From Hri to all Thomsoners!

Ministerial Salaries

2012-01-18T23:34:00.001+08:00

When this House discussed the issue of Ministerial salaries in 2007, I focused on the technicalities of the old formula, and what I thought was wrong with it.

But I had failed to appreciate a larger issue. Money changes how people look at things. Paying high salaries can be intellectually reasoned, but it affects the relationship between the Government and the people.
Government is not perfect. It has never been, and will never be. We have all, at one time or another, been critical of something the Government did or failed to do. But, as former American President Bill Clinton observed, a successful country needs both an effective government and a good economy. There are no exceptions. In Singapore, we have both. Other government leaders, international institutions and expert commentators agree that Singapore, and what we have achieved, is exceptional. This did not happen by chance. The people of Singapore deserve credit. And so does the Government.
Singaporeans know this, and are appreciative of what the Government has done. But the issue of political salaries has, more than any other, shaped and changed the tone of our national dialogue. When we pay top dollar, we expect top results, and are less forgiving of errors. And so it has become with the way people treat Government. Any mis-step is met with the response that mistakes are unacceptable from highly paid leaders. Things have now become more “transactional”. That emotional connection, that redoubtable bond, which Singaporeans have always had with the Government, and which has been the bedrock of Singapore’s success, is at risk of disappearing.

Will the new formula make a difference? Many Singaporeans have shared their thoughts on the subject, and there are as many opinions as there are people sharing them. But what I find interesting is that very few are willing to state precise figures or formula which they would be comfortable with, let alone one everyone will agree on. I met a group of about 30 bright, young undergraduates recently and asked them what they thought would be a reasonable sum for the PM to receive. Not one of them was able to propose a figure. They all agreed it was very difficult issue. At another discussion I had with working adults, the figure ranged from $500,000 to $3 million. There was no consensus.

Even opposition parties cannot agree on the formula or quantum. Some have declined to go into any specifics, obviously to avoid scrutiny. The Workers’ Party unfortunately has decided to indulge in a game of cat and mouse. NCMP Mr Giam yesterday said that they are not willing to reveal what they or he submitted to Mr Ee’s Committee, saying that it was private. Why? What is there to hide? There are only two inferences: that the Workers’ Party private and public positions are different; or they have changed their position after the Report was issued.

Then NCMP Mr Yee let the cat out of the bag. He made the extra-ordinary assertion that the Workers’ Party held back some proposals so that they could raise them in this debate. He tried to explain that today by saying that the Workers’ Party were still researching the issue and shared what they had. But that is not what he said yesterday. He said: “We do not feel that we have to give everything to the Committee and this is precisely what Parliament is for.” And later he said: “I believe Parliament is where we come up with another proposal to be decided upon.” So it is clear what the Workers’ Party is doing.

The point of this whole exercise was for the Committee to consider all ideas, and to propose what it considers the best one for Singapore. That is how I believe every Singaporean understood it. But the Workers’ Party decided to play politics. They held back what they considered to be meaningful proposals, so that they could come to this House and announce to Singaporeans that they have better ideas. In short, they put their Party’s interests before Singapore’s interests.

But playing politics is their prerogative. Playing games and fence sitting are the privileges of the opposition. Politics is about making decisions, and the Government has one to make.

Common Principles

Despite the many different arguments, I believe there is much common ground between Singaporeans on this issue, which is often ignored. I would like to talk about matters I think we can all agree on.

First, we can all agree that the Prime Minister and the Ministers have very important and difficult jobs. They affect almost every aspect of our lives. In fact, is there any other job which has a greater impact on the success of Singapore, and the well being of Singaporeans?

Second, we can all agree that we want first class public services. When the Former Chairman of the US Federal Reserve, Dr Paul Volker was in Singapore last year, he was asked what he thought of our policy on salaries. Dr Volker is a highly respected economist. He has been a public servant almost all his life. When introducing him to the audience, Dr Kishore Mahbubhani made the point that Dr Volker was content to earn a modest civil servant’s salary, although he could have earned much more in the private sector. That was why he was asked the question, and I expected him to talk about the privilege of service. He did not. Dr Volker’s response to the question was simple and astute. He said it was a good idea to pay public servants well as it was important to ensure good public services. He cited the US Government’s response to Hurricane Katrina and the BP disaster in the Gulf of Mexico as evidence that US public services were seriously lacking. In short, in his view, you need good, capable people to provide good services, and you should pay good people well. The logic is irrefutable.

Third, we can agree that not every capable person wants a life in politics. I dare say most do not. There are very good reasons for this, not the least of which is effect on their families. While we do not have an intrusive media, there is still a considerable loss of privacy, and a significant impact on personal lives. That includes having your spouses and children being openly discussed and their conduct scrutinised. Who wants that? Many will feel, quite understandably, that this is too high a price, whatever the pay.

Fourth, we can also agree that we do not want to set salaries so high as to make money the sole or main reason for seeking office. At the same time, we do not want it to be so low as to become a disincentive. NCMP Yee says we are fishing for talent in too small a pond. But if you create financial obstacles for good, capable people who are willing to step forward to serve, you are only making your pool smaller. No one wants to do that. Everyone wants to make public service open to all Singaporeans. Paying less does not make it more open, but more closed.

Sacrifice

Now we come to the nub: what should you pay capable people who perform critical jobs? This brings us to the other “s” word, which tends to dominate this debate: Sacrifice. It has been said that public service is a privilege, and not a sacrifice. Again, no one disputes that, but that is not the argument. The argument is that leaders should make sacrifices because it demonstrates that they care about what they are doing. That is another thing we can all agree on – we want our leaders to care about Singapore. But why look at sacrifice only in money terms?

I think we are asking ourselves the wrong question. It is not how much our leaders should sacrifice, but we want from them. I don’t want someone who tells me that his best quality is that he loves his country or that money is not important to him. Because these are the easiest things to say, and there will be no shortage of people who will say them to get approval.

What do I want from our leaders? I don’t want them just to be smart and capable: I want them to be the smartest, most capable people in the room. I want them to be fair minded, hard working, compassionate and of unimpeachable character. I want leaders who will not be satisfied until every Singaporean has a home and the means to a better life. I want to know that if there is outbreak of a deadly disease like SARS, or a terrorist bomb goes off, or Singapore faces an economic crisis, we have leaders who have the courage, intelligence, experience and determination to do what is necessary for the good of Singapore and Singaporeans. I want leaders who understand that their job involves a sacred trust; a vow to devote every fibre, every moment, every thought, every everything, in service to our country. That is the true sacrifice I think every Singaporean should demand. If we get the quality of people right, the question of quantity of pay answers itself. I believe most Singaporeans will agree with that.

The New Formula

That leads to one more thing we can all agree on: it is impossible to answer the question of salaries in a manner which will satisfy everyone. Many have said so in this House. Even the Worker’s Party agrees that there is no right or wrong figure. I would however like to make two suggestions.

I suggest the proposed formula be tweaked to cap the salaries for the Government’s term of office, with an annual increment for inflation. In other words, salaries will not rise if the benchmark median salary rises. This would create more certainty and more importantly, put paid to arguments that the Government will pursue policies to favour the top earners to increase its own pay.

I also ask the Government to do more to keep Singaporeans informed and engaged on this issue. There is still much misunderstanding over salaries, and you cannot have a proper dialogue if people are working off different facts. For example, many Singaporeans still believe MPs will receive pensions, although that was discontinued years ago. Some even believe MP and Ministers’ salaries are tax free. They are not. Within days of the release of the Report, Mr Gerard Ee had to say publicly that some had mis-understood what it said. Despite the enormous publicity on the subject, some are still unclear about the details of the new package. Although some would prefer that we not keep raising this issue, I support the proposal for the formula be reviewed every five years. I believe we should welcome every opportunity to debate it so that there will be a wider and better understanding of the facts and the arguments. It will also help if we publish annually and in clear terms the average pay package of Ministers, so that we can demolish mischievous allegations that Ministers will secretly earn more through discretionary and undeclared payments. This is fertile ground for those who seek to breed discontent and cynicism. Let us not give them the opportunity to mislead and divide Singaporeans.

Conclusion – an exceptional Singapore

I end with a final proposition we can agree on. We want Singapore to remain an exceptional nation, for that really is the only thing that keeps us relevant. This exceptionalism should not only be in the performance of our economy or the efficiency of our public services. It should also be in the trust and the relationship between the Government and the people it serves. All around the world, politics and politicians are viewed with great cynicism. Cynicism weakens the government; it weakens democracy and it weakens our country. We cannot afford to let that happen to us.

I therefore support the revision of salaries. The new formula is more relevant and intuitive. It deals with some of the criticisms of the old formula and does away with inequities such as pensions. A 30+ % cut is on any view significant. The National Bonus better reflects performance. Even the Workers’ Party agrees with a monthly wage of $55,000/mth. And as Mr Vikram Nair pointed out yesterday, even the difference in bonus computations may not amount to something substantially different.

