Singapore

Parenthood Priority Scheme

If the goal of the PPS is to raise birth rates, then it might be necessary to also include married couples without children, because many of these couples may be waiting to get their own home before having kids. Can the Minister provide an estimate of when this backlog married couples with children is expected to be cleared, and when married couples without children can start to benefit from PPS?

This is a ‘cut’ I delivered in Parliament on 7 March 2013 during the Committee of Supply debate for the Ministry of National Development.

———–

In January 2013, the HDB introduced the Parenthood Priority Scheme (PPS) to give priority allocation for new flats to “first-timer” married couples with children. Under this scheme, 30% of BTO (Built-to-Order) flats and 50% of SBF (Sale of Balance Flats) flats will be set aside for this group.

I agree that Singaporean couples with children should get priority in flat allocation, because they not only have to house themselves, but also their children.

However, the proportion of flats set aside for all first-timers remains unchanged at 85% for BTO flats in non-mature estates . This means that other first timers, including married couples who do not have children yet, will effectively have a lower proportion of the flats set aside for them.

The Minister has said that once the HDB clears the backlog of first-timer married couples with children, the HDB can extend the PPS to married couples without children. Will this mean that all first-timer married couples—with or without children—will be allocated 30% of BTO flats and 50% of SBF flats, or will married couples without children have a separate allocation? I think more clarity on this will help prospective home buyers better plan their flat applications.

To get a sense of the size of the backlog, for the BTO launch in January 2013 during which PPS was first offered, what proportion of PPS applicants had unsuccessful applications for previous BTO launches?

Can the Minister provide an estimate of when this backlog married couples with children is expected to be cleared, and when married couples without children can start to benefit from PPS?

Lastly, will PPS be a permanent scheme or will it only be in place until the current backlog of flat applicants is cleared?

Pricing of HDB flats

Would HDB consider permanently delinking the price of new and resale flats, so new flat buyers are not at the mercy of resale flat prices? Could the Minister share with us what is the exact pricing formula used to string all these factors together to determine the selling price for new flats? More specifically, what is the formula used to calculate the discount or “market subsidy”?

This is a ‘cut’ I delivered in Parliament on 8 March 2013 during the Committee of Supply debate for the Ministry of National Development.

————–

The Minister said in February this year that the prices of new HDB flats have been “delinked” from resale flat prices by varying the quantum of discounts applied to the selling price. He said that HDB will continue with this pricing policy for as long as “property remains hot”.

What is the criteria he will use to determine if the housing market is cool enough, resulting in the prices of new and resale flats being “linked” once again?

Would HDB consider permanently delinking the price of new and resale flats, so new flat buyers are not at the mercy of resale flat prices, which the Minister has said he is not able to control?

I understand from the Minister’s earlier replies in this House are that the factors used to determine the selling price of new flats include the typical household income of the families who buy them, the market price of similar resale flats in the vicinity and the attributes of the flats including their size and location. He said that HDB applies a discount to this price and gives housing grants to eligible buyers.

Could the Minister share with us what is the exact pricing formula used to string all these factors together to determine the selling price for new flats?

More specifically, what is the formula used to calculate the discount or “market subsidy”?

For future launches, could HDB publish the price of each new flat before and after the discount, so that home buyers will have a clearer picture of the market price of the new flats, and discounts that they are receiving from HDB?

Childcare leave

Would the Government therefore consider granting parents about two additional days of Government-paid childcare leave for each child under the age of three? This will not only help parents of younger children, but also give greater benefits to parents who choose to have more children. In order to make our childcare leave scheme more effective and equitable, can the Government give all parents of Singaporean children, including single parents, equal childcare leave benefits?

This is a ‘cut’ I delivered in Parliament on 7 March 2013 during the Committee of Supply debate for the Prime Minister’s Office.

——————–

Currently parents of Singaporean children under age seven are entitled to six days of paid childcare leave .

Younger children tend to fall ill more frequently than older children, particularly when they first start attending childcare. One bout of HFMD, which requires the child to stay at home for at least a week, can wipe out an entire childcare leave entitlement for the year. While the law provides for six days of unpaid infant care leave for children under two, the fact that it is unpaid renders it of little value to most employees.

Furthermore, whether a parent has one or three children under age seven, his or her paid childcare leave entitlement is the same.

