Hansard, 2008-03-05

Under the provisions of clause 2(d) of Article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the following Members have been granted permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of Parliament (or any Committee of Parliament to which they have been appointed) for the periods stated: Name From (2008) To (2008) Mr Ong Kian Min 05 Mar 06 Mar Dr Ahmad Mohd Magad 07 Mar 09 Mar Mr Lee Yi Shyan 08 Mar 14 Mar Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam 11 Mar 15 Mar Mr Lim Hng Kiang 21 Mar 26 Mar

ABDULLAH TARMUGI Speaker Parliament of Singapore

Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [6th Allotted Day].

Head S - Ministry of Manpower (cont.) –

Resumption of Debate on Question [4th March, 2008],

"That the total sum to be allocated for Head S of the Estimates be reduced by $100." – [Dr Ahmad Mohd Magad].

Question again proposed.

Sir, during the last COS in 2007, we announced the intention to introduce re-employment legislation by 2012. This will allow our older workers to work longer and save more for retirement. The tripartite partners have been working to encourage and help older workers to stay employed longer and to prepare them for re-employment.

More older workers are employed now than ever before. Last year, 56% of residents aged 55 to 64 were working, compared to 54% a year ago. This is equivalent to about 20,000 more people – a significant improvement.

To encourage older workers to take advantage of the employment opportunities brought about by the strong economic growth, the TriCom on Employability of Older Workers, which I chair, has adopted two major thrusts.

First, we will press on to prepare our companies and workers for re-employment. A tripartite workgroup led by the Singapore National Employers Federation (SNEF) is preparing a set of guidelines to help workers and employers implement re-employment. We aim to finalise the guidelines by the end of 2009.

Meanwhile, the tripartite workgroup has drawn up a checklist of good re-employment practices. The tripartite partners will consult widely with industry and union leaders over the next 12 to 18 months before finalising it.

Companies that need help to implement re-employment can tap on ADVANTAGE!. For example, West Pharmaceutical Services implemented a re-employment policy in November last year, after it joined the ADVANTAGE! scheme. The company has put in place a process to discuss with its workers on available re-employment options 12 months before their retirement, and

makes an offer to them six months before their retirement. For workers who are re-employed and re-deployed to a new job, relevant training will be provided. West Pharma offers re-employment contracts of at least two years' duration, subject to a yearly review. Wages for re-employed workers may be adjusted to take into account the value of the job and the workers' competencies.

Mr Heng Chee How suggested ways to enhance the ADVANTAGE! scheme including supporting pilot projects and specific help for SMEs. I thank him for the feedback. Indeed, ADVANTAGE! does support pilot projects provided they lead to preparing companies for re-employment. We also introduced ADVANTAGE! for SMEs last year to help the SMEs more specifically.

Workers have an equally important role to play to make re-employment work. They must be prepared to accept a different job and undergo training for the new job if necessary. They must also be prepared for adjustments in wages and benefits to better reflect the value of the job and their competencies. This is particularly so if a significant portion of their wages is seniority based.

Re-employment is still a new concept and I agree with Mr Heng Chee How and Ms Cham Hui Fong that we will have to actively reach out to both employers and employees to help them understand what re-employment means and how it can be a mutually beneficial arrangement.

The workgroup will be driving these efforts. Feedback received and experience gained in the process will help us better address the operational issues that companies and workers may face in implementing re-employment.

Dr Ong Seh Hong proposed to remove the concept of a retirement age. I agree with his objective of helping workers stay

employed longer, but I think removing retirement age will not achieve this. Re-employment, on the other hand, is a more flexible and effective way to help workers work for as long as they are able to. It allows both the employer and the worker to make changes to the existing job arrangements when the worker reaches retirement age. For instance, the worker may wish to work part-time or to take on less responsibility. The company may, on the other hand, need to re-deploy the worker to another job to facilitate leadership renewal. And, even if the worker is retained in the same job, the company may have to adjust his seniority-based wages. This flexibility will allow the company to remain competitive and keep the worker employable.

A second key thrust is increasing the employment rate of older women. This chart that I am showing you shows that Singapore is among countries with the highest employment rates for older men (at 74%), but relatively lower employment rates for older women (at 39%). We need to improve the employment rate for women.

Currently, a significant number of women leave the workforce in their 30s or 40s. Many of them do not re-join the workforce thereafter. We need more examples like the 52-year old Mdm Noormalin. After having left the workforce for two years, she found a part-time job as a customer service assistant at the SMRT Taxis contact centre. Having a job near her home allows her to earn an income while caring for her four children.

Mdm Noormalin is one of the beneficiaries of a "30 minutes to work" job fair. This was launched by a workgroup under the TriCom, led by Mdm Halimah and the NTUC, and in partnership with the South West CDC. This year, the workgroup has set a goal of helping 2,000 women enter the workforce.

Let me now move on to another issue raised by several MPs, that of help for low-wage workers. With strong economic growth, the number of low-wage residents in full-time employment earning $1,200 or less per month fell by 6.6% between 2006 and 2007. The long-term unemployment rate has also come down from 0.8% in December 2006 to 0.4% in December 2007. This is comparable to levels last seen before the Asian Financial Crisis. Nonetheless, as Mr Ong Ah Heng, Mr Hri Kumar, Mr Ang Mong Seng and Dr Ahmad Magad have observed, there are still those who are unemployed or in low-paying jobs because they do not have the skills that are in demand.

