Singapore

Sinkholes created by construction of MRT Downtown Line

To ask the Minister for Transport (a) how many sinkholes have occurred since the start of excavation works for the MRT Downtown Line; (b) how many of these sinkholes caved in again after being filled; (c) how many motorists or pedestrians suffered injury or had their vehicles damaged as a result of these sinkholes; (d) whether this is a reflection of the quality of planning conducted by LTA prior to tunnelling works or such works not being carried out according to plan; and (e) what is the Ministry doing to eliminate the occurrences of such sinkholes which can potentially cause injury or death to motorists or pedestrians.

This was an answer from the Minister for Transport to a question I filed for the 8 April 2013 Parliament sitting. The question was not reached by the end of Question Time, so a written answer was provided to me.

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: To ask the Minister for Transport (a) how many sinkholes have occurred since the start of excavation works for the MRT Downtown Line; (b) how many of these sinkholes caved in again after being filled; (c) how many motorists or pedestrians suffered injury or had their vehicles damaged as a result of these sinkholes; (d) whether this is a reflection of the quality of planning conducted by LTA prior to tunnelling works or such works not being carried out according to plan; and (e) what is the Ministry doing to eliminate the occurrences of such sinkholes which can potentially cause injury or death to motorists or pedestrians.

Mr Lui Tuck Yew:

Sinkholes can occur naturally when earth beneath the surface is eroded, typically by water, resulting in subterranean cavities. In the excavation of underground structures, cavities can form when water or fluvial sand leaks into the excavated area. If these cavities are not detected and filled up in time, they will eventually cause a sinkhole.

For the Downtown Line, there has been only one incident of sinkhole to date. This happened on 16 March 2013 at Woodlands Road. Investigations show that due to the varied nature of the ground conditions, the excavation works of Downtown Line Stage 2 (DTL2) had led to differential ground settlement, causing an underground water pipe to rupture. The soil movement, coupled with water from the ruptured pipe, weakened the ground under the road and resulted in the sinkhole.

On 23 July 2012, there was also an incident of a localised road depression along Bukit Timah Road resulting from tunnelling works for DTL2. The depression was detected promptly and action was taken to remedy it, before it deteriorated to become a sinkhole.

For both incidents, there was no injury to motorists or pedestrians, nor damage to vehicles.

There had been a number of other sinkhole incidents, but these were not related to any MRT construction activity. In the Keppel Road incident in January this year, investigations found that the sinkhole was caused by an old water pipe bursting. A car was trapped but no one was hurt in the incident. In the two cases on Clementi Road in March 2013, preliminary investigations show that the erosion of soil into an old abandoned utility manhole may have caused the sinkhole and led to the road caving in again after the first sinkhole had been filled. A motorcyclist was reported to be slightly injured trying to avoid the sinkhole.

To minimise the occurrence of sinkholes, prior to any major underground construction, LTA carries out comprehensive investigations of ground conditions and ensures that appropriate construction methods are used. Extensive instrumentation is installed to monitor the ground and building settlement at all times. In addition, LTA closely monitors the condition of the roads, especially those near to excavation sites or where tunnelling works are ongoing, to look out for signs of ground settlement or movement. Tunnelling control parameters are also strictly followed to ensure safety. In addition, LTA checks for potholes, cracks and other physical defects on all roads in Singapore regularly.

I assure Members that the safety of motorists is of utmost importance. My Ministry takes a serious view of these incidents. LTA will step up its monitoring efforts. This includes installing more extensometers, which are geotechnical instruments that locate and measure settlement, displacement and deformation in soil and rock, as well as opening up small sections of the pavement or road surface adjacent to excavation sites to physically check for the presence of any voids underneath. To minimise the risk of sinkholes forming due to soil erosion into abandoned utility structures underneath public streets, as in the case of the sinkhole that re-collapsed at Clementi Road, LTA will work with the utility agencies and companies to check their underground structures and records, and to carry out the necessary removal or rectification works. LTA will also work with the utility agencies to tighten the monitoring and maintenance regime to prevent rupture of underground water pipes which will weaken the ground and lead to formation of sinkholes.

Abortion statistics and pre-abortion counselling

Statistics for abortions carried out from 2002 to 2012 in Singapore, and requirements for pre-abortion counselling.

These are written answers to my questions from the Minister for Health in Parliament on 8 April 2013.

