budget

Boosting productivity through AI and robotics

Budget Debate 2024, 26 Feb 2024

Mr Speaker,

Fair competition

Singaporean workers aspire towards making a good living and engaging in meaningful work that uplifts not only their own families, but also their communities, their nation and the world. One inescapable reality of work is competition.

We have always had a very competitive culture in Singapore. This has served us well in many ways, from the excellent performance of our students in schools to our efforts to top the global rankings in everything from corruption perceptions to business friendliness.

However, competition also has a darker side. Singaporeans are not looking to the government to shield them from global competition at the workplace. However, we detest unfair competition, where people who do not play by the rules or follow local norms still get ahead.

For example, when Singaporean workers see colleagues getting hired and promoted not on the basis of their ability and hard work, but because their manager prefers working with people who share his cultural background, this creates a profound dissonance in them. Why? Because Singaporeans have been brought up to believe in meritocracy as a guiding principle in our society.

We want a Singapore which rewards workers and professionals based on their competence and hard work, not connections or tribal loyalties.

Nevertheless, while we strive to shape the Singapore that we desire, we are but a small drop in a vast ocean. We have to teach our children and students to deal with the world as it is, not how they want it to be. They must be taught at home and in schools to speak up when they have something to contribute, and not keep silent in the background. They must be encouraged to ask for what is due to them, and not simply accept what others decide for them without question. And they must be willing to network with a wide spectrum of people from different cultures and nationalities, and understand what motivates them.

Singapore is often viewed as a nation of excellence. In local parlance, we do things “swee swee”. Give a Singaporean a task, and when they say they’ve done it, we can trust that it’s been done well. We must never let this culture of excellence slip. It is our advantage in an increasingly competitive world.

Boosting productivity

Artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics have both burst into mainstream consciousness in recent years, with the launch of generative AI and self-driving cars. These technologies could provide a path to boosting Singapore’s productivity by enhancing the speed, accuracy and efficiency of various tasks and processes.

There are many studies of AI’s measurable impact on productivity. For example, a joint-study by BCG and Harvard found that consultants using GPT-4 completed 12% more business tasks, 25% more quickly, with 40% higher quality, than a control group without AI access.

These are amazing opportunities for Singapore to take advantage of. The government can spur a broader uptake of AI and robotics not only for our scientists and businesses, but also for general purpose use by ordinary citizens.

In November 2023, I asked about whether the government planned to develop indigenous capabilities in creating and deploying AI foundation models, including establishing a National Foundation Model Research Institute. In February 2024, I proposed the creation of a national AI healthcare foundation model, which can be used to predict and intervene in a broad spectrum of diseases. I would like to repeat these calls here.

These are not just national initiatives, but possible precursors to greater regional scientific co-operation. Singapore needs the right institutions and opportunities, in order to attract and retain the best minds, including talented Singaporean scientists and entrepreneurs.

I am under no illusions about the potential of these new technologies to cause job losses. This is why in January 2024, I asked the government for its plans to proactively retrain workers who are at most risk of displacement from AI. We need interventions to steel our citizens against AI-driven job redundancy. It is better for us to be the architects of our own disruption, than to allow technology to change us for the worse.

It is tempting to pull out the old playbook of pouring money into training programmes and encouraging workers to attend courses. However, this approach may not succeed in upskilling an entire workforce in disruptive new technologies.

We must also embrace tacit learning through the hands-on use of AI and robotics. Tacit learning is learning by doing.

Using AI tools or robots needs to be made as easy and as commonplace as googling for answers on a web browser or operating a TV remote control. Robots should be deployed more widely in our environment so that the public gets used to seeing and using them every day. Giving every Singaporean hands-on practice with AI and robotics will better ensure that the gains from these technologies go to everyone — manual workers and knowledge workers, civil servants and entrepreneurs, MNCs and SMEs.

SkillsFuture must also support tacit learning. In February 2024 in my adjournment motion on global AI leadership, I called for the subscriptions to cutting-edge AI tools to be subsidised by SkillsFuture Credits. AI tools make workers more productive, and we should give our people more opportunities to use them.

