I noted from the Finance Minister’s speech that the credits can be accumulated and there will be top-ups to pay for more expensive courses. I would like to find out how much and how often these top-ups are scheduled to be, since people may be less willing to commit to longer courses if they do not know how much they will end up having to fork out on their own.

There is still the supply of relevant and accreditable courses that the budget did not address. Are individuals free to choose training providers? Will there be enough relevant courses for people to take? Will there be job counsellors to guide and advise interested parties when it comes to choosing courses especially the elderly or those re-entering the workforce after some time? Will there be a minimum standard that trainers involved in these courses need to fulfill, an example will be, should these trainers be at least ACTA certified? More clarity should be provided on these questions.

One group of Singaporeans who would benefit from these credits is home-makers. Home-makers may find themselves out of touch with the requirements of their respective work industries after staying at home to look after their young children during their growing up years. Whether they have the confidence or ability to move back into the work force may depend on whether they can get adequate training to refresh and upgrade their skills. Apart from going back to the work force after their children grow up, home-makers can also make use of these credits to pick up skills that allow them to work from home or employed in companies that adopt flexible work practices. This is so that home-makers can take care of the family and work at the same time. However, this group of Singaporeans would also not have as much cash on hand given their lack of income, and often their families would already be finding it a challenge to manage on a single-income. Can family members transfer credits to one another since there is no expiry on credits, and it could benefit the family as well?

Skills Future Earn and Learn Programme

Madam, I move on to the next part of my speech that is about internships enhancements. In my speech on the Motion on ASPIRE, I’ve shared my internship experience, listed down the advantages and pointed out the challenges of implementing internships and apprenticeship programmes.

To recap, there should be consistency in terms of what students can expect to gain during their internships. There should be some formal programme structure that ensures beneficial outcomes for both students and employers. There are situations where employers see interns as cheap labour and are herded from one department to another to fill gaps in any manpower crunches without any focus on their development. While we don’t want to over-formalise practical training either, there must be some guidelines to ensure that students do gain from their experiences, are monitored and get significant work-ready skills. This should include having company orientations, regular mentorship and evaluation sessions and of course clearer goals, timelines and outcomes (including relevant certification) for both students and the company.

There must be adequate consultation between education institutions and companies from identified industries to ensure that programmes help students further develop their skills and learning, while in line with the needs and expectations of industries today.

Enhanced subsidies for mid-career Singaporeans

MP for Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC , Gan Thiam Poh said that the government should give more incentives to people who top-up the CPF accounts of family members.

He suggested incentives such as tax reliefs on top of the current $7,000 relief per year. 

Mr Gan said this during the budget debate, commenting on the recent changes making it possible to top up family members' CPF accounts.

He cited the impact that tax reliefs have had on donations in the past year when the tax relief was raised from 250% to 300% of donation amounts. This had resulted in more donations being made and he suggested that a similar thing can be done to incentivize CPF top-ups for family members.

If we do indeed need more incentives to force people to put more money into CPF, doesn't this indicate that people don't feel that it is a good idea to put more money into CPF? Is this due to the lack of flexibility in how users can use their funds?

By Non-Constituency MP, Gerald Giam
[Delivered in Committee of Supply on 9 March 2015]

Mdm Chair,

The Jobs Bank portal was launched in July 2014. It now boasts of thousands of jobs postings, registered employers and Singaporean jobseekers. However, none of these point to its effectiveness in meeting the objective of ensuring that Singaporeans are fairly considered for jobs before firms hire foreigners. This is a key plank of the Fair Consideration Framework.

I would like to make some observations about the Jobs Bank and provide some suggestions for improvement to meet this important objective.

First, the outcomes of the Jobs Bank postings do not seem to be effectively tracked. MOM should require employers who post advertisements on the Jobs Bank to subsequently indicate whether those positions were filled, and if so, by Singaporeans or foreigners. It should be done whether or not the successful candidate came through the Jobs Bank.

It shouldn't come as a surprise that without trade unions free from state control, workers rights – including their wages – are always going to be adversely affected.

What is surprising, however, is that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has recently published a study,Power from the People, saying that “Weakening of unions reduces the bargaining power of workers relative to capital owners and top earners.”

The study concludes that “there would be grounds for governments to take policy action. Such action could include...reaffirmation of labor standards that allow willing workers to bargain collectively.”

What is even stranger is that one of its senior officials is our very own Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam who also sits in a cabinet which has long ensured that the back of Singapore's labour movement remains crushed.