ABORTIONS CARRIED OUT IN SINGAPORE FROM 2002 TO 2012

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: To ask the Minister for Health in each year from 2002 to 2012, how many abortions were carried out (i) on or before the 12th week of pregnancy; (ii) from the 12th to the 20th week of pregnancy; (iii) from the 21st to the 24th week of pregnancy; (iv) after the 24th week of pregnancy; and (v) on Singaporeans, PRs and foreigners.

Mr Gan Kim Yong:

The statistics of abortions carried out in the 1^st trimester (up to 12 weeks), 2^nd trimester (>12-24weeks) and after 24 weeks of pregnancy are provided in Table 1. Table 2 provides the breakdown of abortions by Singapore Citizens, Permanent Residents and foreigners.

Table 1: Breakdown of abortions based on pregnancy trimester

Gestation Week	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
≤ 12th week (1^st Trimester)	11266	11097	10480	10835	10820	11171	11249	10895	10771	9631
>12^th to 24^th week (2^nd Trimester)	992	965	1001	1186	1110	1048	1067	1186	1167	990
>24^th week	14	8	1	11	3	3	2	1	2	3
Total number of abortions carried out	12272	12070	11482	12032	11933	12222	12318	12082	11940	10624

Source: Termination of Pregnancy System (with effect from 2003)[1]

Table 2: Breakdown of abortions by Singaporean Citizens, Permanent Residents and Foreigners

	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
Singaporeans	9763	9236	8679	8813	8484	8183	7887	7620	7282	6431
PR	858	1060	734	1338	1359	1511	1639	1695	1634	1382
Foreigners	1651	1774	2069	1881	2090	2528	2792	2767	3024	2811
Total Abortions	12272	12070	11482	12032	11933	12222	12318	12082	11940	10624

Source: Termination of Pregnancy System (with effect from 2003)

[1] The online Termination of Pregnancy System was only implemented in 2003. Prior to 2003, the report on request for treatment to terminate pregnancy was submitted to MOH in hard copies and records were captured manually. Hence, we do not have the raw patient data to support the statistics before 2003.

————-

REQUIREMENT FOR PRE-ABORTION COUNSELLING

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: To ask the Minister for Health why women who have not passed the PSLE, have no secondary education, have three or more children, or are foreigners, are not required to undergo pre-abortion counselling by a trained abortion counsellor before undergoing an abortion.

Mr Gan Kim Yong:

Mandatory pre-abortion and post-abortion counselling was introduced in 1987 to provide information and support to women intending to undergo abortion. The criteria reflected the main concern then.

Some of the criteria are no longer relevant and should be reviewed. The Ministry had commenced a review of this in early March this year, and will consult the public in due course.

—————–

Single mothers need more support from society

I believe it is important that as a society, we continue to uphold the centrality of a two-parent household within the institution of marriage. This norm should continue to be promoted by the Government, for example through schools. However, breaking with this norm should not result in a mother and her child being denied the Baby Bonus and equal maternity leave. After all, we don’t encourage divorce but we still give divorcees the same Baby Bonus and maternity leave as married mothers. Do we as a society believe in second chances? Do we believe that all children are born equal, and that every child is “legitimate”, no matter how he or she was conceived? If we do, then I urge the Government to accord to single unwed mothers the same parenthood benefits as all other Singaporean mothers.

I made this speech in Parliament on 8 April 2013 during the debate on the Child Development Co-Savings (Amendment) Bill.

—————–

This Bill seeks to amend the existing Child Development Co-Savings Act to implement some of the measures in the Marriage and Parenthood Package that were announced earlier this year.

I welcome the amendments and I am glad to see the introduction of paternity leave. This was something I appealed for during last year’s Committee of Supply (COS) debate. I urge all new fathers to fully utilise the one week of paternity leave to bond with their newborn babies and help their wives during their confinement period. I’m glad I was able to take paternity leave when my two babies were born a few years ago and I’m grateful to my company for providing it even before the Government mandated it.

I think the Government is moving in the right direction by extending paid childcare leave to all single mothers. However, the Baby Bonus and equal maternity leave, which are two of the biggest and most helpful parenthood benefits, are still being denied to single unwed mothers. My colleague, Ms Lee Li Lian, advocated on behalf of single mothers and for the equalisation of maternity leave during the COS debate for MSF and I would like to add to her calls.

