Category: Singapore

This was a speech I made during the Committee of Supply debate on 1 March 2012.

——————

Mr Chairman,

Containing the cost of living, and lowering workplace and career impediments to child-bearing and child-rearing are critical if we are to increase Singapore’s flagging total fertility rate (TFR).

The expenses for parents are especially challenging during the first 6 years of their children’s lives, in large part because of the high and increasing cost of childcare. This could be a discouragement to them having more children. The childcare subsidy should be increased from the current $300 per month for middle income working mothers. If the Government is willing to subsidise 90% of training fees for adult workers, including permanent residents, it possible to increase subsidies for the care and education of our future Singaporean workers?

There should be increased support and strong incentives for employers to implement and maintain better work-life balance practices, including part-time work, flexi-work arrangements and telecommuting. Government support could come not only in the form of work-life consultancy assistance schemes, or grants for implementing work-life initiatives, but on-going tax incentives to companies that implement and maintain good work-life balance practices.

Paternity leave of at least 6 days per new-born child should be introduced and legislated. Half of this should be funded by the government and the rest by employers. This will allow families to bond together during the critical period after childbirth, and will also recognise the important role of fathers in sharing the responsibilities of infant care. All this could have a positive effects on birth rates.

Could we also look into less conventional ways of increasing Singapore’s TFR, without compromising on the values that Singaporeans hold dear?

Firstly, reducing the abortion rate. There are about 12,000 abortions carried out each year in Singapore, with the majority performed on married women . If more of these abortions could be avoided, it could naturally increase Singapore’s birth rate.

Most of the reasons given for termination of pregnancies are due to financial or social reasons. Can we do more to ensure that pregnant women in these circumstances are given all possible assistance so that they may consider other options, like giving up their babies for adoption?

If they choose to keep their babies, can they be provided parenthood benefit packages, even if they are unmarried? While having children outside of marriage should continue to be discouraged, the package actually benefits the children, who are innocent parties after all.

And lastly, can all foreign spouses of Singaporeans be allowed to reside in Singapore and work to help support their family? Priority should be given to their PR and citizenship applications, particularly if they already have Singaporean children. This will ensure the unity of the family and could encourage these couples to have more Singaporean children.

This is the speech I made in Parliament on 29 February 2012, during the debate on the Budget 2012 Statement.

—————-

Mr Speaker,

The initiatives in Budget 2012 demonstrate a shift in the Government’s mindset in providing much needed support for our low-income workers, senior citizens and people with disabilities. I commend the Government on this shift in the right direction.

While it is important to grow our economy, it is equally important to ensure a fairer distribution of our nation’s prosperity. Continue reading “Budget 2012 Debate Speech”

These are the Parliamentary Questions I have filed for the sitting tomorrow, 17 February 2012.

1. Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: To ask the Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts (a) how does IDA track the telecos’ 3G mobile broadband coverage on MRT trains to ensure that they meet the required quality of service (QoS) standards; (b) what were the actual measured 3G mobile broadband service levels on MRT trains in the latest month with available measured data; and (c) whether IDA has plans to publish the actual measured service levels on a regular basis.

2. Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: To ask the Minister for Health what is the number of beds in A, B1, B2 and C class wards in each of the following hospitals (i) Singapore General Hospital (ii) National University Hospital (iii) Tan Tock Seng Hospital (iv) Changi General Hospital (v) Alexandra Hospital (vi) Khoo Teck Puat Hospital and (vii) KK Women’s and Children’s Hospital.

3. Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: To ask the Minister for Health in each of the last 10 years, how many MediShield  policyholders  reached (i) the $50,000 policy year limit; and (ii) the $200,000 lifetime limit.

4. Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: To ask the Minister for Health what are the 90th percentile inpatient charges per day in 2011 for (i) normal wards in public hospitals; (ii) ICU wards in public hospitals; and (iii) community hospitals.

5. Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: To ask the Minister for Health (a) what is the percentage of Singaporeans currently not covered by MediShield insurance; (b) of these, what proportion comes from (i) the young aged below 21 years (ii) non-working adults or spouses (iii) the elderly aged above 75 years and (iv) people who are excluded due to pre-existing illnesses or congenital anomalies; and (c) what is being done to increase the proportion of insured Singaporeans.

