Committee of Supply – Head U (Prime Minister's Office)

Madam, how well have we done in the efforts of our Civil Service, including those from the Statutory Boards, to help its low-wage workers to earn higher income, improve their employability and re-employment status? What more can we do to help them, including our daily-rated workers, our monthly-rated as well as low-wage civil servants, to improve their livelihood?

Mdm Chairperson, I thank Mr Seng Han Thong and Mr Ang Hin Kee for their interest in, and support for, the Public Service.

The Government places strong emphasis on the integrity of the Public Service. We expect public officers to uphold the highest standards of integrity and professionalism. As I informed the House last year, the Public Service does not tolerate wrongdoing and misconduct. The Government views every case of misconduct seriously and takes firm action, including prosecuting the cases

Page: 59

vigorously where appropriate. Recent cases have shown that we take errant officers to task, regardless of seniority or job function.

We have systems and processes to maintain the integrity of the Public Service, and I agree with Mr Seng's two suggestions for improving the integrity of the Service. We regularly review and strengthen these measures to address weaknesses or adapt to new circumstances. For example, in addition to requiring all public officers to declare their financial standing when they are first appointed to the Service, and every year thereafter, we introduced rules last year on casino visits to reduce the risk of officers becoming indebted and susceptible to exploitation.

More stringent rules on casino visits apply to senior officers whose misconduct will have significant reputational risk to the Public Service, such as the Permanent Secretaries and Chief Executives, as well as officers in positions that expose them to the risk of being suborned and exploited, such as police officers and officers performing cash transactions. For example, while most officers are required to declare only if they have visited the local casinos more than four times in a month, senior public officers are required to declare every single visit they make. Police officers working on law enforcement matters involving the casinos are not allowed to visit the casinos, except for official reasons. I think these are slightly tighter than what Mr Seng had suggested.

We have also extended Mandatory Job Rotation for fraud-prone positions, such as those handling procurement and market-sensitive information. There are several different avenues for public officers to report suspected misconduct, and we want our public officers to do so. An officer can report such cases to his supervisors, his Permanent Secretary, the Head of Civil Service or the Public Service Commission. Officers may also report to enforcement agencies, such as the Police or Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB). Officers do use these channels and surface suspected wrongdoing which will be investigated. So, officers are looked upon not just by external agencies but also by their colleagues, supervisors and subordinates. And this is the system which we want to have, where every public officer is responsible for the integrity of the Service.

Beyond systems and processes, it is values and culture that define the Public Service, our public officers, and how they carry out their duties. Our public officers must be anchored in and driven by the core values of Integrity, Service and Excellence. These values are embedded in our human resource processes, such as hiring new officers, training and developing our officers, and

Page: 60

assessing their performance.

All public officers are governed by a Code of Conduct which is based on the principles of integrity, incorruptibility and impartiality. The Code was refreshed in September 2013 and is available on the Government Intranet. But, of course, the Code is a very dry document, so we have produced a handbook with frequently asked questions and illustrated examples. This handbook is given to all civil servants and made available to the Statutory Boards for distribution to their officers.

In January this year, MOF also issued a Government Procurement Code of Ethics and Standards of Professional Conduct for procurement officers. This is also available on the Government Intranet. The Code sets out the professional values, ethos and appropriate behaviour that we expect procurement officers to abide by in their engagement with suppliers. We emphasise the importance of values throughout the career of a public officer, at the point of induction when they join the Public Service and in milestone leadership programmes at all levels, including the middle management level that Mr Seng was concerned about.

In the past five years, CPIB has conducted an average of about 60 anti-corruption talks for public officers each year, especially those who are new in service and those in enforcement and regulatory agencies.

Mr Seng also expressed concern about the number of recent cases. The number of public officers prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption Act has remained stable over the past five years and we will continue our efforts to eliminate corruption and bring down the numbers further. This is so also for other cases of misconduct.

Public Service leaders are also made aware that the tone that they set in an organisation affects the culture. Their personal demonstration of the values of integrity and accountability helps the staff to understand the importance of the values, the types of conduct which are acceptable and should be carried out, and help them to apply the values in their daily work.

Even with tight systems and processes and efforts to build strong values, there may be people who try to circumvent the rules. When wrongdoing occurs, we adopt a zero-tolerance approach and take firm action against the officer in a decisive and transparent manner.

Page: 61

Madam, though there are some errant officers, the vast majority of our public officers take pride in serving Singapore and Singaporeans and uphold the Public Service values of Integrity, Service and Excellence. Each year, we recognise our outstanding officers, so that they will inspire their fellow officers and encourage those who are considering a public service career to do so. And I am confident that our public officers will continue to do their best in their work and, in so doing, help to strengthen the public's trust and confidence in the Public Service. It is, indeed, a tribute to our system and to our public officers that many feel proud that their children join the Public Service.

Mr Ang Hin Kee asked how the Public Service is helping our lower-wage workers. We review salaries regularly to maintain market competitiveness. Most recently, in December 2013, lower-wage civil servants, for example, those on the Operations Support Scheme, received a salary increase of $50 to $70.

In 2012 and 2013, we had also given wage increases of $60 and $70 respectively to Division IV officers, going beyond the National Wages Council's recommendations. With the above adjustments, the monthly salaries of approximately 2,200 lower-wage civil servants have increased by between $180 and $200, or some 15%, over and above their annual increments.

We also help lower-wage civil servants by encouraging them to train and develop themselves through skills upgrading because increases in wages should be accompanied by increases in productivity. We recently implemented a training roadmap that helps them to identify competencies and learning programmes that will enhance their productivity and ability to undertake bigger jobs.

For example, we have developed a range of courses on customer service, including how to deliver service more professionally and to supervise a frontline team. Through these courses, frontline officers can be considered for a higher job responsibility which will pay a higher salary.

In November 2013, the Training Incentives Scheme was enhanced to encourage and support skills upgrading. And with this, Division III and IV civil servants will receive double the incentive – $200 instead of $100 upon completing a relevant Workforce Skills Qualification. Around 230 officers have been tapping on this Scheme each year. Given the increase in incentive quantum, we expect even more officers to upgrade themselves through training

Page: 62

and to benefit from it.

These efforts to help our officers upgrade themselves are communicated to our lower wage workers and their supervisors through briefings and via collaterals from the Public Service Division. We also meet regularly with the HR officers from the various agencies and also with the public sector unions, to gather feedback to further improve these measures. PSD is also working with the unions to conduct a pilot study into the future work of our lower-wage officers and the skills and training they will need to take on these new roles.

In terms of re-employment, since 1 July 2011, 324 or almost nine in 10 Division III and IV civil servants who retired at 62 have been re-employed. Since 1 April 2012, Division IV officers have been re-employed at the same substantive grade and at their last drawn salary. This has been extended to Division III officers since 1 August 2013. These re-employed officers will also continue to benefit from salary adjustments and training initiatives.

Mdm Chairperson, the Public Service will continue to work closely with the unions to uplift the salaries of our lower-wage officers in parallel with updating and upgrading their skills so that they continue to serve and contribute to Singapore.

Madam, during last year's debate on the Population White Paper, I asked the Government to pause its relentless population growth through immigration and instead focus on solving the many problems that we created as a result of the immigration boom of the past decade. I am glad the Government has responded to this call to pause and is doing a lot more to moderate the situation.