Currently, the CDCs and other Distributed Careerlink Networks (or DCNs) already provide free employment facilitation services to residents who are unemployed or retrenched. The DCNs link job seekers to highly-subsidised WDA training programmes for skills upgrading and re-skilling for new jobs in growth sectors. We will be doing more under the newly-unveiled CET Masterplan, which the Minister has elaborated on yesterday.

Dr Amy Khor, Mrs Josephine Teo and Mr Seng Han Thong have also mentioned the importance of job redesign. Job Recreation Programmes (JRPs) are being implemented in a number of sectors to make the jobs appealing to Singaporeans by enhancing job worth, working conditions, and the image of the profession. Overall, JRP efforts re-created over 15,000 jobs last year. We will press on with the JRPs.

For those in low-wage jobs, the Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) Scheme is an important tool to help them and encourage them to stay employed. The lower CPF contribution rates for low-wage workers improve their employability, while WIS makes up for the lower CPF rates and gives them additional income.

The first WIS payment was made in January this year, with 287,000 workers receiving $146 million. The second payment will be made in April and May this year.

There have been many suggestions by MPs on how we can help workers benefit more. Mdm Halimah, for example, has suggested excluding overtime pay in computing WIS. Sir, whether a worker's income is in the form of basic salary or overtime pay, they are both income that will help support the worker and his family. Given that WIS' aim is to help low wage workers by supplementing their income, I think it is fair to consider all income earned by the worker.

Ms Cham Hui Fong also highlighted the case of workers who had received the provisional WIS payment for the first six months of work, but later received a year-end bonus, which increased their average income to above $1,500 a month, making them ineligible for WIS. Firstly, let me clarify that the first WIS payment is an advance payment paid for work done in the first half of the year, but WIS is actually based on the average monthly income for the whole year. The intent is to help workers by paying them early rather than making them wait for the whole year to be over. If we were to wait for the whole work-year to finish, they would have to wait much longer. It is not, as Ms Cham says, a disincentive to earn more.

It is only fair that we should recover WIS paid to those whose average monthly income exceeds $1,500, as such members are not in our target group. Excess WIS in the form of CPF can be recovered directly from the member's CPF account, but we will be flexible when recovering the cash component. Since the WIS is a long term scheme, excess WIS paid in cash will be recovered against

future WIS payments should the worker receive them. This will not inconvenience the affected workers.

During the Budget debate, Mr Inderjit Singh, Mr Christopher de Souza and Dr Ahmad Magad also made many suggestions on the WIS Scheme such as including workers earning up to $1,800 a month, increasing the payment frequency, and adjusting WIS to take into account inflation. As WIS has just been implemented, MOM can consider these suggestions during the review of the scheme in 2010.

Mr Ong Ah Heng highlighted the difficulties faced by odd job workers in receiving the WIS. While we have measures to help informal workers on this front, bringing them into formal employment, where they can benefit from both WIS and the CPF system, will be a better outcome.

To achieve this, the CPF Board has stepped up enforcement against employers who fail to make CPF contributions for their workers. The CPF Board took 14,000 cases to court last year for failure to pay CPF. One of the cases involved a labour supplier that classified its workers as "independent contractors" when they were in fact employees. The CPF Board recovered $47,500 in CPF contributions for 51 employees. Forty-seven of them subsequently benefited from the WIS as formal employees.

In addition, the tripartite partners have been reaching out to educate workers on their employment rights and the benefits of formal employment. Together with the CPF Board's enforcement efforts, this has contributed to some 10,000 informal workers converting into formal employment and benefiting from WIS. We will continue to encourage more workers to join the CPF system to build up their retirement nest eggs and benefit from WIS.

For those who remain in informal employment, we encourage them to contribute to CPF by allowing them to qualify for WIS if they contribute at the lower rate as self-employed workers. As Ms Cham Hui Fong has suggested, the tripartite partners have been reaching out to these workers on the benefits of contributing to CPF and on the WIS Scheme. We do so very extensively through the "Be a Winner" campaign. MOM has also worked with various partners to brief hawkers, cleaners and grassroots representatives, and to educate employers through seminars and workshops.

To date, about 54,000 self-employed and informal workers have received their WIS payout. Another 46,900 have registered with the CPF Board but have not fulfilled their Medisave contributions. This shows that while they are aware of the WIS scheme, they have not made the contribution to their Medisave to qualify for WIS.

To encourage informal and self-employed workers to contribute to Medisave and receive WIS, we introduced the Medisave Contribution Draw. The first one will be held in June 2008. We have made it easy for workers to contribute, by allowing payments in instalments and at many locations, including CPF service centres, AXS machines, and the 62 Singapore Post outlets.

To make WIS more attractive to the self-employed and informal workers, Dr Ahmad Magad has suggested that there should be a cash component in the WIS payout to them. Mr Siew Kum Hong has suggested waiving the Medisave contribution requirement altogether.

They are concerned that many informal workers and self-employed do not find it worthwhile to contribute cash to their Medisave just to benefit from the WIS. While I understand their concern, I

should stress that each person must take responsibility for his CPF contributions. This principle is the foundation of the CPF system and applies to all workers, self-employed or otherwise. The Medisave Account enjoys higher interest, including the bonus interest offered by the CPF Board. It provides for the workers' medical needs and allows them to participate in MediShield.

