geraldgiam.sg

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.

This is the speech I delivered in Parliament today during the debate on the Land Transport Authority of Singapore (Amendment) Bill, which gave legislative backing to the $1.1 billion Bus Services Enhancement Programme.

—–

Mr Speaker,

The Land Transport Authority (Amendment) Bill gives the Government the powers to fund and implement the Bus Services Enhancement Programme (or BSEP), which was announced during Budget 2012. The BSEP provides for the purchase of 550 new buses over the next 5 years, the hiring of over a thousand bus drivers, and the funding of the maintenance and operational costs for these buses.

I support the objective of the BSEP, which is to improve and expand the range and reliability of bus services provided to commuters. Like most commuters, I hope to see more frequent and less crowded buses, especially during peak hours.

However, I have several concerns about how the Government is going about achieving this intended outcome.

Planning and regulatory failures

The plans to increase the bus fleet to ease commuters’ woes are long overdue. Over the past 10 years, Singapore’s population has grown by over one million people, yet the pace of expansion of our transport infrastructure and operations has not kept pace.

The Government’s failure to expand our transport infrastructure and operations in tandem with the influx of foreigners has led to the current situation of long waiting times, overcrowded buses and trains, and very frustrated commuters.

The Government has belatedly realised that the quality of service (QoS) standards that the public transport operators (PTOs) signed up to previously are not sufficient to meet the needs and expectations of commuters.

Who established these service standards? Is it not the Public Transport Council (PTC), which is an agency under the Ministry of Transport?

Why did the PTC set the bar for QoS standards so low? For example, the current QoS allows for bus loading of up to 95% capacity. This is a very generous allowance, considering it includes standing passengers, not just sitting passengers. I have boarded such packed buses before, where I have found myself standing on the entrance stairs, barely able to even reach the fare card reader to tap my ezLink card.

Despite this, both bus operators failed to meet the standards in 3 of the 6 months in the most recent QoS reporting period . They were issued paltry fines in the magnitude of $100 each time they were caught not meeting these standards.

Now the Government wants to set slightly more stringent QoS standards for the PTOs. Among these, the bus loading limit will be lowered from 95% to 85%.

If the Government had set these more stringent QoS standards earlier, and rolled them out more gradually over the past 10 years in anticipation of our population boom, there would be no need to suddenly ramp it up now. Bus operators could have planned their purchases of new buses and factored them into their annual cost projections.

This might have cut into their profit margins, but taxpayers might have been spared having to fork out $1.1 billion to help the operators meet these sudden new standards.

The Government needs to answer for this planning and regulatory failure.

A related question I have on the QoS is whether it is really the case that the Government cannot increase the standards without breaching the contracts with the bus operators. I understand the PTOs operate on 10-year contracts. When were the current contracts signed and when will they be up for renewal?

According to the PTC website, the QoS standards were revised in August 2007, August 2008 and August 2009. Obviously these were done mid-way during the contract. Why are we being told now that the Government cannot revise the QoS standards without compensating the PTOs?

Scrutinising the costs

A second broad concern I have about the Bill is how is the Government is going to ensure that the subsidy does not get used, either directly or indirectly, to improve the bottom lines of our very profitable PTOs.

During the Committee of Supply debate in March, the Transport Minister said he was going to “scrutinise the PTOs’ actual costs for the purchase and running of the buses” to ensure that PTOs do not profit from this subsidy. Unfortunately, the Bill does not prescribe any mechanism for this scrutiny.

Is there any process in place to prevent the PTOs from acquiring spare parts or maintenance equipment, or conducting staff training using BSEP funds, that can be used to benefit the rest of their fleet?

How will the LTA prevent the PTOs from making the BSEP buses run only the unprofitable routes in far flung areas, while running the profitable routes using their own buses?

In short, how is the Government going to prevent BSEP funds from cross subsidising other parts of the PTOs’ operations?

Will the operations and accounting for the 550 buses be managed by the PTOs, who will then report the figures to LTA and seek funding accordingly? Will LTA take at face value all the figures the PTOs report to them? How will LTA audit the reporting?