Next, unmarried single parents are entitled to only two days of childcare leave, and employers are not reimbursed for this. It is ironic that single parents have fewer childcare leave benefits, even though they probably need them more than married couples because they have no spouse to share the childcare load with.

In order to make our childcare leave scheme more effective and equitable, can the Government give all parents of Singaporean children, including single parents, equal childcare leave benefits?

Population White Paper: Debate with PAP MPs

After several PAP MPs made their speeches during the Population White Paper motion in Parliament, I responded to them on the issues of assisting SMEs and the use of foreign labour. This is the transcript of the exchanges.

—————

(Click here to read Mr Inderjit Singh’s speech, which I responded to below.)

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Mr Deputy Speaker, I just want to address one point that was made by the Member that gave the impression that the Workers’ Party does not care about companies’ folding up because of lack of manpower. I share the Member’s concern for the well-being of our companies. But the question is not if companies should go through economic restructuring, but when. So I would say that there is no better time than now to go through this economic restructuring when our budgets are healthy. Economic restructuring will not come without costs. The Government must be prepared to bear significant part of this burden.

Mr Inderjit Singh: Sir, if the Workers’ Party cares about SMEs, then I think we would not have seen this proposal of zero growth in the foreign labour, simply because if you have your feet to the ground, you would have got the feedback from the SMEs that they all are suffering right now, with the current policy of still growing but growing at a slow rate. We are not at a zero rate, we are still growing and yet companies are suffering. We just heard yesterday from the Chambers of Commerce that they too are going to leave Singapore if we do not address this issue. So I am surprised because the paper that was presented seems to show that you do not really care.

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Sir, if the Government really cares about the SMEs, they will help the SMEs go through the restructuring and bear the costs of that because that is where the long-term benefits will come to the SMEs, when they can benefit from a more productive environment and rely less on foreign labour.

Continue reading “Population White Paper: Debate with PAP MPs”

Population White Paper: Debate with Ministers in Parliament

Immediately following my speech on the Population White Paper in Parliament on 5 February 2013, several government Ministers rose to seek clarifications on the points I raised. This is the transcript of my debate with them.

——————–

Mdm Speaker (Mdm Halimah Yacob): Mr Iswaran.

The Minister, Prime Minister’s Office, Second Minister for Home Affairs and Second Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr S Iswaran): Mdm Speaker, may I seek a clarification from the hon. Member? Am I right to infer from column one of his chart that was distributed that the implication is that under the Workers’ Party’s proposal, between 2013 and 2020, there will be no new additions to our foreign worker pool in Singapore? Indeed, if anything, there may be a slight decline. And secondly, that there will be no new Singapore citizens or PRs?

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: I thank the Minister for clarification. Firstly, under our plan, we have proposed a 1% increase in resident labour force growth. So, we do not envision a need to have additional foreign labour except if we cannot attain that 1% growth in resident labour force growth.

Mr S Iswaran: Just to be clear, the Workers’ Party is advocating zero foreign workforce addition for the next eight years, including this year?

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Our goal is to reach that 1% of resident workforce growth as a way to — [Interruption by the hon Member Mr S Iswaran]. I will answer that question. Our goal is to reach that 1%, at least 1% of resident workforce growth. So, our priority is to make sure that we do all we can to increase the labour force participation rate so that we can achieve that 1%. If we can achieve that 1% without having the additional foreign labour growth, then that I think will be a bonus for us.

Mr S Iswaran: Mdm Speaker, I appreciate the Member’s clarification. I paid close attention to this table because it is a serious proposal. And I read the footnote because it is quite clear from the footnote that for the period 2020 to 2030, the Workers’ Party envisages some selective top-ups to compensate for any decline in the resident workforce. But there is no such clarification footnote for the period 2013 to 2020. So, it must be assumed that you are assuming zero foreign worker addition, and there is no new Singapore citizen or PR.

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: I think it would be reasonable to assume that. And I do not think there is anything wrong with having zero foreign workforce growth in the next eight years. But that is not primarily our target. Our target is to make sure that we maximise the local workforce participation.

Mr S Iswaran: State it for the record.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Tan.

Continue reading “Population White Paper: Debate with Ministers in Parliament”

Restructuring the Economy to create a “Dynamic Population for a Sustainable Singapore”

I empathise with the concerns of many businesses, especially SMEs, which will be impacted by further curbs in foreign labour. Companies which are dependent on low wage foreign labour will face the greatest difficulties and will have to restructure. Economic restructuring is painful but it is critically important for our nation’s future. The Government should commit to supporting companies and workers through the restructuring process, as well as retraining workers to provide them with the right skills to make a transition to another industry.

