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

Mdm Chairperson, the public service sector is one of the major employers in Singapore, which offers exciting and challenging careers, especially to young recruits in the prime of their lives, and for ladies in the prime of their reproductive lives. Today, we have some 65,000 graduate ladies who are not economically active. In many surveys that have been conducted locally, women who actually stopped work or do not work, have cited family and childcare as the main reasons.

As we are adopting measures to enhance our total fertility rate, what type of flexible work arrangements are available for employees in the public service sector? What proportions of the staff are already on this arrangement? PSD can indeed set the example for many other companies and organisations to follow.

Mdm Chairperson, I thank the Members for their interest in, and support for, the Public Service.

Mr Seng Han Thong spoke about the need for "policies with more heart". The Government seeks to design policies and services that bring the most benefit to the largest number of Singaporeans. At the same time, I agree with Mr Seng Han Thong that public officers need to have the flexibility and compassion to better understand the particular needs and circumstances of individuals and be prepared to allow exceptions where these are possible. Indeed, Singaporeans must be at the centre of all that we do.

Singapore has largely gone beyond just fulfilling citizens' basic needs. Singaporeans' interests and aspirations are becoming increasingly varied. Sometimes, different groups or people may have interests or needs that tug in

Page: 75

opposite directions and a middle ground has to be found.

The Our Singapore Conversation provides a new and good avenue for Singaporeans from all walks of life to express their heartfelt concerns and aspirations. Just as Our Singapore Conversation provides opportunities for citizens to hear from one another, it also has been offering a good opportunity for public officers to gain a deeper understanding of the concerns and aspirations of fellow Singaporeans so that they can design policies and implement programmes that are better attuned to Singaporeans' needs, taking into account their varied aspirations and interest. Listening to and taking into account different perspectives and concerns will help strengthen us as a community.

Government agencies also have mechanisms for engagement, to reach out to the community, understand their local or unique needs and tailor initiatives to meet these needs. Mr Seng cited a few. Let me give a few more examples. The Land Transport Community Partnership Division helps LTA to understand local road and traffic issues at the constituency level. Ground feedback from the community is systematically surfaced, and LTA can respond more quickly and effectively to these requests. The Singapore Police Force also launched its Community Policing System last year, with more police officers sent to the Neighbourhood Police Centres to tackle local crime. Police officers also go on foot and bicycle patrols to get closer to the community, and play an active role in community safety and security programmes.

This is in line with three new service principles that the Public Service added last year: people-centricity, mutual courtesy and respect and shared responsibility for the public good.

Each year, we give out Excellence in Public Service Awards to recognise public officers and agencies for their efforts in providing good service. One of last year's PS21 Star Service Award winners is Ms Cadence Goh, from People's Association. As the coordinator of the constituency's social assistance programmes, she often delivers welfare funds personally to the sick and elderly whose mobility is restricted. On one occasion, she coordinated responses across several agencies to help a distressed family restore their utilities after clarifying that arrangements had been made for their bills to be paid through a financial assistance scheme. This is a good example of a public officer who has gone the extra mile, many times over, to deliver service to Singaporeans with

Page: 76

a heart.

We also recognise customers – Singaporeans, ordinary citizens – who have been exemplary in contributing to better public outcomes through their partnership with public agencies. The Public Service will continue to work hand-in-hand, wholeheartedly, with citizens for the good of Singapore and Singaporeans. Both the public and the Public Service have a shared responsibility for the public good, with both partners working together with mutual respect so that this relationship will thrive and bring about positive results for all of us.

I will now address Members' questions concerning the well-being of our public officers.

Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef asked about flexible work arrangements. The suite of flexi-work arrangement options offered by the Public Service includes part-time employment, telecommuting and staggered work hours. Today, 95% of public agencies offer flexible work hours. Officers can choose the time they prefer to start work within a time-band, as long as they perform 42 hours of work a week. This flexibility allows officers to better manage their work and personal needs.

All public agencies also offer part-time employment with prorated salaries and benefits. As at 31 December 2012, there were some 1,700 public officers working part-time. One example: just last month, the Accountant-General's Department accepted an applicant's request to work part-time in a role that was originally advertised as a full-time position. The officer is now able to pursue a meaningful career while spending more time with her two young children. I agree that the Public Service, as well as all employers in Singapore, can do a lot more in this area.

Mr Heng Chee How asked for a review of re-employment guidelines with regard to wages and medical benefits, and Mr Yeo Guat Kwang asked for a review of medical benefits. The public sector re-employment guidelines were drawn up in consultation with public sector agencies and unions. They take reference from the Tripartite Guidelines on the Re-employment of Older Employees. Hence, what the Public Service is practising is not different from what has been discussed and what has been agreed on the Tripartite basis.

Since the implementation of re-employment in the Public Service in July 2011, PSD has made refinements to the guidelines based on the feedback

Page: 77

received. For instance, since 1 April 2012, all eligible Division IV officers are re-employed at their last drawn salaries at the point of retirement. Agencies also have the flexibility to re-employ officers with strong performance at their last drawn salaries if they are still doing the same jobs.

The practice in the private sector remains mixed. Some companies adjust pay at the point of re-employment, while others do not. PSD is currently reviewing the salary guidelines for re-employed officers in the light of these private sector practices. And PSD will support a national consensus on re-employment practices. The review will be completed in six to nine months.

Re-employment is a new episode of employment after retirement and that was the way it was structured. Non-pensionable officers who are re-employed are hence placed on the Medisave-cum-Subsidised Outpatient (MSO) scheme which is offered to all new appointees. Pensionable officers who are eligible for post-retirement medical benefits can choose to remain on their post-retirement medical benefits during the period of re-employment. Officers on the MSO scheme receive an additional sum of 1% of their monthly salary (capped at $70 per month) beyond their normal Medisave contributions, in their Medisave account. This helps the officer to buy medical insurance (MediShield or Medisave-approved insurance plans) or to pay for his medical expenses.

It is important for officers to plan ahead and ensure that they have adequate medical insurance coverage, particularly after their retirement. Agencies have been encouraging officers to buy medical insurance for themselves and their families. To facilitate this, PSD has arranged for a panel of insurance companies to provide Medisave-approved medical insurance coverage at group discounted rates for public officers since October 2006. More than 40 road shows were held in public agencies in the last year alone to create greater awareness of the importance of medical insurance. Over the past three years, more than 21,000 public officers have enrolled in plans under this central arrangement, bringing the total to over 37,000 officers. This is under this central arrangement. Most other officers have their own medical insurance plans. As at end 2011, 97% of civil servants have either basic MediShield or Integrated Shield Plan. We will continue these efforts to encourage more public officers to take up medical insurance.

Members have asked, over the years, particularly Mr Yeo Guat Kwang, for a review of medical benefits for our civil servants. Last year, I informed the House that we are carrying out a review to assess if the MSO scheme and the dental benefits scheme are sufficient to meet the needs of civil servants and how they compare against practices in the private sector. After a careful study

Page: 78

and consultation with the unions, the Civil Service will revise its medical and dental subsidy caps with effect from 1 April 2013, to keep up with market practices in employee benefits.

Currently, an officer who visits a private clinic can claim up to 85% of the medical bill, subject to a cap of $10 per visit. This cap for the reimbursable amount will be increased to $20 per visit. This is comparable with the average amount that the Civil Service subsidises an officer for outpatient treatment at a polyclinic, which is about $18. So, it equalises both of them. Civil servants can currently claim up to $350 per year for their outpatient expenses. Any unutilised balance of the $350 is credited into the officer's Medisave account at the end of each year. While some private sector employers may provide a higher annual limit for outpatient subsidy, it is usually on a reimbursement basis, that is, if you do not consume it, it is not credited to your account.

We recognise that some officers may need more than $350 for their medical needs in a year. We will thus raise the annual outpatient claim limit to $500, with the additional $150 beyond the $350 given only on a reimbursement basis. This approach allows us to better meet the different needs of our officers while ensuring that our overall package of salary and benefits remains competitive compared to the private sector.

On dental benefits, the Civil Service currently pays 50% of the dental bill per visit and the annual claim limit is capped at $70. This is a very modest amount. Not many officers make use of the dental benefits today. We see the importance of maintaining dental health and want to encourage our officers to visit a dentist regularly. We will increase the subsidy of the dental bill per visit from 50% to 85%. Officers who used to pay $35 for a $70 dental bill will only need to pay $10.50 with this change. The annual dental reimbursable limit will also be increased from $70 to $120, bringing it closer to market practices.

The enhanced medical and dental benefits will also apply to our re-employed officers and Statutory Board employees. Thank you, Madam.

Mdm Chairperson, there are Singaporeans who choose to give up their full-time jobs to take care of others – whether elderly parents or family members, or their young grandchildren. These are our elderly and grandparent care-givers. They usually get no income, except maybe some pocket money allowance from the other working adults in the family or their children who are working.

However, we must recognise the important role they play in taking care of the family and in keeping the family together. Is there a way for our elderly and grandparent care-givers to receive some direct benefits or incentives, such as free public transport passes, annual passes to places of interest or even shopping or discount vouchers at shopping malls?