Source: Parliament Order Paper

Parliamentary question asked on 17 January 2012:

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Health (a) whether means testing for patients at community hospitals and other step-down care facilities employs a different set of criteria from means testing for acute care hospitals; and (b) if so, what are these differences.

Mr Gan Kim Yong : Means-testing is used to determine a patient’s eligibility for government subsidies, taking into account his ability to pay. It helps the Government to be more targeted in channelling government subsidies to those in greater need.
The intermediate and long term care (ILTC) sector which includes community hospitals and nursing homes uses per capita family income as the criteria for means-testing. This is an equitable basis as it takes into account the patient’s family circumstances. For example, a sole breadwinner supporting his wife and children would require more financial support than a bachelor earning the same level of income and who has no dependants. On the other hand, an elderly patient who has no family support is less able to pay for his bills than another who is receiving financial support from his children.

In the acute hospitals, we have adopted a simpler means test based on a patient’s individual income from work, and does not take into account the rest of the family members. If the patient is economically non-active, the means-test will be based on the annual value of his residential property. This is more practical and easier to administer given the much higher patient volumes and short stays at acute hospitals. However, hospitals do have the flexibility to assess the patient based on the per capita family income approach similar to that used in ILTC sector, if specific patients feel that the simplified approach based on individual income is disadvantageous to them.

Parliamentary Question asked on 17 January 2012:

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Transport (a) what measures has the Government put in place to ensure a sufficient level of competition among taxi operators; (b) whether these measures are adequate; and (c) whether further measures to ensure greater competition for the benefit of consumers will be implemented in the near future.

… Continue reading “Deregulation, market competition and taxi fares”

My Parliamentary question answered on 16 January 2012:

Note: I had filed this question a week before the Minister’s statement to Parliament on 9 January 2012.

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: To ask the Minister for Transport whether the Committee of Inquiry on the MRT service disruptions will be investigating the regulatory structure and processes that are currently in place to ensure that MRT operators maintain high maintenance and safety standards; and (b) whether the Committee will be tasked to look into not just the recent major disruptions on the North-South line but also service disruptions on all MRT lines in the last two years.

Mr Lui Tuck Yew:

I had explained the Committee of Inquiry’s (COI) Terms of Reference at length in my statement to this House last week. To reiterate, the COI will establish the technical, systemic and other causes that may have contributed to the disruptions, and make recommendations to minimize a recurrence of the incidents of 15 and 17 December based on their findings. This would include assessing whether the current regulatory regime is sufficiently robust.

As I had also mentioned, convening a Committee of Inquiry is a serious matter. The extent and severity of the service disruptions on 15 and 17 December, and the potential safety risks that they posed are what warrant an independent inquiry into the causes of the disruptions. Nonetheless, if there are previous incidents or events that may be relevant or had contributed to the events of 15 and 17 December, the COI has both the latitude and the obligation to consider them. It is not intended that the COI look at the smaller unrelated events as that would only dilute its focus.

I hope that this sufficiently addresses the Member’s concerns.

This is the speech I delivered in Parliament today during the debate on Ministerial salaries. Click here to watch the video.

Mr Speaker,

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to take part in this debate.

Like my honourable colleague, Mr Chen Show Mao, I believe that the White Paper’s approach of benchmarking Ministerial salaries to the top income earners is fundamentally flawed.

The proposed benchmark pegs entry-level Ministers’ salary to three-fifths of the median income of the 1,000 highest earning Singaporeans. This group represents the top 0.06% of Singaporean income earners. It presents no significant shift from the previous 2/3 M48 formula, which pegged Ministers’ salary to two-thirds of the median among a small group of 48 professionals, comprising top bankers, lawyers, MNC chiefs and others.

This new formula still benchmarks Ministers’ salary against the richest of the rich, reflecting an approach that appears to be based on a number of questionable assumptions:

Firstly, it assumes that Ministerial talents should be first looked for among the highest income earners. The Paper states that the benchmark “reflect(s) the calibre of the people which Singapore needs for good government”.