So we now have a sound basis for the Government to move forward: strengthen connections with Singaporeans, focus on the difficult problems we all know are around the corner, and deliver on its promise for a better life for all Singaporeans. Because in the final analysis, that is all that really counts. I think we can all agree on that.

House Visit Blk 143 Toa Payoh Heights

2011-05-30T14:59:00.000+08:00

House Visit Blk 403 Sin Ming Gardens

2011-05-30T14:57:00.000+08:00

House Visit Blk 445 Sin Ming Court

2011-04-14T03:39:00.000+08:00

House Visit @ Blk 141 Toa Payoh Heights

2011-04-04T07:46:00.000+08:00

House Visit @ Blk 97B Lakeview Estate

2011-03-28T04:36:00.000+08:00

House Visit @ Blks 301 & 302 Shunfu

2011-03-20T00:31:00.000+08:00

The Tiger in the Room

2011-01-26T23:18:00.001+08:00

I found interesting the strong reaction against Amy Chua's "Tiger Mum". Ms Chua is entitled to be strict with her kids, and bring them up in any manner she deems in their best interests. There are many other parents who are equally, if not more, strict. So why the reaction? Was it her assertion that her methods were superior? That still does not explain the ferocity of the response. Just because she claims superiority does not mean it is true. We can simply disagree, raise our children the "western" way and tell ourselves that they will be the better for it. But there lies the problem. We can disagree, but what if she is right? After all, her children have done well. The truth is many of us would prefer not to be "Tiger Mums" for different reasons. We do not like their methods, it is difficult, requires a lot of discipline, creates unwanted tensions with our children, etc. So it is easier to dismiss Ms Chua's arguments as flawed.

But there is another problem. It is undeniable that the amount of time a child devotes to school work has some effect on his grades, particularly in the earlier years. So while we may not want to be a "Tiger Mum", our child is competing against the child of someone who is. So no one likes a "Tiger Mum" because, in local parlance, she "spoils the market". We would prefer a level playing field, for all children to be educated the same way, so that their "true" abilities will determine their success. That may explain why some speak out against those who are prepared to queue overnight to get their children into elite kindergartens. They want places to be balloted, so that everyone has an equal chance and no one has to make a special effort. But we know that is unrealistic. People will always seek to gain an advantage, whether in education, business, finances or even romance. We send our kids for phonics and abacus classes when they are 3 or 4 because we think it will give them a head start in language and math. We send our children to tuition classes, not because they cannot cope in school, but because coping is not good enough. We want them to ace exams, and more importantly, do better than others.

Deep down, we fear and dislike the "Tiger Mum" because for all we are doing to help our kids excel, there is someone out there willing to go further then we are prepared to.

House Visit Fulton Estate

2011-01-24T19:38:00.001+08:00

House Visit Blk 118 Toa Payoh View

2011-01-14T15:28:00.000+08:00

House Visit Blks 305 and 306 Shunfu

2010-12-16T13:55:00.000+08:00

House Visit @ Blk 441 Sin Ming Avenue

2010-12-03T10:01:00.000+08:00

House Visit @ Blk 144 Toa Payoh

2010-11-22T13:28:00.000+08:00

House Visit - Blk 405 Sin Ming Garden

2010-11-04T13:25:00.000+08:00

House Visit - Blk 10H Braddell View

2010-10-31T08:13:00.000+08:00

House Visit @ Blk 121 Toa Payoh View

2010-10-31T08:07:00.000+08:00

Lantern Festival Celebration @ Thomson Garden Estate

2010-10-02T19:52:00.000+08:00

House Visit @ Blk 449 & 450 Sin Ming

2010-10-02T19:50:00.000+08:00

House Visit @ Blk 128 Toa Payoh

2010-09-06T10:18:00.000+08:00

House Visit @ Blk 309 Shunfu

2010-09-06T09:58:00.001+08:00

House Visit @ Bllk 407 Sin Ming Garden

2010-08-20T10:43:00.000+08:00

House Visit @ Bright Hill Drive

2010-07-11T20:35:00.000+08:00

House Visit @ Blk 122 Toa Payoh

2010-07-05T07:50:00.000+08:00

House Visit @ Blk 25 Sin Ming Ville

2010-06-29T12:04:00.000+08:00

House Visit @ Blk 451 and 452 Sin Ming Court

2010-06-20T21:02:00.000+08:00

House Visit @ Blk 406 Sin Ming Garden

2010-05-16T21:08:00.000+08:00

House Visit @ Blk 126 Toa Payoh

2010-04-18T20:07:00.000+08:00

Parliamentary Speech - Noise

2010-04-12T23:01:00.000+08:00

Construction projects are signs of progress and renewal. They are a welcome sight. However, in a small country like ours, they inevitably cause inconvenience. They issue is how to balance the different interests, and whether we have got the balance right.

I ask the Minister to review that balance where the issue of noise in concerned. I have raised this issue before, but complaints from my residents compel another try.

It is an important issue as it affects our well being. International organizations, such as the WHO, have highlighted the negative effects of noise on the physical, psychological or social functions of people.

Currently, the Environmental Protection and Management (Control of Noise at Construction Sites) Regulations sets out the noise levels permitted at different areas. The levels vary according to time, place, and duration. The current regulations permit construction work to be carried out near housing estates on Sundays. It only provides for very slight adjustments in terms of timing and noise levels. For example, Part II of the Second Schedule states that the maximum permissible noise level between 7 a.m. – 7 p.m. for construction sites affecting residential buildings located less than 150m from the site is 75 decibles. From 7 p.m – 10 p.m., the contractor is allowed 55 decibles. In both cases, there is only a 15 decible reduction from that allowed from Mondays to Saturdays.

But more importantly, construction work does not progress at a steady hum. There will be instances where the work will from time to time exceed the limit, but not breach the regulations because it is not sustained. This is of little comfort to those who have had their rest disturbed.

I propose that construction activities near housing estates should cease, or at least be heavily restricted, on Sundays.

Sir, Sundays are an important time for recreation. For most people, it may be the only time in the week they get to rest at home and spend quality time with their families. Yet, the current laws allow construction work to begin as early as 7a.m. on Sunday mornings, and for construction work to continue throughout the day. This is not the case in some other developed countries. In the UK, several town councils, including the City of London, prohibit construction work on Sundays and bank holidays. New York City goes further. The New York City Noise Control Code provides that construction activities can only take place on weekdays between 7a.m. – 6 p.m. These cities recognise that managing areas of high human density require special rules. Is there any reason why residents in Singapore receive different treatment?

The inevitable argument is that such rules will delay projects and increase costs. However, has a study been done to determine the extent of that increase? Are developers suggesting that such rules will not make developments commercially viable? It is difficult to believe that. In any event, can the developers not work smarter and conduct other kinds of activities on Sundays? Is this not a situation where we are leaning too much in favour of corporate interests?

I therefore ask the Minister to review the rules on noise.

Parliamentary Speech - Government-run Student Loan Program

2010-04-06T22:42:00.000+08:00

The Government has frequently highlighted the importance of continuing education for all Singaporeans, to upgrade their skills and increase their productivity and employability. It also provides financial assistance to needy Singapore Citizens until Junior College (or Centralised Institute) level. This is commendable. However, in this day and age, more and more employers demand education levels beyond Junior College level. Technical qualifications are also critical.

Currently, the Government provides some relief by allowing Singaporeans to use their CPF savings from their Ordinary Account to pay for their children’s or their own tuition fees. However, only full time subsidized courses at approved education institutions are included under this scheme.

For example, institutions like the BCA conduct many useful, practical courses. However, those who are not employed or who are self-employed may not obtain a subsidy or have a sponsor for their course fees. This is particularly so if they wish to switch industries and pick up new skills.

If they do not have the means to pay course fees, they must turn to commercial banks. But it is not easy to secure student loans from commercial banks. There are strict eligibility requirements. It only applies to certain designated partner institutions, there are minimum income requirements and some applicants must furnish guarantors.

For example, to be eligible for a study loan from Citibank, either the applicant or his/her guarantor must earn at least S$30,000 per annum. Even the POSB Further Study Assist loan, which has lower income requirements (applicant or guarantor must earn a minimum gross annual income of S$12,000 or S$18,000 respectively), is not applicable to all.

Furthermore, repayment terms of commercial banks are not friendly. In some cases, payment kicks in after drawdown, interest rates are high and the repayment period is strict.

Could the Minister look into the possibility of establishing a government-run student loan program to help Singaporeans of all ages improve themselves? This would be in line with the Government’s vision of a Learning Nation – a social environment that promotes lifelong learning in our people.

