Parliament

Select Committees for Ministries

Committee of Supply Debate, Parliament, 7 March 2024

Parliament currently has seven Standing Select Committees, but none of these are specific to individual Ministries. This is quite unlike many other legislatures around the world. The UK’s House of Commons, for example, has select committees for every government department like defence, home affairs and transport, to name a few. Australia’s parliament has House Standing Committees on Health, Aged Care and Sport; and on Employment, Education and Training, among others.

These Select Committees examine each Ministry’s policies, spending and administration. They are empowered to inquire into and report on any matter referred to them by the House or a Minister. The Committees may call in subject matter experts to give testimony and answer questions from Members that can inform their considerations.

Select Committees also provide a platform for Members to better understand each other’s positions and that of the government. The government may share in confidence with Committees information that shapes its policy stances. The Committees can discuss legislation or major policy changes before they are officially tabled, so that there is more room to work out compromises before each party stakes its position publicly.

After a thorough scrutiny of legislation and policies, the Select Committees can make recommendations to Parliament before Bills and Motions are debated and voted on by all MPs.

This process will lead to more informed and constructive debate, and better decision-making in Parliament. The Committees thus help to contribute to more effective governance, build political consensus and strengthen national unity.

For these reasons, I call on Parliament to set up Standing Select Committees for each Ministry or group of related ministries, consisting of MPs from all political parties represented in Parliament. They should be supported by the Parliament Secretariat and meeting minutes should be made available to all Committee members. Ministries should endeavour to engage them on a regular basis.

Use of SkillsFuture Credit for online courses

During Question Time in Parliament on 3 December 2023, I asked the Senior Minister of State for Information and Communications, Mr Tan Kiat How, to clarify if SkillsFuture Credit (SFC) could be used for courses run by Udemy, a popular online course provider. He had replied to another parliamentary question that “Singaporeans who have continued interest in courses offered by Udemy can use their SkillsFuture credits for such courses and submit their claims directly to SSG (SkillsFuture Singapore) for reimbursement, upon completion of the courses.”

It was my understanding at that point that SFC funding for courses by Udemy had been discontinued for some time already and there was only one remaining online course provider, eCornell, that still received SFC support.

Mr Tan replied that he needed to check on that and clarified later that afternoon that what he had said earlier was accurate. Yet at the time that he said that, the SkillsFuture Singapore website still stated that:

Frequently asked questions

Can I use my SkillsFuture Credit to pay for Massive Open Online Courses such as Coursera or Udemy?

Nov 21, 2023 – Courses by Coursera and Udemy are no longer eligible for SkillsFuture Credit since 5 Jan 2020 and 8 Jan 2022 respectively. Currently, only the Massive Open Online Courses offered by ECornell (delivered under Genashtim Pte Ltd) are still eligible for SFC, till 9 Jul 2025.

However, the SkillsFuture website was amended later that night and it now states:

Frequently asked questions

Can I use my SkillsFuture Credit (SFC) to pay for online courses such as Coursera or Udemy?

Dec 03, 2023 – Singaporeans who want to use their SkillsFuture Credit (SFC) for online courses such as Coursera and Udemy can submit their claim request directly to SSG through SSG-WSG service portal.

Supporting documents required are:

– Course/exam invoice/receipt; and

– Completion of course certificate or proof of exam attendance.

You will be reimbursed of your out-of-pocket course/exam fees through your available SFC balance upon SSG’s approval of your claim request.

Source: SkillsFuture Singapore

It appears that SkillsFuture Singapore has decided to fund Coursera and Udemy online courses after discontinuing support in 2020 and 2022 respectively. This is good news for Singaporeans who wish to upskill themselves through online courses offered by these providers but were hitherto disappointed by the discontinuation of SFC support for Coursera and Udemy, as well as the expiration of the National Library’s contract with Udemy Business from 15 December 2023.

Note: I have no financial stake in Udemy and Coursera but I have taken courses from both providers (some using my SFC) and found them useful professionally.

