geraldgiam.sg

Reclaiming our five stars – democracy, peace, progress, justice and equality

Sylvia Lim: Increase size of cohort entering local universities


This was a speech in Parliament on 10 March 2010 by NCMP, Sylvia Lim,during the Committee of Supply debate, on the budget for the Ministry of Education (MOE). Read other Workers’ Party speeches and statements at wp.sg.

————-

Currently, the proportion of Primary One cohort admitted into the local subsidized universities is targeted to rise to 30% by 2015, with the new university and institute coming up.
I would like to ask if MOE will review this 30% target with a view to increasing it.
I note MOE’s concerns that we should not have sudden increases in graduate numbers which may leave many unemployed or under-employed.
However, since Singapore is prioritising innovation and greater productivity, the population as a whole has to raise its game, and the jobs of the future will require different educational qualifications from currently. We are also trying to encourage the growth of entrepreneurs to find their own niches. With globalization, Singaporean graduates also have more opportunities overseas, which will still benefit their families and Singapore, directly or indirectly.
As a matter of interest, according to the OECD Factbook 2009, the 25 OECD countries were expecting to graduate on average about 37% of an age cohort from Tertiary-Type A (typical degree level) education in 2006. It was stated that there was a strong trend in increasing their cohort participation rates in the last 15 years in line with producing highly-skilled labor forces.
I agree that we need to maintain standards in university admission. However, over the years, many students who were rejected by our local universities were admitted to reputable foreign universities and did well. But this route is available only to those whose parents could afford it.
I hope the Ministry will look into revising the cohort participation rate at our local subsidized universities beyond 30%.

Currently, the proportion of Primary One cohort admitted into the local subsidized universities is targeted to rise to 30% by 2015, with the new university and institute coming up.

I would like to ask if MOE will review this 30% target with a view to increasing it.

I note MOE’s concerns that we should not have sudden increases in graduate numbers which may leave many unemployed or under-employed.

However, since Singapore is prioritising innovation and greater productivity, the population as a whole has to raise its game, and the jobs of the future will require different educational qualifications from currently. We are also trying to encourage the growth of entrepreneurs to find their own niches. With globalization, Singaporean graduates also have more opportunities overseas, which will still benefit their families and Singapore, directly or indirectly.

Read more »

Technorati Tags: ,

Leave a comment

Sylvia Lim: R&D spending needs to be accounted for


This was a speech in Parliament on 8 March 2010 by NCMP, Sylvia Lim, during the Committee of Supply debate, on the budget for the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI). Read other Workers’ Party speeches and statements at wp.sg.

———–

Since the year 2000, Singapore has spent $33 billion on R&D, also referred to as the Gross Domestic Expenditure on Research and Development, or GERD. Of this, about $12 billion was funded by taxpayers.

I agree that it is necessary for Singapore to invest heavily in R&D for our nation’s future. However, it is critically important to measure the output and impact of our R&D investments to ensure that it is money well-spent.

This is admittedly not an easy task. The results from research may take years to materialise, and some R&D may be undertaken for strategic reasons, the benefits of which may not be easy to quantify. Nevertheless, any public spending needs to be accounted for. Read more »

Technorati Tags: ,

Leave a comment

Low Thia Khiang: Access to good mentors key to helping entrepreneurs succeed


This was a speech in Parliament on 8 March 2010 by MP for Hougang, Low Thia Khiang, during the Committee of Supply debate, on the budget for the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI). Read other Workers’ Party speeches and statements at wp.sg.

——————

The ESC and the Budget seem to focus heavily on helping companies which are already successful to become Globally Competitive Companies.
In its drive to identify and assist these promising medium-sized companies, has the Government forgotten about local small businesses like sundry shops and car workshops? Would such small enterprises have a place in the new economic landscape, or will they be crowded out or gobbled up by bigger fish?
What is the Government doing to help local small businesses, especially those in sunset industries, to become more competitive and viable in the new economy?
Secondly, is the Government providing the right environment and support for entrepreneurship to flourish in Singapore? We must not lose the spirit of enterprise in Singapore, keeping in mind that many global companies today started from very humble beginnings.
Last year, a survey of 2,300 students from local universities and polytechnics found that less than 2 in 10 of them considered starting their own businesses after graduating, compared to almost 7 in 10 who planned to take up salaried jobs. Is the Minister concerned that so few of our brightest students aspire to be entrepreneurs? Are our schools helping their students to develop more of the traits necessary to be successful entrepreneurs? For example, risk-taking, initiative and agility.
I understand that SPRING Singapore has a number of schemes that provide funding to start-ups. Can the Minister provide an update on how effective these schemes have been in nurturing successful entrepreneurs?
While financing is important, access to good mentors is equally key to help these entrepreneurs succeed. Are there sufficiently experienced mentors available to advise our entrepreneurs? If not, are there plans to invite successful business founders or venture capitalists from places like the Silicon Valley to provide sound advice to these start-ups and evaluate their business plans?