This was the speech I delivered in Parliament on 5 February 2013, during the debate on the Government’s Population White Paper.

———————–

Madam Speaker,

Over the past decade, Singapore’s population has grown by over 1.2 million people to reach 5.3 million last year. While GDP growth figures were rosy for most of the past decade, income inequality has risen significantly. The wages of the bottom income earners were held down in part by the influx of foreign labour while higher income earners enjoyed huge gains in their income and wealth during this period.

The much-anticipated White Paper on Population projects population growth of another 1.6 million, largely through immigration and foreign workers, over the next 18 years to reach up to 6.9 million by 2030. The Paper positions population growth as necessary for economic growth. Singaporeans are then given a Hobson’s choice: Accept more new immigrants and foreign workers, or face a declining economy and lower quality of life.

This is a false dilemma. In my speech today, I will explain how I believe we can stabilise the population size, while improving our economic dynamism and ensuring a more sustainable Singapore for future generations to enjoy.

The White Paper sets a goal for Singapore to become a “leading city” that can attract talent and enterprise, and set the pace for other cities (White Paper 2013, 16). It is this goal that seems to be driving the GDP growth target of 3 to 5% per year. This GDP growth probably cannot be achieved by productivity growth alone, so a high rate of mostly foreign labour force growth is needed. This in turn will drive up our population size.

Does being a leading city or global city improve the quality of life of all Singaporeans? Global cities attract many young migrants from their hinterlands and around the world. Even though their fertility rates are low, their populations continue to increase through immigration. But it is expensive to live in a global city. Many cannot afford to live in such expensive places upon retirement, so they move to other parts of their country with lower costs of living.

Will our retirees have such options when they are too old to work, since Singapore does not have any hinterland to speak of?

The cost of population growth

The Government needs to better explain to Singaporeans not only the benefits of population growth, but also the attendant costs that citizens will have to bear. With a larger population, businesses benefit from a larger pool of customers. Their profits increase, and their owners, top managers and shareholders reap the dividends and bonuses.

On the other hand, the negative effects of population growth are mostly borne by ordinary citizens. They have to suffer through overcrowded MRT trains, buses and public spaces. They continue to pay high prices for housing. They have to compete for jobs with foreigners, and their wage expectations must be lowered in order to remain competitive. The higher transportation demand pushes up COE prices, which puts cars out of reach for many. Taxpayers also have to bear the cost of infrastructure development to accommodate a larger population.

Has the Government calculated overall cost per new immigrant compared to per capita benefits which accrue to citizens? The Government has spelled out the expected GDP growth, but has it done any projections for real income growth of workers come 2030?

Productivity as a driver of growth

For the last decade in Singapore, GDP growth has been driven mainly by labour inputs. The generous supply of foreign workers has lowered the bargaining power of local workers, forcing them to accept lower wages in order to be competitive. This has led to much of the benefits of our stellar GDP growth accruing to company profits instead of workers’ wages. Our workers’ wage share as a percentage of GDP is relatively small compared with most other developed countries. In 2011, just 42.3% of Singapore’s GDP went to workers’ wages (SingStat 2012, 9). In contrast, according to OECD data, the wage share is 47.5% in Australia, 49.2% in the European Union and 52.3% in Canada (OECD 2011). If companies here continue to rely heavily on foreign workers, there will be little incentive for employers to think hard about ways to boost productivity.

But if growth is driven mainly by productivity gains, it would lead to higher real wage increases for workers. In a tight labour market, companies will need to pay their local workers more to retain them, as well as to restructure themselves to become more productive. Therefore higher productivity growth is critical for our next phase of growth, and we should not let up in our pursuit of our productivity targets.

WP’s population proposal

Our population has grown from about 3 million in 1990 to 4 million in 2000 to 5 million in 2010. This is an increase of about 1 million per decade. The White Paper projects the population to continue growing by about the same quantum. It is projected to grow to almost 6 million by 2020 and almost 7 million by 2030. What will happen after 2030? Will we grow to 8 million in 2040 and 9 million in 2050?

I am concerned that the Government seems to be proposing a “population growth forever” model, whereby each successive generation requires a larger workforce to keep expanding the GDP. This is simply not sustainable.