Here is the full exchange in Parliament:

Sitting Date: 22-11-2023
Section Name: Oral Answers to Questions

SOLUTIONS TO DEFRAY COST INCREASES IN NATIONAL LIBRARY BOARD’S DECISION TO CEASE SUBSCRIPTION TO E-LEARNING PLATFORM

Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Communications and Information with respect to the announcement by the National Library Board on 7 November 2023 that it will cease its subscription to an e-learning platform from 15 December 2023, whether the Ministry has considered any solutions to defray the cited reason of a significant increase in cost so that public will be able to continue benefiting from access to the platform.

The Senior Minister of State for Communications and Information (Mr Tan Kiat How) (for the Minister for Communications and Information): Sir, the National Library Board (NLB) is committed to making e-learning resources accessible to all, as part of its expanded range of content formats to support reading, learning and discovery.

The current contract for Udemy Business will expire on 15 December 2023. NLB has decided not to award a fresh contract to Udemy Business because the new licensing model will cover a much smaller number of courses than what is available today and restrict the number of users allowed to access these courses. The new licensing model is also several times more expensive than the current contract. Notwithstanding this, Singaporeans who have a continued interest in courses offered by Udemy Business can use their SkillsFuture Credit for such courses and submit their claims directly to the SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) for reimbursement upon completion of their course.

NLB will also continue to identify suitable e-learning resources to replace the offerings by Udemy Business and expects to make available new resources in the coming months. NLB will continue to work with SSG and other local and overseas partners to provide more online learning resources and encourage lifelong learning among Singaporeans.

Mr Speaker: Ms Hany Soh.

Ms Hany Soh (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Thank you, Speaker. I have three supplementary questions for this question.

Firstly, can the Senior Minister of State share on a per user basis, what would be the cost involved if the subscriptions were kept as opposed to how much it cost before the cost increases?

The second supplementary question is in relation to alternative platforms for the users. How does it measure up against the current Udemy Business platform?

And finally, how will the Ministry or specifically, NLB assist members of the public with the transitions from the current platform to its replacements, especially when it comes to addressing their needs on work or studies?

Mr Tan Kiat How: Sir, the refreshed proposal from the Udemy Business on its online resources is through an open tender, open procurement approach. I do not think it would be appropriate for me to share some of the commercial sensitivities that might be tied to the proposal. But perhaps, allow me just to elaborate. It is not just about the cost per user. It is about the restricted access to the courses that are available under this new licensing model, which we do not think will meet the needs of the learners in Singapore.

Allow me to use an analogy to make it easier to explain. In the past, you go to a restaurant, you pay a price at the door, you go in, it is a buffet, choose what you want, eat all you can. You can go to the cooked food section, there is a seafood section, a salad section, there are hot stations where they prepare food for you, then you have the drinks section and the desserts section. Choose what you want, eat all you can for a fixed price. But with a new model, maybe a restaurant tells you that the price that you pay at the door is a few times higher now; and you go into the restaurant, you are only entitled to a plate of rice and maybe two or three dishes from the cooked food. Anything else, you would have to top up, pay extra; and now, you are no longer able to go to the salad section, you cannot go to the drink section, you cannot go to the dessert section, you cannot go to the seafood section.

So, the question for us is: with a much more expensive and costly model, does this still meet the needs of our learners?

We assure the Member Ms Hany Soh and other Members that NLB is very concerned about the nutritional needs of our Singaporeans, especially the nutrition of the mind, their learning needs. We are actively exploring what other platforms can provide such needs for our learners.

At the same time, we also shared with many of members of the public who wrote in about some of the other alternative resources. For example, you have LearnX, which is on learning.nlb.gov.sg. It is a platform where NLB provides curated resources for our learners. We also shared a list of other platforms that are available for learners to tap on in the meantime, as we look at other resources, other online platforms for our learners, in the future.

So, I wish to assure Members that this is something that NLB is very, very keen on because we want to support the lifelong learning and discovery needs of Singaporeans of all ages.

Mr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply just now.

I just heard the Senior Minister of State say that learners can use the SkillsFuture credit to claim for Udemy courses. But the last time I checked, on the SkillsFuture website, Udemy courses are not available. It used to be, a long time ago, but it was discontinued for some time already. And, as far as I know, there is only one online course provider called eCornell. So, can the Senior Minister of State confirm that what he said just now is still accurate?