Among the things adopted in the amended Motion to the White Paper passed in Parliament in January 2013 is that the Government agreed to plan, invest and implement infrastructure development ahead of demand and also to ensure the benefits of our population policies, such as better job opportunities and salaries, flow to Singaporeans first.

And the questions I have for the Deputy Prime Minister are: can he please share with us the change of process in infrastructure planning that will bring infrastructure ahead of time, which means, what is changed that will prevent us from making the same mistake of the past? Has the Government decided on a

Page: 63

steady state of inflow of foreigners, particularly PRs? What are the yearly numbers of PRs and citizenships granted and what measures are in place to ensure that we do not overrun the numbers that we have planned which I think we did in the past?

What is the reduction in numbers of work permits, S Passes and Employment passes in the last one year? Can the Deputy Prime Minister share with the House what initiatives are planned to ensure that population policies mainly benefit Singaporeans as was passed in the amended Motion? And are we making progress in integrating the foreigners? It does not seem to show good results but perhaps, maybe, I am missing out on something.

Mdm Chairperson, I urge the NPTD to urgently implement more holistic measures to assist parents with childcare and increase our low fertility rate. At stake here is our nation's future. The prevailing thought is that having children is a personal decision. Let us not deceive ourselves. There are social, economic, health, political and military implications for the whole nation. While we should remain open to qualified immigrants, we need a stable majority core of children born to Singaporeans. With mounting research proving the benefits of having children below the age of 30, it is absolutely critical that we cut down the number of obstacles facing healthy young couples who desire to have children.

One of the most common complaints I have received is the lack of childcare centres near their homes and the high fees. Taipei has substantially increased the number of childcare centres, among other measures, boosting their TFR to 1.4. Can we provide more support for our childcare sector, not only in terms of funding infrastructure, subsidising fees but also training and retaining childcare providers and teachers?

Much has already been said in this House about what is required to tackle our low TFR. Besides providing affordable, quality childcare centres in convenient locations, my parliamentary colleagues had suggested mandating flexible hours for sectors where they are feasible, implementing free pre-school education, and even providing substantial HDB discounts and priority. I fully support these suggestions and I personally advocate making it much easier for women and men to return to the workforce after taking a short hiatus to care for very young children. To the credit of the relevant Ministries, some progress,

Page: 64

in fact, has been made.

For those of us worried about reduced competitiveness if we implement family-friendly work measures, the Recruitment and Employment Confederation in UK had found that businesses reported significant gains in staff satisfaction, retention and productivity after implementing flexi-work hours.

We must raise awareness among our people, especially future cohorts, of the risks of older parenthood. Despite medical advances, when it comes to having babies, time is not on our side. The medical risks of older motherhood are well-documented. Now, we have evidence that advancing paternal age can lead to higher rates of psychiatric and academic problems in offspring than previously thought.

A study of two million children, "Parental Age at Childbearing and Offspring Psychiatric and Academic Morbidity" was published in February's JAMA Psychiatry. Compared to children born to a 24-year-old father, children born to a 45-year-old father —

Madam, the recent Total Fertility Rate published by SingStat showed that it has decreased from 1.24 in 2012 to 1.19 in 2013. Our Government has been actively seeking ways to help boost the birth rate, through the implementation of various schemes, like paternity leave and baby bonuses, flexi-work hours and work-life balance initiatives. In fact, last year, a $2 billion marriage and parenthood package was announced and the quantum for the Baby Bonus was increased. With the drop in TFR, I would like to ask the Minister for his views on the effectiveness of the policy changes over the years.

Page: 65

I have also received feedback from some of my residents that the one-to-one matching for the Child Development Account (CDA), while justifiably encouraging parents to co-fund their children's upbringing, has disadvantaged low-income families, who may not be able to contribute upfront the matching amount.

Will the Minister consider doing away with the matching requirement and just contribute the Baby Bonus into the children's CDA?

Madam, over the last few months, I have met several Singaporeans appealing for their spouses to be granted Singapore citizenship.

In most cases, the couples have been married many years and the spouses have obtained their Singapore Permanent Residency (SPR) years ago. Many of them also have children who are Singapore Citizens. However, due to their lack of educational qualification or their inability to find a well-paying job, these SPRs have not been successful in their application for citizenship. Financially, they are affected because a non-citizen has to pay more for school fees and medical fees.

In contrast, I see some new couples who had stayed in Singapore for a much shorter period of time getting their Singapore citizenship in an easier manner probably because they are better qualified or earn a higher income.

Madam, I feel that we ought to consider the many other contributions by some residents who have lived in Singapore for many years. Through their hard work, they have contributed to the success of Singapore; like many of those in the Pioneer Generation. Some of them have also played their part in having children who are Singaporeans.

I urge the Government to review the criteria for granting Singapore citizenship. We should take into account the length of time that an SPR had resided in Singapore, the fact that the SPR has a Singaporean spouse or children and the fact that many of them had integrated well and had contributed to the success of Singapore over the past years that they were in Singapore.

Madam, the number of marriages between Singapore Citizens and foreigners was reported to be on the rise since 2000. There are about 141,000 foreign spouses who have either taken up citizenship or Permanent Residency or are on the Long-Term Visit Pass at the end of 2012. Almost half of these spouses have taken up citizenship. Given such a significant number of foreign spouses here, short and long-term visits from their hometown relatives are probably on the rise. It is only human nature that many

Page: 67

foreign spouses would like their own parents or relatives to visit them and help them out in times of need and crises.

Currently, the timeframe to process the Long-Term Visit Pass or extension of a short-term visit pass takes up to six weeks, as reported on the ICA website. I would assume this KPI has taken into consideration the volume of applications ICA receives each day and the time needed to process them.

I have a case of a foreign spouse of a Singaporean who appealed for an extension of social visit pass for her relative on compassionate grounds. She said that she needed her relative to stay in Singapore for another two to three months to help her look after her mother-in-law who was diagnosed with terminal cancer while she tends to her two young children and her husband who was also diagnosed with terminal cancer. He is a low-wage worker and the sole breadwinner of the family, so, she cannot afford to employ a domestic helper or an alternative caregiver.

ICA eventually approved the extension but what was expected to be a six-week process turned out to be a 24-week wait. By then, the foreign spouse no longer needed the pass for her relative. Her mother-in-law and her husband had passed on. Imagine the angst that this foreign spouse, who is already a citizen, had to go through during the long waiting period as she went about caring for her late mother-in-law, shuttling her late husband to and from home and hospital for his chemotherapy, worrying about her children and then rushing to work after finishing all these errands.

Visit Pass, like the LTVP or Social Visit Pass, has a shelf life and, as such, approving such application on grounds of compassion carries no risk, especially when the applicant is a relative of a Singaporean sponsor. A 24-week wait for an extension of Visit Pass on compassionate grounds is hardly compassionate at all. I urge the Minister to review the current protocols and procedures used in the handling of such Visit Pass applications and renewals so that those who are in dire need will not be found waiting and wanting.

Madam, over the past two days, both sides of this House are in agreement in giving our pioneers the due recognition they deserve. However, for some seniors in our midst, the Pioneer Generation Package (PGP) appears hollow and distant to their actual life realities. To them, PGP is only an acronym.