The downsides are limited. Frivolous cases can easily be detected and rejected and most recipients will likely pay back the loan. The upsides are however, unlimited. A better educated and trained Singaporean will be an asset to his employer and the country, and will return the investment many times over. The institution of such a facility will also be a clear message to all Singaporeans of the Government’s commitment to life-long earning, and that its determination to help Singaporeans to achieve their highest potential.

Parliamentary Speech - Housing in Singapore

2010-04-06T22:38:00.001+08:00

My parents bought their first and only HDB flat in 1976 for $30,000. It was the first house they ever owned, and helped them raise nine children in a stable home. My parents passed on some years ago, but the house remains with my family. Most of us have got married and moved out, but our old flat will always be home to us. All over Singapore, there are countless number of similar stories. The houses HDB built improved the lives of the majority of Singaporeans. It provided us with a good home and financial security. Most importantly, it gave us a stake in this great nation of ours. It also allowed the Government to promote national policies, such as racial integration and even marriage.

But the HDB’s success, and its attempts to meet the aspirations of Singaporeans, have created some disquiet. Some of the complaints we have read and heard about high prices and unavailability of flats are politically driven. Some, not all.

The important question is whether the current situation continues to promote our national policies? If a couple puts off marriage because their flat will only be ready in 3 years, and they cannot afford a resale flat, how does that help them or Singapore? How does it help integration if different ethnic groups are allowed to congregate by renting flats near each other? Would my parents have been able to buy a flat and raise a family today?

I am not asking HDB to re-write its policies. There is no need to. But I do urge the HDB to implement rules which encourage home ownership, and not property ownership. It should significantly advantage first-time owners, and have no room for those who wish to speculate, or treat it as an investment. I have four suggestions to make this happen.

First, let’s start with a positive principle. Let any Singaporean who wants to buy a HDB flat do so. Lift or do away with the salary cap. Those who earn high salaries will probably rather buy private property anyway. But there may be high earners who, for various good reasons, wish to start off in a HDB flat. They may want to be financially prudent, and we should encourage that. There may also be those who have heavy financial commitments, such as supporting their aged parents and children. If they wish to live in public housing, let them.

But the right to buy public housing must come with restrictions. That is only fair. We should therefore disallow individuals who own private property from purchasing HDB flats, including resale flats. Why would private property owners buy public housing, unless it is to speculate or invest? Why should an individual be allowed to live in public housing while earning an income off his private property or vice versa? Those who have the means, and who wish to buy or invest in private property, should not take up public housing. Parents who wish to buy HDB flats for their children can put the units in their children’s names and make a loan or gift to them. Nominee or trust holdings should be made illegal, as we do with landed property.

Secondly, the HDB should maintain a small but ready stock of flats reserved for first-time owners, so that those wish to get married may get a flat more quickly.

Thirdly, there should be more control over the subletting of HDB flats. Currently, no approval is required for the subletting of rooms and there is only a time bar for subletting an entire flat. I propose that all rental of HDB be subject to approval, whether it is for a room or for the entire flat. Having it as uncontrolled as it is now only encourages the mindset that HDB flats make good investments.

Fourthly, there should be an increase in the time bar before a HDB flat bought on the resale market can be sold. It currently stands at one year. Why? A one year bar encourages speculation. The point is not whether the unit is bought with a subsidy or concessionary loan. Public housing is public housing, whether new or resale. They should all be treated alike. Resale flats give the buyer more choices in terms of location and immediate availability, and he pays a premium for that. There should be no other difference or advantage. Make it 5 years, like new flats.

Private Property

For private property, market forces should be the prime driver, although I appreciate that the government has to from time to time implement temporary measures to address bubbles.

But there are two things I would like the Government to consider doing on a permanent basis.

First, we should discourage foreigners from speculating in our property market. I have no difficulties with genuine investors. It is the “flippers” that we should target. How do we benefit from their activities? I therefore ask the Government to impose a capital gains tax on foreigners who sell their properties within, say, 3 years of purchase.

Second, we need to address option flipping. Buying and selling options is purely speculative activity. It adds absolutely no value, other than to artificially drive up prices. Make options non-transferable, or impose a tax on profits gained on transfer.

House Visit @ Faber Gardens Private Estate

2010-04-04T22:30:00.000+08:00

House Visit @ Block 120 Toa Payoh

2010-03-21T18:55:00.000+08:00

House Visit @ Blk 442 Sin Ming Court

2010-03-14T23:48:00.000+08:00

House Visit @ Blk 22 Sin Ming

2010-01-24T23:36:00.000+08:00

GRC CCC's Bursary Presentation Ceremony cum Family Carnival

2010-01-17T15:15:00.000+08:00

Parliamentary Speech - Moneylenders (Amendment) Bill

2010-01-14T22:27:00.000+08:00

Loan sharks are a menace to society. They have no scruples. They prey on the weak and the desperate for money. They exploit the young to do their dirty work for them. Their chief weapons are intimidation, shame and violence. They think nothing of harassing and destroying the property, not only of their debtors, but their innocent neighbours. They will vandalise houses even when the debtor is no longer living there, proving that not only are they nasty, they are also not very clever. Indeed, to call them sharks is an insult to those fine creatures of the ocean. May I suggest cockroaches instead?

I therefore support amendments which will give the police more teeth to rout this growing menace. From January to September 2009, there were 13,771 reported complaints; compared with 11,789 for the whole of 2008. It was even lower in 2007. So this is a growing problem. We obviously need greater deterrents. I therefore support increasing the punishment for carrying out or assisting in the carrying out of illegal money-lending activities.

But as we all know, the real culprits are the kingpins, not the riff raff who do the running for them. For every runner we arrest, another takes his place. I therefore welcome the new measures to deal with the procurement of minors to carry out illegal activities. Likewise, the new power to freeze funds that the police believe to be related to loan-sharking activities. By this, we can hit the syndicates where it really hurts. To trace and uncover such funds may be difficult, but it is certainly worth trying. This may however cause hardship to innocent individuals and family members who depend on them. Could the Minister therefore assure this House that this weapon will only be deployed in clear cases, and that where funds are frozen, the police will expedite their investigations to minimise prejudice?

There have been calls to prosecute borrowers as well – to attack the demand to get rid of the supply. I hope we do not go that way, at least not for the time being. As an argument, it has logic. As a policy, less so. Most people do not go to illegal moneylenders, and pay those blood-sucking rates, because they want to. They are desperate. Borrowing from banks and other licensed institutions is reserved for those who are credit-worthy. The typical customer of an illegal monerlender is not. His need for money may however be no less real or compelling. Not everyone has family or friends he can turn to for help.

More importantly, regardless of the reasons behind the borrowing, criminalising borrowing would have little deterrent effect on individuals who are desperate. It would only serve to compound their problems, and worse, those who depend on them.

But that is not to say that borrowers should be let off the hook. The Bill aims to criminalise provision of false information to illegal moneylenders. This is a good step forward as it punishes those who take loans and leave innocent third parties to face the despicable recovery methods. We should throw the book at them. But even this does not go far enough. How do we deal with those who provide correct information but subsequently change their place of residence? The problem is the same and yet they get off scot-free. They move out, fully aware of the problems they will be saddling future occupants with. The authorities would have details of these individuals, and where they have moved to. There must be some way to make them accountable. Can they for example, not be made responsible to make good the damage caused by the moneylenders?

We also need to help those who buy over flats from debtors, and who may therefore unwittingly inherit the problem. Can the HDB not require the seller and the occupants to furnish a statutory declaration that they are not indebted to illegal moneylenders? If the seller comes clean or opts not to declare, the buyer can then decide with full knowledge whether he wants to proceed with the purchase. If the seller is eager to sell his flat, he will have the incentive to settle the debt. If the seller lies, he can be prosecuted for making a false statement.

The proposed amendments are a good step in the mission to rid us of this illegal money lending scourge. We can be sure that the kingpins will try to find new ways to entrench and extend their business and keep one step ahead of the law. I therefore urge the Ministry not to wait to see how these new steps work before introducing other measures. The thing about cockroaches is that just when you think you have stamped them out, they spring back to life.

Thank you.

House Visit @ Thomson Garden Estate

2010-01-10T23:51:00.000+08:00

Red Marks Are Colour Blind

2009-12-29T23:25:00.000+08:00

There has been much press recently about the poor results of Malay students, particularly in math. Indian students score below the national average as well. There is help available. Mendaki and SINDA both conduct extra classes for weak students. The problem it seems is that some parents do not send their kids to them. I have sisters who are teachers, and they tell me pretty much the same thing. They conduct home visits where a student is doing poorly, is absent or has discipline issues, only to be confronted by parents who do not know what to do or are simply not bothered.

The realities are these. Many of these kids come from poor or dysfunctional families. For them, a good education is the only way to escape the poverty trap. If they cannot keep up with their studies, they will likely drop-out and the vicious cycle repeated.