Singapore is also one of the last few countries in the world that does not have a national minimum wage – in a city ranked as the most expensive in the world.

Without the ability to freely organise themselves, Singaporean workers will continue to be exploited and their wages suppressed by the PAP.

This is why the SDP proposed in our economic policy A New Economic Vision for Singapore (Abridged) (Full) that, as far as our workers are concerned, we should upgrade their minds, not just their skills. We do this by empowering them and stopping the undemocratic suppression of trade unions.

Madam Chair,

Life Long learning is the pursuit of knowledge for either personal or professional reasons which enhances social inclusion, active citizenship and personal development but self sustainity rather than for competiveness and employability.

Life long learning can also be seen as something that takes place on an ongoing basis from our daily interactions with others and the world around us.

As Singaporeans are living longer these days they can make use of their added years in ways that please them especially when they have time on their hands.

If their counterparts in Hong Kong who embrace lifelong learning and can enter the classroom, there is no reason why our elderly should not emulate them if they have the interest, energy and desire to live a more enriching and fulfilling life through continuing education.

For seniors who for various reasons who had to stop their studies during their younger days, learning opportunities for them will be most welcome and should   be made available to them.

Learning opportunities should also be provided to needy elderly in recognition of their contributions of the generation who built up Singapore who have survived difficult times in the past but have advantage of life experience.

Inter-generation learning in class is unique and beneficial in that both the younger students and the senior ones can learn from each other through interactions and also to overcome apprehensiveness with each other in the class room.

We are living in a globalized world and with constant scientific and technological innovation, some seniors can even pursue courses of higher learning on line either in homes or offices.

I am heartened to note that Singapore is studying the feasibility of the Hong Kong Scheme for the elderly to re enter the classroom where the seniors can take classes in participating universities and schools during the weekends and at night ….. for tertiary education or life skills, such as basic computer use and crafts.

Madam Chair,

Catering to Singaporean voters overseas, and ensuring they can cast their vote as easily as possible, is important for their democratic participation. It is also, after all, a civic duty that is mandatory in Singapore.

Many Singaporeans are deprived of the chance to cast their vote at general elections or by-elections, because travelling to overseas polling stations could be very much a hassle that is impractical.

I would like to ask what percentage of all eligible Singaporean voters do overseas voters make up, and how many percent of eligible overseas voters actually cast their votes in the last general election, and the subsequent two by-elections.

I would like to propose if the Election Department could come up with reasonable means for one to cast one’s vote privately, without having to travel long distances or to forfeit one’s right to vote. Would the Elections Department consider introducing postal ballot?

As it stands, there are only ten designated overseas polling stations for Singaporean voters – in New York, Washington DC, San Francisco, London, Shanghai, Beijing, Hong Kong, Tokyo, Canberra and Dubai.

1.     The National Solidarity Party (“NSP”) believes in people-centred politics and nurturing a positive political culture in Singapore.

2.    In the last two weeks, two official comments made in the context of Budget 2015 have stirred up strong negative emotions from the public and generated a great deal of speculation over the value of national service by our NSmen and the ownership of monies in our CPF accounts.

3.     In the Post-Budget 2015 Public Forum held on 26 February 2015 organised by feedback unit Reach, a suggestion was raised by a participant that national serviceman should be paid more. Senior Minister of State for Finance and Transport, Josephine Teo, was reported [1] to have replied that whilst she noted the importance of giving NSmen recognition, “service to the country cannot be measured in dollars and cents”. Her reply riled the public and whipped up a public discourse on why Ministers are treated differently when they are also performing a kind of national service.

4.     Then, on 3 March 2015, a Nominated Member of Parliament (“NMP”), Chia Yong Yong, made certain comments in her speech during the Budget debate which called into question the ownership rights of CPF members to the monies held in their CPF accounts [2]. She argued that CPF members were not the only ones contributing to their own accounts as there are co-payments by employers and top-ups from public funds.

5.     This statement is issued to highlight the ground reactions to the aforesaid comments and the concerns of the people affected by them.

National Service – the difference between Ministers and NSmen

6.      It is acknowledged that NSmen perform an indispensable role in the defence of our country and nation-building [3]. In April 2012, NSmen received a $60 pay-rise across all ranks. Minister of State for Defence and Education Lawrence Wong then said in Parliament that the raise "goes one step further in signalling our acknowledgment of our servicemen's commitment and service" [4].