I met Mdm Tan and Mr Sim during the course of my work. Both of them were born and bred in Singapore and have never left this country. Seventy-one-year-old Mdm Tan married a Singaporean and had six Singaporean children who have since grown up and raised families of their own. Mr Sim, a visually handicapped individual, has also not left this country since his birth in 1937. When they look at their blue Identification Card issued in 1993, all this talk about the Pioneer Generation passes them by. Mdm Tan's nationality status is that of an unknown and Mr Sim is stateless. As a result of their respective nationality status, the family of Mdm Tan has to bear a heavier financial burden due to her medical conditions. And Mr Sim is unable to access the financial assistance available to him at the CDC. Having stayed in this country for the whole of their life and after giving their youth and energy to the building of this nation, they were repeatedly told of their unsuccessful applications and appeals for citizenship.

In the context of Singapore's earliest nation-building years and their illiteracy, proper documentation was not properly kept, resulting in their inability to produce sufficient documentation to the authorities. This bureaucratic rigidity has denied them their right as Singaporeans. I think the Government can and should do more for individuals like Mdm Tan and Mr Sim. More clarification on the part of the Minister would also be helpful to the children of these individuals. Under what circumstances would a person be termed or classified as "Stateless" or "Unknown"? Can this nationality status be overturned, given the lack and patchy state of documentation in many of these cases? How can family members best facilitate the process of having the citizenship of their parents restored to them?

Madam, on several occasions, the Government mentioned publicly that there is a need to maintain the racial balance in Singapore's population so as to preserve the character of our society and enhance the social fabric of this nation. During last year's debate on the Government's proposed Population White Paper, it was reported that the percentage of Malays in the resident

Page: 69

population suffered a drop in the 10-year period, from 13.9% in 2000 to 13.4% in 2010. During the same period, Singapore saw an increase in the percentage of Malay citizen population from 14.9% in 2000 to 15.1% in 2010. The Government has also made it clear that they intend and will attempt their very best to attract talents and immigrants of ethnic Malay origins to Singapore to preserve and maintain the racial balance in our resident population.

Madam, I would like to seek clarification on the following issues: firstly, what is the projected size of the resident Malay population in Singapore in 2030? Secondly, over the period of three years between 2011 and 2013, what was the percentage of Malay applicants out of the total number of applications received for permanent residency and citizenship? Thirdly, out of the total number of Malay applicants between 2011 and 2013, what was the percentage that was granted Permanent Residence and citizenship respectively? And for Malay individuals whose applications were rejected, what was the basis behind their unsuccessful applications? Additionally, between 2011 and 2013, how do Malay applicants for Permanent Residence and citizenship fare vis-a-vis non-Malay applicants? Lastly, I would like to seek an update on the Government's effort in reaching out and attracting talents and immigrants of Malay ethnicity to Singapore.

Mdm Chair, last year, we debated on the Population White Paper and the House spoke at length about building a roadmap towards a sustainable population for an ageing Singapore. The pillars set out in the White Paper were to build a strong Singaporean Core. Many Singaporeans will agree, and I agree with this, too. The good news is that, apparently, most Singaporeans desire to get married and have kids.

The recent Marriage and Parenthood study conducted in 2012 indicated that 83% of singles intend to get married and 84% of those who are married intend to have two or more children. To enable this, we must continue to shift our society and foster a pro-family culture by starting and raising a family take centre stage in our life choices. This involves aligning fundamental values, societal attitudes, practices exercised in settings, such as at the workplace, and, of course, Government policies. The Government has done a commendable job so far in being pro-Singaporean families with a generous Marriage and Parenthood Package, along with all the Baby Bonuses and the likes in the past. However, with so much emphasis on families, there is still one group of Singaporean families who may have been neglected. I am referring to the

Page: 70

Singaporean families with foreign spouses.

While they are not pure Singaporean families in that one spouse is foreign, as a whole, they contribute to our Singaporean Core, too.

The number of Singaporeans married to foreign spouses has been on the rise. Marriages registered between a Singaporean and a non-Singaporean make up about four in 10 of all marriages involving a Singaporean. In 2012 alone, there were about 7,017 marriages between Singaporeans and foreigners, up by about 15% from 2011's figure. This is significant and possibly suggesting that such marriages will become a common sight. It may not be the majority but, perhaps, a more common sight in future. However, the certainty of long-term residency for the foreign spouses is a significant issue. There was a total of about 11,736 Long-Term Visit Pass and Long-Term Visit Pass Plus granted in 2012. It is a significant figure. However, what happens after these Long-Term Passes expire? Not all graduates even become PRs; some never do. But the point is that there are still families who are grappling with much uncertainty and cannot plan their lives or do so confidently.

Because of the lack of certainty of stay, some who are financially sound become financially vulnerable. While some who are already struggling are now struggling even more because of single-income source and travelling costs incurred by the foreign spouse. I gave some examples in my speech at the Budget debate yesterday. Hence, there is great anxiety, frustration and fear of being separated. The problem is worse if they have children together. The hurdles that such couples have to overcome make me wonder if there is an indirect way of telling people who they can or cannot marry. Every country has its set of policies that not only reflect prevalent societal attitudes but is also a means of social engineering. This is understandable and perhaps the right thing to do for a government chosen by its people. But in this context, I struggle to reconcile the national move to increase and strengthen the Singaporean Core and enable families with difficulties, especially the low-income families with foreign spouses.

Marriage is sacred and everyone should have the freedom to choose who he or she wants to marry. Once married, it is a commitment, and there are obligations that they have to each other. None of the Singaporeans with foreign spouses I met so far has thought of abandoning their foreign spouses, though some wondered if they should give up Singapore citizenship altogether to migrate overseas just so that the family can be whole. These Singaporeans have chosen their foreign spouses to share their lives with and these foreign spouses have also chosen to give up their homelands to be part of Singapore. Moreover,

Page: 71

should they have children, the children would be born as Singaporeans, given that at least one of the parents is a Singapore Citizen.

Hence, would the Government consider an immigration progression roadmap specifically awarding Long-Term Visit Pass Plus to foreign spouses upon marriage and then permanent residency after a definitive period of, say, 10 years? This will offer a greater sense of security to these families. There are, of course, concerns over marriage of convenience or engagement in illicit activities. Heavy penalties, such as immediate revocation of the pass and permanent entry ban, can be imposed in such instances. There are also concerns over the financial health of the family because of the additional family member in an already financially-needy family. The unspoken question among some is perhaps whether this would inadvertently increase the financial liability to our nation.

In light of this, I suggest that we incentivise these families by granting PR earlier if the foreign spouse gives birth to a Singaporean child and perhaps, even earlier, if he or she finds a job with a stable income. The latter would help to strengthen a low-income family's financial position. Assuming a scenario where the foreign spouse finds a low-skilled job as a stall helper, the pay can range from about $800 to $1,000 per month. The sum of money will significantly enhance the family's income and bring more benefit than our usual PA assistance which would have been likely in a single-income source family.

Madam, marriage is sacred. It has to be a union between two consenting individuals. It is a personal choice. Against a backdrop of strengthening the Singaporean Core, I hope the Government will consider this favourably.

Madam, the presence of immigrants is one that is essential for the continued progress of Singapore, given our ageing population. Without them, Singapore's presence on the world stage will undoubtedly be affected.

The Government should refine our immigration policies and impose checks and balances to ensure that the PRs being admitted into Singapore are, indeed, valuable additions to our society. I would like to suggest the following measures.

Firstly, to review the status of the PR from time to time, let us say, every five-year interval. The PRs must have a good track record and demonstrate their

Page: 72

ability and willingness to contribute to our national development before their PR status can be renewed.