The ESC and the Budget seem to focus heavily on helping companies which are already successful to become Globally Competitive Companies.

In its drive to identify and assist these promising medium-sized companies, has the Government forgotten about local small businesses like sundry shops and car workshops? Would such small enterprises have a place in the new economic landscape, or will they be crowded out or gobbled up by bigger fish?

What is the Government doing to help local small businesses, especially those in sunset industries, to become more competitive and viable in the new economy?

Read more »

Technorati Tags:

Leave a comment

Low Thia Khiang urges Govt to “seriously look” into housing options for homeless


This was a cut delivered in Parliament on 5 March 2010 by Workers’ Party Secretary-General Low Thia Khiang during the Committee of Supply debate, on the budget for the Ministry for National Development (MND).

————–

It was reported by the Straits Times that the number of homeless people has doubled. When I read the report, I was thinking whether this is more a social problem or a housing problem?

My own experience from Meet-the-People sessions is that it may be less a social problem and more of a housing problem. This is because while many of these cases of residents who lost their homes do involve dysfunctional families, quite a number are still financially viable and could afford to stay together as a family if they could afford the rental of a house. Many ended up without a home because of strict HDB rules on rental housing and obtaining HDB subsidised housing loans.

Read more »

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Leave a comment

Low Thia Khiang: It should not be all about economic benefit


This was a cut delivered in Parliament on 5 March 2010 by Workers’ Party Secretary-General Low Thia Khiang during the Committee of Supply debate, on the budget for the Ministry for National Development (MND).

————

The Economic Strategies Committee (ESC) called for “bold steps to enhance land activity, so as to gain the greatest economic benefits from land”, but in land scarce Singapore, we cannot treat land solely for economic benefits.

We should guard against looking at all available resources from the economic benefit perspective. We must not forget the ultimate aim of any economic benefit derived from our policies will only be meaningful if the outcome is a better society with happier citizens.

Read more »

Technorati Tags: , ,

Leave a comment

Sylvia Lim asks for transparency in electoral boundaries report


This is a “cut” (a short Parliamentary speech) by Workers’ Party chairman Sylvia Lim during the Committee of Supplies debate in Parliament yesterday on the budget allocation for the Prime Minister’s Office.

—–

PMO – Electoral Boundaries Review Committee Report

In countries like the UK, electoral boundary revisions are carried out by an independent Boundary Commission under the charge of a High Court Judge. Proposed boundary changes are also open to public scrutiny and objection.  In Singapore, however, the boundary revisions are done by a committee chaired by the Cabinet Secretary, reporting to the PM.  Sir, despite my belief that the PMO should not be in charge of the boundary review, the focus of my cut is how the current process may be improved for transparency and accountability.

I would like to touch on two points: first, the timing of the release of the report; second, the contents of the report.

Read more »

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Leave a comment

Growth must improve welfare of Singaporeans: Sylvia Lim


This was the speech Non-constituency MP and Workers’ Party chairman Sylvia Lim delivered in Parliament yesterday.

———–

Each year, the government has certain GDP growth targets and plans the Budget and policies around it.  This year, the government has put in place a productivity target recommended by the Economic Strategies Committee.

Whatever measure is used, the ultimate aim of growing our economy must be to forge a higher quality of life for all our citizens.  Though not everyone has the same talents and capabilities, our growth must provide every person with a good standard of living and a sense of physical and economic security.   We may be a small country geographically, but within our borders, citizens should feel at home and valued as persons and not just for economic contributions. Read more »

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

Leave a comment

Low productivity not our workers’ fault: WP’s Low


Workers’ Party chief Low Thia Khiang has slammed the PAP government for seemingly suggesting that Singaporean workers have only themselves to blame for their low incomes, because of their low productivity and skills. He said it was easy to blame our local workforce for low productivity when it was the Government which opened the floodgates to foreign workers.

