Singapore - geraldgiam.sg

Supply of childcare and student care (MSF)

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

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

————

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public transport operations expenditure (MOT)

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

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

———————

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

———–

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

Means testing for family income (MOH)

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

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

—————

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

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

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

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

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

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

Measuring capital gains

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

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

————-

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

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

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

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

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

——-

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

Helping SMEs as they restructure

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

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

——————————

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

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

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

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

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”