Singapore

Internet regulation déjà vu

Would the Government want to be seen to be “shutting down” websites like TOC and TRE, which are known to express very independent and sometimes sharp views against government policies? That does not seem tenable, unless of course the Government is prepared to suffer ridicule, both domestically and internationally. And if these sites are faced with no choice but to shut down, what do you think all their writers are going to do? They will set up their own blogs, of course! In fact, many of the most-read socio-political blogs were set up and are run by TOC alumni.

Reading about the Media Development Authority (MDA)’s new ruling requiring online news websites to be licensed individually, and the strong statement in response issued by a group of prominent bloggers, gave me a sense of déjà vu from a few years ago.

Back in 2007, the Government announced that it was setting up the Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society, or AIMS – not to be confused with AIM, the $2 IT company owned by the PAP – to study the “far-reaching social, ethical, legal and regulatory implications” of online media, and “make recommendations to the Government on how these issues should be managed”.

AIMS was to be headed by Mr Cheong Yip Seng, the former Editor-in-Chief of the English and Malay Newspapers Division at Singapore Press Holdings (SPH). I had not entered politics yet, but was an active political blogger. My fellow bloggers and I were aghast! The setting up of AIMS seemed like an insidious way of regulating the free-wheeling Internet, starting with a committee which we figured would, in all likelihood, recommend to the Government a host of ways to clamp down on free speech on the Internet.

With this concern in mind, 13 socio-political bloggers, which included the likes of Choo Zheng Xi (then-editor of The Online Citizen [TOC]), Alex Au (aka Yawning Bread), Cherian George (the communications and media professor from NTU) and myself, decided to issue a petition to the then-Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts, Dr Lee Boon Yang, voicing our strong objections to the regulation of political content on the Internet. We also called for the repeal of Section 33 of the Films Act, which banned all “party political” films. The letter was made public and the media nicknamed us the “Bloggers 13”.

What developed subsequently was actually quite heartening. Mr Cheong’s committee decided to buck government convention: they actively engaged us bloggers, Mr Cheong and some of his committee members attended our public forum, they noted down feedback we had posted online (and reflected it in their report), and even gave us embargoed copies of their report, before inviting us to attend their press conference (presumably so we could blog about it).

Most importantly, the AIMS report released in December 2008 was, in our opinion, balanced and surprisingly progressive. It laid out four principles: (a) Government regulation should be used as a last resort; (b) “Free-for-all” is not feasible; (c) Shifting the focus from regulation towards engagement; and (d) Community participation is key.

On point (a) about non-regulation, this is what AIMS wrote in its introduction to the report:

One of the long-standing debates about the Internet is whether it should and can be regulated. Given the borderless nature of the Internet, it is difficult to enforce laws regulating the Internet across different jurisdictions.

Hence, one principle is to avoid regulating what is arguably “unregulable”. Laws are important, but they should be used only as a last resort. As the maxim goes, “legislate in haste, repent at leisure”. Using laws as a first measure to deal with online problems is unwise as the Internet and its users are continuously evolving and can creatively route around laws and regulations, especially if they are not well thought through.

— AIMS Report (2008), “Engaging Media, Challenging Old Assumptions”, p. 7

The detailed report went further:

…AIMS recognises that twelve years have passed since the Class Licence Scheme was first established in 1996. We have reviewed the matter and feel that changes are in order for these reasons: First, the rules unnecessarily deter free speech. Second, it has hardly been enforced. Third, Singaporeans deserve more political space. We therefore make the following recommendations:

(a) Lift registration requirement for individuals, bodies of persons and political parties

AIMS recommends the removal of the registration requirement for individuals, bodies of persons and political parties that provide any programme for the propagation, promotion or discussion of political or religious issues relating to Singapore through the Internet websites.

(b) Make processes of the Class Licence Scheme more transparent

The Media Development Authority (MDA) should study how to make the existing processes more transparent to assuage netizens’ concerns that these rules are in place to clamp down on them. For example, details of MDA investigations should be made public so that people can judge for themselves whether the processes and decisions were fair.

— AIMS Report (2008), “Engaging Media, Challenging Old Assumptions”, p. 16

These were among 26 recommendations that AIMS made to the Government. The Government accepted only 17 of them.

This latest MDA requirement for 10 websites, including Yahoo! Singapore News, to register for individual licenses, and to post a $50,000 bond, seems to fly in the face of some of AIMS’ recommendations. Many people are naturally taken aback, and it is not just bloggers and netizens who are riled up. I have heard some harsh words from people who normally hold the Government in high esteem — and some groans from journalists.