We must strive for the whole breadth of Singapore society to have more contact with the best AI models and robots. Only by trying things out as a first mover, and being willing to accept and learn from failure, can we gain and retain the thousand points of knowledge that no instructor can teach.

New world order

In his Budget Statement, Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong rightly pointed out that we are now in an era of armed conflict, confrontation and terrorism, with major powers prioritising national security over international cooperation, and that there is a diminished willingness to tackle global issues.

These are stark realities. We must work within the realities of this new world order, as the old order is probably not coming back anytime soon.

DPM Wong said that we will pursue better jobs and better growth. He made a commitment to improve wages across professions. In particular, he said that the wages and career prospects of ITE graduates should not be too far behind polytechnic and university graduates.

I fully support this. I hope the wages of skilled tradespersons will come much closer to par with knowledge workers, because of the value they bring to our economy and our society. I will elaborate further on this during the Committee of Supply debate on MOM’s budget.

The introduction of the SkillsFuture Level Up Programme, which injects another $4,000 into Singaporeans’ SkillsFuture Credit, is welcome. DPM Wong said it is to be used for selected training programmes with “better employability outcomes”, including part-time and full time diplomas and undergraduate programmes. In addition, workers 40 years old and above will have the opportunity to pursue another full time diploma at subsidised rates.

How did the government arrive at the conclusion that these diploma and degree programmes have better employability outcomes? Is there empirical evidence to support it? And if there is, are the better outcomes due to the greater skills that these graduates have acquired or because local employers continue to emphasise paper qualifications over skills and experience?

In fact, it has been recognised that one of the most effective ways to pick up employable skills is through on-the-job training (OJT) and apprenticeships. As such, I would suggest that the government subsidise OJT and apprenticeship programmes to the same tune as diploma and degree programmes.

In his Budget Statement, DPM Wong mentioned briefly about how the government will do more to support those whose jobs are made redundant through a temporary financial support scheme for the unemployed. He said the government will be working out the details later this year. Sir, this scheme was announced almost one year ago, at the National Day Rally in August last year. How much longer will it take to flesh out? More importantly, how fiscally sustainable will this scheme be?

Will it include an insurance component, like what the Workers’ Party has proposed through its Redundancy Insurance Scheme, to ensure that premium contributions from employers and employees during times of plenty can be drawn down during economic downturns when retrenchment levels are higher?

Cost burdens for disability community

Mr Speaker, social inclusion must be at the heart of all our economic policies. I am glad to note that the maximum monthly fees at Special Education (SPED) schools will be lowered to $90, with lower fee caps at all centres.

However, Singapore should move towards equalising the fees for SPED schools and mainstream schools. While I am aware that the cost for providing education at both types of schools is different, the school fees should be the same. So if mainstream primary school fees are only $13 a month, then SPED school fees should also be $13 a month, not $120, which is the current average. Even lowering it to $90, while commendable, is still not equitable. This is especially so considering the higher costs that parents of special needs children incur in many other areas besides education. The additional costs of SPED schools should be socialised in the interest of creating a more inclusive and equitable society.

School bus fares remain another significant concern for the disability community. As of 1 January 2024, the Ministry of Education (MOE) has increased the price cap of school bus fares for school bus operators at mainstream schools by up to 13%. But SPED school students face a higher increase in their school bus fares due to the smaller pool of bus operators who are able to meet their more complex needs.

I am aware and appreciate that there are various school bus subsidy assistance schemes like the MOE Financial Assistance Scheme (FAS) and the Enabling Transport Subsidy (ETS).

While I understand the need to keep the school bus operators sustainable, the adverse impact of the cost of living crisis has made the cost of school bus transport an added burden for many parents of students with disabilities. Many rely heavily on school bus transport to commute to and from home, school and social service agencies to attend programmes such as the Early Intervention Programme for Infants and Children (EIPIC), Day Activity Centres, Sheltered Workshops* and Special Student Care Centres. Very often there are additional costs involved. EIPIC, for example, is a half-day programme, so the students need to also be ferried from their school to the programme, creating a double whammy in transport costs.