Furthermore, self-employed persons and informal workers already contribute far less to CPF than formal employees earning the same amount – only 8.5% compared to 34.5%. For low-wage self-employed persons, their contribution rate has been further reduced, to as low as 2.5%, for those earning less than $12,000 a year. For example, those who are earning $1,000 per month, Medisave contribution required for a 40-year old worker earning $1,000 a month is only about $25 a month, less than a dollar a day (or about the price of a cup of kopi-o ). Waiving the Medisave contribution requirement for self-employed or informal workers to qualify for WIS will undermine the principle of individual responsibility, and may inadvertently discourage informal workers from converting to formal employment.

Given the increasing importance of the CPF system in providing for workers' medical and retirement needs, we should encourage self-employed and informal workers to put more into their CPF, and not ask for their contributions to be reduced or waived.

12.15 pm

ComfortDelgro recently announced that they will be passing on road tax rebates to its taxi drivers in the form of CPF top-ups to the driver's CPF Account to improve their retirement adequacy. This is a positive move and I encourage other principals to consider similar initiatives for their self-employed agents.

My Ministry together with the CPF Board will engage the principal associations and other organisations on ways to help the self-employed build up their CPF savings.

Besides informal workers, contract workers is another area of focus for MOM. Ms Jessica Tan and Mr Zainudin Nordin have expressed concerns about the employment conditions of these workers. Informal workers are covered by existing labour laws such as the Employment Act and the CPF Act. Employers are therefore required to provide their contract workers with basic employment benefits, such as CPF contributions, overtime allowance, prompt salary payment, annual leave and medical leave.

We have been taking actions against errant contractors and helping vulnerable contract workers understand their employment rights. The support of end-user companies of outsourced services is important. Recognising this, the Tripartite Committee on CPF and Work-related Benefits for Low Wage Workers has formulated a tripartite advisory on responsible outsourcing practices, which will be released later today. The Tripartite Advisory will serve as a useful reference for end-user companies when they outsource their functions. For example, end-users are encouraged to require third party contractors to adopt responsible practices, such as providing written employment contracts for their workers and hiring workers for at least six months, so that they can qualify for employment benefits under the Employment Act.

The public sector will take the lead to adopt the Tripartite Advisory. The Tricom has also secured commitments from the private sector end-user companies like the NTUC FairPrice Cooperative Limited and the National University Hospital.

In conclusion, Sir, we have made progress in helping older workers stay employed. But we need to continue to prepare employers and employees for re-employment. The WIS Scheme has helped lower income workers and we will continue to reach out to informal workers and the self-employed. However, these workers must also take on the responsibility to contribute to their Medisave to benefit from the WIS. This way, we will be able to achieve a win-win outcome for all. My Senior Parliamentary Secretary will now respond to the remaining points.

Sir, the Minister of State has spoken about the policies and measures to facilitate the re-employment of older workers as well as to encourage women to return to the workforce. I shall elaborate on the efforts to promote flexible work arrangements and fair employment practices, both of which can impact the employment of older workers and working mothers.

First, flexible work arrangements. I agree with Dr Ahmad Magad and Dr Lim Wee Kiak as well as Miss Penny Low and Dr Amy Khor who spoke during the Budget debate, about the need to encourage economically inactive residents to join the workforce. Indeed, one of the key strategies to achieve this would be to facilitate part-time employment and flexible work arrangements. A study done by MOM in 2006 on economically inactive women of ages 25 to 49 and older persons of ages 50 to 64, found that more than nine out of 10 of those intending to look for work in the next two years, were looking for part-time work. In this tight labour market, employers can therefore address part of their staffing needs by encouraging more of the economically-inactive to take up jobs.

To address Dr Lim's concerns about the legal protection for part-time workers, I would like to point out that part-time employees are covered under the Employment Act. Part-time employees enjoy similar benefits as full-timers, such as annual leave, sick leave and maternity leave, except that these are pro-rated based on their working hours. They are also entitled to CPF contributions from their employers.

Dr Amy Khor has asked for a study to examine the obstacles preventing employers from offering flexible work. Such a study was conducted by MOM in 2005. It found that some employers were ill-informed about work-life practices and sceptical about the benefits. We have therefore rolled out a series of promotional activities to raise awareness, including the Work-Life Harmony Week and the Work-Life Conference since 2005. MOM also works closely with the Employer Alliance, which is a group of employers committed to work-life promotion, to generate buy-in amongst CEOs and business leaders. The results have been encouraging. In a recent survey of four Asian countries (ie, Japan, China, Hong Kong and Singapore) by Hudson, Singapore companies were found to be the most likely to implement work-life policies.

To encourage more companies to employ new workers on part-time work or flexible work arrangement, MOM launched the Flexi-Works! Scheme in November last year. Administered by the National Trades Union Congress (or NTUC) and Singapore National Employers Federation (or SNEF), the scheme offers grants of up to $100,000 to help companies defray the cost of implementing flexible work arrangements, including the various examples mentioned by Dr Ahmad Magad. The Flexi-Works! Scheme complements other work-life initiatives by the Tripartite Committee on Work-Life Strategy, including the Work Life Excellence Award, which recognises companies with

excellent work-life culture and practices, and the Work-Life Works! Fund (or WoW! Fund).