Will the establishment of the BSEP mean that LTA will need to set up another department to manage and audit the operations of the PTOs? How many more staff is LTA going to have to hire to manage this 550 bus operation? How much is it going to cost? Is this cost going to be part of the $1.1 billion package or is it extra?

Who is going to fund the operations and replacement of the 550 buses after the 10 years are up? Is this the last such subsidy that taxpayers are going to give to PTOs? If not, are we on a path to permanent operational subsidies being given to these two listed companies?

Public transport model

During the COS debate earlier this year, the Transport Minister, in arguing his case for having profit-oriented companies run public transport operations, said that “the profit incentive drives the operators towards higher efficiency and productivity, which keeps costs as low as possible”.

This sounds ironic in light of all that has happened under in the past year.

Commuters have experienced the most serious and sustained series of MRT breakdowns in its 25-year history. It was not just the December 15 and 17 stoppages, but several other disruptions on the Circle Line, the LRT, the Northeast Line and the East-West Line that took place after that, some of which occurred as the MRT Committee of Inquiry (COI) was underway.

Now despite all the official justifications for the BSEP, there is no running away from two facts: One, that bus service standards are not up to the mark and, two, the government is stepping in to the tune of $1.1 billion to subsidise the service recovery.

What higher efficiencies has the profit-oriented model brought us? We have not seen an improvement of service quality, but a deterioration, especially over the past 5 years. We have seen fares increase but yet the government still needs to pour in billion dollar operational subsidies. We have seen trains breakdown due to underinvestment in maintenance, yet these companies are reporting hundreds of millions of dollars in profits each year. Since 2003, SMRT and SBS Transit have paid over $1 billion in dividends to their shareholders.

Public transport is an essential public good just like education, healthcare and public housing. The returns from this public good benefit more than just the commuters themselves. When commuters are able to get to work quickly, conveniently and in comfort, their companies benefit from their more productive work. By allowing them to reach home on time after work and with less frustration, they can build better relationships with their families, and perhaps even help to raise our nation’s total fertility rate.

The economy and society benefit when we have good and affordable public transport. These positive externalities do not show up in the balance sheets of the PTOs.

The BSEP seems to recognise that greater government investments are necessary to rectify the market failure in the public transport industry. With this Bill, the LTA will not just be a regulator, but will purchase the buses and fully fund their operations. Effectively the LTA, which is a government agency, is going to be the de facto owner of a fleet of 550 buses plying our roads.

However it is neither here nor there. The BSEP does not introduce any competition to spur efficiency and service improvements, yet we do not have a full public monopoly that reaps be benefits of direct control, with profits being reinvested to improve service quality. It is the worst of both worlds.

The public transport model has a great bearing on the long term outcomes of our public transport system. The focus of our bus and train operators should be on improving service quality to meet or exceed commuters’ expectations, not maximising profits for their shareholders.

Mr Deputy Speaker, as a daily commuter myself, I share the concerns of many Singaporeans about the quality, comfort and affordability our buses and trains. The public transport failures of the past few years have caused much angst among Singaporeans. It is incumbent upon this Government to set things right, both in the short term as well as in the long term.

Thank you.

I have filed PQs on education, healthcare and transport for the 9 July Parliament sitting. I couldn’t ask any more because five is the limit for each sitting day.

*26. Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: To ask the Minister for Education whether the textbooks used by primary schools are comprehensive enough to cover all the curriculum content examined during the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) without the need for supplementary content and/or materials provided by teachers or tuition centres.

*27. Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: To ask the Minister for Education how are textbooks used by primary schools selected by the Ministry for inclusion in the Approved Textbook List (ATL); whether primary schools are allowed to select textbooks outside of the ATL as their primary text for a subject; and how does the Ministry ensure that all textbooks used by primary schools are of a uniform and sufficiently high standard to meet the demands of examinations, especially the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE).

*61. Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: To ask the Minister for Health what are the top five contributory factors for healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) in our public hospitals; whether the HAI rate is linked to the high bed occupancy rates in the public hospitals; and what is the Ministry is doing to reduce HAIs in our hospitals.

22. Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: To ask the Minister for Health for each of the last three years what has been the healthcare-associated infection (HAI) rate (measured per 100 hospital admissions) 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; (b) how many patients are diagnosed with HAIs in these public hospitals; and (c) what are the annual direct medical and non-medical costs on the healthcare system and patients resulting from HAIs.

26. Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: To ask the Minister for Transport when will the report of the Committee of Inquiry (COI) looking into the December 2011 MRT train disruptions be released; whether the full transcripts of the COI proceedings will be released to the public; and whether the Government will table the report as a motion for debate in this House.

[Note: I filed this question before the 27 June filing deadline. This was before I knew the COI report was to be released this week.]

* denotes question for oral answer.

Tonight, I want to touch briefly on an issue that is close to the heart of many Singaporeans, including Hougang residents.

I want to talk about healthcare in Singapore.

Most Singaporeans, especially the elderly, worry a lot about falling ill.

They are concerned not just about the painful treatment they have to go through, but also the painful amount of money they have to spend.

They are concerned about the financial burden they may place on their children.

But when Singaporeans cry out and tell the government that healthcare is getting too expensive, the PAP boasts about their 3Ms financing framework—Medisave, MediShield and Medifund.

They say that this is how the Government helps Singaporeans pay for their healthcare expenses.

But of the three Ms, two come from your own pocket. Last M—Medifund—is only available to the very poor, who have used up all their savings and as well as their children’s savings.

Medisave is your own hard-earned savings. It is not a gift from the government.

MediShield is a health insurance scheme. You pay premiums for most of your life, and you can only draw from it if you are very sick.

The government also does not subsidise MediShield. In fact, I asked in Parliament how much MediShield has collected in premiums, and how much they have paid out in claims.

Who wants to make a guess—did they collect more or did they pay out more?

Between 2006 and 2010, MediShield collected an average of $131 million more in premiums each year than it paid out in claims. $131 million every year.

Because the PAP operates MediShield like a commercial insurance scheme, premiums shoot up as one gets older. So after you retire and have less money on hand, you find yourself paying higher and higher premiums and deductibles. Yet, this is precisely the time when you need more medical care.

I have called in Parliament on the Government to avoid increasing premiums when they expand coverage, but instead use some of the millions of dollars collected in premiums to fund the scheme. The Government has refused.

These are complex issues. It is hard to go into details during election rallies. Also, the PAP can choose not to reply to what we say during election rallies. But in Parliament, they cannot ignore us. They have to respond. They must either justify their position, or change their policy.

This is why we need you to send more Workers’ Party candidates to Parliament, so that we can fight for your rights.

If you vote Png Eng Huat into Parliament, he will work with the rest of the Workers’ Party MPs to push the Government to reduce healthcare costs for the people.

Voters of Hougang, this is our last election rally and the last day of campaigning.

There have been many distractions during this election campaign. But I urge you to focus on what is important for you and your family.

This is a by-election to decide whether you want the Workers’ Party to continue serving you in Hougang and representing you in Parliament.

The PAP has thrown up a couple of goodies to entice you. Actually the goodies this time are not as good as in previous elections. They are just promising you a couple of covered walkways, which the Workers’ Party is already planning for you.

In 2006, they promised you $100 million to upgrade your ward if you voted for them. You rejected that carrot, because for you, having a credible opposition voice in Parliament is more important than upgrading.

Voters of Hougang, the PAP has punished you for years for voting for the Workers’ Party. They used you as a whipping boy to set an example to other constituencies, to show them the consequences of voting for the opposition.

Now the PAP is asking the people of Hougang to make a fresh start and vote in a PAP candidate who will work with the government to improve your lives. They tell you that they have always been here for you.

Who has been here for you and working with you for the past 20 years to improve your lives? Not the PAP for sure. They have been working against you to make your lives miserable.

How dare they come and expect your vote now.

The PAP put Hougang at the end of the queue for HDB upgrading. Well, 20 years have passed, and we have already reached the end of the queue. The Government promised that all eligible flats, even in opposition wards, will be given lift upgrading by 2014 . That is just two years away.