Our population will eventually reach the limit of our island’s space. Eventually all the reserve land will be used up and we would have reclaimed land to its limit. When that happens, we will have to settle for zero population growth because of constraints in Singapore’s physical size.

If we head down the path spelled out in the White Paper, as we approach 2030 we will again be debating about how to maintain economic growth without growing our population. The main difference then is that we would be bursting at the seams with close to 7 million people crammed on this island. We will have much less room for error in planning. That would be a truly worrying situation.

It would be more responsible to restructure our economy now to grow with fewer labour inputs, than to leave it to future governments to deal with this problem.

We need to start planning for an economy that assumes a stabilised population, rather than to rely on perpetual increases in labour through immigration and foreign workers. We must invest more in developing the skills of our people, improving our technology and investing in more capital so as to be able to increase productivity and raise wages.

The Workers’ Party is proposing a more moderate pace of growth of our labour force, compared to what the Government has planned in its White Paper. We envision a workforce which grows mainly through local instead of foreign labour force growth.

Madam Speaker, with your permission, I would like to request the Clerk to distribute a table listing our projected GDP, labour force and population growth numbers. (Click here for table.)

We will target to increase our local labour force growth by up to 1% per year from now until 2030. We should strive to keep our foreign labour force constant between now and 2020, depending on our success in growing the local labour force. It does not mean that we shut the doors to foreign workers. Instead, new work passes will be issued only to replace expiring work passes or to supplement shortfalls in the local labour force. Companies will have to find ways to hire more Singaporeans.

How will we grow our resident labour force if the number of new entrants is not increasing due to declining fertility trends? One way would be to increase our labour force participation rate, so that more residents of working age are encouraged to work. The Labour Force Survey 2012 found that there are 418,000 economically inactive residents of working age, of which 90,000 are willing to work. This is a valuable pool of labour that can be tapped.

With slower labour force growth, our economy will rely mainly on productivity improvements to grow. If the Government meets its 2 to 3% per year productivity growth target, we could enjoy 2.5 to 3.5% GDP growth per year up to 2020, which is far better than the 1.2% we achieved last year and the 1.8% average achieved by OECD countries in 2011.

Between 2020 and 2030, if we maintain labour force growth of 1% per year, and productivity grows by the Government’s 1 to 2% target during this period, this will generate 1.5 to 2.5% GDP growth per year, which is in line with the growth rates of most mature economies.

In this scenario, we are looking at a projected population of 5.3 to 5.4 million by 2020, and 5.6 to 5.8 million by 2030. This is significantly lower than the 6.5 to 6.9 million that the Government is projecting by 2030. More importantly, we will not need so many foreign workers and immigrants to supplement the local labour force, which will help us better preserve the Singaporean core.

What would be the trade-offs of having a slower inflow of foreign workers? The Singapore Business Federation has said that slower labour force growth in Singapore will have “devastating consequences for many companies” and that if businesses go under, jobs will be lost and Singaporeans will be affected (CNA 2013).

I empathise with the concerns of many businesses, especially SMEs, which will be impacted by further curbs in foreign labour. For many businesses it will mean lower profits, as they will need to pay higher wages to their Singaporean workers to attract and retain them. However, companies which are dependent on low wage foreign labour will face the greatest difficulties and will have to restructure.

Economic restructuring is painful but it is critically important for our nation’s future. The Government should commit to supporting companies and workers through the restructuring process, as well as retraining workers to provide them with the right skills to make a transition to another industry.

Conclusion

Madam Speaker, the Population White Paper proposes a population policy that continues to increase our reliance on foreign labour, leading to large increases in our population, which is unsustainable in the long run. I cannot accept this as the roadmap to address Singapore’s demographic challenge, and therefore I oppose this motion.

The Workers’ Party instead proposes a plan which places less emphasis on foreign workforce growth and focuses more on local workforce and productivity growth. This will increase the dynamism and real incomes of our local workers, while putting Singapore on a path towards more stable and sustainable population growth trajectory. Under the Workers’ Party’s plan, I am confident we will have a more dynamic population for a sustainable Singapore.

References

Channel NewsAsia (CNA). 2013. “Slower workforce growth will severely impact businesses: SBF”. 31 January 2013. Kristie Neo.

Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU). 2012. “A Summary of the Liveability Ranking and Overview”. August 2012.