Flexible work arrangements can lead to win-win outcomes for the employer and employee. Employees who are better able to balance their work and personal lives are likely to be more committed and productive in their work. One example is Terra Holdings, a small IT company with about 20 staff. With assistance from the WoW! Fund, Terra Holdings has put in place flexible work arrangements such as telecommuting and part-time work. This has led to an increase in productivity and staff retention - Terra Holdings halved its turnover rate from 30% in 2006 to 14% last year, while improving their year-on-year sales.

Going forward, we will continue to refine our programmes and funding schemes to encourage and facilitate more employers to implement flexible work arrangements and other work-life strategies as well as build platforms to share and recognise good practices.

Second, fair employment practices. Dr Ahmad Magad has asked whether legislation would be effective in addressing workplace discrimination and preventing discriminatory job advertisements. The experiences of other countries have demonstrated that legislation has not effectively addressed the issue of discrimination. In some cases, the number of complaints has in fact increased after laws have been enacted. But far from addressing the problem, such legislative measures have resulted in a litigious labour-management climate.

Ms Ellen Lee has also raised the issue of workplace sexual harassment. MOM hardly receives complaints of such nature. Notwithstanding this, as with cases of workplace discrimination, workers who experience sexual harassment problems

could take up the issue with their management, or through their unions if they are union members. If necessary, they could also lodge a police report. As alluded by Ms Lee, the Penal Code has provisions against insulting the modesty of a woman and making obscene or lewd acts at woman. Since there are already avenues of recourse and legal protection available, there is no need for additional legislation against workplace sexual harassment.

Sir, the real challenge is to positively shape mindsets and behaviour. In this regard, a promotional approach supported by the tripartite partners – unions, employers and the Government – is more effective in dealing with the issues of workplace discrimination and harassment. In 2006, we formed the Tripartite Alliance for Fair Employment Practices (or TAFEP), led by Mdm Halimah Yacob from NTUC and Mr Bob Tan from SNEF, to raise awareness of fair and responsible employment practices and facilitate the adoption of such practices among employers.

TAFEP has received strong support from employers, with the number of employers pledging to embrace the principles of fair employment doubling to more than 600 within the last year. Just last Thursday, TAFEP and the Association of Small and Medium Enterprises organised a breakfast session for CEOs of SMEs. By the end of the morning, more than 30 CEOs have signed the Employers' Pledge of Fair Employment Practices to signal their support for fair employment.

With respect to job advertisements, TAFEP will continue to work closely with the newspapers and employers to ensure that job advertisements are in line with the guidelines. Many of the discriminatory job advertisements arise from a lack of awareness, rather than blatant

biasness. Often, it is a matter of helping employers phrase their requirements accurately. For example, some employers advertised for fresh graduates when their intended message was that working experience was not a pre-requisite. Such advertisements not only turned away experienced graduates, but could also be viewed as discriminatory. At TAFEP's advice, these employers reviewed their job advertisements and removed the "fresh graduates" clause. Doing so enhanced their image as fair employers. But more importantly, it allowed them to reach out to a wider pool of candidates.

Dr Ahmad Magad also spoke about the need to monitor discriminatory employment practices. Last November, the Tripartite Centre for Fair Employment, or TAFEP Centre, was launched. It offers a channel for the public to give feedback and seek advice on fair employment matters. The Centre will continually monitor the feedback received, and engage employers to review their employment practices and adopt the guidelines on fair employment.

I am confident that the tripartite efforts will encourage and facilitate fair and responsible employment amongst companies, and enable them to better attract and retain valued employees and talents.

Let me now speak on workplace safety and health. Mr Heng Chee How would be pleased to know that the workplace fatality rate has continued its steady decline from 4.9 fatalities per 100,000 employees in 2004, to 2.9 in 2007. This is a 40% improvement over the past four years and we are on track to achieve our target of reducing workplace fatalities to 2.5 fatalities per 100,000 employees by 2015.

Specifically, in response to Mr Ong Ah Heng's question, high-risk sectors such as the construction and marine industries

have also continued to improve their safety outcomes. The fatality rate in the construction industry fell from 9.4 per 100,000 workers in 2006 to 8.3 in 2007, while for the marine industry, the fatality rate dropped from 9.8 in 2006 to seven in 2007. This translates to improvements of 12% and 29% for these two sectors respectively. The injury rates have similarly fallen by 10% for the construction industry, and 39% for the marine industry.

Notwithstanding the progress made, the construction and marine sectors remain two of the riskiest sectors, accounting for over 50% of the total workplace fatalities in 2007. The recent NUS crane collapse which resulted in three deaths is a reminder that we cannot afford to ease up in our efforts. I agree with Mr Ong that efforts to expand the coverage of the WSH Act to the six new sectors from 1st March should not come at the expense of the existing high-risk sectors. That is certainly not MOM's intention, as evident from the measures implemented in recent months. In July last year, MOM introduced a compulsory worker safety and well-being test for workers in the marine and construction industries. The test ensures that our workers understand their safety responsibilities, and can identify workplace hazards. In January this year, we also enacted the WSH (Construction) Regulations, which require all worksites to have an adequate safety management system and all construction supervisors to receive safety training.