Secondly, it expects most Ministers will be parachuted in from the top echelons of the private sector, rather than going through the paces of first being elected as MPs, gaining experience on the ground, before being promoted to junior ministers and finally full Ministers.

Thirdly, it assumes that potential Ministers are often reluctant politicians, who consider entering politics to be a sacrifice and a burden, rather than a privilege to serve the nation, and they therefore need to be coaxed with monetary incentives before stepping forward.

Continue reading “Speech in Parliament on Ministerial salaries debate”

I have filed one question for the Health Minister and two for the Transport Minister for the Parliamentary sitting on Monday 16 January 2012.

1. To ask the Minister for Health (a) whether means testing for patients at community hospitals and other step-down care facilities employs a different set of criteria from means testing for acute care hospitals; and (b) if so, what are these differences.

2. To ask the Minister for Transport (a) what measures has the Government put in place to ensure a sufficient level of competition among taxi operators; (b) whether these measures are adequate; and (c) whether further measures to ensure greater competition for the benefit of consumers will be implemented in the near future.

3. To ask the Minister for Transport whether the Committee of Inquiry on the MRT service disruptions will be investigating the regulatory structure and processes that are currently in place to ensure that MRT operators maintain high maintenance and safety standards; and (b) whether the Committee will be tasked to look into not just the recent major disruptions on the North-South line but also service disruptions on all MRT lines in the last two years.

Source: Parliament Order Paper

I will also be making a speech during the debate on the Ministerial Salaries during the sittings between 16 and 18 January. Look out for the video on the CNA website.

I asked this question in Parliament on 9 January 2012.

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether LTA has to date exercised its power to impose conditions relating to the appointment, re-appointment or removal of MRT operators’ CEO, chairman or any of its directors; and (b) what criteria does the LTA use to decide when to impose such conditions.

Mr Lui Tuck Yew (part of Ministerial Statement):

19. Mr Gerald Giam has asked if LTA has to date exercised its power to impose conditions relating to the appointment, re-appointment or removal of MRT operators’ CEO, chairman or any of its directors, and about the criteria that LTA uses to decide when to impose such conditions. Decisions relating to the changes of these key appointments in the company are initiated by the company or (in the case of the chairman and directors) the shareholders, and cannot be unilaterally imposed by LTA. However, under LTA’s current licences, operators must seek LTA’s approval for the appointment, re-appointment or removal of any director or the Chairman of its Board of Directors. While LTA has veto powers over the appointment of the operators’ Board, these are generally intended to be used as a last resort against clearly unsuitable nominees, and to date, LTA has not found it necessary to exercise this veto power.

20. One of the questions that needs to be answered is whether the regulatory regime is sufficiently robust. Together with the COI’s more holistic findings, the Government will thoroughly review the regulatory and penalty framework and its oversight over the operators’ maintenance regimes to strengthen it where necessary.

(Source: Ministry of Transport website, 9 January 2012)

This was my question in Parliament on 9 January 2012 about the North-South Expressway, which has necessitated land acquisition, affecting many home owners:

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether other options were studied by the Ministry before it decided to build the North-South Expressway (NSE); (b) if so, what were the options and what were the reasons for building the NSE instead of pursuing these other options; and (c) whether the Government had considered the feasibility of adding a second level to the existing Central Expressway instead of building a new expressway.

Mr Lui Tuck Yew:

The North-South Expressway (NSE) is a high capacity road link to connect people in the northern regions of Singapore to the city centre. It will serve to relieve congestion along major road corridors and to better distribute traffic on our expressway network.

Many Singaporeans will benefit directly from the NSE as their travel time between the north and the city centre is expected to be reduced by up to 30%. The NSE will also create new connections currently not available on our expressway network. For example, motorists travelling on the Pan-Island Expressway (PIE) towards Changi can connect to the city centre with the planned PIE/NSE interchange. Without the NSE, congestion on the Central Expressway (CTE) and major roads along the North-South corridor, such as Thomson Road, will build up with expected residential growth in the north and employment growth in the city centre.

Continue reading “Alternatives to constructing the North-South Expressway”