Currently, unwed mothers get eight weeks of employer-paid maternity leave and their companies are required to give them an additional four weeks’ of unpaid leave. Essentially, the Government bears no cost for the maternity leave of unwed mothers. This is unlike married, widowed or divorced mothers, who enjoy eight weeks of employer-paid leave followed by eight weeks of Government-paid leave.

Unwed mothers also do not receive the Baby Bonus cash gift of $6,000 and the Government co-matching contribution of up to $6,000 in the baby’s Child Development Account (CDA). There are also several tax benefits are not available to mothers of what IRAS calls an “illegitimate child”, including the Parenthood Tax Rebate, Qualifying Child Relief, Handicapped Child Relief, Working Mother Child Relief and Grandparent Caregiver Relief. Unwed mothers also do not qualify for public rental flats from the HDB, a point raised by Mr Png Eng Huat’s during the COS debate for MND.

Madam, I would like to ask for unwed mothers to receive the same 16 weeks of paid maternity leave, including the last eight weeks paid for by the Government. The Baby Bonus cash gift and the Government co-matching contribution in the CDA account should also be extended to them. The Baby Bonus scheme, as stated on the MSF website, is to (quote) “support parents’ decision to have more children by helping to lighten the financial costs of raising children” (unquote). It is therefore not a reward for having children, but a financial assistance scheme.

I note that for the other new measures in the Marriage and Parenthood Package, like extended childcare leave, the Medisave Grant for Newborns and MediShield coverage for congenital and neonatal conditions, the same benefits are extended to unwed mothers or their children. Why not take the next logical step of equalising the remaining parenthood benefits?

Equalising benefits for unwed mothers helps not just the mother, but her child as well. The Ministry should take a child-centric view of the family, and not make the child pay the price for the past actions of his or her parents. Unwed mothers have made the choice to keep and raise their child, despite their difficult circumstances and the options of abortion or adoption. We should give them the due recognition for making this difficult choice.

I note that a single unwed mother can become eligible for the Baby Bonus if she marries the biological father of her child before her child turns 12. However some single mothers may not end up marrying the man for various reasons, and this should not prevent them from receiving the same benefits.

Providing these benefits will help reduce their financial burden, which for some unmarried women expecting a child, could tip the scales in favour of keeping the child instead of choosing to undergo an abortion. It is certainly not a silver bullet to reduce our high abortion rates, but if just one more life is saved, I think it is worth providing the benefits.

During the COS debate on 14 March, I pointed out that the issue out-of-wedlock births is a complex moral and social one, that needs to be tackled in ways other than through selective social benefits. In response, the Acting Minister assured me that the Government does not judge people by their status. I was glad to hear this, because I took it to mean that the Government is not trying to shape moral behaviour using parenthood benefits.

The Acting Minister also told me that there will always be some help that we give to married couples and there will be another package of help that we give to singles. That being the case, what alternative package of help is the Government giving to unwed mothers? I don’t think there is any universal package available, apart from means-tested social assistance.

While some may fear that providing equal benefits to unwed mothers may encourage the emergence of “welfare moms”, where single women get pregnant just so they can collect welfare cheques, I think this fear is unfounded in Singapore’s context. First, the quantum of benefits is hardly enough to make up for the high cost of raising children in Singapore. No rational woman will choose to conceive a child just to collect the Baby Bonus. Second, I am not asking the Government to provide additional benefits to single mothers as they do in some countries, just equal benefits.

Madam, unwed mothers face huge challenges raising their child on their own. I can only imagine how tough it must be, whenever I have to look after my kids on my own when my wife is away. Unwed mothers have to single-handedly care for their child, take on the role of both mother and father, and hold down a job to pay the bills. They also have to face the social stigma of being single and unmarried. On top of all that, they are denied many of the parenthood benefits that married, divorced and widowed mothers receive. This could add to their feeling of marginalisation from society.

Single unwed mothers need more of society’s support. As the Acting Minister said, many of them are from vulnerable families. They are mothers first and singles second, not the other way around. The welfare of their children should be our top priority.

Do we as a society believe in second chances? Do we believe that all children are born equal, and that every child is “legitimate”, no matter how he or she was conceived? If we do, then I urge the Government to accord to single unwed mothers the same parenthood benefits as all other Singaporean mothers.

Parliamentary Questions on 8 April 2013

I will be asking the following questions in Parliament today (8 April 2013). I will also be speaking on the Child Development Co-Savings (Amendment) Bill, where I will ask for equalisation of parenthood benefits for single mothers.