Are we doing our best for these children? Is it enough to say that Mendaki, SINDA or CDAC has this or that program, and then blame parents for not taking advantage of them? I know the Government does not want to play the role of a parent, but can we in good conscience leave such matter to parents who, for whatever reasons, are not looking out for their children’s futures? Should not the interests of the children be paramount? Whatever their family issues are, they are entitled to a good education, or at least a decent opportunity to get one.

Where education is concerned, a community based approach is difficult to understand. An academically weak child needs help, regardless of whether he is Chinese, Malay, Indian or Eurasian. The nature of that help is also the same, regardless of the child’s race. Now when Malay or Indian students do poorly, there is pressure on Mendaki and SINDA to account for it. But the truth of the matter is that the help they can give is limited. So why leave it to community based groups to administer educational assistance?

The most logical institution to do so is the school itself. Teachers will best know their own students, and what help they need. Students who are struggling should be made to attend extra classes after school. They will receive better attention as class sizes will be smaller. The same resources, including volunteer teachers, available to the community based groups can be directed to the schools.

In this way, there will only be one organization responsible (and accountable) for a child’s academic development. The help can be targeted and consistent. No one race will be better or worse off depending on how efficient and effective their respective community based groups are.

Some will still drop out. But at least we can say that we have done the best we can for our children.

The Mother of All Tongues

2009-12-03T21:50:00.003+08:00

The current debate on our bi-lingual policy is especially significant to me. I was one of those who struggled with second language. I was the only one in my family to take Mandarin. It was my late father’s decision that I do so.

It was a monumental struggle. As I went higher up the educational ladder, my scores got lower. As a result of my Mandarin, I could not get into my first choice secondary school (we were given only two choices back then), and I just barely made it to JC, having secured the minimum D7 grade. My difficulties finally caught up with me, and I failed at A – Levels despite three attempts. As a result, I did penance for one month at “Chinese Camp” at NUS, which turned out to be my most enjoyable and effective experience of learning Mandarin.

So I can identify with the many letters and postings from those who speak of the trauma they went through in school.

But the recent comments have not all been one-sided. A number of people have written to accuse people like me of having a bad attitude when it comes to learning Mandarin (some truth there) and hope that the Government will not lower standards. Others say that the problem lies with the way it is taught.

All these are valid points. But I would like to ask a more fundamental question: should learning a second language be made compulsory?

When I was younger, I thought that there were two main reasons for our bi-lingual policy. First, was political. In light of the make-up of early Singapore, it would not have been easy or well received to get rid of the mother tongue. Second, was cultural - a person needed to learn his mother tongue in order to better appreciate his culture and roots. Over time, as China became more powerful, a third reason emerged - economics. Learning Mandarin would help us ride the new tide from China. The recent debate revealed a fourth reason. It would appear that ability in second language was used as a proxy for intelligence. This last one has thankfully now been debunked.

In order to work out what we need to do, we need to first agree on our motive.

If the cultural reason remains, there is no reason why second language should be compulsory beyond a certain level (say, Sec 2) or why a pass is necessary for advancement.

If it is economic, there is no need to make it compulsory – people will willingly study the language to get an edge. We are witnessing this all around the world. In the US and Europe, thousands are willingly learning Mandarin because they see it as giving them an advantage. There is no reason to believe that most (or at least a good number) of Singapore students will think differently. No one will be forced to take it, and there will be no trauma associated with learning it. More importantly, there does not need to be any lowering of standards or to create exceptions for those who cannot cope. The Government can also encourage student to take second language eg. by making it a prerequisite for scholarships.

Those who do not take it must accept the disadvantages, which they may well be prepared to accept. Not everyone is going to work or deal with the Chinese or Indians. We make the same fundamental choices when we opt to study the sciences or the arts, or what courses to pursue in the polytechnic or university. Why should second language be any different?

We need to recognise that we are dealing with life-changing issues. I do not know what would have happened to me if I had not made it to JC. There is a good chance I would be doing something completely different today. Others have not been so lucky. It is plainly wrong and illogical to deny a bright student advancement, or to disadvantage him, simply because of a weakness in second language. The sooner we pry this albatross from our necks the better.

House Visit @ Blks 318 and 319 Shunfu

2009-11-29T23:32:00.000+08:00

Tea Reception with New GRLs (Thomson Division)

2009-11-29T23:26:00.000+08:00

Community Visit @ Toa Payoh East

2009-11-22T12:43:00.000+08:00

Dialogue Session @ Blk 403 Sin Ming Avenue

2009-11-16T18:06:00.000+08:00

House Visit @ Blk 403 Sin Ming Avenue

2009-11-15T22:38:00.000+08:00

House Visit @ Blk 24 Sin Ming Ville

2009-10-25T23:13:00.000+08:00

House Visit @ Blk 124 Toa Payoh View

2009-10-19T00:03:00.000+08:00

House Visit @ Blk 143 Toa Payoh Heights

2009-09-27T21:52:00.000+08:00

House Visit @ Blk 308 Shunfu

2009-09-18T22:51:00.000+08:00

Dialogue Session @ Blk 444 Sin Ming Court

2009-09-13T22:54:00.000+08:00

House Visit @ Blk 444 Sin Ming Court

2009-09-13T22:51:00.000+08:00

Dialogue @ 97A Lakeview Apartments

2009-08-25T23:06:00.002+08:00

House Visit @ 97A Lakeview Apartments

2009-08-25T20:09:00.003+08:00

House Visit @ Block 313 Shunfu

2009-08-25T20:06:00.003+08:00

Dialogue @ Block 313 Shunfu

2009-08-25T20:00:00.001+08:00

Less Stressful Life vs Retaining the Drive

2009-08-04T20:51:00.006+08:00

It is a belief that the achievement of economic success must come with a certain amount of sacrifices and stress. In my opinion, the enjoyment of a less stressful life will in no way controvert our drive to succeed. It is a fallacy that the more stressful our lives, the more motivated we will be. To spur ordinary Singaporeans on to the achievement of national goals and economic prosperity necessitates the resolution of the competing goals and inordinate pressures which they face. A less stressful life in this sense would in effect be a strong motivating factor. I will begin this discussion by dealing with what constitutes stress and how stress could be alleviated.

What is ‘stress’?

In psychological terms, stress is a state of emotional tension or pressure caused by unresolved mental conflicts of the individual, social attitudes and situational problems, i.e. a difficult situation or danger. For the purpose of discussion, I will concentrate on how social attitudes and situational problems could create stress.

Social Attitudes, Situational Problems and Stress

For the individual Singaporean, the parameters of success are often couched in materialistic terms, i.e. how much one earns, the position / rank one has in an organisation and the type of accommodation one has. The individual is thus compelled to be competitive and single-minded in his / her pursuit of the materialistic goals. The desire for instant gratification of these materialistic goals and the constant competition to be the best creates an unhealthy sense of stress, particularly among the younger generation.

The narrow definition of success as the achievement of material wealth or well-being put enormous strain on the individuals by neglecting their emotional and social needs. The single-minded drive to attain economic wealth forces the individual to put in longer hours at work instead of spending the time on recreation or with the family and friends. As a result, an individual’s emotional and social development will take secondary priority.

This state of affairs – the focus on acquisition of economic wealth - was accepted in the early years of nation-building since the building of economic prosperity and the satisfaction of material wants were a matter of urgency and importance. Today, the attitudes of some younger Singaporeans may differ as they may not unquestioningly accept the absolute focus on work and competition. This is in line with Maslow’s theory on the hierarchy of needs which postulates that the individual first satisfies the basic needs like shelter and food before striving to achieve other goals like social and affiliative needs. Singaporeans have attained a certain measure of economic prosperity and many are no longer fixated on achieving material goals. What is important for many Singaporeans today is their social and affiliative needs like the cultivation of relationships and friendships. Society’s narrow definition of success therefore places tension on the individual who is torn between the competing goals of balancing work, personal developmental goals and social life.

From a wider perspective, another cause of stress is the “sense of crisis” that is a constituent of our national psyche. Our history, leaders and our education have ingrained into us the vulnerabilities of our nation and the need for us to be economically competitive and vigilant. Thus, Singaporeans who want to take a step back and concentrate on the need to pursue goals other than materialistic ones, would seem to put our nation’s interest and economic success in jeopardy. This constant drive to be “Number One” and to be on guard against any challenge to our economic prosperity, creates pressures and stress for Singaporeans.

How could stress be alleviated?

The inordinate amount of stress faced by an individual may be a demotivating factor. It is fallacious therefore to make the claim that an individual performs at his / her best when subjected to stress and competing goals. To sharpen our competitive edge and increase motivation, the undue stress which Singaporeans face in the course of their daily lives should be addressed.

Firstly, success must be redefined and its definition widened beyond materialistic goals to include social and personal developmental goals. Give due recognition to individuals who have contributed to society or have outstanding performance in any areas of their lives, whether it is material or otherwise.