At the moment, for grandparent care-givers, only their children who are working will get Grandparent Care-giver income tax relief. But, again, this is not a direct benefit to the grandparent care-givers themselves.

With the Government taking a lead in emphasising the significant role they play, I am sure we would also be able to bring in some corporate sponsors to support this and show greater appreciation to our elderly and grandparent caregivers.

Mdm Chair, currently, parents of Singaporean children under the age of seven are entitled to six days of paid childcare leave.

Younger children tend to fall ill more frequently than older children, particularly when they first start attending childcare. One bout of HFMD, which requires a child to stay at home for at least a week, can wipe out the entire childcare leave entitlement for the year. While the law provides for six days of unpaid infant care leave for children under two, the fact that it is unpaid renders it of little value to most employees. Furthermore, whether a parent has one or three children under age seven, his or her paid childcare leave entitlement is the same.

Would the Government, therefore, consider granting parents about two additional days of Government-paid childcare leave for each child under the age of three? This will not only help parents of younger children, but also give greater benefits to parents who choose to have more children.

Next, unmarried single parents are entitled to only two days of childcare leave, and employers are not reimbursed for this. It is ironic that single parents

Page: 81

have fewer childcare leave benefits, even though they probably need them more than married couples because they have no spouse to share the childcare load with.

In order to make our childcare leave scheme more effective and equitable, can the Government give all parents of Singaporean children, including single parents, equal childcare leave benefits?

Madam, in the last decade, we have approved and granted many new citizenships and Permanent Residents (PRs) to eligible foreigners. One of the many objectives of this is to enhance our fertility rate and improve our elderly dependency ratio. Of course, the number of minors approved for such status will also contribute to this effect.

From 2008 to 2012, an average of 4,100 new PRs and another 4,100 new citizenships were granted annually. Approximately 82% and 92% of new PRs and new citizens were females respectively.

Does the Government track the number of children born to these groups of people annually, and are we within the range of our projected target, if we had actually indeed set that target?

Madam, the process for becoming a new PR or a new citizen starts with the intent, followed by the application process. Subsequent to this, there is: (a) the online questionnaire survey or quiz; (b) a visit to places of national interest; and, of course, (c) the community sharing session before the citizenship ceremony.

Page: 84

The decision to become a citizen of a country is a critical one. It is also a long-term decision. Will we be able to review this process of appointment, perhaps adding some new components where locally-born Singaporeans can be engaged and their inputs sought? This is in line with giving Singaporeans a stake in the decision-making process and empowering them as well. An example would be to have at least each potential PR or new citizen who have met the eligibility criteria, get between five to 10 supporters who are Singaporeans from different ethnicity, who know them well, who could come from their work environment as well as the community, such as their neighbours and grassroots leaders.

There must, of course, be a certain set of guidelines and criteria set to ensure fairness in this process. It will also allow a new dimension and facet to be added on, just as it is done in certain other countries, such as the Scandinavian countries.

Also, Madam, as we are moving towards a more advanced economy, will we be more selective in our choice of new immigrants?

Mdm Chairperson, two parallel concerns are the reasons behind the filing of this cut.

Firstly, in my Parliament speech on the Population White Paper, I made reference to Deputy Prime Minister Tharman's observations a few months ago where the Deputy Prime Minister stated that the Government could be more transparent about how it approves PR applications.

Secondly, many in this House would have come across the experience of meeting residents at their Meet-the-People sessions requesting to re-appeal a decision made by the ICA to reject their spouses' or family members' PR or citizenship application. Members of Parliament would also have come across other cases which appear on the surface at least to be an inexplicable rejection for an appropriately qualified applicant. A consistent gripe of affected Singaporeans and some of my residents with foreign spouses in particular, is that the ICA does not reveal the reasons why their spouses have been rejected even though complete applications may have been submitted.

In the recent debate on the Population White Paper, Minister Grace Fu stated that when assessing applications, the Government considers a holistic

Page: 85

set of criteria to evaluate applicants, not only their economic contributions but also the years they have spent in Singapore, their ability to integrate, their linkages and their family ties. But as it stands, Singaporeans do not have any idea of how each of these factors is evaluated, or whether one is weighted more heavily than the other, to say nothing of subjective criteria like ability to integrate, especially since our recent experience has suggested that integration cannot happen overnight.

The gist of this cut, therefore, is to query the PMO as to why the ICA does not give reasons for rejection, to call for a change of this policy, and for the Ministry to explore the prospects of introducing a more transparent system so that applicants are well informed of their PR and citizenship prospects before application. Such a system would also streamline not just the selection process but the appeal process as well, and reduce insecurity, especially for Singaporeans married to foreign spouses, and applicants in general.

On the Government side, a transparent PR and citizenship application regime could greatly assist with the Government's effort to support integration and would build trust between citizens and the Government on population policy.

On the citizen end, it is my belief that a more open and accountable system that would allow Singaporeans to better appreciate who our neighbours are, where they are from and on what basis they were selected, would in turn contribute to a more inclusive Singapore and ease the emotional and visceral worries many Singaporeans have to contend with – an emotion which we usually see with remarks like, "I do not recognise Singapore anymore." To this end, I would suggest that the PMO look at other immigrant-destination countries like Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom that assess applicants for permanent residence and citizenship amongst others.

In the Canadian case, the Citizenship and Immigration Canada website is the main portal where new immigrants, PRs or citizens can get specific information like checking on the status of their application, looking at different programmes that allow them to immigrate to Canada permanently and to understand the eligibility rules for each category of applications.

For example, under the skilled workers and professionals category, the eligibility rules are very clearly stated. There are basic rules, work experience rules and six selection factors in the skilled workers' points grid. Anyone can take this test and you are informed of your score immediately. The test also

Page: 86

specifies what is meant by adaptability by requiring the applicant to state the education level or his or her spouse, whether one's spouse has studied or worked in Canada, whether the applicant has family in Canada and whether the applicant has arranged employment. A somewhat similar system operates in the Australian case with six different visa categories.

The British experience is also noteworthy. The United Kingdom Border Agency under the auspices of the Home Office introduced a test in 2005 known as the "Life in the UK" test comprising 24 questions that have to be answered in 45 minutes. These cover a wide variety of areas, not particularly onerous, matters concerning electoral and parliamentary matters, to others like food, sport, council matters and even movie classifications – questions that are essentially synonymous with the functioning of a participatory democracy. One sentence stood out on the UK government website that hosted information on this test: "Being a British citizen does not mean that you have to lose your own identity. There will, however, be things about life in the UK that you should know about before making a long-term commitment to the country." In effect, the test is a real reminder of the obligations and requirements of PR and/or citizenship and, in the Singapore context, a similar test could present a useful opportunity to highlight the importance of multiracialism, amongst other shared values that Singaporeans stand for.

Mdm Chairperson, are there downsides to an open and more transparent PR or citizenship approval regime? Can a more open system be gamed? While this cannot be ruled out, the prospects of this can be significantly mitigated by a well-defined application system. A system that corresponds with the experience of Commonwealth countries with modifications that suit the Singapore context will lay out the Government's criteria for all applicants. This, in turn, can calm fears in some quarters of any ulterior motive for the Government's immigration policy. Even so, the bigger point is that the current system adopted by this Government is too opague. The benefits of a more open system will also put to rest many unsubstantiated myths about the immigration system, rather than the status quo which provides maximum discretion to the Executive.

Second, who sets the criteria? A points system is bound to attract controversy, regardless of how high or how broad it may be. How do we ensure that such a system is fair and that the public buys into the system, knowing that it may be impossible to please everyone? In this event, a Committee that consists of civil servants, members of the general public and other relevant interest groups can be formed to determine the pass mark and criteria. It would be imperative for the proceedings of such a Committee to be made public and

Page: 87

published to ensure greater transparency with regard to the pass mark and criteria.

Thirdly, who has the final say? This is really about the balance between discretion and fixed criteria. There may be instances where even though an applicant achieves the pass mark, a reasonable reading of the entire picture of his or her application renders him or her to be an undesirable immigrant. Should there be a prospect for appeal? Instinctively, a transparent and accountable system should invest in such an avenue. In this case, the judicial branch may well be one such avenue by virtue of a citizenship hearing.

Mdm Chair, during the Opening of this Parliament in October 2011, the Prime Minister said it was necessary to take a more open approach to Government and to governance. In particular, he mentioned that the Government would need to share more information with the public, including information on population trends. He said that while not everything could be disclosed, wherever possible, it would disclose more rather than less.

One area worthy of review is information about our population. Singaporeans have an interest to know who lives among us and in what numbers.

The Government annually releases data on the size of the population and some demographic details. However, the Government has not been willing to disclose certain other details, such as the country of origin of persons in Singapore, for example, the numbers of PRs taken in from specific countries each year. Even at the Parliamentary level, when Members of Parliament had filed questions on how many persons from specific countries had been granted PR status, the standard Government answer was that it was unable to provide the data. Instead, answers given provided numbers from broader regions like the total numbers from Southeast Asia, or the total numbers from other Asian countries.

By contrast, there are other governments which are more transparent. For example, Australia publishes annual breakdowns of their new citizens, indicating the former citizenships held by the new citizens. Will our Government be prepared to do so as well, or at least to answer Parliamentary Questions (PQs) to this effect, in line with the Prime Minister's indication of greater openness?