I will be asking the following questions in Parliament today (8 April 2013):

QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER

*16. Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: To ask the Minister for Health which are the HDB towns and neighbourhood commercial centres serving HDB towns that have a below-average proportion of medical and dental clinics participating in the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS); what is the Ministry’s target for the proportion of private medical and dental clinics participating in CHAS by the end of this year; how will the Ministry plan to increase incentives or reduce barriers for more clinics to participate in CHAS; and what will these measures be.

*25. Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: To ask the Minister for Transport how many sinkholes have occurred since the start of excavation works for the MRT Downtown Line; how many of these sinkholes caved in again after being filled; how many motorists or pedestrians suffered injury or had their vehicles damaged as a result of these sinkholes; whether this is a reflection of the quality of planning conducted by LTA prior to tunnelling works or such works not being carried out according to plan; and what is the Ministry doing to eliminate the occurrences of such sinkholes which can potentially cause injury or death to motorists or pedestrians.

*33. Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: To ask the Minister for Health whether Government restructured hospitals are currently able to tap into patients’ CPF or IRAS records (with their consent) to process Medifund and other applications and, if not, when will the hospital systems be enhanced to spare patients the hassle of submitting their payslips, CPF statements or tax returns.

QUESTIONS FOR WRITTEN ANSWER

16. Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: To ask the Minister for Health why women who have not passed the PSLE, have no secondary education, have three or more children, or are foreigners, are not required to undergo pre-abortion counselling by a trained abortion counsellor before undergoing an abortion.

17. Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: To ask the Minister for Health in each year from 2002 to 2012, how many abortions were carried out on or before the 12th week of pregnancy; from the 12th to the 20th week of pregnancy; from the 21st to the 24th week of pregnancy; after the 24th week of pregnancy; and on Singaporeans, PRs and foreigners.

The questions from other WP MPs can be viewed here. I will also be speaking on the Child Development Co-Savings (Amendment) Bill, where I will ask for equalisation of parenthood benefits for single mothers.

Fair employment of Singaporeans (MOM)

A mindset change is needed in the way many of our companies recruit and promote talent. Foreign talent is not automatically better than local talent. I call on the government to take more robust steps to address these concerns, and ensure that Singaporeans do not lose out unfairly to foreigners, and we can build a stronger Singaporean core in all our companies.

This was my speech in Parliament during the Committee of Supply debate for the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) on 14 March 2013.

————

When Singapore ramped up its industrialisation in the 1960s, one key reason for attracting MNCs, in addition to driving growth and creating jobs, was for these companies to transfer managerial and technical skills to Singaporeans. Subsequent decades saw the many companies transition from expatriate to local leadership, and many Singaporeans rose up the ranks.

However, with the influx of foreign skilled workers in the last decade, we have seen a reversal of progress in this area. Many private sector companies now have their professional and managerial ranks filled with foreigners, although many of them would be classified as ‘locals’ because they have obtained Singapore PR (permanent residence) or citizenship. Even the junior professional positions are often staffed by foreigners, when our local graduates should have no problem meeting the job requirements.

The Tripartite Alliance for Fair Employment Practices (TAFEP) said that half of the employment-related complaints they received last year were to do with alleged discrimination against locals [1]. Many Singaporeans have also expressed frustration at the enclaves of employees from the same country found in some companies.

The cause of the problem may lie not with human resource managers and recruiters, but with hiring managers, who are often foreign middle managers who may prefer recruiting fellow countrymen to work under them. If TAFEP is to be effective in tackling this problem, it will need to reach out beyond the HR department and educate these middle managers to hire based on merit rather than nationality.

———–

[1] http://sg.finance.yahoo.com/news/singapore-may-tighten-controls-foreign-execs-amid-bias-080501172–sector.html

Supply of childcare and student care (MSF)

The government also needs to invest more resources into improving the supply, accessibility, affordability and quality of student care. Childcare needs do not suddenly change when a child enters Primary One; parents still need to work and the child is still unable to care for himself. Student care should be seen as a natural extension of childcare. This will help both parents to remain in the workforce and reduce the demand for foreign maids, while providing a safe and nurturing environment for the children.

My speech in Parliament during the Committee of Supply debate for the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF).