On Tuesday night, Mr Png Eng Huat listed out the blocks that the town council has nominated for upgrading.

So upgrading is no longer an issue. You will get upgrading, even if you vote for the Workers’ Party.

With that out of the way, I urge you, voters of Hougang, to think about your future and your children’s future as you vote.

Hougang has been the shining light of democracy for over 20 years. Do you want to keep it that way?

The PAP asks you to vote for change. But leopard cannot change its spots. You cannot have change if you vote for the PAP.

Mr Desmond Choo cannot pressure the PAP government to change. He is not an independent voice like he claims to be. He is part of the PAP.

If you want change, vote for the Workers’ Party.

DPM Teo Chee Hean keeps implying that our candidate is not our best man for Hougang and that we are taking Hougang voters for granted.

But the PAP fielded in this by election their worst performing candidate from the 2011 General Election. Mr Desmond Choo got just 35% of the votes.

If the PAP is serious about winning Hougang, why don’t they field one of their minister-calibre candidates here? They are so full of talent, aren’t they?

There are three ministers who were forced into early retirement last year after they lost in Aljunied GRC. Why not field them instead of Mr Choo?

So tell me, who is taking Hougang voters for granted?

We have put forward Png Eng Huat because we believe he is the best man for Hougang.

He understands Hougang residents. He has a track record of serving Hougang residents since 2006. He demonstrated through his actions that he cares for you and will look after you well.

He will speak up boldly for you in Parliament.

Voters of Hougang, in two days’ time when you walk into the polling booth, send a message to the PAP that the people of Hougang continue to stand tall, and stand proud, and will never, never be intimidated by the PAP.

Vote for the Workers’ Party. Vote for Png Eng Huat!

My fellow Singaporeans and residents of Hougang, good evening!

On Sunday night during the PAP election rally, Ms Denise Phua, the MP for Moulmein-Kallang GRC, tried very hard to persuade the people of Hougang that it is possible to have a check on the government without voting any more opposition MPs into Parliament.

First, she said the PAP MPs can be an effective check on the Government. She said that some PAP MPs are ‘more opposition than the opposition’ and they express their views ‘independently’.

Then she went on to say that we don’t even need opposition MPs. She said that we can go check out the Internet to see the views of ex-Nominated MPs and bloggers like mr brown. She said that they do not have allegiance to any specific political party and have minds of their own. She said that they are the real check on the PAP.

Wow! Really? Bloggers are the real check on the PAP? I was an active political blogger several years ago. If I had heard this her speech back then, I wouldn’t have bothered going through all this trouble to join the Workers’ Party and contest in elections. I would have just stayed at home and blogged away to bring about real change to Singapore!

By her logic, we can just all go into Facebook to debate and make laws there. Why bother with Parliament?

In fact, even blogger mr brown, whom Ms Phua mentioned, was tickled. Here is what he wrote on his blog in response:

“I am honoured. Does that mean I get to vote on bills and speak in Parliament from now on?”

I think Ms Phua has a fundamental misunderstanding of the Parliamentary process.

Since there has been so much talk about “independent voices” and “checks and balances”, I would like to share with you a few things about the Parliamentary process, which they probably didn’t teach in school.

Most people know that MPs look after town councils. They conduct meet-the-people sessions every week to hear their constituents’ concerns and petition the government to help them.

An MP is also expected to play an equally important role as a legislator. What does a legislator do in Parliament?

Firstly, he or she talks. Yes, both WP and PAP MPs talk. Is anyone doing anything but talking in Parliament? That’s our job. It is the quality of the talk that matters.

I hope Ms Denise Phua and Mr Teo Chee Hean are not expecting us to do more than that. Do they expect us to throw shoes at each other and fight in front of the cameras, like they do in some other countries?

We talk. We ask Ministers questions. The Ministers reply. We debate. We make speeches to state our opinions on draft laws presented to Parliament. These are called Bills.

But after the debates are over, the real action is when we vote on the Bill. This is a central part of the Parliamentary system we are in. By voting on a Bill, we are collectively deciding on whether the Bill will become a new law.