Secondly, the competing demands of work and social needs of the individual must be resolved. A more holistic view of the factors that motivates the individual must be taken. It is no longer the satisfaction or attainment of material wealth that motivates us, due importance must be placed on a balanced lifestyle which satisfies both our material and social needs. In this regard, the social clubs or companies could organise social activities that fulfils the affiliative and developmental needs of the individual. An emotionally fulfilled and satisfied individual will also be a more productive worker.

Thirdly, there is a need to reconcile the nation’s economic needs and survival to Singaporeans’ personal goals. We must see that the needs of the nation is not an additional burden placed on us by podium pounding politicians and bureaucrats out to hyperbolise the situation. The ongoing program of national education hopefully will ingrain in present post-war generations the importance of retaining the drive to our nation’s economic survival. Therefore the individual will see the national needs as a competing demand.

Submitted by guest blogger - WoeiCherng

Old Age

2009-07-23T13:09:00.000+08:00

One of the hardest part of my job as MP is meeting elderly Singaporeans whose children are unwilling to support them. It is not just the challeges that they have to go through to make ends meet. The thought that your own flesh and blood have abandoned you must be infinitely more wounding. There is no single reason why they find themselves in this situation. I am sure not one side is completely to blame, just as no one is entirely blameless.

But whatever the cause, the elderly must be helped. How we should do this is the big question.

When (then) NMP Walter Woon introduced the Maintenace of Parents Bill in Parliament, it caused no end of controversy. Many felt that the Government should not interfere in family relationships and dynamics. I do not believe anyone wants this. It would not be necessary if everyone looked after their parents. But some do not. The counter is that the State should provide for the elderly, so that the children do not have to. That is one solution, but is this also what we want? First, many Singaporeans love and respect their parents, and will happily provide for them. That is a value we must preserve, and our policies should not discourage this. Second, should everyone then have to subsidise children who are not willing to discharge that responsibility? Because when one asks the State to pay, in reality it means that we all pay.

We then come to the group which poses the real difficulty: children who are willing to support their parents, but say that they cannot afford to. There are of course such genuine cases. But there are unfortunately also some who say they cannot afford it, but what they really mean is that maintaining their parents is not high on their list of priorities. So, we have recently read in the newspapers of people who say they cannot pay the nursing home charges for their parents, but can nonetheless afford cars. Should Singaporeans be subsidising this group?

So cases must be individually assessed, and where necessary, help will be given. The problem is that it is often difficult to define when help is necessary. The children's wages are a good yardstck, but imperfect. A person can have a higher wage, but larger fixed expenses. Then you have to go into which expenses are truly necessary and which are not. It is a minefield. Then there are cases where the children can afford it, but their parents do not want to file a case with the Maintenance Tribunal. That reluctance is understandable, but what is the solution then? Should Singaporeans subsidise such personal choices? If yes, who would want to go the Tribunal in the first place?

This is a difficult issue, and one which will become more challenging as our population ages.

A Time For Action

2009-06-22T08:52:00.001+08:00

The recent scandal involving fake RMIT degrees gets my blood boiling. And it is not just because it involves people being cheated or taken advantage of.

Education is the bedrock of our society. Back in the 1960s when we were a young nation, most families were poor and working adults were not well educated. But one thing we all believed in was the notion that education was the ticket to a better life. So parents worked hard to put their kids through school because they wanted their children to have a better life than they did. Most succeeded. Even if you only had O Levels, you could earn a decent living and work towards being part of the middle class.

But things have changed. It is not enough to have only O Levels. Most now regard having a diploma or degree as a minimum to succeed. But public university and polytechnic places are limited. That will still to be the case even as we build new institutions, including the fourth university. If you do not qualify, you will have to turn to expensive private institutions. And many do – investing hard earned money to obtain qualifications in the hope these will enable them to get good jobs and therefore, a decent standard of living.

That is what makes the conduct of “institutions” which sell fake degrees particularly egregious. They are snake-oil salesmen selling hope. They take advantage of people who are eager and willing to work hard for a better life, and destroy not only their dreams, but also those who are dependent on them.

I made a few suggestions in my speech in Parliament on the President’s address, but it was only the one on Nominated Ministers which received publicity. I also suggested that the Government should give loans (on reasonable terms) to Singaporeans who want a tertiary education, including in private institutions. That would give a leg-up to those who need it most. Further, if such loans are restricted to courses in institutions which are properly accredited, that would (hopefully) drive the fly-by-night schools out of business as fewer people would need to go to them.

Nominated Ministers

2009-06-04T11:44:00.000+08:00

Nominated Ministers – a question of need

My suggestion in Parliament last week to allow the PM to appoint Ministers from outside the pool of MPs has attracted support, criticism and speculation.

Some people speculated I was putting forward the suggestion on someone else's instructions. That is not how things work. No one tells me what to say or vets my speeches. The first time the leaders knew of my speech was when they heard me in Parliament.

Neither is it a radical idea. The power to appoint unelected individuals to Cabinet positions exists in other democratic countries. I cited the United States as an example. The inevitable response to this is that the United States has a different form of government. But I also cited other parliamentary democracies which have that facility, like the United Kingdom and Canada, which my critics avoided dealing with. The fact that these older democracies are able to have this flexibility suggests that they do not consider it inconsistent with democratic principles.

In any event, the type of government is secondary. The question is whether allowing unelected people to enter government dilutes democracy. The instinctive reaction is that it may, but if one examines the substance carefully, it clearly does not. Having a "nominated" Minister does not make the ruling party less accountable to the public. The elected MPs must still work to win the vote and discharge their duties effectively on the ground. Likewise, the PM and his Cabinet must deliver on their national policies. Those fundamental features do not change. Further, it is important to remember that the public technically does not vote directly for the PM or his Ministers. They vote for their individual MPs, and the question of leadership is settled internally by the ruling party. This happens in all Parliamentary democracies. In other words, the public still relies on the judgment of the party leaders to decide who should lead the government. If the team is weak or is picked on grounds other than merit, or if there is no confidence in the judgment of the party leaders, the public will show its feelings at the polls.

What about checks and balances? I am not suggesting that there should not be any or that the PM's discretion should be absolute. The appointment can be made subject to approval by Parliament, or a special committee of Parliament (which includes opposition MPs) - as in the case of NMPs. We can also limit the numbers such that the elected Ministers will always form the majority in Cabinet. These are important details which can be worked out.

Ultimately, the objective is to give the PM a broader pool of talent to choose from. And any sensible PM will know he has to choose carefully if he wants to keep the public on-side. The nominated Ministers will be free of constituency work and will be able to devote all their time and energy to running their ministeries or as Second Ministers, helping to run other ministeries as well. However, they will also know that they must always remain conscious of ground sentiment as their tenure as Ministers will only be as long as the PM wants them or the public wants the party.

Parliament Speech - Education and Changes to the Political System

2009-06-02T10:38:00.002+08:00

I rise to support the motion to thank the Honourable President.

Many members of this House have called for a review of our economic and business model and I add my voice to that. I will not repeat the same arguments. Instead, I would like to make specific suggestions on two issues the President spoke on – education and changes to the political system.

First Education. Everyone knows and accepts the importance of education. Singapore’s success is due to and dependent on Singaporeans. Our people are our most valuable resource, and the government must continue to invest in them. We must put in place the necessary infrastructure and software to enable all Singaporeans to be educated and trained to their highest potential. A good education does not guarantee success, but those who do not have it will find it hard going, particularly in this knowledge-based economy.

Our education system has done well. It is not perfect but it has done a good job in raising standards. It recognizes that different people have different abilities and tries to help each one realise their potential. New programs and systems are regularly being introduced to enable our students to step up to the next level. Such changes often cause stress to students, and even more to their parents. But change is inevitable if we want to compete with others around the world.

There are however two areas where I believe we can do better.

First, we need to encourage further and continuing education. Our primary & secondary schools, junior colleges and polytechnics are great institutions for learning foundation subjects. But that is clearly not enough today. Even a university education is fast losing its luster and significance. Students in major economies such as the US, China and Europe are obtaining second degrees, Masters, doctorates and professional and specialist qualifications. There are now many Americans and Europeans studying in China because they recognize the shift in power and are getting ready for it. In short, they are investing heavily for the future. We must too.

We need to inculcate in Singaporeans the virtues of life-long learning. More and more, we need Singaporeans to understand that education does not stop once we leave school. We must continue learning beyond our diplomas and degrees if we want to enter or develop the highly specialized industries that will help us make the next lap of our development.

I believe many are willing to do so. But one major obstacle is cost. The cost of obtaining degrees and professional qualifications is high. Not all schools and training institutes offer scholarships or bursaries, and even those are in limited numbers. Our limited public university places, and their high standards of admission, mean that many have to turn to private universities or institutions, and they are expensive. While some financial institutions offer student loans, their terms can be difficult to meet. They charge fairly high interest rates; require the borrower to have a certain minimum annual income or to get a guarantor, and require the loan to be serviced immediately. This can be a big deterrent, especially to those from lower income families. Even if you meet the criteria, the banks may still refuse to extend credit. I have met a fair number of people at MPS who tell me that they do not go further in their studies because they simply cannot afford it. We must find a way to help them.