————

Childcare is one of the biggest concerns of parents with young children. Many still face long waiting lists when registering their children and may end up having to settle for more expensive centres situated further from their homes. For this reason, I am looking forward to the 200 new childcare centres that are in the pipeline over the next 5 years.

While a lot of focus is on childcare, and rightly so, the government also needs to invest more resources into improving the supply, accessibility, affordability and quality of student care.

Childcare needs do not suddenly change when a child enters Primary One; parents still need to work and the child is still unable to care for himself. Student care should be seen as a natural extension of childcare. This will help both parents to remain in the workforce and reduce the demand for foreign maids, while providing a safe and nurturing environment for the children.

I would like to suggest that student care be brought under the purview of the Early Childhood Development Agency, so that the government can better regulate and promote the sector.

I welcome the government’s move to increase the number of school-based student care centres (SCCs). However, SCCs should not only be set up within schools, as parents with children attending different schools will have to rush to multiple locations to pick up their kids after work before the 7pm closing time.

Some of the new SCCs should be located in housing estates and near MRT stations, to make them more accessible. The government should also provide subsidies for student care, in addition to the ComCare fee assistance for the low-income, just like it does for childcare, as this will ease the financial burdens on many middle-income families.

Public transport operations expenditure (MOT)

During last year’s Budget, it was announced that of the $1.1 billion budgeted for the BSEP, $280 million had been budgeted for the purchase of 550 buses over the next five years, and $820 million was budgeted to cover the net operating costs of these buses for 10 years. My understanding then was that the BSEP budget was to supply additional buses and drivers to the two current public transport operators (PTOs). How do the new bus services contracted out to private bus operators fit into this budget?

My speech at the Committee of Supply debate in Parliament for the Ministry of Transport, on 12 March 2013.

———————

MOT recently said that it was exploring private bus operators’ interest in new, shorter services that feed to MRT stations, and that these new feeder services could be outside of the current Bus Services Enhancement Programme (BSEP)^[1].

During last year’s Budget, it was announced that of the $1.1 billion budgeted for the BSEP, $280 million had been budgeted for the purchase of 550 buses over the next five years, and $820 million was budgeted to cover the net operating costs of these buses for 10 years^[2]. My understanding then was that the BSEP budget was to supply additional buses and drivers to the two current public transport operators (PTOs). How do the new bus services contracted out to private bus operators fit into this budget?

Can the Minister share what the estimated cost of this latest initiative will be?

Is this latest move being undertaken because the two PTOs are unable or unwilling to ramp up bus service coverage?

While I welcome additional buses and bus routes to ease congestion and reduce waiting and travelling time for commuters, do these new service contracts amount to a further government subsidy of the two PTOs?

Could the Minister share more details about how these new contracts are structured? I understand the private bus operators are paid a fixed contract price, and the fares collected will go to the government. Hence the operators will not bear any revenue risk.

Will there be penalties for not meeting quality of service standards, or bonus payments for exceeding standards? If so what will these penalties and bonuses be like, and how will the Ministry ensure that service standards will meet the expectations of commuters?

———–

[1] http://ride.asiaone.com/print/news/transport/story/bus-plan-budget-may-go-beyond-11b
[2] http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1186296/1/.html

Means testing for family income (MOH)

I hope MOH will review its means-testing process to ensure that it does not burden patients or their family members, so that patients receive all the subsidies that they are eligible for. To reduce the hassle for patients, can means-testing be conducted without the need for the patient or his family to submit their income documentation? The process should be automated so that the patient and his family only need to give their consent for the hospital to access their income records with CPF Board or IRAS. This is much more convenient for the patient, and it better preserves their confidentiality.

This was my speech at the Ministry of Health Committee of Supply debate in Parliament on 12 March 2013.

—————

Currently, all hospitals and nursing homes conduct means-testing to determine a patient’s eligibility for government subsidies. Patients have to submit documentation to prove their income and that of their family members. These include up to three months’ of payslips, CPF contribution statements or income tax returns.

Obtaining salary documentation is onerous for some patients, including those who are not IT-literate, who do not have a SingPass to retrieve their CPF statements, or are odd job workers who are not issued payslips. Some need to contact their employers to request for letters to prove their income. Others may have difficulty obtaining the documentation from family members, who may not want to reveal their income or may be estranged from the patient.

All these present administrative and emotional burdens to patients, at a time when they are already saddled with worry and pain from their illnesses. As a result, many of them do not complete their applications and lose out on receiving subsidies that could ease the cost of their treatment.