This is where many so-called “independent voices” have to shut down. All major political parties have a party whip, who is usually one of the senior party leaders.

What does the party whip do? Firstly he makes sure that the MPs from his party are present in the Parliament chamber when the vote is taken. Then he ensures that all his MPs vote according to what the party leadership wants them to vote—this is called the “party line”.

So the PAP MPs can say they opposed the casino, and make grand speeches against it, but when it comes to a vote, they have no choice but to vote according to the party line, even if they disagree.

This is where opposition MPs differ. Workers’ Party MPs also have to vote according to our own party whip. But they do not have to vote according to the PAP party whip.

You may say, chey, then Workers’ Party MPs are also not independent. We are not independent MPs, but we are independent from the PAP. Can you imagine if we go into Parliament, just seven of us, and each of us votes a different way for a Bill? We’ll never be able to effect change like that.

So we work as a disciplined team. We discuss the issue beforehand, debate it and agree internally on what is in the best interest of Singaporeans, and then come to Parliament with a common position.

All Bills need more than 50% of the votes in Parliament to become law. For amendments to the Constitution, a two-thirds majority is needed.

With just seven MPs in Parliament, obviously we cannot affect the voting outcome. But a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. We have to start somewhere. We started in 1981 when Mr JB Jeyaretnam won the by-election in Anson. Then in 1991 when Mr Low Thia Khiang won Hougang. And most recently in 2011 when we had a breakthrough in Aljunied GRC.

We will need 29 opposition MPs in order to block Constitutional amendments that we believe are harmful to Singapore’s development. One example of this was the introduction of the GRC system in 1988, which stifled Singapore’s political development.

We are still a long way from that number, 29. However, the PAP will do everything in its power to prevent the Workers’ Party from reaching that number, or even getting close. This is because they fear the day that the cannot ram through policies unhindered in Parliament.

PAP MPs, no matter how vocal, present no threat, because they are controlled by the party whip. Nominated MPs, or Non-constituency MPs also are no threat to them, because they have limited voting rights, and they cannot vote on Constitutional amendments, the Budget and other measures.

This is why it is necessary to vote in elected opposition MPs, if you want a real check on the Government. This is why this by-election is so important to move Singapore towards a First World Parliament where you have a credible but responsible opposition to keep the Government on their toes, working for the people.

Voters of Hougang, you have been through six consecutive General Elections, and voted for the Workers’ Party for the last five. You have been the vanguard of multiparty democracy for the past 21 years.

You have earned the respect and admiration of Singaporeans all over the island.

You have put up with so many disadvantages thrown at you by the PAP. Yet your faith remained strong, because you believed in the need for an opposition voice in Parliament.

But you did not just vote for any opposition. You voted for a credible and responsible opposition party to represent you in Parliament.

It is for this reason that I think it is a huge insult for anyone to imply that Hougang voters vote blindly.

Residents of Hougang, have you been voting blindly?

No, definitely not!

Don’t just vote for anyone who has been here for a year or so and claims that he is always here for you.

Png Eng Huat has a track record of work here in Hougang. He did not just parachute into Hougang before the election last year. He has been here, helping needy residents since 2006.

He did this out of his own care and concern for needy residents, long before he was picked as a candidate for Hougang.

Yes, you should choose the best candidate who can represent you well and work best for you.

Png Eng Huat will be able to represent Hougang residents very well in Parliament. He is from the Workers’ Party and not the PAP, so he will not have any fear in speaking out and voting against PAP government policies that hurt Singaporeans and hurt Hougang residents.

For all these reasons, I say to you that Png Eng Huat is the best man for Hougang and I ask you to vote for him.

Every vote is important. Please contact your friends and family members who live in Hougang, and ask them to vote for the Workers’ Party, and vote for Png Eng Huat!

Good evening residents of Hougang and my fellow Singaporeans! Thank you for coming to the Workers’ Party rally this evening.