Ministry of Manpower (MOM). 2013. “Labour Force”. Retrieved from http://www.mom.gov.sg/statistics-publications/national-labour-market-information/statistics/Pages/labourforce.aspx.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). 2011. OECD.StatExtrats. Retrieved from http://stats.oecd.org/.

Saw, Swee-Hock. 2007. “The Population of Singapore”. Second Edition. ISEAS Publishing: Singapore.

Singapore Department of Statistics (SingStat). 2012a. “Key Annual Indicators”. Retrieved from http://www.singstat.gov.sg/stats/keyind.html.
Singapore Department of Statistics (SingStat). 2012b. “Singapore in Figures 2012”. Retrieved from http://www.singstat.gov.sg/pubn/reference/sif2012.pdf.

White Paper. 2013. “A Sustainable Population for a Dynamic Singapore”. Singapore Government.

Punggol East By-Election: Rally Speech on 23 Jan 2013

We in the Workers’ Party take this election very seriously. That’s why so many of our members, volunteers and all our MPs have been out in force, campaigning for our candidate, Lee Li Lian, both on the ground and online. The Workers’ Party values every one of your votes in this by-election, because this by-election is so critical in bringing about progress to our beloved nation of Singapore. Help make history in Singapore. This Saturday, please cast your vote for Lee Li Lian. Vote for the Workers’ Party.

Voters of Punggol East, friends and fellow Singaporeans, good evening!

Thank you for coming to attend our last rally of this election. We are very grateful for your support. For those who are still deciding who to vote for, and have come to listen to what we have to say, I hope we can convince you tonight that Lee Li Lian from the Workers’ Party is the best candidate to manage your constituency and represent you in Parliament.

PAP leaders have made a number of statements in response to issues that the Workers’ Party has raised during this campaign. I am glad to note that, at least for these nine days, the PAP is listening, because they know their political survival in Punggol East is at stake.

On Sunday, Mr Heng Swee Keat, told the media that this by-election is “about electing the right candidate who can best serve residents of Punggol East” and “not about voting more opposition into Parliament”.

My response to Mr Heng is: Why can’t we do both? You have a chance this Saturday to elect the right candidate to serve you and also vote more opposition into Parliament, if you vote for Lee Li Lian.

Mr Heng also asked you to look at what MPs have contributed in their constituencies and in Parliament, and said you should come to a conclusion to “vote for the PAP to make the Workers’ Party work harder for you”.

I really don’t understand his logic. How can voting for the PAP candidate make the Workers’ Party work harder for you? If you vote for the PAP candidate, how will Lee Li Lian have the opportunity to serve you effectively?

But if you vote for Lee Li Lian, you will be putting her to work. And she will work very hard for you, with the full backing of the Workers’ Party when she runs your town council and improves your neighbourhood. And yes, you will make the PAP work harder to win back the ward the next time round!

Mr Teo Chee Hean yesterday said that residents should compare what the PAP candidate has to offer with what other candidates can offer. He then listed out the material benefits that their candidate has promised to the ward.

This is a well-known PAP election tactic: Dangle material goodies before voters and expect them to take the bait like a fish to a worm. But I urge you: think carefully before you bite, because there could be a sharp hook behind it to catch you.

In any case, Dr Koh Poh Koon is not promising multi-million dollar HDB upgrading programmes, but more modest amenity improvements like new childcare centres and a job placement centre. Yet he cannot build these himself. He will have to work with the government authorities to get these built.

In her speech yesterday, Li Lian already identified many of the problems faced by residents in Punggol East, even down to the detail of having more halal food stalls in the ward. If she is elected, you can be sure she will raise these concerns with the relevant authorities to press them to take action, and if they refuse to take action, she can raise them in Parliament.

Last night, after our rally, Mr Teo Chee Hean wrote on his Facebook that “WP has avoided taking a stand on major issues, for example, population or foreign workers”.

I beg to differ with Mr Teo. Our Manifesto has large sections dedicated to these major issues. If you look at the dozens of Parliament speeches posted on our website over the past year, all our MPs have raised issues and stated their positions on the major issues of the day, including education, housing, transport, population and foreign workers.

Mr Teo feels that PAP MPs have offered more constructive suggestions, and have been prepared to take a stand. I think what is important for voters in this by-election to know is: What is Dr Koh Poh Koon’s stand on all these major issues?