Page: 88

Or would the Government elaborate on what concerns it has about releasing such information?

Mdm Chair, there has been an increasing trend in international marriages between Singaporeans and non-citizen spouses. From around 31% of all marriages in 2000, the number has risen to close to 40% in recent years. In many cases, the foreign spouses have been naturalised and assimilated into the Singapore society. However, I have encountered many situations where Singaporeans face persistent difficulties in obtaining Long-Term Visit Passes, permanent residency and citizenship for their foreign spouses in spite of their keenness to start a family and develop roots in Singapore. Coincidentally, many of them were from the low income and low educational strata. In view of this, I would like to seek clarification on the criteria for granting such status to foreign spouses so as to give greater certainty for these Singaporeans and also the main reasons for their rejections.

Madam, the Long-Term Visit Pass Plus (LTVP+) Scheme was introduced last year to cater specifically to foreign spouses of Singapore Citizens. In light of the increasing number of marriages between Singapore residents and foreigners, this was a welcome move. With greater security, it is likely that children from such marriages will become Singapore Citizens and the family will grow their roots in Singapore.

On this note, I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister the following: first, how many foreign spouses have been given LTVP+? Second, does the Government intend to liberalise the granting of LTVP+? And, third, with this scheme in place, will it be more difficult for foreign spouses to secure permanent residency or citizenship?

I end with a request. I urge the Government to take a more flexible view with respect to foreign children of Singaporeans who apply for citizenship or PR. We should help such families stay together in Singapore. The children's connection with Singapore is significant. If the concern is of false claims and that can easily be verified by simple tests.

Page: 89

Mr Zainal Sapari (In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.]  Madam, the Population White Paper that was presented to craft the Government's plans for a sustainable population in Singapore in the future has raised concerns among the Malay community who are worried that it will affect the proportion of Malays. This is because it will have major social and political implications to the Malay community.

Some national leaders, including the Prime Minister, have provided assurances to the Malay community that the percentage of Malay citizens in Singapore will be maintained. Some segments of the community would like to know the efforts that are being made to attract Malay PMETs who are professionals, managers, executives and technicians from neighbouring countries to work or reside in Singapore by 2020. What is the outcome of these efforts so far and has it been effective? How many new Malay PMETs have become Permanent Residents or Singapore Citizens in the last five years? Our community also wants to know what are the new efforts that will be introduced to increase the number of new Malay immigrants here.

Mdm Chairperson, I hope that this issue to attract Malay PMETs from our neighbouring countries will be given enough attention to ensure that the new citizens or Singapore Permanent Residents who are Malays will have similarities in terms of religion, culture and way of life.

Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap (Aljunied) (In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Madam, Parliament recently concluded the debate on the White Paper on Population. I have several questions on the issue about the composition of Malays in Singapore.

During the final day of debate on the White Paper on Population, the Prime Minister, in his speech, gave assurances that the Government will make efforts to ensure that the percentage of Malays in Singapore will continue to be stable, even though he did not explain what steps will be taken by the Government in this matter. The Prime Minister also commented last December during a session of Our Singapore Conversation that the Government had done its best and worked hard to attract Malay talents from Malaysia and Indonesia, but the numbers were small. Therefore, my first question is: what are the steps that were taken by the Government so far to attract Malay talents from Malaysia and Indonesia, but did not result in a good outcome, and what are the next steps

Page: 90

that will be taken by the Government in its effort to attract Malay talents?

Madam, during the same debate, Minister Ms Grace Fu said that the percentage of Malays in the citizen population, which does not include Permanent Residents, is stable, whereby in the year 2000, it was 14.9% and in 2010, it increased to 15.1%. This is a very encouraging statement, but if we looked at the overall resident population, which includes citizens as well as Singapore Permanent Residents, the percentage of Malays experienced a reduction from 13.9% in the year 2000, to 13.4% in 2010. My second question is: what are the factors that led to the decrease in the percentage of Malays, in terms of resident population, even though there is an increase in the percentage of Malays in terms of citizen population?

Madam, in my speech during the White Paper on Population debate, I said that I am of the view that maybe emigration is one of the factors that might have led to the decrease in the percentage of Malays in Singapore. My third question is whether there is an upward trend of Malay emigration for the last 10 years, what is the annual number of Malay individuals who have emigrated from Singapore and whether it is the main factor that led to the decrease in the percentage of Malays.

Madam, I quoted the speech by Ms Grace Fu during the debate on the White Paper on Population, that is, "the Government recognises the need to maintain the racial balance in Singapore's population in order to preserve social stability." Based on this, I request that the Government implement more effective steps in this issue on the composition of Malays in Singapore.

Mdm Speaker, I would like to talk about the risks of policy overshoots, query the co-ordination of work between the Ministries, and also suggest that we add more diversity to the experience in our Civil Service team.

I would like to suggest four areas where we have perhaps been in danger of policy overshoot or undershoot, and when perhaps some re-calibration or better coordination between the Ministries might be needed.

One, housing. We seem to have gone from oversupply in early 2000s to undersupply now. Are we moving into oversupply again down the road? We are ramping up supply, from 25,000 per annum to 200,000 in the next four years. At the same time, we have introduced seven rounds of cooling measures. But as we attempt to rein in this demand, we need to be mindful of the risks ahead. Potentially higher interest rates could coincide with the peaking in supply to create a double whammy in the property market. The last thing we need is an overshoot in the cooling measures.

The other question is if our labour and immigration policies are all in sync with the 200,000 supply target by 2016? Will we have enough foreign workers needed to keep up with this aggressive pace of construction?

Two, transport. Perhaps the benchmark used in the past to determine the capacity of our public transport system was too conservative. Perhaps the policy-makers were being prudent and did not want to overbuild. But the population surge has caused bottlenecks. So, does this mean that perhaps our infrastructure and immigration departments could have been better

Page: 94

coordinated? We are reacting now, but only after years of bad congestion. We now have the Land Use Plan, which doubles the rail length of our MRT system. But the tightening in the foreign labour policy could pose a challenge to fulfilling these plans. Perhaps MOM and MOT will have to better coordinate their efforts. One suggestion I have is to follow the Thai Model. Thailand has their train stations built longer than their trains, so as to allow them the flexibility to enlarge their capacity if required. Perhaps our planners can adopt this too.

Three, labour policy. Perhaps we had an overtly liberal foreign labour policy in the past. Between 2007 and 2008, we had a net inflow of 300,000 foreign workers. This has created the current problems of low productivity and congestion. And now in our bid to unwind this past policy mistake, we have tightened foreign labour policy rapidly. This, again, looks like a sharp policy U-turn that risks flipping over. Indeed, the risk is that we may end up creating a new set of problems for ourselves going forward. These include a persistently high structural inflation, hollowing out of the SMEs and consequently an increase in structural unemployment, as well as the deterioration in competitiveness and its associated problems. Perhaps we need to slow down the speed of this tightening as we examine the long-term consequences?

Fourth, restructuring. The strong Sing Dollar, combined with high labour and rental costs, means we are becoming increasingly uncompetitive. As we tighten labour policies and incentivise companies to innovate or relocate, what is the risk of policy overshoots here? Will we wipe out some good home-grown companies as a result? And what sensors do policy-makers have to ensure that the casualties suffered now will not be regretted later?

Reuters reported that 57% of 268 Singapore listed companies reported a drop in operating profit margins, the biggest drop on record. The Financial Times and ACRA numbers have all pointed towards firms moving out or closing down. Some economists call these closures "creative destruction". But I would caution against allowing too much of this "creative destruction" to erode at the core of what Singapore stands for, which is a country with policy stability and transparency.

The above examples, I hope, highlight the point that our policies may be reactive and potentially drastic. This raises the risk of overshooting.

Page: 95

Lastly, if I may be so bold as to suggest that perhaps some of our policy-makers or the Civil Service may benefit from getting some hands-on experience or exposures in the private or commercial sector. Perhaps, some secondments or attachments in order to test out first-hand the effectiveness of some of our policies.

Mdm Chair, we had an intense and passionate debate last month over the Population White Paper. Population issues remain close to everyone's hearts and have a significant impact on our future. Our conversation on population does not end with the debate on the White Paper.

While the White Paper sets out a long-term roadmap to overcome our demographic challenge, our population policies are not static. There are many factors that affect population, like fertility rate, the pace of restructuring and global economic conditions. Beyond 2020, things are more uncertain and we will carry out a medium term review of our population policies and assumptions before then. We will ensure that the benefits of our population policies flow to Singaporeans.

Parliament had emphasised the need to maintain a strong Singaporean Core by encouraging more Singaporeans to get married and have children. This remains our top priority and is a key and central starting point of our population policies.

Last year, we welcomed 33,205 new Singaporean babies and our total fertility rate (TFR) was 1.29. I am happy to share that this is a slight improvement from 2011 where there were 30,946 new babies born to Singapore citizens and a TFR of 1.2.