A year ago, I stood on this stage during the General Election campaign as a candidate for East Coast GRC. I am now here as a friend, a supporter and a fellow party member of the Workers’ Party’s candidate for Hougang, Mr Png Eng Huat.

National issues

The PAP has said that this is a local election, and national issues are less of a factor. I find this very odd. I can understand if we are in a much larger country, where what happens in one small town of 37,000 people does not really affect the entire country. But Singapore is such a small city-state.

Does the affordability of HDB flats affect Hougang residents? Are Hougang residents concerned about the stress their children have to go through in our education system? Do Hougang residents get caught in MRT train breakdowns?

These are all national issues, which affect all Singaporeans, including Hougang residents.

So why is the PAP so reluctant to talk about national issues at this by-election? Is it because they are concerned that many Singaporeans are not happy with their performance over the past one year?

Since the PAP does not want to talk about national issues at this election, we will. Let’s talk about a national issue that touches the lives of many, many Singaporeans—the state of our public transport system.

Transport

The Workers’ Party is very concerned about the quality and affordability of our bus and MRT system.

I am definitely concerned about it because, like many of you, I depend on the MRT to take me to and from work every day. Like many of you, I know what it’s like to squeeze into crowded trains and stand all the way from home to work.

I know what it is like to be stuck in a stationary train with air conditioning that is not working, and then hear the dreaded announcement, “This train will be delayed because of a track fault. We apologise for the inconvenience caused.”

Or when we are on a packed station platform, and the announcement goes, “For easier boarding, please move to a less crowded area on the platform.”

Hello? Where to find a less crowded area?

Our problems with overcrowding on buses and trains are a result of years of poor planning and lack of investment by the PAP government. They allowed in hundreds of thousands of foreigners over the past 10 years, but without first upgrading the transport infrastructure to accommodate the surge in commuters.

Thanks to the message that voters sent them in the last General Election, they “woke up their ideas” a bit, and started accelerating their purchases of trains and buses, and doing system upgrades.

Then before we started enjoying more comfortable train rides, something even worse emerged—MRT breakdowns!

In the last year, we have seen major MRT breakdowns on almost all the train lines—the North-South line, the East-West line, the Northeast line, the Circle line and even the Bukit Panjang LRT.

On April 9th, Transport Minister Lui Tuck Yew told Parliament that train disruptions are “unavoidable”. Then the very next week, we had five MRT disruptions, all of them affecting rush-hour commuters on various lines .

There are always excuses for the breakdowns: For the NSEW lines, we are told it is because of “ageing infrastructure” . For the new Circle line, we are told it is due to “teething problems”. For the not-so-new Northeast line, we are told the reason is “collapsed cables”.

One frustrated commuter wrote to the Straits Times forum earlier this month . She said, “It is odd how a system which was apparently fine and held up as a role model of First World efficiency for 25 years turned suddenly into a plague of breakdowns and disruptions. What commuters like me want to know is why it happened virtually overnight late last year?”

Before, we used to believe the SMRT slogan, “Always there for you”. This sounds very similar to the slogan of the other candidate in this by-election, doesn’t it?

Sad to say, now we cannot assume that the MRT will “always be there” to take us from point A to point B.

Because of the increasingly frequent train breakdowns, we now have to factor in possible delays when making travel plans, especially when we have important appointments like exams or job interviews.

Some of you have had to spend more money to take taxis when the trains breakdown—and taxi fares have recently increased too!

Is this something we should start to accept as normal in Singapore, because it is “unavoidable”?

During the current Committee of Inquiry into the massive December train breakdowns, we have seen LTA blaming SMRT, SMRT blaming their predecessor MRTC, and everyone else blaming the former CEO.

Frankly we are less interested in who is to blame, but more interested to ensure that Singaporeans enjoy affordable, efficient and reliable public transport.

We hold the Government ultimately responsible for the performance and reliability of the MRT system. This is after all an essential public service, and all the more so when car ownership has become more unaffordable because of sky-high COE prices.

Some of you will remember that there was a time when the Government took full responsibility for providing affordable, efficient and reliable public transport.