I would therefore like to call on the government to increase the monthly household income limit for both the FAS and ETS, especially for households with special needs members. In addition, more subsidies can be provided to match the inflation of school bus fares. This would ensure that more families can access and benefit from these subsidies to cover the ever-rising cost of living.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, as we chart our course through the rapidly changing global and technological terrain, our policies must embody a steadfast dedication to fairness, meritocracy and innovation. By nurturing an ecosystem that champions fair competition, leverages the transformative power of AI and robotics, and places the welfare and progress of every Singaporean at its heart, we can secure a robust and flourishing future. Let’s remain committed to building a society where access to opportunities, a culture of excellence and the value of each individual’s contributions shape the Singaporean journey for generations to come.

Sir, I support the Motion.

* DACs and SW are only 18+.

Budget 2023: Business rents, Jobs for Singaporeans, Resale flat prices

As we step out of the shadow of the Covid-19 pandemic, Singapore continues to face numerous challenges as we navigate the uncertainties ahead of us. In my response to the Budget Statement, I would like to discuss the challenges faced by three stakeholders in our society: businesses, workers and families.

Businesses: Costs and rent

The Singapore Business Federation’s latest National Business Survey highlighted that the key challenges faced by businesses in Singapore were an increase in overall business costs, and the availability and retention of manpower. The main cost pressures include raw material costs, energy costs, manpower costs and rental costs. Singapore is generally a price taker on raw materials and energy. Higher manpower costs, while challenging to businesses, can improve the welfare of our workers by increasing their income, as long as the wage increases do not set off a sustained wage-price spiral.

High rental costs in Singapore, however, benefit a narrower segment of society, namely landlords and property owners, and come at the expense of tenants, especially SMEs, who may struggle to afford the rent. They can also affect the competitiveness of these businesses, which have to allocate more resources to rental expenses and less to other more productive aspects of their operations.

The Government needs to look for ways to moderate industrial and commercial rental costs for SMEs. This will benefit a broader base of businesses which play a critical part in growing our economy and providing good jobs for our people. To achieve this, JTC could expand its market share for industrial space that offers more low-rent options to SMEs, and HDB also could offer lower rent commercial spaces allocated by ballot, to stimulate micro-businesses and entrepreneurship in the heartlands.

Attracting Singaporeans to promising industries

Next, I would like to discuss the challenges faced by workers in Singapore, particularly those in industries that heavily rely on foreign workers. In recent years, the Government has implemented various work pass restrictions to manage the inflow of foreign workers and professionals. Additionally, the Government has allocated funding to help local companies become more productive and manpower-lean.

However, there needs to be more emphasis on attracting Singaporeans to work in industries that are currently over-dependent on foreign workers, such as the marine, manufacturing and construction industries.

The Government has introduced several programmes, such as career conversion and professional conversion initiatives, to equip those who have decided to switch to these industries. However, there has been less success in urging our local workers to switch to these industries in the first place. While the Government has been working to raise awareness of the job opportunities and career prospects in these sectors, more needs to be done to address the perception that these industries are less attractive or prestigious than other sectors like finance, technology, and law.

It is commonly believed that Singaporeans are not interested in working in these industries due to the long hours, shift work, low pay, and difficult working conditions. However, the popularity of platform food delivery jobs indicates that many Singaporeans are willing to work in physically demanding jobs. Food delivery riders work long hours, with many cycling around town for over 12 hours a day. The job can be dangerous, with around one-third of riders having been in accidents that required medical attention. And the median income is less than $2,000, according to a paper by researchers at the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS).

The IPS paper also found that of the platform delivery workers who intended to leave the food delivery industry for other industries, they were looking for higher salaries, longer-term career pathways and opportunities to learn new skills in their next jobs. A significant number were seeking flexible work hours, although less than a third were looking for jobs in air-conditioned offices.

If the industries that are currently lacking in local workers can provide these benefits, they will be able to attract more locals to join them. Some progress has been made in attracting more locals to work as nurses and early childhood educators. The same effort should be undertaken to upgrade other industries that are facing local worker shortages.

However, even after these human resource matters are resolved, these industries may still face difficulties attracting job applications from Singaporeans due to a lack of awareness of jobs in those industries.