I hope MOH will review its means-testing process to ensure that it does not burden patients or their family members, so that patients receive all the subsidies that they are eligible for.

To reduce the hassle for patients, can means-testing be conducted without the need for the patient or his family to submit their income documentation? The process should be automated so that the patient and his family only need to give their consent for the hospital to access their income records with CPF Board or IRAS. This is much more convenient for the patient, and it better preserves their confidentiality.

I note that this is already being done for CHAS (Community Health Assist Scheme) applications. Can the same be done for all hospital and nursing home means-testing?

Measuring capital gains

Is there any official data on the total income of individuals in Singapore, including salaries, wages, interest, dividends and capital gains from the sale of properties, shares and financial instruments? If not, how does the government determine the total income of individuals in Singapore for the purpose of measuring the true income and wealth distribution among the population?

This is my speech in Parliament on 11 March 2013 during the Committee of Supply debate for the Ministry of Finance.

————-

It is common for high income earners to earn much more from capital gains and other investments than from their wages and salaries. In the United States, where income inequality is almost as high as Singapore’s, economist Joseph Stiglitz has pointed out that salaries and wages account for only about 9% of the income of the top 400 income earners; interest and dividends account for 16% and capital gains account for a sizeable 57% of their total income[1].

According to a reply from the Finance Minister to my parliamentary question on 14 November 2012, capital gains do not need to be reported in Singapore since they are not taxable.

This being the case, is there any official data on the total income of individuals in Singapore, including salaries, wages, interest, dividends and capital gains from the sale of properties, shares and financial instruments? If not, how does the government determine the total income of individuals in Singapore for the purpose of measuring the true income and wealth distribution among the population?

In the absence of mandatory reporting of capital gains, could the government explore ways to require simple but accurate ways to report and collect this data?

I think these are important metrics to measure. They could help policy-makers plan more effective and progressive redistributive policies for future budgets. These can in turn help to improve the well-being of Singaporeans, while balancing the need for Singapore to remain an attractive destination to work and invest.

——-

[1] Stiglitz, Joseph, 2012. “The price of inequality: How today’s divided society endangers our future”, p. 72.

Helping SMEs as they restructure

In order to raise productivity on a larger scale within industries, the government should look into funding and building more common infrastructure and systems that SMEs can tap on. The government is one of the biggest buyers of goods and services from SMEs. It can better support companies as they strive to increase productivity, through the way tender requirement specifications are structured. I had earlier proposed a New Hire Wage Credit that will pay for a quarter of the salaries of new Singaporean hires for half a year, provided they have been unemployed or out of the workforce for at least four months. I hope the government will seriously consider this proposal because I believe it can help SMEs attract more Singaporeans, and reduce reliance on foreign workers.

I made this speech in Parliament on 11 March 2013 during the Committee of Supply debate for the Ministry of Trade and Industry.

——————————

Many of the government’s productivity assistance schemes focus on helping SMEs improve productivity within their companies. In order to raise productivity on a larger scale within industries, the government should look into funding and building more common infrastructure and systems that SMEs can tap on. These large scale systems are often beyond the ability of individual SMEs to develop on their own.

An example of such a system is the National Electronic Health Records (NEHR) developed by MOH. This is not only used by hospitals, but in the pipeline also many private GP clinics, to share patient information and increase the efficiency and accuracy of diagnoses.

Next, the government is one of the biggest buyers of goods and services from SMEs. It can better support companies as they strive to increase productivity, through the way tender requirement specifications are structured. For example, government tender requirements for the development and maintenance of enterprise IT systems sometimes specify that vendors’ personnel must work on-site, when some roles can be run from offsite using secure remote access, saving travelling time. Providing more flexibility in tender specifications for companies to innovate can result in not only improved productivity but can also reduce costs for the government.

Lastly, the government should provide more incentives to help SMEs recruit local staff and talent. This is at the top of many SMEs’ wish list for Budget 2013, according to an ASME (Association of Small and Medium Enterprises) survey. I had earlier proposed a New Hire Wage Credit that will pay for a quarter of the salaries of new Singaporean hires for half a year, provided they have been unemployed or out of the workforce for at least four months. I hope the government will seriously consider this proposal because I believe it can help SMEs attract more Singaporeans, and reduce reliance on foreign workers.