I therefore urge the government to step in and offer a comprehensive program of student loans, on terms which will encourage and facilitate Singaporeans to improve themselves and acquire new skills. This is a loan, not a handout, so no one will think they are getting an easy ride. The downside risks are low. Some may default, but I am confident that the vast majority are responsible and will meet their obligations. More importantly, this will be a real investment in Singaporeans, on which we will receive an immeasurable and meaningful return.

Second, for all the excellent schools and programs we have, there will be a good number who will not cope and fall out. I have in my MPS sessions encountered many who have done poorly in schools and who now face difficulties getting decent jobs. Some accept that they should have tried harder in school, but now feel that the die has already been cast for their future. So much of what we are today turn on decisions made when in school, and some are suffering the consequences of the lack of guidance in their youth.

We seek different peaks of excellence from our students. We have also introduced schools like Northlight to help those who do less well academically prepare for the future. However, despite these varied opportunities, there will still be a good number who, for different reasons, will cross into adulthood without the education and skills they need to cope in an increasingly difficult environment. Once they leave our institutions, it will be difficult to get them back into the classroom.

We must try and help them as well. There is one other institution we could involve to address this issue – National Service. I am not for a moment suggesting that we compromise our training or do anything to adversely affect our national security. That must be the paramount aim of NS. However, we have a valuable two-year window, which we should capitalize on to teach and train those with low education and little skills, which they can use to get a job and manage their lives after they leave NS. The enlistees would be older and hopefully more sober about the future they face. The discipline which the army brings means fewer distractions. Appropriate incentives can be given to those who are willing to apply themselves. In this way, we can continue working towards the promise of not leaving anyone behind.

Let me now deal with political reform. The President alluded to possible changes. I would like to offer a suggestion.

Ask anyone why Singapore has been successful since independence, and the list of reasons will run long. Top or near top of that list will be the strong leadership we have had. I believe even the member of the opposition acknowledged this in his speech on Monday. There are too many examples around the world of democratic countries crippled by short-term thinking; where leaders are afraid to make necessary but unpopular decisions because they fear losing the next election.

We have always functioned on a different principle. We have never shirked from making unpopular decisions we believe to be in the interests of Singapore, even if it comes at some political cost. In my short time as MP, I have faced many questions from irate residents: why do you raise GST, why do you have COEs or ERP; why so many ERP gantries; why are government salaries so high; why do we have so many foreigners working here taking away jobs from Singaporeans; why have means testing; why can we not give more welfare; why have GRCs; why raise bus and train fares? Why not let people withdraw their CPF Funds when they like?

Critics say that we are able to make these decisions because of we have too much power and that makes us arrogant and not caring on the impact on the man in the street. But that does not make sense because it is easier to make popular decisions. It is also far easier to tell people what they want to hear, never mind the consequences. It is much harder work implementing tough policies and explaining to the electorate why they are necessary. With one stroke of the pen, this Government can lower GST; get rid of COEs or ERP; allow people to withdraw their CPF when they like etc. But at what cost to the country and to future generations of Singaporeans?

It is easy to take the path of least resistance. To stay on the right path takes intelligence, character and guts. In short, strong leadership. But will we continue to attract the best into politics and to run our Ministries? We have a small citizen population, and growing smaller by the generation. It is difficult attracting good people into politics. But we can ill afford a situation where we do not have the best team possible to lead our country.

While we currently have a solid team heading the government, there is no guarantee that will always be the case. Should we not do something now to address this? I do not think anyone will argue that our system is perfect or cannot be improved upon. As the opposition member also acknowledged on Monday, while we inherited a parliamentary system from the British, ours has developed and is now different from theirs and others in many ways. We now guarantee minority representation; we have Nominated MPs to bring greater depth to debates and allow the best losing opposition members to sit as Non-constituency MPs. No other government I know willingly gives people outside its party a platform in Parliament; but we do and I think we are better for these changes.

So how can we increase the talent pool? Today, a Minister must be appointed from the ranks of elected MPs. But it is not easy getting good people to run for office. Standing for elections is not everyone’s cup of tea; neither is running a constituency or serving residents on the ground. An MP is judged by what he does for his constituency and how serves his residents. It may sound sacrilegious in a democracy to say so, but a person who is popular on the ground may not necessarily be the best person to run a Ministry or vice versa.

Why not give the Prime Minister the option to appoint outstanding individuals from outside the rank of elected MPs to his cabinet? The pool of talent available to the PM will increase substantially and we can draw on the experience of many capable individuals. For example, who better to look into improving entrepreneurship in Singapore than a successful businessman and successful entrepreneur? During critical periods like this, Ministers in critical posts like Finance can focus 100% on their jobs, and not have to divide their time with grassroots duties.

This is not a novel concept. It has been done in Commonwealth countries, such as the UK and Canada, where they have similar parliamentary systems. In the US, reputedly the world’s most advanced democracy, the entire cabinet is appointed by the President; they in fact cannot be elected members of Congress. Other democracies like Germany and Spain have that facility as well. And these are countries far larger and with longer histories than us.

It will also not offend our democratic principles. As the PM said in the by-elections debate last year, our Parliamentary system has evolved and places more weight on the party instead of the individual. But this does not mean that elections are not important. They are still critical. Parliamentarians must still win the support from the ground and ultimately, the PM and the ruling party will still be answerable to the electorate at elections. They will be at risk if they fail to perform or deliver on their promises.

I believe there are merits in introducing some flexibility into our system to improve the abilities of the government. The critics may cry that this will dilute democracy. But it really does not, and the fact that larger, more established Western democracies have taken this route demonstrates that.

Our political system is not cast in stone, and it is our obligation to keep improving it. And as we have done in the past, I hope we will not shy away from doing what is right and what is good for Singapore.

Visit Residents in Taman Permata on 24 May 09

2009-05-26T07:39:00.002+08:00

It was a scorching Sunday evening when we walked and visit each family. Great exercise for all the members of the team!

Photo with a Resident

2009-05-26T07:19:00.002+08:00

Trying Times

2009-05-12T20:59:00.003+08:00

2009 must pass as a difficult year for all;
Struggling to keep afloat with prices all seem to soar.
Making ends meet is tough for those who is aged and sick.
In MPS, cases are sad and we are trying hard to help the weak and meek;
To toil through this trying times and giving them hope;
A helping help from NTUC; with food vouchers so that they can cope.
Helping the children through school and making sure the little ones are in school;
Desolate, sometime with anguish, what can they do?
With Spurs and Workfare, we hope that such measures help in a little way
With help, there'll be hope everyday
For so long as they need help, we'll be there
To share the burden of residents with too much to bear.
Trying times it may be, our helpers will untiring help
Hearing the hapless and helpless cases, sometime our hearts melt;
Not with sympathy but empathy.
Trying time, O, that's our reality!
One case at a time, one resident at a time
We'll pull through together as Singaporeans in this trying time.

House Visit on 6 May 2009 Visiting Residents at Block 123, Lor 1, Toa Payoh

2009-05-07T06:48:00.002+08:00

H1N1 vs Mankind

2009-05-05T19:31:00.004+08:00

The H1N1 virus is crippling everyone with fear. All around the world, we fear the worst if there is a community outbreak escalating to the scale of Phase 6. This is the time for us to pull ourselves together with a solidarity like what we have done at Sars. We overcame the dreadful and painful memories.

The greatest thing for us all now is to overcome that crippling fear.

Even at tonight's MPS, we are seeing residents are usual as I think lives must go on and though we have instituted temperature checks and all necessary precautions, problems and issues of everyday lives will still be heard and we'll still go on relentlessly solving each of our resident's concern.

Like one doctor told me: "Wash your hands as frequently as you can!" and I think that will be the best precaution we can now take.

2009-05-01T17:42:00.003+08:00

Good neighbourliness is vital and everyone benefits with a little kindness, tolerance and love for the community.

Reaching Out

2009-04-28T21:13:00.002+08:00

Madam Soh is 92 years old, has 7 children and lives in a one room flat in Sin Ming with another elderly person. Widowed in her fifties, she raised her 7 children on her own. Mdm Soh now continues to do a bit of laundry and ironing for her neighbours for a few dollars. She has kidney problems and swollen limbs which makes her vulnerable to falling.

When asked why she is not living with any of her children, she replied in Hokkien: "All my sons are either unemployed or sick, they can barely support themselves and their children."
Madam Soh relies on monthly NTUC vouchers issued by Thomson CCC and Bright Hill temple groceries, as well as gifts from her neighbours and other charities. Fortunately, caring Thomson grassroots leaders are around to reach out to Madam Soh. Knowing her health issues, they frequently visit to monitor her situation, help her to collect food vouchers and other items.