Secondly, allow for greater transparency with statistics, procedures and criteria with regard to PR matters. This would create a greater level of understanding between Singaporeans and the Government.

Finally, closing loopholes with regard to male PRs being able to avoid National Service. There is rampant practice among some PR mothers who apply for student passes for their sons. After their sons have finished their education and entered the workforce, they would then apply for PR status as a "First generation" PR and would not be required to undergo National Service. Madam, in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I would like to urge the Government to review the policy on taking in Permanent Residents. We should ensure that those who are given Permanent Resident status are able to contribute to our nation's economic development and adapt to Singaporeans' way of life and social norms.

I propose that the status of all Permanent Residents be reviewed once every five years. The Government should also be more transparent with the statistics and criteria for taking in Permanent Residents, so that there will be an understanding between the people and the Government. We should also be more aware about the steps taken by some Permanent Residents to avoid having their sons do National Service.

(In English): The average Singaporean understands the need for immigrants and welcome these talents. However, immigration policies have to be refined to manage the sensitivity and sentiments of the general population towards the presence of PRs.

Mdm Chairperson, let me start with an overview of the changes in our population in the last one year.

Last year, our citizen population grew at a steady pace of 0.9% to 3.31 million through births and immigration. Our total fertility rate (TFR) was 1.19, and we welcomed over 31,000 Singaporean babies. This was fewer than in the 2012 "Dragon Year", but more than in 2011, the "Rabbit Year".

Page: 73

To mitigate the shrinking and ageing of our citizen population, we continued a calibrated approach of granting about 20,000 Singapore Citizenships (SCs) and 30,000 Permanent Residences (PRs) in 2013, to those we assessed to be able to contribute and integrate well into our society. This has kept our PR population stable at about half a million for the last five years.

With the tightening of our foreign manpower policies to slow down population growth, foreign workforce growth in non-construction sectors halved to 3.5% in 2013 compared to 7.1% in 2012. The bulk of the foreign manpower growth was in the construction sector to speed up our major infrastructure projects, such as in housing and transport. As a result, our total population growth fell to 1.6% last year. This was the slowest population growth in the past nine years, and almost half the average rate of 3.1% from 2004 to 2012.

As committed in the Population White Paper, we have embarked on a new strategic direction in our population policies to bring about this slower and more sustainable pace of population growth. Our goal is that Singapore continues to be an endearing home, and a good place for Singaporeans to live, work and play.

Caring for Singaporeans remains at the heart of our population policies. In the last few days, the House discussed how we will help our Pioneer Generation and older Singaporeans. We are also supporting our younger Singaporeans in their aspirations to get married and have children. One of my colleagues at the National Population and Talent Division said this to me recently, "Encouraging people to get married and have children is not about numbers or pushing up our TFR. I encourage others to start their own families because I have enjoyed 11 years of marriage; we have three wonderful children, and I want others to experience that, too." What he said captured the spirit of our work at NPTD.

Our vision for Singapore is one that is supportive of family formation, where employers, relatives, communities and Government support couples at every step of their marriage and parenthood journeys. A Singapore where care options are widely available and can be used flexibly to help parents with differing needs to balance their work and family commitments; where dads and mums both play important roles in raising children; and where parenthood and family are celebrated and respected throughout society.

Page: 74

We know that the decisions to get married and have children are not easy. This is where families, neighbours, community, institutions, employers and the Government all have a role to play. Mr Gan Thiam Poh, Dr Lam Pin Min and Mr R Dhinakaran have asked what more can be done.

First, is to help our singles find a life partner. I have often asked young Singaporeans in the course of my work, whether in my constituency or the Civil Service, if they are single, dating, or seeing someone seriously. Their common responses range from "no time", "no money", to "no right person". I always tell these young colleagues to make time for themselves.

Recently, I met a relative who told me about his worry for his single daughters, two of them, both successful career-wise, outgoing and good-looking. When he pressed his daughters to get married, they retorted, "What for?" The answer took him by surprise. But on further reflection, he realised that his daughters, like many in Singapore, were no longer looking to marriage for financial security or companionship. After thinking very carefully, he now takes another approach. He said he is trying to create the environment for his daughters "to find love". When they fall in love, the rest will follow, he reckons.

Madam, the subject of love does not fit naturally in this House and neither is it one in which the Government is an expert. I do think that this relative of mine has a point, and I wish more of us will, like him, be concerned about the future of our children and help our children in any way that is suitable, whether it is to find love, to find the reason for wanting to start a family with a life partner, or for any other reasons. We need to tell our loved ones that we need to make time for things that matter, not wait for the "perfect timing", and we have to prioritise and carve out our own opportunities. As a society, we should give our singles the support, encouragement and optimism to find a companion with whom they can build their family and their life together.

For couples who wish to find a place of their own, housing is a common concern that we have been addressing. MND has ramped up the supply of new flats since 2011. Since the Parenthood Priority Scheme was introduced in January 2013 as part of the Marriage and Parenthood Package, almost 10,000 families have benefited from this scheme. Among them, about half are expecting, or have young children below two years old. The Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme has also helped over 800 families rent flats from HDB at an affordable rate, while waiting for their new flats to be completed. I am happy that these schemes are helping our Singaporeans. We will continue to work with MND and HDB to keep housing affordable and help couples get

Page: 75

their flats faster.

Dr Lam and Mr Dhinakaran gave suggestions on improving the financial support given to parents, including more help with medical expenses.

Our approach here is to provide the best support, both broad-based and targeted, to help defray the costs of raising a child, while not undermining the principle that raising a child is ultimately the responsibility of the family, of the parents. This is why we enhanced the Baby Bonus cash gift last year, to further defray some of the expenses arising from having a newborn. We also have the Baby Bonus Child Development Account (CDA), where savings deposited by parents are matched dollar-for-dollar by the Government. This money can be used for child development needs, including childcare, kindergarten and healthcare expenses.

We recognise that the primary responsibility for the care and development of a child rests with the parents, and we encourage parents to save for their child's future by co-saving with them. To help parents have more time to save into and use the CDA, we extended it so that parents have 12 years to co-save into their children's CDA, up from six years previously.

Specific to healthcare costs, each citizen newborn receives a $3,000 Medisave Grant, which helps to offset the costs of the child's hospitalisation, outpatient expenses and MediShield premiums. Many of the recommended childhood vaccinations can also be obtained free at the polyclinics, while parents who choose to vaccinate their children at private clinics can use their Medisave. We have also extended MediShield coverage to congenital and neonatal conditions diagnosed from 1 March 2013. Under the Medisave Maternity Package, couples can also tap on their Medisave funds to pay for pre-delivery and delivery expenses.

I thank Mr Gan for sharing Taipei's strategies to improve the accessibility and affordability of childcare. I recently visited the Nordic countries to see how they supported families too. And we do review and consider the policies of various countries and societies in order to pick the best options for us. People in the Nordic countries have more children than Singaporeans on average, and more of the mothers are working. One of my key takeaways was the integrated support provided to parents, in terms of the comprehensive and high-quality childcare services and options available at each stage of the child's life. From the moment the newborn arrives to when he or she completes primary school,

Page: 76

there are options to support parents' needs to balance work and family.

Singapore already has many elements of such support. And we have the advantage of a strong family culture and networks, where grandparents and relatives also view child-raising as a family affair. Nevertheless, it is worthwhile taking a leaf from other countries and studying what more we can do to further support working parents.