Mr Tan Kiat How: Sir, I would have to get back to Mr Giam’s question. [Please refer to “Clarification by Senior Minister of State for Communications and Information”, Official Report, 22 November 2023, Vol 95, Issue 117, Oral Answers to Questions section.]

From the information I am given, it is possible for Singaporeans who have continued interest in courses offered by Udemy Business to use their SkillsFuture credit for such courses and submit these claims directly to SSG for reimbursement upon completion of their course. But perhaps, if Mr Giam would like to seek specific clarification on specific courses, he can write to us. We will take a look and check it out.

Source: Singapore Parliament Hansard

Sitting Date: 22-11-2023
Section Name: Clarification

CLARIFICATION BY SENIOR MINISTER OF STATE FOR COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION
(Clarification to Question No 3)

Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State, Tan Kiat How.

The Senior Minister of State for Communications and Information (Mr Tan Kiat How): Sir, thank you. I just wanted to reply to Member Mr Gerald Giam‘s question just now. I have verified with SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) colleagues. Just to reaffirm what I said – Singaporeans who have continued interest in courses offered by Udemy can use their SkillsFuture credits for such courses and submit their claims directly to SSG for reimbursement, upon completion of the courses. [Please refer to “Solutions to Defray Cost Increases in National Library Board’s Decision to Cease Subscription to E-learning Platform”, Official Report, 22 November 2023, Vol 95, Issue 117, Oral Answers to Questions section.]

Source: Singapore Parliament Hansard

The Pledge is not an aspiration or ideology – it’s a PROMISE

This article was first published in Hammersphere.

I have been following the debate in Parliament and outside about the National Pledge and how it should be applied to Singapore’s laws and policies. The debate was sparked off by a motion and a speech by new Nominated MP Viswa Sadasivan, and amplified when MM Lee Kuan Yew stepped in to weigh in with his views.

Continue reading “The Pledge is not an aspiration or ideology – it’s a PROMISE”

Revamp the role of MPs to attract potential ministers

The Straits Times did an Insight piece about PAP MP Hri Kumar’s controversial proposal of having nominated (non-elected) ministers. They quoted some comments I made on my previous blog post:

For administrative aspects, there are already people like the permanent secretaries heading the various ministries, he notes.

The view is shared by IT consultant Gerald Giam, a founding member of the socio-political blog The Online Citizen.

He writes on his blog that ministers need to have the common touch; they need to be people who can empathise with ordinary Singaporeans.

‘If we open the doors to this segment of society to lead us, we will be fishing from the wrong pond. We will, in the long run, attract the wrong sort of people to lead our country – people with a different set of values and motivations,’ he says.

Mr Giam, Mr Siew and Dr Tan all say that a parallel cannot be drawn between Singapore’s parliamentary system and the presidential system in the United States, where the Cabinet is made up of people who are appointed, not elected.

Some friends have expressed to me publicly and privately that they in principle support the idea of non-elected ministers because some ministries (e.g., finance) need “technocratic minds”. However, I still maintain my disagreement with the idea.

Continue reading “Revamp the role of MPs to attract potential ministers”

Don’t turn my country into an administrative state

I strongly reject PAP MP Hri Kumar’s suggestion in Parliament that the Prime Minister should be given the option to appoint individuals from outside the rank of elected MPs to his cabinet. He had argued that the pool of talent available to the PM will “increase substantially” and he can draw on the experience of many “capable individuals”.

This is a dangerous line of thinking which is not just undemocratic, but foolish as well.

Continue reading “Don’t turn my country into an administrative state”

In opposition to the Nominated MP scheme

I oppose the Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) scheme.

It’s name — Nominated MP — already condemns it as undemocratic in nature. An MP is supposed to be a representative of his or her constituency — the candidate who has been given the most votes by his constituents.

Continue reading “In opposition to the Nominated MP scheme”

A government out of order

The Public Order Act, which was just passed in Parliament on Monday, got me wondering just how far the PAP will go to thumb its nose at the Constitution to serve its narrow political interests.