With such help extended, we hope Mdm Soh can continue to sustain herself, not solely on the charity of others but with familial support.

House Visit at Thomson Park Estate (11 April 2009)

2009-04-12T21:43:00.002+08:00

2009-04-12T21:25:00.003+08:00

A Visit to Adelphi Park on a Sunday Evening (22 March 09)

2009-04-08T06:53:00.006+08:00

House visits to residents in Adelphi Park

Human Organ Transplants Act (HOTA)

2009-03-26T11:15:00.002+08:00

I rise in support of the good intentions behind these amendments. They are clearly noble. Who could disagree with giving more hope to those whose lives hang in the balance, and whose only prospect of survival is to receive a transplant?

So the repeal of the prohibition against removing organs from a deceased person over 60 years old is timely. So long as the organs are healthy, there is no reason to impose artificial age limits for prospective donors. Likewise, the enhancement of penalties.

The amendments to allow a donor to receive compensation are more controversial. Many around the world will criticise us for this move. But as a matter of principle, I see no difficulty with it.

Some have argued that many countries have not allowed this, so we should not. That by itself is not a good reason not to do something. Some say it is immoral to donate your organs for money. I say it is equally, if not more, immoral to simply ask patients to accept death gracefully when there is a feasible option. It is also immoral to stop someone from saving a life, if that is his real intention.

What are the critics really concerned about? That this new regime will prove an irresistible source of income for the poor, the ignorant and the desperate, and that ultimately, the rich will obtain transplants at the expense of the poor. These are powerful, emotional arguments which cannot be ignored.

But what is the reality? A father of a friend died on an operating table in India during a kidney transplant; an acquaintance of mine is still alive after receiving a kidney in China. Many of us know similar stories. This is a life and death issue. People who face death will move mountains to survive, and do things and take chances which most of us would not even dare think about. So there is a thriving black market, where organs are traded for huge sums of money, and the poor, the ignorant and the desperate will continue to be a ready source of organs for those who can pay. HOTA did not bring about that situation, and these amendments, if properly applied, are not going to make it worse. In fact, creating a framework to handle compensation for organ donation may help stem the rise of a black market.

But there is no doubt that even with the enhanced penalties, introducing a financial element will prove too tempting for some to make money from donating their organs, and for others to take advantage of that temptation. We cannot leave the weaker members of society to fend for themselves. We need to ensure that the law and spirit of HOTA are preserved.

The key phrase, which appears in the Explanatory Notes to this Bill, is “altruistic living organ donor”. In other words, the amendments are not supposed to facilitate transplants by persons who are motivated by money. Further, as I understand them, these amendments do not remove the requirement that there must be a deep emotional connection between the donor and the recipient. Could the Minister clarify this? If a relative or close friend of the patient is willing to give up his kidney to save him, but is naturally concerned about his own future medical expenses and potential loss of earnings, why should we not allow the patient to compensate that relative or friend?

The problem is that the amendments do not say all this. The phrase “altruistic living organ donor” appears in the Explanatory Notes, but not the amendments themselves. The requirement that the donor and recipient must have deep emotional ties is also not found in HOTA.

Therein lies my difficulty with these amendments, and with HOTA in general. The vital organs are missing. Let me explain.

The way the Act seeks to ensure that organ trading does not take place and that donors are not exploited is to depend on the Hospital Ethics Committees to assess the application, and to approve or reject it. But HOTA and its regulations make it clear that this committee is not equipped for this important role.

Section 15B of the Act provides that the committee shall consist of not less than three persons, of whom one shall be a medical practitioner not employed or connected with the hospital and one shall be a lay person. But the lay person apparently can be employed or connected with the hospital. In other words, that committee can be constituted by a majority of persons who have an interest in promoting the business of the hospital. In fact, the third person, the medical practitioner not connected with the hospital, may be from another hospital which carries out transplants or is otherwise interested in promoting transplant operations.

Of the persons sitting on the committee to decide a particular application, the only disqualification from participating are that they cannot be directly involved in the care of the donor or recipient, or will be involved in the transplant procedure. Surely, there are other obvious instances of conflicts, such as blood relations or friends? But the members of the committee are not even required to declare their interests.

Further, neither HOTA nor any other law or regulation sets out how the committee is to discharge its duties. All it has to do is submit a report of its decision to MOH. What that report should contain is not clear. The committee has complete discretion in the manner of its deliberations. It has the power to make rules to regulate its own procedure. There are no requirements to keep a record of the proceedings or the interviews with the donor or the recipient, so we do not know what questions, if any, were asked. In fact, the committee is not even obliged to interview the donor or the recipient. Why is that not a mandatory requirement? How is the committee able to properly discharge its duties unless its members actually speak to both donor and recipient? A committee can therefore rubber stamp an application and no one would be the wiser. The committee is obliged to have regard to the considerations of “public interest and community values” when assessing applications. But these terms are not defined, so the committee decides what they mean. There is no accountability for its decisions. The MOH does not carry out audits of the files (if any) kept by the committee. I could go on.

The Hospital Ethics Committee currently represents our only real check against abuse – yet we demand so little of it. The hospitals may argue that it is not their responsibility to determine if what is declared by the donor and recipients is true. If that is the case, then it would appear that no one is taking any responsibility for this entire process – not the doctors, the hospital or the Ministry.

If we are going to allow compensation, and if we are serious about not allowing organ trading, there clearly needs to be a complete overhaul in the manner in which applications are approved. I know the Minister would prefer to keep things flexible. But flexibility without accountability is a not a good recipe. Otherwise, a law which has such good and noble intentions may fail in its execution. That would be a real shame.

These matters should be addressed in HOTA, or at the very least, in subsidiary legislation. If any Hospital Ethics Committee is not prepared to assume these basic obligations, transplants should not be carried out at the hospitals it represents. There is also no reason why MOH should not audit every approved transplant to ensure that the letter and spirit of HOTA have been observed. It will provide an essential check to ensure that the committees are doing their job. Surely, that is not an onerous obligation. How many living donor transplants take place every year? Even if many, is that not the least MOH should do in the public interest? If it does not, who will?

Improving the process will not reduce the number of genuine donors. May I ask the Minister if he intends to improve the current approval process, and if so, what he proposes to do?

Likewise, I am not comfortable leaving the details of the compensation scheme to another committee without any legislative guidance or oversight. Delegating may be a convenient and efficient way of dealing with these issues, but the devil in these amendments is really in the details.

I accept that it will be impractical for this House to deliberate on all the details of the compensation formula or mechanism. But there are some fundamental questions we should talk about. For example, what does compensation for “loss of earnings” mean? Should compensation be restricted only to Singaporean and PR donors? Should there not be a cap on the amount of compensation? Should foreign donors and recipients be subject to different rules? How is the compensation sum to be disbursed? Other members of this House have raise many good questions.

We should debate these questions in this House, instead of giving a committee , which has not even been formed, a blank cheque to decide them.

May I also ask the Minister if his Ministry intends to take a similar light-touch approach with this committee as it does with the Hospital Ethics Committees?

A compensation regime which does not adequately address the interests of donors, or worse, encourages less than altruistic behaviour, will undermine the very amendments which we are being asked to vote on today. If the system is inadequate, and there is exploitation as a result, the failure should be ours and not laid at the door of some committee.

I hope that the Minister will clarify these matters so that we can take this important step confident that we are doing the right thing for Singapore and Singaporeans. But absent an overhaul of the approval process and clarity on the compensation scheme, I cannot support it.

Singapore 2009 Extraordinary Budget

2009-02-04T17:03:00.002+08:00

More than 2000 years ago, a great Chinese philosopher said: “In calam ity lies good fortune, and in good fortune lies calamity”. It was a shrewd observation of human enterprise and fallibility.

We are now witnessing the calamity which was hiding in the economic run which started some years back; a run driven in large part by greed and ignorance. These are mistakes people have made many times in the past, and are condemned to repeat in the future.

Experts continue to debate about when this mess started, and who or what was responsible. But it does not change the fact that the world faces its most serious economic challenge in 60 years. The IMF says that world growth is at its lowest since the Second World War. Millions of jobs around the world will be lost. We have seen that Singapore is not immune.

This $20.5 bn package is a significant response. It is an extraordinary sum of money, but really, what it does, or hopes to do, is to help us tread water. No one knows how long this situation will last, how bad it will get and how much more it will cost to keep our heads above water. Many predict that the Government will have to inject even more money in the future. If anything, this Budget is a sobering testimony of how vulnerable we are and the difficult times we face.

So as time goes on, there will be increasing calls on the Government to do more for different groups, sectors or industries. We have seen examples of this around the world. In the United States, different industries have argued forcefully for a share of the bailout fund, including the pornographic industry!

But our means are not unlimited. The solution cannot be to throw money at every problem, but to pick the right battles and the right weapons to deploy.