With the enhancements announced in January this year, we have a comprehensive Marriage & Parenthood (M&P) Package to help us fulfil our aspirations to get married and have children. Our measures support Singaporeans in getting married, setting up a home, having children, parenting as well as achieving better work-life harmony.

Marriage and parenthood is a central piece of our population policies, and we welcome further suggestions on how we can improve our measures. Ms Lee Li Lian, Mr Gerald Giam, Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar have made some suggestions on this area.

Page: 96

Ms Lee asked about the need for the co-savings component of the Baby Bonus Child Development Account (CDA). Our schemes seek to help parents defray some of the costs of raising a child while recognising that the primary responsibility for the care and development of a child rests with the parents. Costs of raising a child go beyond the costs of delivery and child birth. In fact, many parents have come up to me to say that they plan ahead for the future needs of their child. Many proactively save for their child. We agree with what they are doing. I think they are very responsible parents and they have sensible plans for themselves and for their children. The Government would like to encourage savings by co-saving with them.

The Baby Bonus scheme, therefore, comprises both the Baby Bonus cash gift and the CDA. The cash gift component helps parents cover some of the costs in the child's early years. Singaporean children born on or after 26 August 2012 will receive the enhanced Baby Bonus cash gift of $6,000 each for the first and second child and $8,000 each for the third and fourth child.

The co-savings component encourages parents to save for the future needs of the child. This is extended to all birth orders. The Government will match dollar-for-dollar contributions made by the parents to the CDA, up to a cap ranging from $6,000 for the first child to $18,000, depending on the birth order of the child. The CDA was extended by six years to the age of 12 of the child, with effect from 1 January 2013. This allows parents more time to save and utilise the support from the Government. In response to feedback and requests from parents, we also expanded the use of the CDA in July 2012 to cover healthcare items at pharmacies, eye-related products at optical shops and assistive technology. CDA funds can also be used for the purchase of textbooks and uniforms for pre-school, as well as other related childcare costs, such as registration fees, local field trips and assessment fees.

Mr Giam suggested further enhancement to the childcare leave scheme. We recognise that parents will need time away from work to see to their children's needs, especially parents of younger children. This is why we have increased the childcare leave provisions in 2008 from two days to six days per parent per year for parents with children below the age of seven. Parents of infants below the age of two can also take six days of unpaid infant care leave per parent per year. This gives parents of infants below the age of two a total of 24 days of leave per year to look after their young children. As part of the enhancement in the 2013 M&P Package, childcare leave provisions were further extended so that parents of Primary school-going children aged seven to 12 can also enjoy two days of Government paid childcare leave per parent per year. While legislating more childcare leave may provide parents with greater

Page: 97

flexibility, employers may find it difficult to manage their operations and manpower needs if their employees are away for too long.

Even with the Government funding childcare leave, we are mindful that some companies face practical difficulties should the employees be absent from work often or for an extended period of time. Legislation of leave entitlement, therefore, has to be made judiciously, taking into consideration the needs and concerns of both employers and employees. This is why the childcare leave entitlement is given to both fathers and mothers for better sharing of parental responsibility, with each parent who has young children below seven enjoying the maximum leave entitlement of six days of paid childcare leave per year.

Both Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Dr Intan have suggested that the Government provide additional support for grandparents and family care-givers. Grandparents and other relatives who care for children play an important role in raising them. They make significant contributions to our society in bringing up the next generation and passing on our values and memories to shape the future generations of Singaporeans. Their contributions cannot be under-estimated, nor are they quantifiable. We have sought to symbolically recognise the support provided by grandparents by giving the Grandparent Care-giver Relief of $3,000 per year to working mothers. It is never easy to place a value on the care given by one family member to another – whether it is a husband caring for a sickly wife, a mother caring for her child, or a daughter caring for her elderly parent. Recognising that care given by one family member to another is one that is motivated by a sense of love and family ties, we have not attempted to reward family members monetarily for looking after one of our own. In this light, we hope that parents will do more to recognise the help offered and sacrifices made by grandparents.

In total, Madam, we have set aside an annual budget of $2.3 billion for marriage and parenthood measures. We are making improvements to the pre-school sector. MOE and MSF will provide further details of these initiatives.

In addition, we recognise that employers can and do play an important role in supporting a pro-family environment by putting in place family-friendly work practices. In this regard, we are also enhancing the support given to employers. MOM will provide more details on this.

While we continue to support marriage and parenthood, we recognise that they are personal decisions. Social attitudes and family values play an

Page: 98

important role in influencing these decisions. The society at large has an important role to play. Employers making available flexi-work arrangements; bosses encouraging their young employees to leave office when work is done; grandparents helping to keep an eye on the young children; a friend who organises dinner parties and introduces new friends to one another; these are ways that can help shape a pro-family environment so that our young adults will put family high up on their priorities, and are better able to achieve their family and career goals.

We thank Members for their suggestions, Mr Gan Thiam Poh on the family COE, for example, and will take them into consideration as we continue to study ways to better support Singaporeans in their marriage and parenthood journey and enhance the pro-family environment in Singapore.

Apart from encouraging marriage and parenthood to strengthen our Singaporean Core, Singaporeans living overseas are also an integral part of the Singapore family and Singaporean Core. We are actively engaging our overseas Singaporeans to help them remain emotionally connected to Singapore, and in touch with developments and opportunities back home. We hope that they will return at the end of their work or study stints overseas.

Our Overseas Singaporean Unit proactively reaches out to Singaporeans overseas. We have conducted an extensive study involving more than 3,000 Singaporeans abroad. We are actively taking steps to address their needs and facilitate their returning from abroad as much as possible. This could involve facilitating contact with various public agencies, such as MINDEF for enlistment matters, Contact Singapore for job matching, and MOE for placement of returning students.

We keep in touch with our Singaporeans overseas through a suite of face-to-face and online engagement activities. Events, such as Singapore Day, bring a piece of Singapore to our Singaporeans living overseas. Here we have very energetic Singaporeans waving Singapore flags proudly in Prospect Park, New York, 15,000 km away from home. They are very appreciative of the effort to keep them connected emotionally with Singapore, including having good Singaporean food. We see these as important platforms for us to strengthen the emotional connection between our overseas Singaporeans and Singapore. Our President and Ministers also take opportunities to meet Singaporeans whenever they go for overseas visits. This is a photograph of our Prime Minister holding a tea reception in Melbourne in October 2012 for the Singaporeans there, the young Singaporeans were very appreciative of the opportunities to catch up on the latest developments in Singapore and also an opportunity to

Page: 99

engage our Prime Minister. Many who have attended these events found that these are precious opportunities to re-connect with Singapore, as well as to meet fellow Singaporeans.

As Singaporeans join the global talent pool, we will need to compete for our Singaporeans to return. Ultimately, what matters most to Singaporeans abroad is the same as that for Singaporeans here – that is, Singapore to be a place where we belong, that it is a good home for us, and it is a place where we have good opportunities and a fair chance to succeed. For Singapore to be attractive, we must offer good opportunities for our people.

While we are putting in all our efforts to sustain a strong Singaporean Core, by encouraging Singaporeans to get married and have children, this will take time. We are hopeful that we can improve our TFR over time. In the meantime, we have to address the shortfall of births. We do so through a calibrated pace of immigration, granting a select number of citizenships to those who share our values, who can fit into our society, and who have committed their future with Singapore.

Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef asked about the impact of immigration on our fertility rate and dependency ratio. Our immigrants top up our resident population in the younger age groups where we have a shortfall of babies. Our birth rates have been below replacement levels over the past few decades. Immigration helps to alleviate this problem and improve our old-age support ratio, as we work towards improving our fertility rates.

An increasing number of new immigrants are foreign spouses of Singaporeans and such couples go on to have children that will make up the next generation of Singaporeans. In 2012, around 9,000 marriages involved one citizen and a foreign spouse, either a Permanent Resident or non-resident. Children born from marriages involving a foreign spouse account for about 30% of Singaporean babies each year.

Mr Ang Wei Neng, Mr Sitoh Yih Pin and Asst Prof Eugene Tan raised the issue of integration of new citizens. Many of them would have lived in Singapore for a number of years before taking up citizenship.

It takes time and effort for our immigrants to understand and adapt to our values and norms. The National Integration Council (NIC) drives and

Page: 100

coordinates integration efforts across different platforms – namely our schools, workplaces and community to familiarise our newcomers to Singapore's norms, cultures and values.

The Singapore Citizenship (SC) Journey was introduced in 2011 to enrich new citizens' understanding of Singaporean norms and values and provide opportunities for greater interaction with their local community.

We have received good feedback from participants of these initiatives, but more can be done to improve them. We will review the efforts undertaken thus far to address possible gaps. The NIC will also press on with efforts to foster integration across all segments of our society. Minister for Culture, Community and Youth, who chairs the NIC, will elaborate more on the Council's upcoming plans in his speech.

The challenge lies in fostering meaningful integration. The SC Journey and many other integration programmes are merely catalysts to the process. Ultimately, effective and sustainable integration can only be achieved when sincere relationships are forged between new immigrants and Singaporeans. The numerous opportunities in our daily lives to cultivate and nurture these relationships are therefore the most crucial element in the integration process. We therefore seek the support and participation of everyone, both Singaporeans and new immigrants, so that we can maintain the cohesion in our diverse society and safeguard our values and norms.

