Next Sitting: 23 Mar 2009 at 1.30 pm SPUR, Job Recreation Programme, CPF Saving as Retirement Funding, Contract Workers Sitting Date: 13 Feb 2009Skills Programme for Upgrading and Resilience (SPUR)Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): Sir, the SPUR programme costing $600 million, aims to provide workers the opportunities and resources to upgrade their skills and employability. It also gives an allowance to jobless Singaporeans who attend courses - combining training with benefits. I understand that for those who are unemployed, there is currently no disclosure of eligibility criteria but will be assessed on a case-by-case basis. The reason given was that it might discourage some from coming forward or encourage others to abuse the system.With training places under SPUR doubling from 110,000 in 2008 to 220,000 in 2009, I would like to know, one, what does the Government base in the formulation of SPUR? How does MOM decide what training courses and skills to support? Two, how do we measure its effectiveness? Three, would there be some performance indicators to evaluate the impact of training on the economy and the workers? For example, how many found new jobs as a result of retraining? How many were re-employed with larger work scopes? What is the average wage for those who have undergone retraining? Four, would it be more efficient to have some form of allowance eligibility criteria for the unemployed, versus the current approach of using case-by-case assessment?Sir, the subsidy rate for PMET courses under SPUR will be increased to 90% and will include all specialists and advanced diplomas offered by our polytechnics. Again, the question is how do we measure its effectiveness? A considerable sum of money was allocated to SPUR. It is important that SPUR focuses on the employability of the trainees, with new jobs created and with a long-term view to cater to the future manpower needs of Singapore as well as prevent wastage of resources.Job Recreation Programme By Low Thia ThiangMr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, the Job Recreation Programme aims to redesign jobs to make older workers more productive and, hence, higher pay. The WDA sets aside $40 million over three years in 2007 for this programme. Globalisation and Singapore's rapid development into a more knowledge-based economy has resulted in less skilled older workers finding employment opportunities more difficult. The current recession worsens the employment prospects of these older workers as even younger workers face retrenchment when businesses downsize. Therefore, it is important to scale up the JRP to sustain employment for older workers in these recreated jobs. Is the budget of $40 million over three years enough?The NTUC's website shows that JRP has helped 43,484 workers from 2005 to July 2008. What is the number of workers to be helped in 2009? Are these Singapore citizens, or does it include Permanent Residents as well? I would like to know what is the Government's strategy in helping older workers in this economic downturn, as many of them have contributed to Singapore's development from a Third World to a First World status only to find themselves unwelcome in the job markets in our supposedly Swiss standard of living. How does the Government reconcile the prospect of structural unemployment for this group of older, less skilled workers with the continued extension of the retirement age as well as increasing Minimum Sum amounts that limit many of these older Singaporeans to very little payout at the age of 55?CPF Savings as Retirement FundingBy Sylvia Lim, NCMPThe CPF LIFE scheme, which will start in 2013, will provide qualified Singaporeans with payout at least $350 per month for those with full Minimum Sum in their Retirement Account.I would like the Minister to consider helping elderly Singaporeans who do not have much in their CPF and are not covered by CPF Life.These Singaporeans have less than the minimum sum at the draw down age. As the rules require whatever small savings they have to be drawn over 20 years, many of them will draw down less than what a PA recipient will receive of $360 per month.Take for example the case of Mdm A, an elderly Singaporean aged 70 years old with less than $24,000 left in her CPF savings and living alone in a rented flat. Currently, she is drawing down less than $300 a month from her CPF to survive. She worries when and where her next meal will come from every month.The PA allowance is a useful reference point as the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports says it is ‘calibrated to provide for the basic living needs of PA recipients.’ If the Government thinks that $360 is what a PA recipient needs for basic living a month, it cannot expect an elderly Singaporean like Mdm A to subsist on just $300?I would like to ask the Minister to seriously consider allowing elderly Singaporeans who do not qualify for CPF LIFE and PA to draw down on their CPF savings an amount equivalent to the PA allowance every month. We should not make these people worry about how to make ends meet every day in their old age.I am not asking the Government to fund the basic living needs of these elderly Singaporeans. I am only asking the Government to allow these people to draw down on their OWN CPF savings an amount that can sustain their basic living needs as determined by the PA allowance.The Government may worry that these elderly Singaporeans will exhaust their CPF savings in less than 20 years. Well, if these elderly Singaporeans outlive their CPF Savings, they can join the PA scheme after that. After all the PA scheme is designed for ‘Singaporeans who are unable to work owing to old age, illness or disability to get government support’.Mr Gan Kim Yong: ..Mr Low Thia Khiang also asked for an update on the Job Recreation Programme (JRP), and its role in this downturn. The JRP aims to help local workers including PRs upskill and to help them take on better jobs. This is achieved through a combination of efforts to redesign jobs, train workers, and professionalise industry practices. Since its inception in 2005, JRP has been successfully applied to several sectors, such as security and landscaping. Last year, over 20,000 workers benefited from JRP, up from the 15,000 in 2007. Cumulatively, since the programme started, more than 50,000 workers have benefited. Even in this downturn, JRP continues to be important and the enhanced support provided by SPUR will allow the programme to help even more workers. JRP is now led by NTUC's e2i, which aims to help 45,000 local workers through its programmes in 2009.MOM - Contract WorkersBy Sylvia Lim, NCMPAs mentioned earlier, the proportion of resident contract employees last year was 189,100, a 5% rise from the previous year. The number of resident employees on short-term casual and on-call employment is about 72,000.The vulnerability of this group has been well-reported. Compared to permanent staff, these workers often receive no medical benefits, and may not receive any CPF contributions. There are also no retrenchment benefits.As the government has identified this as an area of weakness, what plans does the government have to give more protection to these workers?On the Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) touched on by Minister earlier, informal employees will only get the WIS CPF benefit if they contribute significant sums into their Medisave accounts. A year ago the Senior Parliamentary Secretary told Parliament that this requirement to pay into Medisave is a likely reason why many casual workers did not receive WIS benefits. Has the take-up rate improved? Taxi Service, Recognising Crime Victims' Rights Sitting Date: 12 Feb 2009 Taxi Service后港区国会议员，刘程强陆路交通管理局在今年一月所提供的数据显示：在去年的首11个月里，德士司机接获的可记分罚单，多达将近1800张，比前年的407张多出三倍以上。其中近七成的罚单与抵触在市区内的德士站条例有关。我在接见选民时，也有不少居住在后港的德士司机因为接获类似的罚单来向我求助。据他们反映，有些时候是在他们没有办法的情况下被开罚单。其中一个较普遍的情形是：乘客随处下车，但受罚的却是德士司机。有些乘客虽然知道市区内德士站的条例，但也常常因为他们要去的目的地离德士站太远而坚持在特定的地点下车。更有些人在红灯前，丢下车钱，就开门走人。司机们往往就在这种不受他们控制的情况下受罚。另一个情况是，有些较受欢迎的德士站没有足够可供德士等候乘客的车位。在稀有的德士侯车位停满了之后，德士司机的选择只有两个：一、是冒着被开罚单的险，排在后面；二、是空车在市区里兜，找寻其他的德士站。这种情况不但增加德士司机的负担，也不利于环保。有一些在市区内的繁忙德士站，也被修改成只准让乘客上下车而不允许德士排队等候乘客。在市场不景气的大气候下，这些种种的限制对德士司机们来说无疑是雪上加霜，让他们的生活过得更加艰苦。我希望陆路交通管理局能够探讨如何在受欢迎的德士站附近修改路旁的镶边石（kerb)，规划出更多的德士侯车位。这样一来，不但能够使德士司机受惠，更多的乘客也能在最短的时间内搭到德士，形成双赢的局面。Taxi Service Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang) (In Mandarin): Mr Chairman, the figures released by LTA in January this year showed that in the first 11 months last year, taxi drivers received as many as 1,800 summonses with demerit points; three times more than the 407 cases in the year before. Among these summonses, 70% were for violation of taxi-stop rules in the CBD. In my MPS, there are quite a number of taxi drivers living in the Hougang area who came and sought my help after receiving such summonses. They told me that on some occasions, they were booked under circumstances beyond their control, for example, passengers alighting at their whims and fancies but the taxi drivers were fined. Although the passengers are aware of the regulations imposed by LTA on alighting within CBD, they often insist on alighting wherever they want. As the taxi-stand could be too far away from their destination, some even just drop the taxi fare, open the door and get down at the traffic light. The Police then summoned the taxi driver. Under such circumstances, it is really beyond their control. Another problem is that there are not enough waiting lots for taxis at popular taxi stands. When the lots are taken up, the taxi drivers have only two choices: first, is to risk being summoned by the Police; or secondly, to ply their empty taxis in the CBD looking for another taxi stand. This adds on to their burden and it is not environmentally-friendly. Some of these busy taxi stands allow only taxis to let the passengers alight and not to wait for passengers. In this present market downturn, it will make life more difficult for the taxi drivers. I hope that LTA will provide more waiting lots along the curb near the popular taxi stands, so that it will benefit all taxi drivers, and the passengers will also be able to catch the taxi within a shorter waiting time. This is a win-win situation for both.The Senior Minister of State for Transport (Mrs Lim Hwee Hua): Mr Chairman, Sir, Mr Low Thia Khiang has commented on the surge in summons received by the taxi drivers on account of offences committed at taxi stops and taxi stands, whereas Mr Chiam See Tong has requested for more prominent road signs further upstream to alert motorists to ongoing road works. Er Lee Bee Wah has raised several requests to improve the connectivity and accessibility to public transport facilities in her constituency, as well as concessions for polytechnic students. As Minister Raymond Lim has spoken on her last two points, in terms of bus services and polytechnic students, I will not cover these, but will take the rest of the questions in turn. Sir, on the rule to disallow taxis from waiting for passengers at taxi stops or waiting beyond the allocated number of lots at taxi stands, this is really to ensure the safety of all road users. Taxi stands are intended to allow taxis to wait for passengers within the number of taxi lots allocated at each stand without impeding the flow of traffic. This allows both passengers and taxis to queue up in an orderly manner, without blocking the traffic lane. However, where traffic is heavy and due to space constraints, there are no lay-bys and no space for taxis to wait or queue without obstructing traffic, taxi stops would be assigned instead. Taxi stops are, therefore, intended only for the picking up and dropping off of passengers. Thereafter, taxis must move off from the taxi stop immediately. If there are no passengers wishing to board immediately, taxis should not wait at the taxi stop. Taxi drivers who are booked for waiting at taxi stops or queuing beyond the allocated number of lots at the taxi stands will be given a composition fine of $50. There are no demerit points for the offences and repeat offenders will be issued with the same amount of fine. As regards the increase in the number of taxis drivers caught, I would like to inform the House that arising from the greater awareness, the number of taxi drivers caught stopping indiscriminately along the main roads in the CBD area has actually declined by more than 80% since March 2008, from the high of 566 at the point of implementation to about 76 as at January 2009. Let me just recap for the House again why we have this CBD taxi rule. In the CBD where demand for taxis and traffic volume is high, some measure of control is necessary to prevent disruption of traffic, which may be caused by taxis stopping suddenly or changing lanes along public roads in the CBD to pick up or to alight passengers. This is largely a safety issue. There is, however, a trend which could have contributed to the supply and demand issue and, which has exacerbated the situation. The increase in the number of offences can also be attributed to the drop in taxi ridership in 2008, due to the revision of taxi fares that took effect from December 2007, as well as difficult economic conditions in the later part of 2008. So with the supply of taxis exceeding demand, especially during the off-peak periods, there were longer queues of taxis at taxi stands, particularly in the CBD area. And this is despite LTA increasing the number of taxi waiting lots in the CBD by about two times, from 101 to 296. Sir, LTA has to balance the convenience of taxi commuters and taxi drivers against the safety and needs of other road users. Taxis that wait for passengers at taxi stops obstruct the flow of traffic and cause danger to other road users, just like taxis that queue beyond the allocated lots at taxi stands. This is why they are not allowed to do so. Nevertheless, if there are taxi stands where Mr Low feels more taxi lots are needed, I welcome Mr Low to let LTA know where these are, and LTA will be happy to look into his suggestions.Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, in my speech, I requested LTA to look into the feasibility of modifying the roadside kerb near the taxi-stand to form a taxi bay or holding area if there is site constraint at the taxi stand for more taxi parking lots. The Senior Minister of State, in her reply, asked me for suggestions on a particular taxi stand. But, Sir, I am not a taxi-driver although I know one or two taxi stands. I would suggest that LTA do a survey with taxi-drivers or work with taxi-drivers or the Taxi Drivers' Association to look into particular taxi stands where there is a high demand to provide such facilities. The second clarification: I wonder whether LTA, in the name of road safety, has conveniently ignored the plight of taxi-drivers. Has the LTA considered the impact on the taxi-drivers when implementing new measures regulating where the taxis that can stop in town and changing some of the taxi stands to taxi-stops, while some taxi-drivers obviously may not be informed of that. I wonder whether, in Mandarin, it is "na de shi si ji lai kai dao ". The Senior Parliamentary Secretary, Mr Teo Ser Luck, wants to promote Singapore as a cycling nation. I wonder whether he is aware that there may be obstacles to this objective, eg, bicycle thefts. I think the Police generally may not be interested in bicycle thefts. I would like to ask him whether LTA would consider providing anti-theft bicycle rack at MRT stations.The Chairman: There are at least six Members who want to raise clarifications. Can I ask that clarifications be kept short? Mrs Lim. The Senior Minister of State for Transport (Mrs Lim Hwee Hua): Sir, I would like to assure the Member that LTA in deciding on the locations of the different taxi-stops and stands, has been working very closely with the taxi-drivers as well as the Associations. But as the situation is fluid and travel patterns change, LTA will continue to monitor the situation and decide if certain locations should be changed. I would like to assure the Member that LTA is not going through an experimental process in terms of trying to have the taxi-drivers test the different propositions. In his cut earlier, he did mention that some taxi drivers are at the mercy of passengers who asked to alight at the places that are prohibited. I would like to assure him that in enforcing the rules, compassion is expected and the benefit of doubt will be given to the taxi-drivers where such situations arise. ..Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, I know the Minister has explained the effect of ERP. On the ground, people do not seem to be convinced of the effect of ERP. They will still complain that even you pay for ERP, you will still end up in a jam. Would he like to clarify that?Mr Raymond Lim Siang Keat: If you look at, say, the Straits Times Survey conducted in October last year - the percentage of people who said that the changes to the ERP have led to smoother traffic has actually picked up compared to the year before. So, I am not sure what survey the Member is referring to, or what evidence, or it is just hearsay. If it is hearsay, then I say please, have a care because it might not be really reflective or representative of the policy impact. Recognising Crime Victims' RightsMs Sylvia Lim (Non-Constituency Member): Sir, many countries now recognise that the criminal justice system focuses too much on the offender and how he should be punished. By contrast, the victim is a pawn in the process. He is to cooperate with the State to participate in Police investigations and later to give evidence in court. He often gets no compensation for losses, pays for his own medical treatment and suffers inconvenience during case processing. To address this, the United Nations, in 1985, adopted the declaration of basic principles of justice for victims of crimes and use of power. Countries such as the United Kingdom and Australia, amongst others, have since changed their domestic laws in line with this declaration. There has also been growth in victim studies and victimology movements, not only in the western world but also in Asian countries like Japan. The focus of these efforts is towards giving the victim more voice in the case process and some redress for the wrongs suffered. Crime victims in Singapore suffer similarly. I believe it is timely to consider how we can ensure that the victims' concerns and rights are systematically addressed. One suggestion is for the Police to routinely ask crime victims if he or she wishes to make a victim personal statement (VPS) which is practised in countries like the United Kingdom. This is not the same as the witness statement where the victim states how the crime took place. Rather, the VPS focuses on the victim, how the crime has affected the victim's life, what safety concerns he or she now has, whether physical or emotional support is needed or whether he or she wishes to be kept informed of the process and important decisions made in the case. Such a statement would then be kept on the file and at the relevant stages of the case, the victim's views can be presented. For example, the victim's fear of the offender causing harm can be surfaced at the bail hearing. Key decisions by prosecution such as reduction of charges should be informed and explained to the victim. As the case proceeds, the sentencing judge can also refer to the statement to assess the seriousness of the offence by looking at the harm suffered by the victim. Sir, currently victims often do not get compensation. The Chief Justice recently called for the courts to re-activate the compensation order provisions to ensure that victims can benefit. To increase the likelihood of such orders being made, the VPS can document exactly what losses have been caused by the offender with some supporting evidence. Their statement can then be easily referred to by the judge to calculate an appropriate sum for an order of compensation from the accused person. Singapore has used victim impact statements for several years but only in a small minority of cases usually where the prosecutors instruct the Police to record them. This is very limited as it does not address victim's concerns early in the case. We should look at how the system can be improved to systematically recognise victims' rights rather than take ad-hoc approaches. I hope the Ministry can seriously study the progress made by other countries in giving victims a better deal under the criminal justice system. Govt Funding on Gamblers Sitting Date: 11 Feb 2009National Council on Problem GamblingMs Sylvia Lim (Non-Constituency Member): Sir, in 2005, Parliament debated the decision of the Government to proceed with casinos in integrated resorts. To assuage concerns about the social ills of excessive gambling, the formation of the National Council on Problem Gambling was announced to advise the Government on these problems, and to initiate preventive programmes, activities and services.In the NCPG's annual reports, we see millions being spent on the media blitz on public education and prevention. Less is known about the funding and preparations to be put in place for a robust counselling network to support problem gamblers. The Ministry has appointed two pilot counselling centres which have already been providing intervention services since September 2006.Last January, the Minister told the House in a written answer that the pilot centres were already facing challenges, as only one third of the problem gamblers completed their treatment. He indicated that NCPG and IMH would work together with an international advisory panel of gambling addiction experts to enhance counselling and treatment for problem gamblers and their families. What progress has been made on this so far? Are there plans to expand beyond the two centres before or after the IRs are opened? And are such counselling programmes to be fully funded by the Government, or will the counselling centres be expected to raise some of the funds themselves?The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (Mr Teo Ser Luck): Sir, the National Council on Problem Gambling has put in place several measures to help problem gamblers and their families, and to raise awareness of problem gambling. Allow me to elaborate in Mandarin.(In Mandarin): Sir, a three-tier help system has been rolled out by the National Council on Problem Gambling. The first tier is the identification of problem gamblers by 'grassroots' organisations like Family Service Centres and Community Development Councils. Officers there have been trained to spot symptoms of problem gambling, and persuade these individuals to seek help.The second line of help is family-based intervention services. The Council has appointed the Thye Hua Kwan Moral Society to provide these services since 2006. These are fully funded by the Government and Thye Hua Kwan does not need to raise funds to provide these services. The first two tiers will cost $3 million over five years.The third tier is psychiatric and medical treatment for those with severe gambling or multiple addictions at the Institute of Mental Health, under the National Addictions Management Service at a cost of $37 million over five years for the treatment of all addictions.Over and above these channels of help, some voluntary welfare organisations and religious groups also help those problem gamblers who turn to them. The Council does not fund them, but assists them by opening up training programmes to them.The Council is preparing to issue Casino Exclusion Orders. This is a key social safeguard under the Casino Control Act. Twenty-nine thousand Third Party Orders will be issued to undischarged bankrupts, and Public Assistance and Special Grant beneficiaries. Families may apply on behalf for their family members to be excluded, and individuals may apply for self-exclusion. More details will be announced later.To raise the awareness of problem gambling, the Council has reached out to over 30,000 heartlanders and workers, and 20,000 students since 2005 through the mass media and ground initiatives.The public education campaign has also been stepped up during the Lunar New Year, through TV advertisements, radio talk shows and a four-part Channel 8 documentary series. This is a time when social gambling is popular, and social gambling may later become the root cause of problem gambling.In total, $3.5 million has been spent on preventive education since 2005. Surveys show that the public awareness of problem gambling has doubled from 32% in 2006 to 61% in 2007. The National Council on Problem Gambling will continue to monitor the effectiveness of the various problem gambling help programmes and public education initiatives, and make adjustments as necessary.(In English): Sir, NCPG started two pilot counselling centres in September 2006 for a two-year period. In the first year of the pilot centres, from September 2006 to 2007, 190 cases were handled at the two pilot centres, and 80 cases or 36% were closed at completion during this period. The other cases had either dropped out or stopped for other reasons.In the second year, which is from October 2007 to September 2008, the centres handled about 285 cases. They completed 206 cases, and of these, 43% were closed due to completion. The remaining cases had either dropped out or stopped for other reasons.In June 2008, the NCPG engaged Dr Jeffrey Marota, a renowned expert in the problem gambling field. He had developed a well-respected gambling services framework in Oregon State, USA. Dr Jeffrey Marota advised NCPG on the framework for counselling and treatment services for problem gamblers in Singapore. Dr Marotta noted that the National Addiction Management Services (NAMS) was starting services in the community through its Community Wellness Centres, the first of which has been established. This was a welcomed move given that addiction treatment is highly complex. He also noted the relatively low case loads of NCPG's two pilot centres, and he advised that we should consolidate.So, following his advice and consultancy, NCPG decided to cease one of its pilot centres and continue only with the Thye Hua Kwan Centre. NCPG would work alongside NAMS as it provides the tertiary tier within a community set-up at the Community Wellness Centres. And the Thye Hua Kwan Centre would also complement the Community Wellness Centres by providing debt counselling as well as family-based counselling. NCPG will continue to monitor, and is now monitoring this revised framework and report on its results and outcomes in due course. Hospital Disinfection Measure, GIC and Temasek, Teaching of Mother Tongue Parliament Sitting: 10 Feb 2009Hospital Disinfection MeasureMr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): Sir, I understand that Singapore currently ranked the sixth best nation in the world for its medical advances and the best in Asia by the World Health Organization. Singapore’s hospitals and medical centers have achieved high marks in clinical indicators that equal and even surpass those in the developed West.However, it is important for us to strive to maintain the high standards and quality of our medical and healthcare services.Recently, I received feedback from my constituent that some patients who were admitted to Tan Tock Seng Hospital (TTSH) was infected by virus in the hospital and died of pneumonia.I would like to ask the Minister for Health was there an unusual increase in the number of patients at TTSH who died of pneumonia?Sir, during March 2005 when SGH first identified VRE, it decided to screen all its inpatients with a view to identify the carriers so that they can be properly isolated. In parallel, SGH staff was reminded to step up good infection control practices such as mandatory hand washing in between patients and stricter compliance of the 2-visitor rule in the hospital.According to statistics, in Year 2007, pneumonia was the 3rd major cause of death after cancer and heart disease.I would like to know how hospitals monitor whether the wards are affected by infectious virus? Are there routine measures that hospitals undertake to ensure that there is no outbreak of infectious virus in the hospitals?The Minister for Health (Mr Khaw Boon Wan): ..Mr Low Thia Khiang asked if there has been an unusual increase in the number of patients who died of pneumonia in Tan Tock Seng. I checked. We did not observe any unusual trend. Tan Tock Seng Hospital recorded about 600 pneumonia deaths every year. Nationwide, as Mr Low noted, pneumonia is our third killer. It is a major cause of death, just like in many other countries, probably all countries. Our national data show that pneumonia death has hovered at around 2,300 every year; it fluctuates a little bit, plus or minus. But by and large about 2,300 every year and it has been so for many years. The reason it is a major killer is because pneumonia is an outcome with many different causes. I mean there could be many other underlying causes and typically patients with stroke, with cancer, with COPD, or who are bedridden for a long time due to other illnesses, they somehow die of pneumonia as the terminal event. Some pneumonia deaths are caused by viral infection and I think SARS outbreak was a dramatic example of that.SARS taught us many lessons and one of which is to remind us to be constantly vigilant. So hospitals have to put in surveillance systems to monitor patients with atypical pneumonia, patients with unexplained fever for more than 72 hours and relevant travel history, and sudden unexplained death cases with acute respiratory symptoms.All hospitals adopt strict infection control protocols; so staff are required to clean their hands regularly and correctly, infectious patients are isolated with regular environmental disinfection. And the hospital infection-control teams carry out regular audits to make sure that the SOPs are being followed.I visit hospitals quite regularly, impromptu, and find that hospital staff requires me to do various hand rubs. I think the procedures are, by and large, in place. But I acknowledge that, globally, hospital-acquired infection is one of the complications, even in the best hospitals, partly because we are talking about human behaviour here. It is not only our staff. It is the patients and also the patients' visitors, and the weakest link will be in the weakest link, and whoever is less than careful, infections just spread. What is important is for us to constantly remind ourselves and try to bring down the rate to as low as we can. To eliminate it to zero, I think no other hospital has done it and I doubt we can ever reach that stage..Ms Sylvia Lim (Non-Constituency Member): Sir, two clarifications for the Minister. The first is relating to my query about the means testing for nursing home subsidies. I think the Minister missed my point about the difference between taking gross pay and net pay. My point was that the net pay is a more accurate reflection of affordability because it tells us how much disposable income the family has actually to pay for the nursing home charges. That was my point with regard to the means testing. I wonder if the Minister would agree with me that that is a more accurate test. The second clarification is that yesterday, the Minister spoke about the nursing home in Johor in a rather positive term, I would say. I would like to clarify whether he is actually suggesting that this should be an option for families in Singapore to consider because I think this would be quite a bad indication of affordability of our own healthcare services here and also a reflection of our national values.Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Sir, I thank Ms Sylvia Lim for seeking the clarifications. No, I did not misunderstand her point about “gross versus net income”. What I said was that we must be consistent. If you want to look at gross income, then you must be consistent in setting threshold criteria based on gross income. But if you prefer to look at net income, then your threshold criteria for means testing should also be based on net income. At the end of the day, we are talking about targeting subsidy, and who do you want to subsidise. In the case of the nursing home, the current rule is we will subsidise the bottom 50% of Singaporeans. You can argue about whether it should be 50%, 60%, or whatever. But that was the policy - we will subsidise 50%. So that will include all the low income plus part of the middle income as well. Having decided that it is the 50th percentile, if you decide to look at the gross income, then, of course, you set the threshold based on the gross income data. Or if you want to look at the net income, you can do so too, in which case, then the threshold criteria will have to be lowered to suit the net income income. For practical reasons, we use gross income because it is harder to get the net income data comprehensively, as there are all sorts of complications. On the other hand, we have more readily available CPF data on gross income data. On the nursing home in Johor, I mentioned it in passing because I made a trip there. Actually my main purpose was to look at the hospital because Members have asked me to consider the possibility of Medisave to be used for hospitals there. I used the opportunity to look at the Iskandar Malaysia region; I have not been to that part of Johor for many years and wanted to see how the development is shaping up there. It was a very pleasant trip. I went by the Tuas Second Link, then from west to east to Pasir Gudang, ended up with a nice seafood and cheap lunch near Pasir Gudang and came back through the new CIQ Checkpoint to our Causeway. At the Iskandar Malaysia region, I also took a look at the site where I heard they have investment from a medical school from England which is coming to set up. I also went to take a look at the Legoland theme park where the land is being prepared. Sorry, for digressing.But many Singaporeans, including many residents in my constituency, go to Johor very regularly, top up their car, which many do, and also to have a nice seafood meal at much cheaper prices. I think these are natural activities, and that is part and parcel of globalisation. In fact, this is not even globalisation; this is regionalisation, and there is nothing wrong with that. Consumers are free to choose. I know many go over to the pharmacy there to get cheaper drugs. It is not our fault. The pharmaceutical companies have a way of setting prices: Third World, they set lower prices; First World, like Singapore, they set higher prices. By allowing the flexibility of consumers walking over the Causeway, they benefit. I do not think we should constrain them from doing so. Our cost will always be higher because our wages are different. Nurses are paid very differently here compared to Johor and ditto for doctors; likewise construction cost.I just want to point out to Singaporeans that there are options like these. In fact, it is already happening. This free flow of patients across borders, so much so that there is a term called "medical tourism". Singaporeans go to Bangkok, I know, for lasik, and vice versa. Americans come here. Russians come here. Singaporeans go to Penang and Malacca. I think we should allow that. In any case, how can we prevent it? We cannot prevent it. But in fact, by keeping the borders "open", it puts some competitive pressure on our local providers which eventually will be good for our own consumers. Because if they price themselves too high, the patients will start going across the Causeway and they lose customers.Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, I have two clarifications for the Minister.Sir, I refer to the Minister's earlier reply on his nice trip to Johor, which I suppose must have inspired him to contemplate new healthcare policies. I would like to ask the Minister is he now suggesting that Singaporeans who cannot afford medical treatment or stepdown care here, should now consider such facilities in Johor?Second clarification: is the Minister outsourcing the Government's responsibility to provide affordable healthcare service to Malaysia now?Mr Khaw Boon Wan: A simple and robust answer is "no". Everybody can afford healthcare in Singapore, whether acute or long-term care. I think this is our pride, our healthcare system, as quoted by Mr Low himself just now, is the best in Asia and the 6th in the world. And I think we have reasons to be proud of our healthcare system. Our doctors, nurses, work very hard. We have thought through carefully about how to bring about this very good outcome - that even if you are unemployed, or low-income group, you can afford a standard of healthcare which is comparable to the US. You look at the 40-50 million American citizens there who just cannot afford to even buy medical insurance, because their insurance rate for a family of four runs into five-digit US dollars per year. Mr Baey, who is familiar with US, nodded his head. This is just for premium, let alone talking about hospital bills. You step into an emergency department in an American hospital, it is triple-digit US dollars. But in Singapore, we make sure that healthcare of good standard is available to all - rich or poor. If you are rich, we will subsidise a little bit less. But if you are poor and if you need to write off your whole bill, we do. That is what the 3M system is all about. Yesterday I spent some time discussing with Members to think about long-term care. It is not a big problem today because we are still a relatively young society. But we will not be. I am already 57 and there are many in my generation. And very soon this Silver tsunami will come but we have 10, 15 years to prepare for this. So Minister Lim Boon Heng is absolutely correct. We have 3Ms which render this very good system that we have today, for acute care; let’s make sure that we have an equivalent for long-term care.So no, I am not saying that if you are poor, I will put you in an ambulance, send you across the Causeway to Johor nursing home. That is not what I said and please do not twist my words. But what I am saying is for those in the middle-income group, you have choices, you are paying out of your own pocket, you decide. Do you want to have a seafood meal in Singapore or you want to have a family reunion in JB, it is up to you, this is your own choice. Do you want to fill your car tank in Singapore or you want to drive across and have a haircut, that is up to you. You are spending your own money. And I am just sharing with Singaporeans that there are alternatives of that kind. But for low-income Singaporeans, we look after and heavily subsidise them. There is no need for them to walk across, because they enjoy a heavy subsidy here. They have to pay unsubsidised rate in JB. It will be more expensive than what they can receive in Singapore. So that is the way we do our systems and I hope to get the Member's support for it as well.GIC and TemasekMs Sylvia Lim (Non-Constituency Member): Sir, in this financial crisis, Singaporeans are naturally concerned about the health of our reserves managed by GIC and Temasek. According to reports, Temasek invested nearly US$6 billion in Merrill Lynch which is now worth about 20% of that. It has large paper losses in StanChart and Barclays. GIC's investment in Citibank of about US$7 billion may now worth also about less than 20%. Last October, the Finance Minister discussed the Government's stance on transparency of GIC and Temasek as follows: "Public disclosures had to be shaped by the SWF's characteristics as long-term investors, with the ability to ride out cycles. A short-term focus on financial disclosures would not shed light on the right areas." However, the Government is the legal trustee of the funds and the ultimate true owner is the people. They deserve to know how this turmoil has affected our national wealth. Can the Government tell us how much paper losses had been incurred? What is the Government's assessment of how this has affected the liquidity of the funds and their ability to take opportunities in a downturn? And, lastly, does the fact that both funds invested so heavily in the financial sector, at the same time, undermine the diversification objectives of our sovereign wealth?Ms Sylvia Lim: Sir, earlier the Senior Minister of State mentioned that the impact of the current turmoil was to reduce the overall portfolio value of Temasek by about 31%, if I heard her correctly. Can she also tell us by how much the GIC overall portfolio has been reduced in the percentage terms, because I did not quite hear that.Mrs Lim Hwee Hua: Sir, I have given that reply to a previous parliamentary question, that GIC has actually registered a significantly lower reduction in value than the World Equity Index which I believe was 41% - let me just clarify that it is actually in the Hansard*. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------*The World Equity Index decline referred to as recorded in Hansard was 42%.The Chairman: You want to clarify it some other time, Mrs Lim?Mrs Lim Hwee Hua: Yes*. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------*The World Equity Index decline referred to as recorded in Hansard was 42%.Teaching of Mother Tongue后港区国会议员，刘程强主席先生，据我所知，教育部2006年开始在25间小学推行新的华文教学课程。2007年起，在全国小一小二班实施新的小学华文课程，这个课程现今已经推行到小五班。教育部是否对实施这一套新的课程做过评估？这一套新的课程达到了什么教育成果？这一套在小学推行的新华文教学法，所注重的是听和说的部分，学生读和写字的能力被视为其次。从小学一年级上半年的华文课本来看，105页厚的课本里，前面的66页用来先教汉语拼音，其中有几篇课文在遇到生字时只标上了汉语拼音，没有把字打印出来。在这样的教学方式下，学生就算学会了字的正确读音，也未必学懂该用那一个华文字才正确。有些教育学者也许认为在小学先学习汉语拼音，减轻学生学习的负担，打好听和说的基础，以后再认字和写字。然而，华文字不是拼音文字，如果读音不和字形同时联合起来学习的话，以后是否能凭读音来认字还是个未知数。另一项华文教学的改革是允许学生在作文考试时使用电子字典。虽然说这是为了进一步减轻学生记忆华文字的负担，但也同时加剧了学生日后使用错别字的可能性。即使用汉语拼音输入法，就算是在旧制的华文课程下同时学习读音和字形的国人也都可能出差错。以汉语拼音为本的教学制度已经出现了一些令人关注的问题。联合早报就曾刊登了一则家长的来信，说读小四全年级最好的华文班在朗读课文时，全班除了她女儿，都把“莱佛士”念成“菜佛士”！在韩国，类似的情况已经使他们陷入了“文化危机”。年轻人普遍不懂得汉字，越来越多“汉字盲”。问题的严重性使到韩国的20位前总理，联名上书现任总统李明博，提出解决危机的建议。虽然韩国的情况和我国不尽相同，但在很大的程度上，问题的症结在于他们的语文教育着重于类似汉语拼音，以拼音为主的表音文字，而忽略了汉字字形的学习。我国目前推行的这一套新华文教学法，把华文文字的字形和字音生生剥开来教，并在小学教育的阶段以学习汉语拼音为主，这样的教育政策是否会在若干年后使我国的学生沦为汉字盲呢？Teaching of Mother Tongue Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang) (In Mandarin ): As far as I know, in 2006, the Ministry of Education started a new curriculum for the teaching of the Chinese Language in 25 selected primary schools. In 2007, this new curriculum was adopted for all Primary One and Two students in Singapore. Now, it has been extended to Primary Four and Five classes. Has the Ministry done any evaluation on this new curriculum and method of teaching, and what kind of educational outcome has been achieved?This new method of teaching in primary schools emphasises the ability to listen and speak, but the ability to read and write was treated as secondary. In the 105-page text book used for first semester in Primary One, the first 66 pages were devoted to the study of phonetisation of the Chinese language - hanyu pinyin. In the first few chapters, whenever a less familiar word is encountered, only the hanyu pinyin is given, but not the actual Chinese character. With this method of teaching, the students may master the pronunciation, but may not necessarily recognise which character is the correct word for it.Some educators believe that the teaching of phonetisation rather than the characters may reduce the burden of learning. First, master the ability to speak and listen, then learn to read and write later. However, the Chinese Language is not composed of phonetic alphabets. If the pronunciation is not studied together with the recognition of the Chinese character itself, the students may not be able to connect the sound to the word.Another reform in this new Chinese Language pedagogy is to allow the students to use an electronic dictionary while taking composition examinations. Although this is one way to reduce the learning burden, this will also lead to the students using the wrong word in the future. Even for those who have learned under the old system where the pronunciation and Chinese character were learnt simultaneously, they would still make mistakes.The use of hanyu pinyin as a basic pedagogy in the teaching of Chinese language has raised concern of its problem, there was an article published on the Lianhe Zaobao, stating that during a reading exercise at the best of the Chinese language class amongst the classes of the Primary four, the whole class, except the daughter of the author, mispronounced the words lai fo shi (Raffles) as cai fo shi.In Korea, a similar situation has landed the people in a cultural crisis. Many young Koreans do not recognise the Han characters. So serious was the problem that 20 former prime ministers collectively sent a letter to President Lee Ming Pok to express their concern. Although the situation there is not entirely the same as ours, the fundamental problem is the same - their language teaching emphasised on phoneticism and the younger generation could not connect the pronunciation to the characters.The implementation of the Chinese language pedagogy of artificially segregating Chinese character and its pronunciation in the learning process by using phoneticism as the main way of teaching may not enable the students to learn the language properly. It will bring about many problems, the future generation of Chinese students here may not be able to recognise the Chinese words as a result.The Senior Minister of State for Education (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): Sir, I would like to reply to Mr Low Thia Khiang in Mandarin, please.(In Mandarin): On the subject of teaching of the Chinese Language, we have made good progress with the implementation of the recommendations by the Chinese Language Curriculum and Pedagogy Review Committee. The approach is to customise learning to meet the varying needs of students, place greater emphasis on developing oracy skills, strengthen the training of the teachers, and work more closely with community groups.One key recommendation was to implement a modular curriculum, as students enter primary schools with varying exposure to the Chinese Language. Results from the pilot implementation have been very positive. Students with little exposure to Chinese and who were placed in the “Bridging Group” had more opportunities to speak during Chinese lessons. This helped to spark keener interest in learning Chinese. The interactive activities have also resulted in a higher level of engagement in the pilot schools. The new Chinese curriculum has been successfully implemented in all schools in 2007 for P1-2s and P3-4s in 2008. This year the new curriculum has been implemented in all schools for P5 students.MOE has also been working closely with our Chinese Language teachers in primary schools, all of whom have undergone a structured training programme. We must continue to find new and innovative ways of teaching Chinese, and equip our Chinese Language teachers with effective and engaging pedagogies to do so. When the Singapore Centre for Chinese Language is established later this year, it will be another avenue to enhance the in-service training for our Chinese Language teachers.We are encouraged to see increasing interest among our primary and secondary students towards learning Chinese. Notably, the percentage of Primary 6 students offering Higher Chinese has increased from 24% in 2004 to 30% in 2008, while the percentage of students offering ‘O’ level Higher Chinese has increased from 19% in 2004 to 27% in 2008.Mr Low Thia Khiang asked about the use of hanyu pinyin and its impact on the reading and writing of Chinese characters. At P1, hanyu pinyin is taught for the first 12-14 weeks. During this stage, students learn hanyu pinyin as a pronunciation tool, in tendem with mastering the recognition of basic characters frequently used by pupils in oral communication. This approach allows characters to be introduced to P1 students gradually. After the first phase of hanyu pinyin learning, students learn to recognise more Chinese characters by reading short passages. In order to prevent an over-reliance on hanyu pinyin, the annotations are progressively removed year by year. Students also practise character writing and sentence-making in P1 and P2, after which they move on to writing paragraphs and short essays at upper primary.It is important that students learn all four skills well - listening, talking, reading and writing.. By teaching hanyu pinyin from Primary 1, we equip our students with a foundational tool, to help them learn proper pronunciation in Mandarin. Our pupils learn Chinese Language through a combination of reading Chinese characters, pronunciation through hanyu pinyin, and the writing of Chinese characters. Learning hanyu pinyin paves the way for our students to learn all four skills well. Hanyu pinyin plays an increasingly important role as a tool for keying in Chinese in the world of computers, electronic dictionaries and the internet. US-Singapore FTA, Tourism, Step Down Care, Funding for Institute of Mental Health Sevices Sitting Date: 9 Feb 2009US-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (Costs and Benefits)Ms Sylvia Lim (Non-Constituency Member): Sir, in October last year, the Business Times reported that Singapore continued to suffer a twin trade deficit in the US in both goods and services. In respect of goods, since 2000, the US exported more goods to us that it imported and the surplus has been increasing year after year. According to US government data, the US trade surplus for the first eight months to 2008 was US$9.5 billion which puts Singapore among the top 10 countries with the largest trade deficit in goods for the US. As for services in favour of the Americans in 2006 and 2007, it was significantly higher than previous years', around US$3-4 plus billion. Is this an indication that the US-Singapore Free Trade Agreement, in its implementation, has favoured the Americans? Have we encountered difficulties penetrating American markets and can we expect the FTA to be in parallel, in view of the current US protectionist sentiments?TourismMr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): Sir, Singapore's reputation as the best destination for tourists' retail experience is under threat. We hear cases of retail shops selling over-priced electronic goods, overcharging tourists or dealing in unfair retail practices or "bait and switch" or misrepresentation. Such poor service appears to be prevalent despite the introduction of Singapore Service Star by the Singapore Tourism Board which seeks to recognise, through accreditation, business that promote good service.Tourists' confidence in Singapore's retail sector can be easily tarnished by a few black sheep and shops that chose to remain outside this scheme.I would like to ask what is the Government's strategy to provide a uniquely Singapore tourists' retail experience in view of the present recalcitrant retail businesses that continuously dished out poor service and bad practices.Next, rapid urbanisation and redevelopment of Singapore have eroded our heritage in the name of development. Take Chinatown, for instance. While it has been preserved for tourists, many of the original trades located in Chinatown had been replaced by touristy shops selling souvenirs and trinkets. Tourists are becoming more sophisticated. They will prefer the experience of the real cultural heritage of a place, as opposed to a copy of it. Thus, our conservation strategy toward places for tourism, should focus on retaining the original trades, business and attractions that are authentic to the place. A Straits Times forum writer shared in his letter on 6th of January 2009 that perhaps the real Chinatown is at Waterloo Street because Chinatown is becoming too touristy to the extent that tourists would want to give it a miss.I would like to ask the Minister what is his strategy to conserve our heritage sites for tourism. How are we preserving our history to provide an authentic cultural and uniquely Singapore experience for tourists as well as for our children?The Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Lim Hng Kiang): Ms Sylvia Lim asked whether the US-Singapore FTA has delivered the expected benefits to Singapore. Let me explain the changing nature of trade between Singapore and the US. Part of the reason why the trade deficit has grown over the years is because a large proportion of goods from Singapore is not exported directly to the US but through China. Because we have gone up the value chain, we are exporting the more value-added components to China; China finishes up the product and sends it to the US. So the trade is still growing but is not reflected in our trade statistics. Traditionally, we have had a deficit in services but, over the years, I think the deficit has grown smaller because Singapore is also becoming more competitive in services. What has benefited us particularly with the US-Singapore FTA is foreign direct investments. The foreign direct investments (FDI) stock from the US has increased from S$37 billion as at end 2003 to S$49 billion as at end 2007. So the FTA has encouraged many more US companies to invest and to re-invest in Singapore.Step Down CareMs Sylvia Lim: Madam, last year I raised the issue of affordability of nursing home care and the means test for Government subsidy. The Minister replied that the means test is reviewed from time to time. As the cost of nursing home care continues to rise, I believe now is the time to look at the financial impact of such charges on families and to review how we can assist them. Currently, Government subsidies for step-down care are means-tested, based on household per capita income. The rate of subsidy is tiered at either 75%, 50% or 25% subsidy depending on per capita income. And for those whose per capita income is more than $1,000, no subsidy is given. Under the current framework, the impact of nursing home bills on families can still be very drastic. I know of one family whose father has dementia and is in a commercial nursing home. The household has four persons. The two adult children together earn about $4,400 in gross pay. According to the means test formula, the family does not qualify for subsidy because the household gross income of $4,400 divided by four members means that the per capita income is $1,100. But the net income which the children have, after deduction of CPF, totals only about $3,500. Each month, they are paying the nursing home fee of about $2,000, which is more than half the household income. The per capita income left for the remaining three family members is about $500 each. Considering that the two adult children need to travel to work daily, is this not a very high burden on the family? One aspect of the means test that is hard to understand is why it is computed based on the gross pay of the household, including the CPF component? After all, under the current policy, CPF balances cannot be withdrawn to pay nursing home charges. Will the Government review the means test to take into account only the net or take home pay, or raise the cut-off incomes for Government subsidies? Earlier the Minister mentioned increased subventions to step-down care institutions of $35 million. I would like him to clarify how much of this amount is going to the nursing homes and whether it is meant to defray expected inflation in wages and operating costs. Or will there be enough money for the homes to reduce the amount payable by the non-affluent families based on the current bill size? And lastly, Madam, what are the options do such families have to take care of their aged sick besides the nursing home care?Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Ms Sylvia Lim asked about the means testing framework for long-term care. The current formula assumes that we subsidise the lower 50% of the population. It therefore includes part of the middle-income group. Whether we use gross income or net income, it does not really matter because if you use gross income, then the threshold criteria must be based on the gross income percentile; if you use net income, then the income threshold will also be based on the net income percentile. So it does not really matter. But the important thing is to be consistent, ie, we cannot use gross income data and then, the threshold is set at net income percentile. With the increased budget that we are pumping into both acute and long-term care, I will expect that money to flow down to the patients to help them during this difficult period. Do not forget that many of these long-term care services are run by charities which also raise their own funds. They would be able to also top-up with whatever that the Ministry of Health routinely supports. But I know that this may be a difficult period to raise money through charities and that is why the Finance Minister has kindly set aside a special budget for both MCYS and the Ministry of Health. With that fund, we will help those charities, who for various reasons this year, are not able to raise enough donation funds to cover their needs. But let me assure Ms Sylvia Lim that we will continue to refine the means testing framework and the assessment process so that it remains fair and relevant for Singaporeans. Second, we need to build up capacity, including new community hospitals, nursing homes and train more skilled manpower. Community hospitals play an important role in helping some patients transit from their acute hospital stay to their return home. Timely and appropriate community hospital care results in lower re-admission rates and improve quality of life for patients especially our elderly. With an ageing population, demand for community hospital services is bound to increase further. We now have six community hospitals with more than 800 beds in total. This includes the new Ren Ci Community Hospital which I visited last month. It is still empty but I expect it to be filled up eventually. Over the next 10 years, we will add more community hospital beds. We estimated the need to add an additional 60%. Our immediate plan, and this is confirmed, is to build two new community hospitals with 200 beds each, one next to Khoo Teck Puat Hospital by 2013 and another next to the being planned Jurong General Hospital by 2016. Our target is to raise the current ratio of one community hospital bed per eight acute beds, to one community hospital bed per five acute hospital beds by 2020. That should be sufficient but we have time to review and update the data.. Funding for Institute of Mental Health Services Ms Sylvia Lim: Madam, the Institute of Mental Health maintains the Woodbridge Hospital Endowment Fund to raise public donations. The purpose of the fund is stated as providing welfare and medical care for needy patients. In explaining the need for public donations, the IMH website states, "Although there is the Medifund, there are some patients from the lower-income group who do not qualify because of the stringent criteria." Examples are given of programmes supported by public donations. For instance, IMH highlights that mental patients need not only medicine but also psycho-therapy sessions. However, noted the hospital, "Some patients do not seek treatment because they cannot afford to pay for this service." It is worrying that IMH needs to ask the public for money to provide essential treatment for its low-income patients. Should the Medifund criteria not be relaxed for mental health services? Lift Upgrading, Library Service Sitting Date: 6 Feb 2009MND - Lift UpgradingBy Low Thia Khiang, MP for HougangSir, I note that prefabricated metal lift shaft is commonly used now instead of ferroconcrete lift shaft under the LUP. The Minister has also mentioned in this house that this change would reduce the total cost of construction arising from faster construction and lesser need for foundation.I would like to request the Minister to provide a detailed breakdown of the cost reduction and how much this translates into savings for the HDB, the Town Council and the residents in terms of dollars and cents.I also would like to know whether metal lift shafts would be the choice for all future LUPs? If that is so, would the use of steel, which by nature is a better conductor of heat, increases the breakdown frequency of the various heat-sensitive mechanical and electronic components of the lifts? This will have implications on maintenance cost.As Town Councils and eventually the residents are responsible for the cost of the maintenance of lifts, are Town Councils given the choice to decide the type of lift shafts they prefer under LUP?Hougang Town Council recently called for a tender to replace 54 numbers of lifts to 26 blocks of flats but MND informed the Town Council to prepare financially for the coming LUP in Hougang Estate. Although the objective of the government is to complete the LUP program by 2014, MND has not informed the Town Council the planned commencement and completion dates for the Hougang LUP.Sir, such information is vital for Hougang Town Council to plan and accommodate works by the HDB so as to avoid wastage of the Town Council’s precious resources. Such wastage of resources was experienced in the ongoing demolition of the HDB blocks at Hougang Avenue 3 and 7, just a mere 7 years after the lifts at these blocks were upgraded at the cost of some $400,000 to $500,000. The HDB refused to reimburse Hougang Town Council the costs for the unexpired cyclical period. Had Hougang Town Council been informed of the plans of the government, the money could have been saved and put to better use...Mr Low Thia Khiang: Thank you, Sir. The Minister of State has not answered my specific question. I would like to know whether the Minister can provide an indication of the scheduled date of the LUP in Hougang. The Hougang Town Council has called a tender for lift upgrading for 54 lifts. We do not know whether to proceed depending on when the LUP will come. Sir, the second clarification is, I would like to know why is HDB not reimbursing the Hougang Town Council the cost of unexpired cyclical periods of lease and other items for the blocks that HDB decides to demolish at Hougang Avenue 7.The third one is on the types of lifts. Will Town Council be given a choice in the LUP to decide what type of lift shafts - whether it is ferroconcrete or metal type? I like to know whether MND has made a study on the implications on using metal lift shafts. The concern is whether it will increase maintenance cost as the heat difference in temperature could cause frequent breakdown of the lift parts.Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Mr Low, I like to basically go back to the answer that I have provided in the original discussion. We will be scheduling to complete LUP by 2014 and if you take a reasonable construction period of, say, about two to three years, it means that we have to make all the selection and announcement probably by 2011 to 2012. That is not many years from now. So it gives you an indication of what is going to come. This applies to Hougang area as well as all the other constituencies as well.On why HDB is not reimbursing the blocks that were torn down. I think the Members was specifically referring to blocks that were affected by redevelopment. HDB/URA will review our land use requirement on a regular basis. We make our decision whether to redevelop or conserve areas accrording to market requirement. Will we be able to tell them seven years in advance that there is a market redevelopment plan? I do not think we can do so. As it is, I think it is hard to project seven months in advance, let alone seven years.As to the type of lifts, I would just like to perhaps explain the process that we will take. In the LUP project preparation, HDB will involve the Town Council as well as representatives from the residents, typically from the RC, and we will form a working group. In this working group, we will discuss various options including type of lift, location of new lifts, the number of lifts to install, and so on. And, of course, one important consideration would be the expected cost as a result of this solution. As I mentioned earlier on we have to look at alternative methods of installing the lifts. Primarily, from a cost perpective, we do have a cost cap in order for us not to spend too much on any single block. That, first of all, could be expensive and it is not a wise way to use Government funds. Secondly, Town Council and residents will have at the same time pay equivalent amount of co-payment which is on the high side as well. Taking that into consideration, the discussion that we will take at the working committee will take into consideration the views of the Town Council, residents as well as HDB. If we find that the only way to carry on with the LUP is to use a certain method, we will definitely put forward that as an option to the working committee. The working committee can decide to proceed with the proposed method or they can decide not to proceed. I think that is a prerogative the working committee can take. So let me assure Members that Town Council's view will be solicited and will be taken into consideration in that process. On whether we have studied that implication, I think we have studied it. In fact, before we implement the solution, we have actually tested it out with the prototype in the engineering section in HDB.MICA - Library ServiceBy Low Thia Khiang, MP for HougangMdm Deputy Speaker, $156 million has been allocated to our libraries to expand the nation’s learning capacity through a network of libraries and information resource centres.Recently, I made some online search via the library E-Resources database for articles in Chinese newspapers like Lianhe Zaobao. I encountered some problems during the search and my understanding from the library was that the Factiva limits online search by library members to only a few sources.According to the library, the reason given for this limitation was due to licensing constraints face by the database service provider. As such, not all features of Factiva are available for home online access.I would like to know what are the constraints pertaining to the licensing issue? Can we expect the issue to be resolved soon?Next, the library seems to over service its members who fail to return borrowed books and paid penalties. It was reported that the library will spend some $250,000 to send letters to these members, providing the details of individual borrowers’ accounts, titles of borrowed items, amount of unpaid library fines and fees etc. What about the administrative costs that’s incurred as a result of providing these details?The Finance Minister in his budget speech has said that “We should continue to avoid waste in government spending, and make sure we derive value in every use of taxpayers’ dollars.” I wonder why there is a need to spend $250.000 of tax payers’ money to notify those members who borrow material from the library and fail to return that they will be barred from using library services - would Not just barring these members till they settle all penalty be sufficient?Mdm, the situation of library members borrowing material and failing to return them does not speak well of Singapore as a society. I would like to know how many library members are in arrears of penalty and owed materials to the libraries. I would also like to know whether the library has plans to better manage the problem...Mr Low Thia Khiang: Madam, MOS in his reply say that online search for SPH newspapers are available at the Library premises. But I am referring to internet search. The public is able to search for SPH media online like The Straits Times and Business Times; but not Lianhe Zaobao, I do not know why. Would you like to clarify?RAdm [NS] Lui Tuck Yew: On internet search - Mr Low's questio. We actually have four vendors to aggregate the information from the newspapers, both local and overseas. That is what NLB has contracted with them to do. These vendors are now in negotiation with SPH to put the local newspapers there. Users, when at home and in the Library, I believe, can access these newspapers directly - Lianhe Zaobao website or The Straits Times website, as far as I understand the situation to be. But it is that they cannot not go through these aggregators in order to access the SPH newspapers because this is a commercial issue that is under discussion and negotiation now; so I will not be able to comment a little bit further on how exactly the negotiations are coming along. MAS Fair Dealing Guidelines, Private Security Industry, Prison Violence and Inmate Safety Sitting Date: 5 Feb 2009Budget 2009, Parliamentary SpeechPMO - MAS Fair Dealing GuidelinesBy Low Thia Khiang, MP for HougangChairman Sir, in February 2008, MAS released a consultation paper on proposed Guidelines on Fair Dealing.The proposed Guidelines focus on the role of the board and senior management of financial institutions or FI in leading their companies to deliver fair dealing outcomes to retail consumers.The proposed Guidelines amongst others, seeks to build consumer confidence that FI will put their interests first in the conduct of their business and to offer products and services suitable for the targeted consumer segment as well as to handle consumer complaints promptly and in a consistent manner.As these proposed Guidelines are in line with one of the supervisory objectives of the MAS, I would like to ask the Minister 4 questions.1. We all know that the board and senior management of FI will always put the interest of their company first. They have a duty to ensure their company is well-managed and profitable. Thus, in any dispute with consumers, no FI will readily admit to any wrong doing.The collapse of Lehman Brothers in Sep 2008 and the resulting meltdown of the financial market have made investors of structured products even more skeptical of FI on the issue of fair dealing. In a press release on 2 Oct 2008, MAS stated that it understood the anxiety of many investors and has identified three well-respected independent persons or IPs to oversee the complaints handling and resolution processes of FI for the failed structured products linked to Lehman Brothers.IPs were also tasked to determine whether these internal processes of FI are independent, fair and transparent.My question is, does the minister still believe that the proposed Guidelines on Fair Dealing can be effectively administered by the board and senior management of FI given that MAS has embraced the importance of IPs to assure consumers that they will be given a fair hearing by FI on the issue of mis-selling?2. Would the Guidelines on Fair Dealing for FI be considered complete without the input of consumers? Would MAS consider releasing a consultation paper via groups like the Consumer Association of Singapore or the Securities Investors Association of Singapore for consumers to feedback on their experience with FI over the issue of fair dealing since we have about 10,000 affected investors of failed structured products to date?3. When does MAS intend to implement the Guidelines on Fair Dealing for FI?4. How is MAS going to monitor the compliance of the Guidelines on Fair Dealing by FI? Or is MAS going to consider it job done once the guideline is accepted for implementation by the FIs?Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): Sir, I want to clarify that my concern over the way the Government uses the past reserves is not an indication that I am now supporting the Elected President system. On the contrary, the concern arises because of the way the so-called two-keys system operate. It seems that the two-keys system operates simultaneously at the same time. When the Government's key says "unlock", the other key unlocks automatically. It seems to be like that. I wonder whether the second key has always been there on the safe.Sir, the fact that the Ministry for Finance has to explain in detail in this House on how the reserves are being used, shows that whether there is an elected President or not, the Government still needs to publicly justify the use of the past reserves. I would also like to know how does the President forms his independent opinion on the justification on how the past reserves should be used, when in fact the justification and the presentation of the facts to the President were all done by the Government and the civil servants from the Ministries.Sir, my next clarification is this. The Ministry for Finance has explained the rationale for using past reserves for the two initiatives of Jobs Credit and the Special Risk-Sharing Initiative (SRI). Can I take it that as long as the programmes continue, even into the next financial year, if there is a need, the Government will continue to draw on past reserves for these two initiatives?Sir, The Minister for Finance also quoted the Courts CEO for his support on the GST Credit, instead of reducing GST by 2%. Is he aware that the same CEO has also been quoted as saying that the Jobs Credit Scheme is not of much of use in saving jobs? The Minister also, in his reply, said that the political appointment estimates in the Budget have not been updated. Besides these items which have not been updated, I wonder whether all the other estimates in the Budget have been updated?Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam: Sir, I thank Mr Low Thia Khiang for his questions. His questions on the reserves are, I think, perfunctory. They do not actually take into account what I have just presented to the House, which has explained quite systematically the process by which we obtained the President's approval for this draw on reserves. I would, nevertheless, go through each of his questions.First, was this somehow a simultaneous turning of the keys - when the first key turns, the second key automatically turns. He used the term "automatic". No, it is not. I have explained in detail. I have even explained the chronology of how we went about it, but the chronology is not of the essence. The point is that the President, advised by the CPA, makes an independent and careful judgment on the Government's case. It is independent. At the end of the day, our system has to rely on trust in the individuals who are appointed to their positions - the individual members of the CPA, the Chairman, Mr J Y Pillay and all the other members, Mr Yong Pung How, Mr Lim Chee Onn, the President and the people in Government themselves. This is not a wayang. This is about a Government that, in the exigencies of the circumstances, had to craft, within a short period of time, major measures that were in Singapore's interest. We had to then approach the President and the CPA, provide full information and arguments for why we felt that it was necessary to do this now, what the alternatives were, and what could be the consequences of not acting as boldly and decisively in this crisis. And the CPA had to make their evaluation.How does the President come to agree with the Government? It is not a matter of agreeing because it is the Government's case. It is a matter of agreeing because the President and the CPA assessed the arguments - are they right arguments, are they based on facts, are they based on what is in the interest of Singapore - and they come to their decision. That is all there is to it.The rationale for drawing on reserves for Jobs Credit and the SRI have been set out. I think Mr Low Thia Khiang has asked a very good question - what if we have to continue the same measures next year? We do not yet know if we have to continue the same measures next year, and if we do, whether it will be on the same scale or be of the same scope. If we do have to do so, I would envisage that we will have to go back to the President to make a case for a further draw. It is too early to commit to this now, and certainly too early to say whether the President and the CPA will agree. But this is what we envisage at present, and indeed in our briefing to the President and CPA, we had highlighted this possibility. This is a crisis that may be long drawn out. We are making these moves now, we may have to make more moves in future. The President and the CPA understood and appreciated that. They are not approving a future draw at this point, but they understood that in approving the draw now, there was also a possibility that the Government may have to go back to the President and CPA in a year's time to seek a further draw. I am raising this not because we know we are going to do it or because we are committed to doing it, but this is realistically what the assessment is, and the President and CPA understood that.I have not studied everything that Mr Terry Connor has said. It is a matter of record as to what he actually said of the Jobs Credit. But regardless of what he said on the Jobs Credit, it does not change his position on the GST cut and the merits of the Government's approach to the GST. Neither does it change the fact that the vast majority of businesses, as we have heard in this House related especially by the labour MPs and unionists, feel that the Jobs Credit is going to make a difference to the pace and scale of retrenchment in what is going to be a very difficult year. I am sure we will find individual businesses who have a different opinion, but the weight of opinion in the last two weeks has been very encouraging. This is a scheme that will make a difference.The difference in cost arising from this mis-estimate of budget for political appointees is not very large. But I would say that all the estimates in our Budget Book are exactly what they are - they are all estimates. We got stamp duties completely wrong two years ago because no one expected the property and the stock markets to boom the way they did so suddenly. And that was an error which was repeated by one or two MPs in this debate. That was a large error, but there are lots of smaller errors we make each year because it is not possible to forecast in advance how each item of revenues would turn out, which depends on what is happening in the economy, what is happening in the markets. It depends on lots of factors. So the Budget Book is our best estimates for the year in advance. In this particular instance, it was a case of not having updated the relevant estimates in each of the Ministry's budgets, as distinct from coming out with a wrong forecast. But there are other instances, I am sure, where we will get it wrong. So the Supply Bill contains our best estimates for the year. From time to time, we will be wrong on specific items, and hence the Supplementary Supply Bill.Ms Sylvia Lim (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to seek a clarification from the Finance Minister: In his round up speech, the Finance Minister has still not given the House any idea of roughly how much we still have in our current reserves that justifies the Government to ask the President for a drawdown on the past reserves. In particular, I am wondering if he could clarify, for example, some of the major items of receipts, such as land sales revenue. In the last two years, I think, collectively, it was about $18 billion. And for next year, it is anticipated to be another $8 billion. How is this not factored in? How does this affect the calculation?Secondly, Sir, I would like to clarify the Finance Minister's comments on my proposal to assist the unemployed. First of all, the proposal which I made is targeted at the unemployed person himself and it is not meant to replace schemes that would assist the family as a whole. So it is targeted at the unemployed person who has lost his income. Second, admittedly, my concern was more about the lower-income wage earners rather than the PMET group as such.My next clarification is that even though the Minister went into some detail on how the CDCs and the other agencies are helping with job placement, training, etc, does the Minister agree that in the next six months, the job situation would be quite different from what we have been experiencing previously, and the job search would presumably take much longer, and the anxieties placed on the unemployed person would correspondingly lengthen? In that sense, our experience with the CDCs so far is that in terms of cash assistance and other help, it is actually quite small in terms of the cash amount. And the other assistance which the Minister referred to requires appeal to multiple sources of help. So because of these extraordinary circumstances, what I am asking for is that for the six-month period, which is supposed to be a very bleak period, the Ministry consider giving some assurance to the unemployed person that he can maintain his own subsistence, and also assist him in the job search, because many of them may not be able to afford to spend their time in training and not look for jobs.Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam: On Ms Sylvia Lim's first question about how much accumulated savings we have, first, as I mentioned in the Budget, we have enough accumulated savings to meet the deficits we are incurring, which are the FY2008 and FY2009 deficits. If we add those two together, it comes to a total deficit of $10.8 billion. So that was the size of the bill - $10.8 billion deficit. And I have stated that we have adequate accumulated savings to meet that $10.8 billion deficit.Why is this the case? In FY2007, we made a surplus, as Members know, and the revised estimate was $7.7 billion. In addition to that, over the last three years, FY2006-2008, we have obtained capital receipts of $3.7 billion from our statutory boards. These are the accumulated savings of our statutory boards. If we add $7.7 billion plus $3.7 billion, the total is $11.4 billion, enough to meet the $10.7 billion combined deficit of FY2008 and FY2009.The estimates which Ms Sylvia Lim mentioned for land receipts puzzled me. I think she might have looked at some private sector reports. And there were some figures which I saw in one of the newspapers recently which were really quite puzzling. We certainly do not have $18 billion of land sales receipts in current reserves. The only thing that the Government takes into revenues for its current term are land sales less than ten years, which is a very small amount. The bulk of our land revenues goes to past reserves, as we had, in fact, explained in the House last year. So those numbers are not accurate. They are not in the current reserves.On the Member's second set of questions on unemployment benefits, she was concerned about what the individual himself gets under the scheme, leaving aside what the family gets. I would say, frankly, that we take the perspective of the family as a whole. When an unemployed person goes to the CDC to get benefits, they look at all his problems. That is why in the case of Mr Tay that I highlighted, the youngest child was placed on CFAC - $200 a month. He got utility vouchers as well, things for the family. If a person goes for training, we provide him support. It is not just for his own daily meals and so on, we also help to support the family. So what we provide the individual takes into consideration the needs of the family, and that is a very important part of discretionary assistance. Because if the family is able to support the unemployed family member, then their needs are less and our whole emphasis on relying on the family, including the extended family, to support each other would be undermined if we provide automatic support to an individual in that circumstance. So there is a difference. It is providing the same or more benefits compared to the proposal that the Nominated Member had envisaged - $500 a month. We are providing effectively the same or more but on a discretionary basis, so that we do not undermine the fundamentals of our system of providing assistance, and we do not declassify as a society.MAS - Guidelines for Fair DealingMr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): Sir, in February 2008, MAS released a consultation paper on proposed Guidelines for Fair Dealing. The proposed Guidelines focused on the role of board and senior management of financial institutions (FIs) in leading their companies to deliver fair dealing outcomes to retail consumers. The proposed Guidelines, amongst others, seek to build consumer confidence that the FI will put their interests first in the conduct of their business and to offer product and services suitable for the targetted consumer segment as well as handle consumers' complaints promptly and in a consistent manner. As these proposed Guidelines are in line with one of the supervisory objectives of the MAS, I will like to ask the Minister four questions.One, we all know that the board and senior management of FI will always put the interests of their company first. They have a duty to ensure that their company is well managed and profitable. Thus in any dispute with consumer, no FI will readily admit to any wrongdoing. The collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008 September and the resulting meltdown of the financial markets have made investors of structured products even more sceptical of FIs on the issue of fair dealing. In a press release on 2nd October 2008, MAS stated that it understood the anxiety of many investors and identified three well respected independent persons or IPs to oversee the complaints handling and resolution process of FI for the failed structured product linked to Lehman Brothers. IPs are also tasked to determine whether these internal processes of FIs are independent, fair and transparent. My question is, does the Minister still believe that the proposed Guidelines for Fair Dealing can be effectively administered by the board and senior management of FI given that MAS has embraced the importance of IPs to assure consumers that they will be given a fair hearing by FI on the issue of mis-selling.Second question, Sir, would the Guidelines for Fair Dealing for FIs be considered complete without the input of consumers? Would MAS consider releasing of consultation paper by groups like CASE or the Security Investors Association of Singapore for consumers to feedback on their experience with FI over the issue of fair dealing since we have about 10,000 affected investors of failed structured products to-date?Third Question, when does MAS intend to implement the Guidelines for Fair Dealing for FI?The last question is, how is MAS going to monitor the compliance of the Guidelines for Fair Dealing by financial institutions or is MAS going to consider its job done once the Guideline is accepted for implementation by the FIs?The Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Lim Hng Kiang): ..Mr Low Thia Khiang asked about the guidelines on fair dealing. The MAS put up the guidelines for fair dealing for public consultation and the consultation closed in mid-May 2008. The four specific questions which Mr Low asked, whether we can expect the board and the senior management to change the culture of the financial institutions to one that hoist in fair dealing. What we want to try to do in setting up these guidelines is to inculcate this corporate culture of fair dealing in our financial institutions. For this corporate culture to come about, it needs the support and the driving force of the top management, the board and the senior management. And we believe that this culture is in fact in line with the commercial objectives of the financial institutions. The two are not at odds. So even in the resolution of the recent structured products issue, and the appointment of independent persons, we believe the fair dealing guidelines set out the five fair dealing outcomes that we want to bring about, and these five fair dealing outcomes are still germane and relevant...Mr Low asked whether the input of consumers, such as CASE and SIAS, were incorporated in the guidelines. Indeed, they have been. This document was put up for public consultation which involved industry and all these people. His third question is, when MAS intend to implement this? MAS intends to issue these guidelines towards end-March 2009. And how MAS will monitor compliance? Even though these are guidelines, MAS as the supervisory authority would monitor how the FIs go about discharging the spirit of these guidelines. In some of these outcomes, there are also tangible deliverables say, for example, the third guideline of competent representatives. There are clear standards of what the representatives' qualifications, track records and their competencies require. Also, the fifth outcome of dealing with consumer complaints - there will be proper processes. So MAS would be in a fairly good position to be able to monitor the compliance of the financial institutions even though these are just guidelines.Mr Low Thia Khiang: Thank you, Sir, I have two clarifications. I would like to know how MAS monitors the outcome of the guidelines on the financial institutions offering products and services suitable for the targeted consumer segments.The second clarification is on the structured products resolution which the Minister mentioned in his reply. There was feedback that FIDReC compensation, which was capped at $100,000, is unfair for those who have invested more than $100,000 because they were deprived of a cheaper way of resolution on the issue of mis-selling and compensation; so whether the Minister will consider increasing the scope of FIDReC.Mr Lim Hng Kiang: Mr Chairman, as I mentioned just now, the MAS will issue the guidelines in end March. And as part of its supervisory role, MAS will evaluate the FIs' compliance with these guidelines. Some of these guidelines are in hard form, eg, the qualifications of the representatives, so we can make a very objective and quantitative evaluation. Some are softer, trying to build a culture, so we or MAS will have to make the assessment on a broader basis. And MAS uses several mechanisms, eg, the so-called mystery shopper mechanism whereby members of the public, or MAS officers, will pose as clients and customers, and test the systems of the FIs. So there are several mechanisms to do so.The second question on FIDReC, the limit is actually $50,000. This limit is set, so that cases that go to FIDReC are cases where the claims are smaller. Because if it is a big claim, these ought to go through the court processes. But where both sides agree to raise the limits, FIDReC is more than happy to hear the cases. So if the FI agrees to let FIDReC hear a case beyond $50,000 or if the consumer is prepared to limit the claim only up to $50,000, even though his case may be $100,000 or $150,000, FIDReC will be happy to hear the case.Budget Speech 2008, Parliamentary SpeechMHA – Private Security IndustryBy Sylvia Lim, NCMPIn the last 3 years, much effort has been made by government to uplift standards in the private security industry. Training and licensing requirements under national frameworks were in place since 2005, which has given the public some assurance of baseline skills and knowledge in every security officer. At the agency level, the police regulators have been working with security service providers and conducting audits to check service and operational standards. These audit results are published to motivate agencies to strive for higher standards.These moves have not been universally popular. They have resulted in some service providers regrouping and even dropping out of the industry. However, they are moves in the right direction. As more reliance is being placed on private security to complement our law enforcement officers at major and public events, security officers must be able to handle members of the public, exercise judgment and understand their duties and liabilities. To attract responsible and committed people to the industry, security businesses must be well-run, with good management practices and fair employee benefits.From my dealings with security service providers, many lament that there is still a serious manpower shortage. Although the number of licensed guards has increased significantly, they note that retention in the industry is a big challenge. Their experience is that the attrition rate in the first few months is high, because entry is fairly easy, but the job hours are long and unglamorous, the pay is low.The manpower shortage has resulted in security agencies having difficulty carrying out security jobs which they have secured. At the lower end of the market where margins are low, this has facilitated some dubious practices such as the same guard working consecutive 12-hour shifts. There is anecdotal information of some Malaysians who are doing this and living out of suitcases. How serious is the shortage and what can be done to increase recruitment and retention? After all, this is one industry which will still thrive in the downturn.Although the price of security services has gone up, how far have security officers’ salaries gone up? What can be done to promote good practices to encourage employers to give a fairer deal to employees?Lastly, the annual audit of agencies has been kept optional so far. When the audit first commenced, only one third of agencies opted out but last year 50% opted out. This undermines efforts to upgrade standards and leaves guards exposed to bad management. What is the government’s hesitation to make the audit compulsory?MHA – Prison Violence and Inmate SafetyBy Sylvia Lim, NCMPIt was reported in Nov that a male prisoner who was sharing a cell with 3 others was seriously and sexually assaulted by his cellmates sometime between April and May. He had apparently been punched and kicked until he suffered severe fractures and internal injuries, including to the ribs, liver and breast-bone. The victim had allegedly been sodomised and forced to have oral sex. The injuries were apparently so serious that he had to be warded in hospital for 2 months. The 3 suspects are now facing criminal charges in the Courts.All prisons face inmate management issues but this incident is straight out of prison movies like “The Shawshank Redemption”. The KPIs under MHA (p 132) show that the incidence of assault cases in prisons appears to be increasing somewhat over the last 3 years from 15 to 22 and now 26 cases per 10,000 inmates.What precautions are taken in deciding cell-sharing arrangements? How was it that the incidents continued undetected? What measures are in place to detect and pre-empt serious incidents of this nature? Ms Sylvia Lim: Sir, I have some clarifications, firstly, regarding the private security industry and, secondly, regarding the prisoner incident that I raised earlier.First of all, for the Second Minister, regarding the private security industry. I would like to know whether the Ministry tracks the dropout rate of security officers who have been trained, licensed, and then they fall out of the industry after three months. Because, from my feedback, this is one of the challenges that the security providers face.Secondly, in relation to the prison incident, I heard the Senior Minister of State explain the various precautions taken to ensure that prisoners have recourse to protect themselves and to complain. But from the report of the recent incident, it seems that the incidents occurred over a period of about nine days, and the injuries to the victim were rather serious. And I am just wondering whether after that incident, there was any review taken by the prison authorities as to whether the existing channels of reporting are actually adequate and whether there has been any enhancement to that. Earlier, the Senior Minister of State mentioned that there are panic buttons in the cells. I am just wondering whether there are also other things, eg, closed-circuit TV. Are there guards just stationed outside the cells, if so, why did anybody not hear anything? Has there been any strengthening of the safety measures after that incident?Mr Shanmugam: Sir, I am not aware that the Ministry keeps track of officers who have specifically given up their licences, though, of course, at any given point in time, we have the total number of officers who have been given the licence. But if I am wrong in any way, we will get back to Ms Lim. Budget Speech - Sylvia Lim Sitting Date: 4 Feb 20094 February 2009 2009年财政预算案辩论 - 林瑞莲Budget Speech 2009 - Sylvia Lim议长先生，今年的财政预算总共205亿元。虽然数目庞大，但除了增加消费税补贴和提供一般的回扣以外，并没有任何针对协助被裁员工的计划。随着失业者的增加，政府在未来几个月里如何解决无业者的生活问题令人关注。寻职补贴我相信国人都明白自食其力的重要。而能够自力更生为家人提供更好的生活更是大家所期望的。可是，面对世界经济不景气，公司亏损而被裁员却是无可避免的现实。再加上雇用外来劳工的成本低于雇用新加坡人，新加坡工人被裁退的可能性也相对提高。因此，政府迟早必须面对无业者人数不断上升的问题。虽然政府推出大规模的员工培训计划，也在预算案中提出雇用补贴，希望能减少失业的人数，但也无法阻止企业裁员。因此，我认为政府应该采取适当的临时措施来帮助失业者面对生活的问题。我知道政府一向来视福利制度如洪水猛兽，但在这非常时期，除了培训之外，我认为政府应该考虑为无业者提供经济上的支援， 以协助他们的家庭渡过难关。我建议这个短暂牲的经济援助计划可定名为寻职补贴。申请者必须证明他在积极寻找工作，也不能挑剔所能找到的工作，补贴金为最后离职时薪金的一半，最高顶限为每月500元。经済一复苏就取消这个计划。我希望政府能认真考虑这个建议。Sir,To the average Singaporean, $20.5b is a sum out of this world. Even with that, economists and the government are agreed that this will not take us out of the recession but is aimed at minimising pain and saving jobs.That is the interesting part. How effective will the $20.5b be in minimising pain and saving jobs?Jobs – Saved or Lost?We all hope to save jobs. Whether jobs will be saved, and how many, remains to be seen. But what we know for sure is that jobs will inevitably be lost. The Weekend Business Times (Jan 31 – Feb 1) cover headline was “Business braces for 6 months of deepening gloom”, quoting government data from the Department of Statistics and the EDB (Economic Development Board) across a broad range of industries from retail to hospitality and manufacturing. The next page was a story entitled: “Singapore’s job market shrinks” stating that as at Dec, the number of Singapore residents who were jobless stood at 73,100, which was a 58% jump year-on-year. Looking ahead, by all accounts, the unemployment situation is expected to worsen for the first half of the year.How is the government planning to deal with the ranks of unemployed which will grow in the coming months?Call for a Jobseekers’ AllowanceThe average Singaporean knows no one owes them a living. He or she treasures the self-respect which comes with being able to provide for the family, to strive for a better life. To this day, I still meet low wage earners who refuse to accept tips from customers.Singaporeans are now caught in the global slump. Many have been or will be displaced from their jobs not of their own doing, not out of laziness, but due to factors beyond their control.The consequences of being unemployed are not just economic but social. Unemployment has long been associated with higher crime rates, suicide, alcoholism, child abuse and family breakdown. More family quarrels and marriage breakdown are likely. There may also be inter-generational effects such as not being able to afford children’s education, which will perpetuate the family sinking further into poverty. I have myself seen young people asked by desperate parents to stop studying to work to support the family. This will increase the income divide in our society. If we believe the family is the building block of society, then this will weaken our society as a whole. As a nation, we should all be concerned to avoid this.How does this Budget respond to these risks? Yes, the ideal is to get people back to work, but what if they cannot resume work immediately?One only possible hint of any help for the unemployed comes from SPUR (Skills Programme for Upgrading and Resilience), where an unemployed person can enrol for training and apply for a training allowance of some sort. However, no sum or formula is mentioned on the SPUR website. There is a course fee subsidy, which I assume means they would still need to pay something for the course. Courses will end before the downturn ends. Some unemployed may also fall outside the SPUR net.The ruling party’s aversion to anything akin to unemployment benefits is well-known. However, the problem of having unemployed will remain. Globalisation will continue to test us as jobs are off-shored to cheaper locations. Even if jobs remained here, Singaporeans may lose jobs to foreign workers. While it is right that these unemployed Singaporeans must be upskilled wherever possible, full employment at the national level is unlikely. The government will have to provide a policy response and safety net to these citizens in the medium to long term.As for now, in these extraordinary times, a lifeline should be thrown to the unemployed besides the offer of training. My view is that the government should provide at least a temporary financial assistance programme for jobseekers during this period of global crisis. This can be called a Jobseekers’ Allowance. Since the outlook is bleak in the next 6 months, this scheme could be instituted for 6 months and thereafter extended if the downturn persists. Such temporary assistance could be in the form of a monthly allowance of half the person’s previous salary, subject to a strict cap (say $500 per month, pegged at subsistence plus). To ensure that such assistance is targeted only to those who need it, a means test should be designed to weed out those with significant savings, assets or family income in the same household. To reinforce the work ethic, the applicant will qualify only if he is actively looking for work and has not unreasonably rejected job offers.I believe there is scope for the government to seriously examine such a scheme clearly targeted at those unemployed during this period. In this most trying of times, this will be an important relief to our jobseekers while they continue their job search.Pain – GSTI next move on to the topic of minimising pain.The government has given rebates on various taxes which should be of some help to businesses. However, one of the main causes of pain is still there – GST at 7%.In the run-up to the Budget statement, PM Lee had already made clear that a GST cut was not on the cards. The reason given was that since Singapore was a highly open economy, any stimulation of consumption demand would not be very effective due to high import leakages i.e. we consume imported goods and services, and the benefits of consumption will go to foreign suppliers.However, it has been pointed out by economists like NUS’ Prof Basant Kapur (ST 26/1/09) that to ignore the demand side of the Budget would not be advisable. A few reasons were cited.First, the Singapore Input-Output Tables 2000 (the latest available) showed that the import content of consumption expenditure was only about 34% whereas the domestic value-added content was about 54%. Secondly, consumption domestic demand was particularly important to the SMEs which account for 55% of total employment, and to the wholesale, retail and commerce services sectors. Third, targeted GST credits at the less well-off were unlikely to provide as broad-based a stimulus to consumption as an across-the-board 2% GST reduction.In yesterday’s Straits Times Forum Page, Prof Kapur further notes that GST credits are targeted at only Singapore citizens above 21. Therefore everyone else – Singaporeans below 21, Permanent Residents, foreign labour and tourists do not benefit from the GST Credits. If the GST rate was reduced, everyone would benefit and presumably be more willing to spend. This will provide a more broad-based stimulus to the economy.The effect of GST on the cost of living is significant and real. When the 2% hike in 2007 kicked in, the Consumer Price Index rose by about 1.5% rise. Reducing the GST by 2% would thus lower the overall cost of living for everyone.Is just focusing on a supply-side Budget wise? Looking at the growth forecasts, even after factoring the stimulus accorded by the Budget, the economic growth figures for 2009 are expected at around (-) 2-5 % GDP contraction (ST 24/1/09). This seems to support the argument that the government should have paid attention to the demand side. It is still not too late for the government to cut the GST rate by 2%.Any such cut will cost the government about $1.8b, within the government’s means. In any case, the revenue loss will probably be less if people start consuming more as expected. If needed, the government could reduce additional GST credits given to those who are better off.Use of Past ReservesFinally, the government is asking for Parliament’s approval to use past reserves without information on how much we have in current reserves. We are told that this Package does not need us to dig into the past reserves, yet we are doing it because “it gives us the resources that we need to deal decisively with the current economic crisis and also ensures that we have all the resources we need to respond to the considerable uncertainties that lie ahead. It will allow us full flexibility to respond as the situation requires, and to pre-empt the severe consequences that this crisis could have for our economy and our society”.With due respect to the Minister, that does not tell us very much. How close are we to depleting our current reserves? If things go well, we may not need to have drawn on past reserves at all. Why can’t we go to the President only when we need to draw? Is the approval process very cumbersome? Is the drawdown on past reserves needed because the government has lost money in its investment of current reserves? In my view, some answers are badly needed before a considered decision can be made.Ms Ellen Lee (Sembawang): Sir, a clarification.(In Mandarin ): Just now, Ms Lim said that the Government should consider her suggestion, ie, to set aside a sum of money to subsidise the unemployed or those who are retrenched, with a ceiling of $500. And yesterday, we heard in the debate that Mr Low Thia Khiang was strongly against the Government's decision to draw down on the reserves. We know that this Budget is already a deficit budget, yet Ms Lim is saying that we would have to have this scheme. Then where are we going to get this money? Are we to draw down more from our reserves?Ms Sylvia Lim: Based on my suggestion, the amount prescribed for allowance is a maximum of $500 and it also relates back to the retrenched person's last drawn pay. So, we are talking about any sum between $0 to $500, depending on how much the jobless worker was earning previously. And, secondly, even if we just take a ball-park figure and calculate, assuming that 100,000 people come under this scheme, if you multiply that by six months by $500, you will get a sum of $300 million and that is not even 10% of the Jobs Credit Scheme. As debated yesterday, our position is that there is going to be a considerable amount of wastage at the Jobs Credit Scheme and some of that money is better used in this instance to put it directly into the hands of the people who need it most, rather than to companies which have no intention to retrench anyone. So, I do not think that we are breaking the bank and the Finance Minister has not even told us how much we have in the current reserves. So, this question is something that I do not think I can confirm, - that we need to dig into the past reserves - because there is no basis for me to say that.Mr Yeo Guat Kwang: Sir, is the Member aware that for those people, they can actually turn to CDC or the local CCC for ComCare assistance? And for those who are really desperate to seek new jobs, they can just go to e2i.Ms Sylvia Lim: Sir, I am well aware of that. From what we know from the people who have gone to CDC and so on, the amount of assistance that they may get varies greatly. Some people get $100, $200 or $300 - it depends. So, what we are proposing to the Government is that this scheme be implemented so that the unemployed who are really taking effort to seek jobs, will know that at the very least, there is this either half pay or up to $500 that they will get if they satisfy the criteria. I think the difference here is that there will be much more clarity and those who are at the position of job-risk, there will be a greater assurance for them that, okay, this is what they can get if they need to draw on it, and they can go and apply for it...Dr Fatimah Lateef (Marine Parade): ..The Member Mr Low Thia Khiang yesterday wanted evidence that it will work well as a pilot, as an original. There will be no prior data and no statistics to analyse for now. It may or may not be statistically significant, in terms of saving jobs, we have to see. But to help him see this clearly, let us consider the following hypothetical scenario. Company A has 200 employees with Jobs Credit Scheme at 12% for the first $2,500 per employee per month, this would mean $300 per employee per month saved by the company. Thus, for the 200 employees that Company A has, it would get about $60,000 per month from the Government. This can be used to pay for at least 20 workers if we consider each of them earning about $3,000 per month. This is equivalent to Company A not having to formally pay the salary of about 10% of its workforce as the Government is already doing it. These 20 people could have lost their jobs without the Jobs Credit Scheme. But we will have to monitor the scheme and follow through.Mr Low was also not supportive of the scheme as he said the companies which are doing better will also benefit from the scheme. I asked him - but he is not here - so what? In a crisis as this, everyone and every company will be affected by the tsunami people effect. No matter how deep their pockets are. Anyway, such companies can share their benefits with their employees - sharing bonuses and goodwill during good times and of course taking pay cuts and tightening their belts during tough times. If the Member can come up with something more practical and creative, I am sure everybody will be more than willing to listen to him.Member Sylvia Lim also suggested earlier today by giving out money to retrenched workers. She suggested giving out 50% of their last drawn salary for six months which she said should be ceiling about $500 per month. I am not sure we want to support this, instead of making sure people have jobs like the Jobs Credit Scheme. Because I would also caution the Government against taking on her suggestion, as it may lead us down the slippery slope of unemployment benefits, welfarism and of course something like what we call the dole scheme in the West. So imagine what this would do to our workers, in terms of their mentality and psyche as well.. Low Thia Khiang Budget Speech - Jobs Credit scheme Sitting Date: 3 Feb 20093 February 2009Budget Speech 2009 - Low Thia KhiangPart 1Part 2Part 3Speaker Sir, I welcome the initiatives of Budget 2009 to help viable businesses stay afloat and Singaporean workers stay employed. I also welcome the decision for not using CPF as a tool to cut employers’ cost in this downturn.The Resilience Package of $20.5 billion, though unprecedented in scale in the history of modern Singapore, is not an unusual fiscal response. All over the developed world, economic stimulus plans put forth by the respective governments run into hundreds of billions of dollars, providing tax cuts for individuals and businesses, relief for people who have lost their jobs or homes, and money for infrastructure projects to stimulate domestic demand.What is unusual of our Resilience Package is that the Government will be using our past reserves to fund 2 main components of the package, the Jobs Credit Scheme and Special Risk-Sharing Initiative.Use of Past ReservesThe Government has made the case to the President and the Council of the Presidential Advisers to draw down $4.9 billion of our past reserves to fund the Jobs Credit Scheme and Special Risk-Sharing Initiative.Past reserves are a strategic asset meant for use in times of need, especially when the Government faces financial constraints due to unprecedented circumstances which require the Government to respond in the interest of the nation.Hence, I am surprised that the Government has chosen to set a precedent in asking the president for approval for a draw-down of our past reserves when it has enough savings from the current term of government to fund the entire Resilience Package and the resulting budget deficit which the Finance Minister has estimated at $8.7 billion or 3.5% of our GDP.The Finance Minister in his Budget Speech on 22 January 2009 said that“The Government has sufficient savings built up during this term of government to fund the measures we are taking and the resulting budget deficit. Nevertheless, we have decided instead to fund the two extraordinary measures within the Resilience Package from our past reserves.”I would like to know why the Government is using the reserves to fund the Resilience Package when it has more than enough money in the current reserves to do so. What is wrong with waiting till new initiatives are needed and the current reserves are insufficient to fund them before asking for the use of past reserves?Past reserves are supposed to be protected by a two-key system. The Government holds one key while the President holds the second key but the speed at which this two-key system can unlock the past reserves is too fast for comfort.I would like to know when was the request for the $4.9 billion draw-down made? How long did it take the President to give the in-principle approval? Does the President or the Council of Presidential Advisers know for certain what the Government intends to do with its substantial current reserves before allowing it to draw down on past reserves?The Finance Minister has also stated that this draw-down on reserves is to pre-empt the severe consequences that this economic crisis could have for our economy and society. Can a pre-emptive spending rationale be a compelling reason for the President to unlock the reserves?The unlocking of our reserves, as witnessed by this House in the past 3 to 4 months, is fast becoming like a non-event. Surely Singaporeans deserve to know the full rationale of the draw-down by the Government despite having a healthy kitty.Jobs CreditNext, I would like to touch on the Jobs Credit scheme that is designed to encourage employers to keep their workers on their payroll.The National Wages Council has recommended that companies may implement a wage freeze or wage cut to remain competitive. In addition, workers are already being asked to accept lower bonuses, no-pay leave and shorter work-week. There is also the flexi-wages scheme which the Government has been promoting under the tripartite system for years to enable employers to cut wages of workers during downturn.All these measures are designed to help employers cut costs. The Jobs Credit scheme pays employers a cash grant incentive of 12% of the first $2,500 of the wages of each employee who is on the CPF payroll. The cash grant is payable every quarter beginning March 2009. The scheme seeks to reduce the costs of employing Singaporean workers for businesses during the crisis.The question is, how effective would cash grant of 12% of wages be in times of such uncertainties? When confronted with declining sales and demand, the most logical thing to do for most businesses, especially SMEs, is to cut wages and bonuses. If sales eventually cannot sustain the overhead cost, I doubt a 12% cash grant on wages will help to prevent retrenchment.Sir, between waiting 3 months for a $900 cash rebate from the Government versus saving $7500 immediately by retrenching a worker, which choice does the Government think a struggling employer will make?On the other hand, the Jobs Credit scheme will indirectly favour big companies which may be still profitable and have no intention to retrench workers. The Straits Times article on Budget 2009 published on 24 January reported that Sheng Siong Supermarkets will receive $567,000 a month or $6.8 million a year in cash grant under this scheme. I am sure NTUC Fairprice, with a staff strength of 6,000 and a no-retrenchment policy, will benefit even more. Are we using our reserves to increase the profits of profitable companies in this downturn?To save jobs for Singaporeans, the Government must put in place policies that put Singaporeans first at all times. Opening up the economy here to cheaper foreign labour without first taking good care of our own people will make Singaporeans the first to go in a recession. Isn’t Jobs Credit designed to make Singaporean workers more affordable so that employers will have an incentive to keep them instead of foreigners on their payroll?In the longer term, the Government should contemplate to devise some schemes which will make Singaporean workers more competitive on the job market and incentivize the employers to employ Singaporean workers. The current system of foreign workers quota works when the economic cycle is long with a tight labour market but could be a problem if the future economic trend is one with shorter cycles of ups and downs.Sir, I understand that SMEs account for 6 out of every 10 Singaporean jobs as mentioned by the Finance Minister in his Budget Speech. Many SMEs experience cash-flow difficulties beyond what the Jobs Credit scheme may help. If we were to conduct a poll for SMEs to vote which they would prefer, Jobs Credit or Credit Facility, I believe SMEs will choose the latter.Helping SMEs & Special Risk-Sharing InitiativeApart from enhancing the SME loan schemes in November 2008 by increasing the government’s share of risk to 80% and introducing a Bridging Loan Programme for working capital loans with the Government taking 50% of the risk, there is no new measure in this Budget to help SMEs secure the much needed credit facility to survive in a shrinking economy.The Finance Minister has said that it is too early to assess the effectiveness of the enhancements made to the SME loan schemes last November but time is of essence in this economic down turn. Some businesses may not have enough resources to wait long for the banks to get back to them on their loan applications.Under the Special Risk-Sharing Initiative announced in Budget 2009, the Government will increase its share of risk on the Bridging Loan Programme from 50% last November to 80% now. Can we infer from this increase that the banks are still not lending enough?Sir, if the Government can see the need and urgency to increase its share of risk for the Bridging Loan Programme in a short span of 2 months just to stir the banks from its credit slumber, think about the stress and anxiety SMEs must have endured trying to secure credit lines since the collapse of Lehman Brothers in September 2008.I urge the Government to work fast with the banks to free up the credit market. It was reported in the Straits Times that bank lending fell for second consecutive time in December 2008.This is a fast shrinking economy. It is natural for banks to worry about lending money to companies with weak business models or plans. Then again, would any bank believe a rosy business plan in this economic climate? This is why the Government must come in to resolve the issue. When more SMEs fail, more Singaporeans will be out of job. It is a loss-loss situation for all.Sir, if the banks are still not lending in the coming months, what other measures are there in place to keep credit flowing for SMEs? I believe this is a time for Singapore to get innovative and perhaps even bold in dealing with the credit crunch. The Government must take the lead to unfreeze the credit market if all the prodding on banks yields no tangible results.Supporting FamiliesI will now move on to the budget for supporting families.Out of $20.5 billion in the Budget, $2.6 billion or 12.7% is earmarked to support families. However, this Budget does not extend enough help to retrenched Singaporeans. The new initiative in the budget announcement for Singaporeans who lost their jobs in 2008 or face retrenchment in 2009 is an extension to allow them to pay their income tax in 24 instalments instead of 12. People say death and taxes are the only things certain in life. How true.Sir, that is not a decisive pro-family Budget for an economy that is expecting retrenchment numbers to surpass the 29,000 level of the 1997 Asian financial crisis. Why is the Government not making more provisions in the Budget to help this group of people since it expects retrenchment to escalate after January? Retrenched workers have families to feed too.The Government must be prepared to accept that schemes like Jobs Credit and SPUR may not stave off retrenchment at all. I urge the Government to look into more ways to help retrenched Singaporean workers and their families.Tightening Our BeltsThis economic downturn has affected almost every level of the economy. The Government asks everyone to play a role to ride out this recession. Workers are facing more than just a wage freeze, bonus cut or a wage cut. They are staring down at the prospect of no-pay leave and retrenchment. Belt tightening for workers is inevitable.The Government should take the lead to tighten its belt wherever possible and spend generously and wisely in a focused manner to ride out the recession.I noted that the budget for Political Appointments across all 14 ministries and the Prime Minister Office is reduced by just 1% from $61.8 million in Revised FY2008 to $61.4 million in FY2009 estimates. This does not square with what Minister Teo Chee Hean disclosed in this House that the MR4 salary will drop by 20% compared to 2008.With no change in headcount at each entity, 5 ministries and PMO registered 5% to 12% increase in the Political Appointment budget estimates, 6 ministries remained almost unchanged, 3 ministries registered a 4%, 12% and 29% drop from the revised 2008 budget.Are we sending a mixed signal to the people? How can the Government asks Singaporeans to tighten their belts when it fails to restraint its own salaries estimates?Expenditure estimates for all ministries are revised upward except for 1 ministry, the Ministry of National Development.I can understand why Health, Education, Transport, Community Development and Home Affairs are amongst the top spenders but do we really need to increase the expenditure for Defense by $644 million over FY2008? I would imagine MINDEF would be able to buy more for the same dollar in a world in recession. The expenditure for Defense for 2009 has grown to $11.5 billion, or 26% of total budget allocated for all the ministries.Moving ForwardSir, since the Asian Financial Crisis in 1997, we have seen shorter economic cycles of ups and downs and with each cycle, the workers were the hardest hit. The lifestyle of Singaporeans was also disrupted by the cycles in economy and on top of that, the increases in GST in between the cycles and high food and fuel prices have contributed to increases in cost of living. We only got a short reprieve from anxiety in 2007 and part of 2008 and we sank into a recession again.The Government has now asked employers to think before they retrench workers because it has schemes to help them lessen the burden of keeping Singaporeans employed. Does the Government ever wonder why Singaporean workers are so costly to keep in the first place? Are we really that uncompetitive or has our high cost of living eaten into our competitiveness?In the 2007 Report on Wages in Singapore, it was reported that all occupational groups enjoyed wage gains over the past decade except for the group of cleaners, labourers & related workers whose medium gross wage was almost unchanged.’ To make things worse, the wage differential between the various occupational groups relative to the lowest paid group of workers widened from a decade ago.Sir, 10 years is a long time to get stuck at the bottom of the economic chain. The Work Income Supplement Scheme may have closed the Gini coefficient slightly but we have to ask ourselves what is wrong with our policy planners that despite the emphasis on retraining and upgrading of skills, our lowest paid group of workers cannot enjoy the fruits of our economic growth for 10 long years.I hope that when we get out of this recession this time, this group of workers will not be forgotten again.ConclusionSpeaker Sir, both Japan and China have declared they want to be the first in Asia to get out of this downturn. Being the first country in Asia to slip into recession, Singapore should work towards being among the first to get out of it too.I urge Singaporeans to work together to ride out this economic storm. Looking beyond the gloom and doom, there is a light at the end of the tunnel. The optimistic side of me believes this will not be a long tunnel.Mr Yeo Guat Kwang (Aljunied): Is the hon.Member aware that, with the saving arising from the Jobs Credit Scheme and the stable prospect of the supermarket business , Sheng Siong mentioned that they will open a few more outlets in Singapore. And is the Member aware that each new outlet of such a supermarket, will create and generate new employment of 80 workers? Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): Sir, this is something that is understood. The question is: how many companies, which are profitable, will still be expanding? And those who are profitable, do not need to retrench and the Jobs Credits given to them, will just add to their profits? So, how many new outlets is NTUC Fairprice adding? How many more employees does NTUC Fairprice expect to employ? Or whether NTUC is going to give out some of the Jobs Credits as a form of wage supplement to the workers, or just add to the profit?Mrs Josephine Teo (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Can I have a clarification from the Member, Sir? Is the Member aware of the number of immediate job vacancies available, for example, through the e2i, the Employment and Employability Institute? Does he agree that the Jobs Credit scheme will help reduce joblessness in Singapore and create an incentive for employers to look at Singaporeans first, to hire? Does he not agree that the best support for families is a job for the breadwinner? And so, does he not support the Government for going all out, to save jobs for our workers, including using our past reserves?Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, needless to say, I support the Government's initiative to help Singaporeans stay employed. I make it clear in my speech. But, being a government, when you are spending the past reserves, you have to consider what is the effect of the expenditure, what is your target? I have no problem with the Risk-Initiative Sharing Scheme, neither do I have a problem with the SPUR Programme which I think, does help. But my question is: does Jobs Credit Scheme necessarily achieves the target as it intended? Can we have some figures? If not, then why are we spending past reserves to do something which is not certain?Secondly, as I mentioned in my speech, there will be some companies that will not need the Jobs Credits. They can very well keep their workers, but you are adding to their profits. On the other hand, those small companies or SMEs, with minimum number of staff and with high cost of labour, does the Jobs Credit Scheme really help them? As I mentioned in my speech, compared to waiting three months for a $900 cash rebate, to saving costs of $7,500 immediately if a worker with a salary of $2,500 were to be retrenched, which decision will an employer make in the downturn?The Minister of State, Prime Minister's Office (Mr Heng Chee How): One clarification, Sir. I would like to ask the Member, when he says that the Jobs Credit Scheme is of doubtful effect, does he not also agree that when companies are facing difficulties and they have to cut pay and so on, pay is, in fact, recognised as an important component of costs and that when the Jobs Credit comes forward to subsidize the payroll, that it actually releases the pressure on the company and therefore, reduces the risk of retrenchments and increases the security of jobs for workers.Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, I agree with the principle but the Jobs Credit Scheme does not do the job of really saving the wage costs of the company. Given the current circumstances, it is not so much the costs, but the demand. When the company has no demand, no business, your credit scheme is neither here nor there, the way I look at it. As what I compared, $900 in savings as compared to savings of $7,500 in three months for companies who retrench a worker. How does it work? I do not think it works.Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo: Sir, is the Member aware that Jobs Credit is, actually targeted at Singaporeans. So, organisations - large and small - that hire Singaporeans benefit from that and Singaporeans benefit. And the other point I like the Member to know is, I have spoken to small companies and they have actually said this is an immediate relief for me to actually keep the capability. You are right - they are facing demand challenges. It is tough, but at the same time, having that relief, enables them to tide over and be able to keep the capabilities they would otherwise have not been able to keep because the demand is down. So, yes, it does not solve the entire demand problem, it does not solve the cost problem, but it definitely helps supplement some of it. If the company is really viable, and it is interested in keeping the capability.Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, it does somewhat help certain companies. But my question really is, how effective is it? Why do you need to spend the reserves for something which, to me, is not really effective? I have spoken to some companies as well. They would rather have credit facilities that ease the cash flow going on to the business to keep the employees, rather than having Jobs Credits because at the end of the day, it does not really save money. Yes, it is for Singaporeans, I know. But when you are talking about using the past reserves and expanding Government expenditure, I believe it is prudent for us to look at what we want to achieve, whether the money is well-spent, to achieve the result, or is it something else. Mrs Josephine Teo: Sir, I would like to ask the Member. Is he saying that because the Jobs Credit Scheme has not proven its effectiveness, it is better for us not to have the Jobs Credit Scheme and forget all about it?Mr Low Thia Khiang: Yes, I believe that with the SPUR and other assistance schemes with the credit facility, I think we should be able to keep those viable businesses afloat. We could have used the Jobs Credit Scheme, to help those who are retrenched. I think it is a direct help. Whatever scheme that you have now, be it Jobs Credit or tripartite guidelines - you have read the papers - there are retrenchments. We cannot stave off retrenchments.Mdm Halimah Yacob: Just want to seek clarification from the Member. Whether Member is in fact, saying that it is better to help workers after they are retrenched, instead of having the Jobs Credit Scheme which is meant to help them before they are retrenched. Because I have heard the Member saying that it is better to help them after they are retrenched, but the Jobs Credit is meant to help them before they are retrenched.Second point, Member may not have heard my speech, where I also mentioned about a company, an MNC which compared our position with other companies, and whether the Member agrees that that particular company said that because of Jobs Credit, they would be able to save at least 200 to 300 workers.Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, of course, it is good to pre-empt retrenchment and to help companies not to retrench. But how much does Jobs Credit help? Yes, to some companies, it may be helpful but eventually the effect is limited. It may help companies to keep some workers but some will still be retrenched. If there is no business, there is no demand.Mr Heng Chee How: Clarification, Sir. The Member has said because the Jobs Credit Scheme, in his view, is not going to able to save every job, so it is not worth having. He said that in reply to the clarification from Mrs Josephine Teo. So I would like to ask the Member if companies were to get the credit that they want, is there any guarantee that they will not retrench? There is no guarantee. Therefore, is he also saying to forget about the Risk-Sharing Scheme? Nothing except those that can guarantee you that there will be no retrenchments. Forget about all the other programmes, which we all know are aimed at helping companies survive longer. Mr Low Thia Khiang: What I am saying is that you have to be targeted and to be sure what will really help. I am not saying that you should not help at all. I am doubtful about your Jobs Credit Scheme, how much will it help companies and whether it is justifiable to spend the past reserves to help companies in this way? Eventually, of course, we could say that Singaporeans will benefit because they can stay employed, but the figure is something that is not certain. So, can we better use the limited financial resources we have, by helping workers that are retrenched or other schemes that will be more effective in helping companies to stay afloat.The Minister, Prime Minister's Office (Mr Lim Swee Say): Mr Speaker, Sir, I just want to seek the final clarification from Mr Low Thia Khiang. Am I right to say that if the Workers' Party is in power today, if the Workers' Party is the Government, in this crisis, the Workers' Party, under the leadership of Mr Low Thia Khiang, would not implement the Jobs Credit Scheme. And that between implementing the Jobs Credit Scheme versus having Singaporean workers to take the 9% CPF cut, the Workers' Party would implement a 9% CPF cut rather than to introduce the $4.5 billion Jobs Credit Scheme, to save jobs. I would like to seek that clarification from Mr Low. Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, I thought I made it clear in my speech that I welcome that CPF is not used in this downturn as a tool to cut employers' costs. If the Workers' Party is the government, I would rather use the money, if there is a need to save employers' costs, to pay directly to the CPF accounts of the members for companies which are in difficulty, rather than a Jobs Credit Scheme that give companies, regardless whether they are profitable or not, the payment.Secondly, I also doubt whether it is effective in helping companies cut wages.Mr Lim Swee Say: If the choice is between implementing a $4.5 billion Jobs Credit versus a 9% cut in CPF - it is either you introduce a Jobs Credit or you take the CPF cut - if that is the situation, which option would the Workers' Party go for?Mr Low Thia Khiang: Our position is that we would never cut the CPF. But the question is whether or not, must it be Jobs Credit? Could it be other forms to help employers to cut costs? There may be other forms but, to me, Jobs Credit, as it is, I do not think it is effective...Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): Mr Speaker, Sir, please allow me to speak in Mandarin. (In Mandarin): Just now, Mr Ong said that he supported the drawing down of the reserves. I would like to ask him whether he knows that the Government has the financial capacity to pay for the expenses from its own surpluses instead of drawing down on the past reserves? However, the Government has chosen to drawdown from the past reserves. Just now, Mr Ong told us an episode of abalone noodles. I would like to ask him if he has enough of his own savings to pay for the abalone noodles, would he still use his grandfather's savings for that?Dr Ong Seh Hong (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I know that our Government is now facing a very extraordinary situation that we have to drawdown from the reserves. I know that the Government has surpluses, but yet, they have decided to drawdown on the reserves because this package that the Government is introducing is very different from the traditional Budget. It is a once-off means. Of course, if you just want to draw the reserves to buy abalone noodles, then I would not agree. But, if we can keep the rice-bowls of our workers so that they would not have to resort to eating coarse food, I think, we should at least give them one decent meal. -----------------------------------------------------------------More:Debate over drawdownLively debate over Jobs Credit planMost MPs back Jobs Credit Scheme 11th Parliament: Budget Statement 22 Jan 09 ELEVENTH PARLIAMENT OF SINGAPOREFIRST SESSIONTHURSDAY, 22ND JANUARY, 2009 S'pore Penal Policy, Misselling Of Structured Products (Update), Retrenched And Unemployed Workers, Civil Law & Bankruptcy, GIC & Temasek (Losses) ORDER PAPERMONDAY, 19TH JANUARY, 2009Ms Sylvia Lim: To ask the Senior Minister in relation to investors inLehman-linked structured products who filed their cases with financialinstitutions or Fidrec (a) how many claims have respectively been upheld,rejected, or still pending; and (b) how many cases of investors who do notfit the age or education profile of "vulnerable investor" have had theirclaims upheld.Ms Sylvia Lim: To ask the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) in the last 12months, what is the percentage and number of Singapore citizens,permanent residents and foreigners who lost their jobs at all levels(unskilled to professional levels); (b) what measures has or will theGovernment put in place to induce employers to retain Singaporeans asopposed to foreigners in any downsizing exercise; and (c) whether theGovernment will reduce the number of work passes in the variouscategories issued to foreigners so as to increase the employmentopportunities for Singaporeans.QUESTIONS FOR WRITTEN ANSWERMs Sylvia Lim: To ask the Minister for Finance what is the extent of losses (paper or realised) suffered by Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC) and Temasek Holdings arising from the financial meltdown in the United States in 2008 and the related events worldwide.---------------------------------------------------------------Sitting Date: 19 Jan 2009SINGAPORE'S PENAL POLICY(Review)Ms Sylvia Lim (Non-Constituency Member): Sir, two supplementary questions for the Minister. Sir, I believe that in Mr Hwang's article regarding the statistics which he feels could be useful for our crime debate, he did allude to the fact that the Government was quite opaque when it comes to, for example, the ethnic composition of people in our penal institutions. In fact, in 2007, I filed a parliamentary question asking for this data, and I was told by the Ministry of Home Affairs that the data is kept but they are unable to reveal it publicly. This is actually very different from the practice in the UK where such statistics on the ethnic composition of people in the penal population are published. So, would the Minister not agree that actually we are not that transparent when it comes to data like this?Secondly, in actual fact, we do not really know how much crime there is in Singapore because all our statistics gathered are based on reported crime. I wonder whether the Minister would agree that we could actually gather more statistics on victimisation in the population rather than just to rely on reported crime statistics which may not tell us the dark figure of crime.Mr Shanmugam: Let me take the second question first, which I am having some difficulty understanding. Ms Lim says our statistics is based on reported crime and that may not give the true picture. How would we assess unreported crime in the absence of the agencies knowing exactly what has happened? The agencies can only go on the basis of what is reported to them. And my assumption is that in a place like Singapore where people are well-educated and know their rights, if there is something that troubles them, they will go to the police. In fact, the position has been that they go to the police rather more than they should. So, really, I have difficulty answering that question beyond what Ms Lim has said.As regards her first question as to whether we are quite opaque, I have read Mr Hwang's article and I did not get the impression that he was pointing to any particular statistic as being absent. Let me ask this question in the context of the thesis he put forward. He said that we do not publish adequate statistics and that has prevented a proper penological research. How in the world would publishing details on ethnic composition on aggregated basis help in such penological research? As a matter of common sense, if one wants to do any research, he needs to go down to the ground and get access to the specific prisoners which, obviously, as a matter of confidentiality, prisons cannot publish and make available to the whole world at large. So, it just does not make sense. People do ask to do serious research and that kind of research can only be done by getting access to the prisoners themselves, specific areas to be looked into, and that is usually allowed by the prisons. When a serious researcher makes a request, that request is allowed, and often the prisons do collaborative research with such researchers.Ms Sylvia Lim: Sir, in respect of the Minister's first response, I wonder if the Minister is aware of the crime victimisation surveys that are conducted in countries like the UK and the US where it is well established that members of the public do not report certain kinds of crimes, usually sexual crimes and offences against the person, and this is quite universally established data. I wonder whether he would comment on his assumption that people would seek help in all kinds of crime because the international data shows otherwise.The second point about Mr Hwang's request for statistics - I have his article here actually - the paragraph in question, he says,"One traditional justification for the lack of statistics is that these are sensitive figures which could be interpreted as indicating certain communities might be prone to commit certain crimes. But we cannot put our heads in the sand and hide important social facts which need serious study."I believe what he is saying here is that there should be more transparency about the ethnic composition when it comes to certain kinds of offences.Mr Shanmugam: Sir, may I answer the point on victimisation surveys first. As regards issues of victimisation in the context in which Ms Lim spoke about, we have agencies that intervene in these areas, for example, of minors and sexual offences directed against people who are particularly vulnerable. There are specific Government agencies and departments that deal with it. And even in the absence of reporting, these issues come to light insofar as the agencies have intervened effectively and know about it. But my personal belief, based on what I have read, is that both in Singapore and in other countries, if people keep certain matters away from the government authorities, it is very difficult to access them. That is the point that I was making.Secondly, in a highly urbanised situation like in Singapore, both with our people knowing very substantially their rights and with a number of Ministries involved in actively intervening in the social sphere, from the context of schools and MCYS, we are more likely to know what is happening. And we are likely to have a pretty good idea of what is going on.As regards the point about lack of statistics specifically directed on ethnicity, the point I was making is in the context of doing serious research, what is the topic of research that is being identified, and public availability of data will help. I had earlier made the point if anyone wanted to do a study, eg, on ethnicity and crime, it is not a very difficult issue at all. The number of prisoners by ethnicity would be made available and they can go down and they can do a research study, that is not a problem. That and other kinds of research have been done. These are not matters that are kept private but there is usually little sense in making this generally publicly available. The question here that Ms Lim would have to distinguish is, if she wants the data for purposes of study, it would be made available, and all she has to do is to make a request and go down and conduct her research.But it is an entirely separate question whether these have to be published as a matter of general practice, for example, on the number of prisoners by ethnicity. It sometimes could lead to a misinterpretation of data. Let me give the Member an example. Amnesty International suggested that more foreigners are hung in Singapore compared with locals. A study over five years, if we aggregate the data, shows that about 101 Singaporeans were hung compared to 37 foreigners. But if we broke that down on an annual basis, we could get a misleading interpretation. So, aggregated data, any serious researcher would know, is often not very useful for proper serious research.MISSELLING OF STRUCTURED PRODUCTS BY FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS(Update on investigation by MAS)Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Senior Minister in relation to investors in Lehman-linked structured products who filed their cases with financial institutions or FIDReC (a) how many claims have respectively been upheld, rejected, or still pending; and (b) how many cases of investors who do not fit the age or education profile of "vulnerable investor" have had their claims upheld.The Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Lim Hng Kiang) (for the Senior Minister): ..As a result of the review of individual complaints by FIs, based on the cases decided by the FIs as of 14th January 2009, 58% of complainants will receive full or partial settlement. This comprises 25% of complainants receiving full settlement and 33% receiving partial settlement. Mr Siew Kum Hong has asked out of these offers of settlement how many are for "vulnerable investors". While MAS has asked the FIs to pay particular attention to this priority group of complainants based on some general characteristics, such as age, education and investment experience, a single characteristic such as age or education alone does not determine if an investor will be vulnerable to being mis-sold the products. For instance, someone with little formal education may be a successful businessman. The person may have prior investment experience or could have invested in structured products jointly with, say, a younger family member. Nevertheless, all these cases were carefully reviewed by the FIs using the same assessment framework as for all other complaints. The FIs have told MAS that the outcome from the review process for investors who are elderly with little income, low levels of formal education and little investment experience is that most of them have been offered full or partial settlement. For the few cases among this group who do not receive any offer of settlement, the IPs together with the FIs have informed MAS that they have reviewed these cases and are satisfied that there are good grounds for the FIs' decisions.Overall, this is a fair result. The process has worked as intended. The FIs have been responsible and co-operative in their overall efforts to ensure a fair resolution for affected investors. The independent parties have acknowledged the FIs' efforts in ensuring that the process is fair and rigorous, and that investors' interests are upheld. This reflects well on the way that the FIs involved have responded to the requests from MAS and to their commitment to upholding fair dealing.Let me provide more details on the settlement offers made by the FIs. For DBS High Notes 5, 8% of complainants will receive offers of full settlement, and 16% will receive offers of partial settlement. For the Lehman Minibond Programme Notes which were sold by banks and one finance company, 34% will receive offers of full settlement and 41% will receive offers of partial settlement; for those sold by stockbroking firms, 1% will receive offers of full settlement and 12% will receive offers of partial settlement. As for the Merrill Lynch Jubilee Series 3 LinkEarner Notes sold by stockbroking firms, 2% will receive offers of full settlement and 9% of partial settlement.The differences in the settlement figures reflect the varied target profiles of customers of the various FIs and their different business models. For example, stock broking firms mostly performed the role of executing transactions on instructions from their customers..Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): Sir, I would like to ask the Minister whether FIDReC provides assistance to those complainants who do not understand English or who are not proficient in English?Mr Lim Hng Kiang: I am sure they do. Just like in the courts and adjudication process, the facilities are always there.Ms Sylvia Lim: I have two questions. First, I wonder whether the Minister could answer part (b) of my Question which is, "how many cases of investors who do not fit the age or education profile of "vulnerable investor" have had their claims upheld" which I had filed earlier?My second point is that the Minister is aware that the Hong Kong's Monetary Authority had already issued a list of recommendations for banks and financial institutions to implement to prevent such things from happening again in the interim. And the public is actually noticing that the MAS' review is still pending and seems to be slower than the Hong Kong's Monetary Authority in issuing guidelines. I wonder whether the Minister would like to comment on that.Mr Lim Hng Kiang: As I explained in my response, the process is actually very bottoms-up. The FIs and the IPs look at every case on its own merits. So even though we found it useful to have what we call "vulnerable groups" to make sure that this is given priority in the review, actually, on the ground, every case is looked at. Even those which are not vulnerable are assessed on its own merits and the numbers show that many of them are also given full compensation and partial compensation. It is not meaningful to categorise "non-vulnerable" because, as I have explained in my response, each specific criterion, like age, education or size of investment, does not, in itself determine the merits. It is the overall combination of, first, what is the risk assessment of products versus the risk profile of the person to make sure that there is matching and therefore, there is no inappropriateness in the products sold to the person. Then, in assessing whether it is inappropriate or not, we have to look at the person's ability to make his investment decisions, his education, his track record and the way he has been investing his funds. So it is a holistic assessment of each case.As to Hong Kong's approach versus ours, I know we are similar. There are pros and cons in proceeding in different ways. In Singapore, we have decided that we should do this in a deliberate manner. The fact that we have resolved the 5,000 over cases in a very rigorous and fair manner shows that the process works, whereas, in Hong Kong, the resolution of such cases is still pending.On the second part of the regime itself and the processes, again, MAS believes in doing this in a deliberate manner with proper consultation. As I have mentioned in my response, there are some ideas of what to do and we are putting them up for feedback both to the FIs as well as to the general public. When we have assessed the feedback, then we would make a decision. I think this process serves us well. RETRENCHED AND UNEMPLOYED WORKERSMs Sylvia Lim asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) in the last 12 months, what is the percentage and number of Singapore citizens, permanent residents and foreigners who lost their jobs at all levels (unskilled to professional levels); (b) what measures has or will the Government put in place to induce employers to retain Singaporeans as opposed to foreigners in any downsizing exercise; and (c) whether the Government will reduce the number of work passes in the various categories issued to foreigners so as to increase the employment opportunities for Singaporeans.The Acting Minister for Manpower (Mr Gan Kim Yong) (for the Minister for Manpower): Sir, I think it would be useful for me to provide an update on the employment situation and outlook.The Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) announced earlier this month that it expects the Singapore economy to grow between -2.0% and 1.0% in 2009. The Minister for Trade and Industry has given an update earlier. Consequently, we expect job growth to slow down significantly this year and unemployment to rise. In fact, employment growth has begun to slow down in the second half of 2008 and more so in the fourth quarter. The overall unemployment rate for 2008, which will be released at the end of January, will be higher than the 2.1% in 2007, which was a record low in 10 years.Over the nine-month period, from January to September 2008, a total of 6,418 workers were retrenched. Figures for the 4th quarter of 2008 will only be available at the end of January. Nevertheless, we expect the number of retrenchments to rise significantly in the 4th quarter of 2008. Based on the voluntary notifications provided by companies, about 4,800 workers were retrenched in the 4th quarter of 2008, and another 3,300 could be retrenched over the next few months. These are numbers based on notifications by companies. The actual numbers may be higher and we will know the numbers by the end of January based on our surveys.Out of the 6,418 workers who were retrenched in the first three quarters, about 70% were locals, comprising Singapore citizens (SCs) and permanent residents (PRs). However, many employers release their foreign workers through early termination of contracts rather than retrenching them. The number of redundancies, which is the sum of early terminations and retrenchments, presents a more complete picture of the impact of job losses on locals and foreign workers.Therefore, in terms of redundancies, locals constituted about two-thirds of the 7,478 redundancies in the first three quarters of 2008, while foreigners constituted one-third, roughly the same as the local-foreign proportion in our workforce. Amongst these, 56% of these redundancies came from the Production and Transport Operators, Cleaners & Labourers occupational group, while the Professionals, Managers, Executives and Technicians (PMETs) made up 32%.The number of retrenchments and early termination of contract could increase further over the next few quarters, as more companies restructure their operations to respond to the economic downturn. Close to 30,000 workers were retrenched in 1998 due to the Asian Financial Crisis, and about 26,000 workers were retrenched during the economic downturn in 2001. If our economy contracts sharply this year, it is possible that retrenchments could reach these levels seen in previous recessions.Sectors such as manufacturing and wholesale trade that rely heavily on external demand and regional movement of goods and services, may be more affected. The financial services sector is also likely to see more job losses. However, new jobs will still be generated from certain sectors in the economy, such as construction, healthcare, pharmaceuticals, public administration and the integrated resorts. For example, the integrated resorts are expected to add some 20,000 jobs to the economy over the next one or two years.Mr Ong and Ms Lim have also asked how the Government is helping local workers and whether we can reduce the number of foreign workers to improve the employment opportunities for locals. Sir, we will monitor the situation closely and continue to carefully calibrate companies' access to foreign workers. On the supply side, the Dependency Ratio framework helps to ensure local employment since companies' access to foreign workers is dependent on the number of local workers that they employ. The foreign worker levy, on the other hand, helps to moderate demand for foreign workers. However, even in a downturn, there will still be a need for foreign workers, especially in jobs that Singaporeans are unable or are unwilling to fill, such as those in the Construction sector. Foreign workers help keep companies competitive against global competitors and keep jobs within Singapore. If companies are required to retrench only foreign workers, they may be forced to close down, or move to countries where they can have unlimited access to even cheaper labour; this will result in more job losses and, in turn, affect Singaporeans who work for these companies. This is a lose-lose outcome.What is more effective is to enhance the employability of local workers. This will not only give them an added advantage over foreign workers but will also benefit the companies that employ them. This will be a win-win strategy. For this reason, we institutionalised the Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) Scheme to help the lower income and older workers. The tripartite partners are also working together to save jobs for locals. For example, the tripartite partners rolled out the Skills Programme for Upgrading and Resilience (SPUR) on 1st December 2008 to help companies cut costs and save jobs, as well as to build up our workforce capabilities.SPUR provides enhanced course fee funding and absentee payroll, but these benefits are only for local workers, therefore making it worthwhile for companies and employers to send their local workers for training during the downturn and save cost as well as save jobs at the same time. We recently expanded SPUR to over 800 courses, up from 150 when it was first launched. This means that employers now have more options when sending their local workers for relevant training. With SPUR, companies are encouraged to retain local workers in managing the current downturn and positioning themselves for the economic recovery. As of 15th January 2009, more than 170 companies have committed to tap on SPUR to train nearly 8,000 workers. In addition, another 2,100 locals who are mostly retrenched or unemployed, have signed up at our CET Centres for SPUR programmes.We have also released the Tripartite Guidelines for Managing Excess Manpower on 19th November 2008, to encourage companies to adopt flexible work arrangements to help contain costs and avoid retrenchments. The response has been very encouraging, with over 90 companies already implementing the recommendations in the guidelines.For the retrenched and unemployed, MOM, WDA and the unions have been working closely with companies to help them find suitable jobs. We have enhanced the job matching capabilities of the Career Centres, by building up a comprehensive job bank with jobs sourced from industries, as well as economic agencies such as EDB. Locals who are retrenched or unemployed may also be eligible for training allowance when they enrol for training under SPUR.The upcoming Budget will be an expansionary one, with additional measures to help households and businesses cope with the downturn, as well as to develop our longer term competitiveness and capabilities.The tripartite partners will work together to encourage employers and workers to adopt the tripartite guidelines as well as the NWC guidelines and to make full use of the training support and opportunities available under SPUR. This way, we will be able to ride out this downturn and emerge stronger and more resilient.CIVIL LAW (AMENDMENT) BILLMs Sylvia Lim: Madam, the Bill has two main proposals, first, providing more compensation for death cases and, second, allowing minors to engage in business activities. I refer, first, to clause 4, amending section 21, to increase the bereavement claim from $10,000 to $15,000. Recently, a former student of mine wrote to me about how his brother was recently killed in a car crash. His brother was 20 and not yet a breadwinner. He had been a passenger in a car, driven by an acquaintance, who had crashed it through negligent driving. The young man died on the way to hospital. As usual, in such cases, charges under the Penal Code resulted in fines and a driving ban, leaving his family to wonder if their loved one's life was being trivialised. Thus raising the civil claim amount for bereavement from $10,000 to $15,000 will give such families some comfort. In any case, as mentioned by the Senior Minister of State earlier, the current sum of $10,000 has been unchanged since 1987 and, after 20 years, to raise it to $15,000 is fully justified. Some may even rightfully ask whether this new sum is still too low for the loss of a life.As for clause 5 amending section 22, I support the reasons given to allow dependants to claim loss of expectation of inheritance or savings in line with the modern practice in some other jurisdictions. Now the dependants can claim not just what they in fact receive from the deceased but what they would have expected to receive if the deceased had lived out his life. Such a law will produce a fairer result for dependants even though this might result in more litigation between dependants and insurance companies over whether inheritances or savings were certain or speculative.Finally, Madam, I come to the amendments to allow minors above 18 to enter into contracts and conduct business activities. Under these amendments, the activities include making contracts of all sorts, except for some, eg, they still cannot sell land, they can sue or be sued in their own name for contracts or other commercial activities and they can also act as a director of a company. Bringing the age for such activities down from 21 to 18 is consistent with what has been happening in other countries. It is a clear signal to the public that we expect 18-year-olds to be able to handle such onerous responsibilities, such as being liable for business deals and debts and even managing a company as a director owing fiduciary duties to shareholders in the company. This then brings me to a poser. We already require 18-year-olds to serve National Service and be mobilised to defend Singapore with their lives, if necessary. We are now willing to facilitate 18-year-olds to engage in serious business responsibilities, including managing companies and being liable for debts. Is it not high time too that we considered lowering the voting age to 18 as well? The last time I brought this up in 2007, the former Minister for Law said that voting was a serious matter. But are not these matters we want 18-year-olds to handle now serious as well? We are way behind most countries on voting age and, perhaps, with the new Law Minister, this matter can be revisited.Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: I thank Ms Sylvia Lim for supporting the Bill, including the increase of the bereavement claims from $10,000 to $15,000. As I said in my speech, it can be further amended, if necessary, in the future, by Ministerial Order. We will have to monitor and see whether this sum will remain appropriate over time.I think the main thrust of her speech really is to argue, once again, for the lowering of the age of voting to 18. This, as she has said, is not a new issue for, indeed, Prof. Jayakumar had explained in the House in the COS debate in 2007, almost two years now, as to why, in Singapore, we should keep the age of voting as 18. And, indeed, we also have issued replies in the media on this point. Firstly, in Singapore, the approach we take is not to have a single threshold age of majority for all purposes. Different ages are stipulated for different activities. For example, a person can be charged as an adult when he turns 16. Before that, he is a juvenile in the eyes of the criminal law. Then a person needs to be at least 18 years before he can drive or buy an alcoholic drink or cigarettes. On the other hand, he must be 21 years before he can marry without parental approval, donate a body organ, make an Advance Medical Directive, or a will, or qualify as a member of some professionals such as being a lawyer, public accountant or engineer. In short, there is no single threshold for all these activities.Therefore, the approach that our laws take is a gradual increase in rights and responsibilities leading up to the age of 21, at which stage nearly all the limitations link to age are removed. Even then, a person may generally adopt a child only when he is 25 years old. So, in that sense, there is taking into account the age, and linking the age to the question of maturity of a person before the law says he can do something. This approach, as Prof. Jayakumar had explained in this House, is a pragmatic and, indeed, a sensible one as each activity calls for different considerations, and its significance and impact vary. This approach has worked well for us, and there is no compelling need to change it. Indeed, the common law age of majority, which is pegged at 21 years, continues to apply to activities that involve significant personal responsibility such as the ones I listed earlier, and voting is one such activity.As the House well knows - I am sure Ms Lim well knows this too - we take elections in Singapore very seriously. Hence, unlike many other countries, we make it compulsory. Typically at 21 years, a person would be either working or pursuing tertiary studies. He would be in a better position at that age than at age 18 years to assess the quality of a candidate and his promises as well as form considered views on the national issues at stake. As voting is a very important matter that involves choice and choice that only an individual can make personally, there is a need for a voter to have the necessary maturity to decide for himself or herself. This approach has worked for Singapore.Indeed, it is because we take this differentiated and pragmatic approach of assessing what is the appropriate age for each activity without necessarily linking it with the other restricted activities that the Government can now review and assess the age of contractual capacity objectively. What should be the appropriate age for this particular activity? As I have explained in my Second Reading speech, having considered this issue carefully, having taken into account feedback on the ground, and also the number of young people, who are under 21 now, who approach ACRA asking whether they can do business, we have decided that we should de-link the age of majority and lower it to 18.In short, Madam, this gradual process of progressively increasing rights and responsibilities of an individual up to the age of 21 as the age of majority when nearly all restrictions are removed has worked well for us, and we should keep it.BANKRUPTCY (AMENDMENT) BILLMs Sylvia Lim: Madam, it makes sense to have a pre-bankruptcy scheme to allow someone in debt a last chance to clear his debts. By avoiding bankruptcy and its restrictions, the debtor can continue to be economically productive with a higher probability of clearing his debts.Madam, I have two questions about the Bill. The first question relates to what kind of debtors can qualify for the Debt Repayment Scheme (DRS). The proposed section 65(7) has excluded sole proprietors and partners from the scheme. This means that those from smaller or unincorporated businesses who incurred business debt are not considered suitable. Madam, I think this exclusion will rule out cases of business people who are running their businesses responsibly but have met with some temporary liquidity problems. In the current economic climate especially, these problems could arise from difficulty in collecting payments from customers or clients, or failing to get credit due to credit tightening by lenders. If the scheme is meant to provide some support for those with temporary difficulties who have the potential to return to the black, surely we should consider such people for the DRS. In the Second Reading speech, the Senior Minister of State mentioned that the scheme was restricted to wage earners with regular income. However, even if we were to include sole proprietors and partners in the scheme, each case will have to be assessed by the Official Assignee anyway and a viable plan discussed with creditors as well. If the plan is then deemed to have merits, why not? In any case, if the debtor defaults on the plan, all bets are off, and the bankruptcy proceedings can still be carried on. It seems to me that we may be defeating a real benefit of the scheme if we withhold it from our smaller businesses who are facing real pressures today.Madam, my second question relates to the composition of the Appeal Panel. The proposed section 56Q refers to the Appeal Panel who can decide whether to overrule the Official Assignee's decisions on debt repayment plans. There was public concern raised during the consultation about who would be part of the Panel and whether they were independent. The Ministry's written response was that more details of the Panel would be given in the Bill, but all that the Bill states currently is that the Panel would be appointed by the Minister. Could the Senior Minister of State comment on this?Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Madam Deputy Speaker, first of all, I want to thank both Ms Ellen Lee and Ms Sylvia Lim for supporting the DRS scheme. They have certain concerns. For Ms Lee, it is essentially on travel, and Ms Sylvia Lim raises two points, which I will address later. ..Ms Lim supports the DRS but would like to see the DRS having a wider reach to include debtors, like people in a partnership or sole proprietorship who may be doing business. As I have explained in my speech, a key requirement of the DRS is that there should be a regular stream of income. Do not forget that here we must also consider the creditors' interest. The creditors are, in a sense, forbearing to sue because, indeed, a bankruptcy petition would have been made and then the court looking at all the criteria, if the criteria are satisfied, would send it to the Official Assignee to consider more carefully, get more information to see whether or not the DRS is the best route to take. I think we should have this balanced approach where the creditors would have some assurance that if they proceed with the DRS, they would get a regular income monthly over a certain period of time which may last over five years. As we know, if you are in business, it would be difficult to assure that. Even the most well-meaning of businessmen will have to face situations when their cashflow will be up or down, or they will have other costs that they will have to meet in the course of doing their business. So it is better to keep it focused, targeted and directed at debtors who have a regular income. Indeed, this is one of the key objectives of the Debt Repayment Scheme, which is to keep a debtor or a potential bankrupt in a job. That is how I started my speech, because we know that once he loses the job, it is difficult for him to get back into one, once he has been declared a bankrupt. Indeed, like I have said in my speech, the potential reach of the DRS, even excluding this group, is already very wide, perhaps 800 or 1,000 to start with. I think we should let the OA do his job well in conjunction with these people.Another point she made is on the Appeal Panel. The Appeal Panel will be manned by outsiders who are experienced people, people in the marketplace who are experienced in the field, for example, insolvency practitioners or certified accountants. I think the OA also has plans to invite, for example, former Official Assignees who can come and man this Appeal Panel. So the assurance is that it will be a professional job. It will be manned by people who will know the job well.GIC AND TEMASEK HOLDINGS(Losses)Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Finance what is the extent of losses (paper or realised) suffered by Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC) and Temasek Holdings arising from the financial meltdown in the United States in 2008 and the related events worldwide.Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam:In October 2008, Member of Parliament for Sembawang GRC, Ms Ellen Lee asked a similar question. The challenging situation that global investors faced then remains. As at 31st December 08, the MSCI World (Equities) had declined by 42% in 2008, slightly worse than the 40% decline as at end October 2008. The MSCI (Singapore) fell by 50% over the year. Investments by GIC and Temasek have inevitably been affected, like those of other global investors. However, their overall value has fallen by less than the decline in global equity markets, as they maintain diversified portfolios and had taken precautionary actions early in the crisis to reduce their exposures to the equity markets.Temasek reports the market value of its portfolio in the annual Temasek Review. GIC now reports its long term returns on a moving average basis, which will be updated in the next annual GIC Report.GIC and Temasek's strategies of investing on a diversified basis for the long term, and maintaining sound governance and risk management practices, enable them to ride through market cycles, including severe market declines such as in the current global crisis. These strategies also put them in a position to take advantage of any opportunities that may arise from the current downturn.===============================================ST, 20 Jan 2009Changes help debtors, young entrepreneursWage earners can repay debt monthly; youth can start businesses at 18By Clarissa OonYOUNG entrepreneurs and small-time debtors drawing a regular wage both stand to gain from the amendments to the Civil Law and Bankruptcy Bills passed by Parliament yesterday.To help wage earners repay their loans, instead of being taken to court and made bankrupt, those with debts of up to $100,000 will be given up to five years to settle the debt.Senior Minister of State for Law Ho Peng Kee said the debt repayment scheme seeks a 'win-win outcome' for not just debtors - who have a shot at avoiding the stigma of bankruptcy - but also creditors.As the debtor gets to keep his job and part of his monthly income goes into paying off his debt, this means his creditors get no less than they would have if his assets had been seized as part of insolvency.Under the Civil Law (Amendment) Bill, one can start and run a business from the age of 18 instead of 21, the age at which he is legally considered an adult. This is to promote enterprise and risk-taking among the young. With the change, a minor above age 18 can act as a director of companies, form companies or limited liability partnerships and enter into business contracts, including land leases not exceeding three years.The change prompted Non-Constituency MP Sylvia Lim to revisit the old debate of whether the voting age could be similarly lowered from 21 to 18.In his reply, Associate Professor Ho said the Government's approach is not to have 'a single threshold age for maturity' for all activities. This is 'pragmatic and sensible' as 'each activity calls for different considerations and its significance and impact vary'.For example, a person can be charged as an adult in a criminal court when he turns 16, but needs to be 'at least 18 before he can drive or buy an alcoholic drink or cigarettes'. 'On the other hand, he must be 21 before he can marry without parental approval, donate a body organ (or) make an Advance Medical Directive or a will.'Singapore takes elections very seriously and 'there is need for a voter to have the necessary maturity', he added. A 21-year-old would often be working or pursuing tertiary studies, which would put him in a better position than an 18-year-old to assess election candidates and the national issues at stake.On the Bankruptcy (Amendment) Bill, Ms Ellen Lee (Sembawang GRC) urged the law to make it easier for bankrupts to travel overseas for work, while Ms Lim asked if the debt repayment scheme could be extended to cover sole proprietors and partners of small businesses.Prof Ho clarified that last year, more than 90 per cent of bankrupts had their travel applications approved. The rest were rejected mainly because they could not provide documentary evidence of overseas employment.In response to Ms Lim, he said that the point of considering only wage earners for the scheme is that they would have a regular stream of income that could last five years, whereas 'if you're in business, it will be difficult to ensure that'. The regular income would help assure creditors that they could be repaid on a monthly basis if they proceeded with the scheme.联合早报, 20 Jan 2009政府投资公司及淡马锡 亏损没有环球证券市场严重新加坡政府投资公司（GIC）及淡马锡控股的投资在这次的金融风暴中难免受到冲击，不过它们所蒙受的亏损没有环球证券市场的严重。 　　财政部长尚达曼回答非选区议员林瑞莲的询问时说，截至去年12月31日，摩根士丹利资本国际指数（MSCI）下跌了42％，这比去年10月底的40％稍微严重些。摩根士丹利资本国际新加坡指数去年则猛跌了50％。　　不过，各管理超过1000亿美元资产的新加坡政府投资公司和淡马锡控股，所蒙受的损失比全球市场的少。危机初期时便采取预防措施　　尚达曼说，这是因为它们早在危机初期时便采取预防措施、长期的分散投资方式和健全的风险管理策略，将风险减低。　　他说，有了这些措施，新加坡政府投资公司及淡马锡控股就能在这场金融风暴中，把握危机中的各种时机。 Investments By Govt & Statutory Boards In Lehman-Linked Financial Products, New HDB Flats (Affordability), Employment (Amendment) Bill Sitting Date: 18 Nov 2008INVESTMENTS BY GOVERNMENT AND STATUTORY BOARDS INLEHMAN-LINKED FINANCIAL PRODUCTSMs Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Finance whether Government entities and statutory boards have invested in structured notes linked to Lehman Brothers or similar products and, if so, what is the extent of the investments made and the losses incurred.Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam: Statutory boards keep some surpluses for future capital expenditures and as a buffer against unanticipated spending needs or budget shortfalls. They manage and invest these funds in financial assets to earn an appropriate return within acceptable risk limits, after taking into account their cashflow and liquidity needs. Each statutory board has to ensure that an appropriate investment management structure is in place for proper oversight of its financial investments with prudent risk management.As of 31st October 2008, there were no statutory boards holding Lehman Minibond notes and other credit-linked notes for which early redemption has been triggered, in other words, which have either defaulted or early redemption has been triggered. This includes, besides the Lehman Minibond notes, Merrill Lynch Jubilee Series, DBS High Notes 5, Morgan Stanley Pinnacle Series 9 and 10 Notes. So no statutory boards have had exposure to any of these notes for which there has been early redemption triggered. Four statutory boards had other credit-linked notes in their investment portfolio which are unrelated to what I have just described.None of the underlying entities and assets referenced to by these credit-linked notes have defaulted or had early redemption triggered. On a marked-to-market basis, these credit-linked notes held by the four statutory boards had not performed very differently from the performance of global market generally this year. The four statutory boards are nevertheless monitoring the situation on all their investments, not just this small amount of credit-linked notes but all their investments, and will take the necessary steps to minimise any losses on these investments... NEW HDB FLATS(Affordability)Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): Sir, based on the Minister's answer, would the Minister clarify that for first-time buyers who bought a flat directly from HDB, they may also suffer a loss when the market is down?So, if that is the case, what is the subsidy that the Minister is talking about? For instance, a first-time flat buyer who bought a flat at $600,000 with a subsidy of $30,000 from HDB, when the market is down, the flat may be only worth $400,000. So, where and what is the subsidy?Mr Mah Bow Tan: Sir, the HDB market, like the private property market, will go through ups-and-downs in the short term. Property cycles are well known in the property market and HDB flats, if they are resold on the resale market, have to follow these property cycles.The Member asked, where is the subsidy? As I have explained, when the Government sells a $600,000 value flat at, say, $500,000, that is a subsidy of $100,000. If it sells a $400,000 flat at $300,000, that is another $100,000 subsidy. It does not mean that the $600,000 flat will always be priced at $600,000. In the short term, there may be fluctuations. But in the long run, as Singapore's economy grows, and the Government continues to maintain a stable property market and pumps in money to upgrade the HDB estates, the HDB flat value will go up over time. The HDB flat is not a short term speculative investment which people buy today and then sell, say, in five years' time when the minimum occupation period is up.It is meant as a long-term store of value. And as a long-term store of value, I have every confidence that the HDB flat price will go up over time as Singapore's economy grows. That is the reason why the Government subsidises HDB flats, so that people can have a stake in this growth in Singapore's economy. The subsidy is what will help Singaporeans to buy their first flat. Whether you are a $1,000 household income or a $8,000 household income, you will be able to afford a flat commensurate with your income. That is the first starting point. Then you will find that, over time, the value of your flat will grow. And, hopefully, when you retire, you will have this substantial store of value.This is not just rhetoric, this has been proven. The store of value today collectively for all HDB flats is well over $100,000, and this is the value which they are able to cash out on when they retire one day.It is a real subsidy that we are talking about. It is not a paper subsidy. It is a very real subsidy that all Singaporeans enjoy when they buy a HDB flat.Mr Low Thia Khiang : I have two supplementary questions for the Minister. The Minister said that the HDB flat, in long term, will sure to appreciate. I would like to ask him, what is the "long term" that he is referring to - five years, 10 years or 20 years?Sir, second clarification: the Minister said that these are real subsidies, so I would like to ask the Minister what does he mean by "real". Real subsidy, to me, means that you can really benefit when you sell the flat. In the case where a first-timer who bought a flat from HDB, got a subsidy from the Government and he sold it five years later at a loss, he actually did not get any subsidy in real terms from the Government. So how is it "real" and what does he mean by "real"?Mr Mah Bow Tan: I think I have already answered the second question. The subsidy is the subsidy given as at that point in time. It is the difference between the market price and what he actually paid for it. If Mr Low goes and buys himself a flat from the private market - I do not know what he would like to buy - let us say a condominium somewhere in Hougang and it is worth $1 million, and the developer tells him, "For you, Mr Low, because you are the MP in this area and you have done such a good job, I will sell it to you for $900,000", do you not agree that that is a $100,000 subsidy? If subsequently that $1 million flat goes down to $800,000, does it mean that the subsidy of $100,000 has disappeared? Surely not. He was given a subsidy as at that point in time because that was the difference between the market price and what he paid for it. That is a real subsidy; he saved $100,000. So to say that it is not a real subsidy, I think he is just trying to make a political point. I understand. [Interruption ] Let me finish answering his first question. The first question is: what is long term? I think it is very difficult to determine what is long term. It depends on each individual family circumstances. But my advice to flat buyers is always: if you buy a flat suitable for your family, stay in it for the long run. Have your children there, see them grow up and even, preferably, retire there. And this is what majority of HDB flat buyers do. The phenomenon that we saw in recent years, or at least in the 90s or early 2000, where people bought and sold flats very frequently, I think those days should not come back. People should buy a flat that they can afford. If their family circumstances improve and they want to upgrade, by all means. Upgrade if they can afford to do so. But please consider your flat as a long-term investment and also a long-term place for you to raise your children and to retire in, not for you to go and buy and then sell five years later, and then after that, buy again five years later. That is not the purpose or the objective of the public housing programme.Mr Speaker: Dr Faishal, last question. [Interruptions ] Mr Low, we have dwelt on this question too long enough. Unless it is a different line of questioning, you will get the same answer.Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, I think it is a clarification.Mr Speaker: Carry on.Mr Low Thia Khiang: Thank you, Sir. If the Minister says this is a subsidy, then, perhaps, there is no need for HDB subsidy. What one needs to do is to buy a flat at a lower market price, and when the market goes up, he makes a gain, and that is subsidy. So there is no need for Government subsidy. Is it real subsidy?Mr Mah Bow Tan: Just for the Member's information, if he were to go and buy a HDB flat in the resale market at any time, whether the market is up or down, I will still give him a subsidy. That is a real subsidy. If you want to buy a flat near your parents, I will give you $40,000; otherwise, I will give you $30,000, over and above the price that you are paying in the resale market. So, as in the resale market where we have the CPF Housing Grant, which is a real subsidy, in the same way, when you buy a new flat, we are also giving you a subsidy, which is also a real subsidy.EMPLOYMENT (AMENDMENT) BILLParliamentary Speech on Employment Act - Low Thia KhiangMr Speaker, Sir, for some years, the Workers’ Party had highlighted that the definition of employee in the Employment Act was too restrictive. The current definition before this amendment excluded from the Act those who were holding jobs in confidential, executive or managerial positions, even if their salaries were not high and they needed protection under the Act.We therefore welcome the broadening of the definition of employee to include those in confidential positions. We note that the Bill also includes those in executive or management role with a salary of up to $2,500 for the purpose of Part III on payment of salary. This will allow such employees to claim salary arrears or seek recourse for unfair dismissal through the Ministry of Manpower rather than to sue in court which is costly and most of them cannot afford.However, Sir, I would like the Minister to clarify the scope of clause 13 on working hours for shift workers. Clause 13 proposes to insert a new subsection 40(2A) to provide that an employee may be required to work longer than 44 hours per week, average of three consecutive weeks, to work on rest days and even to work more than 12 hours a day. The situation where this may be allowed will include work essential to the life of the community, defence or security. Sir, I can understand the need for this if a sudden crisis takes place, like where there are mass casualties. Working such prolonged hours on a one-off basis is understandable.However, the section is wide enough to capture a situation of non-emergency where security manpower is deployed for, say, 15 hours on a daily basis. Is this section needed due to manpower shortage? From a human factor’s point of view, is this good for public security? Since employees are now allowed under the new amendment to continuously work for such long hours without adequate rest, in moving this amendment, did the Minister consider the long-term effect on the health of such employees? I also wonder whether this amendment contradicts the concept of work-life balance which the Government has been promoting.Mr Gan Kim Yong: ...Mr Low Thia Khiang raised a concern on clause 13 with regard to working hours of shift workers. I want to clarify that these amendments are for shift workers. For non-shift workers, such provision is already there. We are just harmonising between the shift workers and non-shift workers. I also want to take this opportunity to assure Members that this provision is meant for really emergency, exceptional circumstances. It is not meant for ordinary day-to-day routines. So this will ensure that our workers will continue to have adequate rest...============================================ST, 18 Nov 2008Stat boards' 'paper losses'FOUR statutory boards have invested in credit-linked notes but they are not related to the troubled structured products that have burnt many retail investors here.Those investments have suffered paper losses of about 14 per cent over the past year - relatively modest given the big slides in global stock markets.Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam disclosed this in Parliament on Tuesday, in the wake of Monday's revelation that eight town councils have invested about $16 million in Lehman Minibonds, and the now worthless Merrill Lynch Jubilee Series 3 LinkEarner Notes.The four statutory boards named by Mr Tharman are: the Singapore Civil Service College, Singapore Land Authority (SLA), Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore (IDA) and Professional Engineers Board.Although the minister did not provide the actual amount invested by each organisation, he said that the exposure to the other credit-linked notes as a percentage of statutory boards' total combined investment portfolio was only about 0.05 per cent.Mr Tharman was responding to questions from Non-Constituency MP Sylvia Lim who had asked if statutory boards have invested in risky structured products linked to bankrupt US investment bank Lehman Brothers.In his reply, the minister said that the credit linked notes invested by statutory boards had not suffered major losses and neither have the related underlying assets been redeemed early or suffered any defaults.'On a mark to market basis, these credit-linked notes, held by the four statutory boards have not performed very differently from the performance of global markets generally this year,' he said.'In fact, I can tell you on those credit-linked notes alone, they have suffered a paper loss of 14 per cent in the course of this year.'And 14 per cent, as you know from what's going on with the global markets is not an extraordinary paper loss.'Mr Tharman, however, assured Parliament that the statutory boards will continue to keep a close watch on those investments.Another question came from Nominated MP Siew Kum Hong who wanted to know if those investments were linked to collateralised debt obligations (CDO) or credit default swaps (CDS), which are both complex investment products at the centre of the global credit crunch.'As of 31 Oct 2008, there were no statutory boards holding Lehman Minibond notes and other credit-linked notes for which early redemption has been triggered,' said Mr Tharman.'This includes - besides the Lehman Minibond notes - Merrill Lynch Jubilee Series, DBS High Notes 5, Morgan Stanley Pinnacle Series.'No stat board has had exposure to any of these notes of which an early redemption has been triggered,' the minister told the House.On Mr Siew's query, Mr Tharman said a fifth statutory board - which he did not identify - has financial products other than credit-linked notes, which are linked to CDOs and CDSs.He also explained that all statutory boards keep some surpluses for 'future capital expenditures and as a buffer against unanticipated spending needs or budget shortfalls.''They manage and invest these funds in financial assets to earn an appropriate return within acceptable risk limits, after taking into account their cashflow and liquidity needs,' he added.Statutory boards have to ensure they have appropriate investment management structures for proper oversight of its financial investments with prudent risk management. Mis-Selling Of Structured Products, Energy Market Authority, Opening Of Integrated Resorts ORDER PAPERMONDAY, 17TH NOVEMBER, 2008Ms Sylvia Lim: To ask the Senior Minister (a) whether structured notessimilar to Lehman Brothers products were sold to small retail investors inthe United States and in the same manner as in Singapore through bankbranches; (b) if so, how disgruntled investors are being handled by theAmerican Federal Reserve, compared to Singapore; and (c) if not, whysuch products were allowed for sale to small retail investors in Singaporein such a manner.Ms Sylvia Lim: To ask the Minister for Trade and Industry to what extent thefinancial turmoil in the United States may delay or undermine the openingof the two Integrated Resorts and whether the Government is consideringalternatives if the operators are unable to deliver.Ms Sylvia Lim: To ask the Minister for Finance whether Government entitiesand statutory boards have invested in structured notes linked to LehmanBrothers or similar products and, if so, what is the extent of theinvestments made and the losses incurred.QUESTIONS FOR WRITTEN ANSWERMs Sylvia Lim: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for HomeAffairs with regard to the private security industry (a) whether any changeshave been noted in the demographic profile of security officers (eg age,prior educational qualifications) since the mandatory training and licensingrequirements were imposed; and (b) whether there is a shortage of securitymanpower and, if so, how this is being or will be addressed.Sitting Date: 17 Nov 2008INVESTIGATIONS INTO ALLEGED MIS-SELLING OF STRUCTUREDPRODUCTS BY FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS(Update)Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Senior Minister (a) whether structured notes similar to Lehman Brothers products were sold to small retail investors in the United States and in the same manner as in Singapore through bank branches; (b) if so, how disgruntled investors are being handled by the American Federal Reserve, compared to Singapore; and (c) if not, why such products were allowed for sale to small retail investors in Singapore in such a manner.The Minister for Finance (Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam) (for the Senior Minister): Mr Speaker, Sir, as a member of the MAS’ Board, and in the absence of MAS' Deputy Chairman Mr Lim Hng Kiang, I will be responding to the questions posed to Senior Minister that relate to the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS). With your permission, could I take the first two questions together? Mr Speaker: Yes.Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam: Mr Siew Kum Hong has asked for an update on MAS' investigations into allegations of mis-selling, and also an update on the review of the marketing and sale of structured products. A number of possible cases of mis-selling have been brought to MAS' attention and MAS is following up on them. MAS has confirmed that it has been conducting formal inquiries into allegations of breaches of the law, inadequate internal controls by the financial institutions that sold structured products linked to Lehman Brothers, and poor sales practices by their representatives. MAS will take firm and appropriate regulatory actions where there are breaches of law or regulations by the financial institutions or their representatives. These regulatory actions could include fines, public reprimands and prohibition orders which bar the financial institution or a representative from providing financial advisory service for a specified period of time. MAS' inquiries are progressing, and it will make an announcement on any actions it is taking when they are completed. While MAS considers its current regulatory regime for marketing of investment products as fundamentally sound, it is undertaking a review in light of recent developments not just in Singapore but globally. MAS has announced that the review may include stronger suitability requirements for certain types of products, clearer product labeling and risk rating, and simpler descriptions of the features and risks of products so that they can be more readily understood. In reviewing our current regulatory and supervisory approach, however, MAS intends to be careful not to come up with overly prescriptive rules which may not serve all investors. MAS' approach has allowed Singaporeans a wider choice of investment options to cater to their diverse needs. It is studying the specific refinements that need to be made carefully so that we do not make hasty changes that bring unintended consequences in the future. Furthermore, regulation cannot be the only solution. All stakeholders have a role to play. The Boards and senior management of financial institutions must embed a culture within their institutions of ensuring fair dealing for customers of their institutions. In this regard, MAS has instructed the CEOs of all financial institutions to conduct a thorough review of their financial instutitions' processes and procedures for their sales and marketing activities. Investors too have to play their roles, by reading product disclosures and making the effort to understand the products they purchase. This will reduce the risk of they being sold products which do not meet their needs or which are beyond their ability to absorb in terms of the risks that need to be absorbed. Where there is no mis-selling, investors have to take responsibility for their investment decisions. Mr Siew has also asked for MAS' views on how the financial institutions have been handling the customers' complaints process thus far. MAS has been following up with the financial institutions to ensure that they are handling all investors' complaints - and I repeat - all investors' complaints in accordance with the impartial process that has been set up, and to do so with full urgency and seriousness. This has been communicated at the most senior levels of each of the institutions. MAS receives regular updates from the independent persons who have been appointed to oversee the complaints handling and resolution process in each financial institution. The financial institutions have put in concerted efforts and additional dedicated resources to deal with all complaints. While there were some difficulties at the start, MAS has seen improvements. Some financial institutions have made good progress in the resolution of complaints, and MAS has welcomed this. Others which were lagging earlier have now put in greater effort and resources. MAS is monitoring the progress of all the financial institutions concerned. It expects the financial institutions to deal fairly with all cases, regardless of the background of the investors and whether they were investors that fall within the vulnerable category or otherwise, with a view to reaching fair resolution where there is evidence of mis-selling. Ms Sylvia Lim has asked whether structured notes similar to Lehman Brothers products were sold in the United States and how investor complaints on such products are being handled. Structured notes have been marketed to retail investors in the United States. In fact, recent press articles from the US have indeed highlighted how the recent Lehman Brothers bankruptcy has resulted in investors, both retail and institutional, suffering significant losses on structured notes. Structured notes have also been sold in other countries, including the UK, Australia, Germany, France, Hong Kong and Taiwan. The regulatory regime for investment products in Singapore is not fundamentally different from that in other reputable jurisdictions like the US, UK and Australia. The basic principles are similar - financial institutions and issuers are required to properly disclose key product information; financial advisers and their representatives in the sales and advisory process have responsibilities to abide by, which are set out very clearly in the Financial Advisers Act; the role of investors, in turn, is to ensure they understand the products they invest in and, where there is no mis-seeling, to take responsibility for their investment decisions. In Singapore, financial institutions are required to properly disclose to investors the features and risks of the products they distribute. They and their representatives must have a reasonable basis for recommending investments, taking into consideration the investment objectives, financial situation and needs of the investor. In addition, the MAS has published a set of good practices which financial institutions are encouraged to follow. These are good practices over and above the regulatory requirements which are specified under the law. There is, of course, in place, quite importantly, the MoneySENSE programme - which is a national financial education programme - which aims to enhance the financial literacy and sophistication of investors and to empower them to make informed decisions. Ms Sylvia Lim has also asked about how investor complaints are being looked into in the United States. In relation to the Lehman notes, reports indicate that some investors have approached lawyers to look into pursuing arbitration claims with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) - previously called NASD - which is an industry-based regulatory body. In Singapore, as my colleague Mr Lim Hng Kiang elaborated at some length a month ago in Parliament, MAS has set out a three-step dispute resolution process, including procedures to ensure the fair and impartial handling of complaints by the relevant financial institutions and arbitration of disputes between investors and the financial institutions. MAS has been active in supervising these procedures, and its priority is to ensure that every complaint is dealt with appropriately.Ms Sylvia Lim (Non-Constituency Member): Three supplementary questions. The first question is whether the Minister can confirm that there were certain structured notes sold in Singapore which were actually under a selling restriction of not being allowable for sale to US citizens. Secondly, can the Minister confirm that, under the US law, there are certain structured products which can only be sold to accredited investors, as defined under their Federal law, who are basically sophisticated investors or investors of certain high net worth? The third question is whether the MAS is considering a ban on the sale of structured products to the mass retail market altogether - in other words, setting strict qualifying criteria for investors who wish to buy such products?Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam: I do not have full knowledge of the full landscape of structured products being sold in the United States. But I can say that structured notes similar to what we have seen being sold in Singapore - the Lehman Mini-bonds and other structured notes - are indeed marketed to the retail public in the US, the UK, Germany and some of the other countries that I mentioned. We are not unique in this respect. Again, I do not want to pre-empt MAS' review. I happen to think that it will be a bad idea. And I doubt MAS will want to conclude that all structured products should be banned from the retail public, first, because that is a large universe of products, a whole range of equity-linked notes, some of which are fairly basic notes but with a little kicker based on equity prices, and some of which are more complex. There are notes which are credit-linked notes such as Lehman Minibonds, Pinnacles, and some others, which involve a higher degree of risks because it is linked to default of the referenced entities. So there are varying degrees of complexity and risks. And I think it is very hard to draw a thick black line around what you consider safe, not so safe, and positively risky. It is going to be extremely difficult for the regulator to substitute his judgment for that of the market and the investor.ENERGY MARKET AUTHORITY(Review of tariff-setting mechanism)Ms Sylvia Lim : Sir, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether in EMA's review, it is also considering something like the fuel equalisation fund that the public transport operators maintain to tide over the volatility in fuel prices.Mr Iswaran: If I understand the Member's point correctly, she is drawing the analogy from the transport system where the transport operators put money towards a fund which they then draw upon when there is volatility in the fuel oil price. We have done away with that in the electricity market for a simple reason. The objective is really to have a very competitive market and ensure that price competition, with a transparent pass-through of costs, would serve our interests best. The other thing is if we insist that the electricity generating companies put money towards a fund of this nature, bearing in mind that the cost of fuel is more than half the cost of their total production, they will need a substantial allocation of their capital for this. Then, what we inevitably are doing, is imposing higher cost on them and this cost will be passed through to our consumers as well. So I do not want to preclude any options, but I just want to highlight to the Member that these are the downside risks of doing so. But we welcome any feedback from Members, as well as the general public, in the review process.OPENING OF INTEGRATED RESORTS(Impact of financial turmoil in US)Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Trade and Industry to what extent the financial turmoil in the United States may delay or undermine the opening of the two Integrated Resorts and whether the Government is considering alternatives if the operators are unable to deliver. The Senior Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Mr S Iswaran) (for the Minister for Trade and Industry): Mr Speaker Sir, may I have your permission to take questions 10 and 11 together?Mr Speaker: Yes.Mr Iswaran: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Integrated Resorts are commercial projects which take on the usual business risks and face the vagaries of the market. Consequently, they are likely to face challenges arising from the current economic environment and financial market situation. As a result of the recent financial turmoil in the United States, several US-based companies have been adversely affected by the credit crunch. This has led to concerns about the financial health of the US-based Las Vegas Sands Corporation and any possible impact on its Singapore subsidiary - the Marina Bay Sands Integrated Resort. To address these concerns, Las Vegas Sands Corporation has embarked on a capital raising programme. Members would be aware of Mr Sheldon Adelson, the Chairman of the Las Vegas Sands Corporation, public affirmation of his commitment to the Marina Bay Sands project. We welcome Mr Adelson's strong commitment and look forward to his company doing what is necessary to see through the completion of the Marina Bay Sands project. The Singapore Tourism Board remains in dialogue with Marina Bay Sands and continues to work with them to facilitate the project's completion. When Las Vegas Sands Corporation won the bid for the Marina Bay IR, it committed to complete the entire development by the end of 2009. The project has made good progress to date, despite the resource constraints arising from a tight construction sector. The current financial turmoil has introduced additional challenges for the parent company of Marina Bay Sands. They have therefore proposed a progressive opening of their development, a request which is being carefully considered by Government agencies. Resorts World at Sentosa, which is developing the IR on Sentosa, has also requested a progressive opening of their development. Our understanding is that this request arose from some physical on-site constraints that the company encountered when constructing the integrated resort. The STB and other Government agencies are considering these requests by Marina Bay Sands and Resorts World at Sentosa with due reference to what they have committed as part of the Request for Proposal exercise. Even as we do so, our expectation remains that each development will open as an Integrated Resort, and not just as a stand-alone casino. If the requests are allowed, they will also be subject to various terms and conditions...Ms Sylvia Lim: Sir, several years back when Singaporeans were convinced that the IRs were the way to go, we were told that the job projections arising out of the IRs would be about 35,000 and because of the benefit of that, we should be prepared to accept some of the social ills from gambling. I note that in a parliamentary answer last year, the job projection was 20,000. I am just wondering whether MTI has further revised the job projection arising from the IRs now, in view especially of the increased number of gambling tables and whether we are going to see a higher price being paid in terms of the social ills arising from gambling.Mr Iswaran: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Member probably has not been following the numbers closely. Our job projection numbers have remained consistent. We have said the two IRs will generate about 20,000 jobs directly, and indirectly there will be 30,000 to 40,000 jobs created. That is the number we have said from the start and we have maintained that position. Hike in Electricity Tariffs, WP's Position On Elected President Sitting Date: 21 Oct 2008HIKE IN ELECTRICITY TARIFFSMs Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether the 21% hike in electricity tariffs with effect from October 2008 indicates that the present formula for determining the electricity tariff is not sustainable in view of the volatile oil market; and (b) how will the Government protect the consumer against drastic surges or sudden spikes in electricity tariffs.The Senior Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Mr S Iswaran) (for the Minister for Trade and Industry): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to take Question Nos. 7 to 10 together, please. I also propose to address Ms Ellen Lee's Question which appears later in the Order Paper substantively....To Ms Sylvia Lim's question, I would caution that we should refrain from making arbitrary changes just because the outcomes are inconvenient in a particular quarter or two. What we ought to really think about is, if we make such changes and if they are not well thought out and they are seen by the market to be arbitrary, that would increase regulatory risks, adversely affect investors' sentiment and confidence and, ultimately, it will do more harm than good to our consumers and businesses.The Government has sought to mitigate the impact of the rise in electricity prices by providing focused and targeted assistance through U-save rebates for those who need help the most. We are also conducting programmes to raise awareness of electricity conservation and facilitate efforts by households and businesses to reduce their utility bills. We have opted not to subsidise electricity because this encourages over-consumption and is unsustainable in the long run, as it is quite evident from the experience of many countries.Ms Sylvia Lim (Non-Constituency Member): Sir, three questions for the Senior Minister of State.Sir, earlier, he mentioned that the regulator would arrange for Singapore Power to publish more information about the electricity tariff formula. I am just wondering whether the formula is actually a State secret. Can the full details of the formula be published? And even though not everyone may understand that, there will be some people who may understand the formula,and that would help greatly in transparency of pricing issue.Secondly, the Senior Minister of State mentioned that there are some inconvenient outcomes in certain quarters. But if we trace back the tariff hikes over the last two years, in fact, less than two years since January last year, it has been more than 50% increase. If we look back to January 2004 to now, it has actually doubled. For a public good, which has only one supplier, does the Minister agree that this kind of price increase is not an acceptable situation?Thirdly, could we not, for example, take a leaf from what is happening in Hong Kong? For example, in Hong Kong, when the Hong Kong electricity company sells electricity, they look at the basic consumption that an average household uses, and that usage is priced at a more favourable rate. And for households that consume more, the excess units are paid at a higher rate. If we are prepared to look at that as a principle, I think the electricity price could possibly be more stable and more affordable.Mr Iswaran: Mr Speaker, Sir, on the formula, subject to any commercial confidentiality issues, I am sure EMA may be happy to oblige.Secondly, whether the electricity change has been excessive, we have got to put it in context. It is against the backdrop of an unprecedented series of price increases in the oil market, and we are all well aware of that. So when we posit that the extreme, we have got to compare it against what is the backdrop, and whether it squares up. I would argue that if we look at the comparison, actually our system has done fairly well, and I think the chart shows that. But that does not mean that we cannot do better. Yes, we can look at what other systems that we can put in place. But I also want to just mention that it is not clear whether there is a better formula or point that we can use as a reference. If we say we want to use spot prices, we can see the implications. If we say we want a fixed price, then the power generating companies are going to say, "I want a very high fixed price because I have to put up with the volatility in the spot markets." So when we design a system, we have to take these things into account. Yes, it is very unhelpful that the timing of this increase and the extent of the increase on this occasion. But when we think about whether we should change and how we should change, we should be quite circumspect about it, and take into account the implications across the board, and not just at one component of the market.Finally, the Member compared us to Hong Kong and talked about the Hong Kong pricing system and so on. There are some basic differences between us and Hong Kong which I want to highlight, which is one of the reasons why a direct comparison is a bit difficult. One reason is because Hong Kong fuels two thirds of its electricity generation using coal, which is a significantly cheaper fuel. We do not have that option, and I am not sure if we price coal for its carbon emissions and so on whether it will, in fact, be a cheaper fuel. That is the first point.The second point is that the power generating industry in Hong Kong is a more integrated one, meaning the company that sells the electricity, the equivalent of our SP services, is also the company that runs the grid and is also the company that generates electricity. We have broken the industry up into contestable and non-contestable components. Whereas in the case of Hong Kong, they have used an integrated approach and then they deal at that level. There are pros and cons. I think they are different approaches. But, fundamentally, what we want to do is this. We recognise that the oil and fuel market has great volatility. We want to try and minimise the impact of that volatility on our households through electricity tariffs. But we cannot shield our households from the full impact of that volatility or the price increases, because that is not the reality. I think we have to accept that.CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE (AMENDMENT) BILLMr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): Sir, whilst the Workers' Party supports the principle of Government spending on the reserves (the 50% basis), that does not mean that the Workers' Party is prepared to review our position on the Elected President.We have viewed the Elected President as something which has some political implication, not only on the political system but also on future non-PAP government. Just take the example of the $150 billion guarantee provided for the bank. What will happen if the Elected President takes an adverse approach? Then, the Government can be crippled, in a sense. So, we are of the view that perhaps the office of the Elected President has fundamentally changed our parliamentary democracy system, where the Executive is supposed to be the supreme power elected and trusted by the people. We believe that we can use other alternatives or mechanism to preserve and safeguard our reserves.Sir, on the other hand, we are also of the view that the office of the Elected President could be potentially serve to cripple a non-PAP government, given the fact that a lot of important appointments require the Elected President's approval. Given the criteria for the office of the Elected President as it is now - as to who qualifies to participate as candidate for Elected President - it is likely that he may come from the establishment or he may be a PAP Minister. So, with the political motive at the back, a non-PAP government being elected could be crippled by the Elected President. With all these reasons and thinking behind, I do not think we are currently prepared to review our position.=============================================ST, 21 Oct 2008WP chief: We still don't support elected presidencyTHE Workers' Party may support the new framework that allows the Government to tap investment income from the reserves for its spending, but that does not mean it has abandoned its objection to the elected presidency, said its leader Low Thia Khiang.Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong had drawn the link yesterday when he praised the opposition party for supporting the constitutional amendment.But the MP for Hougang, who is the party's secretary-general, promptly rejected it, saying the WP had not budged from its existing position.He said the elected presidency had 'political implications'.For example, should the People's Action Party lose a general election, 'the office of the Elected President could be potentially crippling for a non-PAP government given the fact that a lot of important appointments require the President's approval', he said.Mr Low argued that the strict qualifying criteria for candidates meant presidents would likely be from the Establishment, or even former PAP ministers.The Constitution requires a candidate for the presidency to have senior management and financial experience in a large organisation, plus good character and reputation.Mr Low also referred to the Government's decision to set aside $150 billion to guarantee bank deposits. 'What will happen if the EP (Elected President) takes an adverse approach? Then the government can be crippled.'As for the President's role in safeguarding Singapore's reserves, he said there could be other ways of doing this.PM Lee had earlier praised the WP's 'responsible approach' in supporting the constitutional changes.He said: 'We hope the WP now accepts the wisdom of having an Elected President with custodial powers, because that is at the core of this amendment... and will no longer campaign to abolish the Elected President as they did in the 2006 election.' Lehman Brothers on AIA, Foreign Banks' Influences on Local Property Market, Lehman Brothers' Structured Products, 21% Hike In Electricity ORDER PAPERMONDAY, 20TH OCTOBER, 2008QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWERMr Low Thia Khiang: To ask the Senior Minister (a) what is the basis forthe Monetary Authority of Singapore's assurance to AIA Singapore policyholders that there are sufficient funds to meet future obligations; and (b)whether MAS is aware if AIA Singapore has invested in products relatedto Lehman Brothers and United States sub-primes derivatives.Ms Sylvia Lim: To ask the Senior Minister whether there is any evidence orindication that the American banks and financial institutions currently indistress have taken steps to sell off their Singapore properties on an urgentbasis and, if so, what implications will this have on the local propertymarket.Mr Low Thia Khiang: To ask the Senior Minister (a) whether the MonetaryAuthority of Singapore (MAS) will investigate how structured productslinked to Lehman Brothers were marketed; and (b) if there is anymisrepresentation, whether MAS will assist the affected investors innegotiating with the banks to ensure fair treatment for these investors.Ms Sylvia Lim: To ask the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether the21% hike in electricity tariffs with effect from October 2008 indicates thatthe present formula for determining the electricity tariff is not sustainablein view of the volatile oil market; and (b) how will the Government protectthe consumer against drastic surges or sudden spikes in electricity tariffs.SINGAPORE'S RESERVES AND INVESTMENTS(Impact of financial crisis)Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): Sir, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether GIC and Temasek currently have sufficient or enough cash liquidity to take advantage of the US financial meltdown to invest further in order to place Singapore in a better position.Mrs Lim Hwee Hua: Sir, precisely because of the philosophy that we have adopted, both GIC and Temasek are in a comfortable position to take advantage of any opportunities that may arise from the current downturn.EFFECTS OF FINANCIAL TURMOIL ON SINGAPORE'S BANKS AND INSURANCE COMPANIES AND IMPACT ON SINGAPOREANSMr Low Thia Khiang asked the Senior Minister (a) what is the basis for the Monetary Authority of Singapore's assurance to AIA Singapore policy holders that there are sufficient funds to meet future obligations; and (b) whether MAS is aware if AIA Singapore has invested in products related to Lehman Brothers and United States sub-primes derivatives. Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Senior Minister whether there is any evidence or indication that the American banks and financial institutions currently in distress have taken steps to sell off their Singapore properties on an urgent basis and, if so, what implications will this have on the local property market.The Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Lim Hng Kiang) (for the Senior Minister): Mr Speaker, Sir, can I have your permission to take Question Nos. 4 to 10 together?Mr Speaker: Yes.Mr Lim Hng Kiang: ..MAS requires the assets of our banks and insurance companies to exceed their liabilities by an appropriate margin, which is set in accordance with MAS' standards. This provides the bank or the insurance company with a buffer to absorb unexpected losses. The riskier the financial institution's assets, the higher will be the safety margin. The quality of our banks' and insurers' assets remains good, and their capital buffers remain strong. Taken together, this means that a bank or insurance company in Singapore will have more than enough assets to pay what it owes to its depositors and policy holders. In the case of foreign banks, MAS maintains high admission standards to determine which institution is permitted to operate in Singapore. Foreign banks, however, maintain significant operations in their home country and internationally, and MAS alone does not determine the solvency of these institutions. MAS, however, keeps in close contact with the foreign bank's home regulator to assure ourselves that the bank continues to meet high standards of solvency and maintain sufficient assets to meet all its liabilities in Singapore and elsewhere. Solvency alone is insufficient, and banks and insurance companies also have to address their liquidity risks. MAS requires both banks and insurers to anticipate their cashflow requirements arising from business needs and the claims of depositors and policyholders and to hold sufficient liquid assets to meet these claims. In addition, MAS requires banks to maintain a significant buffer of liquid assets to meet unanticipated claims from depositors. Insurers' asset portfolio typically comprises more liquid assets such as bonds and Government securities which are more easily liquidated to raise cash should the need arise. Let me now turn to supervision. MAS generally adopts a conservative approach to the supervision of financial institutions in Singapore, and this has served us well. MAS monitors the financial positions of regulated financial institutions through regular reports of their assets and liabilities submitted by these institutions. MAS limits the amount that banks here can lend to any single borrower. This ensures that they are not overly exposed if any single borrower defaults. In addition, the Banking Act limits a bank's credit and loan exposure to property development and investment activity to 35% of its total non-bank loan and credit exposures. Most banks here are significantly below this limit. In the last two years, MAS has also required all banks with significant operations here to enhance their risk management system, as part of the transition to Basel II, a more risk sensitive international standard for capital. MAS has been closely monitoring developments in global financial markets and the impact on Singapore. The inter-bank markets in the US and Europe have not been functioning properly as banks, concerned about the solvency and liquidity conditions of other banks, have not been willing to lend to one another other. In Singapore, our domestic interbank markets have been relatively calm and have functioned in an orderly manner. Sufficient liquidity was maintained in the banking system. In anticipation of tighter lending conditions, MAS had in July expanded its Standing Facility to all MAS Electronic Payment System (MEPS+) participant banks. This provides assurance that banks can readily access central bank liquidity when required. MAS has also reiterated that it stands ready to inject additional liquidity if needed. Ms Sylvia Lim also asked if there is any evidence of distressed American banks and financial institutions having to sell off their Singapore properties on an urgent basis and the implications on the local property market. The funding pressures that have arisen in the US and Europe do not arise in Singapore domestic market. The Singapore property holdings of US and European banks are small in relation to our market. Moreover, all banks here have a wide range of assets including corporate and consumer loans, substantial holdings of Singapore Government Securities, and other securities and assets which are not related to property. Mr Speaker, Sir, to summarise, the crisis in the US and Europe is serious. We have seen some of the largest financial institutions in those countries come under severe solvency and liquidity pressures. AIG, for example, which had huge exposures in the credit derivatives market, experienced losses and had its credit rating downgraded. This triggered liquidity pressures forcing US authorities to provide a loan to prevent AIG from defaulting on its obligations and being pushed into bankruptcy. Banks in the US and Europe have been unwilling to lend to each other. This has prompted the European and the US governments to take extraordinary measures in recent weeks to recapitalise their major banks and guarantee bank borrowings. This has improved confidence in their markets and banking systems. While the situation has improved with the announcement of these major initiatives, we are not out of the woods and substantial challenges remain in the international financial system and the global economy. Given the openness of our economy and our role as an international financial centre, we cannot hope to be decoupled from what is happening in the global financial markets. We must, therefore, stay highly vigilant on the channels through which global developments can affect us. MAS has, for some time now, stepped up its surveillance of international developments and is also in close contact with regulators and central banks in other jurisdictions. Singaporeans are anxious about the impact of the US financial turmoil on their savings and insurance policies. I thank MPs for raising these concerns. Let me now address the specific questions posed. Mr Low Thia Kiang asked about AIA Singapore's exposure to Lehman Brothers and the US sub-prime market. I am happy to assure him that the exposure is limited...Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): Sir, the Minister in his answer said that AIA's exposure to sub-prime is limited. I would like to know what is the limited amount that he was talking about. Sir, I also understand that the Insurance Act requires insurance companies to provide a deposit with MAS for each class of insurance business. What is the current market value of deposits from AIA that MAS holds? What is the composition and risk profile of AIA insurance funds? What is the future outlook of the funds to meet future obligations of the policy holders? What is the current solvency ratio of AIA's participating funds in Singapore and whether it has met the requirements under the risk-based capital framework of the MAS? Mr Lim Hng Kiang: As I mentioned in my response to Mr Banerjee, all these specific details about individual insurance companies and how their specific investment-linked policies or funds are operating, the Member can refer to the company's website, as they have disclosure requirements. What I would like to say here is, first, for the insurance companies in Singapore, they operate under a very strict regulation regime. They are required to maintain a capital adequacy ratio of at least 120%. And all the insurance companies in Singapore far exceed this adequacy ratio. Many of them go up to 200% and above. So the Member can refer to the individual insurance company's website for the details.SALE OF STRUCTURED FINANCIAL PRODUCTS(Regulating, and safeguarding of investors' interest)Mr Low Thia Khiang asked the Senior Minister (a) whether the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) will investigate how structured products linked to Lehman Brothers were marketed; and (b) if there is any misrepresentation, whether MAS will assist the affected investors in negotiating with the banks to ensure fair treatment for these investors.Mr Lim Hng Kiang: ..Mdm Halimah Yacob, Mr Low and Mr Siew have also asked if MAS will investigate how these products were marketed and sold. MAS has said that where there is evidence of regulatory breaches, it will not hesitate to take firm regulatory actions against the FI or the representative. MAS has required the independent parties to highlight potential cases of mis-selling to MAS. A number of possible mis-selling cases have already been raised to MAS' attention. MAS is reviewing these cases. MAS has also confirmed it has been conducting formal inquiries into allegations of breaches of the law, inadequate internal controls by the FIs, or poor sales practices by their representatives. MAS will make an announcement of any actions it will be taking when the inquiries are completed. Clearly, there is a range of investors who bought these products. Some are well-educated professionals. Others are sophisticated investors. The group that MAS is most concerned with are the vulnerable customers. MAS is focusing on cases of mis-selling to vulnerable customers and on cases where the products were clearly inappropriate for them given their circumstances. MAS has required the FIs to give priority to these cases. FIs should not take an overly legalistic approach to mis-selling in dealing with these cases. For cases where there are sufficient indications that the product was mis-sold or that it was clearly inappropriate given the investor's profile and circumstances, the FI should take responsibility. Several FIs have assured MAS that they will take full responsibility in such cases and we expect all FIs that have sold these products to take the same approach...Mr Low Thia Khiang: Thank you, Sir. Sir, the Minister's answer sounds like MAS is shouting across a river while watching a fire burning. Can the MAS take a more proactive approach by convening a Committee of Inquiry to deal with the matter directly? Is it fair for the Government to leave the investors, many of whom are retirees who have invested their savings, to deal with individual FIs and simply refer them to FIDReC? I would like to ask whether the Minister is aware that after the amendment to the Securities and Futures Act in October 2005, MAS exempted banks which continuously issue structured notes - those issued over the counter - from having to lodge a registered pricing statement with the MAS. So the banks felt that probably these structured notes could be issued without having to go through complex and extensive requirements, but by just disclosure based prospectus. Hence, more structured notes flooded the market, with the financial advisors selling to the retail investors. Is this not a result of less prudent regulation by the MAS? Mr Speaker: Mr Low, are you making a speech or are you asking a question? Mr Low Thia Khiang: No. I am asking the Minister a question: is the plight of the investors in these minibonds today not victims of the Government's decision to liberalise the financial market? The last question I would like to ask the Minister is whether MAS agrees that the products sold by the financial institutions are indeed low risk and safe products to invest. Mr Lim Hng Kiang: Mr Speaker, Sir, what the MAS and Government want to avoid is to politicise this whole issue. Our main concern is to get the process done and to make sure that any investors who have been mis-sold or who have invested inappropriately in these products have due recourse and compensation. That has been our focus. If we were to have a Committee of Inquiry or if we were to take this to the courts, I can assure Members that nothing will move. All financial institutions, everybody, will freeze and take legal defensive actions and then the affected investors will have to wait weeks, if not months, maybe even years, before they can have recourse. I do not think that is the best approach. That of course makes a lot of good headlines. It is grand standing. It scores a lot of political points. But it does not address the issue which is at the nub of this whole episode and, that is, we are concerned about investors being mis-sold, we are concerned about investors who have invested inappropriately, and therefore MAS' actions are all taken to address these two key issues. His second question is about disclosure. If the FI puts out a programme of similar structured notes, I think it will be very inefficient for them every time they put up the series to have to go through the whole process of putting up the full prospectus. So our rules allow them, if they are putting up a programme of notes, like in the case of Lehman Minibond Series, and they are planning to come up with the Series of 1 to maybe 10 or 12, and these are all similar products, they put up a general disclosure through a prospectus. Then with each new series that they put up, they come up with a pricing statement which explains the risk and the price that they are setting. I think that is a better approach than to say that every time you put up one of a series of notes, you have to come up with the whole process of the full prospectus. Finally, these products are not low risk or safe products. These are explained in the first or second page that these are structured products and it is in bold print that you can lose everything. So MAS has never said that these are risk-free products, low-risk products or safe products.CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE (AMENDMENT) BILLMs Sylvia Lim (Non-Constituency Member): Sir, the Workers' Party supports this Amendment. We believe that it is justified to broaden the definition of Net Investment Income to include realised capital gains from the relevant assets. Social spending must go up as our population ages. More social safety nets are required to address wage stagnation for lower-income earners and the higher cost of essentials such as food and electricity. The Bill provides for a cap of 50% of realised capital gains which can be used for current spending. This means that at least 50% will still accrete to the reserves and form part of national savings. We are thus not squandering our reserves. How much more will this additional revenue stream yield? The Minister, in his Second Reading speech, mentioned that it is expected to yield the equivalent of about 2% of GDP expenditure, which together with the 0.8% GDP yielded by the GST hike recently should be sufficient to fund the additional expenditure required. Going forward then, will the Minister confirm that there would be little justification for the Government to go back to the people to raise more revenue by further hiking GST or raising Government fees and charges? Will he confirm that the people are already doing their part and there will be no need to burden them further?============================================Low Thia Khiang: President's Office could potentiallycripple non-PAP governmentSource: watchtowervSylvia Lim: Little justification to raise more revenue viaGST or government fees and chargesSource: watchtowerv Youth Olympic Games In 2010 (Milestones), Organisation Of Outdoor Events By Political Parties (Governing rules) Sitting Date: 16 Sep 2008YOUTH OLYMPIC GAMES IN 2010(Milestones)Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports what sporting or other milestones that Singapore can reach at the Youth Olympic Games in 2010.Mr Teo Ser Luck (for the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports): Singapore has achieved a significant milestone in winning the bid to host the inaugural Youth Olympic Games (YOG) in 2010. Hosting the YOG not only provides the opportunity for Singapore to contribute to the Olympic movement, but also an opportunity where Singapore can benefit as a nation. The YOG will be a good platform through which we can engage and develop our youth, promote sports and a sporting culture, and profile Singapore to a global audience. It can also serve as a platform for nation-building. For our athletes, while it is difficult to predict the performances in our youths, we can expect to do well and return with medals in some sports. Currently, they have also shown some promising prospects, such as sailing, shooting, swimming, table tennis and badminton. Our young sailors have consistently won medals at World Optimist, Byte and Laser 4.7 events recently. A number of our young shooters have consistently recorded near perfect scores in training and who are gaining increased international competition exposure and show great promise. We also have a number of very talented young swimmers, table tennis and badminton players, all of whom can challenge the best young athletes in the world in their respective events. For our youths, YOG will provide a platform over the next two years to nurture the young people with a greater global awareness. It will allow them to better appreciate what it means to be Singaporeans, as they play an active role in helping to host youths from all over the world. To achieve this, the YOG Organising Committee is planning several programmes, together with the Ministry of Education (MOE). These include the School-National Olympic Committee twinning programme and the Olympic Education programme. Our youth will be taught the Olympic values of excellence, friendship and respect. They will also have the opportunity to interact with young athletes from all over the world, and play hosts to them when they arrive for the YOG. Together, they will learn about one another's culture, and celebrate the ideals of the Olympic movement. Sir, as the host country, we will be in a good position to expose our aspiring young athletes to competition at the highest level of sports. The YOG will serve as a platform in our ongoing effort to promote sports and develop our sporting culture. And we hope that the YOG will also allow us to build up our local expertise amongst our sports officials and volunteers in order to organise and conduct international competitions. There will also be areas of business collaboration, economic spin-offs and development of expertise in various sports industry related sectors, such as sports media broadcasting, sports event management and service provision. As part of the efforts to promote the YOG, we will also be able to profile and market Singapore to a global audience. Aside from promoting Singapore as a tourist destination, the YOG, with its strong culture and education component, will allow us to showcase our youth development efforts and our diverse and vibrant culture. Hosting the YOG will provide an excellent platform to rally Singaporeans to a common cause and, through this, generate national pride. Singaporeans will have a wonderful opportunity to enrol in this national effort to make the event a success, by being gracious hosts and volunteering to help organise the games. I hope that many will respond to this invitation and play a part in making the YOG a success and making Olympic history.Ms Sylvia Lim (Non-Constituency Member): Sir, I would like to ask the SPS some supplementary questions. Firstly, he mentioned earlier that in the recent Olympic Games in Beijing, we sent 25 athletes. I am wondering if the Government has an estimate of how many more athletes we will be sending for the Youth Olympics since we are the host. Secondly, are we venturing into other sports which we did not go to at the Olympic Games itself? Thirdly, as the host country, I suppose there will be some interests in our performance. Does the Government have an idea of what would be a good medal tally at the end of the Youth Olympics?Mr Teo Ser Luck: When we won the bid for the YOG, we started some thoughts into youth development planning for the young athletes, not just the young elite athletes but really increasing participation in different sports as well. Our target is the best we can field athletes and national representation for all 26 sports. But we know that that is a challenge, because there are some sports where we have just set up the national sports associations, namely, wrestling, handball and pentathlon. For example, pentathlon is a sport of five sports. So, we need to get one athlete who is well-versed in five sports, which is not easy. Nevertheless, since we have set up the national sports association, we are setting the target that each of the associations would at least need to have one representation. Some sports, we need to qualify to get into the Olympics. Some sports, we get wild-card slots which are allocated to the host country. So we may have national representation. But if they do not qualify for the Olympics, finally, at the YOG in Singapore, we may not even have a national representation. Nevertheless, our main objective is to encourage participation, for young people to step forward, be interested in sports, willing to commit their time and effort to train, and we are willing to give the support. For the medal tally, I would say that it is very hard to make a prediction or even a forecast. As I mentioned, we do have some promising athletes in different sports. But I believe that we will not return empty-handed. Looking at how we have done for the Olympics and even the Paralympics, I think Singapore does have a system that can produce promising international young athletes who can be world beaters, and I truly have confidence and faith in them that they will return with at least one medal, whatever the colour.ORGANISATION OF OUTDOOR EVENTS BY POLITICAL PARTIES(Governing rules)Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs what is the basis upon which a permit was given to enable the Prime Minister to participate in a cycling activity in West Coast Park on 31st August 2008.The Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs (Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee) (for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs): Sir, may I take Question Nos. 13 and 14 together, please?Mr Speaker: Yes.Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, the issue of political parties organising outdoor activities has been raised several times before in this House. The position remains unchanged. Police will not grant permits for outdoor political events. The Police's position on outdoor political events is due to the assessed potential for public disorder which politically-driven events can lead to, even when this is not intended by the organiser. We have seen ample evidence of this in countries where peaceful gatherings and marches have led to street fights and even riots. Apart from this restriction, political events can be freely held indoors. Indeed, since 2004, there is no need to apply for a Police permit for indoor political speeches if the event involves only Singaporeans. In addition, as all of us know, with effect from 1st September this year, political parties may now organise outdoor political events and demonstrations at the Speakers' Corner without a permit. Citizens, too, may organise demonstrations, including political ones at the Speakers' Corner without having to obtain a police permit. Ms Sylvia Lim asks for the basis for Police to grant a permit that enabled the Prime Minister to participate in a cycling event in West Coast Park on 31st August 2008. Sir, let me first clarify that it was not a cycling event but a Family Day Carnival. The only cycling was when the Prime Minister and the other special guests made their entrance by cycling a short distance from where the Prime Minister had alighted from his car to the stage. Secondly, it was not organised by a political party but by a registered charity. The Carnival was organised by the PAP Community Foundation (PCF) for the children and families of PCF kindergartens and childcare centres. The PCF is a registered charity with a social mission. While it is affiliated to the PAP, the PCF has remained completely non-political since its setup in 1986, running kindergartens, child care, student care and aged care centres, charging very reasonable fees. It also offers community health screening with other providers, and raises funds for charitable causes. Indeed, I understand that at the PCF Carnival, a sum of $664,000 was distributed to 17 welfare organisations by PM. Sir, in short, the authorities considered the family day setting and community service focus of the event as well as the status of PCF as a registered charity and did not object to the event as the policy of disallowing outdoor political events did not apply in this situation.Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): Sir, the Senior Minister of State mentioned repeatedly that the PCF is a registered charitable organisation and he just mentioned that the track records show that the PCF does not engage in politics. Can he recall that the PCF, after the election of Opposition Members in 1991, threatened to withdraw and close down kindergartens in opposition wards? Is that not political? Is PCF really non-political in nature and what is the track record that he is talking about?Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, there is no denying that in terms of affiliation, the PCF is affiliated to the PAP. But in terms of the focus of its activities, it is non-political. When a ward goes to the opposition, I think it is quite natural, therefore, that in terms of services offered to the people of Hougang who had made a decision, there was withdrawal of the services. But the services themselves, surely Mr Low cannot say are political in nature. Rising Sea Levels, Supply Of Water, Subsidised Nursing Homes, Mental Capacity Bill Sitting date: 15 Sep 2008 at 1.30 pmORDER PAPERMONDAY, 15TH SEPTEMBER, 2008Mr Low Thia Khiang: To ask the Minister for the Environment and WaterResources whether his Ministry has assessed the recent findings that theGreenland ice sheet is melting faster than expected and what impact, ifany, would these findings have on Singapore.Mr Low Thia Khiang: To ask the Minister for the Environment and WaterResources whether the Government is prepared for a possible rise in sealevel and, if so, what measures have been planned in response.Ms Sylvia Lim: To ask the Minister for Health how many persons are on thewaiting list for places in subsidised nursing homes particularly thoseoffering dementia care and what is the affordability of such care inSingapore.Ms Sylvia Lim: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for HomeAffairs what is the basis upon which a permit was given to enable thePrime Minister to participate in a cycling activity in West Coast Park on 31August 2008.Ms Sylvia Lim: To ask the Minister for Community Development, Youth andSports what sporting or other milestones that Singapore can reach at theYouth Olympic Games in 2010.=============================================RISING SEA LEVELS(Measures to monitor effects and impact on Singapore)Mr Low Thia Khiang asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources whether his Ministry has assessed the recent findings that the Greenland ice sheet is melting faster than expected and what impact, if any, would these findings have on Singapore.Mr Low Thia Khiang asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources whether the Government is prepared for a possible rise in sea level and, if so, what measures have been planned in response.Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, can I take Question Nos. 5, 6 and 7 together please?Mr Speaker: Yes.The Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim): Sir, climate change is a global challenge. The direct effects of climate change include shifts in temperature, rainfall patterns, storm surges, and many others. In recent years, many countries have experienced more frequent occurrences of extreme weather events, such as the Hurricane Katrina in the US, Cyclone Nargis in Myanmar and episodes of severe floods in India and China.The United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projected in its Fourth Assessment Report, which was released last year, that climate change could result in sea level rises of between 18 cm and 59 cm by the year 2100. This does not factor in the rapid melting of Greenland or Antarctic ice sheets, as the understanding of these effects is too limited to assess their likelihood or provide a best estimate or an upper bound for sea level rise. Scientists are currently working to better understand and project the rate at which the ice sheets may melt, as well as the resulting impacts.As a relatively low-lying, densely populated island in the tropics, Singapore is vulnerable to climate change effects like sea level rises, which can lead to inland flooding. However, as a result of our environmental and developmental planning in the past, we already have existing measures in place that significantly reduce our exposure to the risks.Since 1991, all new reclamation projects have to be built to a level 125 cm above the highest recorded tide level. This requirement is 66 cm more than the IPCC's projected highest sea level rise of 59 cm by the end of the 21st century in the worst case scenario. Singapore is as such well prepared for any further increases in sea level arising from climate change within the range of over one metre.The development of drainage infrastructure in Singapore over the last 30 years has also reduced flood-prone areas from 3,200 ha in the 1970s to 98 ha today. PUB will reduce it to less than 48 ha by 2011 through the development and improvement of drainage infrastructure in Singapore, such as the widening and the deepening of drains and canals. While the objective of this is to reduce the flood-prone areas and alleviate flooding today, the overall enhancement in the drainage system helps to reduce the possibility of upstream flooding when heavy rain coincides with high tide or sea level rise due to climate change. The completion of the Marina Barrage project has also enhanced our flood alleviation capabilities.However, we cannot be complacent in our efforts. It is important that we continue improving our understanding of the specific effects and impacts of climate change on Singapore. I announced last year that NEA, in consultation with other Government agencies, has commissioned a two-year study to understand the specific implications of climate change in Singapore, based on the IPCC studies. These include sea level and temperature changes, flooding and coastal erosion.This study into Singapore's vulnerability to climate change is expected to be completed next year. It will help us better understand how Singapore will be affected and what needs to be done to protect Singapore and ensure that we are able to adapt to these impacts. We also continue to monitor closely the developments in scientific understanding of the melting of ice sheets and its impacts. Our study will give us modelling capability to factor in any new scientific findings to assess the localised effects on Singapore. This information will help in reviewing the adequacy of the existing adaptation measures and whether further enhancements are needed.SUPPLY OF WATER(Update on effort in achieving self-sufficiency)Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): I would like to ask the Minister how the water self-sufficiency programme, and whatever that we achieve, would benefit Singaporeans, in particular, whether when we achieve water self-sufficiency, the water tariff will be reduced and water conservation tax will be abolished.Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: Sir, the water conservation tax will never be abolished because it is the tool that allows us to actually conserve water and therefore providing more water for Singaporeans. It is put in place to send an important message to Singaporeans that water is a strategic resource. Use it by all means but use it judiciously. It is an important lesson for us, as mentioned by MM during the Singapore International Water Week, that we do not want to be thirsty any longer. So it is important for us to send that message and I do not think, at least in my time as Minister, that we will remove the water conversation tax. But I do not think the Singapore Government is also keen to remove it. What happens is that we help people at the bottom who may have difficulties.In terms of the water tariff, we will continue to monitor the impact of energy price and other impacts on our water tariff. We will adjust it accordingly if there is a case to be made. At the moment, the water tariff is about the right level and we will keep it that way.On the benefits of self-sufficiency, obviously, we will feel secure and as there will be the constant supply of water to meet both our domestic and non-domestic needs. As I mentioned in my reply, if need be, we can be self-sufficient. At the moment, we have the Four National Taps and they are in place to give us the diversification and reliability of our water supply system and we will keep it at that. But, meanwhile, we continue to explore new technologies to find other ways in which we can increase the yield from Singapore's land area.SUBSIDISED NURSING HOMES(Waiting places)Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Health how many persons are on the waiting list for places in subsidised nursing homes particularly those offering dementia care and what is the affordability of such care in Singapore.Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Sir, there are around 8,600 nursing home beds in Singapore, of which about 4,800 or 56% are subsidised beds. Most nursing homes can take in patients with dementia. Dementia covers a wide range of disabilities and differs in different degrees of complexities.The number of patients on the waiting list for subsidised nursing home fluctuates. For example, during the past year, it ranged from 68 to 193. But at any one point in time there were about 100 vacant beds available in subsidised nursing homes for placement during the same period. Some mismatch occurs as some patients have specific preferences such as location, operator and sometimes even diet. Some waiting is perhaps also sensible to minimise nursing home admission becoming too convenient a substitute for taking care of the elderly within the family. The majority of patients on the waiting list are placed within a month.Care is generally affordable as my Ministry provides the nursing homes with an operating subvention to help the lower income patients pay for their bills. For those who are more needy, Medifund is also available to assist.That said, the demand for long-term care is growing with the ageing of our population, and this will pose a continuing challenge for us. We are investing more resources, including manpower, to expand the nursing home sector to meet the rising demand. We will also help upgrade the skills of the nursing home staff so that they can provide a higher service level and be more competent to care for patients with greater severity, particularly those with dementia.Singaporeans can also help to play a part. First, stay active to delay or avoid the onset of long-term disability. That is why the Ministerial Committee chaired by Mr Lim Boon Heng actively promotes active ageing and there will be a series of wellness programmes being implemented at the community level. I hope the elderly Singaporeans will come and join in. It is for your own good. Second, subscribe to ElderShield and its supplements to ensure that we are better able to pay for any long-term care. Third, care for our elderly at home for as long as possible, so that they can be in the company of their families and friends.Ms Sylvia Lim (Non-Constituency Member): Sir, I wonder if the Government would be reviewing the means test criteria for Government subsidies because currently I understand that it is quite common for the average monthly bill of a nursing home patient to reach around $2,000 a month. And the current means test actually looks at per capita income of the household not exceeding $1,000 in order to qualify for the subsidy and this takes into account gross pay, which actually the CPF portion cannot be used to pay for the nursing home fees. So I wonder if the Government would consider perhaps relaxing the means test criteria so that more people can get some of the Government subsidies for the nursing home stay.Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Sir, we do review means test criteria not just for nursing home but generally, because with wage adjustments and cost inflation, it is necessary to do so. The key point is what is the subvention for. In the case of Medifund, we are aiming at assisting the bottom 20%-30% of the population. So, a short answer is "yes", we do review and adjust them as necessary. I think, on compassion, you cannot find a more compassionate Health Minister.MENTAL CAPACITY BILLSource: watchtowervMs Sylvia Lim (Non-Constituency Member): Madam, as mentioned by the Minister in his Second Reading speech, the Bill was modelled after the UK Mental Capacity Act 2005. I have done a comparison with that UK Act and I noted that there were some interesting departures from the UK model on which I would like to ask the Minister for some clarifications.The first concerns the Lasting Powers of Attorney (LPA) which confers powers on the donee to deal with the property of the donor who is called "P" in the Act. Clause 14 allows a donee to make gifts out of P's property. Since the gifting will be done while P is alive, the donee should act conservatively so as not to deplete P's property which can be used for P's healthcare and other needs. However, there is no mention in the Bill about who the donee can make gifts to or for what purpose. In contrast, the UK legislation specifies that gifts should be made by the donee only on customary occasions, eg, anniversaries or birthdays, and to persons related or connected to P, or to charities as P would have done. Is it not prudent that we should similarly write into the Act the conditions under which the donee can make gifts on P's behalf?Madam, the next few issues relate to the role of the court under the proposed Act.First, I note that, in the UK, a special court of protection is set up to handle applications under the Mental Capacity Act. This clearly signals the protective function of the courts in such applications, and will develop judicial expertise and smooth interfacing between the court and social agencies involved in such matters. By contrast, the Bill provides for such applications to be heard in the High Court, presumably by generalist judges. Did the Government consider the benefits of setting up a special court instead?Second, under clause 23(1), the court can make certain decisions on P's behalf, including the execution of a will, which the Minister touched on earlier. While I note that the UK provisions also have this provision, I have some discomfort over this as my question is: when would it be right to execute a will on behalf of P? People die intestate every day, as mentioned, and the rules of intestacy will apply to distribute property to family members in a certain default order. On the other hand, if there had been a will previously executed by P while he had capacity, it should not be easily rewritten. People are entitled to make quirky decisions on their own property.Earlier, the Minister mentioned that the re-execution of the will or the execution of the will by the court will be made in the person's best interests and not in the beneficiary's best interests. I wonder if he could clarify this statement further, because the will only kicks in when the person is dead. So, it obviously has to be made in the interests of the beneficiaries. Will we have a case where the court is substituting its own judgment as to what is a fair distribution of property and taking that away from P?Next, the UK Act provides for a service called the Independent Mental Capacity Advocates (IMCA) service for persons who are mentally incapable and may not have next-of-kin or appointees. These independent advocates are provided by the state and function as independent persons to watch out for P's welfare when he is faced with two types of decisions:(1) whether to undergo serious medical treatment; or(2) whether to effect a change of accommodation.Such an advocate would support P in various ways. For instance, he would look at the options available, ascertain what P's feelings and wishes are likely to be, and work collaboratively with the healthcare professional or administrator before decisions are made. Since there is nothing in the Bill about this, would the Minister like to explain how this gap will be closed? For instance, if there is a destitute dementia patient with no family, how would his interests be protected?Next, the Bill also gives the Public Guardian very wide powers to ask for information and documents, for example, under clause 32. Under the UK Act, the kinds of documents that the Public Guardian can call for are health, social records and care records. By contrast, our Bill does not limit the power to any particular class of documents. It is further provided that the Public Guardian is to be given "full and free access" to buildings, books, papers and electronic records. These powers seem very draconian. The only people exempted from compliance are lawyers who need not disclose confidential client information. What about others with duties of secrecy, for example? Are we now to assume that P's bankers are required to disclose information about P's property without any court order?Finally, Madam, the Public Guardian's annual report. Clause 34 requires the Public Guardian to present his report to the Minister - presumably the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports - but not to Parliament. Under the UK law, the Public Guardian presents his report to the Lord Chancellor who must, within one month, lay the report before Parliament. I wonder why the Minister does not adopt a similar disclosure of the report to Parliament.Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: ..One point which Ms Sylvia Lim asked about was that, in the UK, they have set up an independent advocate. That is a pilot scheme which they have set up. I think they have appointed 144 people, costing them a grand sum of 6.5 million pounds. I am not in a hurry to go and start up more bureaucracy and more inspectors. The difference is that families in Singapore are available by and large. This is a small place and I think there will be very few people who truly are destined to have no one else to look after their interests. For those people in Singapore, particularly those who are destitute and in our homes, the Ministry, my staff and the voluntary welfare organisations will have to play such an advocate role. But I am not keen at this stage to set up an elaborate Government bureaucracy at great expense to do this. Anyway, it is a pilot project, even in the UK. Let us watch and see before we jump into setting up this machinery..=============================================ST, 17 Sep 2008Why PCF's event got permit but not WP'sHo Peng Kee explains why the two events were treated differentlyBy Li XueyingA PAP Community Foundation (PCF) event last month at which Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong cycled a short distance was 'definitely not of the same order' as one the Workers' Party (WP) tried to hold last year, Parliament heard yesterday.The event by the PCF, which is registered as a charity, had a 'family day setting' and was focused on community service, Senior Minister of State (Home Affairs) Ho Peng Kee told the House.He said this when explaining the police's rationale for granting a permit for the event at West Coast Park, and not for a WP mass cycling event which the opposition party wanted to hold at East Coast Park to mark its 50th anniversary.Non-Constituency MP and WP chairman Sylvia Lim wanted an explanation, while Nominated MP Siew Kum Hong asked if there was any change to rules for outdoor events by political parties and affiliated organisations.The perceived difference in treatment that the two events received has also been the subject of discussion in newspaper forums and on the Internet.Associate Professor Ho said the position on outdoor political events remained unchanged.The police will not grant permits for such events 'due to the assessed potential for public disorder which politically-driven events can lead to, even when this is not intended by the organisers'.On why a permit was granted for the Aug 31 PCF event which saw PM Lee take part in a cycling activity, he started by explaining it was 'not a cycling event but a Family Day Carnival'.'The only cycling was when the Prime Minister and the other special guests made their entrance by cycling a short distance from where the Prime Minister had alighted from his car to the stage.'It was also 'not organised by a political party but a registered charity'.While affiliated to the People's Action Party, 'the PCF has remained completely non-political since its set-up in 1986', he said, adding that its activities include running kindergartens and childcare centres and raising funds for charitable causes.'The authorities considered the family day setting and community service focus of the event, as well as the status of PCF as a registered charity, and did not object to the event as the policy of disallowing outdoor political events did not apply in this situation,' he said.Nominated MP Eunice Olsen - who asked Mr Siew's question on his behalf as he is overseas for work - recalled that Prof Ho said last year that the reason for a ban on outdoor activities by political parties was that people may stop politicians and debate on issues with them, and this could result in problems.'Do such risks not also apply to other events organised by the PCF, which explicitly declares it is an arm of the PAP?' she asked, noting that the PCF's logo incorporates the PAP's symbol.Replied Prof Ho: 'It's quite different for a political party under its own banner to organise an event where it espouses a political cause, talking about issues that are close to the hearts. Some Singaporeans will agree, disagree.'As we have seen in other countries, when you do this, because politics can create emotive feelings, passion...you may not intend it, but then there may be bystanders who may stir up the situation.'But an examination of the PCF's track record 'shows very clearly it does not engage in politics, it does not discuss political issues', he said.Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang), the WP secretary-general, then rose to dispute this. He asked Prof Ho to cast his mind back to 1991, when the PCF 'threatened to withdraw and close down kindergartens in opposition wards'.'Is that not political?' he asked.Prof Ho responded: 'There's no denying that in terms of affiliation, the PCF is affiliated to the PAP. But in terms of the focus of activities, it is non-political.'I think it's quite natural therefore, that in terms of services offered to the people of Hougang, which made a decision, there is a withdrawal of the services. The services themselves, surely Mr Low cannot say are political in nature.'xueying@sph.com.sg联合早报政府仍不允许 户外举行政治活动律政部兼内政部高级政务部长何炳基重申为了避免引发骚乱，政府将维持不允许在户外举行政治活动的立场。　　他昨天在国会上回答官委议员萧锦鸿的口头询问时，举外国经常发生和平聚会演变为街头欧斗为例，指出鉴于政治活动会带动人们的情绪，警方将不会向申请举办户外政治活动者发出准证。　　不过，他指出政府自本月起已允许任何有意举行示威或户外政治活动的人无须向警方申请准证，便可在芳林公园的演说角落自由举行活动。　　至于非选区议员林瑞莲询问为何李显龙总理上月31日又可以在西海岸参加一项户外骑脚踏车活动，何炳基解释那其实是一项由人民行动党社区基金会（PCF）所主办的不带政治色彩的家庭日活动，不会出现秩序混乱。　　林瑞莲是工人党主席。这个反对党去年为配合创党50周年而打算在东海岸公园举行脚踏车活动，不过申请被警方以担心政党在户外举行活动，有可能引发社会秩序问题为由加以拒绝。　　　　何炳基强调，尽管行动党社区基金会隶属于行动党，但是它自1986年设立以来，便是以开办幼稚园及托儿中心等社区服务为宗旨，而且它当天还在活动上把所筹得的66万4000元义款交由李总理转交17个福利机构，无论是主办者或活动本身，都属于非政治性质。　　不过，工人党议员刘程强（后港区）对这样的解释表示质疑。他搬出的理由是当他在1991年夺得后港区席位后，这个基金会曾恫言关闭区内的幼稚园。　　对此，何炳基回答说基金会隶属行动党是事实，当一个选区落入反对党之手时，区内选民已知道他们的决定将可能导致基金会取消一些服务。尽管如此，基金会所提供的服务本身是非政治性的。 Speeches On Motion on By-Elections by Sylvia Lim and Low Thia Khiang Sitting Date: 27 Aug 2008Parliamentary ElectionsSylvia Lim's Speech On Motion on By-ElectionsPart 1Part 2Ms Sylvia Lim (Non-Constituency Member): Sir, the motion filed by the two Nominated Members calls for the election system to be fine-tuned. We in the Workers' Party are unable to support the motion for the simple reason that we have never accepted the GRC system and the motion attempts to entrench it. The motion is also flawed in some respects.First, it attempts to refine the GRC system by provided that the moment the minority Member has left the GRC, a by-election for the GRC will be called.We do not see the justification for the departure of any single Member, including the minority Member, to trigger a by-election in the whole GRC. In our view, this is a disproportionate outcome.Elections are won or lost by GRC teams, not on the merit of the minority Member alone. Each voter votes for the GRC team for different reasons - some may well vote because of the minority Member but others may do so because of the team leader or anchor Minister or because of some other MP.In 1999, one of the Members in Jalan Besar GRC, Mr Choo Wee Khiang, resigned his seat due to a criminal conviction. The House then debated the issue or whether to call a by-election in Jalan Besar GRC. Then leader of the House, Mr Wong Kan Seng, spoke generally about why one Member's departure should not trigger a by-election in a GRC. He said, and I quote,"the legislated intent was not to allow any particular MPs so elected as part of a group of MPs for the GRC to hold the rest to ransom, to resignation or otherwise. The thinking then was that all the other MPs should not be forced to vacate their seats on account of one MP vacating his seat for whatever reason; death, resignation, or whatever". This highlights one of the main weaknesses of the GRCs, that a team member's non co-operation could sound the political death knell for the rest. This is unjustifiable.Next, the motion goes on to propose that one half or more of the members of the GRC team have departed, a by-election in the GRC should be called as well. To propose this means that we prepared to accept the situation where one or even two members in a GRC have left, no by-election needs to be called.The reality is that the moment even one member of the team leaves, the issue of the constituents being under represented immediately arises. To say that constituency work can be covered even by non MPs is a dubious assertion as the residents will feel shortchanged. What about the parliamentary work? Can this be covered? Each MP is restricted to five parliamentary questions per sitting and can make only one speech in each debate. Just doing simple mathematics, the number of Parliamentary questions and speeches that can be made by the GRC team will be diminished the moment any MP vacates his seat. If GRC sizes are increased in the future, this motion will envisage three, four or even more vacancies before a by-election in a GRC is called. The under-representation of the constituents will become even more indefensible.Third, the motion asked the House to introduce amendments to the Parliamentary Elections Act such that a writ of by-election shall be called in the event that a Member of a Single Member Constituency vacates his or her seat for any reason. There is actually no need for the House to do this. This is already provided for under the Constitution and the Parliamentary Elections Act. Article 49 of the Constitution already states that the whenever the seat of an elected Member has become vacant for any reason, the vacancy shall be filled by election in a manner provided by law, meaning that it should be done. The Parliamentary Elections Act itself, section 24, further provides that the President shall issue a writ of election "to supply vacancies caused by death, resignation, or otherwise." There can be no argument that when an MP in an SMC vacates his seat, there is no vacancy. The issue is really with the timing of the by-election, which I shall return to later.Sir, indeed the motion shows that the GRC system is a system which does not promote representative democracy. The attempts in the motion to cure the problems with GRCs do not address the fundamental problem of the GRC that it dilutes the voter's voice. Instead of making a clear choice of which person they want to represent them, they are asked to pick a team of people and the outcome of their vote will depend on the aggregate outcome of voting in other constituencies. At the practical level, it also increases the bar for those who intend to contest, increasing the likelihood of walkovers.What Mr Wong Kan Seng had said in 1999 about one member holding the rest to ransom also applies at the nomination stage when candidates are putting themselves up for election. GRC team members can hold the others to ransom as the whole team must stand to qualify as candidates, in the correct racial mix.In view of all these objections to the original motion, I would like to propose that the motion be amended such as to call on the Government to introduce amendments to the Constitution to abolish GRCs and to revert to a system of single member seats and to set a three-month time limit for all by-elections to be called.Mr Speaker: May I have a copy of the amendment?Ms Sylvia Lim: Yes, Sir. I believe a written copy has been given to the Clerk.Mr Speaker: The amendment seems to be in order. Are copies made available to all Members?Ms Sylvia Lim: Could I request the Clerk to circulate to Members? [Copy of amendment to motion circulated to hon. Members. ]Mr Speaker: Would you like to move your amendment, Ms Lim?Ms Sylvia Lim: Sir, I beg to move,That the words in the motion from "fine-tune the electoral system" to "by-elections shall be called" in the last sentence be deleted, and the following words be inserted in their place:(a) introduce amendments to the Constitution to abolish Group Representation Constituencies and revert to a system of Single Member Constituencies", and;(b) introduce amendments to the Parliamentary Elections Act such that a writ for by-election shall be issued in the event a Member vacates his or her seat for any reason."Sir, the proposed amended motion has also been put down for the convenience of Members on paper.Mr Speaker: Have you finished your Speech?Ms Sylvia Lim: Sir, I will now speak on the amended motion.Why abolish GRCs after 20 years?To answer this, we should trace history and how we have evolved. We should then ask: are GRCs good for the people or good for the PAP?In 1988, GRCs were introduced as three-Member teams. Then Deputy Prime Minister, Goh Chok Tong, told Parliament that the GRCs would ensure minority representation. Just two years later, in 1990, GRC size was increased from three Members to four, the reason being population growth within three-Member GRCs. In 1996, GRCs were increased from four Members to five or six Members. We were told that this was to provide the critical masses of residents needed for the Community Development Councils or CDCs to work, but these arguments are clearly red herrings. As then Deputy Prime Minister Goh had already said in 1988, even if all seats were ran as single seats, MPs could still group together after the elections for economies of scale. The reasons given by the PAP also do not explain why, coincidentally, GRCs which were nearly won by the Workers' Party, such as Eunos GRC and Cheng San GRC, disappeared in the following elections.In 2006, some light was shed as to how the PAP benefited from GRCs. Senior Minister Goh spoke of the PAP's recruitment challenge, and he said, and I quote,"without some assurance of a good chance of winning, at least, their first election, many able and successful young Singaporeans may not risk their careers to join politics." Interesting. Are we to infer that the PAP candidates these days are not what they used to be? On a separate note, Minister Mentor also made comments that the Health Minister should be ready to lead his own GRC team after being under his wing in Tanjong Pagar GRC for four years. So, it seems that the GRC is a useful recruitment and training tool for the ruling party.Has the GRC strengthened or weakened politicians' mandate? Back in 1998, Dr Ahmad Mattar already hit the nail on the head. His views were quoted in Parliament as follows and I quote,"as a Malay, I do not think I would like to contest in any elections when my victory is guaranteed, not because I am a strong candidate but because I have a so-called strong twin brother to lean on."How do voters feel about GRCs? The Government might want to do a big national survey to find out. It is not uncommon for Singaporeans to become residents of different GRCs in successive elections without moving house at all. The jokes about boundaries are endless, with the residents of Serangoon asking for their Marine Parade seaview and Tanjong Pagar GRC now fronting MacRitchie Reservoir.In my view, there has clearly been political degeneration as a result of the GRCs. To arrest this, the amended motion calls for the Government to amend the Constitution to abolish GRCs and revert to a system of single seats where each candidate is judged on his or her own merits.Can this be done? Of course. The Electoral Boundaries Committee will give effect to any changes to the system that are made.How do we ensure that minority representation then, some might ask. Singapore's history has shown that, in the past, minority candidates stood and won single seats. PAP MPs, such as Mr Dhanabalan, Mr Rajaratnam, Mr Sidek Saniff, Mr Zulkifli Mohamad, had done so; so have Opposition leaders, like Mr Jeyaretnam in Anson, a predominantly Chinese constituency. This was so even in the 1984 general election. Are we now saying that Singapore has regressed as a society? Or is the PAP now saying that they have less confidence in their current minority Ministers, MPs or new candidates winning on their own?Finally, I move to the issue of time limit for by-elections under the system of single seats. Even though the obligation is already there, as I said earlier, the issue lies in the lack of a definite deadline by which a by-election must be called after a vacancy arises. This has led to long and unjustified delays in holding by-elections. For instance, in 1986, when MP for Anson, Mr Jeyaretnam, was disqualified from office, no by-election was held in Anson for two years until the 1988 general election. This loophole should be plugged.This is not a new issue for this House. It came up nine years ago when the Workers' Party filed a motion to debate whether a by-election should be held in Jalan Besar GRC. The ruling party was not willing then to write in a time limit. Even if a law sets no time limit for something to be done, the usual interpretation is that it should be done within a reasonable time: in this case, a few months, not years. In the circumstances, we support explicitly providing a three-month deadline which is the same period as in the earlier Malaysian legislation. The amended motion reflects this.Low Thia Khiang's Speech On Motion on By-ElectionsMr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): Sir, while I respect the Speaker's ruling on the amended motion moved by the Workers' Party Chairman, Sylvia Lim, that it is out of order, I beg to differ on the interpretation of relevancy.Sir, the tenet of the motion before the House is, "That this House affirms the importance of representative democracy." Sir, the amended motion about GRC exactly talks about representative democracy.Secondly, Sir, the motion talks about by-election in a GRC. But the problem of by-election in a GRC - both in its technicality and practicality - is rooted in the problem of GRC itself. Therefore, instead of debating the substantive motion before the House on the question of by-election in a GRC, the fundamental question of whether the GRC system is justifiable and necessary should be debated first.Sir, the Members who spoke on the motion spoke at length about the original intent of the GRC is clear evidence of this relevancy. Therefore, I am of the view that the amended motion moved by Sylvia Lim is relevant. But, nevertheless, I respect the ruling of the Speaker and I shall speak on the question of representative democracy. Sir, I shall speak in Mandarin.(In Mandarin): Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, in our pledge, we pledge to establish a society based on justice and equality. The basis of democracy is to ensure that the people have the right to vote and the freedom to choose the government. In Singapore, although the Constitution provides that the elections will decide on the formation of government, the people have the right to choose the government, in practice, not every Singaporean has the right to vote. A recent report in the Straits Times shows that since 1988, with the introduction of the GRCs, the number of uncontested constituencies has increased steadily. In the 2001 general election, there were 55 uncontested constituencies, that is to say, more than 65% of the seats were not contested. In 2006, although there were some improvements, there were 37 seats uncontested. If the political landscape in Singapore remains the same, the prospect of whether the opposition party will be able to find enough candidates to field in future elections remains uncertain.The PAP conveniently attributed the situation to the opposition parties not being capable of fielding enough candidates, hence depriving Singaporeans of the right to vote. Nevertheless, we should examine whether we are in the process of creating another version of a democratic system which is a system of automatic election of ruling party candidates. We should ponder over how this system affects our country, our people and the legitimacy of the government in the long run? I met a middle-aged person at Suntec City and he told me that he was already 50 years old and the only time he voted was for the Election of President. However, except for the first Elected President, there were no contest for the subsequent elections for the President because there were no candidates contesting except for one. So there was no need to vote at all. This uniquely Singaporean electoral system where there are elections held but no contest and hence election being won by default is the only one of its kind in the world and the first in the world. I do not know what kind of system this is.According to the PAP Government, the purpose of the GRCs is to ensure that there is minority representation in Parliament and the PAP assumes that the majority of the Chinese will vote according to racial identity of the candidate. This assumption may not be correct. In the 1981 by-election and in the 1984 general elections, Mr Jeyaretnam, a member of the minority race, defeated the Chinese candidate of the PAP in Anson. Before the implementation of the GRC, we did not hear of a minority candidate of PAP not getting sufficient support and losing an election.Since the beginning, not many people believe the reasons given by the PAP for having the GRCs. And the PAP probably knew that the justification to ensure that there is minority presence in Parliament may not withstand scrutiny. Hence, Mr Goh Chok Tong, then PM, attempted to introduce new annotations to the original declared intent. He said that GRC system allows some PAP candidates who were not well known but have first class quality to avoid the challenge from the opposition candidates who are articulate and smooth talking but without real substance. Therefore, he says, GRC serves the interest of the nation. This is a serious insult to the intelligence of Singaporeans. This is like telling the people that they are not sufficiently wise to decide on the quality of candidate and if they are allowed to vote, they will not be able to vote in good leaders. So, the PAP has to implement this GRC system to select on their behalf. SM Goh has also said that the PAP needed the GRC system to assure candidates of the PAP that they will win when they come in. This will help the PAP to recruit new candidates. Are these candidates, who do not have a sense of political mission and commitment, but concerned only about their personal career and income, the best way to ensure the future of Singapore?The Constitution and the law should work for the benefit of all the people and not for the party. Unfortunately, the PAP has used its majority position in Parliament adopted different measures with grandiose ideas and reasons to change the Constitution to suit its purpose. In 1996, I had pointed this out in Parliament, we could see that in the 1988 and 1991 elections, the PAP had made use of the GRC system ---Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr Low, are you speaking on the motion?Mr Low Thia Khiang: Yes, of course. I am speaking on parliamentary representatives, Sir.Mr Deputy Speaker: The motion calls for a debate on by-elections.Mr Low Thia Khiang: Yes, I am coming to that, Sir.(In Mandarin): The PAP continues to change the rules to increase the size of the GRC, so that these SMCs become less and less important and, therefore, I said at that time that the GRC would allow the PAP to absorb the areas where there was a high support for the opposition to be merged into a GRC so that the opposition voters will always become the minority and hence opposition candidates will not be elected.In 1997, the PAP nearly lost Cheng San GRC and after the election, Cheng San constituency disappeared, a major part of it being grouped into Ang Mo Kio GRC. When Braddell constituency had as much as close to 50% support for the opposition, it was absorbed into Marine Parade GRC. So, come next election, how will the PAP Government take advantage of the GRC to redraw electoral boundaries? Let us wait and see.The PAP Government, in order to win more seats, has adopted many measures so that many seats can be won without a contest.Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr Low, please speak on the motion on by-elections. If you want to speak on the GRC system, it belongs to another motion. So when will you be speaking on by-elections?Mr Low Thia Khiang: OK. Let me now move on to by-elections.(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, under the present law, it is provided that by-election shall be held for Single Member Constituency but it was silent on whether a by-election should be held within a certain time-frame. Thus, the Government can use the loophole in the law to postpone by-elections. So, even if the next general election is to be held in two years’ time, the Government will not hold a by-election. In 1986, after Mr Jeyaretnam lost his seat, a by-election was not held. The meaning in PM’s speech on the subject is profound; I wish to remind voters that your vote for the PAP will allow the PAP to control everything, including the holding of by-elections.The meaning of election is representation. Without holding a by-election for a vacated seat does not conform with the spirit of electing representatives of the people. Elections also allow the people to experience direct participation in politics. This will nurture citizens’ sense of ownership in public policy discourse and national identity. Under the present Constitution and the Parliamentary Elections Act, we do not encourage the spirit of participation through elections, especially in light of the consequence of GRC, resulting in a scenario of having elections but voters being unable to vote due to no contest; If the situation continues, it will aggravate political apathy of Singaporeans and polling day would become just another additional holiday. This will be a sad day for the country.===========================================ST, 28 Aug 2008A House enthralledArguments and barbs fly in by-election debate; an attempted hijacking of motion and failure of equipment also add spiceBy Jeremy Au YongWP chairman Sylvia Lim caught many off-guard by suggesting an amendment of the motion - which would turn it into a call to abolish GRCsNOMINATED MPs Thio Li-ann and Loo Choon Yong thought they were taking aim at by-election laws. Little did they know that Non-Constituency MP Sylvia Lim would step into their spotlight to take a potshot at group representation constituencies (GRCs). The debate yesterday over a motion on refining by-election laws might have lasted over four hours, but this was one parliamentary sitting that nobody would have described as dull. Apart from the attempted hijacking of the motion by the Workers' Party (WP) chairman, the session also saw MPs trading barbs, equipment malfunctioning and one MP saying he had changed his mind about supporting the call to fine-tune the laws. It all started routinely enough. At 3pm, the end of the question-and-answer session, Professor Thio stood to present the motion on by-elections that she and Dr Loo had filed. She had been given one hour, and proceeded to make the most of her time with a speech that ran to 18 pages. She argued her points forcefully, elaborating and illustrating in parts with details from personal experiences. At one point, when speaking about laws that protect minorities, she recounted her time as a doctoral student in Cambridge in England: 'I spent many wearying hours huddled over dusty legal tomes with a comforting chocolate croissant and instant Nescafe coffee mix, studying how minorities were protected, from the Middle Ages to our Modern Age.' It was not the last time that a chocolate croissant would be invoked in a parliamentary speech. But the drama really began when Ms Lim stood up to speak. She sprang two surprises: First, that the WP would not support the motion because it entrenches the GRC system - a concept the party has never accepted. The second, the bigger surprise, was that she wanted to amend the motion. What it amounted to, in fact, was a complete re-writing of it, as Ms Lim deleted almost the entire motion and replaced it with a call to abolish GRCs. The move caught many off-guard. But like any good TV drama, Parliament took a 20-minute break, creating suspense before the ending could be revealed. And when it came, the ending was something of a damp squib. At the resumption of the session, Leader of the House Mah Bow Tan pointed out that Ms Lim's proposed amendments were not relevant to the original motion that had been filed. Parliament Speaker Abdullah Tarmugi agreed, struck out the amendments and suggested that Ms Lim file a separate motion later to debate the GRC issue. Opposition MP and WP secretary-general Low Thia Khiang (Hougang), who spoke later, disagreed that Ms Lim's amendment was irrelevant. He said that the problem with having by-elections in a GRC was rooted in the problem of the GRC itself: 'Members who speak on the motion speak at length about the original intent of the GRC. This is great evidence of its relevance (to the debate on by-elections).' To push his point further, he focused most of his speech on the ills of the GRC system - only to be told twice by Deputy Speaker Matthias Yao to confine himself to the issue at hand, which was on by-elections. Mr Gautam Banerjee, the only Nominated MP who opposed the motion yesterday, originally intended to support it. But he changed his mind after listening to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's speech.Mr Banerjee said: 'Having heard the Prime Minister, I am satisfied that we do not need to change at this time our electoral system.' Another MP who opposed the motion was Mr Hri Kumar Nair (Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC). And he couldn't resist taking a swipe at Prof Thio in his speech. Citing her comparison of a GRC that is short of MPs to the Beatles without Paul McCartney and John Lennon, he said: 'We are not dealing with the Beatles or the Bangles. Not even Earth, Wind and Fire.' He also responded to her chocolate croissant remark: 'Singaporeans know the difference between substance and form. They are less concerned with dusty books and chocolate croissants.' Prof Thio responded with some harsh words for him, accusing him of misrepresenting one of her points: 'We were not suggesting the blind transposition of foreign models. I think Mr Nair said that, I think that was a cheap political shot...' There was still time for a few more surprises near the end. Prof Thio did not know the procedure for calling a division in the vote and ended up asking for it three times. A division is when MPs record their stands electronically instead of just voicing it with an 'aye' or a 'no'. During the vote-taking, Mr Sin Boon Ann (Tampines GRC) and Nominated MP Kalyani Mehta complained their machines weren't working and registered their votes verbally. He voted 'no' and she voted 'yes'. 早报28 Aug 2008工人党反对集选区制度 对补选动议也投反对票补选一般对反对党较为有利，因为选民往往心想既然人民行动党已执政，投票给反对党，新加坡也不会因此变天。但是，反对党议员昨天却在国会上针对修改国会选举制度，规定政府在有议席悬空时，须按照规定举行补选的动议进行记名表决时，投下反对票。　　身为非选区议员的工人党主席林瑞莲一起身发言，就表态反对这项动议，说她压根儿就不支持集选区制度。她还因此要求修改动议，提议辩论废除集选区制度。　　由于国会在她发言后休息，国会领袖马宝山过后在恢复辩论时，立刻指出她所提出的修改动议内容离题了，议长因此也不允许修改动议。　　林瑞莲认为，国会的每一个议席都不能出现空缺。 　　“我不认为选区工作真能由别人代劳，因为选民会觉得货不对办。国会工作呢？每个议员每次国会复会时，只能提问五个问题，每项辩论只能发表一次演讲。简单算一下，一个集选区如果少了一名议员，提问或发言的数次就减少了。”　　工人党秘书长刘程强（后港区议员）发言时也借题发挥，大谈集选区制度弊端，结果遭议长屡次指责，要他言归正传，把话题转回补选课题。 　　他批评在推行集选区制度后，行动党候选人都在许多集选区不战而胜，导致“有选举而选民无法投票”情况出现。 　　他也不认为新加坡需要靠集选区制度来确保国会有少数种族代表。 　　“吴作栋资政在担任总理期间，就尝试为集选区重新注解。他说，集选区制度能够让执政党一些知名度不高但素质一流的候选人，避开能言善道但没真才实料的反对党候选人的挑战，顺利进入国会，因此符合国家的利益。行动党这种思维，严重侮辱了新加坡人的智慧。这等于告诉新加坡人：你们没有足够的智慧判断候选人的优劣，给你们选票也选不出好的领导人，行动党只好勉为其难，通过集选区制度帮你们选。”　　虽然他和林瑞莲都认为，议席悬空后，补选不应该无限期拖延，但他们都没投票支持动议。刘程强起身离开时，还和坐在他对面的副总理兼内政部长黄根成聊了起来，说他投反对票是他只认同半项动议。 Easy Access To Foreign Labour, Home Team And Immigration And Checkpoints Authority (Shortage of officers), Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill Sitting Date: 26 Aug 2008EASY ACCESS TO FOREIGN LABOUR IN SERVICE INDUSTRIESMs Sylvia Lim asked the Acting Minister for Manpower whether easy access to foreign labour in service industries is counterproductive to encouraging employers to upgrade the skills of Singaporeans and undermines Government retraining efforts in service industries.The Acting Minister for Manpower (Mr Gan Kim Yong): Sir, Singapore has limited local manpower. Foreign manpower has helped to augment our local workforce and enabled our economy to grow beyond our own indigenous workforce alone can support. Nevertheless, access to foreign labour is regulated. This is done through the dependency ratio as well as through the foreign worker levy. In services, for example, the dependency ratio is 50% with the foreign worker levy up to $450 for unskilled workers.The presence of foreign workers does not hamper the training of our workers. Based on a survey released by MOM last year, the level of employer-supported training has been rising from 2002 to 2006, a period when foreign employment also grew. In 2006, 72% of private sector establishments provided structured training to their employees, a substantial increase from the 52% in 2002.As I mentioned in yesterday's reply, the Government has invested heavily in Continuing Education and Training, or CET, programmes to help our local workers to upgrade their skills so that they can take on better jobs. Under the CET Masterplan, we have started by investing an additional $800 million into the Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund this year to ramp up our efforts significantly by expanding the number of good-quality training places in growth sectors. In 2007, the total number of persons who received training under the Workforce Skills Qualification (WSQ) system was 68,000, more than double the 31,000 persons trained in 2006. More specifically, 21,000 persons were trained in the services sector in areas such as food and beverage, tourism, retail and finance.Ms Sylvia Lim: Sir, two supplementary questions. In the MOM's recent annual report on wages released in 2008, it was reported that there was wage stagnation for the lowest income earners for the last 10 years and the economists attribute the presence of foreign workers as a downward pressure on residents' wages. Does the Minister agree with this assessment or that there is a cause-effect in this relationship?Secondly, in the Institute of Policy Studies Conference in 2007, economists noted that relaxed policies on foreign workers and the immigration have created a new economy where the lower wage workers are losing out. It was stated that large scale import of unskilled labour has its pros and cons and that we should do a detailed study on the cause and benefits of such policies. Is the Government indeed commissioning an independent study into this question? If so, could we have some details? And if not, why not?Mr Gan Kim Yong: Sir, let me explain. Wages of a job depends on several factors. Firstly, it depends on the value of the job, the skills involved, the knowledge content of the job, and it also depends on the productivity of respective workers, the affordability of a company to pay and the performance of the company. It also depends on the supply and demand of workers in the particular industry.For services, let me give you an example, since this question was on services. In 2007, total wages went up by 5.9% in the overall economy, and services sector wages went up by 6.5%. And services sector is a sector with a growing number of foreign workers in 2007, and therefore the hypothesis that foreign workers depress wages is a very simplistic conclusion which may not be true.Secondly, I would also like to share that there were certain segments in our employment market where these sectors tend to have more older people and these sectors include the labourers, the cleaners as well as contract workers. And these older workers, in the past, they have not been working. If you look at the employment rate of older workers, aged 55 to 64, the employment rate has improved significantly. Over the last three years, it went up by nine over percentage points to 56% last year.With this increase of supply of older workers who generally have a lower education level and lower skill sets, they tend to take on jobs that are easier to do and have lower entry barrier. As a result, the salary would generally be lower. We hope that we will be able to help these new workers to progress and upgrade. We do that through a number of measures. First, we try to engage these workers and reach out to them. We want to, first, encourage them to work. Therefore we want to provide a relatively easy entry point for these workers to come in and we give them the minimum skills so that they can start working and earn a decent income. After that, we want to find ways to reach out to them, to give them training and upgrading so that they can upgrade to a better job and earn better income. We also go through job redesign, to help redesign these jobs in the lower wage area, one example is the cleaning industry and another is the security industry, to enhance the values of these jobs. As I mentioned, wages also depend on the value of the job. And through enhancement and job redesign, we hope that the jobs would be able to pay better.Finally, even for these lower wage workers, we also, as my Senior Parliamentary Secretary mentioned just now, provide Workfare Income Supplement to help them improve their overall takings to support their family income. We have looked at the wage structure of our employment landscape. We think that it is more important for us to focus on training and upgrading. A very important question is, how can we improve our training and upgrading? Continue to press on with our CET, to equip our workers with skills, so that they can continually upgrade themselves and improve their income...Mr Speaker: Ms Lim, last question.Ms Sylvia Lim: Sir, the Minister has not answered my second question which was about the call by the economists at the IPS Conference for a detailed study to be done on the pros and cons of our current foreign worker policies, and my question was whether the Government is doing one or considering to do one and, if so, can we have some details. If not, why not?Mr Gan Kim Yong: Sir, I beg your pardon. I forgot about the second question. In fact, the Government has always been monitoring the effect of foreign workers on our overall employment market. We want to make sure that these foreign workers, while adding flexibility to our labour market, will not create problems for our local employees. As we can see, over the last few years, during the recession period, there was a significant reduction in the number of foreign workers and that is in response to the economic cycles. And during the same period, we also see the impact on local employment. Although the local employment has also come down, the extent is much smaller than the impact on foreign workers. So to answer Ms Lim's question specifically, there is no need to do an independent study. In fact, the Ministry is monitoring and studying the issue continuously because this is something that we need to respond and react quickly when the market changes. It is something that we will continue to monitor.HOME TEAM AND IMMIGRATION AND CHECKPOINTS AUTHORITY(Shortage of officers)Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs how long will the Government's study on Home Team resources take and whether interim measures are being put in place to ease the situation.Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs how far has the morale of the Home Team been affected by the recent security lapses and what are the implications of this on the security of Singapore.The Second Minister for Home Affairs (Mr K Shanmugam) (for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs): Sir, with your leave, if I can take Question Nos. 3, 4 and 5 together?Mr Speaker: Yes.Mr Shanmugam: Sir, on 21st July 2008, I had said that the Ministry of Home Affairs has directed that a human factor study be conducted to look at operational fatigue, and the level of workload and resources within the Home Team. The questions raised by Mdm Halimah and Ms Lim on the morale and resource situation in the Home Team can be answered by looking at what the study has found so far.The Human Factor StudyIn July 2008, the Ministry of Home Affairs formed a committee ("Committee") comprising in-house psychologists and scientists to study the human factor situation within the Home Team.That Committee found that the fundamentals in Home Team are generally sound. Officers are committed to their work and they believe that they play an important role in keeping Singapore safe and secure. However, over the years, our officers have had to cope with increased workload, in terms of both sheer volume and complexity in the post-September 11 security climate. While work volume was high, many officers still feel that they can cope adequately with the demands of the work. But in some areas, the Committee found that officers felt overstretched, strained and stressed. Overtime and extra shift work were perpetually required, and officers had to cancel their leave to return to work. Many even had to give up some of their annual leave to meet the exigencies of service.The Committee also found that some of the most taxed areas of the Home Team are those that deal with the general public. Unfortunately, the experience of the officers has been that, from time to time, they encounter extremely demanding, unreasonable or even abusive members of the public as they discharge their duties.In general, the growths in population and traffic at the checkpoints have outstripped manpower growth in the Home Team. In some areas, this has taken its toll on our officers. Apart from the sheer volume increase, the Home Team also had to deal with new areas, such as in casino regulation and counter terrorism; and Terminal 3 and the Budget Terminal have added to the demands. Security coverage for major events, such as the IMF/ World Bank Annual Meeting in 2006 and the ASEAN Summit in 2007 has also been very taxing.In addition to the increased demands that I have listed, another pressure on manpower in the Home Team is that, in recent years, there have been more resignations due to the economic boom. Pay in the private sector became more attractive. However, the 2007 pay review for the civil service has helped to reduce the outflow.Morale situationMs Lim asked about the impact of the security lapses on the morale of the Home Team and the implications on the security of Singapore. Our officers take pride in their work. They know that Singaporeans expect high standards of them. There was disappointment that lapses occurred and a determination and resolve to do better. But there was also a strongly held view that some of the reactions to the errors were not proportionate. I had, on 21st July, tried to give a sense of how important it is to view security in its complexity and always in its operating context. It is important that we be fair to our officers, even as we expect the best from them.There has been intense scrutiny and at times harsh comments passed on the Home Team. But our officers are resilient. They remain dedicated to their work and are determined to set things right. Time and again, Home Team officers have performed well and risen to challenges under pressure. DPM Wong made an important speech in his recent National Day Observance. He gave his categorical assurance to Home Team officers that all of us appreciate their situation. He added that the Ministry will maintain a pragmatic balance and proper perspective when assessing their performance, rather than simply focusing on lapses only. Our officers have been greatly encouraged to know this.MeasuresMdm Halimah and Ms Lim asked what is being done to deal with the resource shortage. So far, we have tried to cope with the increased demands through outsourcing, introducing technological solutions and other such measures. However, in security work, these cannot be total solutions. People are at the centre of any security system and we need enough good officers to do the job.Recruitment and job redesignIn this regard, we have instructed the Home Team Departments to step up recruitment. We are also reviewing our employment criteria and job scopes to see if we can accept new sources of manpower in specific areas. For instance, we have already started re-employing retired officers. They are experienced and attuned to the needs of the organisation. If emplaced in the right jobs, they can start contributing straightaway once they are re-employed.Ensuring adequate resource levelsBut the fact remains that we will need more resources to cope with the increased demands. And the Ministry of Home Affairs has discussed this with MOF, and MOF has assured the Ministry of Home Affairs of its full support to ensure that the Home Team has adequate resources to meet these demands.The Committee of psychologists and scientists has also reviewed behavioural science studies that calibrate appropriate manning levels for various types of operational processes. The idea is to find the point where our officers feel sufficiently challenged and operate at peak efficiency, without feeling overwhelmed and fatigued. This is something which we think will be useful and serve as a basis for resource requisition.Mitigating human errorThe Committee has also done a best practice survey of the measures that can mitigate human errors and recommended them to the Home Team Departments. For instance, many industries, such as the US aviation sector, have a near miss reporting system. A near miss is an unplanned event that had the potential to go wrong. Identifying near misses allows problems to be surfaced and improvements to be made early. We are also looking into refining the existing system of "after action reviews" to ensure that mistakes and learning points are transmitted more thoroughly to all the officers on the ground. The Office of Chief Science and Technology Office in the Ministry of Home Affairs has also embarked on a review of system interfaces to make them more user friendly and compensate for human oversight.In conclusion, Sir, Home Team officers remain dedicated to the mission of keeping Singapore safe and secure. This is reflected in the sacrifices they have made over the years and continue to make every day. I am confident they will rise to meet the challenges ahead.Ms Sylvia Lim: Sir, the Minister mentioned just now in his answer that attrition among officers has risen due to private market being an alternative career. Has MHA also done any study on push factors that may have caused the officers to resign and what are the key push factors involved? Secondly, Sir, in the Minister's response during the Adjournment Motion at the last sitting, he mentioned the number of overtime hours clocked in by the immigration officers and that came as a surprise to most of us because it seemed quite a large number of overtime hours. Is the Ministry saying that there should actually be a certain number of overtime hours done by the immigration officers and what is the ideal range of overtime hours done or was it something that should have been picked up earlier and perhaps recruitment stepped up earlier?Mr Shanmugam: Sir, when we look at the resignation rate for our officers, for example, if you look at the senior officers, it has gone up from 3.2% to 3.7% and that of junior officers have in fact gone down from 3.7% to 2.3%. We will of course prefer fewer resignations but the situation, in broad terms, remains acceptable and we obviously have to compete with the market. I had said that in 2007, it was a booming market and the pay review has helped, and we believe that with redesignation of job scopes, to try and make it even more attractive and more aggressive recruitment campaign, this issue can be tackled.Secondly, as regards the overtime hours that have been put in, to some extent, as I have tried to explain in my earlier answer, this has been caused by the exigency of the situation. Some of it could have been planned for. A number of events could not be planned for, for example, our checkpoints are beginning to handle so many passengers, particularly the land checkpoints, that they are probably among the busiest in the world. And a number of the requirements, for example, the Woodlands Checkpoints, imposed on our officers cannot be planned for because the episodic demand surges. So it has resulted in our Home Team officers having to be deployed, for us to look carefully at resource allocations to bring officers from the checkpoints which are less busy to the busy areas, and require our officers to do overtime. That is one of the areas that was studied by the committee that was set up by the team of psychologists.In general terms, they have found that the stresses and strains within the system are within acceptable limits. But they have identified a few areas where they feel that we are not optimising the contact point between the stress that is necessary to make any job interesting and, at the same time, making sure that the officers are not over-stressed, and we will look at those.LEGAL PROFESSION (AMENDMENT) BILLMr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, it sounds to me that the Government's foreign talent policy has caught up with the legal profession. But I am not speaking on this issue as I believe that the lawyers are more than capable of speaking up for themselves.Sir, I refer to the proposed amendments to the disciplinary proceedings. A layman's representative used to sit at both the Inquiry Committee as well as the Disciplinary Committee will now be restricted to only the Inquiry Committee. Clause 34 of the Bill amends section 90(1) of the Act to say that the Disciplinary Committee will now consist of only two persons instead of four. The two persons who are dropped from the Committee are the Government legal officer and the layman. Although the Minister has explained briefly the changes in the disciplinary procedures, I think it is useful to recall the reasons why the layman was introduced to the process.Sir, in 1986, the then Second Minister for Law, Prof. Jayakumar, moved amendments to the Legal Profession Act to include lay persons to justify his move. He had said, and I quote, "At present, the persons who sit on the Inquiry Committee and the Disciplinary Committee are all lawyers. The errant member is therefore judged entirely by his peers. This is based on a traditional British practice of self-regulation which grew up in guilds of people in a particular trade, historically. In recent times, the permissive attitude of these self-regulating bodies have created doubts in their willingness to police themselves or to discipline members of their own kind." He continued to say that the inclusion of non-lawyers and of people who are regular users of the services of lawyers will help allay some of the apprehensions caused by the present inhouse nature of the disciplinary process. And the inclusion of lay persons or non-lawyers in the Disciplinary Committee would stop the belief that self-help and mutual forgiveness is the way lawyers maintain standards of professional conduct.Sir, are these concerns for mutual forgiveness and transparency no longer valid now? It is true that under the existing law, the lay persons at the Disciplinary Committee stage cannot vote. Nevertheless, he contributes to the deliberation of the Committee by reminding the Committee of how a client would perceive the event at hand. This would surely provide for a fuller, more informed discussion as to what is fair and just in the circumstances. Let us not forget that the Disciplinary Committee is a very important milestone in the disciplinary process. It is the gatekeeper of whether the lawyer under inquiry should face the court of three judges be struck off or suspended. Care should be taken at such an important stage and the laymen can make important contributions. If our experience has been that the laymen are too busy, perhaps, we should amend the Act to allow more people to qualify as laymen.==============================================ST, 27 Aug 2008Simplistic to say foreign workers depress local payBy Lee Siew Hua, Senior Political CorrespondentIT IS 'very simplistic' to take the position that foreign workers depress the wages of Singaporeans.Acting Manpower Minister Gan Kim Yong discredited this view yesterday in his reply to a question from Non-Constituency MP Sylvia Lim.She said: 'It was reported that there was wage stagnation for the lowest income earners for the last 10 years, and the economists attribute the presence of foreign workers as a downward pressure on residents' wages. Does the minister agree with this assessment?' Replying, Mr Gan noted that foreign workers form a big and growing pool in the services industry. Yet its wages were comparatively better.'In 2007, total wages went up by 5.9 per cent in the overall economy. Services sector wages went up by 6.5 per cent, and this is a sector with growing numbers of foreign workers in 2007.'Therefore the hypothesis that foreign workers depress wages is a very simplistic conclusion which may not be true,' he argued. Ms Lim also cited an Institute of Policy Studies conference last year, at which economists called for a detailed study of Singapore's foreign-worker policies. Will the Government do it, she asked. Mr Gan said the Government constantly monitors the impact of foreign workers on the job market.'We want to make sure that these foreign workers, while adding flexibility to our labour market, will not create a problem for our own local employees.'This flexibility can be seen during a recession, when there would be a 'significant reduction' of these workers. But for local employment, the extent of the decline was 'much smaller', he said.There was no need to do an independent study, he said, adding that his ministry monitors and studies the issue 'continuously because...we need to react quickly when the market changes'.Ms Lim also asked if easy access to foreign workers in the services sector dissuaded bosses from upgrading the skills of locals. Similarly, Madam Ho Geok Choo (West Coast GRC) asked if bosses think hiring Singaporeans would result in 'a loss of productive time' as they have to be sent for training.Mr Gan replied: 'The presence of foreign workers does not hamper the training of our workers.'A survey his ministry did last year shows the level of employer-supported training has been rising from 2002 to 2006 - 'a period when foreign employment also grew'.He reiterated that Singapore has limited local manpower, adding: 'Foreign manpower has helped to augment our local workforce and enabled our economy to grow beyond what our indigenous workforce alone can support.'BALANCING ACT'We want to make sure that these foreign workers, while adding flexibility to our labour market, will not create a problem for our own local employees.' Acting Manpower Minister Gan Kim Yong早报26/09/2008低薪工人工资十年不变 归咎于廉价外劳不正确把导致低薪工人工资十年不变的原因归咎于廉价外籍工人并不正确，人力部代部长颜金勇指出，低教育水平和低技能才是造成年长低薪工人的工资无法提升的主要导因，所以政府积极透过培训、工作改造和就业入息补助等多项措施，让他们能争取到更好的工作和待遇。　　颜金勇是针对非选区议员林瑞莲的提问做出答复。人力部今年7月发表的《2007年新加坡工资报告》反映低薪与高薪者之间的收入差距继续扩大，而低薪工人的工资更是十年不变。　　林瑞莲说，一些经济学者认为本地工人的工资因为外劳的出现而被压低，另外也有学者在政策研究院（IPS）最近主办的一项论坛上提到，政府放宽外劳和移民政策所创造出的新经济环境令低薪工人吃亏。　　颜金勇反驳外籍工人压低本地工人工资的论点，并指出这是个“过于简单化的结论”。他以外籍工人比例不断上升的服务业为例，说明外籍工人的出现不但没有压低反而促使该行业员工的工资呈强劲增长。　　本地去年整体平均工资增长幅度是5.9％，服务业员工的工资增幅则高达6.5％。　　颜金勇指出，工资最低的清洁、劳务和合约领域一般雇用较多年长工人，这些工人有些可能以前没有就业，教育水平和技能水平都不高，所以主要从事较简易、入行门槛不高的工作，而这些工作的工资向来偏低。　　他强调，政府已经采取措施，为他们提供培训、提升他们的技能、改造低薪工作，帮助他们投入一些高增值的工作，以赚取更高的工资。清洁和保安就是其中两个经历工作改造的行业。　　受访的学者也同意外劳并非导致低薪工人工资被压低的原因。　　新加坡国立大学应用与政策经济中心主任山得锐（Shandre M Thangavelu）认为，随着我国制造业朝高增值发展，许多被裁退的制造业工人只好转而投入入行门槛较低的服务业，问题是像零售业的工作大多没有竞争力，所以工资很难获得提升。山得锐指出，以人手短缺的海事业为例，它的工资并不低，但是本地人却不愿加入这一行，业者必须雇用外籍工人来维持竞争力。　　他认为，政府已经推出多项计划为低薪工人提供培训，低薪工人要争取更好的工资，就应该把握这些培训机会。Liberalisation of legal profession worries lawyer-MPsBy Lydia Lim, Senior Political CorrespondentOPPOSITION Member of Parliament Low Thia Khiang neatly summed up yesterday's main debate when he declared dryly that 'the Government's foreign talent policy has caught up with the legal profession'. The House yesterday passed the Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill. It paves the way for the opening up of the legal services sector, which has long been insulated from foreign competition.Six of the nine MPs who joined the debate are practising lawyers.Unsurprisingly, perhaps, three of them rose to express their concern that the liberalisation would lead to local firms being marginalised.Leading the charge was Mr Sin Boon Ann (Tampines GRC), who said that foreign firms, with their bigger names and deeper pockets, would cream off the best young lawyers and leave local firms bereft of top talent.He also cited Hong Kong as an example of a market where the dominance of foreign firms had stunted the growth of local firms, and prevented their development into major regional or international players.'We know it because unlike before, our first preference when it comes to engaging Hong Kong law firms these days are the international firms and not the local ones,' Mr Sin said.Mr Hri Kumar Nair (Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC) seconded that view.With 17 years of practice under his belt, he expressed confidence that Singapore's best legal minds 'are more than a match' for their counterparts in the top international firms.'But the glitter and the deep pockets that these foreign firms have will present local firms with serious issues,' he said.Some clients will engage foreign firms for high-end corporate work simply on the basis of their name and standing, he predicted.'Today, Singapore firms get involved in international deals to advise on Singapore law issues. By this involvement, our local firms build up their skills and expertise. Now there's a serious risk that they will be bypassed,' he said.The new law allows a few selected foreign firms to practise certain types of Singapore law, through Singapore-qualified lawyers.Mr Sin, Mr Nair and Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah GRC) asked Law Minister K.Shanmugam if he was sure that the liberalisation would grow the economic pie for everyone, and not just for the foreign big boys.Yesterday's debate stood out from many others heard in the House because it is rare for a policy to hit PAP MPs so directly where it hurts - their pockets.For once, these MPs were not speaking on behalf of poor and underprivileged constituents hard hit by restructuring. They were speaking up for themselves.Economic restructuring has been part of the local landscape for a decade but the lawyer-politicians on the backbench are only now feeling its shockwaves.It seems fitting that the only other legislation passed yesterday was the Skills Development Levy (Amendment) Bill, which widens the scope of the levy beyond the upgrading needs of low-skilled workers to include the training needs of all workers.Acting Manpower Minister Gan Kim Yong explained that with 'economic restructuring, faster skills obsolescence and shorter job tenures, every worker, regardless of educational or skills level, must continually upgrade and update his skills in order to stay relevant and do his work better'.Yesterday's debate showed that those at the top are no less resistant than those at the bottom to change that forces them out of their comfort zone.In his response to the lawyer-MPs, Mr Shanmugam stressed that in making policy decisions, one has to 'leave aside emotion' and focus on where the benefits to Singapore, as a whole, lie.Did it lie in protecting local firms, or in opening up the market and 'allowing broader competition and broader choice to our young lawyers, and hoping that one day, both in the foreign law firms and in Singapore law firms, you will have a substantial number of Singapore qualified lawyers at management positions, and as a result create a more vibrant economic legal market?''When that calculation comes through, it cannot be dominated by emotion,' he said.The reality is that globalisation will leave no one untouched.And the faster Singaporeans of all income and education levels wake up to that fact, the better.As Mr Nair acknowledged, lawyers in local firms will just have to face up to the challenge of making themselves relevant in a globalised economy.'Some will succeed, others may not, but all must be prepared for change,' he said.早报，27 Aug 2008咖啡阿嫂与律师● 游润恬　　咖啡阿嫂和顶尖律师事务所的合伙人，想不到还有一个相同的苦恼——大家都面对外来的竞争。　　本地律师事务所长期垄断国内法律市场，以往外国律师不能上庭，而处理涉及新加坡法律的案件时也受到一定的限制。不过，这个竞争空间即将经历翻天覆地的改变。　　律政部去年接纳了由最高法院上诉庭法官VK拉惹领导的九人委员会所提呈的报告，决定开放法律服务业，以维护国家的整体发展利益。如此一来，实力雄厚的外国律师事务所将对本地大型律师事务所构成最直接的威胁。　　有趣的状况出现了：国会里从事律师业的议员们是会帮着同行大声打报不平，还是会以理智的声音去呼吁同行坦然面对竞争？　　本地四大律师事务所之一的德尊（Drew & Napier）的两名董事，即议员陈文安（淡滨尼集选区）和哈里古玛（碧山—大巴窑集选区），昨天都在国会对法律专业（修正）法案进行二读时，表现了对外国律师事务所进军本地市场的抗拒。　　他们指出，外国律师事务所以高薪招揽优秀的年轻律师，加剧了本地律师事务所人才难求的局面。另外，外国律师事务所知名度较高，还可能抢走本地律师事务所的生意，本地律师斗不过“过江龙”，也只好靠边站。　　这两名议员锲而不舍地跟律师出身的律政部长尚穆根辩论，使议事厅仿佛变成了控辩双方雄辩的法庭。陈文安呼吁政府不能牺牲本地人的利益，以及不应采取“不惜一切去发展经济”的政策。他形容本地律师事务所为“新加坡团队”，还认为一旦到了紧要关头，外国律师事务所必定会牺牲新加坡的利益。他也不忍心看着多年来与新加坡一起成长的本土律师楼在历史课本上沦为不起眼的脚注，并且表示开放市场对本地律师事务所是“致命的一拳”。　　这些煽情的话语，听起来和本地工人抗拒外来工人的论调似曾相识。反对党议员刘程强（后港区）就一针见血地表示：“看来律师们也开始感受到政府欢迎外来人才政策所带来的后果。”　　政府是公平的。当咖啡嫂埋怨生计被中国啤酒女郎抢走时，政府请她们接受外来人才能加大经济大饼的事实。当担任律师的议员们纷纷对让外国律师事务所进军本地市场表示抗拒时，政府也请他们务必接受经济开放和全球化所带来的挑战。尚穆根表示他体谅律师们的顾虑，但是从国家政策的角度来看，开放律师业不但能满足金融界的需要，并提高国内生产总值，还能为本地年轻律师提供更多更诱人的就业机会。　　他指出，政府不能为了保护少数大型律师事务所和它们的高级合伙人，而牺牲掉多数人的利益。他也强调政府其实早在九年前就暗示将开放法律服务市场，本地律师事务所应该有充足的时间作好备战准备。Black sheep? Baa to thatBy K.C. Vijayan, Law CorrespondentARE there really many black sheep in the legal profession?Dr Teo Ho Pin, chairman of the Government Parliamentary Committee for Law and Home Affairs, annoyed those among his colleagues who are lawyers yesterday when he portrayed those in the profession as guilty of an 'increasing trend' of misdemeanours.He pointed to a recent Straits Times report which listed the country's top 10 fugitives in terms of money stolen. Six are lawyers.These cases affect the professionalism and integrity of the legal profession, he said, while highlighting complaints from his residents involving lawyers. These related to gross overcharging, misleading statements and other forms of misconduct.'This increasing trend of lawyers' misconduct and complaints is disturbing and of concern to the general public,' he said.His remarks drew stinging rebuttals from four lawyers in the House.Mr Hri Kumar Nair (Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC) said: 'It's because a vast majority of lawyers are honest and honourable that when one falls, it makes the news and the public expresses its surprise and outrage...I think we will really be in trouble when lawyers fall and no one really thinks much about it.'Once that was cleared up, they turned their discussion to the new composition of the disciplinary tribunal which hears cases against errant lawyers.One change to the Legal Profession Act passed yesterday aims to speed up the disciplinary hearings against lawyers by introducing a two-member disciplinary tribunal to replace the current four-man panel.Two MPs voiced concerns about the composition of the tribunal. Rather than just two members, they suggested three.Mr Nair noted that if the two members disagreed, the decision of the tribunal's president - who is either a Senior Counsel, retired judge or Judicial Commissioner - would prevail. This meant the fate of the lawyer would be 'in the hands of one person'.The initial plan was for a one-man tribunal, but it was changed to two after strong objections by the Law Society.Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang) questioned the exclusion of laymen from the new tribunal.In 1986, a layman was made part of the four-member tribunal. The then Second Law Minister S. Jayakumar said that this was to stop the 'belief that self-help and mutual forgiveness is the way lawyers maintain the standards of professional conduct'. Mr Low asked if these concerns were no longer valid. Replying to Mr Low's point, Law Minister K. Shanmugan said tribunal hearings are 'quasi-criminal', with 'everything recorded'. In addition, 20 years of experience of having a layman on the tribunal showed that this delayed proceedings.The need for statutory declarations to support complaints lodged against lawyers was also queried. Nominated MP Gautam Banerjee called it an 'unnecessary inconvenience' and 'intimidating' to the layman.But Mr Shanmugam said: 'A complainant who has a genuine complaint is unlikely to be deterred by this requirement.'What it would deter would be the 'large number' of people who just want to file a complaint but do not believe in their facts, he said.The requirement for a statutory declaration already exists for complaints against doctors, architects and engineers, he noted. Elections (Amendment ) Bill, Obtaining Blood Samples From Foreign Workers In Aftermath Of Attack (Legal basic) Sitting Date: 25 Aug 2008ORDER PAPER:Ms Sylvia Lim: To ask the Acting Minister for Manpower whether easyaccess to foreign labour in service industries is counterproductive toencouraging employers to upgrade the skills of Singaporeans andundermines Government retraining efforts in service industries.Ms Sylvia Lim: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for HomeAffairs how long will the Government’s study on Home Team resourcestake and whether interim measures are being put in place to ease thesituation.Ms Sylvia Lim: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for HomeAffairs how far has the morale of the Home Team been affected by therecent security lapses and what are the implications of this on the securityof Singapore.QUESTIONS FOR WRITTEN ANSWERMs Sylvia Lim: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for HomeAffairs if he will clarify the legal basis for the police to take blood samplesfrom about 200 foreign workers in the aftermath of the attack on auniversity student at Clementi Woods Park in June 2008.================================================Sitting Date: 25 Aug 2008ELECTIONS (AMENDMENT) BILLMs Sylvia Lim (Non-Constituency Member): Sir, the proposed relaxations to increase the catchment of overseas voters are a step in the right direction, in particular, section 5 eases the residency requirement from two years out of five to 30 days out of three years which should enable more to qualify. However, I would like to seek two clarifications from the Deputy Prime Minister about the amendments. First of all, the definition of "overseas polling station" has now been expanded to cover the official residence of our diplomats. And based on his Second Reading speech earlier, are we to assume that the increase in polling stations is still confined, for example, to the political capitals of the countries in question? Second, is there any plan in the near future to explore other countries which are not currently listed? I understand that there are a fair number of Singaporeans, for example, in other countries such as New Zealand and India. Would those countries be considered in the medium term?Secondly, Sir, there is also the provision, section 39A, which remains unchanged that the polls overseas should not close later than the poll in Singapore which, I think, is a very right step. Is the Government considering closing the overseas polls early enough so that the overseas votes can be sent back to Singapore in time for counting to be combined with the local votes? As I previously said, this is important for voter anonymity, especially in smaller constituencies where the number of overseas voters may be very small.Lastly, Sir, I was also intending to raise issues concerning by-elections in the Group Representation Constituencies which are covered under the Parliamentary Elections Act. However, as there has been a motion filed by the Nominated Member, I will be raising my comments at that time.Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, I thank the Members for supporting the amendments in this Bill. I will answer the questions raised by both Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Siew Kum Hong.Ms Lim asked whether we could expand the number of overseas polling stations or not. Right now, we have nine. There are certain basic criteria we have to consider before we decide to open an overseas polling station. Firstly, we must have a Mission in that particular country. Secondly, we must have enough Singaporeans living in that country. And, thirdly, if the election is to be held in a particular city, we also must have enough mass in that particular city. What are the numbers we look at? If we have 10,000 Singaporeans living in a country, say, China, definitely, we will have a polling station in China. If there are more than 1,000 Singaporeans in cities like Beijing and Shanghai, we will have an overseas polling station in these two cities. Short of that, it is hard to justify opening an overseas polling station because it does require a lot of planning and resources to deal on the actual day of polling. So from the studies we have made, I think the expansion to the current list of nine cities is enough. If there is a need to do more, we will look at them and see what more can be done to open up more polling stations.On advancing the end of poll for overseas polling stations, I have explained before that it will shorten the time for overseas voters to make an informed decision. I have just heard Mr Siew saying that five days of campaigning is the same as nine days of campaigning, so why not close four days earlier. I am not sure if the Opposition will agree with that. I think we all want to have as much time as possible to put our views across. The timing right now to close the poll for overseas station no later than we close the poll for the Singapore station is a correct one. We will see how else we can deal with the situation of too few voters in a particular constituency. But as more Singaporeans go overseas to work and register themselves to vote, then the chances are that many of them will come from a particular constituency, and therefore the question of secrecy or anonymity of the vote will no longer arise. In fact, even if there are five overseas Singaporeans who voted for a particular constituency, nobody can tell really how the five individual members actually voted other than to know that maybe X number for one party and Y number for another party. Beyond that, who voted for who is anybody's guess. I think the Opposition Member, Mr Low Thia Khiang himself, also once agreed with me that the vote is secret and we cannot really tell.On the eligibility criteria, I have explained that. Mr Siew is quite happy with the change. His suggestion about Government funding the polling agent to go to a polling station overseas is something that we will not need to do, because there is no law compelling any party to send any polling agent to the polling station. It is not compulsory. They do not have to do it. In fact, there are some parties that could not even have enough polling agents for the Singapore elections. So we do not see the need to spend public money to send the Opposition or PAP polling agent to an overseas station. We should trust the integrity of the election process and, so far, there has been no complaint. People know that our election is fair and transparent and it is not an issue at all not to have polling agents to oversee it. If the party wants to do so, I think they are free to spend whatever they need or even to appoint somebody overseas as their polling agent. But, again, that must be subject to the availability of space in a particular overseas polling station because, as we know, Singapore is quite frugal. We do not have large Missions like some countries and, therefore, we may not be able to find enough space to accommodate all the parties that want to send their polling agents to those countries.On the last question of contingency plans, these are still being worked out. This particular Bill only deals with overseas voting and registration for overseas voting.WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONSOBTAINING BLOOD SAMPLES FROM FOREIGN WORKERS IN AFTERMATH OF ATTACK(Legal basis)Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs if he will clarify the legal basis for the police to take blood samples from about 200 foreign workers in the aftermath of the attack on a university student at Clementi Woods Park in June 2008.Mr Wong Kan Seng: In the course of police investigations into a reported case of sexual assault at Clementi Woods Park on 18th June 2008, body samples were taken from foreign workers working at nearby construction sites. This involved taking blood samples after the workers had voluntarily given their consent.The legal basis for this is found in section 13D of the Registration of Criminals Act, which provides that a person may give a body sample, which includes a blood sample, on a voluntary basis if the person was present at the scene of a crime when it was committed, or if the person is being questioned in connection with the investigation of a crime.================================================ST, 26 Aug 2008Workers gave blood samples voluntarilyTHE 200 foreign workers who gave blood samples to police officers investigating a sexual assault case in Clementi did so voluntarily.In a written reply to a question from Non- constituency MP Sylvia Lim, Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng explained that samples taken from foreign construction workers after the June 18 incident in Clementi Woods Park were obtained with the workers' consent.Ms Lim had asked what the legal basis was for the taking of those samples.Mr Wong pointed to provisions under the Registration of Criminals Act which stipulate that someone being questioned in connection with a crime, or who was present at the scene when a crime was committed, may give a body sample on a voluntary basis. Mas Selamat Kastari (whereabouts), Gaming Activities, Security Lapses & Public Confidence, Emigration of S'poreans, Emergency Ambulance Services ORDER PAPERMONDAY, 21ST JULY, 2008Ms Sylvia Lim: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for HomeAffairs (a) whether the Government has received and verified anyinformation that Mas Selamat Kastari is now in Indonesia; and (b) what ishis assessment of such an outcome on the reputation of Singapore.Ms Sylvia Lim: To ask the Acting Minister for Manpower whether easyaccess to foreign labour in service industries is counterproductive toencouraging employers to upgrade the skills of Singaporeans andundermines Government retraining efforts in service industries.Ms Sylvia Lim: To ask the Minister for Health how many persons are onthe waiting list for places in subsidised nursing homes particularly thoseoffering dementia care and what is the affordability of such care inSingapore.QUESTIONS FOR WRITTEN ANSWERMs Sylvia Lim: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for HomeAffairs (a) how many Singapore citizens emigrated from Singapore in thelast 3 years and which countries did they emigrate to; and (b) if available,what are their reasons for leaving Singapore.Ms Sylvia Lim: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for HomeAffairs what is the rationale for outsourcing emergency ambulanceservices to the private sector and what are the risks to Singaporeans ofsuch a move.==============================================ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONSMAS SELAMAT KASTARI(Information on whereabouts)Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the Government has received and verified any information that Mas Selamat Kastari is now in Indonesia; and (b) what is his assessment of such an outcome on the reputation of Singapore.Mr Wong Kan Seng: Mr Speaker, Sir, our security agencies have been working and will continue to work very closely with their foreign intelligence and security counterparts. These include Indonesian counterparts with whom ISD have had several successes in the apprehension of Jemaah Islamiah fugitives including Mas Selamat himself in February 2003. The Indonesian authorities' recent arrest of a group of terrorists, including a Singaporean, in Palembang demonstrates the usefulness of cooperation with foreign security counterparts.Up till now, our security agencies have not received any information from their Indonesian counterparts to confirm that Mas Selamat is presently hiding in Indonesia. Neither do we have domestic intelligence that shows that he has left the country.Nevertheless, we obviously cannot dismiss the possibility that Mas Selamat could have managed to escape Singapore for another country. Singapore is not a fortress. As an island, our borders are porous. There can be no 100% control over all illegal exit and entry even if our enhanced security operations have kept this to a minimum. I am not aware of any country that can prevent with absolute certainty illegal entry or exit across the length of its borders over time.We will do our utmost to find Mas Selamat whatever it takes. If Mas Selamat has escaped abroad, we will work with the relevant foreign counterparts to track him down and bring him back into custody in Singapore. We have done it before; we will do it again.We will also continue to work on all possible scenarios. In this regard, although there is no intelligence at present to substantiate it, as more time passes, this scenario of Mas Selamat being harboured by sympathisers inside or outside Singapore must logically be treated as increasingly plausible.Sir, two private individuals have approached the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and offered to put up a cash reward of $1 million for information leading to the apprehension of Mas Selamat inside or outside Singapore. They have asked MHA to operationalise their proposal because they wish to remain anonymous as they are concerned over the prospect of themselves, their families or business interests in the region becoming a target for retaliation.Sir, this is not the first time a bounty has been offered for information on Mas Selamat. In March, a labour-supply company and a non-government organisation offered $50,000 and $5,000 respectively for information on Mas Selamat. A security firm offered $1,000 to its staff to help track him down.As a policy, the Singapore Police Force does not offer cash reward for information on fugitives and unsolved crimes, or for assistance from the public. However, we do not object if private corporations and individuals wish to offer cash reward for information on the whereabouts of Mas Selamat.We are encouraged by such continued public support. We remain committed to finding and capturing Mas Selamat no matter how long it takes. We have done it before and we will do it again.Ms Sylvia Lim (Non-Constituency Member): Sir, four supplementary questions for the Deputy Prime Minister (DPM). First question is, whether there is any fresh intelligence that the Government has obtained that Mas Selamat is still in Singapore. Second question is, security analysts have observed that Indonesia is a logical place for Mas Selamat to escape to. In fact, as early as 1st March 2008, which is a few days after the escape, there were some analysts predicting that he already fled to Indonesia via a speedboat to Bintan. I would like the DPM's assessment whether this is a likely scenario. Third question, about one month after the escape, the DPM had said that his Ministry would examine if there are sufficient legal powers within Singapore territorial waters to do effective searches or whether the law will need to be amended. I would like the DPM to update us on this. And last of all, Sir, the Interpol Chief had commented in the aftermath of this case that when it comes to such escapes, the first hours are crucial and it is now being five months since the escape. I would like the Minister to tell the House whether he has changed his assessment of the likelihood of recapturing Mas Selamat in Singapore.Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, I have just said that we do not have any fresh intelligence to show that he is still in Singapore or he has left. We have no intelligence to show that he has already left and that there is also no intelligence from our foreign counterparts to show that he has already gone to another country. As regards the security analyst's assessment, that is his assessment and we do not have intelligence to confirm it.On the legal powers of searches, I think Ms Lim might have read about what I said some time ago regarding the legal powers of searches for vessels at sea. Right now, the Police have powers to search whenever they need to, and we do not think we need more powers in this regard. On what the Interpol Chief had said that the first hour is crucial, that is also his opinion. I am sure he is a professional and I believe that he has his own basis to make this comment. As far as we are concerned, we have done what we could during the first hour and we could not find him.SINGAPORE TOTALISATOR BOARD (AMENDMENT) BILLMs Sylvia Lim: Sir, under the existing Act, the Minister's approval is required before the Board can conduct gaming activities and the Minister approves schemes and may impose conditions on any gaming activity. Clauses 4 and 6 of the Bill collectively remove the need for Ministerial approval. It seems that the Board is now given a freer hand to decide what kind of gaming activities are carried out and under what conditions. For instance, it appears that it can decide the rules of the game, how to calculate dividends and what kind of credit facilities will be available.I would like to ask for clarification on the following:(a) What was the original rationale for requiring Ministerial approval in the first place? Was it due to a need to supervise the gaming industry to safeguard the public interest?(b) By removing the need for Ministerial approval, is the Government giving the Board more liberty to promote gaming as it sees fit? Is it foreseeable that gaming would proliferate society further, more addictive forms of gaming may arise and credit will be made more easily available? Are we putting society at greater risk with this approach?Mrs Lim Hwee Hua: Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to thank the Members for their comments and support of the Bill.As regards Ms Sylvia Lim's point about the liberty that is seemingly given to the Minister in varying the Scheme, let me assure her that this is actually a balance between trying to enable the Turf Club to exercise flexibility and to respond better to challenges. But the Club would still need regulatory approval for the introduction of new gambling products or, for that matter, changes to regulatory conditions. So, there would be no concern over the proliferation of newer products. This will just be simply variations of the existing rules that are allowed...SECURITY LAPSES AND PUBLIC CONFIDENCEMs Sylvia Lim: Sir, Mas Selamat's escape is an embarrassment and, together with the recent lapses, this has actually led some members of the public to ask whether MHA is breaking down.However, for each of these breaches, there are many other times when security was successfully provided. The nature of security is such that successful security operations are unnoticed, precisely because nothing eventful happened.Accordingly, we must not lose our perspective. At the same time, the Government owes a duty to the public to account for these lapses honestly and holistically. What I think is constructive in the long run is to step back and have a thorough review of the increasing demands on MHA, the resources needed and how to ensure that the public interest is protected.There are three questions which come to mind:(1) Are these incidents signs that MHA has work overload? I am aware of how heavily deployed the Home Team has been in recent years. Ever since 911, many Home Team officers have been deployed for counter-terrorism activities. While we seek to promote Singapore as a centre for meetings, conventions and exhibitions, every IMF meeting, every F1 Night Race is an added strain. Meanwhile, the public continues to seek police assistance every minute. We can try to leverage on NSmen, reservists or private-sector partners, but there are limitations to this.(2) The population has expanded to 4.7 million and is expected to breach the six-million mark. This will surely strain our social services, including those under the Home Team. We need more police officers, more firefighters, more immigration officers. What has been done to ensure that recruitment is keeping pace with the increased population?(3) Outsourcing of Home Team functions to auxiliary police and private security companies has become necessary. As jobs become divided and farmed out, coordination of security operations becomes more complex. There will be differences in organisational culture and mindset between a regular Home Team officer, auxiliary police and private-sector guards. Just as we have seen in Mas Selamat's escape, will each person be so focused on their area of work to the detriment of the final outcome? How smooth is the interface between the different agencies and how is this being monitored?EMIGRATION OF SINGAPOREANSMs Sylvia Lim asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (a) how many Singapore citizens emigrated from Singapore in the last 3 years and which countries did they emigrate to; and (b) if available, what are their reasons for leaving Singapore.Mr Wong Kan Seng: Persons who emigrate generally do not declare this to the Immigration & Checkpoints Authority (ICA) when they leave. The only available data which gives an indication of the number of emigrants from Singapore is the number of Singaporeans who have given up their citizenship and left Singapore.Over the last 3 years, an average of about 1,000 Singapore citizens renounced their Citizenship each year. The reasons for renouncing Singapore Citizenship vary, ranging from marriage to foreigners, to yearning for a different environment.Most of the Singapore citizens who renounced their Citizenship took up new citizenship in countries in Southeast-Asia, the United States of America and Australia.EMERGENCY AMBULANCE SERVICES(Rationale for outsourcing to private sector)Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs what is the rationale for outsourcing emergency ambulance services to the private sector and what are the risks to Singaporeans of such a move. Mr Wong Kan Seng: Outsourcing of Government functions is not new. In 2003, the public sector embarked on a best sourcing exercise to incrementally market test functions provided by Government departments and statutory boards. The objective is to derive the best value without compromising service delivery to the public.In the case of the Emergency Ambulance Service (EAS), the number of calls has been escalating over the years. In 2004, the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) EAS responded to 82,870 calls. By 2007, the total number of EAS escalated to 109,459, an increase of more than 30%. The elderly, aged 65 and above, accounted for 30% of all EAS calls. MHA expects the demand for EAS to continue to increase in the coming years with the ageing population. There is hence, a need to increase the supply of EAS services to meet the specific needs of the users.SCDF emergency ambulances and crew are costly and highly geared resources designed to handle not only EAS cases but also extreme crises, including biological and chemical terrorist incidents. For 2007, almost 60% of all EAS calls were non-critical medical cases, which do not require the high competency level of SCDF’s EAS. The outsourcing of such cases to competent private providers is hence a viable option without compromising service delivery. These private providers will be managed by SCDF and augment its current fleet to meet the rapid rise in demand for ambulance services. By providing a calibrated service, they will help keep costs manageable.Interested operators will be put through a rigorous and stringent selection process. Private providers selected to augment SCDF’s fleet will also be required to retrofit ambulances and hire crew according to almost similar specifications as per SCDF ambulances and crew. The standards required to be met by private ambulance operators are currently being reviewed jointly by MOH and SCDF, and the revised guidelines will ensure that all ambulances and crew will be equipped to handle medical emergencies for which they are despatched. Selected private operators will also be required to meet the same performance standard of reaching the incident site within 11 minutes, 80% of the time. Their ambulances and crew would also be subjected to regular stringent audits as is practised today for SCDF.To help ensure a steady pool of proficient fresh hires, SCDF collaborated with the Institute of Education (ITE) in 2007 on a 3-year dual certification programme in Nursing as well as Paramedic and Emergency Care. The first cohort is expected to graduate in 2009. The Civil Defence Academy will also provide training to operators to ensure that they are able to meet the required standards.===============================================ST, 21 Jul 20081,000 S'poreans give up citizenship each yearAN AVERAGE of about 1,000 Singapore gave up their citizenship each year in the last three years, said Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng on Monday.The reasons they renounced their Singapore citizenship ranged from marriage to foreigners to yearning for a different environment, he said in his written reply to a question from from Non-Constituency MP Sylvia Lim, who wanted to know how many Singaporeans had emigrated in the last three years.Most of them took up new citizenship in countries in Southeast-Asia, the United States of America and Australia.Mr Wong said Singaporeans who emigrate generally do not declare this to the Immigration & Checkpoints Authority (ICA) when they leave.The only available data which gives an indication of the number of emigrants from Singapore is the number of Singaporeans who have given up their citizenship and left Singapore.ST, 22 Jul 2008Is MHA suffering from work overload, Sylvia asksShanmugam replies that ministry is looking at issues of operational fatigueBy Zakir Hussain IS THE Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) overstretched, as recent security lapses might suggest?In reply to this question from Non-Constituency MP Sylvia Lim, Second Minister for Home Affairs K. Shanmugam said his ministry was conducting a 'human factor' study to look into issues of operational fatigue.The study will also look at resources and manning levels in the Home Team and 'see if there are sub-optimal areas that need urgent attention'.Mr Shanmugam did not elaborate further on the study, but said the ministry was exploring whether it could continue to operate at current manpower levels.Contacted by The Straits Times, Mr Jay Jhaveri, Asia director for World-Check, a private-sector firm that maintains a database of high-risk persons and entities, said such a study would typically look at the issue of risk.'In areas where risks are greater, the study could identify where more technology or human resources or a combination of the two would have to be deployed,' he added.The study comes at a time when a number of Home Team agencies have been embarrassed by security lapses.In February, Jemaah Islamiah (JI) detainee Mas Selamat Kastari escaped from detention. In June, two robbery suspects escaped from police custody at the Subordinate Courts but were quickly apprehended.The same month, a 61-year-old retiree got past immigration controls at Changi Airport using his son's passport.Ms Lim, who is the chairman of the opposition Workers' Party and a polytechnic lecturer, acknowledged that for each of these breaches, there were many other times 'when security was successfully provided'. 'What I think is constructive...is to step back and have a thorough review of the increasing demands on the MHA, the resources needed and how to ensure that the public interest is protected,' she said.'I am aware of how heavily deployed the Home Team has been in recent years,' she added, citing counter-terrorism activities and the strain of hosting large-scale events like international conferences.She pointed to the growing population as another strain, as more firemen and police officers would be needed, for example.Mr Shanmugam acknowledged that the changed security landscape since the Sept 11, 2001, terror attacks on the United States had 'raised significant demands' on the Home Team.Front-line officers had been 'stretched and strained' on high alert since end-2001, he said.That was when the authorities uncovered a plot by JI members to mount attacks in Singapore.The total number of overtime hours clocked by Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) officers varies between 23,000 and 28,000 every month, Mr Shanmugam added.He also noted that last year, the ICA cleared some 143 million travellers through land, sea and air checkpoints, or close to 400,000 travellers each day. Of these, an average of five people carrying the wrong passports were detected every day.It also detected 37,800 cases of smuggling at the borders and more than 2,200 foreigners who tried to enter Singapore fraudulently. Singapore Dollar Policy(Inflation), Myanmar's Cyclone, Mas's Escape, Malay Village, Bail Court(Extent of success) QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWERMs Sylvia Lim: To ask the Minister for Health how many persons are on the waiting list for places in subsidised nursing homes particularly those offering dementia care and what is the affordability of such care in Singapore.Ms Sylvia Lim: To ask the Minister for National Development (a) why the Malay Village has not been able to thrive since its inception; and (b) how the new plans to revamp it will be an improvement from the past.QUESTIONS FOR WRITTEN ANSWERMs Sylvia Lim: To ask the Minister for Law whether and to what extent the Bail Court constituted in 2007 has succeeded in (i) its aims; and (ii) more persons being released on bail pending investigations, trial or appeal.----------------------------------------------------------------------Sitting Date: 26 May 2008STRONG SINGAPORE DOLLAR POLICY(Impact on inflation and competitiveness)Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang) : Sir, the Minister said that the Government takes a multi-pronged approach to mitigate the high inflation in Singapore. But I thought there is one particular approach that the Minister had not considered or it is not up in the Government's sleeves and, that is, the tax-cut approach, for instance, cutting GST rate or petrol tax.Mr Lim Hng Kiang : Mr Speaker, Sir, our approach is aimed at the medium term. The GST adjustments that we put in are necessary to have a better balance between direct and indirect tax. So I do not think it is useful for us to tweak the GST tax rate in response to a short-term phenomenon which is the cost increases we face. I think we should look for an array of tools or instruments with a medium-term outlook.Ms Sylvia Lim (Non-Constituency Member): Sir, the Government had previously predicted that inflation would actually ease off in the second half of this year due to the effect of the GST hike last year being dissipated over the year. Given that now there is an unprecedented inflation in food and oil, does the Government see a risk in inflation rate in the second half of this year not actually easing off?Mr Lim Hng Kiang : Mr Speaker, Sir, that is still our central scenario, that is, in the second half of the year we should see an easing-off of inflationary pressure both for domestic reasons as well as for external reasons. For domestic reasons, because of the way we calculate the inflation, the impact of the GST, it would ease off after July and also the impact of the annual values of HDB flats. For external conditions, you can see that the sharp run-up of food prices, for example, the momentum ought to ease off towards the second half of the year or, at least, this is what most analysts are projecting. AFTERMATH OF CYCLONE NARGIS(Assistance measures by ASEAN and Singapore)Mr Low Thia Khiang: Thank you, Sir. I would like to ask, since Myanmar joined ASEAN, what contributions have Myanmar made to ASEAN and whether it value adds to ASEAN as an entity in its reputation internationally or rather it has become a burden to us.Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed: Myanmar has already been accepted as a member of ASEAN, the ASEAN 10. Sometimes we wish that as though life can be so perfect that we want everything to be rosyand nice. But I think it is also part of our life challenge that when we have problems, we have to learn to cope with problems and those challenges. And I think ASEAN has proven that despite the setbacks we have faced in terms of some of the attitudes from countries that are outside ASEAN in wanting ASEAN to move faster in some areas, as far as Burma is concerned, wanting to put more pressure on Myanmar, I think we as a group has shown that we have our way of dealing with things, our ASEAN way. So, the fact that Myanmar continues to be a member of ASEAN to me is a contribution. As a group we want to remain united despite the challenges, despite the problems, we want to show that we can also work out the challenges but I think there are occasions where we need more time and better understanding. But more important, I think we need to build on trust and confidence between Myanmar and ASEAN, and also between Myanmar and the rest of the international community. MAS SELAMAT INCIDENT(Update on disciplinary actions against officers)Ms Sylvia Lim: Sir, I wonder if the DPM could clarify. For the officers who were eventually dismissed and demoted, were they given the opportunity to be represented by somebody during the proceedings, which is usually the case for such civil service proceedings?Mr Wong Kan Seng: Yes, The right to have somebody represent them. It is not just restricted to those who were dismissed. All officers who were charged for particular offences and they have to appear before a disciplinary board have right to get somebody to represent them.MALAY VILLAGE(Revamp) Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for National Development (a) why the Malay Village has not been able to thrive since its inception; and (b) how the new plans to revamp it will be an improvement from the past. Mr Mah Bow Tan: The Malay Village site was sold to Malay Village Pte Ltd for a commercial development, on a 20-year lease which commenced on 27th September 1991. The lease will expire in 2011. It is a private development and Government has no hand in its operations. As such, I am not able to comment on its business performance.Under the new Draft Master Plan 08, which URA unveiled on 23rd May, the Paya Lebar area will be comprehensively redeveloped into a commercial hub called Paya Lebar Central, where new commercial floor space for retail, office and hotel use will be located.The site occupied by Malay Village will be re-parcelled for more optimal land use. A substantial portion of the site will be reserved for a new civic building that will house a variety of amenities, including a Community Club, the Community Development Council office, and possibly a Community Library. A new open plaza space, about the same size as the open atrium space at HDB Hub, will be created next to this civic building. This space will allow for community uses, including activities related to the Hari Raya celebrations. Another portion of the Malay Village site will make way for an improved road network to reduce traffic congestion in the area.To retain the ethnic character of the area, a new pedestrian mall will be created along Geylang Road to accommodate more stalls during the annual Hari Raya bazaar.In summary, the comprehensive redevelopment of Paya Lebar Central into a new sub regional commercial hub will allow us to cater to new commercial and civic uses, while retaining the rich Malay heritage of this area.BAIL COURT(Extent of success) Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Law whether and to what extent the Bail Court constituted in 2007 has succeeded in (i) its aims; and (ii) more persons being released on bail pending investigations, trial or appeal. Mr Shanmugam:(i) Whether the Bail Court has succeeded in its aims:The Bail Court was set up in 2007 in order to provide a dedicated process to deal with bail review applications by accused persons. Managed centrally by a judge, the Bail Court seeks to bring a consistent approach to bail conditions and quanta of bail set (with the aim generally to, where possible, reduce the bail amounts), reduce time spent in remand and ensure that review applications are dealt with expeditiously. At the same time, it was also intended that there would be an individualised and offender-specific assessment made for each bail review application. The setting up of a specialised Bail Court thus sought to strike a proper balance between the rights of the accused, the victim and public interest. I am informed by the Subordinate Courts that the Bail Court is meeting its stated objectives. Bail reviews are now conducted daily, from Monday to Friday. The extensive use of video-link facilities has speeded up applications by the accused or through his counsel. In about 30% of the cases it dealt with, the Bail Court has reduced and/or varied bail terms. The Subordinate Courts also work with the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme (CLAS) and the Association of Criminal Lawyers of Singapore (ACLS) to have volunteer lawyers present, where necessary, to assist the remandees in the bail review applications.The Subordinate Courts have published online the "Bail Guidelines", a comprehensive and useful guide on how bail decisions are made by the Courts, describing factors the Courts take into account, and the general bail formulae. To assist the general public, the Courts have provided information on the bail process and the responsibilities of a surety through the Subordinate Courts Practice Pamphlet.(ii) Whether more persons being released on bail pending investigations, trial or appeal:The Subordinate Courts have not kept the data of the number of persons released on bail prior to 2007. It may not be a meaningful exercise to compare whether more persons have been released now on bail compared with any previous year(s). Each bail application must turn on its own specific facts. Whether there is a successful application depends on a variety of factors including: whether an application for bail is made in the first place; the specific facts of the case, including the gravity of the offence; and the Court's assessment of the likelihood of the accused jumping bail. What the setting up of the Bail Court has done is to ensure that there is a dedicated and centrally managed process to deal with bail review applications, to achieve a consistent and expeditious approach towards such applications.Nevertheless, the Member may wish to know that from May 2007 (when the Bail Court was first set up) to April 2008, 5,981 cases were fixed for bail review in the Bail Court and 52% of the cases were bailed out (ie, 3,154 cases). The Subordinate Courts closely track the cases of accused persons who are not bailed out and try and ensure that such cases are disposed of fairly and efficiently.================================================= ST 27 May 2008Inflation will ease in second half of yearSURGING inflation will ease in the second half of the year despite spikes in global food and oil prices, said Trade and Industry Minister Lim Hng Kiang.He was responding to a question from Non-Constituency MP Sylvia Lim yesterday on the inflation outlook for this year.Mr Lim said: 'It is still our central scenario for an easing off of inflation in the second half of the year. Domestically, the impact of the goods and services tax (GST) rise will ease off in July, while externally, the run-up on food prices is expected to ease in the second half.'The Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) and the Monetary Authority of Singapore revised their full-year inflation forecast last week to between 5 and 6 per cent - up from an earlier estimate of between 4.5 and 5.5 per cent - citing dearer food and oil. Inflation last month hit a 26-year high of 7.5 per cent.But the revised forecast remained consistent with the earlier expectations of a second-half cooling off, the MTI said.While Mr Lim admitted that it was impossible to insulate Singapore from higher global prices, he said that the Republic's exchange-rate-centred monetary policy, which has been in place since 1981, remained effective in staving off the full impact of global inflation.He said that domestic inflation had been low over the sustained period between 1981 and last year, averaging 1.7 per cent. By contrast, inflation averaged 5.5 per cent for the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), a 30-strong group of the world's richest countries.The exchange-rate policy of maintaining a strong Singapore dollar also helped to reduce the cost of imports, Mr Lim said. 'For example, between January last year and March this year, global food prices - measured by the International Monetary Fund's food price index - surged 50 per cent, whereas the domestic cost of food imports rose by a much lower 14 per cent.'Opposition MP Low Thia Khiang (Hougang) raised the possibility of cutting taxes, such as the GST and the petrol tax, to help Singaporeans cope with rising prices.But Mr Lim said that a multi-pronged solution was more desirable: 'It is not useful to tweak the GST rate in response to short-term phenomena and we have adopted an approach aimed at the medium term.'This approach, announced in February, includes the diversification of food sources to minimise spikes in prices due to supply disruptions.At the same time, the Government is providing direct assistance to Singaporeans, especially those in the lower- and middle-income groups, who are affected by the higher cost of living, said Mr Lim. Government Responsibility (Mas's Escape), Infectious Diseases (Amendment) Bill, Sitting Date: 22 Apr 2008GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBILITYMs Sylvia Lim (Non-Constituency Member): Sir, I would like to thank the Prime Minister for his Statement. A few clarifications for the PM. First, could the PM clarify what, in his view, is the oversight role of the MHA vis-a-vis the ISD? Is it a hands-off approach leaving everything to the Director ISD? Or should the Ministry actually monitor some annual data from the Ministry? For example, we were told yesterday that there were no regular audits done at the Whitley Road Detention Centre. Should MHA have a system in place to pick up such systemic problems? Second clarification, Sir, is with respect to the inquiries that are held after lapses in Government function. In this case, the inquiry was held under the Prisons Act and, as we know from the legislation, the Committee would report its findings to the Minister and it is a closed door affair. Sir, of course, when the incident first happened, we do not know the cause of the lapse - whether it is actually a policy matter or whether it is simply an operational matter. And, in the interest of having a rigorous regime of inquiry, would it not have been more prudent to have a presidential inquiry where the President would be the gatekeeper of the information rather than the Minister whose department is being investigated? Third clarification is that the Minister Mentor made some remarks around March and April saying that the Government is not to be blamed for this incident and that it is the people's complacency that has led to this. Is this also the Prime Minister's view and the Cabinet's view that the Government should not be blamed for this incident?Mr Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, what is MHA's oversight role over ISD? ISD is an organisation which is subordinate to MHA, reports to MHA and is accountable to MHA for its performance. ISD's role is not primarily to be a jailor. That is the Prison Department's role. ISD's role is internal security, that means, identifying threats, pre-empting them, neutralising them. One of its responsibilities is to hold the detainees when people are detained under the Internal Security Act. This is done in the Whitley Road Detention Centre, under a Superintendent. MHA monitors ISD by tracking whether Singapore stays safe. Do threats get caught in time? Do we know what is going on? Are we able to react? There is no 100% guarantee that we would be there all the time. As Prof Jayakumar mentioned in his speech about 10 days ago, we have to be lucky every time, but the enemy only has to be lucky once. Our job is to make sure that we stay safe and that we do not just depend on luck, but on capability, dedication skill and focus on dealing with the threats, and that is what ISD has to do. Inquiry under the Prisons Act - would it have been better to have a presidential inquiry? Whatever level I put, I think the same question can be asked, why not raise it higher? In this case, one person has escaped, he is an important detainee no doubt, the Prisons Act, a Committee of Inquiry commissioned by the Minister, I think, is adequate. It has to be conducted in private, in camera, not in public, because of the contents of the hearings, of what is being investigated. But, finally, the substance has to be reported and the Minister is here to explain what happened and to answer questions. He spent one hour explaining yesterday. He spent two hours answering questions yesterday. The Member had ample opportunities to ask questions. If she had some more questions, we could have continued longer. So I think that we got it at the right level, and the Committee did a good job. And there has not been any suggestion from any Member in this House that the Committee was less than thorough or less than candid. Thirdly, I do not remember the specific quote from the Minister Mentor that the Government is not to blame, that it is a matter of complacency. Anything which happens on the Government's watch, the Government is responsible. What the Government does about this and what the Cabinet and the Prime Minister do about this depends on what happened and what we assessed after investigating the facts - what went wrong and who was handling it, who was responsible, who was directly responsible, who was supervising, because this was in his charge and he should have done something about it. I have explained my philosophy. The buck has to stop somewhere. If you take this to a logical conclusion, it should go all the way up to the Prime Minister and every time something happens in the Government, you change the Prime Minister. I do not think that is how this Government works. That is not how other governments work. There are some countries when things go wrong down the line, Ministers routinely fall on the sword, or CEOs in the private sector. It is part of their culture. But then what happens is that, instead of getting the problem solved, the ceremonial change of guard is seen as the solution of the problem. So the fundamentals do not get altered, after some time, the problem pops up again, you change Ministers again or change the government again. I do not think that is the way we want to do things. We want to get to the root of the matter to solve it properly. The person who did what he should not have done or did not do what he should have done, if he was negligent, complacent, did not measure up, he has to move. But the people who run the system and who have done a good job, I think we need to depend on them and we need to back them. I said just now that the Europeans and the Americans have a high opinion of our Intelligence Services. It is not just hearsay or reporting of what the experts say. I have met them. I have talked to them. They briefed me, they explained to me their problems. I explained to them how we have dealt with our situation and they looked at me and said, "We envy you." Because of what we have been able to do, dealing with the threat, because of what we have been able to do, reaching out to the community and keeping the community on our side while excising the cancer cells. Because we have been able to get the religious leaders also on our side and to step forward and volunteer their services in the Religious Rehabilitation Group (RRG), to try and set the detainees right who have wrong ideas and also to manage the families so that the families get looked after and do not get wrong ideas and, yet, stand tall in the community and be seen to be standing up for the community, and not be just doing the bidding of the Government. That does not happen by chance. That is the quiet work of ISD or MHA or the Government, and I think we should give them a lot of credit for that. So we say that this is a mishap, but there is a context. And you have to take disciplinary action but you have to be fair and just, and do it in perspective. That is the reason.Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): Sir, two clarifications. Was this the result of what MM has said that Singaporeans are being complacent and expecting too much from the Government? Certainly, I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he sees fit for his Government to apologise to Singaporeans over the lapses and resulting in the escape of Mas Selamat. Mr Lee Hsien Loong: I think this is not an exercise in spreading adjectives around. The complacency was in the Whitley Road Detention Centre. I think it is true that Singaporeans have very high expectations of the Government and, therefore, whenever there is a lapse, they take it very seriously. In other countries, things regularly go wrong. In Singapore, things do not go wrong, and we make sure things work. When something messes up, we take it seriously, the public takes it seriously. That is a fact. And that is not a bad thing. But we must also understand that when we look at the problems which come up. Apologising? That was the first thing which Mr Wong Kan Seng did as Deputy Prime Minister in Parliament, the day after this occurred, and I think that is adequate. I would say that when the Deputy Prime Minister speaks, he speaks on behalf of the Government.Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, does the Prime Minister agree that this is not a question of a witch-hunt as to who should be directly responsible? It is a question of accountability of the Government and at what level and what responsibility a Minister should take. I think we will remember that, when we debated the Ministers' salaries in this House, we were talking about pitching the Ministers' pay to the corporate world or the private sector. But in the private, corporate world, when something goes wrong, heads roll, and it includes the CEO, whereas here, when something goes wrong, we are talking about honest mistakes. So, I think a lot of people, including myself, cannot reconcile the principle on which the Government applied in looking at the salaries of the Ministers, pitching them to the corporate world vis-a-vis when it comes to accountability and responsibility. Would the Prime Minister clarify? Mr Lee Hsien Loong: I thought the Member would eventually come to this question. I have explained where lines have to be drawn. Even the Member has not suggested that I should resign because I appointed Mr Wong Kan Seng, and Mr Wong Kan Seng was a Minister, and a soldier under him let this happen. A line has to be drawn somewhere. We have to see this in perspective. Even in the private sector, you have to see things in perspective. A company turns turtle, the CEO leaves. Problems happen in the company, CEOs have to stay to sort them out. Companies which change CEOs every two months or every two years do not prosper. So I have to make a judgement who is responsible at what level, and I have discussed this with the DPM, and I agree with his judgement and I have confidence in him. The DPM was here, the Member yesterday had full opportunity to question him. If there are any questions which he found unsatisfactorily answered, he could have pursued the matter. If there are any questions which showed that the DPM was not up to this, that he was to blame, he gave the wrong instructions, he told people not to grille up the window, he suggested that we did not need so much fencing and therefore this happened, he should have raised it. Nothing happened. Today, the Member comes around and throws a general cloud and says, "You are well paid, you should resign." Let me ask the Member whether he thinks the DPM ought to resign because of this. No answer. So, I think that settles the point. INFECTIOUS DISEASES (AMENDMENT) BILLMs Sylvia Lim: Sir, I have two queries on the Bill. The first is in relation to section 17A. Sir, clause 12 inserts the new section 17A which allows the Minister for Health to declare either the whole of Singapore or a part of it as a restricted zone and he can do this if he considers that a serious outbreak has occurred or is imminent. As the outcome of this order is very drastic and will affect the movement and livelihood of our people, should this be a decision left to the Minister alone? Is it not possible to have an urgent Parliament session to decide whether the order should be made in the first place? Section 17A(6) provides that the Minister should present the order to Parliament as soon as possible after it is made and Parliament will have a chance to annul the order, in which case the order will cease to have effect. Is it the intention for the Members to have a free vote to support or rescind the order, or will the Whip remain in place in which case the Minister's order will be endorsed as a rubber-stamping exercise? Sir, my second query relates to sexual activity by a person who has reasonable cause to believe he has been exposed to AIDS or HIV. The existing section 23 only requires those who know that they have AIDS or HIV to take certain steps to inform their partner and obtain consent before the sexual activity. Clause 18 of this Bill amends section 23 to include this category of persons who do not know but have reasons to believe that they have been exposed to a significant risk of contracting AIDS or HIV to take certain steps. During the Ministry's e-consultation with the public, I noted that there was feedback that the phrase "reason to believe that he has been exposed to a significant risk" was ambiguous. MOH's reply to the feedback was helpful in listing some examples of activities considered risky by the Ministry, for example, intercourse with sex workers, unprotected sex with multiple partners and sharing needles when misusing drugs. While the list can never be exhaustive, I would support putting into the Act some examples as illustrations which should be helpful to people trying to understand and comply with the law, rather than to make them read Hansard, the website and so on, to have a sense of the ambit of the section.Mr Khaw Boon Wan: ..Ms Sylvia Lim has asked whether Parliament, instead of the Minister, should make the decision to declare a public health emergency. Foreign legislations that we have studied do not require the legislature to be convened to decide on whether public health emergency should be declared. This is because of the urgency of the situation, as pointed out by Dr Lam. We have taken heed of this foreign legislation provision and also make it a ministerial executive decision subject to Parliamentary oversight, and we believe that this strikes a good balance between acting speedily to protect public health while ensuring public accountability....Ms Sylvia Lim has suggested that we hardwire these illustrations into the Act. But we think this is not necessary, firstly, because the examples will never be exhaustive; secondly, because our public health education programmes will clearly emphasise what activities put a person at risk of contracting HIV/AIDS and the necessary precautions to be taken to reduce that risk. Let me clarify that the new provision does not ban such a person from sex. It merely requires him to take any one of the following three measures before he has sex with another person: (1) Inform his partner of the risk and then allow the partner to make an informed decision as to whether to accept the risk and have sex with him; (2) Undergo regular HIV testing to determine that he is not HIV-infected at the time of the sexual intercourse; or (3) Take reasonable precautions to protect the partner, eg, by using the condom. Any one of these procedures would then protect him legally. While we encourage such a person to take all three steps to protect his partner, he is legally protected if he takes any one of the three steps.. Ms Sylvia Lim: Sir, I wonder if the Minister could clarify this point which he did not refer to. It is concerning section 17A, subsection 6, where he mentioned that after making the order, he would have to come to Parliament to convince Parliament that the order was necessary. My query during my speech was whether at that time MPs would be given a free vote on the matter or would the Whip be in place. Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Sorry, I forgot this particular query on Whip. It is not for me to decide whether the Whip will be lifted. But all I know is our MPs, Whip or no Whip, will have the full interest of the public at heart, and I am sure they will vote according to what is needed to protect them. The key point of making such a declaration is not straightforward. It is not one of politics. It is about assessing information which almost certainly will be limited and incomplete, and to make a judgement call - do you declare or not to declare? Let us see the current outbreak of hand, foot and mouth disease where the number of cases has exceeded last year's. I have received many emails. Many have asked me to close down all primary schools and nurseries, to break the transmission. But how to do so? Because hand, foot and mouth disease has been around for years, and it will continue to be around for years. If each time there is a cluster, we were to close down nurseries, we will end up not having any nursery open at all throughout the year, because it is one of those infections that spread throughout the year. People will vary according to their risk appetite. So it is not easy to make a call. A couple of months ago, you may remember, Hong Kong declared a closure of all their schools because of the flu outbreak. After the event, it is easy to comment whether that decision was premature, necessary or correct. But while you are in the midst of the outbreak, having to judge what is likely to happen next and what you should do now is not an easy decision to take. That is why, in my speech, I emphasised that this is a heavy responsibility and a decision which we will take very carefully, after weighing the options. Because if I were 'trigger happy', I think Prof. Thio used the words - I am always happy but I am not 'trigger happy' - and I cry wolf every now and then, I lose credibility. And when the real wolf appears, nobody believes me; I may declare social distancing and people still go out to restaurants and elsewhere, and it defeats the whole purpose, because I have lost credibility. That, to me, is the single most important safeguard against any abuse of these very harsh measures and powers which we are asking the House to provide us.------------------------------------------------------------------ ST'If heads roll in the private sector, why not in government?'By Lynn LeeTO WHAT extent are practices in the corporate sector applicable in the public sector?Two MPs noted yesterday that since ministers' salaries are pegged to those of the top earners in the private sector, they should also be held accountable for lapses the same way corporate leaders are.People's Action Party MP Inderjit Singh (Ang Mo Kio GRC) and Workers' Party MP Low Thia Khiang (Hougang) both noted that in the corporate world, heads roll when something goes wrong.'Here, we're talking about honest mistakes,' sniffed Mr Low.Both he and Mr Singh were responding to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's speech on government responsibility for the Mas Selamat incident.PM Lee said the Government took responsibility for the incident, and Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng had already spoken on behalf of the Government when he apologised for it.The Government had given a full account of its investigation, and was also plugging gaps in the system, PM Lee added.Dissatisfied, Mr Low said many people, including himself, could not 'reconcile' the different principles the Government seemed to be adopting when it came to ministerial pay on the one hand, and the issue of accountability and responsibility on the other.Replying, PM Lee said that while a minister was ultimately accountable for his ministry's work, it did not mean that every level in the chain of command up to him should be punished whenever a lapse occurred.'Even in the private sector, you have to see things in perspective,' he pointed out.While some chief executive officers (CEOs) did resign when a company turned turtle, sometimes, they also stayed on to fix the problem. And companies in which the CEOs were changed frequently do not prosper, he told Mr Low.PM Lee then asked the opposition MP if he thought Mr Wong should resign. Mr Low did not reply.Said PM Lee: 'No answer. So I think that settles the point.'Human resource consultants interviewed said that in the corporate world, the severity of the mistake will determine how a top honcho is dealt with.For instance, senior figures at some global banks were held accountable for their role in their banks' collapse in the wake of the global sub-prime mortgage crisis, and they resigned.Executive search firm Robert Walters' (Singapore) director, Ms Andrea Ross, said: 'People tend to want someone to blame. At that level, they will be responsible for what has cost the organisation millions of dollars.'She added that sometimes, CEOs might also be made the 'scapegoat' for wrongdoing in the organisation, even if they were not aware of them.'There is a certain level of responsibility as a leader and they need to ensure an environment in which controls are in place,' she said.Mr Patrick Chan, assistant director of GSI Executive Search, noted that much depends on whether a mistake damages a company's bottom line or shareholders' interest.Also, if he is found to have questionable ethics, by taking kickbacks for instance, he will be asked to go.PM Lee made a similar point in his speech, saying that if a minister was found to be lacking in integrity, he 'has to go, even if the actual incident is minor'.Said Mr Chan: 'I don't think a CEO would be automatically asked to leave in a case where the slip-up stained the company's reputation.'But he'd have to look into the problem and show that he can remedy the situation.'PM: Let's keep things in perspectivePM Lee responds to MPs' questions on procedure, accountability and complacencyMHA's roleSYLVIA LIM: A few clarifications for the PM. First, could the PM clarify what in his view is the oversight role of the MHA (Ministry of Home Affairs) vis-a-vis the ISD (Internal Security Department)? Is it a hands-off approach, leaving everything to the director of ISD, or should the ministry monitor some annual data from the department? For example, we were told yesterday there were no regular audits done at the Whitley Road Detention Centre. Should MHA have a system in place to pick up such systemic problems? Second, the inquiry was held under the Prisons Act and as we know from the legislation, the committee would report its findings to the minister and it is a closed-door affair. Of course when the incident first happened, we do not know the cause of the lapse, whether it is a policy matter or whether it is simply an operational matter. In the interest of having a rigorous regime of inquiry, wouldn't it have been more prudent to have a presidential inquiry where the President would be the gatekeeper of the information rather than the minister whose department is being investigated? Third, Minister Mentor (Lee Kuan Yew) made some remarks around March and April saying the Government is not to be blamed for this incident and that it is the people's complacency that has led to this. Is this also the PM's view and the Cabinet's view, that the Government should not be blamed for this incident? PM: What's MHA's oversight role over ISD?ISD is an organisation which is subordinate to MHA, reports to MHA and is accountable to MHA for its performance. ISD's role is not primarily to be a jailer. That's Changi Prison's, the Prison Department's role.ISD's role is internal security. That means identifying threats, pre-empting them, neutralising them.It also is to hold the detainees when people are detained under the Internal Security Act, as (was) done in the WRDC (Whitley Road Detention Centre) under a superintendent.MHA monitors ISD by tracking whether Singapore stays safe. Do threats get caught in time? Do we know what's going on? Are we able to react?There's no 100 per cent guarantee that we will be there all the time. As Prof Jayakumar (DPM and Coordinating Minister for National Security) mentioned about 10 days ago, we have to be lucky every time, the enemy only has to be lucky once.Our job is to make sure we stay safe and that we don't just depend on luck but on capability, dedication, skill and focus on dealing with the threats and that's what ISD has to do.Inquiry under the Prisons Act: Whatever level I put, the same question can be asked: why not raise it higher?In this case, one person has escaped, he's an important detainee no doubt. The Prisons Act, a Committee of Inquiry commissioned by the minister, I think is adequate.It has to be conducted in private, in camera, not in public because of the contents of the hearings, of what is being investigated.But finally, the substance has to be reported and the minister is here to explain what happened and to answer questions. He spent one hour explaining yesterday, he spent two hours answering questions yesterday.The member had ample opportunity to ask questions and if she had more questions we could have continued longer.So we've got it at the right level and the committee did a good job. There has not been any suggestion from any member in this House that the committee was less than thorough or less than candid.Thirdly, I do not remember the specific quote from the Minister Mentor that the Government is not to blame, that it's a matter of complacency. (Editor's Note: Earlier this month, MM Lee was asked in an interview if there was complacency on the part of the government/security agencies. He said: 'The complacency was that of his custodians who believed they had the measure of him and that he would not get the better of them.').Anything which happens on the Government's watch, the Government is responsible.What the Government does about this and what the Cabinet and the Prime Minister do about this depends on what happened and what we assess, after investigating the facts, went wrong and who was handling it, who was responsible, who was directly responsible, who was supervising but this was in his charge and he should have done something about it.I have explained my philosophy. The buck has to stop somewhere. If you take this to the logical conclusion, it should go all the way up to the Prime Minister and every time something happens in the Government you change prime ministers.I don't think that is how this Government works, that's not how other governments work.There are some countries where when things go wrong, down the line ministers routinely fall on the sword or CEOs in the private sector. It's part of the culture.But then what happens is that instead of getting the problem solved, the ceremonial change of guard is seen as the solution of the problem. So the fundamentals do not get altered, after some time problem pops up again, you change ministers again or change government again.I don't think that is the way we want to do things.We want to get to the root of the matter to solve it properly. The person who should, who did what he shouldn't have done or didn't do what he should have done, well, if he was negligent, complacent, didn't measure up, he has to move, but the people who run the system and who have done a good job, I think we need to depend on them and we need to back them.I said just now that the Europeans and the Americans have a high opinion of our intelligence services. It's not just hearsay or reporting or what the experts say.I've met them. I've talked to them, they've briefed me. They've explained to me their problems, I've explained to them how we have dealt with our situation. And they said to me, 'We envy you.'Because of what we have been able to do dealing with the threat, because of what we have been able to do reaching out to the community and keeping the community on our side while excising the cancer cells.Because we have been able to get the religious leaders also on our side and to step forward and volunteer their services in the RRG, the Religious Rehabilitation Group, to try and set the detainees right who have wrong ideas, and also to manage their families so that their families get looked after and their families don't get wrong ideas, and yet stand tall in the community and be seen to be standing up for the community and not just doing the bidding of the Government.That doesn't happen by chance. That's the quiet work of ISD, of MHA, of the Government and we should give them a lot of credit for that.So when we say this is a mishap, there's a context and you have to take disciplinary action. But you have to be fair and just and do it in perspective.Prompt apologyLOW THIA KHIANG: Was this the result of what MM has said that Singaporeans are being complacent and expecting too much from the Government? Secondly, I would like to ask the PM whether he sees fit for his Government to apologise to Singaporeans over the lapses (that resulted) in the escape of Mas Selamat? PM: I think this is not an exercise in spreading adjectives around. The complacency was in the Whitley Road Detention Centre.I think it is true that Singaporeans have very high expectations of the Government and, therefore, whenever there's a lapse they take it very seriously.In other countries, things go wrong, well, things regularly go wrong. In Singapore things do not go wrong and we make sure things work. When something messes up we take it seriously, the public takes it seriously.That is a fact. It's not a bad thing, but we must also understand that when we look at the problems which come up.Apologising? That was the first thing which Mr Wong Kan Seng did as Deputy Prime Minister the day after this occurred, in Parliament, and I think that is adequate.I would say that when the Deputy Prime Minister speaks he speaks on behalf of the Government.Corporate normsLOW THIA KHIANG: Does the PM agree that this is not a question of a witch-hunt as to who should be directly responsible? It's a question of accountability of the Government and at what level and what responsibility a minister should take. And I think we will remember that when we debate the ministers' salaries in this House, we're talking about pitching the ministers' pay to corporate world.But in corporate world, when something goes wrong, heads roll, including the CEO. Whereas here when something goes wrong, we're talking about honest mistakes.So I think a lot of people, including myself, cannot reconcile the principle the Government applied (when) looking at salary of the minister (and) pegging (it) to corporate world, (with) accountability and responsibility. Would the PM clarify?PM: I thought the member would eventually come (to) this question. I've explained where lines have to be drawn. Even the member has not suggested that I should resign because I appointed Wong Kan Seng and Wong Kan Seng was the minister and the soldier under him let this happen.A line has to be drawn somewhere. We have to see this in perspective. Even in the private sector you have to see things in perspective. Company turns turtle, CEOs leave. Problems happen in the company, CEOs have to stay to sort them out. Companies which change CEOs every two months or every two years do not prosper.So I have to make a judgment who is responsible at what level, and I've discussed this with the DPM and I agree with his judgment and I have confidence in him. The DPM was here, the member yesterday had full opportunity to question him. If there are any questions which he finds unsatisfactory in the answer, he could have pursued the matter.If any questions showed the DPM was not up to this, that he was to blame, he gave the wrong instructions, he told people not to grille up the window, he suggested that we didn't need so much fencing, therefore this happened, he (Low) should have raised it.Nothing happened.Today, the member comes and throws a general cloud and say, you're well paid, you should resign.Let me ask the member whether he thinks the DPM ought to resign because of this. No answer. So I think that settles the point.李总理针对问责原则与议员答问摘录（2008-04-23）●非选区议员林瑞莲：我首先感谢总理发表声明。这里有几个问题希望总理澄清。首先，总理是否能解释他如何看待内政部相对于内安局的疏忽角色？是它采取不干涉的方式，把所有的事情都交由内安局局长处理，还是内政部应该确实监督一些部门，例如我们昨天获知惠德里路拘留所并没定期进行保安措施审查。内政部是否应该制定某种机制，以发现制度上的问题？ 　　第二个问题是有关政府功能出现纰漏后所进行的调查。在这起案件中，调查是按照监狱法来进行，我们从法令中得知调查委员会将向内政部长提呈调查报告，而且这是属于秘密调查性质。当然，当事件刚发生时，我们并不知道纰漏的原因是否是政策问题或只是操作上的问题，因此为确保做到调查严密，成立一个由总统委任的调查庭是否是更慎重的做法？ 　　第三，内阁资政李光耀三四月间曾发表看法，指这起事件的过失不在于政府而是因人员疏忽而引起。这个政府不应受责的看法，是否也是总理和内阁的观点？答：首先，内政部对内安局扮演什么管理角色？内安局是内政部下属机构，直接向内政部报告，其表现也需向内政部交代。内安局主要角色并非关禁罪犯，那是樟宜监狱和监狱部门的角色。它的角色在于内部安全，即确认威胁、阻截威胁并消弭威胁。它也负责拘留在内部安全法下被拘留者，这个责任是通过惠德里路拘留所所长管理的拘留中心来履行。内政部监督内安局的标准包括新加坡是否维持安全、威胁是否及时揭发、我们是否知道究竟是发生什么事、我们是否能作出反应。我们无法100％担保时时刻刻都维持这个水平，就如副总理贾古玛教授十天前发表演讲时所言，我们须次次都有好运，而敌人只须有一次好运。我们的工作是确保国家安全，且不单靠运气，而是有真实能力、献身精神、技巧及集中精力对付威胁。这就是内安局的工作。　　成立总统调查庭是否更恰当？我想无论是哪个层级，我们都会面对“为何不进一步提高”的问题。就这起事件而言，一个人逃跑了，而且他无疑是个重要的拘留者，但是由部长援引监狱法成立调查委员会，我想这够恰当了。基于调查内容的性质，这必须私下进行，不得公开，但是部长最终必须报告调查结果。他昨天在议事厅里花了一小时阐述事发经过，两小时回答议员们的问题。大家有足够的机会提问，如果还有问题，询问时间可以延长。所以，就层级来说，这是令人满意的，调查委员会的表现也很好。议员当中也没有人认为委员会的调查不够彻底或不够公正。　　第三，我并不记得李资政所发表的关于政府不应受责，而是自满心态问题的确切字句。任何在政府治理下发生的事情，政府都要负起责任。政府、内阁乃至总理要如何负责，将取决于发生了什么事情；在调查后评估出错的地方；是谁在处理问题；谁有直接责任；谁负责监督，他有没有作出应对反应。我已阐明我的理念。责任的追究必须止于某个界线。每当政府出现问题就必须更换总理吗？我不认为我国政府是如此行事的，而这也不是其他政府的运作方式。　　确实，在有些国家，每当事情出错，部长们就会按例引咎辞职，在私人企业界，下台的就是公司总裁，这是它们的文化使然。然而，接下来的情况是问题不仅没有得到解决，从形式上更换负责人还被视为解决问题的方案。因此，问题的基本因素没有改变，过了一段时间，问题再度浮现，又要再更换部长或更换政府。我不认为这应该是新加坡处理事情的方式。我们要追根究底，以好好地解决问题。那个做了不应该做的事，或者没做他应该做的事的人，如果我们发现是他疏忽、自满、作出错误判断，就必须离开。但是，如果是真正做事，确保制度运行并有良好工作表现的人，我们需要依赖他们，并给他们支持。　　我刚才说了，欧美国家对我国的情报单位有很高的评价。这并非道听途说，或是专家的说法，而是我亲身同他们会晤交流时听到的。他们向我叙述所碰到的问题，我则向他们解释我国处理问题的方式，他们看着我，对我说：“我们很羡慕你”。因为我们至今在应付威胁时还能维持同社群的接触，争取他们与政府站在同一战线，也因为我们可以说服宗教领袖支持政府，主动站出来为宗教改造小组（Religious Rehabilitation Group）出一份力，设法纠正拘留者的思想偏差，并协助支援他们的家属，以免家属误解改造目的，同时宗教领袖又能在社群中昂然而立，并被视为在维护社群的利益，而非对政府唯命是从。　　这些并非偶然，而是内安局、内政部和政府不动声色，暗地里做事的成果。我觉得人们应该给予他们肯定。因此，当我们说这是一起不幸事件时，它的背后还有一个背景，即使要做出纪律处分，也要保持公平，并从正确的角度着手。●后港区议员刘程强：我有两点要澄清。这是不是李资政所说的新加坡人陷入自满心态，又对政府的要求太高而造成的结果？还有，马士沙拉末因出纰漏而逃跑，我想问总理是否觉得政府应当向新加坡人道歉？ 答：我想这不是个散播形容词的运动。自满的是惠德里路拘留所。我想国人对政府有很高的期待是正确的，因此他们会认真看待任何的疏漏。在其他国家，事情经常出错。在新加坡，我们确保一切能运作，事情不会出错。当事情搞砸时，我们会认真看待，民众也是如此。我想这是事实。这也不是件坏事，但我们在看问题时，也必须明白这一点。 　　道歉？事情发生隔天，黄根成在国会上第一件做的事，就是以副总理身份致歉，我想这已足够。当副总理说话时，他也是在代表政府发言。●刘程强：总理是否同意这不是对犯错者不分青红皂白，只顾处罚的问题？这是关乎政府的问责（accountability）及部长应该负什么责任的问题。大家应当记得当我们在国会辩论部长薪金时，讨论了要让部长薪金与私人企业界挂钩。可是在私人企业界，当出现差错时，有些人包括总裁在内，都会“人头落地”。但是在这里，当出现差错时，我们却说这是“无心之过”。所以，我想很多人，包括我在内，都无法理解在责任及问责方面，政府是如何应用将部长薪金与私人企业界挂钩的原则。总理能否解释清楚？答：我猜想议员终究会问这个问题。我已解释必须划定界限。连议员也没有提议我应该辞职，因为是我委任了黄根成，而黄根成作为部长，他的下属让这种事情发生。划定界限是有必要的。我们必须正确看待事物，即使在私人企业界，人们也得正确看待事物。公司出了问题，总裁必须留下来解决问题。那些每隔两个月或两年就更换总裁的公司，不会兴旺。　　因此，我必须判断谁在哪个层级须负责，我和副总理讨论过，我也同意他的判断并对他有信心。议员们昨天有机会向副总理发问，要是有令他们不满意的答案，他大可追问下去。要是有问题显示副总理无法胜任，那么议员应该提出来。结果什么都没发生。今天，刘程强再提部长领取高薪一事，使用了含糊语言说“你获得高薪，你应该辞职”。那我问刘程强是否觉得副总理应该为这件事辞职？（停顿几秒）没有回答。我想这点就告一段落（已经说明一切）。 Escape of Mas Selamat Bin Kastari, Waiver of TV Licence Fees For PA Recipients, Building of Coal-Fired Power Plant, Local Graduates ORDER PAPERMONDAY, 21ST APRIL, 2008Mr Low Thia Khiang: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister forHome Affairs if he will provide an update and assessment of the massivemanhunt for Mas Selamat and the estimated expenditure of the operation.Ms Sylvia Lim: To ask the Prime Minister what is the Government'sapproach to taking responsibility for major lapses in Government functionssuch as the escape of high-risk terror suspect Mas Selamat Kastari from theWhitley Road Detention Centre.Mr Low Thia Khiang: To ask the Minister for Trade and Industry whetherinvestor confidence and the international reputation of Singapore havebeen affected by the escape of Mas Selamat.Mr Low Thia Khiang: To ask the Minister for the Environment and WaterResources in view of the announcement by Tuas Power (recently acquiredby China Huaneng Group) to consider building a coal-fired power plant inSingapore (a) what is his assessment of the impact of this plan on ourenvironment; and (b) what regulatory measures are currently in place toprotect the environment and to ensure that new clean coal technology isefficiently deployed to the advantage of Singapore.QUESTIONS FOR WRITTEN ANSWERMs Sylvia Lim: To ask the Minister for Education (a) whether theGovernment tracks social mobility vis-à-vis access to local universityeducation and what are the indicators used; and (b) of the students enteringNUS, NTU and SMU in the last 3 years, how far does the distribution ofhousehold income of the undergraduate population in the 3 localuniversities mirror or differ from the household income distribution of thegeneral population.Ms Sylvia Lim: To ask the Minister for Education for the past 3 years, whatis (i) the proportion of local students who graduated from NUS, NTU andSMU in debt due to the financing of their studies; and (ii) the averagequantum of debt incurred.--------------------------------------------------------------------Sitting Date: 21 Apr 2008ESCAPE OF MAS SELAMAT BIN KASTARI(Government responsibility)Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Prime Minister what is the Government's approach to taking responsibility for major lapses in Government functions such as the escape of high-risk terror suspect Mas Selamat Kastari from the Whitley Road Detention Centre.Mr Wong Kan Seng (for the Prime Minister): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister will also answer this Question in a Ministerial Statement but he will do it tomorrow.ESCAPE OF MAS SELAMAT BIN KASTARI(Impact on investor confidence and Singapore's reputation)Mr Low Thia Khiang asked the Minister for Trade and Industry whether investor confidence and the international reputation of Singapore have been affected by the escape of Mas Selamat.The Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Lim Hng Kiang): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Mas Selamat issue has not been raised as a concern in EDB’s interactions with existing and potential investors. Investor confidence in Singapore has been built up over time, based on our successful track record of getting things done.While the Mas Selamat escape is a serious security lapse, analysts such as the Political and Economic Risk Consultancy Ltd (PERC), are confident that the Singapore Government and its institutions will learn valuable lessons from this and change the way we do things.Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): Sir, I would like to ask the Minister whether his Ministry has assessed the impact on the economy due to the operation whereby the CIQs were tightened. Besides this, has the Ministry also looked into the possibility of the potential loss of confidence that the investors and the international community will have on us as the escape of Mas Selamat is something which they do not expect to happen in Singapore.Mr Lim Hng Kiang: Mr Speaker, Sir, as I mentioned in my reply earlier, EDB has not received any feedback from both potential and existing investors that the Mas Selamat episode will have a major impact on the investment interest in Singapore.As for the impact on the economy, because of the security checks at the Causeway and other areas, this is an on-going operation. It does have an impact but we will have to watch as it goes along. WAIVER OF TV LICENCE FEES FOR PUBLIC ASSISTANCE RECIPIENTSMr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, actually I have the same question as Mdm Ho, but a clarification from the Minister whether there is a need for TV Licence fee. Can the Government pay for whatever programmes to serve the social purpose? Why must it get the audience to pay for licence fee?RAdm [NS] Lui Tuck Yew: I think at the end of the day, those programmes need to be paid for. If they are not paid as a result of the licence fees that are collected, then they will have to come from other means like, for example, raising taxes. And, certainly, to me, this is not as desirable as the non-users of such broadcasting services will also be required to pay for these services as well.BUILDING OF COAL-FIRED POWER PLANT(Impact on environment)Mr Low Thia Khiang asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources in view of the announcement by Tuas Power (recently acquired by China Huaneng Group) to consider building a coal-fired power plant in Singapore (a) what is his assessment of the impact of this plan on our environment; and (b) what regulatory measures are currently in place to protect the environment and to ensure that new clean coal technology is efficiently deployed to the advantage of Singapore.The Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim): Mr Speaker, Sir, any proposal for a coal-fired power plant will be assessed based on economic, energy security and environmental considerations. MEWR will therefore work with the relevant economic agencies to evaluate any such proposal. From the environmental point of view, we want our power plants to be more energy efficient and clean. Hence, we have imposed performance standards on our power plants to minimise their environmental impact.Coal is a cheaper option than fuel oil or gas, and it will contribute towards a more diversified fuel mix for Singapore. However, coal is also a dirtier fuel. Conventional coal plants emit more ash than natural gas and fuel oil plants. Coal is more carbon-intensive as well. But we note that there are new and better technologies that improve the efficiency of coal-fired plants. We will monitor these developments carefully.Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, what is the Minister's view on a coal-fired power plant in Singapore? And how much does the Ministry know and learn the so-called clean coal technology? And has his Ministry made early assessment in terms of the so-called clean coal technology, how clean could it be and what is the impact?Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: Sir, the technology on clean coal is evolving. The Ministry is keeping a careful eye on these developments. We have visited some plants in Japan. They are running what is called ultra supercritical coal fired plants. We want to understand the technology better. As to whether or not we have a position on the matter, as I mentioned in my reply, we will evaluate all proposals with the other economic agencies to make sure that they meet our standards. At the same time, we want to keep our options open and continue to monitor these developments closely. We keep track on developments across the world. There are even technologies being experimented in America in which we monitor closely so that we understand what are the benefits, what are the upside and what are the downside. Mr Low Thia Khiang: Can I clarify what is the current standard that we have and the current regulation with regard to power plant?Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: Sir, I do not have all the exact details. The standards that we have imposed are based on US EPA standards and WHO standards. We monitor these standards very closely in terms of the ash, the sulphur dioxide and other pollutants. These are the requirements that we have now in place and if they have to build a plant they have to meet these standards, and all our power plants in Singapore meet our standards at this point of time.COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY FINDINGS ON MAS SELAMAT KASTARI'S ESCAPEThe Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Wong Kan Seng): ..Mr Low had asked about the estimated cost of the manhunt. To-date, these operations are covered by my Ministry's and the Ministry of Defence's existing operating resources, and we have not asked for additional funds. We have worked within the framework of our contingency plans and re-deployed current manpower and resources in a targeted manner. This also ensures that our continuing operations are sustainable over a protracted period of time without undermining the other functions of the Home Team and the Singapore Armed Forces..Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, I would like to know whether the Ministry of Home Affairs conducts regular audits or security review on physical security and operational procedures in Whitley Road Detention Centre prior to the escape of Mas Selamat.Secondly, I would like to ask whether the findings of the COI in which we have practically known nothing very much, except that Mas Selamat has escaped through the toilet window, reflect the complacency of his Ministry as well.Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, of course, the WRDC should have done regular audits. This was not done in the regular way. What they did were security audits when they did their renovations. And despite that, this kind of failing, for example, in the fencing and covered walkway, was not detected. But it does not mean to say that there is no procedure established to deal with detainees. There are a number of procedures. In fact, the WRDC as well as the GC guards have their respective procedures. For example, when the detainees are in the Cell Block, they are under guard, and they are being watched by a significant number of guards inside the Cell Block. The ratio of the guards is more than that in the prison. When detainees are taken out of the Cell Block and go to other blocks, and most of those movements are in passageways that are enclosed, they are also blindfolded. This is to keep them from familiarising themselves with the surroundings.Even when they get to the Family Visitation Block, they are also blindfolded. And it is also through an enclosed passageway before they get into the Family Visitation Block. Of course, there are some open areas between the Family Visitation Block and the other blocks which are not covered. But then they are completely blindfolded and they are under the tight security of two Gurkha guards. These are just examples. Every movement from the time they leave the Cell Block is logged in a book by the guard. So there are established procedures. The only thing that ought to have been done better is a regular system check and a regular audit. As I said in my statement, this will now be carried out on a regular basis and every year, the Director of Prisons will do an independent audit of this.Mr Low also asked after he left through the window, we do not seem to know where he was and how he left. The COI could not find the specific escape route through which he has left. Neither could the CID conclusively be able to determine how he got over the fence.Ms Sylvia Lim (Non-Constituency Member): Sir, five clarifications for the DPM.First is, how satisfied is he of the thoroughness of the search after Mas Selamat's escape? For example, I was told by some people living in the vicinity of the Whitley Road Detention Centre that the army came to their double-storey homes to do a search, but only the lower floor was searched and the upper floor was not searched.Secondly, Sir, coming back to the communication of the information to the public after the escape, earlier DPM mentioned that they wanted to be sure of the accuracy of information before release to the public about his attire and so on. Why did it then take 19 days for the police to tell the public that Mas Selamat has a mole under his eye? Could they not verify that information at an earlier time?Thirdly, Sir, Singapore is not large and it has already been eight weeks since the escape. Does the Minister not find it disappointing that we have not been able to find Mas Selamat so far and is it not understandable that Singaporeans themselves lose confidence in the capability of our security forces?Sir, fourthly, the Executive Summary report and the earlier speech made by the Minister mentioned the fact that the SDO who was accompanying Mas Selamat together with the Gurkhas was a lady officer and in the DPM's narration of the facts, it appeared that there was a little bit of time loss when the SDO went to search for the Assistant Case Officer to come and respond to the case. I noted that the COI did not make any recommendation about whether it would be more advisable to match gender with the inmate. Was this the cause of some loss of time and would the DPM care to comment on this?And last of all, Sir, there is a rumour that there is an ISD officer who has gone missing. I wonder whether DPM can comment on whether there is any truth in this rumour at all.Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, I cannot comment on the rumour that Ms Sylvia Lim just raised because, after all, it is just a rumour.How satisfied is MHA or the police with the search process? I will leave the professionals to do the job and I suppose they being the experts in this area and the ones who do such searches, I would expect them to have the ability to determine whether that search on the ground floor is adequate or not. I would not be able to comment on this specifically. But clearly for the Home Team, from the results that the Police Force have produced so far in keeping Singapore safe with the low crime rates that we have seen over the years and declining over the years too, and the quickness in their going about in solving a crime when they can find the lead, I think that speaks for the professionalism of the Force. Of course, that does not mean that every officer is of the same standard. As in any organisation, there will be people who do very well and there will be people who do not, and that is the limitation of any human organisation.Why did it take so long to communicate certain information? As I said, information has to be accurately confirmed before it is told to the public. Why was the part about the mole not communicated to the public till after 19 days? Frankly, if you ask me, and if you look at the poster, it is not so easy to detect a mole unless you look closely at every part of the face. But for that officer who saw it, he must have thought over it and decided to give the information. But unless you come into close face-to-face contact with the person, it may not be so easy to notice a small mole.Why do we have female Special Duty Operatives? We have male and female working in every government department. In the Whitley Road Detention Centre, family members visit detainees in the Centre and, as in any organisation, we do not just keep strictly to only one gender and, in this instance, the SDO's job is administrative. The guarding is to be done by the guards and therefore we do have female SDOs and we have guards who are there and each of them has separate functions.Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, DPM seems to say that the complacency culture in the Whitley Road Detention Centre contributed to the episode. I wonder if this episode is also the result of the complacency of his Ministry for failing to supervise the agencies under his charge. I would like to know what is the Minister's personal assessment and feeling of this episode and what lessons have been learnt from the post-operation of the escape of Mas Selamat. Knowing that Mas Selamat is an unusual detainee, as he is an important JI leader and had been trained in jungle fighting in Afghanistan, with experience in jail break and jail escape in Indonesia, was special precaution taken to secure him? Is the DPM also aware that there is this ground speculation that Mas Selamat had in fact died inside at the Whitley Road Detention Centre and that the Government seems to stage all this to cover up his death? I hope DPM could clarify that.Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, instead of telling me about this ground speculation, may I ask Mr Low whether he believes that indeed he thought Mas Selamat has died?Mr Low Thia Khiang: No, I do not.Mr Wong Kan Seng: Mr Low says he does not believe this ground speculation that Mas Selamat has died. I do not know why he wanted to raise it here since he does not believe that Mas Selamat has died in the Whitley Road Detention Centre. I see no point in perpetuating a ground speculation in this House and giving credence to it.On the complacency of the WRDC, as I have explained that in my Statement, does it mean that the Ministry has been complacent in supervising its departments? Every department has its functions. Every department has its leader. What we do is to make sure that we find the right people to run the organisation. From time to time, problems do take place, and this is one instance. Does it mean, therefore, that the whole Ministry and all the Home Team departments are complacent? I think that would be stretching the argument too far. Of course, within individual units, there could be some slackening in some ways. I cannot guarantee that that will not happen because, in any human organisation, from time to time, there will be human weaknesses being displayed and, unfortunately, things do happen that we do not want to see.On what lessons we have learnt, I think the lesson is a very painful one and, indeed, we do not want this thing to happen again. Therefore, we will take this lesson very seriously and make sure that we will not let this happen again.How I felt about it? Well, I felt disappointed that this should have happened. And I was completely shocked and surprised when I first got the news.On Mas Selamat's jail break overseas, I do not know about his jail break. I heard that he tried to escape when he was under guard in Indonesia. He attempted to jump over the second storey and, as a result, injured his leg. So, of course, from that instance, he could have this streak that he wanted to escape all the time. Even in Whitley Road Detention Centre, the Superintendent did warn the guards: "Be careful.We have detainees here who are dangerous and are high flight risk". But, unfortunately, even for those who took note of it, and Members have heard me disclosing the details, the lapses happened and lapses were caused by those individuals who did not pay attention to their work.SOCIAL MOBILITY THROUGH UNIVERSITY EDUCATION(Tracking and indicators)Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Government tracks social mobility vis-a-vis access to local university education and what are the indicators used; and (b) of the students entering NUS, NTU and SMU in the last three years, how far does the distribution of household income of the undergraduate population in the three local universities mirror or differ from the household income distribution of the general population.Dr Ng Eng Hen: The Ministry of Education (MOE) tracks participation in local university education of the different socio-economic groups by housing-type. Table 1 provides the housing-type distribution of the students from the 1990-1992 Primary 1 cohorts. These cohorts would be age 22 to 24 in 2007 and have been admitted to NUS, NTU or SMU if they had qualified. * Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding errors.The data shows a positive picture. Students from all socio-economic groups are making it to local universities. One of every eight undergraduates comes from poorer families who live in 1- to 3-room flats. When compared with the distribution of households of Primary 1 cohorts, students whose parents are more successful are more likely to make it to university. This is a trend seen in most stable, developed societies. It is not surprising that this is happening in Singapore too, after one and a half generations of our meritocratic system. Able students from poor households have done well in their studies, risen in life, and now have children of their own who also tend to do well.Admission to our publicly funded universities is strictly on the basis of merit. All those who qualify will have a place, regardless of socio-economic status. The Government and universities have put in place the Post-Secondary Education Account (PSEA) and a range of scholarships and financial aid schemes to ensure that no deserving student needs be held back due to financial difficulty, and in practice nearly all go to university.Our efforts to enhance social mobility extend to other levels, with high subsidies for education in our schools, ITE and polytechnics. We actively ensure that students at all levels are able to progress through the many education pathways, and that promising students from poorer families are given every encouragement and support to pursue ambitious goals.LOCAL GRADUATES(Debt level arising from study loan) Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Education for the past three years, what is (i) the proportion of local students who graduated from NUS, NTU and SMU in debt due to the financing of their studies; and (ii) the average quantum of debt incurred. Dr Ng Eng Hen: About one-third of our local students who graduated between 2005 and 2007 from the local universities had taken up tuition fee loans to finance their undergraduate studies. (Another one-third of our local students drew down on either their parents’ or their own CPF under the CPF Education Scheme to pay for their fees.)Most students would have graduated with an average debt of about $20,000. Based on the maximum loan repayment period of 20 years, a university graduate would need to repay about $130 per month(1) , which is about 5% of the average starting pay of graduates(2). The pay of a graduate is very likely to rise as he progresses in his career, enabling him to repay the debt in a shorter period of time.Government has introduced the Post-Secondary Education Account (PSEA) and will continue to top up the amounts from time to time when budget surpluses allow. For needy students from the lower income brackets, the Government has enhanced the financial assistance schemes to provide more help to these students. With the PSEA and the enhanced financial assistance schemes, needy students can use the PSEA and higher bursary quanta to defray some of their fees, thereby further reducing their debt burden.(1) This is computed based on repayment terms for the Tuition Fee Loan Scheme where interest is computed based on average prime rates of the local banks. The loan is interest free during the students’ course of study and interest would accrue only after graduation. (2) Based on the 2007 Graduate Employment Survey, the average starting pay of a graduate is about $2,800 per month.================================================STApril 22, 2008Private sector pay comes with greater accountability: WP chiefBy Lynn LeeSINCE ministers' salaries are pegged to the private sector, they should also be held accountable for lapses the same way corporate employees are, argued Workers' Party chief Low Thia Khiang in Parliament on Tuesday.He was following up on a point that PAP MP Inderjit Singh (Ang Mo Kio GRC) had made earlier. Mr Low said that in the corporate world, heads roll when something goes wrong. And the chief executive officer is not spared either, he addd.'But whereas here when something goes wrong, we're talking about honest mistakes,' said the opposition MP for Hougang.Both he and Mr Singh were responding to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's speech on government responsibility for the Mas Selamat Kastari's escape from the Whitley Road Detention Centre nearly eight weeks ago.Mr Lee said the Government took responsibility for the incident, and Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng had apologised for the incident.To fix the problem, the Government had given as full an account as possible of its investigation. It was plugging gaps in the system and would discipline those responsible for the lapses, said Mr Lee.But Mr Low was not satisfied. He expanded on Mr Singh's point, that people expected those who got private sector pay to be 'appropriately punished' when they made mistakes.Mr Low said many people, including himself, could not 'reconcile' the different principles the Government adopted when it came to ministerial pay, and the issue of accountability and responsibility.Responding, Mr Lee said he had explained where the buck should stop in his earlier speech.He said that while a Minister was ultimately accountable for his Ministry's work, it did not mean that every level in the chain of command up to him should be punished for a lapse.'Based on the facts, we have to decide who fell short in performing his duties,' he had said.He told Mr Low that while there were CEOs who quit when a company turned turtle, sometimes, they stayed on to fix the problem.And companies where the top dog was changed frequently do not prosper, he said.'So I have to make a judgment, who is responsible at what level, and I've discussed this with the DPM and I agree with his judgment and I have confidence in him,' he said.Mr Low had ample opportunity to quiz Mr Wong on Tuesday, Mr Lee added, before asking the opposition MP if he thought Mr Wong should resign.Mr Low did not reply. Said Mr Lee:'No answer. So I think that settles the point,' he said.Varsity students come from all social strataBy Sue-Ann ChiaSTUDENTS from all socio-economic groups are making it to local universities, but those who come from more well-off homes are more likely to do so.Education Minister Ng Eng Hen made this assessment yesterday when providing data on local university undergraduates and where they live.It is a trend that should not surprise, he added, as the situation is similar in most developed societies.Dr Ng was responding to Non-Constituency MP Sylvia Lim, who asked if the Government tracked the social mobility of children here in terms of access to local university education.In a written reply to her question, Dr Ng, who took over the Education portfolio on April 1, said his ministry tracks participation in local university education of the different socio-economic groups by housing type.He gave figures from the 1990 to 1992 Primary 1 cohorts. They would have been between 22 and 24 years old last year, and admitted to the three local universities if they had qualified.The data showed that 23 per cent of this group of students lived in one- to three-room flats, 37 per cent in four-room flats, 28 per cent in five-room or bigger flats and 12 per cent in private housing.Among the local undergraduates from this group, 13 per cent lived in one- to three-room flats, 31 per cent in four-room flats, 36 per cent in five-room or bigger flats and 19 per cent in private housing.The data shows a 'positive picture', said Dr Ng, adding: 'Students from all socio-economic groups are making it to local universities.'One out of eight undergraduates comes from poorer families who live in one- to three-room flats.But he added: 'When compared with the distribution of households of Primary 1 cohorts, students whose parents are more successful are more likely to make it to university.'Still, he noted that no deserving student will be held back because of financial difficulties due to the range of scholarships and financial aid schemes in place.'We actively ensure that students at all levels are able to progress through the many education pathways, and that promising students from poorer families are given every encouragement and support to pursue ambitious goals,' he said.联合早报22/04/2008马士沙拉末逃脱事件　部长声明　黄根成答问录●刘程强：这起事件是否表示内政部也因自满而疏于监督下属机构的职守呢？副总理对事件的个人感觉又是什么？对于坊间说马士沙拉末其实已在拘留所中死去，这整件事只是政府导出来掩盖他死亡的消息，请副总理澄清。 答：我先问你本身相不相信这个传言。（刘程强：我不相信）如果刘程强本身不相信传言，我不知道他为何要在国会提出这个问题。我认为完全没有必要在议事殿堂里对这种传言作出回应，以免提高它的可信度。　　各部门有本身功能和领导层，内政部的职责是委任适当的人来领导这些部门。在任何机构中，人性的弱点和各种问题会不时出现，就像这个例子。我无法担保每个人都没有问题，但是如果就凭它而认为是整个内政部有自满心态，就未免扯得太远了。对我而言，这起事件令我感到失望和震惊。●非选区议员林瑞莲：现在有谣言指内安局的一名官员在逃马事件发生后，已经失踪了。这个谣言是否属实？ 答：既然是谣言，我是不会对此发表看法的。无论如何，它只是个谣言。 [6 Mar] Sitting Date: 6 Mar 2008-------------------------------------------------------------------- Re-employment, Juvenile Homes Sitting Date: 5 Mar 2008Ms Sylvia Lim: Sir, two clarifications for MOS Mr Gan on the plans to re-employ workers between 62 and 65 years of age. Earlier, he mentioned that the Ministry would actually allow employers to re-employ workers turning 62 at the same job but at a lower pay. What is the justification for doing that, especially since the drawdown age for CPF monies is being moved to 65 and such a pay cut for the same job is hard to justify? The second clarification is: could he elaborate more on what are the enforcement mechanisms for the new re-employment law? Does it have any teeth? What recourse do workers have?Mr Gan Kim Yong: Sir, with regard to the first question why employees when they reach the retirement age of 62 and are re-employed, there will be adjustments to the salary, we have to take into account and look at this issue in perspective. Because of the historical factors, many of our employees today are on a seniority-based wage structure. They have been receiving annual increments for the last 30 or 40 years as they worked. This seniority-based component in their salaries has made these employees uncompetitive, compared to the current employment scenario where some of the salaries are now based on performance. So we want to encourage employers and employees to work together to find ways to adjust their salaries so that they reflect the value of the job, ability, contribution and productivity of the workers. Because of this change in concept and approach, and our desire to move into a performance-based system, we would want to encourage both workers and employers to consult one another and work out a remuneration system that would better reflect job worth, and this may result in adjustments to their salary downwards, especially in the case where there is a very high component of seniority-based structure in the salary. With regard to the question of enforcement of the Re-employment Act that we are working on, at the moment we are still in the process of drawing up the re-employment legislation. As I mentioned earlier, we are also in the process of preparing a set of guidelines on re-employment to help employers and employees work out their re-employment arrangement. In the meantime, the tripartite partners have worked out a checklist which we will use to consult the industry to work with employers as well as the employees to understand better the operational issues involved in re-employment so that these issues can be incorporated into the Re-employment Bill when we present it to Parliament. At that point in time, we will also consider what are the penalties or enforcement capacity that we need to incorporate in the Bill. In the meantime, our focus is on how to encourage workers and employers to adopt re-employment even before re-employment legislation comes into effect by 2012. So, this is the focus of our efforts currently.Juvenile Homes Ms Sylvia Lim (Non-Constituency Member): Young offenders reside at the Singapore Boys' Home or Girls' Home when the Juvenile Court thinks that they need to be removed from the community in order to be rehabilitated. But how successful have these homes been in helping our youngsters turn over a new leaf, or have we inadvertently made things worse? According to Ministry data, the rate of recidivism or those who reoffended within two years of release rose from 23% for those released in 2000 to between 25% and 30% in subsequent years. Recently, the Minister gave a written answer that for the cohorts released in 2003 and 2004, the rate was 38.5%. In the Budget estimates, the actual recidivism rate in FY06 was a peak of 48%. What are the reasons for the sharp upward trend? Regarding the Boys' Home, about a year ago, Dr Carol Balhetchet of the Singapore Children's Society noted that there would always be boys who emerged from the home even more aggressive and would have "contaminated" others too. She noted that boys she counselled did not fear going to the Boys' Home. So the boys released from the home told the press that the disciplinary regime was too lax. I note that MCYS is increasing its expenditure on the purchase of additional security services to reforce the supervision and security in MCYS' Homes. Is this a recognition that the homes are too lax?The Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (Dr Vivian Balakrishnan): ... I listened to Ms Sylvia Lim's query on the rate of recidivism in our Boys' Home and Girls' Home. And I will tell you I share her discomfort with the rate of recidivism. The figures which I have is that 31% of juvenile offenders reoffended within two years of their release from homes, that means, one-third. I was not happy with that figure, although my staff told me that actually this compares very well with the published rates overseas which range between 30%-40%. I said, never mind, even if we are not doing too badly with respect to overseas rates, we still need to bring our own rates down. Why have our rates gone up? Partly these changing social norms. Partly also because the boys whom we are admitting into the Boys' Home now are a tougher sub-group who perhaps, in the past, may have been put in a more rigorous regime in Prison or otherwise. But be it as it may, we need to do more to make sure we bring this rate down. And I also agree with her that a key thing is to make sure discipline is enforced. Because in these homes, if you have no discipline, you cannot ensure security. If you cannot ensure security, boys will have to look for protection through the formation of gangs. So we must not allow that culture to take place. I will be very happy to bring Ms Lim for a guided tour or maybe she can become a volunteer in our Boys' Home and our Girls' Home, and we will take whatever ideas she has on board to solve this problem, because this is a problem worth solving...Ms Sylvia Lim: Clarifications for the Minister on the topic of juvenile homes. Earlier on the recidivism rate, the Minister mentioned the rate of about one-third recidivism within two years. But according to the estimates given to us, in page 63 of the Budget book, the latest recidivism rate for FY06 (actual) was put at 48%. Is it not closer to one is to two relapsing into crime within two years? Second clarification is that the Minister did not address my query on the additional expenditure which is spending on security services to reinforce supervision and security in the MCYS homes. My question was: is this recognition that the homes have indeed been too lax and that there is a need to increase security provision? And last of all, has the Ministry actually done anything so far to try to arrest the increasing recidivism rate in juvenile homes?Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: I will double check the recidivism rate for her. Whatever it is, as far as I am concerned, it is too high. Yes, we are spending more money on security services, and I think this is money well worth investing in. Because, as I said earlier in my speech, we need to provide discipline and we need to provide security. Without that sense of discipline and security, rehabilitation will not work. So, yes, we are spending more money, and we will do so. Having said all that, I also want to caution us against over reacting in a knee-jerk fashion to this rate. Let me give you an example. The easiest way for my staff in the Boys' Home and Girls' Home to lower their rate is to be more picky as to who gets admitted to the Home. If we work with more hardcore and more challenging cases, which I believe we need to, it will also mean our recidivism rate may go up. I think there is a balance. I am not obsessively focused on just that rate, although I have said that the current rate, as far as I am concerned, is too high and I want it to come down. But I am not going to lower it simply by placing more barriers and saying, "Why not you go to Prison instead of the Boys' Home so that you don't affect my statistics?" I think she has raised a valid concern. It is a figure we should watch. I am giving you the commitment that we will continue to invest in whatever it takes to bring that rate down. And we need to do so because these are young boys and young girls. If we cannot get them back on the straight and narrow at this early age, they are condemned to a life of misery for themselves, their families and the community, and ultimately, it means a higher cost to us as a society. So we will work on this problem. Teacher and School Appraisal, University Education, CPF Life Sitting Date: 4 Mar 2008Teacher and School Appraisal Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): Sir, the recent change in the details of the appraisal to the teaching profession causes concern. It has created a stressful environment that is not conducive for learning, maturing and teaching. Teachers are appraised and graded not just for what they do inside the classrooms, but outside as well. In a Straits Times report on 29th December 2007, it was reported that a teacher resigned after six years at a primary school because she felt that the school was more interested in getting her to organise events, something she felt interfere with her ability to teach. There is a fear that the pursuit of excellence and higher ranking by over zealous principals and teachers will come at the expense of the weakest students. Going by what has happened at the beginning of 2008, this fear is not unfounded. In a Straits Times article on 12th January 2008, "Sec 5 class advised: Go to ITE instead", a group of 27 girls in a Secondary 5 class in a mission school were advised by their principal to transfer to the Institute of Technical Education on the first day of the school. It was reported that the principal even displayed the student's detailed N-level grades and stressed that she only wanted 100% passes in her school. In some other schools, students were told that they are liable to be barred from taking certain subjects at "N" or "O" levels, if their school projects are found to be unsatisfactory. Parents of these students were made to sign an acknowledgement of the consequence for poor school work and an undertaking to monitor their children's progress. This again happened at the beginning of a school term. Sadly, some educators and teachers no longer look at the student's F9 grade as a room for improvement case, but a reason to drop the subject case as such result will lower the mean subject grade, or MSG, for the class. MSG is computed as an average grade of all the students in the class. Understandably, a lower MSG is no good for the school. Teaching a class of 30-40 teenagers is already a stressful job. In addition, our educators have to worry about the weakest students pulling down the ranking of their school, job performance appraisal and of course their financial rewards since their pay is now linked more closely to work performance. How can one teach effectively under such an environment? The recent appraisal and school ranking system had diluted the good intention of many principals and teachers, many are unwittingly being transformed into technocrats crunching and manipulating numbers to achieve a desired target either to make a personal goal or a national objective. MSG in school is just like monosodium glutamate. It enhances flavour but is unhealthy in the long run. MSG has a high sodium content which contributes to hypertension. Is this why some principals and teachers are looking so flushed at the beginning of the school year?The Minister for Education (Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam): ...This brings me to Mr Low Thia Khiang's question on how we assess our schools - both our school leaders as well as our teachers. We do not appraise principals simply on the basis of the ranking of their schools or the number of awards their schools win. And neither do we assess our teachers simply on the basis of either the results of their class or the things they do outside the classroom. It is a much more holistic assessment, very carefully worked out over the years, lots of two-way feedback from schools, before we really worked out the system. The latest system is called Enhanced Performance Management System, introduced a few years ago. It is working quite well, working better now than we first introduced it. Again, it is something which other countries look at with great interest, because they are also trying to do the same thing - assessing schools, not with a very closed and direct hand, but assessing them in a way which gives them leeway to do their own thing but, nevertheless, recognises those that are doing better than others, recognises the more competent, capable and caring teacher from the others. Because that is how the system stays dynamic, that is how quality keeps throwing up. Our teachers are assessed on several competencies. It is not simply how well their students do in their tests, neither is it simply a matter of what they do outside the classroom. It boils down to their passion and commitment in nurturing the whole child. That is what we call the core competency, and we stated as such, that there is a core competency that every teacher knows is the first thing and the most important thing we look at - their passion and commitment in nurturing the whole child. And the rest follows from that. We look at whether our teachers are able to teach creatively and effectively, whether they go out of their way to look after the needs of their students, whether they contribute to the capabilities of their colleagues, contribute to better team work within their department of the school, and so on. These are not new criteria. They are not new factors that we look at in a teacher's performance. They have always been there. What is new about the Enhanced Performance Management System is that it is now transparent; it provides explicit feedback to the teacher each year on how he or she is doing, and where he or she could pay more attention and where he or she could get more help in developing new competencies. And it also enforces the discipline on the part of each supervisor, to be honest about his or her subordinates, recognise the things that they do very well, and identify those who need help in order to realise their full potential as teachers. Mr Low mentioned an example that was reported and which many people know about, a principal who had spoken in a rather stern fashion to Secondary 5 Normal (Academic) students. When that came up, the first thing I did within the Ministry was to take a closer look at what the school was doing, what they have been achieving, and look at the data as well. So we looked at the Normal (Academic) data - successive cohorts of Normal (Academic) students. The first thing that struck us was that almost all their secondary 4 Normal (Academic) students moved on to secondary 5, a very high transition rate. The second thing that struck us about this school was that their secondary 5 Normal (Academic) students did better than most other schools, not just in absolute terms but value-added. Consistently, under the same principal, the school has done better than comparable schools in raising the level of performance of its Normal (Academic) students - value-add. And that must count for confidence, because it is relayed all over the world - true confidence comes from true achievement, and there is nothing like achieving and the joy of achieving...University Education Ms Sylvia Lim (Non-Constituency Member): Sir, last month, our three universities announced tuition fee hikes for the coming intake. The universities justified the increases on rising manpower and operating costs. Specifically mentioned was the need to hire staff to keep up standards. In 2005, the MOE Steering Committee on University Autonomy, Governance and Funding had recommended that tuition fee increases for NUS and NTU be kept at a maximum of 10% per year. The recent hikes by each university were on a cohort basis, with the next fee fixed for the cohort for the duration of their course. I agree that the principle is good. However, I would like to clarify whether the 10% cap is still relevant with a cohort lock-in system. For example, in the case of the NUS law course, if one is to conclude, that one-time fee rise of 20% for four years works out to less than 10% a year, and hence it is within the cap. As the world continues to pay a higher premium for such talent, we can expect our universities to face even higher wage bills for academics. Since students have to co-pay 25% of the cost of university education, does the Ministry foresee that the cap on tuition fee increases will be higher than 10% in the future, especially in courses where academic expertise is very expensive? While the policy to enable universities to charge realistic fees to keep up standards makes sense, this could work counter to affordability and potentially affect social mobility of poorer students. Universities are required to submit proposed fee increases to MOE for approval. What considerations does MOE take into account to decide whether fee increases are to be approved? Based on the Finance Minister's Budget Speech, I wish to conclude that so long as bursaries and loans are available, course fees can escalate. Does the Ministry monitor the level of student debt, and how many years the graduate would be in debt upon his graduation?The Minister of State for Education (RAdm [NS] Lui Tuck Yew): ...In response to Ms Lim’s question, let me say that as the major source for universities, the Government monitors carefully to ensure that fees are set reasonably. We work closely with the universities on any proposed increase in fees to assess its impact on affordability. Our universities are cost conscious and fiscally prudent. They are required to put in place appropriate internal controls and procedures to ensure proper accountability of their financial resources, proper budgeting and financial reporting systems. These are all subject to regular audits, including audits that are commissioned by the Ministry of Education. They take active cost control measures which include reducing administrative staff headcount, bulk tendering of goods and services, outsourcing non-core activities, and leveraging on IT to improve productivity. The universities are incentivised to do so and benefit directly from such measures as they can keep the surplus and use it at an appropriate time to fund new activities. The largest component of universities' expenditure, approximately 70%, goes towards manpower costs. Our universities must pay competitive wages if they are to compete effectively against global competition to attract and retain top quality faculty. This is necessary in order for the universities to uphold the quality of education they provide. From time to time, tuition fees will have to be raised in accordance with the higher costs of providing a quality education. In doing so, the universities will provide students and parents with more certainty with regard to the financial outlay required for a university education. Starting from this Academic Year, all three universities will adopt a cohort-based fee-setting approach which means that universities will maintain a student's fees at the level set during his or her first year of study, for the entire duration of the programme. Students, who were admitted prior to 2008 will continue to pay fees set at the 2007 level. Most students entering NUS and NTU in 2008 will face a one-off fee increase of 4%, and this is equivalent to about $250 per year compared to the existing students. Because their fees for subsequent years are fixed at this level, this translates into an annualised increase of about 1.6% over a four-year course of study. Ms Sylvia Lim mentioned law students. I think they are a very small number of them and they will face fee increases of about 20% which over the four-year period works out, I believe, to about 7 1/2% per year. I would like to reiterate that the Government and the universities remain committed to ensuring that admission to university remains needs-blind, and that no able student will be denied a university education because of cost...CPF LIFE Ms Sylvia Lim: Sir, CPF LIFE has sought to address some of the objections to the original compulsory annuity proposal. Its stated aim is to help Singaporeans' CPF savings last a lifetime. While we await further elaborations on the details, some of its features raised concerns. The first concern is its lack of universal coverage. The catchment group has narrowed from the original plan to include most CPF members below 50, to only those with at least $40,000 in their Minimum Sum balances. 25% of active CPF members will not be covered due to insufficient balances. As mentioned earlier by other Members, including Prof Kalyani Mehta, the ironic outcome is that those who are more likely to end up as the aged poor are not covered, which includes the lower income, those with unstable employment and those without families to depend on. What is the Government's plan for their old age security? Secondly, according to the Committee's report, one of CPF LIFE's aims is "to provide a steady income for life". The question is: how steady is it, considering interest rate fluctuations? Last year, the Government decided to unfix interest rates on the Special Medisave and Retirement Account (or SMRA) from 4% to fluctuate with a long term bond yield rate. Now, the base rate on all CPF monies is 2.5%, with an additional 1% interest on the first $60,000. If the interest rates on SMRA should fall to this level, the projections of monthly payments shown by the Committee in the Annexes to their report will not apply as they based their assumptions on interest rates being between 4.5% to 5.5%. In the MOM website, it is stated that "for the entire duration of the policy, payout amounts can change, depending on the actual CPF interest rates and underlying mortality experience. For instance, a 0.5 percentage point difference in interest rate assumption will lead to a change in payouts by about 10%". For those with lower Minimum Sums, the monthly payments under CPF LIFE, at 4% interest with additional 1% on the first $60,000, are estimated to be between $300 and $500. Downward fluctuations in interest rates could bring their payouts to below subsistence level. This outcome is highly undesirable. How will these members be protected? Thirdly, there is still wide concern about inflation risk and the fact that CPF LIFE payments are not inflation-indexed. This could seriously erode purchasing power. The Committee discussed this but decided against it. With most people probably opting for the default scheme of Refund 80, the premium would be deducted at age 55 and only payable 25 years later. We will be locking away significant sums for 25 years of investment. Is it not possible to use the investment returns to provide some protection against inflation?Dr Ng Eng Hen: ...Ms Sylvia Lim asked about inflation in CPF LIFE. She is quite right. It is not inflation indexed. In fact, Prof. Lim's Committee struggled at length because it makes sense if you can have a payout that rises, so that your purchasing power is not diluted. I find it hard to make the distinction between the Ministry and the Committee making this wide consultation because we appointed the Committee to make wide consultation. But the point is they had wide consultation. The feedback was this. If you have inflation index, it means smaller amounts from the beginning and larger amounts when you are older. Many members of the public said they were concerned that they would not live long enough to receive the later amounts. So the Committee was practical and they say, "Let's just have it flat because the Minimum Sum scheme is flat." I think it is a sensible proposal. There are of course other ways to increase your income later in life. One good example is the HDB Lease Buy-Back Scheme which tops up the stream of income that you get from CPF LIFE. Ms Sylvia Lim also asked about sustainability. She is right. Prof. Lim Pin's Committee was very careful to say that payouts must be based on how long people are actually living and the interest rates. Because to be financially viable, payouts and premiums must correspond to actual interest rates and mortality experience. This is a universal rule that is applied for all insurance and annuity providers. It is nothing new. If you read the report, Prof. Lim Pin's Committee specifically noted the example of Equitable Life in the UK - I have circulated that - for a company that made promises, that they could not deliver and did no one any good. It is easy to make promises, in other words. It is easy to say, "I will give you this." But if I ask you, "how are you going to pay for it? Will you be around to make sure that you stick to your commitment? And what if you cannot? What service have you done?" So if you sayCPF LIFE, everybody jumps on board. It is a wonderful safety net. You do not have to bring in your rope. When the net breaks, what happens? I think we want to be very careful. It will be subsumed under the CPF interest framework which guarantees 3.5% for less than $60,000. Beyond this, the payouts will be paid based on actual interest rates and mortality experience. This is in line with standard practice of annuity providers to ensure that CPF LIFE remains adequately funded and sustainable over the long term...----------------------------------------------------------------ST 5 Mar 2008Pegging educators' pay to results: Students affected?By Clarissa OonOPPOSITION MP Low Thia Khiang (Hougang) yesterday took issue with the way one school principal told a class of Secondary 5 Normal (Academic) students to forget about sitting for their O levels, and to apply for places in the Institute of Technical Education instead.The incident involved a mission school for girls, which was not named, and caused a stir when it was reported in January.Yesterday, Mr Low asked the Education Minister if pegging educators' pay to the school's performance comes at the expense of weaker students.From next month, the pay and bonuses of principals and teachers will be tied more closely to their performance.Mr Low asked exactly how they are assessed and if factors such as the school's ranking and the mean subject grade of the class are considered.If so, he felt that educators are 'unwittingly being transformed into technocrats, crunching and manipulating numbers either to meet a personal goal or a national objective'.In reply, Education Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam said principals and teachers are assessed on a range of competencies, and not just based on school awards or rankings or their students' academic results.This transparent appraisal system for educators is called the Enhanced Performance Management System (EPMS).Among its criteria is whether teachers 'are able to teach creatively and effectively, whether they go out of the way to look after the needs of their students' and 'whether they contribute to better teamwork in their department'.The bottom line, said the minister, is their 'passion and commitment to nurture the whole child'.He said that when the incident mentioned by Mr Low was first reported, he did a careful study of the school and the performance of its Normal stream students.He found that almost all its Secondary 4 Normal (Academic) students moved on to Secondary 5.Under the same principal, the school's successive cohorts of Secondary 5 students also did better in their O levels compared to other schools.He suggested that she had her own method of motivating the students.'Different schools have different methods. The ministry tries not to scrutinise everything they say or do, as long as they don't make serious mistakes.'In fact, this same school had a requirement some years ago, where all its girls had to wear a petticoat. It was the school's decision and parents understood the ethos of the school,' said the minister.He noted that striking the right balance between 'affirming' and 'challenging' children is 'a complex matter' and that both are needed for effective results.A recent international study by the United States' Brookings Institution found that the most confident eighth-grade maths students came from the Middle East, Africa and the US.Yet students from East Asia - such as those from Hong Kong, Korea and Japan - did better in terms of international maths test scores, even though they ranked among the lowest in self-confidence.'The study found that the least confident student in Singapore did better in mathematics than the most confident American student,' said Mr Tharman with a smile.Schools and principals, he concluded, have to find their own way of pushing students to do better, and only time will tell which are the right methods.教师评估制度充满压力？刘程强（提问摘选辑要）: 　　最近的教师评估制度细节改变，使教学环境变得充满压力，不适合学习、教导与培育工作。　　教师不只在课室内的表现被评估，在课室外的表现也在评估范围内。　 　　《海峡时报》2007年12月29日的报道说，一名教师在小学执教6年后辞职，因为“她觉得学校对叫她主办活动较有兴趣，而这影响她教学的工作。” 　　我担心过于热衷的校长与教师在追求卓越成绩与更高的排名的时候，将牺牲成绩较弱的学生。2008年头发生的事件，显示这个顾虑并不是多余的。（事件是指《海峡时报》今年1月12日的报道，有校长在开学第一天劝请一班中五学生转读工艺教育学院。） 　　可悲的是，一些教育者不再把学生的F9看为“进步的空间”，而是“放弃该科目的理由”，因为这将降低班级的平均科目成绩（MSG－Mean Subject Grade）。可以理解的是，低MSG对学校将是坏消息。 　　教导一班30至40名青少年已经是压力很大的工作。我们的教育工作者还必须担心成绩较弱的学生拉低排名、工作表现评估，及经济上的回报，因为他们现在的薪金与工作表现有更直接的关系。在这样的环境，怎么能够有效地教导学生？ 　　最近的评估表现与学校排名制度已经冲淡了许多校长与教师的好意。他们许多已经无意识地被变成靠操纵数字，达到个人目标或国家目标的技术官僚。 　　学校的MSG与味精（MSG-monosodium glutamate）一样，增添味道，不过长期使用并不健康。味精盐分很高，可能造成高血压。这是否是一些校长与教师在新学年开始时就满脸通红的原因？尚达曼（回应摘选辑要）:我们并不是单根据学校的排名、学校赢得多少奖项评估校长，也不是单根据班级的成绩与他们在课堂外的表现评估教师。　　我们以教师在不同方面的能力进行评估，而主要的评估标准仍是教师培养孩子全面发展时的热忱与献身程度。所有教师都知道我们强调这一点。其他方面都是从这点延伸，我们要看教师能否有创意、有效地教导学生、有无尽全力照顾学生的需要、能否与同事合作等。　　这些都不是新的标准。这个评估制度“新”的地方在于它现在更具透明度，每年直接让教师知道他们的表现如何、哪方面需要注意、可以从哪里得到帮助。它也迫使上司对下属诚实，表扬表现好的教师，确认哪些是需要帮助以发挥潜质的教师。　　（针对刘程强所提的事件）我查看了该所学校的成绩，他们几乎所有的中四生都升上中五。在同一个校长的带领下，他们的中五普通课程学生的成绩，无论在实际成绩或增值幅度方面，在这几年也都比多数学校出色。这无疑让学校更有信心，因为真实的信心来自真实的成就。　　不同学校、不同校长有不同的方式，我和教育部尝试不详细地检查他们所做的每件事与所说的每句话，只要他们不是犯了严重的错误，就让他们自由发展，让家长自己评估学校……让家长选择。经过一段时间，我们会知道哪些校长的方式比较合适，个别校长也将从中学习、调整，因为没有人是完美的。　　我们必须在肯定孩子与挑战孩子之间取得平衡，这是校长与教师的技巧。如果我们只是一味给予肯定，像一些国家如美国过去许多年所做的，我不肯定新加坡（的表现）是否能像以往一样突出。　　信心、动力非常重要……给予一些肯定是有必要的。不过你也需要挑战孩子，如叫一直迟到的孩子加把劲，开始用功。　　所以，我们应该维持现有的系统，吸引人才加入教育界，早日确认有领导才能的人，给予他们培训，让他们在学校掌舵，并与其他学校分享经验，而不是质问他们所说的一切。 Top Quality Economy and Local Research Talent, Means Testing, GIC and Temasek Holdings Sitting Date: 3 Mar 2008Top Quality Economy and Local Research TalentMr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): Sir, one of the key features of Budget 2008 is to create a top quality economy with innovation playing a pervasive role. One of the ways to achieve that, according to the Finance Minister, is to increase the investment in world-class manpower and new R&D capabilities. The recent A*STAR Annual Report discloses that $5.4 billion has been allocated to engage in R&D from 2006-2010. Budget 2008 would probably move this figure even higher. It is reported that the Agency has a team of 3,200, comprising 2,000 researchers, of whom about 1,200 hold PhD qualifications, and a third of them are Singaporeans. The Report also states that commercialisation of technology is a key priority for A*STAR. It has, to date, licensed out 100 technologies and spun off 19 active companies. My questions are:(1) How many Singaporean researchers with PhD qualifications have been nurtured by A*STAR, since the agency was established in 2002? While it is important to attract whales, we must understand that these mammals are migratory in nature. Singapore needs guppies, and local guppies to be precise, to stay and grow the R&D capabilities. Further, we should not have guppies' mindset, or we will always be overwhelmed by whales. Can we become sharks instead of just guppies?(2) Does the Government believe that this number is a good achievement in relation to the billions A*STAR spent on R&D and human capital so far?(3) How much, in money value, has the commercialisation of technology in the 19 spin-off companies contributed to A*STAR or the Singapore economy to date?(4) As Singapore progressively increases its investments in world-class R&D capabilities, what are MTI's strategy and target for A*STAR to help Singapore achieve its top quality economy?Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, the Government spends a lot of money on R&D, and the Minister said that A*STAR aims to have 1,000 local PhDs by 2015. Can I assume that all of them are Singapore citizens? Is this target pool of 1,000 big enough to have a critical mass for Singapore to sustain its R&D efforts in the long term? Besides the scholarships which MOS mentioned just now, does MTI have any other plans to attract Singaporeans to take up R&D as a career besides animal trainers? What other opportunities are they offered to the local graduates who take up R&D as a career? What is the strategy for MTI to actually move Singapore up the value chain in R&D? Is the MTI complacent with being guppies in R&D?Means Testing (Click here)Ms Sylvia Lim (Non-Constituency Member): Sir, on 7th January, Health Minister gave a keynote speech at Changi General Hospital. Means testing for hospitalisation was touted as the way to go to address two issues - one, the issue of fairness in distributing health subsidies; and, two, to meet rising expectation for better services from all patients, rich or poor. Sir, I find the justification for means testing not convincing and somewhat contradictory.First, the issue of fairness. According to the Health Minister, it becomes unfair when high income patients begin to occupy subsidised beds. An over crowded Class B2 or C ward will come at the expense of low income patients who do not have the means to afford an alternative ward. But the question is: if it is expected that there will be over crowding in our subsidised wards, is this due solely to the presence of high-income patients? As our population ages, demand for hospitalisation will legitimately rise. What about the high growth rate of our foreign population welcomed into Singapore to churn our economy? Have our social services, including healthcare, kept pace with these trends? The Government has to address these fundamental issues before asking working-class Singaporeans to go and pay more for such an essential service as hospital care.The second reason given by the Minister is that in efforts to meet rising expectation for better services, MOH is improving the standard of physical facilities in subsidised wards to be as good as Class B1. Inevitably, by doing so, it will attract more downgraders. Let me quote from the Minister's speech:'With such marginal difference in ward facilities and while fees in Class B1 are more than double those in Class B2 and four times those in Class C, we expect many patients who would normally choose B1 to now choose B2 or C.'The question then is: why would MOH want to introduce means testing to address an issue that is itself self creating in the first place? Since clinical care in all wards is of a high standard, do we need to add non-essential creature comforts for highly subsidised wards? Somebody has to pay for this and, more likely than not, the patient will end up paying for it. Would it not be prudent for MOH to manage expectations rather than to raise them and increase cost unnecessarily? I believe most patients in Class B2 or C wards will understand why they will not be getting the same comforts or are not able to choose their doctors, unlike those in other wards.It has been argued that means testing is already implemented in public housing. So, why not for hospitalisation? There is a significant difference. Households earning $3,000 or less are entitled to a 3-room flat, while those earning under $8,000 qualify for a 5-room flat. Those with higher incomes get less subsidies, but their flats are bigger which they can also monetise and sell for more. Public housing is touted as a way to build up wealth for the future. Thus, means testing for public housing based on market subsidies is still quite acceptable to people.Sir, the root of this means testing should be about whether there are some baseline expectations which Singaporeans should have of the Government. What essential services should we expect to be available to everyone equally regardless of means? For instance, when it comes to education, all Singaporeans can have their children educated in the mainstream schools. Education too is a heavily subsidised item, but everyone, rich or poor, pays the same fees for basic primary or secondary education. Why is the Government not pushing for means testing in mainstream education then with children paying fees on a sliding scale, depending on household income? Could it be because the Government sees education as an investment while hospitalisation is seen as a liability?To paraphrase the words of the Health Minister, everyone needs healthcare most towards the latter part of his life, when he or she is not at the peak in earnings. Means testing for hospitals will create a lot of uncertainties for many citizens at a time in their lives when affordability of healthcare is most critical. Singaporeans should not be subject to such anxieties.Mr Low Thia Khiang (In Mandarin ): Sir, during the 2006 General Election, I asked the Government whether it would implement means testing. The Health Minister's answer then was that he had not thought about the question. However, he has now decided to implement means testing. The questions we should focus on are:(1) As a matter of principle, is it correct? Hospitalisation is a critical need of the people when they fall sick, which must be assured. It is just like defence which is the security safeguard critical to the people. Thus, all male citizens have to fulfill National Service duties. Regardless of whether one perceives himself to be fit enough or to have the capability to become a soldier, he will be enlisted into NS. Similarly, the Government has the same obligation, based on the same principle to provide a medical safety net to the people.(2) Who should decide the affordability level of medical expenses? Means testing deprives Singaporeans of the right to determine for themselves what they can afford for hospitalization. This is a fundamental change. Currently, patients evaluate their own financial situation to decide which class of hospital ward to be admitted to, as the government subsidies are simply based on different classes of hospital ward . With means testing, even if a patient feels that he cannot afford the medical expenses and decides to be admitted to C class ward, the Government will use means testing to prescribe his capacity to pay and determine that he pays higher medical fees.(3) What is the motive for implementing means testing? The purpose is to allow the government to justify reducing healthcare subsidies in the name of charging patients based on affordability. The outcome must be that some patients, or in the future perhaps most patients who are admitted to Class C and B2 wards would be paying higher medical fees.Presently, a patient can decide which class of ward to be admitted to during hospitalization and the government subsidies are in accordance with different classes of hospital ward. This is the last line of defence in our social safety net and a critical safeguard in healthcare for Singaporeans Implementation of hospitalisation means testing will surely increase Singaporeans' anxiety over the lack of social security in life.Mr Low Thia Khiang: Madam, first I would like to clarify that I did not say Singaporeans are denied the choice of class of wards in the hospitals, as what the Minister has said earlier. The point I made was that Singaporeans are now denied the right to decide for themselves what is affordable to them upon hospitalisation and the patients decide which class of ward they would like to get admitted to. The affordability is now decided by the Government by means testing, as the percentage of subsidy to C class ward is based on that. This is a fundamental change.Madam, I would like to clarify with the Minister: does the Minister not agree that the outcome of means testing would be for the not-so-rich to pay more? The very rich will go to a private hospital. Is the Government unable to afford providing healthcare without implementing means testing? Madam, I am alarmed by the Minister's statement that if we do not implement means testing, our C class ward standard might degenerate to standard in the 70s. Are we that poor now as a nation, that we need to do that, poorer than in the 70s as a nation?Madam, I refer now to the Annex distributed by the Minister. The percentage of subsidy for C class wards is stated in the Annex. I would like to know from the Minister how long will this percentage last. What is the commitment of the Government to the long term subsidy percentage of C class wards based on the income level that is listed here? I note that the $3,200 income level which would qualify for the C class ward subsidy of 80% is higher than what was intended to, as reported in the press. I would like to know what is the basis on which he decides on what income level he will subsidise 80%. In the longer term, what level of subsidy can we expect after means testing is implemented?GIC and Temasek Holdings (Click here)Ms Sylvia Lim: Madam, in recent months, sovereign wealth funds have been put in the spotlight. As SWFs venture to buy stakes in businesses in other countries, suspicion about their motives, and resistance to sensitive industries falling into the hands of foreign governments, are understandable.To assess the transparency of SWFs, Edwin Truman, Senior Fellow at the Pearson Institute for International Economics, came up with a scoreboard for Sovereign Wealth Funds in October 2007. He and his team assessed 32 SWFs, including our GIC and Temasek, on whether systematic, public information was given on the fund's structure, governance, transparency, accountability and behaviour. Out of 32 funds, Temasek came out 11th, while GIC was third from the bottom.Domestically, there is a high public interest element in keeping Singaporeans informed about the management and returns on funds under the charge of GIC and Temasek, which are collectively estimated to be between US$200 billion and US$500 billion. While more is known about Temasek, 10 other SWFs still scored better than it on the Truman scoreboard. The GIC scored poorly in all categories.In January 2008, Minister Mentor spoke to the media as Chairman of GIC to say that the International Monetary Fund was looking to Singapore, among others, to set disclosure benchmarks for SWFs. He said that this would lead GIC to become more transparent about its activities, "but we are not going to disclose just how much year by year we make or lose because that is none of their business. What they want to know is: are we manipulating the market."Madam, even if it is none of their business to know how much GIC makes year by year, surely it is the business of Singaporeans to know this.What are the areas that GIC and Temasek are looking into where more public and systematic disclosure can be given about their structure and activities?In recent months, sovereign wealth funds have been put in the spotlight. As SWFs venture to buy stakes in businesses in other countries, suspicion about their motives, and resistance to sensitive industries falling into the hands of foreign governments, are understandable.To assess the transparency of SWFs, Edwin Truman, Senior Fellow at the Pearson Institute for International Economics, came up with a scoreboard for Sovereign Wealth Funds in Oct 2007. He and his team assessed 32 SWFs, including our GIC and Temasek, on whether systematic, public information was given on the fund’s structure, governance, transparency and accountability, and behaviour. Out of 32 funds, Temasek came out 11th, while GIC was 3rd from the bottom.Domestically, there is a high public interest element in keeping Singaporeans informed about the management and returns on the funds under the charge of GIC and Temasek, which are collectively estimated to be between USD 200 b to 500 b. While more is known about Temasek, 10 other SWFs still scored better than it. The GIC scored poorly in all categories of Truman’s scoreboard.In January, Minister Mentor spoke to the media as Chairman of GIC to say that the International Monetary Fund was looking to Singapore, among others, to set disclosure benchmarks for SWFs. He said that this would lead GIC to becoming more transparent about its activities, “but we’re not going to disclose just how much year by year we make or lose because that’s none of their business. What they want to know is: are we manipulating the market”.Even if it’s none of “their business” to know how much GIC makes year by year, surely it is the business of Singaporeans to know this?What are the areas that GIC and Temasek are looking into where more public and systematic disclosure can be given about their structure or activities?Financial Reporting StandardsMr Low Thia Khiang: Madam, the financial statement of the People's Association ending 31st March 2007 has been qualified with an adverse opinion by the auditor. This was because PA did not provide audited financial information on its more than a thousand grassroots organisations (GROs) in its financial statement. The auditor is unable to assess the financial impact on the financial statement of the PA arising from the non-inclusion of the financial statements of the GROs. These qualifications are in relation to non-compliance with Singapore's Financial Reporting Standard 24 as well as FRS 27, consolidated and separate financial statements. I understand that this arises from the Ministry of Finance allowing statutory boards to be exempted from certain disclosure requirements of related parties through its minutes or circulars.Madam, Singapore is proud to have an efficient and transparent public sector. However, such qualified audited report of the PA does not help to enhance the reputation of the public sector. Moreover, PA handles hundreds of millions of dollars of public funds. I would like to ask the Minister:(1) What is the rationale for MOF to exempt statutory boards from certain disclosure requirements in FRS 24;(2) What has prompted the MOF to issue such an exemption against international standards? Even the private sector listed companies are not exempted from such disclosures of related party transactions.(3) How would this impact the transparency of statutory boards, given that many Government functions are now performed by them as agents of the Government?(4) Does the Ministry of Finance accept that the financial statement of GROs under the management and supervision of the PA be left outside of PA's financial statements and, effectively, out of the public's scrutiny and accountability?The Minister of State for Finance (Mrs Lim Hwee Hua): Madam, let me now move on to Mr Low's cut on the statutory boards. Mr Low Thia Khiang has asked for the reasons for change in disclosure requirements for statutory boards and comments by auditors on the People's Association's accounts.Before November 2007, MOF, through the Accountant-General's Department, issued finance circulars to prescribe the accounting standards for statutory boards. The key guiding framework used has been the Singapore Financial Reporting Standards or the SFRS. However, these standards are designed primarily for profit making entities in the private sector. Therefore, the relevance and the appropriateness of each standard to statutory boards has to be examined first before they can be adopted.In November 2007, this House passed the Accounting Standards Bill, and the Act came into effect, empowering the Accountant-General to prescribe accounting standards for statutory boards. A committee of independent members with representatives from the Auditor-General's office, the statutory boards, the academic community and the public accounting firms, has been formed to advise the Accountant-General.New SFRS and amendments to standards will continue to be examined for their relevance and appropriateness to the statutory boards. As such, there has been no change in the substance of preparation and presentation of accounts by statutory boards. Neither has there been any move to change the disclosure requirements of statutory boards. Our arrangements are similar to the UK where the Treasury prescribes the standard for public sector entities.As regards PA's non-consolidation of grassroots organisations' accounts, the auditor, PriceWaterhouseCoopers, has qualified the financial statements of People's Association on the basis that the accounts of the grassroots organisations were not consolidated. PA's view is that the accounts of grassroots organisations should not be consolidated for the following reasons.Firstly, the funds in these accounts belong to the grassroots organisations. Secondly, the Government grants and the cost of staff support are already accounted for in PA's financial statements. Thirdly, the grassroots organisations are operationally self-funding through revenues from activities, courses and donations. Fourthly, the grassroots organisations decide on how their money should be spent for the benefit of the residents. And finally, proper procurement procedures, financial control and good corporate governance practices apply to the grassroots organisations.I would like to clarify that this adverse opinion pays more emphasis to the FRS27, than to the FRS24, which is the general exemption granted to all statutory boards on account of the onerous work that would otherwise be involved in the disclosure of related party transactions. This is because related party transactions are much more onerous for statutory boards compared to private sector entities due to the wide range of Government related entities. I should also add that other countries have similarly found a need to depart from the FRS24. For example, Australia fully exempts its not-for-profit public entities from such disclosures as well. The Accountant-General's Department and the Ministry of Finance are discussing this FRS27 issue with PA..Ms Sylvia Lim: Madam, I would like to seek a clarification from the Minister of State. She mentioned earlier that GIC and Temasek would work towards disclosing what is in Singapore's interest to disclose. I find this quite general. I wonder if she could elaborate a bit more on what she means by that. For example, is GIC looking towards preparing an annual report of some sort? Is it prepared to review the worth of its funds, its returns, which sectors it is involved in, for example?Mrs Lim Hwee Hua: Madam, it is useful to recap the many discussions that this House has had, regarding the revelation of the size of our reserves. The Ministry of Finance has carefully considered this and concluded that it does not serve our national interest to disclose the overall size of our financial reserves. That is not what is required. The whole discussion about the Sovereign Wealth Funds actually relates less to the size of the funds and more to the demonstration of commercial orientation. As regards what the MOF is doing with the GIC, we are working on a public document that would further clarify the processes, the investment purposes as well as the corporate governance structures. [29 Feb] Sitting Date: 29 Feb 2008------------------------------------------------------------------