Category: Singapore

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In 2010, out of the total amount of Medisave used for elderly healthcare expenses, 45% was withdrawn from their children’s Medisave accounts.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!

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 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. We must repay them before we miss our chance.

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”

This was an article that I contributed to The Straits Times. It was published in the “Insight” section of the paper on Saturday, 1 September 2012.

———-

“DON’T say that! It’s very rude! How would you like other people to call you that?”

That was the scolding I got from my mother when I was just six years old. I had just returned from playing with my friends from the neighbourhood—one of whom was an older Indian boy—and I thought it would be funny to hum a rhyme about him that I had learned from another kid in our group.

This was one of the many lessons my parents taught me about not harbouring prejudiced attitudes and stereotypes about people of other races, nationalities or socio-economic backgrounds. I am glad they not only instilled in me these values, but lived them out in their own words and deeds.

My consciousness against prejudice was honed and heightened during the time I lived in California as an undergraduate. This is in part due to the greater level of public discourse on issues of discrimination and prejudice there. Being a minority and a foreigner there, I was also keenly aware of any behaviour by locals towards me that might hint of prejudice.

That was 12 years ago when social media was non-existent, so I did not have the same insights into the dark recesses of people’s minds that are available now on the Internet. Try googling the phrase “I hate Asians” and you will get over a hundred thousand web pages of uncomplimentary remarks about Asians. Online diatribes against other races or nationalities are therefore not unique to Singapore.

Fortunately, most of the vitriol against foreigners in Singapore appears to be confined largely to the online space. We do not read about hate crime being perpetrated against foreigners here. Foreign diplomats I spoke to recently said they had not received any reports from their nationals about xenophobic attacks. I have many close foreigner friends who are aware of the anti-foreigner sentiments online but have not complained about any physical aggression against them on account of their nationality.

All this is not an attempt to justify any of the baseless insults against foreigners seen on some websites. Making prejudiced remarks against foreigners is objectionable and un-Singaporean, and should stop.

However, before joining the chorus of condemnation against allegedly “xenophobic netizens”, we need to ask what caused this sudden change in attitude towards foreigners. Haven’t Singaporeans traditionally always been welcoming of foreigners and diversity? Did Singaporeans suddenly become xenophobic overnight?

Anyone who examines the online comments about foreigners would realise that much of the anger is actually not directed at the foreigners, but at the Government for its liberal immigration policies.

The online diatribes could be a reflection of many Singaporeans’ frustration about the huge influx of foreigners over the past 10 years. Singapore’s population has ballooned by over 1 million during the past decade . Singaporeans now make up only 63 per cent of the population and 58 per cent of the workforce . The immigration boom has put a severe strain on our nation’s infrastructure, especially public transport, housing and healthcare. Singaporeans are facing increased competition not just for space on buses and for HDB flats, but also for jobs and promotions.

For many Singaporeans, our country is much less recognisable than it was just a decade or so ago. Some feel like strangers in our own land. A friend who works as a professional in a large multinational firm confided that he is the only Singaporean in his department. He lamented that he felt passed over for promotions as he sensed that his department head, who is a foreigner, tended to promote his fellow nationals over locals.

While many other factors may have been at play, this perceived “reverse discrimination” felt by many Singaporeans cannot simply be ignored.

This push back by Singaporeans against the foreign influx has manifested itself in other less offensive ways. The recent furore over the “insult” of Singaporean cuisine by Dîner en Blanc and last year’s “curry incident” reflect a level of cultural nationalism rarely seen in the past.

Singaporeans had hitherto been accustomed to being “educated” by the Government on how to love our country, how to stand up for Singapore, and how to stand together as Singaporeans.

Now we are standing up for ourselves without prompting. We are ready to take the initiative and organise ourselves to demonstrate our pride in our local culture and traditions, without being offensive or insulting. This is a positive development for Singapore.

Therefore, when interpreting online criticisms of foreigners, we need to first identify the genesis of the collective frustrations of many Singaporeans. The target of many netizens’ grouses is perhaps not at the level of the individual, but at the powers-that-be who have opened the gates to admit those individuals in the first place.

These are excerpts of a speech I gave on Saturday 25 August at YouthQuake, a forum organised by the Workers’ Party Youth Wing.

——

I thank the Workers’ Party Youth Wing for inviting me to share the perspective of a parent with young children. I will be sharing about my wife’s and my considerations when starting my family, the challenges faced by working parents in Singapore, and what more can be done to support the family.