In the last few days, we have been hearing announcement after announcement of goodies being rolled out by the government. Enhanced marriage and parenthood package. MediShield coverage for babies with congenital conditions. Paternity leave. More childcare subsidies. These have been things that the Workers’ Party and many other Singaporeans have been calling for. And now they are being announced just before this by-election. The timing is perfect, isn’t it?

This all proves that it is the voice of the people – through your vote – that is the most powerful force to move government policy.

However, there is one announcement which has been long awaited, and should have been made weeks ago. I’m referring to the government White Paper on Population. This was supposed to be released at the end of last year and it will be debated in Parliament in just over a week’s time. Why has this paper not been released yet? Is the PAP afraid that people will be unhappy with its contents and vote against them? Maybe the PAP wants us to hear only the good stuff before the election.

Voters of Punggol East, if you vote for Lee Li Lian in this by-election, you will get three key benefits:

Number one, you will get an MP who is energetic, enthusiastic and empathetic. Someone you can relate to. Someone who will work tirelessly to take care of you. You will get another Workers’ Party MP in Parliament who will speak up against poor government policies. She will pressure the government to improve – for your benefit.

Number two, you will get an experienced Party to run your town council and manage your constituency. The Workers’ Party has over 20 years of experience in managing town councils well. And not just small town councils, but a huge GRC town council in Aljunied. We know the ins and outs of running a constituency. Even when obstacles were thrown in our path to trip us up, we have still managed to ensure residents’ needs are well taken care of. Just ask your friends or relatives in Hougang and Aljunied.

And three, you will be part of a movement to bring about change to Singapore. Not just change for the sake of it, but real change that improves your life, and the lives of your children. With more credible opposition MPs in Parliament, you will have greater bargaining power to force the government to be more responsive to your needs and concerns.

Come join us on this exciting journey and play a part in shaping Singapore’s future.

Voters of Punggol East, this is not an ordinary by-election, just as Punggol East is not an ordinary constituency. It is special.

The Workers’ Party values every one of your votes in this by-election, because this by-election is so critical in bringing about progress to our beloved nation of Singapore.

Help make history in Singapore. This Saturday, please cast your vote for Lee Li Lian. Vote for the Workers’ Party.

Punggol East By-Election: Rally Speech on 19 Jan 2013

When you go to the polls in one week’s time, vote in an MP who has the experience on the ground, has the heart to serve and has the ability to speak up for you in Parliament. Vote for the Workers’ Party. Vote for Lee Li Lian!

It is my pleasure and honour to be able to speak with you tonight. I stand here in support of the Workers’ Party’s candidate for Punggol East SMC, Ms Lee Li Lian.

Before I say a few words about her, I want to share with you about a topic that affects your life, whether you are young or old, rich or poor. I want to talk about the cost of healthcare in Singapore.

This is a topic that I am very concerned about. Since entering Parliament in 2011, I have raised healthcare cost issues many times with the Government.

Many senior citizens worry that it is “better to die than to fall ill in Singapore”. This is very sad. We are already a developed country by all economic measures. We have on of the highest GDP per capita in the world. If you are a senior citizen, you should not have to worry about not being able to afford your medical bills. Not after you have worked all your life to help build this nation. Yet in Singapore, this is one of the top worries of the elderly.

But it is not just old people who worry. If you are a young working adult, even you may be worried. Because very often, you have to pay for your parents’ medical expenses.

In 2010, out of the total amount of Medisave used for elderly healthcare expenses, 45% was withdrawn from their children’s Medisave accounts. These are not my numbers. This is a from a reply by the Health Minister to a question I asked in Parliament.

This means almost half of the total amount Medisave withdrawals for elderly patients come from their children. But what if their children are also struggling to make ends meet and raise their own children?

In Singapore, the elderly have to depend on their children to pay a large part their medical bills. The PAP government tells you: this is self-reliance.

The PAP government makes you set aside money in your Medisave accounts. You can only use Medisave to pay for certain types of medical expenses. Why? Because they don’t want you to use up your Medisave before you get old, and then depend on the government.

But then the PAP government tells you that you must use your Medisave before they give financial assistance to your parents for their medical expenses. What is the logic here? If you use up your Medisave paying for your parents, you will have little left for yourself when you grow old.

I have said in Parliament that if we are to achieve the goal of universal health coverage, we need to expand the coverage and increase the pay outs of our national health insurance scheme, MediShield. This will help to reduce the cash payments when you are seeking treatment.