But subsequent generations of PAP governments have since chosen to transfer much of this responsibility to profit-oriented companies which operate in virtual monopolies,

These companies enjoy the profits derived from the fares you pay, but do not have to worry about competing for ridership. So that gives them little incentive to improve service levels or invest in maintenance, except to meet the minimum standards specified by LTA.

This market-oriented, “leave it to the private sector” approach to governing has been the hallmark of today’s PAP, whether it is in the area of public transport, healthcare, housing, or immigration policy.

The Workers’ Party has voiced your concerns, both in and out of Parliament, on the affordability, reliability and structure of our transport system.

We will continue to do so, but we need your support so that we have more MPs in Parliament to speak out for you with a louder voice.

About Png Eng Huat

Voters of Hougang, the Workers’ Party has chosen Mr Png Eng Huat to be our candidate for the Hougang by-election.

Allow me to say a few words about Png Eng Huat.

We contested together in East Coast GRC in the 2011 General Election. We worked the ground together in East Coast GRC. We did house visits together, served residents together, we planned our election campaign together, and we fought the election together.

Png Eng Huat is a humble and caring man. He always thinks of others’ welfare ahead of his own. I have no doubt that he will put the interests of Hougang residents as a top priority if you elect him as your MP.

But more than just being a good man, Png is able to analyse policies, and identify the issues that affect the lives of Singaporeans. I have seen this in the Parliamentary speeches that he has helped our MPs to write. So I have no doubt that he will have ability to clearly voice the concerns of Hougang residents in Parliament, if you elect him as your MP.

It is for this reason that I am happy to give my full endorsement to Png Eng Huat to be MP for Hougang!

Residents of Hougang, the Workers’ Party represents your hope for change in our beloved Singapore. We want to make our country a more compassionate, caring and fairer society, where everyone, whether rich or poor, has an equal opportunity to achieve success in life.

Last year, Hougang voters gave the Workers’ Party a ringing endorsement of almost 65% of the votes. Next Saturday, you have another opportunity to decide if you want the Workers’ Party to continue serving you like we have done for the past 21 years. Will you give us your support?

Every vote is precious. Please call, SMS, Facebook and ask your friends and family members who live in Hougang to vote for the Workers’ Party, and vote for Png Eng Huat as MP for Hougang.

My speech on the Energy Conservation Act on 9 April 2012 in Parliament.

———-

As an industrialised economy which consumes its fair share of energy, Singapore must play its part to reduce its carbon footprint and combat climate change. One way of doing this is to be more efficient in the use of our limited energy resources. Doing so is not only environmentally friendly, but is also economically beneficial to our companies.

The introduction of the Energy Conservation Bill (or EC) is a welcome development to signal our nation’s commitment to improving energy efficiency.

The key objectives of the Bill are to give the practice of energy management greater focus within companies that are large energy consumers, and to build industry capability in energy management. This is expected to help reduce Singapore’s energy intensity by 35% by 2030, from 2005 levels. Improving the energy performance of companies will make them more competitive in the global economy. The Bill is also expected to complement existing schemes and capability building programmes which provide support for companies that invest in improving their energy efficiency.

Energy intensity targets

I would like to ask the Minister how the Government arrived at its 35% target for reduction in energy intensity. Is this meant to be a stretch target that will need measures like the EC in order to achieve, or is this likely to be achievable with the improvements in technology expected over the next 20 years, even without an EC?

South Korea aims to cut its energy intensity by 46% between 2007 and 2030. Both our countries are highly industrialised economies, that are dependent on external sources of energy. Both are large energy consumers. Why are we not being as ambitious as the South Koreans?

Energy labelling

The Bill establishes the framework for the energy labelling of certain “registrable” goods. Energy labelling is currently targeted at only household electrical appliances. Only refrigerators, air-conditioners and clothes dryers now require energy labels to be affixed on them.

I would like to suggest that energy labelling would be a more effective tool to achieve energy conservation, if it were expanded beyond household appliances to equipment used by industry and businesses. This is because the industrial, commerce and services sectors consume 71.9% of all electricity in Singapore, while households consume only 16.7% .

