Parliamentary Questions on 20th and 21st October

These were my Parliamentary Questions (PQs) that were answered by the National Development Minister and Health Minister on 20th and 21st October 2011 respectivel

These were my Parliamentary Questions (PQs) that were answered by the National Development Minister and Health Minister on 20th and 21st October 2011 respectively:

Mr Gerald Giam: To ask the Minister for National Development (a) how many subsidised rental flats need to be built to meet the current high demand; and (b) when does HDB plan to build these flats.

Mr Gerald Giam: To ask the Minister for National Development what are the reasons for the lower application rates for smaller (2-room and 3-room) Built-to-Order (BTO) flats and Sale of Balance Flats (SBF) as compared to larger (4-room and 5-room) flats in recent HDB flat sales exercises.

Channel NewsAsia report: Locals form over 80% of private home buyers, foreign ownership up

————–

Mr Gerald Giam: To ask the Minister for Health what percentage of Singaporeans currently draw from their adult children’s Medisave accounts to pay for their own healthcare expenses.

Channel NewsAsia report: S$130m withdrawn from Medisave for parents’ healthcare expenses

Author: Gerald Giam

Gerald Giam is the Member of Parliament for Aljunied GRC. He is a member of the Workers' Party of Singapore. The opinions expressed on this page are his alone.

5 thoughts on “Parliamentary Questions on 20th and 21st October”

  1. Thanks for the update Gerald. You might want to correct the links.
    Secondly, if 18% of the children currently have to pay out from their medisave to foot their parents bill, I find that a rather high number, but surprised is not higher. Does the 18% include those children who occasionally respond to the top-up of their parents account? What’re the average spend/withdrawal of the 18% in footing the medical bills for their family? How are they being penalized when they themselves have got very little to start with? In fact, which age group (by band) of the population withdraw the most of their medisave funds for health treatment..information and stats like these will help Singaporeans plan and understand better. Please keep pressing for more transparency.

    Thanks

  2. looks like the same old criticisms without showing any appreciation for the complex tradeoffs involved

    do you opposition MPs think such lame arguments can increase the quality of policy making? we expect alternative FACT BASED WELL REASONED SOLUTIONS which can stand up to scrutiny, not useless bombastic statements that will only impress the mental retards who attended your rallies

  3. Ricky, ‘ the same old criticisms’ need to be raised because the government hasn’t even attempted to address them and offer a counter argument before a further dialogue can proceed. Surely u can’t expect someone to raise a point, counter himself and then defend his position based on the counter he has just made and then continue to do this over a long series of proposals. I’m sure you can imagine how convoluted, not to mention schizophrenic it would turn a maiden speech.

    Great work, Gerald keep it up. If you have an avenue could you please raise the issue of the Education ministry’s intention to keep graduate levels at a paltry 23 percent, well below other developed asian nations like Japan. (50 percent). I strongly believe more than anything, that this short-sighted policy will run out country into the ground in future.

    The argument for keeping graduate levels at 23 percent:
    – there will not be enough jobs waiting for an increased number of graduates.
    – By focusing on privatised education, it keeps costs down for the government and lowers public expenditure.

    Issues with that statement and conclusion:

    – The higher education model in other countries, encourages more to attend university because, high levels of government funding , remove the instrumental nature of university edcuation. It is no longer seen as merely an investment to attain a better job, but as an end in itself. This manages graduate expectations but also results in a much higher number of graduates which in turn spurs innovation and helps societies stay ahead. ( just look at the scandinavian models)

    – secondly I find it hard to believe that there arnt enough jobs for graduates here when so many graduates from overseas are coming in to fill positions. I think its merely cheaper to hire foreign grads, rather than spend money to train our own.

    – A look at census 2010 will reveal that a lot of the educational improvements from various communities here are a direct result of immigration, rather than improvements in our education system. The system is not ensuring that more sporeans get the level of edcuation that they want. This places us in a very vulnerable position, in relation to our neighbours. China will overtake us with its proportion of uni grads in the very near future, while we continue to produce workers that are less and less able to compete globally.

    I hope you can articulate this issue with far more depth than i have hastily typed about in a very impressionistic way. Essentially I think the government’s unwillingness to provide in this regard has gone beyond the politics of safeguarding against welfarism. It’s really becoming a blatant case of fiscal selfishness and bad governance.

Comments are closed.