Over the past year, the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) has significantly enhanced childcare subsidies, helped to set up new childcare centres and appointed three new Anchor Operators for the early childhood sector. ECDA is also working to strengthen the manpower supply and improve the attractiveness and professionalism of the sector. These moves support our goal of giving parents more good quality and affordable options, both with caring for and developing their children. In this year's Budget, we also enhanced the Kindergarten Fee Assistance Scheme (KiFAS) to provide more fee assistance to lower- and middle-income families and expanded it to cover all Anchor Operators and MOE Kindergartens. The Minister for Social and Family Development will be providing more details in his speech on our efforts in this area.

Workplaces and employers, too, have to play their part. We must foster a workplace environment and culture that supports family goals and celebrate employers' efforts in doing so.

We introduced paternity and shared parental leave to encourage fathers to become more involved and spend more time bonding with their newborn.

When children fall sick, or need to attend medical check-ups, parents need to take time off work. We extended childcare leave last year to help parents through days like these. Both dads and mums can use their extended childcare leave so they can be there for their children.

I would also like to call on employers to do more to implement and sustain flexible work arrangements and take advantage of the Work-Life Grant under the Marriage and Parenthood Package. I visited OCBC Bank recently to learn about their family-friendly workplace practices and was very heartened to hear that they had introduced pro-family measures, such as paternity leave, family leave and an in-house childcare centre, even before some of these were legislated in the Marriage and Parenthood Package enhancements last year.

Page: 77

OCBC told me that it was in its interests to have these family-friendly benefits to attract and retain talent. Out of the over 100 children that were enrolled at the childcare centre at OCBC, about 80% belonged to children of OCBC staff. What they did was that they allowed a commercial space to be converted into a childcare centre, sacrificing commercial rental; but they thought that it was a useful staff retention tool, and a welfare service for their employees, to have it converted into a childcare centre.

Of the children that belong to OCBC staff, 40% actually belong to male staff, which means that the men who were working in OCBC were also taking care of their children, ferrying and picking them from the childcare centre and so on. So, it is quite heartening to see that the men are taking on a greater role, though not quite 50:50; but I think it is very encouraging.

I happened to visit OCBC on Valentine's Day, so the childcare centre actually arranged for the children to visit their parents at their workplace and give them a card, a nice flower and a cookie. It is a very good way of engaging the staff, and I can imagine that the staff that benefitted from this would be loyal and committed to the workplace. The management of OCBC told me that this was one of the reasons why some star female bankers decided to stay on with the bank, because they felt that this is the bank that cared.

So I agree with Members that companies that invest in facilities and policies that engage staff and allow staff to balance both their work, play and life choices, will be rewarded in the long term. OCBC topped a list of the most attractive employers in the banking and financial services sector last year.

Many employers like OCBC who pitch in to make a positive difference in their employees' family lives reap the benefits of more engaged, motivated and productive employees. As we tighten our labour market, employers who adopt family-friendly practices will be able to attract and retain good employees who want to achieve both family and work goals.

Going forward, we will continue to look into how we can improve the way we provide parents with greater flexibility and enable fathers to play an active role in taking care of their children. We want to help parents balance the needs of their children and their work, and we need the active participation of employers to be successful.

Overall, we have received encouraging feedback that the various support measures have given parents greater peace of mind. The decision to have a

Page: 78

child is a responsibility that goes beyond a financial one, and it involves nurturing and caring for the child. We will continue to look closely at the needs of parents, take in feedback and suggestions, and refine our support as needed.

To all aspiring and existing dads and mums, as with anything in life that is worthwhile, you need to plan and create your own opportunities. We, as family members, friends, employers and the community, will be there to encourage and support you every step of the way as you embark on this challenging but immensely fulfilling marriage and parenthood journey.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan, Mr Png Eng Huat and Ms Tin Pei Ling spoke about Singaporean families with foreign spouses and asked if more could be done to support these families. Our approach here is for Singaporean families to be stable ones and able to care for and support their family members.

To support the family and the foreign spouses as they settle in and integrate, we have a range of immigration facilities for foreign spouses, including the Long-Term Visit Pass (LTVP), and the Long-Term Visit Pass-Plus (LTVP+) introduced in 2012, which enable the spouses to be employed and have access to some benefits and, over time, progress towards naturalisation as PRs and citizens.

Various factors are considered when we assess applications from foreign spouses for Permanent Residence (PR) or citizenship. These include the length of stay in Singapore, duration of marriage, whether the couple has Singaporean children from the marriage, and whether the Singaporean sponsor will be able to support the family. So, like for like, the family that Ms Tin has described – stable marriage, with Singaporean children, stayed in Singapore for a long period of time – would stand a better chance than one who is newly married or does not have children.

Where the foreign spouse does not yet qualify for PR or citizenship, he or she could be granted an LTVP or LTVP+ to enable the couple to reside together in Singapore. The LTVP+ carries healthcare and employment benefits. LTVP+ also provides greater certainty of stay. It is valid for a longer period: three years in the first instance, and up to five years for subsequent renewals.

I would like to assure Mr Png that we take into account whether there are compassionate grounds when we consider applications from foreign spouses.

Page: 79

In this particular case, I think Mr Png was referring to a family member of a foreign spouse who has become a Singapore Citizen.

We have the stipulated response time of six weeks, as stated on the ICA website. But for some cases, more time could be taken due to inadequate documentation, or reasons of concern. For example, if this particular person has been applying for social visit passes for relatives, then perhaps the situation is not as isolated or as urgent as it would have seemed. For applications like these, ICA would usually take a second look and perhaps could have taken more time than usual. But I have many experiences with ICA's application process, when it was, indeed, a truly urgent matter. For example, to support a newborn in the family or a critically ill parent, they do take an urgent review of the application and grant it expeditiously. Aside from immigration facilities, we also have programmes available to help couples build a strong foundation for their marriage and help foreign spouses better integrate into Singapore society.

We recognise the key role that Singaporean spouses and extended family members play in ensuring the integration of new foreign spouses into our society. Family members are best placed to introduce foreign spouses to our way of life and to help foster in them a strong sense of Singaporean identity.

Mr Faisal bin Abdul Manap suggested granting citizenship to stateless individuals. Most stateless individuals who are 65 years and older are PRs. We will consider their citizenship applications on a case-by-case basis. Mr Manap also asked about the circumstances leading to a person being considered stateless. It could be that this person has been staying here for a prolonged period of time, and this resulted in the lapse of his citizenship in his home country.

In other cases, for example the one I have personally come across, a child was brought in and granted Singapore Citizenship on the basis of being a child of a Singapore Citizen. It was later found not to be the case and the citizenship was revoked on the basis that the reason for which it was granted was not valid. The circumstances leading to persons being stateless are quite complex and could vary, and it could involve documentation lapses or lack of proper records. We need to treat these individuals on a case-by-case basis and review the circumstances leading to the person being stateless.

Mr Zainal Sapari suggested requiring PRs to renew their status every five years. We already have a system which makes sure that our PRs continue to have strong links to Singapore. PRs are issued with a Re-Entry Permit (REP)

Page: 80

valid for a maximum of five years, allowing him to travel in and out of the country. To renew their REPs, PRs granted on economic grounds must show that they remain gainfully employed and are contributing to Singapore, while those granted on the basis of family ties must show that their roots are in Singapore and they continue to have valid family ties here. PRs who travel out of or remain outside of the country without a valid REP could lose their PR status.