I have been married for almost nine years to my wonderful and supportive wife, Elena. We have two children—a daughter Hannah, who is turning four soon, and a son Asher, who just turned two.

I got married at age 26. We remained DINKs (double income, no kids) for about five years before having Hannah. We felt it was better to spend a few years adjusting to married life before having kids.

Why did we want to have kids? If we had we conducted a standard cost-benefit analysis (CBA), here’s how it would have looked like: High initial costs of prenatal and delivery fees, medical check-ups, infant care and childcare fees. There would be 25 years or more of continuous expenditure from diapers to degrees. Since we don’t expect our kids to support us in our old age, the payback period is infinity. So using the CBA approach, the conclusion would have been that this child-raising project should not be undertaken.

This is a clear departure from previous generations, where the costs for raising kids were not so high, the period of upbringing was shorter (since children left school and went out to work earlier), and children were presumed to be the parents’ old age social security policy.

Fortunately starting a family is not a business decision, although one cannot ignore the financial implications.

Our reasons for having kids were more social, cultural and faith-based. Elena and I are Christians. We met in church, which, like most religious organisations, places a strong emphasis on family. We have many church mates, who are also our close friends, who have kids—some with as many as three to five kids. They seemed to be doing well and having much joy in raising their kids.

We also believe that children are a blessing from God and we have a responsibility to multiply ourselves, and raise up the next generation to be a blessing to this world.

Having kids was one of the best decisions we made. Neither Elena or I were crazy about children before we had our own, but now we love every moment we spend with our kids. Nothing brings a smile to my face more than looking at their photos or seeing their quirky behaviour or expressions.

Last week, a reporter emailed me to ask what radical solutions I had for raising total fertility rate (TFR). She asked me what I thought about allowing singles to adopt children, or outlawing abortion for married women. I told the reporter what we need are not radical proposals, but an implementation of practical proposals that many Singaporeans have already suggested in the past. We need to decide as a nation if raising the TFR is really a national priority or if we don’t really think it can be achieved.

If we are serious about raising the TFR, we need to tackle three main challenges: Cost, work culture and our culture and values.

Money is not the solution to everything, but it is the strongest lever the government has at its disposal. We need to significantly reduce the cost of raising children, especially during their first six years of their lives. This is a time where the cost of raising children is the highest. It is also a time when parents are struggling the most financially, as they are a long way from their peak earning power.

One of the biggest cost factors is childcare. Even with subsidies, many parents still have to fork out $500 to $800 or more a month per child, and this excludes the high end childcare centre fees.

If the government is willing to subsidise up to 90% of the training fees of adult workers, including foreigners, why can’t it subsidise a similar proportion for the care of our future Singaporean workers?

Besides money, need to create a work environment that is more conducive for parents with children. Our local work culture needs to change. Employers and bosses need to realise that family comes first, yes even before the job.

Paternity leave will be useful. The Workers’ Party called for it in our manifesto and I raised the issue in Parliament in March. But more childcare leave or paternity leave is just symbolic. When your child falls sick and the childcare centre calls, it’s usually not your leave balance that prevents you from dropping everything and leaving to pick up your kid.

If your boss wants “face time” and does not allow you to work from home, or your workload is so heavy that you can’t afford to leave, you’ll find yourself scrambling to find someone to pick up your sick child. It’s usually those times when you curse your stressful life and hate your work.

We need to redesign work to provide for more telecommuting, flexible work hours, part time work and job sharing. This will also encourage more non-working mothers to re-enter the workforce.

Most of these things will not happen as long as there is a generous supply of skilled and unskilled foreign workers, who are here alone and are willing to put in long hours with low pay. The Government can give all sorts of work-life grants and consultancy assistance, but employers will have little incentive to redesign work in order to retain and attract Singaporean workers unless our foreign worker policies are tightened, including at the high end.

Beyond money and work culture, the third and probably most important and sensitive factor we need to tackle is our culture and values.

Our culture and values have evolved. Many look at child-raising as a burden rather than a blessing. Some couples want to have kids, but are so paralysed by the fear of how difficult it is to raise children. They feel that if they don’t raise their kids to be as smart as Einstein and as talented as Mozart, they have not done their job as parents. This all adds to the calculated cost and stress of raising kids, so they conclude: Why bother?

There is a limit to what the government can do to change values. In fact the more it tries to coax young people to get married and have children, the more put off they are. Even parents and nosy relatives have limited effect on couples deciding to have kids.