Mr Ang Wei Neng and Mr Sitoh Yih Pin raised an interesting proposal for Singaporeans to be involved in the decision of granting citizenships. We will consider it seriously.

Singaporeans remain at the heart of our nation and are the central considerations in all our policies. A strong Singaporean Core is our key objective. A strong Singaporean Core is where Singaporeans have a sense of well-being and belonging. Well-being comes from tangibles like having good and meaningful jobs and a good quality living environment, as well as intangibles like strong, loving and supportive families, values that connect us and a collective hope for a brighter future. We believe that together – all of us, new citizens, Singaporeans alike – we can build a strong Singaporean Core and a brighter future for Singapore.

I thank Members for their suggestions and questions. Some of these have been addressed by Minister Grace Fu. I will now focus on

Page: 101

the other suggestions and questions raised.

There are many more opportunities now for Singaporeans to meet and marry non-Singaporeans. A large number of Singaporeans have married non-Singaporeans in recent years. Most would want to seek residency and citizenship for their spouses.

A number of Members asked about the granting of citizenship and immigration facilities to foreign spouses. Madam, we want to facilitate such couples to remain together in Singapore and for them to form stable families who would contribute in a positive way to Singapore. Our policies for granting long-term immigration facilities to foreign spouses are intended to support this. Foreign spouses will generally be granted a Long-Term Visit Pass (LTVP) in the first instance.

Factors that we consider for granting LTVP include the ability of the sponsor to financially support the family, and good conduct of both the sponsor and the applicant. Beyond these requirements, a foreign spouse will be eligible to be considered for LTVP+ if the married couple has at least one Singaporean child from their marriage. For those without a Singaporean child, we will look at other factors such as the duration of marriage. A marriage of at least three years will be considered more favourably. This information is available on ICA's website. Each application will be considered on its own merits.

As Members are aware, LTVP+, valid for three years in the first instance, and up to five years in subsequent renewals, grants healthcare subsidies for inpatient services similar to what Permanent Residents get. LTVP+ holders only need a letter of consent from MOM to work in Singapore. LTVP and LTVP+ holders are not subject to any foreign worker levy, nor do they count towards a company's dependency ratio. Thus, this makes it much easier for them to find employment in Singapore, help to stabilise the family and contribute to the family income. Therefore, it helps to support them forming stable families.

As at 31 December 2012, there were 11,736 foreign spouses of Singapore Citizens on LTVPs including the LTVP+. Four thousand two hundred have been granted the LTVP+ since it was introduced in April 2012. Let me assure Mr Hri Kumar that the LTVP+ in no way disadvantages a foreign spouse's application for Permanent Residence (PR) or Singapore Citizenship (SC). LTVP+ is meant to provide more certainty and a higher level of social and work benefits for spouses who might otherwise have remained on an LTVP as they have not yet

Page: 102

met the requirements for PR.

As their marriages and family situations stabilise and they become increasingly integrated, more of them will qualify to become permanent residents, and eventually naturalise as citizens. Over the past five years, 4,100 foreign spouses were granted PR every year and a further 4,100 took up citizenship each year.

In assessing foreign spouses' applications for PR and Singapore Citizenship, their family ties to Singaporeans are taken into consideration. ICA considers factors such as length of marriage, duration of stay in Singapore, and whether the couple has children from the marriage. Citizens who sponsor their foreign spouses for PR or Citizenship applications will also be asked to show that they are able to support them.

Apart from those who are applying on the basis of family ties, we also consider other applicants who seek residency or citizenship. A calibrated level of suitable immigrants will help keep our citizen population stable. Several Members asked about the criteria for granting PRs and SCs more generally.

Our immigration framework has been tightened significantly since late 2009. All PR and Citizenship applications are carefully evaluated on a comprehensive and stringent set of criteria to assess the applicants' ability to contribute and integrate well into our society as well as their commitment to sinking roots here. This includes factors such as the individual's length of stay in Singapore, family profile, economic contributions, qualifications and age. We also consider applicants' family ties to Singaporeans.

Mr Sitoh Yih Pin, Mr Ang Wei Neng, Mr Zainal Sapari and Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef raised suggestions on how to improve our immigration framework, including having Singaporeans vouch for or support a person who applies for PR or Singapore Citizenship, or considering factors such as being able to speak English or being involved in the community. These are all possible ways to encourage integration and indicate how well an applicant has adapted to Singaporean norms, values and lifestyle. We will study these suggestions and are also open to other ideas, as we continue to fine-tune our framework.

We should continue to adopt a holistic framework for assessing applications and remain open to diversity even as we do more to encourage and help immigrants integrate better into Singapore and adapt to our norms

Page: 103

and practices.

Mr Zainal Sapari and Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked about the proportion of Malays in our population. We recognise the need to maintain the racial balance in Singapore's population to preserve the character of our society and our social stability.

The proportion of Malays in the resident population has indeed fallen slightly, as the number of Permanent Residents that has been given out, is not in proportion with the racial composition of Singapore. However, the proportion of Malays in our citizen population has been stable. In granting citizenship, we have been careful to maintain this racial balance. Hence, Malays comprised 15.1% of our citizen population in 2010, similar to the 14.9% a decade ago in 2000.

One of the reasons that this has been possible is because the higher birth rates of Malays compared to the other major ethnic groups have helped to support the racial balance. Or put another way, the other racial groups have been having very low TFRs. While our overall total fertility rate (TFR) fell below the replacement rate of 2.1 since 1976, the TFR for Malays fell below replacement level from 2004. The TFR for Malays is still higher than the other ethnic groups at 1.69 in 2012, compared to 1.18 for the Chinese and 1.14 for the Indians. The Malay population will therefore continue to grow over the next few decades. We hope that the new M&P Package will help uplift the birth rates towards replacement rate.

Mr Zainal Sapari and Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap also asked about attracting more Malay immigrants. We do have an inflow of Malay immigrants. Some are spouses. There are also Malays from regional countries working and studying in Singapore. We welcome more who are suitable to take up residency and citizenship here. We hope that they will find Singapore an attractive place. I also look forward to suggestions and ideas from Members on how we can make Singapore a more attractive destination for Malay immigrants.

Mr Pritam Singh and Ms Sylvia Lim raised the issue of transparency in our immigration policies and data. I had earlier explained the parameters of our immigration framework and described the main factors considered when assessing applications.

Page: 104

But beyond that, we do not reveal the specific criteria when approving applications. Applications are assessed on a holistic basis taking all factors into consideration and we would not want to encourage individuals to tailor their applications to specific criteria to artificially increase their likelihood of approval. Most countries adopt the same practice. They have eligibility criteria for applications, but they do not reveal specific details of how they evaluate different criteria when making approval decisions.

Mr Zainal Sapari and Mr Pritam Singh raised the examples of the various calculators in Australia, and the Naturalisation Eligibility Worksheets in the US and Canada. These are tools to help applicants assess their own eligibility for citizenship application, but applicants are still subject to a stringent set of criteria before they are granted citizenship. There are factors such as good moral character which are factors for assessment and how precisely they assessed are often not made public. I should point out that in Canada, for example, when citizenship applications are processed, such processing can take two years or more. For some categories, I am told that a processing backlog of up to eight years exists. This was in November 2012. So, there is clearly some friction in their system as well.

Ms Sylvia Lim also requested for increased transparency of our population data. Much of the information and statistics pertinent to population issues are already available in the public domain. The Department of Statistics website has key annual indicators on population, and puts out annual publications including, Population Trends, and Statistics on Marriages and Divorces. Population statistics are also included in the Monthly Digest of Statistics Singapore and in the Yearbook of Statistics. The National Population and Talent Division releases the Population in Brief publication every year, to provide the public with relevant information on Singapore's population landscape. MOM also puts out statistics on the workforce.

In the last year, we have also released a significant amount of data and analysis related to population issues in the form of Occasional Papers on Citizen Population Scenarios and Marriage and Parenthood trends. Ms Lim and Mr Singh may wish to visit the "Resources" section of our population micro site. I have with me a sample, not a complete sample, of all the population data that we have released in just the past one year. So, there is actually quite a lot of data that is made available in the public domain. These publications are easily available in the Parliament Library and through online access on Parliament's or the individual's own computers. Hence, much of the information and

Page: 105

statistics pertinent to population issues are already available in the public domain.

In some cases, we provide aggregated information or data instead of a more detailed breakdown because it may not be in our interest to do so. It may have implications on specific groups of persons or create sensitivities in the countries of origin for those who are working here or those who have migrated here. For example, while we seek to diversify the sources of foreign workers in Singapore, it may not be in our interest to provide a detailed breakdown of the numbers and countries of origin of workers in each industry. For similar reasons, we provide data on the number of immigrants by broad categories of the regions they have come from but have not provided the detailed breakdown of immigrants by specific countries of origin. I think Members understand that there may be some sensitivity with regard to this.

Members have from time to time asked for specific data. We would be happy to consider these requests and endeavour to provide the information bearing in mind the considerations that I described earlier.