PR applicants must demonstrate their commitment to contributing and sinking roots in Singapore. Those who exclude their sons from their PR applications in order to avoid serving NS will not be assessed favourably. ICA may also revoke the PR status of persons who have been convicted of offences and sentenced to a jail term.

We have provided information and statistics pertinent to immigration where possible and will continue to do so. However, with regard to Mr Manap's specific request on the number of applicants from Malays or certain racial groups, we have explained in this House previously that, because of the sensitivities involved with source countries, we have not made such information available in detail in the public. But we do from time to time provide the profiles of our new citizens and PRs on a broad basis. If you would like the information, please look out for the periodic publications by the Department of Statistics (DOS) and by NPTD. We have all along been open to people who seek out opportunities in Singapore, as a place of great promise, and they bring their skills, ideas and investments that have helped us develop quickly as a nation.

If we were to close our doors to foreigners, we will be shutting ourselves out of opportunities and innovation that are available to open and globally connected cities. Our spirit of openness must, therefore, continue, as it enables us to capture opportunities and helps Singaporeans attain good jobs and a high standard of living. We must connect ourselves with the world and be open to the flow of people, knowledge and resources. This applies to everyone who is interested in contributing to Singapore, including Malays, whom Mr Manap referred to.

While we benefit from being open, we face challenges similar to other global cities. Singaporeans are concerned with being displaced. The greater diversity of people could lead to social tensions from cultural differences. The potential to leverage on growth is also not evenly distributed, leading to pressures on equity and fairness in our society. The greater density of people could lead to crowded spaces and discomfort if we are not able to plan well for it. On top of these, we need to uphold a strong sense of national identity, as we

Page: 81

are both a city and a state.

We have been taking steps to address these challenges. We remain committed to having Singaporeans as the core of our workforce. We will continue to support local enterprises and ensure that Singaporeans are considered fairly for jobs. We are working with employers to provide opportunities for Singaporeans to upgrade, and to create inclusive and progressive work environments through measures, such as WorkPro. The Fair Consideration Framework introduced recently will also help ensure that Singaporeans are considered fairly for jobs. We have made the commitment to keep the ethnic proportion within our citizen population stable. So, in reply to Mr Manap, in 2030, the Malay citizen proportion will remain similar to what we are having now.

The National Integration Council has worked with partners in our schools, workplaces and the community to promote greater mutual understanding and respect among our people. We have reached out to improve the quality of interactions between Singaporeans, new immigrants and foreigners. The Council also supports ground-up initiatives from community, civic groups and individuals, leveraging on a wide variety of platforms, including sports and the arts.

A silver lining from the Little India riot is that we have employers who are now more focused on integrating or introducing workers to the practices and social norms in Singapore. I have a resident who is a Project Manager at a construction site and he tells me that now, every day, besides safety briefings, he will also spend some time to advise his workers to observe social norms, such as not littering, spitting and loitering at void decks. I think that examples like these show that our employers are also doing their part, and we encourage more of them to pay attention on integration initiatives.

In debating the Population White Paper here in Parliament last year, the Government committed to ensuring that the benefits of our policies flow to Singaporeans. We have seen Singaporean wages grow as job opportunities are created, and also improvements in the way we support and care for our people, including in important areas, such as healthcare and education, as well as increased support for low- and middle-income households.

We also committed to resolving the current infrastructure strains, and planning and investing in infrastructure ahead of demand. We have coordinated efforts to build new infrastructure at a faster pace, and are on track to provide

Page: 82

more accessible public facilities, green spaces and higher transport connectivity. Mr Inderjit Singh asked what has changed in terms of the way we plan. I think in terms of our long-term planning, such as the URA Master Plan, the planning process remains the same. But I would say that our population growth is now being watched closely and regularly at a very senior level, to make sure that we keep within the planning parameters. So, that is the assurance that we would like to give to Members of this House, that we are looking at how to moderate the growth of our population and we are taking concrete steps in that direction.

This transformational journey will take time and is not without its challenges. As the pace of population growth slows, we must strike a delicate balance between concerns over the inflow of foreigners, and Singaporeans' social, economic and infrastructure needs. We have and will continue to plan ahead to balance the trade-offs. This is a journey we can all work together to achieve, to build a shared future and a place we can proudly call home.

Madam, MAS reported that the average outstanding unsecured debt owed by individuals seeking credit counselling has increased, and the number of individual bankruptcy orders made has also been trending up. So far, the Government has relied on regulations, such as the capping of unsecured borrowings by any individual at four times or four months' income per lender, to safeguard over borrowing.

However, an individual could still chalk up insurmountable debts by borrowing from multiple banks, each at this capped limit. A typical individual with four credit cards, two personal loans from multiple banks could potentially chalk up borrowings of up to 24 months' of his or her income. "Hard core revolvers" commonly borrow from one lender to pay another, constantly revolving just to keep afloat.

The MAS has announced that, effective June 2015, it will impose a borrowing limit of 12 months' income for an individual's aggregated unsecured debt, across banks. It is a significant and welcome step to help individuals manage their total indebtedness.

However, I would like to ask the Minister how many people have already chalked up debts exceeding the 12 months' income limit. I am concerned about the fate of these individuals when, come June 2015, the banks are given access to data about their total outstanding loans, for the first time. And if all the banks decide to act suddenly and simultaneously take action on credit lines ahead of the June 2015 deadline, it may lead to a devastating credit crunch and a wave of bankruptcies, with heartbreaking consequences for the families of many borrowers.

So, I urge the Government to set up an industry taskforce to oversee and coordinate actions across banks to prevent a hard landing. To help those who have already chalked up debts well beyond their 12 months' income limit, MAS should consider setting up an Inter Bank Debt Relief Programme to restructure loans, help individuals bring down their debts over time, and to give them an opportunity to "reset" their lives. Credit Counselling Singapore can play a key role to help heavily indebted individuals recover from serious debt problems by providing credit management information, credit counselling and, where applicable, put up a debt repayment plan.

Page: 84

Madam, some individuals who are unable to borrow from banks after reaching their aggregated debt limit at 12 months' income limit, will now consider borrowing from moneylenders, where the aggregated debt limit will not apply. Moneylenders typically charge higher rates and tougher terms. The banking and moneylending sectors currently operate under separate frameworks. So, I urge the Government to consider prescribing one aggregated total borrowing limit that will apply to lending in both sectors.

A centralised credit bureau which captures all borrowings from banks and moneylenders, should be set up to enable lenders to make complete assessments of an individual's borrowing capacity, a practice already in place in Hong Kong.

We should consider instituting a set of Responsible Financing guidelines which lenders must use to help educate borrowers. They should be obliged to advise individuals on the full implication of their borrowing decisions, when the borrower is being marketed to, and when the loan contract is being signed.

Madam, ultimately, the individual must take personal responsibility for their own finances. I hope the Government will step up the provision of financial education to help individuals understand how to use credit responsibly.

Madam, allow me to declare my pecuniary interest as a banker. The Government's finances are in good shape and I hope they remain in good shape even as and when revenue falls short of expenditure. The debt at the household level though remains high. As Ms Foo Mee Har said, household debt remains high. And Forbes magazine carried an article accusing us of having an unsustainably high household debt level. This is due to high home ownership for Singaporeans, especially in HDB homes.