7.    With the revision, a recruit now receives a monthly pay of $480.00. Whilst this amount is paltry and hardly compensates many of the NSmen for their loss of income, no one begrudges the pay they receive as they perceive national service as a worthy sacrifice for the nation.

8.    The comment was seemingly harmless but when it came from a highly remunerated minister whose job is also perceived to involve a sacrifice to the nation, it immediately invited a backlash. Although NSmen’s contributions are deemed not be measurable in monetary value, ministers’ salaries are on the other hand, measured in dollars and cents and against the highest earned incomes in the land.

9.    It is a well-known fact that the salaries of our ministers and top civil servants are second to none in the world. This fact has been a constant source of public consternation and has often been voiced out in frustration with complaints of poorly managed costs of living and stressful living conditions. This public consternation eventually led the government to form a committee to review ministers’ salaries which recommended in January 2012 wage cuts of between 36% and 53% for political appointment holders [5]. The recommendation continued to benchmark the salaries to the median income of the top 1,000 earners who are Singapore citizens but with a 40% discount to signify the ethos and sacrifice that comes with political service. 

10.    The wage cuts reduced the intensity of public consternation but it never quite dissipated. It continues to constantly diminish the government leaders’ moral authority in the eyes of the public whenever frustrations set in. It has happened again with the suggestion for NSmen to be paid more. 

11.    The government’s legal authority to rule on all matters relating to law and order is unquestionable. However, for matters that require the government to exhort the people to be charitable, compassionate and generous or to make sacrifices for others, it needs to rely on its moral authority. Sadly, the government’s moral authority has been seriously diminished by the commercial formula used to calculate the salaries of those holding political and high public offices. It is this commercial formula that has wedged itself between the people and the government and which has caused the government to lose much of the trust and respect that was once enjoyed by our first generation of leaders.

12.    NSP urges the government to consider de-linking the salaries of ministers from the earned income of our top income earners. NSP proposes that ministerial salaries should take reference from the salary scales of political appointees of a “basket” of countries, taking into account similarities and discounting for differences.

13.    By delinking ministerial salaries from the earned income of our top income earners, the remuneration of ministers will no longer be a thorn in the flesh and the government will be able to regain much of its moral authority. 

CPF Accounts – monies belong to members

By MP for Punggol East SMC, Lee Li Lian
[Delivered in Committee of Supply on 10 March 2015]

Today in Singapore, 4 in 10 marriages involving Singaporeans are between a Singaporean and a non-Singaporean.[1] Yet despite this increasing trend, many Singaporeans, who tend to be lower income, face a huge challenge getting their spouses the appropriate pass to stay in Singapore long-term and live as a stable family unit.

Today, we know that there are over 11,000 Long Term Visit Pass (LTVP) holders, including Long Term Visit Pass-Plus (LTVP+) holders.[2] However today we are unable to track the number of spouses who only get Short-Term Visit Passes (STVP) which require them to move in and out of the country, and do not allow them to work in Singapore. I would like to ask the Minister why is it that we are unable to track this number today and if there is a way to work towards being able to do so.

Many of these foreign spouses on social visit passes tend to be female, and if they have children, the children often have to shuttle in and out of Singapore along with their mothers. Extension of the social visit pass also takes time, and there is no guarantee that the foreign spouse will be granted that extension. Such conditions create a lot of stress on a family, who cannot plan a stable life together long-term given the constant disruption and unknown outcomes.

We know today with the cost of living, it is very hard for a family with children to manage on a single income. Many of these foreign spouses would like to work and help support their Singaporean spouse and family, but they are not able to because they are on STVPs. In cases where the Singaporean spouse who is the sole breadwinner, passes away or becomes critically ill the foreign spouse has little ability to support the family without working or being able to stay here long-term.

MR DONALD Low dismisses the dangers of spending beyond our means ("Budget 2015: In deficit, yet very prudent at heart"; last Saturday).

He is right that the Government is fiscally conservative. But he is wrong to be dismissive about the concerns raised by me and other MPs that social spending must be sustainable.

Government spending is going up steadily. The new social programmes - for example, Silver Support, higher subsidies for health care and MediShield Life, and the Pioneer Generation Package - are necessary and right.

But we must proceed carefully. As our economy matures and growth moderates, revenue growth will slow. Spending programmes, once committed to, cannot be cut back without the utmost pain and political resistance, as seen in every advanced society. There will be constant pressure to spend more; indeed, Mr Low's article is a prime example.