To address this, there is a need to increase awareness of these industries among students early on in their school life. Schools can work with industry representatives to introduce these career opportunities to students as early as lower secondary school. By doing so, students and their parents will be more aware of the career prospects in these industries and be better equipped to select suitable subject combinations in Secondary 3 and eventually make informed career choices when they are graduating from school.

Our success in reducing dependence on foreign workers and professionals heavily relies on being able to raise local talent in these occupations. By providing better pay, training and career pathways, and better work-life balance, and by increasing awareness of these industries among young people, we can attract more locals to work in these industries and reduce our dependence on foreign workers.

Families: Impact of the increased CPF Housing Grant

CPF Housing Grants and Resale HDB Flats — Photo by Jiachen Lin on Unsplash

Finally, I’d like to discuss the increased CPF Housing Grant and its effect on homebuyers. The Government has announced that it will raise the CPF Housing Grant for first-time homebuyer families purchasing resale HDB flats by $30,000 for those buying 2-, 3- and 4-room resale flats, and by $10,000 for those buying 5-room or larger resale flats. First-timer singles will get half the increase given to married couples.

This increase in the CPF Housing Grant will be welcomed by many first-time homebuyers, especially those who are looking to get a flat in a mature estate near their parents’ home, but have been unsuccessful in balloting for a BTO flat in a mature estate.

However, some property analysts have cautioned that the increased grant amount may also raise demand and prices of resale flats. The Hon. Member Hazel Poa also raised this concern in her speech. This could potentially offset any progress made towards enhancing the affordability of resale flats.

As such, it’s important to understand the Government’s projections on how much this increase in the CPF Housing Grant will elevate resale HDB flat prices over the next two years.

Has the Government projected any resale price increases as a result of the CPF Housing Grant increase, by modelling the large amount of housing transaction data available to HDB?

Additionally, since only first-timers will benefit from the increase in the CPF Housing Grant, non-first-timers may end up having to pay even more for resale flats.

I hope the Government can provide more information on its projections to help Members assess the net effect of the CPF Housing Grant increase.

More fundamentally, is increasing housing grants going to continue to be the Government’s main approach to making resale flats affordable?

Has the Government considered the alternative proposals which I shared during the debate on the housing motions earlier this month to moderate resale flat prices?

These include, one, providing more help to “empty nesters” who are prepared to sell their larger flats to obtain 2-room flexi flats and Community Care Apartments; two, requiring future buyers of private property to sell their HDB flats; and three, incentivising those who currently own both a private property and an HDB flat to sell their flat by rebating the Additional Buyer Stamp Duty they paid on their private property.

These proposals may provide longer-term solutions to moderating the price of HDB resale flats.

Conclusion

As we contemplate the future, it’s natural that Singaporeans are apprehensive, particularly for their children. The soaring property prices have made it increasingly challenging for families to purchase a new home. The Deputy Prime Minister has cautioned that we may continue to confront a period of high inflation, which is likely to persist throughout the first half of this year.

In these trying times, it’s imperative for us to keep our minds open to workable solutions — regardless of where they might emerge from — so that we can help our fellow Singaporeans in need, and progress and prosper together as a nation.

This was my speech in Parliament during the debate on the Budget Statement on 23 Feb 2023.

Cover photo by photosforyou on Pixabay

Budget 2014 Speech

It is important to emphasise that the Pioneer Generation Package is not a “senior citizen’s package” even though all of our pioneers are now elderly. It should not be viewed as the fulfilment of the Government’s obligations to the elderly. There is still much that needs to be done for the elderly and future elderly in Singapore, especially people with disabilities, homemakers and low income workers who will have insufficient savings when they reach retirement age.

3 March 2014

Madam Speaker,

The Workers’ Party supports the Government’s initiatives to honour the pioneer generation of Singaporeans.

In August 2011, we released a National Day statement entitled, “Honouring our First Generation”. In our statement, we said:

“(T)he Workers’ Party wishes to pay a special tribute to the first generation of Singaporeans who struggled to build our nation during the early decades of independence. They are now our parents and grandparents, uncles and aunts; the elderly cleaners; the retired civil servants and teachers; the first National Servicemen.”

“This generation embodies the true Singapore spirit—the determination to work hard, overcome the odds and carve out a better life for their children. They serve as an shining example for many future generations to follow.”