Whilst it is true that household debt has increased, and it is now 77% of GDP, the good thing is household net worth and household savings have been rising, too. MAS has had to rely on macro-prudential policies, like the TDSR and ABSD, to control loan growth and this serves as a form of tightening. But the question I want to ask is: are our monetary policy and low interest rates responsible? After all, our interest rates followed that of western economies where unemployment is high and they have loose monetary policies.

Page: 85

Yet, we live in Asia where central banks are tightening and liquidity is being drained. China is particularly relevant, especially now, with their increased financial deregulation and a more open financial market. China has recently changed their foreign exchange (FX) forward slope as well. So, China is a mega economy that has tightened monetary policy and increased cross-border trade settlement funded through Asia.

Singapore, as a leading financial centre, plays a key role in such flows. And these flows are here to stay. Capital flows to such size exerts strong pressure on liquidity and interest rates. This collision of low interest rate policy in the West and higher ones in the East are at our doorstep. Is it time to relook at our policy of controlling FX instead of interest rates?

In the past, many economists have said that due to the openness of our economy, using FX as a lever is more potent than using interest rates.

But what if rates remain low? Rates in the West may remain low for a while longer. Bain and Co published a piece of research saying that the world has too much money and rates will remain low till 2020. There are 10 times more capital than GDP in the world today. That is $600 trillion versus $63 trillion in global GDP. That means a lot of capital chasing not a lot of growth.

If low interest rates persist, we will have to rely on more ad hoc macro-prudential policies to rein in excess loan growth and, if we do, the risk is, money here may drain off to find better returns elsewhere.

This trend may lead to the real cost of money rising, despite the low official interest rates. If a liquidity premium were to arise, then the real cost of borrowing for all will be affected. This makes doing business here unpredictable and costly. More importantly, it is the magnitude of interest rate changes that pose a greater risk. These elements are out of our control. For example, the Fed hiked interest rates by a massive 425 basis points in two years, between 2004 and 2006. Rapid increases in interest rates give little time to homeowners and businesses to adjust. The macro-prudential measures introduced may then become a double whammy for all.

The issue at hand is that the withdrawal of liquidity and the concurrent higher costs of capital in Singapore will adversely affect important areas of the economy. The property market, stock market, auto dealership and domestic retail are amongst the most vulnerable. Hence, there is a need for heightened vigilance by the authorities to pre-empt the risks ahead and to ensure timely

Page: 86

unwinding of these macro-prudential policies to address any downside risks. These adjustments will have to incorporate structural developments and also account for any adjustments to China's monetary policy stance so that we can set right macro-prudential policies for Singapore.

Mdm Chair, let me first address the macro-issues that were just raised by Ms Tan Su Shan. I agree with her that there are strong external forces that can impact our economy and we have to stay very vigilant. Given the current uncertainties and volatile environment, it is very difficult to predict how the external environment will change. I think if you ask the economists what the future would be like, you will get different views. Ms Tan cited forecast from a Bain and Co report of a world flushed with money till 2020. But there are also many economists who predict that the days of low interest rates and cheap capital are over.

Economists are well-known for their inability to agree on many things. But one thing that economists do agree upon is that in a world of open capital flows, a country can either choose to manage its exchange rate or interest rate but not both. In Singapore, because of our small and open economy, we have chosen to focus on the exchange rate as the monetary policy tool to keep inflation in check. And this exchange rate-centred framework has served Singapore very well over the three decades since we started.

The consequence is that our domestic interest rates will move in tandem with global rates. And as Ms Tan has highlighted, such low interest rates are, indeed, one of the factors supporting the growth of domestic credit, including to the property sector.

Given this environment, Ms Tan asked whether we ought to review and even change our monetary policy approach, to move away from our exchange rate-centred framework and switch to interest rates. In fact, this is something that MAS has studied very carefully. MAS regularly reviews its monetary policy approach, and it does not take the status quo, what it does today, as a given. And MAS' studies show that our current system has been effective and, more importantly, that a switch to a regime of managing interest rates can be highly destabilising. And there are several reasons for this.

First, the exchange rate continues to play an important role in household and business decisions, as Singapore's high degree of openness has not diminished. In fact, the policy of keeping the Sing dollar on an appreciation path

Page: 87

since April 2010 has dampened consumer inflation by an average of 2.3 percentage points per year over the past four years. Taking a specific example, the stronger Sing dollar has actually kept food inflation at an average of 2.3% over the same period, which is significantly lower than the 5.2% in the ASEAN-4 and 3.7% in the NIE-3 economies. So, that is one reason.

Second, given our open economy, setting domestic interest rates above global rates will attract even more capital inflows to Singapore, especially with our strong macro-economic fundamentals. This could inadvertently fuel asset price inflation. There are also potentially unpredictable costs associated with a shift in the monetary policy framework, which would affect the domestic financial system and the broader economy.

What MAS has chosen to do is to rein in the demand for property and mitigate the risks posed by low interest rates through a series of macro-prudential measures, while keeping our exchange rate-centred monetary policy focused on anchoring inflation expectations.

The effects of these measures have been encouraging. The property market is stabilising. Private residential property prices increased by just over 1% last year and, in fact, recorded a small sequential decline in the fourth quarter. There has been a clear moderation in transaction volumes. Mortgage loan growth slowed to 8.6% in January 2014, down from 16.2% a year earlier. On the whole, household balance sheets are sound, although some over-stretched households may come under pressure when interest rates rise. And that is a point that Ms Foo Mee Har highlighted, which is why besides property purchases, to encourage financial prudence, MAS has recently enhanced the rules for credit cards and unsecured credit, as Ms Foo also highlighted.

In designing these rules, MAS has been very conscious of the need to facilitate orderly deleveraging so as not to cause a hard landing or credit crunch and drive borrowers to unlicensed sources of credit. This is why the aggregate limit on unsecured borrowing from financial institutions has been set at a fairly generous level of 12 months and it will take effect from June 2015. In fact, this rule was announced with an 18-month lead time. And all this should provide sufficient transition time and also flexibility for most borrowers.

For those who have already exceeded the borrowing limit, Ms Foo was worried about a sudden credit crush in June next year. I would like to assure her that MAS has anticipated this and put in place measures to avoid such a situation. Over the last few years, from 2008 to 2012, there were about 6,000

Page: 88

individuals who were counselled by Credit Counselling Singapore who had debts exceeding their annual income. Such individuals will be given additional time – till 2019 – before the aggregate limit takes effect. Furthermore, they will not be forced to make immediate repayment of their existing loans, as the limit is designed to prevent accumulation of additional debt. I should also clarify that the lending limits do not extend to education and business loans, which are not consumption-based.

I agree with Ms Foo that individuals may need help to restructure and bring their debts down over time. So, MAS has been working with industry partners, such as financial institutions, Credit Counselling Singapore, MoneySENSE and the credit bureaus, to facilitate this transition. MAS has also adjusted the relevant rules to facilitate the transfer of a borrower's debt from one financial institution to another to enable re-financing and re-structuring across financial institutions. And this was something that Ms Foo also suggested.

To encourage responsible lending, the Association of Banks in Singapore has issued Codes of Practice relating to credit cards and unsecured lending on the relevant information that should be communicated to their customers. In addition, MoneySENSE will continue to step up its education efforts through a variety of media channels.