Mr Heng Chee How has also asked about the safety of transporting workers to and from workplaces. A Work Group, which would be co-chaired by the Land Transport Authority (or LTA) and MOM, will be formed to review the safety of workers transported on lorries.

12.30 pm

Mr Heng Chee How was also concerned that the competitive tender-bidding process

may result in safety standards being compromised by some construction companies. As Mr Heng has correctly observed, for any WSH improvements to be sustainable, there must be industry ownership of safety outcomes. It is in this context that the WSH Advisory Committee launched the Construction Safety Audit Scoring System (CONSASS) last November to make safety an integral part of business. While it is a voluntary system, CONSASS has received widespread support from both developers and contractors. This will help foster a stronger WSH culture in the construction industry.

Sir, I will now turn to the management of our foreign workers and the protection of their well-being. As mentioned by Ms Denise Phua, foreign workers play an important role in keeping Singapore competitive. As long as we have more jobs than locals can fill in, and some jobs that locals are not keen to take up, we will have many foreign workers in our midst. This is inevitable for a small place like Singapore. As a result, as observed by Mr Ong Ah Heng during the Budget debate, and Ms Phua yesterday, when Singaporeans see such workers congregating in HDB areas or other public spaces, they are concerned about the management of foreign workers.

For foreign workers who commit public order offences or other offences like littering, Government agencies like the police and NEA have been actively taking enforcement action. The feedback that Ms Phua has received from her residents is understandable. Members of the public should report to the authorities if anyone or any group has broken the law or caused public disorder. However, I would like to highlight that the vast majority of

foreign workers in Singapore are law-abiding. Statistics from the police show that foreign workers are no more likely to commit crimes than locals.

The solution, therefore, cannot be to segregate foreign workers from areas where locals frequent. Indeed, we cannot completely keep them off our housing estates, because they are there. Except for those in the construction and marine industries, work permit holders are in our midst in the housing estates. Rather, we need to balance the housing and recreational needs of foreign workers with the concerns of Singaporeans. And this will require Singaporeans to adopt and accept foreign workers within our society. I applaud Ms Phua for recognising this and refusing to take a "not in my backyard" attitude. We need to bring this message to the heartlands.

I agree with Mr Ong and Ms Phua that this is a multi-faceted challenge that requires a whole-of-Government effort. MOM, therefore, works closely with the relevant Ministries and Government agencies to identify and resolve the various issues concerning foreign workers. For example, to address the shortage of proper accommodation for foreign workers, an inter-agency committee led by MOM and MND was set up in 2006 to increase the supply, as well as to coordinate enforcement efforts against errant employers for housing their workers in unacceptable accommodation. I would like to assure Ms Phua and Mr Ong that MOM will continue to work closely with various Ministries and Government agencies to proactively monitor and address the housing and recreational needs of foreign workers, as well as the concerns of Singaporeans.

Mr Ong Ah Heng has also expressed concern about employers who illegally deploy their foreign domestic workers

to work in other premises and those who do not pay salaries to FDWs. Under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act, FDWs are only allowed to perform domestic duties at the residential address stated in their work permits. Employers are also required to pay their FDWs monthly. Errant employers can be fined up to $5,000, and/or jailed up to six months, and barred from employing another FDW.

MOM is committed to safeguarding the well-being of FDWs and treats such offences very seriously. Last year, MOM prosecuted 229 employers for the illegal deployment of FDWs. During the same period, MOM helped to recover more than $270,000 in unpaid salaries for 276 FDWs.

To complement the enforcement efforts, MOM has also implemented a series of educational measures, such as the mandatory Safety Awareness Course and a bi-annual FDW newsletter, to inform FDWs of their employment rights and the available channels for recourse. In addition, we conduct random interviews with first-time FDWs during their initial months of employment to reiterate to them their employment rights, and determine if they have adjusted to their new work environment in Singapore.

Sir, in conclusion, our efforts to nurture a competitive workforce must go hand in hand with efforts to build workplaces that facilitate optimal performance. To maximise the potential of our workforce comprising both local and foreign manpower, our employment practices must be progressive, fair and equitable, based on an individual's merit and productivity. At a more fundamental level, basic standards for employment as well as safety and health must be complied with. The confluence of these factors will make Singapore a great place to work for both local and foreign workers.

We have time left. Mdm Halimah.

Sir, the number of cases involving foreign workers being swindled by agents has increased. Are there any measures to help such abuses, which may require collaboration with the sending countries, because some of these problems have originated in the sending countries? Are there any measures to deal with that?

My second clarification, Sir, is with regard to the issue of discrimination against women and contract workers. I would like to ask the MOM what is the progress and whether it is looking into reviewing the Employment Act with regard to two aspects. The first aspect is the better protection for retrenched pregnant women who currently are not entitled to maternity benefits when they are retrenched, although they are obviously pregnant even in their ninth month of pregnancy. The second aspect is whether MOM would review the Employment Act with regard to providing better protection for contract workers. Right now, although they are protected by the Employment Act, the employer can truncate the contract in such a way that they will start from zero base every time, which affects their ability to earn the entitlement under the Act, whether it is for leave, sick leave or annual leave.