Besides population statistics, we have also been open with our population policies, as set out in the Population White Paper. The Population White Paper recommends a significant slowdown, by about half, in population and foreign worker growth from past rates. And as Ms Tan Su Shan has pointed out, businesses have expressed concern about what this slowdown in foreign labour means for them.

We are taking many measures to raise resident labour force participation. The Government will also continue to support businesses to raise productivity, upgrade workers, automate, improve processes and redesign jobs, so as to reduce their reliance on foreign labour. These are part of our efforts to restructure our economy to move towards quality growth, productivity and innovation.

We recognise that the transition will be challenging, and we will help businesses to do so. My colleague, the Minister for Finance, had announced a set of measures in his recent Budget Speech to help companies restructure and these include the Wage Credit Scheme, Productivity and Innovation Credit Bonus, corporate income tax rebate and so forth. These are meant to help our companies, especially SMEs, to cope with the transition.

Page: 106

Ms Tan made some useful suggestions on how civil servants can have a deeper understanding of business concerns and practices, and we will consider these.

We will also not let up on our efforts to ensure that the benefits of our policies, such as better job opportunities and wages, flow through to Singaporeans. We will press on with on-going infrastructure improvements, especially in housing and transport. And we will also review policies to ensure inclusive and quality growth that benefits and improves Singaporeans' well-being. We will also continue engaging Singaporeans on population and its related issues, including through Our Singapore Conversation and other forums. As the Prime Minister has stated, we will conduct a medium-term review of our population policies towards 2020.

With the Government, businesses and Singaporeans working together, I am confident that we can build a Sustainable Population for a Dynamic Singapore.

Mdm Chair, since Chinese New Year last year, Singaporeans have been gripped by the investigations and subsequent prosecution of several top civil servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act. There have been recent reports of corruption complaints against other public officials, for example, an assistant director from the Media Development Authority (MDA) is suspected of borrowing money from applicants for MDA grants. Now, an assistant director of the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) itself is under investigation for alleged embezzlement.

This series of announcements naturally arouses public concern. On the one hand, we can certainly take comfort in the fact that the complaints came to light and are being investigated and prosecuted. On the other hand, some may worry whether there is cause for concern about slipping standards of conduct in the Public Service?

The most recent report of the CPIB available on its website is for the year 2011. It shows that from 2007 to 2011, there had been a steady fall in the number of corruption-related complaints to CPIB. During this period, the number of CPIB investigations also declined significantly, from 323 in 2007 to 138 in 2011. As 2012 appears to have been a busy year for CPIB, could the Government confirm whether the declining trend has now been reversed, that is, has there been an

Page: 107

increase in the number of corruption complaints and prosecutions in 2012?

At the international level, Singapore's reputation of having a Public Service low in corruption is still well-maintained, having been in the top five of Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index list for at least a decade. However, while we were rated joint number one in 2010, we have been ranked fifth for the last two years. Though we do not want to be obsessed with rankings, has the Government studied Transparency International's methodology and examined the reasons why Singapore was recently rated below Denmark, Finland, New Zealand and Sweden?

The Transparency International Corruption Perception Index ranked Singapore as number one among 178 countries in 2010. However, in 2011, we slipped to number five and in 2012 we are number five too. May I ask what lesson have we learnt from this?

CPIB celebrated its 60th Anniversary last year. We are admired by many countries and we have enjoyed the good name of being a clean, developed nation. Delegations from many countries came here to learn about our anti-corruption practices. In view of the recent high profile corruption cases, will Singapore's CPIB ranking slip further?

Our Civil Service has always prided itself on integrity, service and excellence. But it is up to the law to punish suspected wrong doers. Our civil servants, especially our top civil servants should not act in any way that compromise their image in the eyes of the public. In this aspect, have the Government and the Public Service Commission reviewed the code of conduct for civil servants?

Every individual's personal life is his own private life. But public servants should always bear in mind that as servants of the public, it is up to them to live a life of integrity in the service.

We do have good check-and-balance systems to deter corruption, but the latest ranking of our corruption perception indicates that there is still room for improvement. Other than religious beliefs, moral values, integrity is being instilled through family upbringing and education and that determines the act of every individual. Due to the focus on seeking academic achievement in our

Page: 108

education system all these years, we now need to pay more attention to the moral values. Unlike work competency and academic achievements, integrity is something hard to determine. A person can change over time due to environment that he is exposed to. Thus, constant education on corruption as a reminder to civil servants is equally important.

Singapore has been an active proponent in the discussions on climate change negotiations. We are also engaged in environmental cooperation, both regionally and internationally. The Resilience Working group under the National Climate Change Secretariat (NCCS) looks at our vulnerability and long-term solutions in the area of climate change. How actively are we pursuing potential new innovations and initiatives? What measures do the group feel can have the greatest impact on Singapore, especially when Singapore has also pledged to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions by16% below business as usual levels by 2020. How on target are we in this direction?

Currently, Singapore does not have carbon pricing. Will the Secretariat be considering some form of carbon taxation or other alternatives to reduce carbon emissions? Also, has the potential impact of carbon taxation on our economy been studied? These considerations will become key, especially with the expansion of industries, restructuring of our growth and also expansion of our public transport system. With the expected 800 new buses and more taxis, what measures are being considered to reduce these environmental effects?

Also with the recent announcement on the reclamation of more land for Singapore, will there be specific strategies and precautions to be undertaken, such as keeping the reclaimed land levels a specific distance above the highest recorded tide levels.

Madam, the electoral process is an integral part of any democracy. Representation is an essential part of our system of parliamentary democracy. Increasingly, Singaporean voters are concerned with the fairness of the electoral process. This House should not be surprised that voters may, all things be equal, decide to cast their ballots based on their perceptions of how level the electoral playing field is.

Page: 109

Perceptions are often treated as realities in politics. As such, in our one-party dominant system, perceptions of unfairness in the electoral system tend to work against the ruling party. But that is not my key concern. My concern relates to the need for trust and confidence in the entire process of elections.

Recent reports over the last two decades of the Electoral Boundaries Review Committees (EBRC) are characterised by their brevity. Brevity is often a virtue but details, reasoning, and explanations are often lacking in the EBRC reports. As such, where there may even be justified boundary changes, explanation is lacking. Often there is the presumption that the changes are politically motivated. There is a need to provide for more robust substantiation of the rationale and principles that guide the EBRC's recommendations.

For instance, taking the EBRC Report of February 2011, what are the reasons to retain the Singapore Member Constituencies (SMCs) of Potong Pasir and Hougang, while abolishing five other SMCs? How did the EBRC decide which GRCs should become smaller? One could not discern the methodology of the EBRC. Not surprisingly, accusations of gerrymandering were raised.

This takes away from the good work done by the EBRC. For instance, the EBRC report sought to advance the principle of fair and balanced representation. The EBRC also sought to ensure that the number of electors in similar-sized GRCs did not suffer from too much variation among them.

I urge the Government to recognise that future EBRC reports can secure more buy-in and sustain confidence and trust in the electoral process if the EBRC explains the rationale for the changes and how they were decided. The process by which the boundaries are reviewed and decided upon is just as important, if not more important, than the specific changes themselves.

This is notwithstanding that any redrawing of electoral boundaries will be seen as an inherently political process and that it is probably impossible to have perfectly distributed electoral divisions.

Could the EBRC be constituted by civil servants, as is the current practice, and respected members of our society with the relevant expertise to make a nuanced sense of what is needed to be done where the electoral boundaries are concerned?

Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Seng Han Thong asked about corruption in Singapore. Singapore adopts a zero-tolerance stance against

Page: 110

corruption and is committed to upholding the highest levels of integrity and incorruptibility.

Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) has consistently ranked Singapore as amongst the five least corrupt countries in the world for the past 10 years. In 2012, Singapore was again ranked fifth, with a score of 87 out of 100. In 2012, Political and Economic Risk Consultancy ranked Singapore as the least corrupt economic entity in Asia for the 18th consecutive year.

It is possible that because it is a perceptions index that the recent high profile cases may have affected the way people perceive corruption in Singapore. But it is important that we deal with these cases properly. I am confident that when the public and the international community see that we deal with these cases in an open and transparent way, they will continue to have high confidence in our anti-corruption stance in Singapore.

Singapore has therefore continued to maintain its strong reputation and position as one of the least corrupt countries in the world. The CPIB does not hesitate to investigate high profile corruption cases including those involving senior public officers. The fact that these are eventually brought to court shows that there are checks and balances in the Singapore system to detect, prosecute and adjudicate wrongdoings. Any wrongdoing will be investigated, and those accused of criminal acts will be prosecuted, and they will also at the same time have the opportunity to defend themselves in Court.

Over the past five years, the number of offenders prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption Act has remained stable, with those from the public sector accounting for an average of 7.5% of the total number. For 2012, offenders from the public sector made up 5.6%, or eight of the 143 cases. The 143 cases are slightly higher than the 131 cases in 2011, but lower than the numbers in 2009 and 2010. So, the numbers have largely remained stable.