In that regard, I would like to touch on one issue which the Budget does not address: helping Singaporeans keep their homes.

I support the Government’s focus on helping companies and businesses stay afloat by addressing their cash flow and credit issues, and thereby save jobs. Few would disagree with these objectives.

But make no mistake, we will all face a stressful time in the coming months to hold on to our jobs. No industry will be immune. It will also not matter how senior or experienced you are. I am often told by my clients that this is a good time to be a lawyer, as failing businesses often translates to more legal work. That may have been true in previous recessions. This one is turning out to be a very different creature. Over the last few weeks, law firms in the US and the UK, including major, international law firms, have been announcing thousands, of redundancies. Significantly, those receiving their pink slips include partners and senior lawyers.

So the reality is that despite the measures being taken in Singapore and the billions of dollars other governments are injecting into their own systems, the world economy will be in decline for some time, and a good number of Singaporeans will lose jobs. As the market for goods and services dry up, some companies may have no choice but to let their people go. Others will lose their jobs because their companies and businesses will go under.

More will need help. The government has increased financial assistance payments to PA recipients, CCCs’ Comcare fund, GST Credits and such. Every bit helps and is welcome. Incentivising companies to retrain and retool are also important. But with limited opportunities, it may take time for those who lose their jobs to find employment. Stress levels will go up. Now more than ever, we need to ease the pressure off Singaporeans.

I therefore hope the Government will have plans to deal with other likely points of stress. One of these will be the ability of Singaporeans to keep their homes.

To a large extent, we are fortunate that most Singaporeans live in HDB flats. I know from my MPS experience that HDB exercises considerable flexibility to help families that are unable to meet their loan payments. But over the last few years, because of regulations, many have had to finance their purchases through commercial banks. We also cannot ignore the large numbers who live in private properties. They may not have the option of downgrading because their loans exceed the value of their homes or they may not be able to get loans to purchase an alternative home. If they are retrenched and unable to service their mortgage, foreclosure is a serious risk. And a spate of foreclosures and forced sales will only depress the property market, and put more loans, and therefore homes, at risk.

There are a number of ways the government can help. For example, easing the current restrictions on obtaining HDB loans; allow those with commercial bank loans to refinance with the HDB; impose a moratorium period on foreclosures; require banks to restructure default loans, including offering interest-only payments for a specified period of time.

Other countries have or are planning schemes – the HOPE for Homeowners program in the US; the Homeowners Mortgage Support Scheme in the UK. Those programs are calibrated to meet the challenges in those countries, but the objectives are the same.

I urge the government to come up with and announce concrete plans as soon as possible so that they can be implemented quickly if needed, and Singaporeans know what the conditions are to qualify for help. It would be a major source of stress relief to know that the government will help keep a roof over our heads until the storm passes.

I am not suggesting that the government bails out everyone who defaults on a mortgage. There should be restrictions. For example, it should only be for those with one home; the inability to pay should be on account of the current economic downturn; it should not apply to those who still have the ability to downgrade, albeit at a loss.

I also accept that we cannot ignore the “moral hazard” arguments, and that public funds should not be used to bail out bad decisions or risky behaviour.

So the Government’s role should not be just to hand out money, but to clearly articulate its principles and philosophy, and to ensure that the measures it implements is consistent with these.

One important message that must be conveyed is that this exercise is a two way process. While it is the governments’ duty to give assistance where it is needed, those who receive help must take positive steps to get themselves back on their feet.

My concern is that some, despite losing their jobs, will not see the need to get back quickly into the market, preferring to wait for work which is similar or equivalent to the one they lost. In these times, they could be in for a very long wait. I have encountered too many such cases in my MPS. It is a real problem.

There are also those who are able to work, but are not inclined to because they are able to get by on the assistance they receive. I understand from the CDCs that a large number of job seekers are classified as “not job-ready” or “near job ready”, meaning that, in some cases, they are not prepared to accept work that is offered them eg, because it involves shift work or other inconvenient circumstances. One CDC officer told me that out of every 10 job seekers it helps, only 1 is “job ready”. The overwhelming majority are not. Some live in rental flats, which means they receive large subsidies. I understand that although they reject job opportunities, they continue to enjoy subsidies.

And there is decent paying work out there. An owner of a well-known chain of restaurants I spoke with recently said he cannot find Singaporeans to be restaurant managers, despite the fact that he pays between $2,000 - $2,500/mth. This disconnect does not make sense.

We have to send a strong message that we cannot afford the luxury of bring selective, especially not in these times. We need all hands at the pump to keep our economy afloat, even if it means making compromises or personal sacrifices in the short or medium term.

I therefore urge the government to re-examine the way it gives assistance. It is important to incentivise people to find work with programs like WIS. It is equally important to disincentivise those who ask for or get assistance, but refuse to help themselves.

Conclusion

There is one significant difference between our fiscal measures and those announced by some of the major developed nations. We are in a position to call on reserves, while they intend to fund programs by borrowing and making future generations pick up the tab.

As times get tougher, there will be more pressure on the Government to spend. Many, economic experts and lay persons alike, will have different ideas on how much to spend, what to spend it on and where to get the money from. The Government may have to take tough, unpopular measures. But being tough alone does not mean you are right. That takes intelligence, experience and mature judgment. Our reserves are there because of the hard work of earlier generations of Singaporeans, coupled with sound and prudent management and leadership.

Now, more than ever, we need the Government to exhibit those qualities. The problems we and other countries face are exceedingly volatile and complex. They will not be solved by spending some money here or there. We are in this for the long haul. The measures we implement have to be sound and steady. They also have to be flexible to meet new and unexpected challenges.

The Budget is evidence of that measured, mature approach. Hopefully, it will put us on the path to find good fortune in these times of calamity. I support it.

A Few Good Men.....

2009-01-06T08:56:00.000+08:00

Welcome to my blog.

It is taken me some time to get going. Blogging is not something which comes naturally to me. I am more an old school face-to-face sort of guy. But times they are a-changing.

And how they are changing. It seems that not a day goes by without there being news of bad economic results, or poor job numbers, or some disturbing trend or other. But the real shocker recently was the discovery of the Ponzi scheme in New York run by Bernie Madoff, where investors are estimated to have lost US$50 billion. To put that into perspective, its about a third of Singapore’s GDP.

The term “Ponzi scheme” was derived from a scam in the 1920s in Boston. We often read these stories, and wonder how people back then can be so gullible. But people, even in modern Singapore, continue to be fooled today – be it a “magic stone” scam or a Nigerian letter.

The Madoff victims are not those we would ordinarily consider as gullible. They included hedge funds, large institutions and very wealthy individuals. They were, or were run by, highly intelligent, financially savvy people. It is easy to argue that everyone’s judgment can be clouded by greed, except that Madoff did not promote “get rich quick” schemes. His allure was that he (apparently) consistently delivered a steady and reasonable rate of return on investments.

So how did it happen? The investigations will probably expose the true nature of the fraud. But what will happen is predictable: regulators will be criticised, those involved prosecuted, careers, reputations and fortunes will be lost, regulations will be tightened, and ultimately, the incident will be consigned to a footnote in history. Except that this history will repeat itself. It always does.

The truth of the matter is that the world, and not just the financial world, has become too complicated for most of us to fully understand. Neither can we make ourselves immune from the dishonesty or folly of others by acting sensibly ourselves. Everything is just too inter-connected. There will always be those who will abuse their position at the expense of others. The law does not in every case protect and compensate the innocent. It is often too busy playing catch-up to man’s ingenuity to bend the rules or find a loophole.

Ultimately, the best protection is that those in power have the intelligence, integrity and character to do what is right. The sub-prime problem would not have happened if unscrupulous property and mortgage agents had not conspired to give credit to those whom they knew could not afford to repay it. One commentary I have read suggested that it is very likely that Madoff's operation was legitimate initially, but that he took the Ponzi route when he began to suffer losses that he was too proud to acknowledge. In other words, his lack of character led to his downfall, and others’ pain.

Politicians should be no different. I was bewildered about the many discussions during the US elections on whether it is important to vote for someone “you can have a beer with”. In this world of images and sound bites, politics is too often reduced to choosing the better performer – deciding who is more likable or popular, or dresses or looks better or makes grand and poetic (but usually hollow) speeches. And the media and electorate are consumed by inane questions such as: why doesn’t Obama wear an American flag pin on the lapel of his suit?

I am not concerned about how others choose their leaders. I do care about how we choose ours. We live in a tiny country in a very complicated and turbulent world. It is a tough job to run a country, no matter how small, even in the best of times. Lives and livelihoods are at stake. I do not want people I can have a beer with running Singapore. I want the best people, who have the intelligence, integrity and compassion to work out what is best for Singapore and Singaporeans, and to see us through these difficult times. Other countries may be able to afford a Madoff scandal. We cannot.