“History may only remember the kings and not the soldiers, but let us never forget the contributions of the first generation of Singaporeans. More than anyone else, they deserve to enjoy the fruits of our nation’s success.”

“The men and women in our Pioneer Generation have borne society’s burdens … They gave the best years of their lives to our nation. Our nation must now give its best in return to them.”

I think this aptly describes our respect for and gratitude to the pioneer generation of Singaporeans.

PIONEER GENERATION PACKAGE

Madam, it is important that we honour our pioneers and do so before it is too late. Last year, over 13,000 people aged 65 and over departed from us, according to the Singapore Demographic Bulletin. Last week, I met a resident who said that his 80-plus year old neighbour was very happy to learn about the Pioneer Generation Package, but sadly he passed away suddenly the next week before enjoying any of the benefits.

The subsidies for specialist outpatient clinics and polyclinic services, as well as disability assistance, will be rolled out in September 2014, and all pioneers who do not already qualify can join the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) only in January 2015. The MediShield Life subsidies will be applied at the end of 2015.

The Government should expedite the roll-out of the Pioneer Generation Package benefits. For example, since CHAS is already in place, can we allow all Pioneer Generation members to immediately benefit? Although MediShield Life will only be rolled out in end-2015, the Government should start applying MediShield premium subsidies for the Pioneer Generation from this year. The elderly above age 65 are already shouldering a heavy premium burden of between $540 and $1,190 per year for just MediShield Basic.

Alternatively, the Government could consider doubling the planned additional Medisave Top-ups for Pioneer Generation members until the Pioneer Generation Package is fully rolled out, so that pioneers can start to enjoy the benefits of this package sooner. This would provide 65-year olds an additional $400 in Medisave Top-ups this year and next year, instead of $200 in each year.

The DPM said that there would be panel to assess appeals from those who marginally missed out on the precise criteria. Could the DPM share what are the guidelines the panel will be given to make their assessments? I hope the panel will err on the side of generosity, as many of those who just missed out have made significant contributions on par with pioneers. In particular, I am of the view that all those who served in the first few batches – and not just the first batch – of National Service (NS) should qualify for this package because they played an important role at a critical juncture in our nationhood.

Madam, I would now like to touch on a few other aspects of Budget 2014.

*****

GST

First on GST (goods and services tax). For the past six years, GST has been the second-largest contributor to government revenue, after corporate income tax. In FY2013, its contribution of $9.52 billion exceeded that of personal income tax by almost $1.9 billion. In FY2014, GST’s proportion of revenue is expected to increase to 17%, up from 16.7% last year.

It is widely recognised, even by this Government, that GST is a regressive tax, because the poor fork out a higher proportion of their income to pay GST than the rich do. The permanent GST Voucher scheme is meant to correct this regressivity.

However, GST Vouchers fully offset the GST expenses for only retiree-led households and the very low income. For other lower-income households, on average the GST Vouchers offset only about half of the GST they pay each year. Therefore, many lower income earners are still net contributors to GST.

I note that Budget 2014 provides an additional, one-off GST Voucher in the form of cash for seniors and a U-Save Special Payment. However, these are only for this year, and they still do not fully offset the GST expenses for all lower income households.

Can the GST Voucher scheme be enhanced so that it fully offsets the GST expenses of all lower income households, and offsets a greater proportion of GST expenses for middle income households?

This will better ensure that the GST Voucher scheme fully corrects the regressive nature of GST and makes it more progressive.

PRODUCTIVITY-ENHANCEMENT SCHEMES

Next, on productivity enhancement schemes and their outcomes. Before I continue, I wish to declare that I work in the IT industry and in the SME sector.

I agree with the Government’s intent to raise productivity in our companies, increase technology adoption and reduce reliance on manpower.

In his 2010 budget statement, the Finance Minister said that the “key goal” of the Government was to grow productivity by 2 to 3% per year, or 30% cumulatively, over the next 10 years to 2020. He said this will allow Singapore to maintain an economic growth rate of 3-5% a year, even with slower growth in our work force. The DPM reiterated in this year’s budget statement that raising productivity is “at the centre” of the Government’s economic agenda.