While the corruption situation in Singapore remains under control, the recent cases involving senior public officers serve as a timely reminder that we must not let our guard down. The Public Service is governed by a Code of Conduct, based on the principles of meritocracy, incorruptibility and impartiality, which all officers are to uphold. Public officers must not let personal interests influence the official decisions they make. The Code also

Page: 111

includes specific requirements to ensure accountability, and safeguards against corruption, for example, through annual declarations on indebtedness and investments. Generally, officers should also not accept gifts on account of their official position. The Civil Service College incorporates Public Service values and ethos in its training programmes.

Officers are also encouraged to report any corrupt practices or errant behaviour they have observed in the course of their work, directly to CPIB, to their Permanent Secretary or Chief Executive, the Head of Civil Service or the Public Service Commission. We take these reports very seriously and will launch an investigation once there is sufficient basis and information provided. Our strong stand against corruption also effectively acts as a deterrent to officers from committing fraud. The CPIB continues to conduct outreach activities to the Civil Service, to the business community, and also to youths and undergraduates.

Ultimately, our zero tolerance against corruption can only succeed if our society continues to reject corruption – not just because of harsh rules and penalties, but because this reflects the society we want to live in and the values that all of us hold dear.

Mdm Chairman, on climate change, Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef asked if we are on target to meet our climate change pledges and if we are considering any form of carbon pricing.

Singapore aspires to be a climate-resilient global city that is well positioned for green growth. We are on track to meet our pledge of 7% to 11% below business-as-usual (BAU) levels by 2020. We are prepared to go further and reduce our emissions by 16% from the 2020 business-as-usual level, if there is a global agreement on climate change. This would require a major effort given Singapore's early mitigation actions and difficulties to switch to alternative forms of clean energy.

This year, a number of new measures have or will come into force, to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. Building owners have to step up efforts to improve energy efficiency under the Building Control Act.

The Energy Conservation Act will stipulate energy management practices for large energy users. We are also encouraging the take-up of low-emission cars and taxis through the Carbon Emissions-based Vehicle Scheme.

Page: 112

We are studying a comprehensive suite of measures to reduce emissions, including carbon pricing. Carbon pricing will send the appropriate price signals to encourage changes in energy consumption, lower carbon emissions and promote low-carbon technology. However, the implications for both businesses and consumers must be studied carefully, in consultation with the relevant stakeholders. Countries such as Australia and South Korea have recently announced carbon pricing schemes and we will study their experiences.

The Government has formed the Long-term Emissions and Mitigation Working Group under the Inter-Ministerial Committee for Climate Change to study how we can stabilise our emissions over the long term. We need to work on energy efficiency improvements, explore new energy options and identify new technologies for deployment.

We collaborate closely with our Universities and research institutes to conduct R&D in areas such as solar energy, smart grid and green building technologies that meet our local needs and conditions.

Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef has also asked about strategies to address sea level rises. The Resilience Working Group under the IMCCC is working to enhance Singapore's resilience to climate change. Protecting our coastline, addressing increased flood risks and assessing implications of warmer temperatures on public health are some key aspects of its work. For example, we have raised the minimum reclamation level for new reclamation projects by an additional one metre – beyond the previous 1.25 metres – since end 2011 to cater to a possible rise in sea levels.

The Minister for Environment and Water Resources will elaborate more in his speech during COS on how Singapore is preparing for and building capabilities to address climate change.

I would like to address Asst Prof Eugene Tan's question on Electoral Boundaries. The fundamental structure of our electoral system, for example when and how elections are to be conducted, and how electoral constituencies are to be constituted are laid out in our laws, that is the relevant parts of the Constitution, the Parliamentary Elections Act, and for the election of President, the Presidential Elections Act. Our electoral process generally enjoys high public trust.

Asst Prof Eugene Tan suggested examining the procedural aspects for reviewing electoral boundaries, specifically including non-civil servants in the

Page: 113

Electoral Boundaries Review Committee and articulating the reasons for the boundary changes.

Mdm Chairman, the Prime Minister is mandated under current laws to decide on the number, names and boundaries of electoral divisions. It has been the practice for the Prime Minister to appoint an Electoral Boundaries Review Committee to conduct the review and recommend any changes to him. The Committee is made up of senior civil servants who are experts in demographic shifts and population statistics. The past Committees have taken about two to four months to complete their reviews. The review report is presented as a White Paper to Parliament and released to the public once it is accepted by the Government.

In drawing up its recommendations, the Committee is guided by the terms of reference laid out by the Prime Minister. The Committee independently considers and determines how the constituencies are delineated, the size and configuration of the constituencies, as well as the total number of Members of Parliament to be returned. When reviewing the electoral boundaries, the Committee takes into account technical factors such as population growth, population shifts and other relevant parameters. These would be the reasons for redrawing the boundaries of some electoral divisions or keeping the same boundaries for some others. And as Asst Prof Tan says, there is probably no perfect way that the committee can draw the boundaries to everyone's satisfaction.

The Committee members are senior public officers with collective professional knowledge and expertise of these parameters, basically population and population shifts. They are thus in a good position to make recommendations for the Electoral Boundaries. The EBRC would have to consider all the relevant factors in making the totality of their recommendations. Hence, to ask them to explain the technicalities of every change that the Committee recommends may not be feasible.

When the Committee is constituted, the Prime Minister will certainly remain open to and consider making refinements to its procedures when necessary.

Madam, I am glad to hear from Minister Tharman this afternoon that MAS will create some temporary exemptions for the recently announced car loans restrictions for the disabled and their care-givers, which

Page: 114

partially addresses the original intent of my cut.

I have a few clarifications to make based on this announcement. Firstly, how long will the exemption last since it is temporary? Next, why this should be temporary rather than a long-term exemption, especially if the affected member is permanently disabled? Lastly, whether this exemption can be extended to families with elderly dependents who have problems with mobility? These families also rely most on cars and will be affected by these changes.

Madam, I wish to declare my pecuniary interest as a banker. The Deputy Prime Minister has commented that our property market is at "near bubble" stage. The Government has introduced seven rounds of cooling measures to our property market. So, the question is – is real estate as an investment being targeted specifically by these policies?

It is clear that some of the measures have been introduced to "de-risk" the financial system and to reduce household leverage. However if indeed, one of the objectives is to reduce hot money flows into this sector, how effective have these policies been?

In 2012, developer sales of private residences set a record high of 22,000 units. The sales to foreigners did drop by 62%, so this would suggest that the bulk of sales went to Singaporeans, who are still investing in real estate, be it residential, industrial or commercial. I would say that much of this problem is tied to low interest rates and high inflation.

With inflation to stay high, at between 3.5% and 4.5%, Singaporean savers will want to look for an asset that gives them a decent return and hedge against inflation. Real interest rates and real mortgage rates are negative. This encourages investors to leverage up to invest in property. This explains why the overall economy's exposure to the property market is now at a record high level of 43.5%.

Unfortunately, other than the local equity market, which may be too volatile for some, there is a shortage of Sing dollar assets to soak up this liquidity. There is also a lack of low risk Sing dollars investments for household savings. According to a wealth report, cash remains a large part of Singaporeans' savings, retirement nest egg at 34%. So, finding a right, risk adjusted way to save and invest this cash for the future is important. Yes, the Sing dollar bond

Page: 115

market did grow by some $30 billion in the last year, but this market was dominated by institutions and high net worth individuals, not by middle- or lower-income groups. Hence, I have suggested, as I did in the past, that the Government could issue some inflation-linked bonds for the retail market.

Another alternative would be to support initiatives to build a more robust retail bond market so that individual savers can invest in a broader, more liquid array of Sing dollar bonds.

Mdm Chairperson, I thank the Members for raising questions relating to MAS and I will be responding to them on behalf of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Chairman of MAS.

First, Ms Lee Li Lian asked about the restrictions on motor vehicle loans, and as the Deputy Prime Minister explained earlier in his Budget Statement, there are two reasons why we are doing this. Maybe I should just reiterate them very briefly. The two reasons are: (1) encouraging financial prudence among consumers; and (2) a more macro-economic objective which is aimed at helping to cool COE prices and its impact on inflation.

The experience of advanced economies has shown that over leveraged households are particularly vulnerable to adverse changes in economic and financial conditions. And this risk of over-leverage has been exacerbated by our current climate of low interest rates and high COE prices, so buyers may be tempted to purchase a more expensive motor vehicle than what they would have otherwise done under a normal interest rate environment, and, hence, the financing restrictions to encourage financial prudence. That is the first reason.

The second objective on the macro side, which, again, the Deputy Prime Minister had explained earlier, was to ensure that the financing restrictions are aimed at exerting a cooling effect on COE prices. We know that COE prices for most categories have been on an upward trajectory since 2009 and the pace of price increase has been quickening since the beginning of 2010. Higher COE prices contribute to higher inflation and create spill-over effects on the broader economy. This affects not just car buyers, but all Singaporeans. Indeed, many Singaporeans, including many Members of this House, have been calling for measures to be introduced to address increasing COE prices.

As the Deputy Prime Minister said, and I reiterate, the introduction of these restrictions on motor vehicle loans represents a cyclical response – it is a

Page: 117

temporary cyclical response to these developments to dampen demand for motor vehicles, and to alleviate overall inflationary pressures in the economy. On the exemption that the Deputy Prime Minister mentioned earlier, to the extent that these restrictions are temporary, hence, the exemptions will also be temporary. In other words, the exemptions will be there for as long as the restrictions are there. That is to address one of the questions that Ms Lee asked.