Sir, internally, we review the Employment Act from time to time. With regard to part-time or contract work, we will look at the issues and, if necessary, we will review the Employment Act pertaining to that.

As to the Member's first question, it is a complex issue which involves agents in the sending countries. As far as we are concerned, where we can manage local agents, we will do so. In fact, in the case of foreign domestic workers, for

employment agents, there are two accreditation bodies which look into standards. The number of accredited members has increased and compliance has also improved. In fact, I was told recently by the Association of Employment Agencies (Singapore) (AEAS) that they had actually deregistered the membership of some of their members who did not comply with their standards. But in the case of cheating done in sending countries, it is outside our purview.

Sir, two clarifications for Minister of State Mr Gan on the plans to re-employ workers between 62 and 65 years of age. Earlier, he mentioned that the Ministry would actually allow employers to re-employ workers turning 62 at the same job but at a lower pay. What is the justification for doing that, especially since the drawdown age for CPF monies is being moved to 65 and such a pay cut for the same job is hard to justify?

The second clarification is: could he elaborate more on what are the enforcement mechanisms for the new re-employment law? Does it have any teeth? What recourse do workers have?

Sir, with regard to the first question why employees when they reach the retirement age of 62 and are re-employed, there will be adjustments to the salary, we have to take into account and look at this issue in perspective. Because of the historical factors, many of our employees today are on a seniority-based wage structure. They have been receiving annual increments for the last 30 or 40 years as they worked. This seniority-based component in their salaries has made these employees uncompetitive, compared to the current employment scenario where some of the salaries are now based

on performance. So we want to encourage employers and employees to work together to find ways to adjust their salaries so that they reflect the value of the job, ability, contribution and productivity of the workers. Because of this change in concept and approach, and our desire to move into a performance-based system, we would want to encourage both workers and employers to consult one another and work out a remuneration system that would better reflect job worth, and this may result in adjustments to their salary downwards, especially in the case where there is a very high component of seniority-based structure in the salary.

With regard to the question of enforcement of the Re-employment Act that we are working on, at the moment we are still in the process of drawing up the re-employment legislation. As I mentioned earlier, we are also in the process of preparing a set of guidelines on re-employment to help employers and employees work out their re-employment arrangement. In the meantime, the tripartite partners have worked out a checklist which we will use to consult the industry to work with employers as well as the employees to understand better the operational issues involved in re-employment so that these issues can be incorporated into the Re-employment Bill when we present it to Parliament. At that point in time, we will also consider what are the penalties or enforcement capacity that we need to incorporate in the Bill. In the meantime, our focus is on how to encourage workers and employers to adopt re-employment even before re-employment legislation comes into effect by 2012. So, this is the focus of our efforts currently.

Sir, I am deeply impressed with the chart displayed on the screen

yesterday which plots our economic growth and job growth over the five-year period compared to several other countries. Clearly, it takes the best brains and meticulous planning to achieve such a superlative performance. Can I ask the Minister for Manpower to explain the extent of how well he thinks we can sustain this trend, going forward?

Secondly, how could we tweak our open-door foreign talent and foreign worker policies such that it has a more uniformed favourable impact on our society – professionals, PMETs, and especially our older and lower-income workers who seem not to have benefited proportionately from our economic growth efforts?

Firstly, let me thank Dr Ahmad Magad for putting it succinctly that the policies have worked.

But I would disagree with him that lower-wage workers and Singaporean PMETs have not benefited proportionately. In fact, as I showed yesterday, they benefited the most. If we look at the job creation for Singapore citizens, first of all, for PMETs, the number of job profile has changed compared to 10 years ago. More Singaporeans are occupying higher grade jobs. Even for low-wage workers, they have benefited. Real incomes have gone up. Employment for older workers has gone up. Employment rates, as we showed today, have gone up. So, if we look at the data, it tells us that this policy of cleverly using both our limited local manpower and allowing businesses foreign manpower when they need it, has benefited Singaporean workers across all occupations and grades. This is why I said

yesterday, it is a very precious tool, we have to calibrate it, and we can show you some figures. But we have to do it cleverly and I think the clever way of doing it was the Workfare Income

Supplement. In other words, the market dictates a certain amount of wage rise. The real wages even for the bottom 20% went up by 2%. But Workfare and other transfers supplement that. So there are other measures without distorting the labour market and we can help address our low wage workers as well as our older workers.

12.45 pm

Sir, two clarifications. One is with regard to the lower employment rate for older women. Could I ask the Minister of State to clarify, for the 39% of jobs that the women are employed in, what kind of jobs are these? I think that will give us an insight as we look at encouraging women to come back to the workforce. What are the factors and the types of opportunities matching the skills base?

The other clarification I would like to ask is with regard to WIS advance recovery. I agree with the principle that it was advance payment. However, WIS being a new scheme, and given the fact that this is the first payout and when the workers are looking at this, especially when we look at the segment of the workers that actually benefited from WIS, the understanding of the scheme may not have been as clear. So I would ask the Ministry to really consider, on the basis of goodwill for the first phase, the impact of the recovery because administratively it is also going to be fairly difficult, and we are talking about the lower income here. The CPF component is another factor, but to recover cash is pretty difficult. And, psychologically, I think the impact on that group, in terms of the motivation that we were talking about, getting people on WIS, may be higher than in terms of the disadvantages.