Ms Foo also asked about borrowing from moneylenders and having a common centralised Credit Bureau. I agree with her that information on non-bank credit channels is useful in having a more complete assessment of an individual's borrowing capacity. This is why MAS has been working closely with MinLaw to align the rules governing the grant of credit by financial institutions as well as moneylenders. For example, for housing loans, the Total Debt Servicing Ratio (TDSR) framework already takes into account all credit facilities extended by both financial institutions as well as moneylenders. And going forward, MinLaw is looking to put in place a mechanism to limit the total amount that individuals can borrow across all moneylenders. MAS and MinLaw are also exploring how relevant data can be captured in the credit bureaus. The Government will study the data and monitor the effects of the recent measures to assess the need for further measures.

Let me now turn to a point that Ms Lina Chiam highlighted on the role of financial advisers and the need for regulatory oversight. Financial advisers do play an important role in helping Singaporeans plan and meet their insurance

Page: 89

and financial planning needs. The industry is regulated under the Financial Advisers Act and I would like to assure the Member that MAS does keep a close watch over the business conduct standards of financial advisory (FA) firms and their representatives, and that includes representatives in the banks.

MAS uses various tools to supervise the financial advisory industry. It carries out regular risk assessments of financial advisory firms. It conducts onsite inspections to assess the adequacy of their risk management systems and the level of compliance with regulatory standards and industry guidelines. It also commissions periodic mystery shopping exercises to assess the quality of advice and the adequacy of information disclosure provided by FA firms and their representatives.

And where laws or regulations have been breached, MAS has taken appropriate disciplinary actions. These include issuing reprimands, imposing composition fines, and prohibiting persons who have committed serious offences from working in the industry for a specified period.

In recent years, MAS has continued to strengthen regulatory requirements in the financial advisory industry to better safeguard the interests of consumers and this process will continue. Let me cite a few examples.

Mdm Chair, let me wrap up by going back to the broader picture. Looking ahead, we are prepared for a scenario of higher global interest rates, which is a scenario that Ms Tan also highlighted. Should there be a tightening of monetary policies abroad, this will be commensurate with the restoration of a more "normal" state of the world economy. As global growth returns to trend and inflation pressures gradually pick up, interest rates abroad and in Singapore will eventually rise.

And in some way, this is not necessarily a bad outcome for Singapore. What is critical is how the US Federal Reserve does its tapering of asset purchases. Last year, uncertainty over the timing and pace of tapering resulted in sharp corrections in financial markets. Since then, financial markets have been more discriminating and capital outflows have largely been from emerging economies with weak macroeconomic fundamentals.

Nevertheless, we must be prepared for further bouts of financial market volatility and capital outflows from emerging economies. I would like to assure Members that MAS and the relevant Government agencies are closely monitoring the impact of changes in global monetary conditions on the

Page: 90

Singapore economy and property market. Overall, Singapore is well-placed to weather external shocks. Our fundamentals remain sound: a balance of payments surplus, sound public finances, stable banking sector and a credible exchange rate system. These are advantages most countries do not have. As our underlying economic and financial conditions evolve, external situation evolves, the Government will continue to adjust its policy measures as necessary to ensure overall macroeconomic and financial stability.

Madam, as I mentioned in my speech earlier, we have an estimate and that estimate comes from the people who have been counselled by the Credit Counselling Singapore. Over the period of 2008 to 2012, there were about 6,000 individuals who had debts exceeding their annual income, that means debts exceeding the 12-month limit. So, that is an estimate, it is not precise because it is not based on actual data from the financial institutions or from moneylenders but that is one estimate that we have based on people who have actually approached the Credit Counselling Singapore.

Madam, I would like to direct this clarification to Minister Grace Fu with regard to the matching grant for CDA. While I understand that it is a joint responsibility between the parents and also partly the Government, will the Minister actually consider removing the one-to-one matching, or maybe make it less onerous, maybe one-to-two, one-to-three, so that the lower-income families can contribute that amount to benefit from the cap that is provided by the state?

Let me thank the Member for the question. When we were designing the Marriage and Parenthood Package, we took suggestions and views from a wide variety of people from various segments, and this is because there are differing needs. I think how society and the Government support a young family and their newborn and young children should not be limited to this Package. When we are talking about families with lower income who have to support their children's education, the subsidies provided to

Page: 91

support them in meeting their preschool education needs and school fees are very significant. Similarly, when it comes to housing, the Additional Housing Grant that the Government has given to support young parents, especially to those with lower income, is also very significant.

So, the support has to be seen in totality. The CDA portion is to meet the aspirations of parents from all income segments who wish to see the future financial security of their children being built up over a long period of time. And we encourage that.

As to whether we will review the contribution rates, we will always look at how effective our packages are and we will review from time to time. As we have just rolled out the Package in 2013, we will take some time to review the effectiveness of the measures.

Madam, I have three supplementary questions. First, I agree that we want stable families in Singapore but I would like to ask how we define stable families here. Unless we are telling Singaporeans who they can or cannot marry. In this case, if they have chosen a life partner who happens to be a foreigner, then because of the uncertainty of stay and their future in Singapore, it is really very difficult for them to become stable, whether psychologically or financially.

The second question, which is related, is whether the Government will consider having a definitive roadmap for such immigration so that the Singaporean and their families will have a clear idea of what is expected of them and they can plan their lives accordingly.

The third is about integration. Minister talked about having programmes to facilitate integration of foreign spouses or foreigners in Singapore. In this case, specifically for foreign spouses, I agree it is very important. I am wondering if this is a deciding factor in terms of granting them their passes or their status in Singapore and, if so, may I ask how is this defined and whether there is a set of measures that can be shared in this House?

Mdm Chair, I would like to explain that the criteria to grant immigration passes as well as Permanent Residence and Citizenship involve a set of very comprehensive and holistic criteria.

Various factors are involved, but I think there will be three key considerations. First, whether the applicant would be able to financially support

Page: 92

the family. Secondly, whether the applicant would be able to integrate into society. And third, whether there is a commitment to sink roots.

Specifically, with respect to foreign spouses, I think the marriage has to be a stable one, so the period of time that the couple is together could demonstrate that there are stable relations and that the foreign spouse is able to be accustomed to the life in Singapore. So, there is a certain time to wait. Typically, two years to six years is what we think is reasonable, but there are many other factors involved, including whether the spouse is able to financially support the foreign spouse. Couples do have options. I think they need to look at their options and they need to consider the stability of the marriage before they take the next step of committing more for their future, for example, if they are going to buy a HDB flat without considering their financial readiness. So, we do want the families to demonstrate that it is a stable one. Having a child actually adds to that stability and that will help in their application. But at this moment, we are not considering releasing a definitive roadmap as suggested by the Member, because we have to review our criteria from time to time and we need to make adjustments depending on the applications that are coming our way.

Also, we would not like to have applicants artificially improving their applications to meet what is stated as the criteria. We evaluate them across a wide spectrum of factors, and that would suggest that it is a stable marriage with stable families. The process is there for them to slowly naturalise and gain Permanent Residence, and later on, Singapore Citizenship.

In terms of integration, it is helpful if they come from very similar backgrounds, if not they probably have to take a little bit more time. As to whether there are fixed criteria, again, I would say that we do not have any specific requirements other than what we are familiar with.

Thank you, Madam. I just want a clarification from Minister Grace Fu. How long does ICA conduct its own KPI assessment on the six-week application process for LTVP and Social Visit Pass?

I think these are very operational issues. I am afraid NPTD does not have that ability to give you that number. If you wish, I would suggest that you file a Parliamentary Question for MHA and ICA.