Low was speaking Parliament on Tuesday in response to the Finance Minister’s Budget 2010 speech last week.

The Opposition leader pointed out that manual workers like cleaners and garbage collectors in developed economies are paid so much more than their counterparts in Singapore, attributing this to those countries’ more compassionate and effective policies to ensure that workers at the bottom of the economic ladder enjoy a decent and dignified life. Referring to the Government’s latest productivity drive, which is to grow productivity by 2 to 3 per cent each year over the next decade, Low wondered if low wage workers had to wait another 10 years for the wage increases which they had not seen in the last 10 years.

Read more »

Technorati Tags: , ,

Leave a comment

Comments to Wanbao about Singapore’s social welfare system


The local Chinese evening daily, Lianhe Wanbao (联合晚报), emailed me earlier this week to ask for my comments on Singapore’s social welfare system. This was with reference to the article in The Economist (”The stingy nanny”), which I blogged about on 15 February. The Wanbao article appeared this evening.

The following are my responses to the reporter’s questions: Read more »

Technorati Tags: ,

Leave a comment

The Economist calls Singapore a ’stingy nanny’


The respected British weekly, The Economist, has published a cutting criticism of Singapore’s social safety net (or lack thereof) in its latest edition dated 13 February 2010, titled “Welfare in Singapore: The stingy nanny”. Here are some excerpts:

Citizens are obliged to save for the future, rely on their families and not expect any handouts from the government unless they hit rock bottom.
In government circles “welfare” remains a dirty word, cousin to sloth and waste.
The most destitute citizens’ families may apply for public assistance; only 3,000 currently qualify.
Applicants complain that the process of seeking help is made tiresome and humiliating. Indeed that could be the point, supposing it deters free-riders.
But the thinness of the safety net also reflects a widespread article of faith, recited and reinforced over the years. Even among the social workers who work in hard-hit communities there is surprisingly little frustration at the meagreness of the handouts on offer or at the lengthy application process.
In 2008 the World Bank rated it the third richest country in the world, in terms of GDP per head at purchasing-power parity. And the idea that its Big-Brotherly government might be outfoxed by conniving welfare queens seems odd.
Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore’s founding father and still its “minister mentor” has maintained that ambitious migrants help to keep citizens on their toes. In an interview given to National Geographic last July he said that if native Singaporeans lag behind “hungry” foreigners because “the spurs are not stuck on [their] hinds”, that is not the state’s problem to solve.
The Economic Society of Singapore (ESS)—not exactly a radical cell—recently proposed to a government committee that it should build a more robust safety net, starting with unemployment insurance. This would promote social stability and help muster public support for Singapore’s open-door migration policies, it argues. Properly designed, such measures would not create disincentives to work and thrift. “While self-reliance is a good principle in general, it may be neither efficient nor just if taken to extremes,” noted the ESS.

Citizens are obliged to save for the future, rely on their families and not expect any handouts from the government unless they hit rock bottom.

In government circles “welfare” remains a dirty word, cousin to sloth and waste.

The most destitute citizens’ families may apply for public assistance; only 3,000 currently qualify.

Applicants complain that the process of seeking help is made tiresome and humiliating. Indeed that could be the point, supposing it deters free-riders.

But the thinness of the safety net also reflects a widespread article of faith, recited and reinforced over the years. Even among the social workers who work in hard-hit communities there is surprisingly little frustration at the meagreness of the handouts on offer or at the lengthy application process.

In 2008 the World Bank rated it the third richest country in the world, in terms of GDP per head at purchasing-power parity. And the idea that its Big-Brotherly government might be outfoxed by conniving welfare queens seems odd.

Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore’s founding father and still its “minister mentor” has maintained that ambitious migrants help to keep citizens on their toes. In an interview given to National Geographic last July he said that if native Singaporeans lag behind “hungry” foreigners because “the spurs are not stuck on [their] hinds”, that is not the state’s problem to solve.

The Economic Society of Singapore (ESS)—not exactly a radical cell—recently proposed to a government committee that it should build a more robust safety net, starting with unemployment insurance. This would promote social stability and help muster public support for Singapore’s open-door migration policies, it argues. Properly designed, such measures would not create disincentives to work and thrift. “While self-reliance is a good principle in general, it may be neither efficient nor just if taken to extremes,” noted the ESS.

————

Read more »

Technorati Tags:

Leave a comment