Moreover, often, more government spending alone has not solved social problems. Many countries went overboard on welfare with the best of intentions but with unintended results, including massive unsustainable deficit. Now they are forced to cut back and restore financial sustainability, with the harshest impact on the young.

Mr Low ignores this and argues that if something cannot be financed sustainably by the Government, with its ability to pool risks, it cannot be done by households either, which is an unacceptable outcome.

This is a false dichotomy between two extreme choices. Every society must support those with less, find the right balance between personal responsibility and state welfare, and muster and safeguard the resources to meet essential needs.

I spoke during the PMO's Committee of Supply yesterday on how the civil service needs to lead the way in recognizing non-academic and other skills in hiring and promotion in the civil service if we want society to similarly recognize every Singapore for his or her talent that may not be just good grades in an exams. Here is the speech;

PMO Committee of Supply 
Speech by Mr Inderjit Singh

Hiring and Promotion in the Civil Service (ASPIRE)

1. It is encouraging that the government is willing to expand the old model of using academic excellence as hiring benchmarks in the civil service and adopt unique and non-academic skills as well.

2. It is encouraging that the Government is willing to expand the old model of using academic excellence as hiring benchmarks in the Civil Service and adopt unique and non-academic skills as well.

3. I would like to share the stories of two young men who have faced many challenges because of the previous policies of over-emphasising on academic qualifications.

4. Earlier this year, a young Singaporean, with an ITE higher Nitec, contacted me. He served his National Service with great dignity and honour, performed very well and grew to love the uniformed services and aspired to build a career in it. After completing his National Service, and at great expense to his family, he went for further studies in Australia to obtain a degree. Upon his return, he applied to serve as a regular officer, first in the SAF, and when he was not successful, and then as part of the Home Team. His applications were rejected by MINDEF and the Ministry of Home Affairs, citing his unrecognised academic qualifications.

5. He became disillusioned with the system. He was enthusiastic about the National Day Rally speech that the Prime Minister gave, outlining his vision of better recognising and rewarding those who have pursued a non-traditional education route. He hoped that it would be an opportunity for him to finally realise his dream of being a regular officer in the uniformed services. You can imagine his disappointment after the multiple rejections.

6. Mr Calvin Soh rose to be the Vice-Chairman and Regional Chief Creative Officer of Publicis Asia, a top advertising and public relations company, and was the first Singaporean creative director of a top advertising firm in New York, with only four “O” Levels results.

7. Since returning to Singapore, Calvin has been actively involved in building a creative culture among our youth and worked on various projects, including Time Traveller, an app that allows users to share their stories about various landmarks and places in Singapore.

HDB – Enabling Home Ownership

Speech Delivered by PAP MP Kri Kumar on March 10:

HDB’s priority should be to promote and enable home ownership.  This is especially so for first-time home owners.   

But that principle has been somewhat diluted by the pre-occupation with asset enhancement.  In the past, prices have increased substantially and rental returns for HDB flats have been among the highest in the market.  That has affected behavior, and many have treated their HDB flats as an asset to invest in or speculate on or, sell to pay off debts.       

The rising prices has led to the enduring narrative that flats have become unaffordable, and that young couples will be expected spend a good part of their working lives paying for their homes.   This has caused anxiety and unhappiness among young couples and their parents.  Steps have been taken to reduce prices – including increasing subsidies.   But the anxiety remains.   

I submit that it has become necessary for the HDB to make bolder moves to reinforce the principle of home ownership and affordability.   I have several proposals for the Minister’s consideration. 

First, peg the price of new flats to a multiple of the annual median incomes for first timers.  During Budget 2013, the Minister set a target for prices to be around 4 times the annual median income¹ .  While we have come closer to meeting this, we are still some way off.  As of last year, three-room flats cost 4.57 years of salary, while four and five-room flats cost 5.26 times and 5.36 times respectively².   If the ideal is 4 times annual incomes, then why not make that peg now?   The prices of new flats are currently not that far off the peg to result in a market shock.   More importantly, it establishes a steady state and gives assurance that prices will only move with incomes and no one should be priced out.      

Second, I renew the call I have made since 2010 to lift or remove the income ceiling³.  The income ceiling is too blunt a tool.  It does not take into consideration the circumstances faced by each family, such as the number of dependents.   Some may not want to take on large mortgages, and cheaper homes would enable them to employ their capital to start a business or pursue other interests.