Common business machines such as computers, monitors, printers and photocopiers should be gazetted as registrable goods. The energy efficiency rating of these machines could then be better integrated into the energy management systems of companies.

For example, as part of its energy efficiency improvement plan, a company could aim to increase its proportion of energy efficient computers by, say, 25% within 5 years.

Energy Efficiency Certification

The proposed regulations will require companies that consume more than 15 gigawatt hours (GWh) of energy annually to maintain an energy management system. These include keeping records and reporting on their energy use, submitting energy efficiency improvement plans to the Government, and appointing a qualified energy manager.

However, the vast majority of companies will not come under the radar of the EC, and hence will not be required to implement these energy management systems.

Could the Government consider drawing up an “Energy Efficiency Certification” scheme under which all Singapore companies can voluntarily apply to be assessed on their energy efficiency practices?

The Energy Efficiency Certification could complement the existing Energy Efficiency Improvement Assistance Scheme (or EASe) by providing an incentive for companies to follow through the energy services company’s suggestions for improvement. They will also have an added incentive to apply for EASe, as they can get rewarded if the appraisal is positive. I will explain more about possible tax incentives later.

This Energy Efficiency Certification scheme would be similar in structure to the People Developer (PD) Certification scheme, which is used to assess a company’s training management practices. Like the PD Certification, companies attaining the Energy Efficiency Certification could be given public recognition of their excellent energy management practices.

This could help create a culture of good energy management practices throughout companies in Singapore, and not just a few large energy consumers. Would the Minister agree that the more companies that implement programmes to improve their energy efficiency, the greater the cumulative benefits to the nation’s economy?

Tax incentives and tiered tariffs

Since improving energy efficiency will reduce companies’ electricity bills and hence improve their profitability, it should be in their business interest to improve energy efficiency. We need to make it even greater business sense for them to do so.

I would like to build on the Hon. Member Mr Yee Jenn Jong’s suggestion for tax incentives to be extended to companies which adopt good energy management practices.

The EC requires registrable corporations to submit their energy efficiency improvement plans and targets, but makes no requirement for them to achieve their targets.

Firstly, I would like to propose that tax rebates be extended to companies which achieve their energy efficiency improvement targets.

Secondly, if the Energy Efficiency Certification scheme, which I suggested earlier, is introduced, then companies which attain the Certification could also be given tax rebates as an incentive.

Thirdly, disincentives could be introduced for companies which use electricity inefficiently and hence consume more.
Currently, large energy consumers already enjoy several benefits which smaller consumers and households do not. These include contestability of their electricity suppliers, lower electricity tariffs and much lower off-peak period tariffs. In short, there are currently limited financial disincentives for them to reduce their electricity use.

I would like to add to a suggestion made in this House in 2008 by the Hon. Member, Ms Sylvia Lim, to introduce tiered electricity tariffs, such that those who consume more electricity pay for additional units at a higher rate. Ms Lim’s suggestion is even more relevant today, given the push for energy conservation.

Introducing tiered tariffs could result in large energy consumers paying a higher bill, and smaller consumers paying less, while remaining revenue-neutral overall.

This price mechanism will impact large energy consumers the most. It will therefore force them to innovate and improve their energy efficiency, in ways that an energy management framework alone cannot.

Conclusion

In summary Sir, I support the introduction of the energy management framework in the EC. I have proposed that this could be complemented by:

Firstly, tax incentives for companies which meet their energy efficiency improvement targets;

Secondly, disincentives for high usage of electricity, like a higher tariff for large users;

Thirdly, an Energy Efficiency Certification scheme that extends to all companies, not just the biggest energy consumers;

Fourthly, energy labelling of business equipment; and

Lastly, aligning energy labelling with companies’ energy management systems.

If these complementary measures are in place, I believe Singapore can aim for a more aggressive reduction in our energy intensity over the next 20 years.

More importantly, these measures will contribute towards creating a stronger culture of energy efficiency in Singapore and encourage companies large and small to innovate and invest in this area. This will improve these companies’ economic competitiveness, while at the same time preserving our environment for generations to come.