Recently the Government announced some enhancements to the MediShield health insurance scheme. But this enhanced coverage will come at a cost – almost all of which will be borne by you, not the Government.

You will have to pay more in premiums every year, and the deductibles – the money you have to pay before receiving benefits – will increase by 50% for C-class ward patients.

Why is there a need for such steep increases in premiums and deductibles? Between 2001 and 2010, MediShield collected over $2 billion in premiums and paid out less than $1.3 billion in claims. This amounted to $850 million more collected than disbursed over the past decade. So MediShield is not exactly losing money.

The MediShield scheme has huge economies of scale and faces little competition for customers. I believe MediShield can take on greater risks on behalf of Singaporeans, while still maintaining healthy margins, if it can be operated more like a national social health insurance scheme, rather than a commercial, profit-oriented one.

The Workers’ Party will continue to press the Government to lower the healthcare burden on Singaporeans, so that if you fall ill, you don’t have to worry about financial hardship, but can just focus on getting well.

Voters of Punggol East, we are here tonight because we are asking you to vote our candidate into Parliament – Ms Lee Li Lian!

I have worked with Li Lian in many areas of Party work since I joined the Workers’ Party. Most recently we have been working together as part of the Workers’ Party Media Team.

I have three words to describe Li Lian: energetic, enthusiastic and empathetic.

Energetic, because she is always full of life, and full of energy. This is very important if she were to become your MP, because it is a job that requires a huge amount of effort and energy, both in the constituency, and in Parliament.

Enthusiastic because she knows what needs to be done and can rally the troops to get things done. So with her as your MP, you can be sure that she will solve constituency problems with great vigour.

And finally, empathetic. Li Lian is a people person. She genuinely cares for people and tries to help them.

I am confident that Lee Li Lian will be able to serve you with the same energy, enthusiasm and empathy as she has served constituents of Hougang and Aljunied GRC and in her party positions.

When you go to the polls in one week’s time, vote in an MP who has the experience on the ground, has the heart to serve and has the ability to speak up for you in Parliament.

Vote for the Workers’ Party. Vote for Lee Li Lian!

Silver Housing Bonus and Lease Buyback Scheme

After the Silver Housing Bonus was announced by the Finance Minister in his Budget speech in February, I had voiced concern in my response in Parliament on 29 February that the scheme would be unattractive to the elderly as too much of the net proceeds from the sale of their flats would end up being locked up in their CPF accounts.

The potential beneficiaries of these two schemes belong to the generation of Singaporeans who built our nation to where it is today. They are the pioneer generation. It is appalling that despite their contributions, many find themselves living in poverty during their silver years. Our nation owes them a huge debt, which must be repaid before we miss our chance.

On Thursday, the Ministry of National Development (MND) announced some “enhancements” to the Silver Housing Bonus and Lease Buyback Scheme. Essentially, these two schemes enable elderly Singaporeans to monetise their HDB flats so that they have more cash to live through their retirement.

The Silver Housing Bonus is intended to provide an incentive for lower-income elderly couples to downgrade to a smaller flat and use the net proceeds for their retirement. In its press release, MND said that “The Government has made the SHB more attractive, by lowering the top-up requirement to $60,000 per household (subject to a $100,000 cap on cash proceeds for those who have not achieved the prevailing Minimum Sum). Furthermore, the $20,000 bonus will now be given fully in cash.”

I am glad to hear this. After the Silver Housing Bonus was announced by the Finance Minister in his Budget speech in February, I had voiced concern in my response in Parliament on 29 February that the scheme would be unattractive to the elderly as too much of the net proceeds from the sale of their flats would end up being locked up in their CPF accounts. Here is what I said:

The Silver Housing Bonus is a good attempt to help increase the retirement incomes of the elderly. However, I believe the Bonus would be more attractive if the elderly received a greater portion of the proceeds from the sale of their previous flat in cash, rather than having most of it returned to their CPF accounts.

In the example that the Finance Minister gave in his speech, the elderly couple receives only $23,000 in cash, or about 9% of their net proceeds from the sale of their flat, even after the Silver Housing Bonus.

This is because to benefit from the Silver Housing Bonus, flat owners must use the cash proceeds from the sale of their previous flat to top up their CPF Retirement Accounts to the Minimum Sum. I propose that they be allowed to pledge the value of their new studio apartment towards meeting up to half of the Minimum Sum. This will allow them to get more cash after the sale of their previous flat.