How have we progressed so far in achieving this key national goal? In 2011, labour productivity growth was 2% over the year before. In 2012, it dropped by 2%. Last year, it was flat – there was no overall growth from the year before.

The DPM acknowledged that while productivity has increased by 11% since economic restructuring began four years ago, this was entirely due to the strong cyclical recovery in 2010, with little improvement since. At this rate, is the Government going to be able to meet the targeted 30% cumulative productivity growth by 2020?

In the last four years, hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars have been transferred to businesses through various grants and tax credits for productivity-enhancing schemes. The schemes introduced in this year’s Budget are mostly enhancements or extensions of existing schemes. Given the disappointing overall productivity growth for the past 3 years, I think we need to examine these schemes to see what adjustments need to be made to produce more positive outcomes.

ICT FOR PRODUCTIVITY AND GROWTH

Budget 2014 will include a major effort to scale up the use of ICT (infocomm technologies) by SMEs. The DPM said the Government will give a stronger push to the piloting and scaling-up of ICT solutions that can help to transform whole sectors, through the ICT for Productivity and Growth (IPG) programme.

Under one of the initiatives in the IPG programme, the IDA (Infocomm Development Authority) will pre-qualify eligible vendors and their solutions. SMEs need not apply to IDA for the subsidy; they can approach the pre-qualified vendors, and IDA will reimburse the vendors directly. These apply only to sectoral solutions currently supported under IDA’s iSPRINT programme.

How will the Government ensure that IDA uses a fair and objective method, and that its officers have sufficient industry experience and competencies to select the right vendors and solutions? This is critical because SMEs will be limited to these vendors and solutions – for better or for worse – if they want to tap on the IPG fund. In this respect, wouldn’t it be more appropriate to allow SMEs to choose the best vendor and solution that meets their unique business needs, rather than restrict them to a pre-qualified list from the government?

Under the current iSprint scheme, SMEs need to wait for several months for grant approval from IDA, and I am told that IDA asks SMEs many questions before approving the grant. I presume this is to ensure that SMEs and vendors do not abuse the grants. There is also a lengthy business proposal that must be submitted to justify the funding. After evaluation, IDA may decide that the “qualifying costs” for the grant will be lower than the actual implementation cost of the system, hence lowering the overall grant disbursed.

As a result, many SMEs may find that it is not worth the time and effort to apply for such funding, and this will result in a lower adoption of productivity-enhancing technology in SMEs. Only 500 SMEs have benefited from funding for sector-specific proven solutions so far under the iSprint scheme, out of over 154,000 SMEs in Singapore. This stands in great contrast to the Productivity and Innovation Credit (PIC) scheme, which does not require such a lengthy and onerous application process to obtain funding. Is it no wonder that the PIC has proven to be much more popular with SMEs? Over 80,400s SMEs tapped on the PIC scheme in the last two years.

I hope agencies can adopt a more streamlined approach when evaluating and approving technology grants for productivity enhancement. This will be a key success factor for IDA if it is to reach its target of another 10,000 SMEs over the next three years.

If the concern is that some SMEs and IT vendors will abuse the grants, then audits could be conducted after project implementation and penalties could be put in place to deter such behaviour, rather than to weigh down all SMEs because of the actions of a few black sheep.

*****

Madam Speaker, I have more to say on other aspects of Budget 2014, including defence expenditure, the prudent use of NSmen resources, MediShield Life, healthcare financing, and helping more Singaporeans to enter work force. I will elaborate further on these during the COS (Committee of Supply) debate later this week and next week.

Tackling income inequality should be Govt’s top priority

Our national productivity drive needs to start from the top. We currently have three very senior ministers advising the PM, three ministers in the Prime Minister’s Office—two of them without any portfolio—nine ministers of state and six parliamentary secretaries, most of whom are drawing multi-million dollar salaries. Does the prime minister of such a small country really need so many advisers and ministers assisting him?

This is my response to the Finance Minister’s Budget 2010 speech.