So, I would like to ask the Ministry whether they can consider not recovering

that particular payment, on goodwill, for this transition phase.

On the first question about women and employment, for the 39% that are employed, they are employed in quite a variety of jobs and women coming back to work face a number of challenges. Some of them have to also balance the needs and demands of their homes. That is why we introduced '30 minutes to work' to provide job opportunities within the vicinity of where they live, so that they will find it easier to go to work. We also want to encourage some of the companies to offer flexible work arrangement so that these women can also find it easier to get back into the workforce. And we believe that once they start working, even on a flexible work arrangement or part-time, over time they will get used to it and they will be able to go on full-time employment as well. I think it is important to get them to go back to work in a very flexible way and make it even more convenient for them to do so, and we will continue to do that.

With regard to her second question, I have mentioned in my speech just now that for the CPF component, we will have to recover because that is in the CPF, and that is not an administrative problem. For the cash component, I have also explained that we would only recover when there is a future payment for WIS for this particular worker, which means that there will be a credit note or a debit note. In the event that this worker is eligible for WIS in future, we will offset against future payments to him. So, there will also not be any administrative difficulty for him as well.

Sir, I have two clarifications for the Minister, arising from of his comments yesterday. Firstly, the Minister mentioned that the unemployment rate for diploma holders is 3.4%. This is actually 50% higher than the overall resident employ

ment rate as at December 2007, which was 2.3%. I would like to ask the Minister to clarify why this is so. In particular, and I know that the Minister has addressed the issue of S-Pass holders, could these statistics be attributable to competition from the S-Pass holders?

Secondly, the Minister touched on the drop in labour productivity last year where it decreased by 0.9%. His explanation was that wages had gone up. I would actually like to ask the Minister to clarify just how increased wages affect productivity. Because, as I understand it, labour productivity is the average output per unit of labour, which is not dependent on wages. Instead, it is unit labour cost that has been adversely affected by rising wages and decreasing productivity. So I hope that the Minister can clarify this point, especially on the reasons why labour productivity dropped in 2007, and how we intend to arrest this worrying development.

Can I again remind Members to make your clarifications short, so that we can take as many questions as we can?

Sir, on the first question of unemployment rate, there is a thing called frictional unemployment. Within any given survey, various groups will be coming in and out of jobs. So I will not take the 3% as something alarming. It is quite common. Most economies at various stages will have a certain level of unemployment.

What is more important, really, is the employment rate, because the unemployment rate captures a number of things. You may be looking for a job and you have not found a job. I think the employment rate gives us more information because it just tells us how many people are working at any given point of time. As we have shown, our employ

ment rates are among the highest in the world for men. Even for those 25 to 64 years, it is extremely high. I think that is a good measure that our labour market policies are working.

When it comes to productivity, I did mention that it was also due to the fact that more were employed. And exactly at this point last year, our unemployment rate grew, and I think this is something that NWC has to deliberate.

How do we maintain productivity? Yesterday, I spent quite some time expressing my response to certain points brought up my Mrs Josephine Teo and Mr Seng Han Thong, that this is indeed something that we have to work at to upgrade skills and processes, and get our companies to upgrade, our jobs recreated, to enhance productivity.

Sir, I would like to thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for his comprehensive reply, but allow me to ask about the flexi-work scheme. I read in the papers yesterday that the hotels have started to employ people using this fund. I am just wondering whether the Government sector, including the restructured hospitals and the statutory boards, has introduced such schemes in the first place.

My second clarification: based on the example that I quoted yesterday, instead of reducing the pay by 10%, could a flexi-work scheme be introduced as well, so that there is a 10% reduction in working hours too, which is more equitable.

We will encourage all sectors, including the Government sector, to implement the flexi-work scheme. I do not have the information here. What is the second question?

For those who are reaching 60 or 62 years old, because they

are taking a 10% pay cut, could such a system be like the flexi-work scheme, ie, instead of working 100%, they work 90%, so as to commensurate with the 10% pay cut?

Sir, duration of hours of work and pay are matters for the worker and employer to decide. We will provide the guidelines on fair employment. I think this is a journey. TAFEP and the various agencies – Government, unions and employer federation – will continue to work closely. We will get companies to buy in. There have been good signs. TAFEP has done a very good job on fair employment, and we have been encouraging companies to practise flexible work arrangements. It is working, and we will have to make refinements from time to time. In the meantime, we will try to solve some of the teething problems experienced by workers as well as employers on the ground.

Sir, two questions for the Senior Parliamentary Secretary. What is MOM's policy regarding workplace sexual harassment, as it appears from SPS' reply that MOM is pushing the victim to seek any recourse under the Penal Code instead? And, secondly, what is the mechanism that MOM has in place to track complaints lodged at MOM, particularly in relation to workplace sexual harassment, because MOM would be the first place for workers to turn to for help when this happens?

MOM need not necessarily be the first place workers turn to, but we will definitely look into complaints and reports made by workers. We now have the TAFEP Centre which can look into the concerns of individual workers or feedback on the bigger picture. Yes, there is already the Penal Code to protect women at workplaces. If they have serious concern about sexual harassment, they can report to the Police

if they feel very seriously about it. And if they want it rectified at the workplaces, they can also work with the union, which will work with the management, if they are union members. Very often, it is something that has to be dealt with at the personal level. But where a complaint is lodged, we will investigate it and, if action is needed, we will take action.