Among some “highlights” of the law are:

A demonstration by a lone person is called an “assembly”.
Two persons walking together form for a common cause is a “procession”.
Assemblies and processions both need permits from the Commissioner of Police.
Cause-related activities (i.e., political activities) require permits regardless of the number of persons involved. (I guess that means that zero-person activities can also be banned.)
An entry-level policeman has the power to order people to “move on” away from an area, even if they are not committing an offence. Those people have to comply, even if that policeman is in the wrong.
The police have the power to ban ordinary citizens from filming them as they work.

Continue reading “A government out of order”

Parliament reports: More bloggers needed

On 6 Feb, I took half day leave from work to attend Parliament while the Committee of Supply (COS) debate was going on. Earlier that week, I had posted on my Facebook status: “Gerald taking leave to attend the Committee of Supply debate in Parliament this week”.

A certain NMP-cum-blogger (whom I won’t name ;-) commented, “You’re gonna be kinda bored”.

It turned out to be quite interesting actually, though not quite as interesting as the day that this NMP and Opposition leader Low Thia Khiang were sparring with PAP MPs over the Jobs Credit Scheme.

I sat through about 5 ¹/₂ hours of “debates” — or rather 5 hours of prepared speeches and half an hour of actual Q&A. There are lots of interesting things that happen in Parliament that do not get reported in the media. My report is here. Koh Choong Yong has his own account here, which inspired me to blog about my own informal observations.

During the COS debate, backbencher MPs (i.e., those who are not Ministers) get only 1-5 minutes to ask their questions. The Ministers get 45 minutes to 1 hour to respond! And their responses are always long speeches prepared by their civil servants, delving into the history of the policy and how wonderfully it has worked for Singapore, but usually giving short shrift to the question that the MP asked.

The more interesting parts are the Supplementary Questions that take place at the end of the debate for each Ministry. These are additional questions that the MPs can pose to the Minister in response to the answer he had given. On the day I attended, Grace Fu, the Senior Minister of State for National Development, failed to answer a question by Low Thia Khiang (WP-Hougang) about why Hougang Town Council wasn’t given ample warning before blocks of flats in Hougang were torn down. In her fluster to justify herself after Mr Low asked his Supplementary Question, Ms Fu blurted out that her ministry doesn’t even know 7 months in advance of redevelopment plans.

I’m sure this didn’t get reported in the mainstream media, and I suspect that will be expunged from the Hansard — the official Parliamentary report. But I heard it and I jotted it down immediately.

It’s also interesting to observe the behaviour of MPs. The Chinese-speaking MPs always take a full bow to the Speaker when they enter or exit, while the more “kentang” ones (i.e., those with a more Western outlook) sometimes just nod their heads.

After the mid-session break, I requested for a seat in the gallery behind the Cabinet ministers, as I was previously sitting on the other side. This was when I noticed that one minister walked in with a lot of reading material. He proceeded to read them while the MPs were making their speeches. The words on his paper were so large that those in the gallery could have probably read it with the help of a pair of binoculars. From the paragraphing, it looked like a policy paper, but it didn’t have single words stamped on the header and footer (i.e., “CONFIDENTIAL” or “SECRET”). In any case, even if I read it (which I didn’t), I couldn’t reveal it as that would be a violation of the Official Secrets Act. I think our Ministers should be a bit more discreet about displaying their reading material.

One thing I still don’t understand is how votes take place in Parliament. Typically the Speaker will pose to the Members, “All in favour say ‘aye’…all opposed say ‘nay'”. Then without anyone raising their hand, the Speaker immediately announces, “I think the ‘aye’s have it, the ‘aye’s have it.”

Huh? Maybe MPs indicate their ‘aye’ with a wink to the Speaker. Or maybe there’s some electronic voting system that I can’t see. (I didn’t see any buttons or wires.) In any case, I think it would be good if the votes of the MPs be published, so that citizens can scrutinize them for their voting records, as is done in other democracies like the US.

I hope more bloggers would take a trip down to Parliament during future sittings. There’s much more than meets the eye than what you read in the papers or watch on TV. Perhaps we should have a bloggers’ roster for Parliament sittings, so as to get maximum coverage for the benefit of all Singaporeans. ;-)

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”