—————–

Income inequality is one of the biggest challenges our nation faces. The median household income in 2009 was only 71 per cent of the average income, down from 74 per cent in 1999 ^{[see note 1]}. This means that the few very high income earners are pulling up the average, while the large number of lower income earners are pulling down the median. The share of wages in GDP has declined from 47 per cent in 2001 to 41 per cent in 2006 ^{[see note 2]}. The Gini coefficient–a measure of income inequality–rose from 0.436 in 1990 to 0.478 in 2009, indicating a widening income gap.

Increasing income inequality has been shown to coincide with higher divorce rates ^{[see note 3]}and crime rates ^{[see note 4]}, particularly property crime. Singapore’s wealthy elites can no longer afford to simply turn a blind eye to the plight of the poor, thinking it will not affect them–because it will, eventually.

Reducing income inequality should be the top priority of the government. This government needs to pay more than just lip service to the goal of ensuring that all Singaporeans benefit from economic growth.

Continue reading “Tackling income inequality should be Govt’s top priority”

Sylvia Lim asks for transparency in electoral boundaries report

The government must know that Singaporeans are skeptical about the re-drawing of electoral boundaries. It would be an improvement to have advanced notice and some transparency in this process.

This is a “cut” (a short Parliamentary speech) by Workers’ Party chairman Sylvia Lim during the Committee of Supplies debate in Parliament yesterday on the budget allocation for the Prime Minister’s Office.

—–

PMO – Electoral Boundaries Review Committee Report

In countries like the UK, electoral boundary revisions are carried out by an independent Boundary Commission under the charge of a High Court Judge. Proposed boundary changes are also open to public scrutiny and objection. In Singapore, however, the boundary revisions are done by a committee chaired by the Cabinet Secretary, reporting to the PM. Sir, despite my belief that the PMO should not be in charge of the boundary review, the focus of my cut is how the current process may be improved for transparency and accountability.

I would like to touch on two points: first, the timing of the release of the report; second, the contents of the report.

Continue reading “Sylvia Lim asks for transparency in electoral boundaries report”

My thoughts on early elections

The Sage of Singapore has spoken:

He (MM Lee) said there would be ‘no purpose’ in holding an election in Singapore before 2011, but the timing of a poll will depend on the health of the global economy.

Actually I agree with him.

Amidst all the speculation in the media and blogosphere that elections are coming, I can’t fathom why the PAP government would want to call early elections.

I think public opinion and confidence in the government is currently at an all time low. While “low” is not low compared to countries like Japan, where the prime minister’s approval ratings are in the teens, it is still too low to win as convincingly as the last time round.

Let’s face it: Whether elections are held tomorrow, next year or in January 2012, the PAP is going to win an outright majority. The question is by how much and whether they will lose any more seats in the next election.

But common wisdom states that the best time (for the PAP) to hold an election is at the start of a recession, or towards the tail end of one. MM Lee, and even his son the PM, has said that 2009 could see an 8% contraction in the economy. This would be an appalling performance, and more so if our economy contracts more than our neighbours and competitors.

The 2009 Budget contains billions of benefits for companies, but just peanuts for Singaporeans. That’s not a recipe for electoral success, since companies don’t vote.

Of course the PAP is free to act on its hubris and call for elections nonetheless. We’ll see what dent the opposition can make on the ballot box.

Greater transparency needed for Presidential decisions

On Tuesday, Singaporeans witnessed for the first time a sitting President publicly justifying a decision he made.

President S R Nathan explained to Singaporeans why he consented to the Government’s $4.9 billion draw on the national reserves — another first in the history of this country. In the process he revealed that it took him not 11 days, but just one day to approve the draw from the time he received the proposal in writing from the Government.

The President said that he “responded after clinically examining the proposal”. Yet TODAY reported that he had already made up his mind when he received the proposal from the Finance Minister on Jan 20th — just two days before the Budget was presented in Parliament. Given that it takes much longer than two days to write a 60-page Budget speech with six annexes, let alone draft detailed policies on the use of the drawn reserves, it is not unreasonable to conclude that the decision was a done deal long before the proposal was submitted to the President — perhaps even before the Prime Minister “informally sounded him out” nine days before that.

When asked about his views on the $4 billion-plus Jobs Credit Scheme and the $5 billion-plus Special Risk-sharing Initiative, the President said that he was “not here to judge whether these schemes would ultimately work”. I am curious to find out who then is in a better position to judge, and prevent a rogue government from stealing cookies from the cookie jar?