Since they will still be meeting their Minimum Sum, there is no need to apportion $5,000 from the Silver Housing Bonus to their CPF Retirement Accounts. The full $20,000 Silver Housing Bonus could be given to them in cash.

While a larger Retirement Account may get them more per month in CPF LIFE annuity pay outs, many senior citizens may have more immediate needs for cash, for example, to pay their medical bills. Why not give them this option to have more cash on hand? If they want higher annuity pay outs, they can always voluntarily top up their CPF Retirement Accounts.

The Lease Buyback Scheme allows lower-income elderly to sell the tail-end lease of their HDB flat to the government. This scheme has been around since 2009, but to date only 466 households have taken it up. Part of the reason for the low take-up rate could be the restrictive eligibility criteria. For example, only elderly folks living in 3-room or smaller HDB flats are eligible. In my Budget debate speech, I said:

…most elderly folks prefer to remain in their current homes, rather than get displaced to unfamiliar surroundings in their old age.

To give the elderly more choice, the Lease Buyback Scheme should be extended to owners of 4-room or larger flats, just like the Silver Housing Bonus. Currently only owners of 3-room or smaller flats are eligible. This could be a reason for the low take up rate.

An enhanced Lease Buyback Scheme will enable more of our elderly to age in place, and to live their golden years in familiar surroundings, without having to worry too much about finances.

In yesterday’s announcement, sellers still need to top up their CPF Retirement Accounts to the prevailing Minimum Sum if they are 70 years or younger. The top up threshold is reduced slightly for those older than 70 or 80. However, the 3-room or smaller rule still remains. With such restrictions still in place, it remains to be seen if the take up rate will increase by much.

Given a choice, I believe most senior citizens prefer to remain in their current homes, rather than move to unfamiliar surroundings in their old age. The government must therefore look into ways to increase the benefits of the Lease Buyback Scheme.

The Silver Housing Bonus is a good attempt to help increase the retirement incomes of the elderly. However, I believe the Bonus would be more attractive if the elderly received a greater portion of the proceeds from the sale of their previous flat in cash, rather than having most of it returned to their CPF accounts.

In the example that the Finance Minister gave in his speech, the elderly couple receives only $23,000 in cash, or about 9% of their net proceeds from the sale of their flat, even after the Silver Housing Bonus.

This is because to benefit from the Silver Housing Bonus, flat owners must use the cash proceeds from the sale of their previous flat to top up their CPF Retirement Accounts to the Minimum Sum. I propose that they be allowed to pledge the value of their new studio apartment towards meeting up to half of the Minimum Sum. This will allow them to get more cash after the sale of their previous flat.

Since they will still be meeting their Minimum Sum, there is no need to apportion $5,000 from the Silver Housing Bonus to their CPF Retirement Accounts. The full $20,000 Silver Housing Bonus could be given to them in cash.

While a larger Retirement Account may get them more per month in CPF LIFE annuity pay outs, many senior citizens may have more immediate needs for cash, for example, to pay their medical bills. Why not give them this option to have more cash on hand? If they want higher annuity pay outs, they can always voluntarily top up their CPF Retirement Accounts.

In any case, most elderly folks prefer to remain in their current homes, rather than get displaced to unfamiliar surroundings in their old age.

To give the elderly more choice, the Lease Buyback Scheme should be extended to owners of 4-room or larger flats, just like the Silver Housing Bonus. Currently only owners of 3-room or smaller flats are eligible. This could be a reason for the low take up rate.

An enhanced Lease Buyback Scheme will enable more of our elderly to age in place, and to live their golden years in familiar surroundings, without having to worry too much about finances.

Casino Debate in Parliament

I had earlier posted my speech during the debate on the Casino Control (Amendment) Bill on 15 November 2012. The next day, two ministers — Chan Chun Sing (Acting Minister for Social and Family Development) and S. Iswaran (Second Minister for Home Affairs) — rose to address my points and that of the other backbenchers who spoke on the bill. I followed up with several more clarifications to their points. Below is a transcript of the exchange.

———————–

The Acting Minister for Social and Family Development (Mr Chan Chun Sing): Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Members for their support of the social safeguards in the Bill. I also appreciate Members’ views and suggestions to strengthen the management of the harm of problem gambling. I share the concerns and I can also attest to the harm that problem gambling brings to the individual, family, community and society.

Continue reading “Casino Debate in Parliament”