For now, the new regulations, in and of themselves, probably have a limited effect on free speech. Apart from Yahoo!, all the other sites are owned by SPH and Mediacorp — no tears shed for them. Yahoo! itself is not a small outfit and should have no problem complying with the regulations — $50,000 is but a fraction of what they just paid for Tumblr. However, the concern is that other volunteer-run websites like TOC and more free-wheeling sites like TR Emeritus and The Real Singapore would soon fall under the Sword of Damocles that is now hanging over them. (Full disclosure: I was a former deputy editor of TOC, but stepped down when I joined the Workers’ Party [WP] in 2009.) TOC has already stated that it will shut down if asked to register and post the bond. The MDA has responded to say that TOC does not meet the criteria, even though TOC itself believes it does, and has produced web stats to prove it.

This latest move from the Government has raised many questions and concerns. When Parliament next sits, you can expect WP MPs to be asking the Minister for Information and Communications many of these questions, and pressing him for a response.

Ordinary heroes

As tragic as the Boston Marathon bombings were, and continues to be — at the time of writing, police are still searching for the second suspect following shoot-outs which have killed one police officer and critically wounded another — one thing that has amazed me is how heroes have emerged from among ordinary bystanders at the scene of the bombings.

Photo: AP

There was Carlos Arrendondo (photo above, in cowboy hat), who with the help of another bystander, tied a tourniquet around the thighs of victim Jeff Bauman (in wheelchair) who tragically had both his legs blown off. Bauman himself was a hero in his own right, not just for surviving the blast, but for providing FBI agents valuable leads to one of the bombers from his hospital bed.

Then there was a medical doctor, Chris Rupe, who had just completed the marathon minutes before the bombs went off but turned back despite fears of further bombs going off. He then proceeded to provide emergency treatment to victims, many with dismembered limbs, for about an hour.

Another bystander, Bruce Mendelsohn, who was in the building next to the bombing, ran downstairs and attended to several victims with shrapnel wounds and mangled limbs, then went back up to his office — and threw up.

I hope a disaster like this never happens in Singapore, but I know it’s not a matter of if, but when. Even if it isn’t a terrorist attack that hits us, such “war scenes” can occur as a result of a horrific traffic accident or industrial disaster. The Hotel New World collapse in 1986 comes to mind, even though I was just a primary three student when it happened.

But the question that occurred to me is: Are we ready for this?

No, I’m not asking if our emergency services and police ready — with all the resources pumped into the Home Team, I am sure they are sufficiently prepared.

What I wonder is if ordinary Singaporeans are prepared to be first responders, attending to the wounded during an emergency before paramedics arrive on the scene. How many of us have been trained in first aid and CPR, or in the use of an AED? Will bystanders here stare in shock until the ambulance arrives, or will they rush forward and apply first aid during those crucial moments when victims may be losing a lot of blood and time is of the essence? Do all our schools conduct first aid training for students? (I know some do.) Are all our citizen soldiers trained in CPR? (During my time, I recall only being trained when I went for my advanced infantry course, not during Basic Military Training.)

I think it will be useful for as many Singaporeans as possible to be trained in basic first aid, so that they can respond to emergencies before the paramedics arrive. We shouldn’t always “leave it to the authorities” — no matter how competent they may be, they cannot be everywhere, all the time.

The Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) offers a free first aid training at its four division headquarters under the Community Emergency Preparedness Programme. They even have their course notes available for download here.

Equally importantly, if you see something suspicious in public areas, call 999 immediately. Don’t wait for someone else to do it. As the catchy US Department of Homeland Security advice goes, “If you see something, say something.”

Access to pay and tax records for processing of Medifund

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.

Question for the Minister for Health on the 8 April 2013 Parliament sitting.

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.

Mr Gan Kim Yong:

Since last year, with consent, the Public Hospitals are able to tap into patients’ and their families’ records of income at CPF and Annual Value of residential property at IRAS, and use the information for financial counselling, means-testing for subsidies, and applications for Medifund or other assistance.

Nevertheless, there is still room for improvement. For example, CPF data does not capture the income above $5,000. We are currently working on tapping into IRAS records for full income data and we hope to implement it by early next year. We will continue to improve our processes and train our staff to minimise administrative hassle for patients and their families.

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