I believe social and religious organisations have a big influence on the culture and values of their members. They should do more to encourage their members to “go forth and multiply”, and to provide a supportive environment for parents and families. For example, my church has many cell groups for parents where they can share their experiences and challenges in parenting.

Those who are already parents can also help the peers by not always painting such a burdensome picture of child-raising, but highlighting the joys of having kids. One of my friends does this well. She writes a series of occasional Facebook Notes, titled “Lessons from My Future”. In them she provides snippets of her conversations with her three children. They are always funny and touching. Helps readers realise how precious a privilege it is to be able to raise up future leaders of our nation and our world.

I hope to see more positive stories like these. And I will do my part to share more of my stories. These suggestions are by no means exhaustive, and I look forward to hearing more of your suggestions during the Q&A later. Thank you.

—-

Afternote: The Prime Minister, in his National Day Rally speech on 26 August, announced that the Government is now considering statutory paternity leave, and there will be more infant care and child care financial assistance given to middle and lower income families (although the quantum has not been revealed yet). He also acknowledged that work culture needs to change, although he seemed to suggest that this was not something the Government can control.

These are steps in the right direction, although as I alluded to in my speech on Saturday, paternity leave is primarily symbolic. What really needs to be changed is our work culture to provide better work-life balance. I believe this is within the Government’s control. Tightening the inflow of foreign workers, including professionals, will force employers to re-think ways to attract and retain Singaporeans. This could include providing better work-life balance and more family-friendly workplaces.

The Workers’ Party wishes all Singaporeans a very Happy 47th National Day! Enjoy the video!

“National Day is an important time for us to reflect and think about how we have evolved into the Singapore we have today. It is especially important to remember our pioneer generation… Every Singaporean has something special to contribute to Singapore. We are all different. But what we share, is Singapore as our home. And home, is where the heart is.”
– Sylvia Lim, Chairman, Workers’ Party

Video credits:
Directed by Zen Yeo
Sound and Music by Joe Ng
Special thanks to Samantha Gan

A few weeks back, I heard that some residents living in the western part of Singapore refused to fly their national flag at their HDB blocks because they did not want to be associated with their Residents’ Committee (RC), and by extension, the PAP government.

While I understand where these residents’ sentiments are coming from, I feel their reactions may be somewhat misplaced.

Singapore is bigger than the PAP, as former top civil servant Ngiam Tong Dow pointed out several years ago. It is not easy to internalise this fact, especially for those of us who have lived all our lives in Singapore and have been told—through subliminal and not-so-subliminal messages—that the PAP, the government and Singapore are synonymous.

Indeed they are not. One can disagree with the party in power, and yet still be a loyal citizen and a patriot. From my interactions with a cross section of Singaporeans, I am glad to note that most agree with this distinction on an intellectual level.

The national ideals represented by our flag—democracy, peace, progress, justice and equality—cut across political, racial and religious boundaries. I believe we would all do well to reflect a bit more on all of these ideals (not just the second and third one), especially in the area of policymaking.

With that, I urge everyone for whom Singapore is home to fly our national flag proudly this National Day.

I wish all Singaporeans a very Happy 47th National Day!

The Straits Times asked me for my views on the latest changes to MediShield. This is what I told them:

I welcome the prospect of MediShield coverage being extended to babies with congenital problems or prematurity-related complications. I had called for during the Committee of Supply debate in Parliament in March. I am also glad to note the planned increase in policy year and lifetime limits.

However I am concerned about the impact of the $500 increase in deductibles for all patients in Class C and B2 wards. This will amount to a 50% hike for Class C patients, which will adversely impact many lower income patients, who will have to fork out more in cash or Medisave payments. The increase in premiums will affect the elderly more than the young, as the elderly will see a bigger premium hike at a time when they are approaching, or have reached, retirement age.

While I acknowledge that the enhanced MediShield coverage may require some premium increases to keep the scheme solvent, is there is a need for such steep increases in premiums and deductibles? Less than 0.1% of MediShield policyholders reach their policy year and lifetime claim limits, so the cost impact should be limited. Furthermore, between 2006 and 2010, MediShield collected an average of $131 million more in premiums each year than it paid out in claims. Even factoring in the need to set aside an amount each year for its reserves, I believe there is there room for the MediShield scheme to take on greater risks on behalf of Singaporeans.

MediShield is, after all, supposed to be a form of social health insurance, not a commercial insurance scheme.