Ms Lee asked if the exemptions can be broadened to other categories and other groups. I understand the concerns but I think to achieve the objectives that I have highlighted, and also highlighted by the Deputy Prime Minister earlier, we do need a fairly tight regime. For this moment, this is the regime that we have put in place. I think we should carefully consider the impact and look at how it develops. The details on the exemptions for disabled persons and their caregivers of the same household will be provided by MAS in due course, quite shortly after this.

Let me turn now to Ms Tan's question on real estate and also Singapore assets for savers. It is a question that she had asked before and I had responded in this House as well.

On real estate itself, the Government has been concerned about the buoyancy of the property market which has been partly, again, driven by the very low interest rate environment globally. We have taken several steps to cool demand and to expand supply, so as to avoid a sharper correction further down the road, which could happen when interest rates eventually rise. And any such major correction would be destabilising for households, our banks and also our broader economy.

The latest rounds of measures in January 2013 were calibrated to be tighter on property ownership for investment, as well as foreign buyers. And taken together, our aim – the Government's aim – is to ensure a stable and sustainable property market.

Like all investments, returns from property investments are not assured. This is especially so when property investments are financed through bank loans. And this leveraged nature can result in investors having a negative equity position in an economic downturn and when interest rates rise.

So, the question Ms Tan asked, which she had raised earlier, was whether there are other options for Singapore investors. I think as an international financial centre, we have a fairly well developed capital market. There are

Page: 118

diverse options available to investors, each with its own risk-return profile. Some investment products would focus on generating income, and others would emphasise capital gains. And these include stocks, corporate bonds, listed real estate investment trusts, unit trusts, including bond funds, exchange traded funds and Singapore Government Securities.

Ms Tan raised a concern about retail investors or investors from the lower middle-income groups who may not have access to these products. But, in fact, many of these investment products are accessible to retail investors. They can purchase them on the Singapore Exchange if it is an exchange traded fund, or they can do it through product distributors. And even in the case of corporate bonds, there have been more corporate issuers offering their bonds not just to the wholesale market, but also directly to the retail market. These issues have a low upfront minimum subscription amount and are traded on the Singapore Exchange in small board lots, with each board lot typically comprising $1,000 in principal amount of the bonds. Of course, besides directly investing in corporate bonds, retail investors may also achieve similar investment objectives through bond funds which aim to make regular distributions.

I think what is important besides talking about the investment products and the options is that when making an investment decision, investors should bear in mind that none of these products are risk-free. They should be clear about their investment objectives, understand the risk of investing in the products, and be realistic about their ability to withstand risk and loss. Where necessary, investors can consult financial advisers to formulate an investment plan that addresses these considerations. And for Singaporeans who do not have significant savings, it is probably best to keep their investments simple and conservative.

Ms Tan asked for the Government's view on inflation-linked bonds, and that is something, again, we had an exchange in Parliament last year. When she raised this question at that time, I indicated that MAS was studying the feasibility of such bonds. MAS has completed its study and the findings are that in the current low interest rate environment, investors will have to pay a premium to purchase inflation-linked bonds. It is not a small premium. For a three-year inflation-linked bond, for example, we estimate that this would work out to a premium of approximately 10 cents per dollar – so it is about 10%. Furthermore, as I had explained at that time, inflation-linked bonds are priced based on expectation of inflation and should the actual inflation fall below expectation, investors may actually be worse off than if they had purchased a nominal bond – a plain vanilla bond. So, the assessment is that it is not necessary at this stage to issue an inflation-linked bond given the current

Page: 119

circumstances. However, MAS will continue to review the matter and will consider this possibility in the future.

Finally, let me address the question that Mrs Lina Chiam asked − how we can better regulate "get-rich-quick" schemes. It was, again, a question that she had raised in Parliament last month, we had an exchange on this and I had responded to her.

I think the concerns are very real because with interest rates at a very low level for a prolonged period of time, there has been a proliferation of schemes that claim to provide high returns with seemingly low risks. So, I share the concerns that Mrs Chiam raised and I had explained then what MAS would be doing to step up its efforts to deal with such "get-rich-quick" schemes.

One measure as I had mentioned during the last reply was that MAS intends to limit the scope for entities to mislead or deceive consumers through false advertising. So, MAS is working with the Advertising Standards Authority of Singapore (ASAS) and other Government agencies to enhance the rules on advertising.

Mrs Chiam now has raised a possibility of setting up a new regulatory agency to license and regulate these schemes and activities. I think we should maybe take a step back and also recognise that regulation is not cost-free. We have to be careful where we draw the line for regulatory measures and we have to decide how to find the right balance. Because if you have too much regulation, it may actually end up imposing additional costs, not just on the industry but also on the consumers. So, we think that more regulation is needed but we have to find the right balance. And on how best to regulate, I would say that MAS is reviewing this to see whether there is a need to refine its regulatory framework to account for all of these changes and new activities and schemes that we see in the investment landscape.

More importantly, beyond regulation alone, MAS will continue to step up its financial education efforts. I think this is the most important long-term endeavour. MAS has published, through its national financial education programme, MoneySENSE, a consumer alert on "Get-Rich-Quick Seminars" to highlight the key things that consumers should consider before parting with their monies to attend such training seminars. MoneySENSE has also sponsored educational materials in various media platforms to reach out to the public. For example, a Business Times article on 23 February this year drew attention to so-called trading experts or "gurus" who run Forex training

Page: 120

seminars. And the article highlighted that consumers should be sceptical when a trainer boasts about his or his students' trading track records. And they should be on guard against any hard sell tactics and be mindful of the risks of dealing with offshore unlicensed brokerages if these are recommended.

I think better-informed consumers are the best defence against "get-rich-quick" schemes. Consumers should be wary of promises of high returns that seem too good to be true and they should always ask themselves what the catch is. And so this is an area where MAS will focus on and step up its efforts.

Thank you, Madam. In my cut, I asked if the Government could consider giving unmarried single parents the same childcare leave benefits as married parents, because they probably need it more. May I know if the Government will consider this request?

Madam, I think that we totally empathise with the case that Mr Gerald Giam has mentioned, that an unmarried single mother has to shoulder the responsibility of caring for her child alone, and therefore deserves our help.

However, having said that, I think, like all our policies, they are designed based on a certain set of values. In the M&P Package, for example, I will name two main values that basically have been the key basis upon which the policies were designed. The first one is actually on self-reliance and the other one is that family is the basic unit where support is given. It is the family which should be the one to provide the first line of support. So, on the basis of self-reliance, I would also like to clarify that this is where, in our design of the package, we have stressed on co-savings, that parents should have the primary responsibility of caring for the child. It is very different to have a set of policies that say this is the amount of money that the Government gives you, versus another set that says this is the amount the Government gives you and another amount for which if you saved for your child, we would support you. For that reason, we have, for example, a cash gift component of the Baby Bonus and also a savings component.

On the issue about family, we believe that it is important for a child to grow up in an intact family and therefore, in our policies, we have basically emphasised that marriage should precede having children, and therefore, we

Page: 121

support our young couples to get married and settle down before having children. Having said that, we are also very mindful that the welfare of the child born to unmarried single mothers deserves our attention and we have been, over time, extending support to the child and also to the mother. So, if you look at the M&P Package, many of the items are actually made available to the child that is born to a single mother. And on the specific issue of Childcare Leave, we have been reviewing the Childcare Leave, and we will make certain adjustments accordingly and appropriately.

Madam, allow me to clarify. My question surrounding the negative real interest rates in monetary policy was really nuanced around the fact that Singapore's Singapore dollar deposits are now at over $500 billion, and by and large many Singaporeans like to hold cash as part of their nest-egg. Should we have persistent inflation, structural inflation, low-negative interest rates, would this really solve the rising property cycle? That is number one. And, number two, are we looking at our Singaporean savers to continue to save for their retirement?

Mdm Chairperson, I understand where the Member is coming from, and the concerns about negative interest rates, and whether this will erode the values of Singaporeans' savings. But as I explained, I think they are sufficient investment options and products. They can always be improved certainly. MAS will be happy to engage the industry to consider how our financial sector can be further developed, how we can continue to offer more investment options to investors, whether institutional or retail especially which is a concern of the Member.

More important as we develop these options is another important aspect which is education. Reaching out Singaporeans and helping them understand how to access all of these different options which are already available – whether it is making use of the CPF, for example, to top up voluntarily whether it is their Retirement Account or Special Account. That option is there and I do not think everyone has made full use of it. So, we can reach out more to educate them.

There are also other investment options which are available to retail investors, as I highlighted earlier, whether it is equity, unit trust or exchange-traded funds, which do offer better returns with some risk. So, the investor has to be appropriately advised and educated on what are these risks return profiles,

Page: 122

what is the risk appetite that each person is prepared to accept and then make investment decisions accordingly. That is an important aspect of reaching out and educating Singaporeans about how best they can manage their savings, given the current low interest rate environment. It is something that MAS intends to do through its financial outreach programmes.