Local dailies reported his explanations in depth, and also explained the functions of the Council of Presidential Advisors (CPA) and their responsibilities in this decision-making process. Many Singaporeans might not have been aware that the President is required to consult the CPA when making such decisions.

I think it is commendable that the President decided to explain his rationale publicly, even though he is not obliged by law to do so. Having said that, I feel there is room for our laws to be tweaked to make such transparency de jure.

Firstly, the President should be required by law to make public his reasons for approving any draw on the reserves. This should be done within one week of making the decision, and before any of the money is actually withdrawn and used.

Secondly, the CPA should also make public its recommendations to the President and their reasons for such. The individual votes of each of the council members should be transparent to Singaporeans as well, since the council makes its decisions on majority vote.

This would serve as a useful safeguard of the two-key system, particularly if the President decides to go against the advice of the CPA — which is his prerogative. The public can then decide which party it agrees with, and judge the Elected President and the Government accordingly.

Currently, according to Article 37K of the Constitution, for Supply Bills, the CPA is required to send a copy of its advice or recommendation made to the President to two individuals — the Prime Minister and the Speaker, who will present it to Parliament. I am not sure if this covers requests to draw down the reserves.

I will reserve judgment on the President’s decision until I see the effect (or non-effect) of the Jobs Credit Scheme. However, I think there is still a long way to go before we can claim that this two-key system is not one where the Government unlocks, and the other automatically follows suit, as Opposition leader Low Thia Khiang charged in Parliament.

Today the government draws down $5 billion. If in future it draws down $50 billion, or $250 billion, are Singaporeans still to expect the same degree of opacity as we have now?

——-

Read also President Ong’s interview with AsiaWeek – revisited, on The Online Citizen.

Parliament debates HDB rental flats, upgrading, e-engagement and Gaza crisis

PARLIAMENT on Friday [6 Feb] debated the budgets of three ministries – Foreign Affairs, National Development, and Information, Communications and the Arts.

Ministry of National Development

Mr Low Thia Khiang (WP-Hougang) queried the Minister for National Development about the recent demolition of flats on Hougang Avenue 7. He lamented that the demolition took place just seven years after Hougang Town Council used its own funds to upgrade the lifts in those flats. (Hougang, being an opposition ward, is at end of the queue for the Lift Upgrading Programme [LUP]. The LUP expenses for PAP wards are typically borne by HDB with small co-payments by the local town council and residents.)

Mr Low remarked that much of the money was wasted because of the early demolition. He said that in future, HDB should inform the Town Council earlier of its redevelopment plans, lest such waste took place again.

In her initial response, Senior Minister of State (National Development) Grace Fu, skimmed over the issue. Mr Low later pressed Ms Fu for an answer, adding that HDB ought to reimburse Hougang Town Council for the money that went to waste.

Ms Fu reiterated the Government’s earlier commitment to complete the LUP by 2014. Given the time needed to complete the works, HDB would have to make their selections and announcements of contractors by 2011.

Regarding the flat demolitions, the Senior Minister of State explained that HDB regularly reviews its land use, and that her Ministry “can’t tell seven years in advance” of redevelopment plans – “not even seven months”.Mr Masagos Zulkifli (PAP-Tampines) and Mdm Ho Geok Choo (PAP-West Coast) asked the Minister about the shortage of subsidised HDB rental flats for needy residents.

Minister for National Development Mah Bow Tan revealed that there were currently 4,550 applicants in the queue for subsidised rental flats. He said that “two-thirds of them have reasons not to be in the queue”. He cited examples of retirees who had no income but significant savings from the sale of their flats, yet qualified for rental flats. His ministry’s solution to this housing crunch would be to further tighten the eligibility criteria for rental flats.

Mdm Cynthia Phua (PAP-Aljunied) expressed dismay at this proposal, emphasising that in times of economic downturn, the Government “should have more love” instead of tightening the rental housing criteria for old folks. Mr Mah responded, saying that the purchase of a $90,000 two-room flat is “easily affordable” to someone earning $1,200. Continue reading “Parliament debates HDB rental flats, upgrading, e-engagement and Gaza crisis”