One clarification – would the Ministry review the Retirement Age Act? There is a particular provision on a cut of up to 10% for worker reaching 60 years. Currently, there are already sectors that have significantly reduced the salary ratio, eg, the banks which have already moved to 1.5 and below. These sectors have also moved into a performance-based system, because the rationale of having a 10% cut was actually to address the seniority-based wage system then.

Sir, I think it is more important for us to look at re-employment where we allow flexibility for workers who have reached retirement to continue working and inject certain flexibility for wages and remuneration to be adjusted to reflect the worth of the job. For retirement age, at age 60, the wage adjustment that is in the retirement age is on the same basis that we provided this adjustment to the salary, so as to ensure that older workers will continue to be competitive, and mainly because of the historical seniority-based wage system that is inherent in the current wage structure. But companies are free to continue to pay workers what they are and for workers who are productive and performing well, companies may even give them a raise and increase.

So we want to make sure that the structure itself does not prohibit workers from continuing to work and the structure should not make older workers less competitive. We want to ensure that the structure under even the Retirement Age

Act continue to be flexible, and allow this adjustment to happen. But if the workers are productive and can contribute to the companies, I think enlightened companies will see value in these older workers and will continue to find ways to retain these workers within the company.

I just want to seek a clarification on the clarification that the Senior Parliamentary Secretary gave to me on the swindling of foreign workers by agents, where he said that some of these countries are outside MOM's purview. Could I ask the Ministry to be more proactive, such as working with ASEAN counterparts under the purview of ASEAN Charter, to ensure that the governments take more responsibility, especially when it comes to foreign workers coming from the sending ASEAN countries. We now have a Charter, and I expect the Charter to be more proactive as well.

I want to seek a second clarification from the Minister. The labour market seems to be a lot more segmented because, last year, 237,000 jobs were created. Despite that, segments of the workforce – the women and older workers – find it difficult to get jobs. Apart from the measures already mentioned, does the Ministry envisage any other measures from the policy perspective to address this tricky problem, because it is a problem that is not going to go away? Even as more jobs are created, these two segments will continue to face obstacles.

Thank you to Mdm Halimah. She is right, we need to work with other governments when it comes to problems that arise before they come here. We want to put pressure to bear, but we have to do it in a sensitive way and MOM regularly attends global forums like the IOM (or the International Organisation for Migration) recently held

in Abu Dhabi where both sending and receiving countries talk about how to resolve this. But there has to be a language, there has to be a comfort zone, so it will take time. She is right that it is a general direction that we want to reduce problems, because you really do not want to receive foreign workers who are at the same time saddled with debts. So it is something that we want to actively engage.

1.00 pm

Mdm Halimah Yacob is also correct to say that this third group – women and low-wage workers, a point also raised by Dr Ahmad Magad – will continually be structurally vulnerable as we move up and as the economy restructures. This is why we want to place great emphasis on our continuing education training infrastructure.

Policy-wise, the reduction in CPF that we did for low-wage workers, but supplemented from Government through the Workfare Income Supplement, is a structural change. And we are already seeing results, as we showed to Members. For the older workers, it has gone up. For the low-wage workers, real wages, even apart from Workfare Income Supplement, actually rose. I think we want to watch it. I like to remind Members of the House that we only started Workfare two months ago. I think we should give it some time, see how it goes into the market.

Actually, the largest group of untapped labour, in that sense, as the chart shows, is women. But, to me, that is the hardest group, because these are women in their 40s and many of them have not been working for 10-20 years. How do we upskill them? I think it is a potential pool, but there are also challenges. I think this is where we want to put resources and try to bring some of

them back into the workforce, because that will help their household income.

Sir, I would like to clarify with the Minister. In view of the acute manpower shortage in the construction industry, will there be any relaxation on the employment of foreign workers and professionals? Will there be a review on MYE and S-Pass requirements?

Sir, first, an observation. Contrasting questions from this side of the House show the tension in the market place. There are some who advocate that we tighten, and make it rigid, so that Singaporeans have an easier chance to find jobs. But those who are running companies and those who are involved in business say, "relax so that businesses can grow". And this will continue, I suspect, in this House for many years to come.

MOM's job is to maintain a tightly tuned balance to make sure that our economy grows. I think, as our results show last year, we sort of got the balance right. But there will never be a point where Members of the House will say, "well done". We always have to live with the tension.

We have relaxed specifically for MYEs. We said that there are certain construction workers who do not need MYEs who work here more than two years. We have moved it from four years to two years; so that is a relaxation. We have also relaxed the quota. We will continue to watch and get signals from industry players. We have industry sensing mechanisms, and calibrate it if and when we need it. But the overall aspect is grow the economy, let businesses get the manpower they need, because that will generate jobs for Singaporeans at the same time.

Sir, I agree with the Minister that there is

a very tight tension now, but the balance should tilt towards Singaporeans. As mentioned by some of the Members earlier, our older workers, especially the low skilled, find that it is very hard to compete against foreign workers, who work longer hours at cheaper rates. Even at my MPS recently, there was a man in his late 60s wanting a job as a coffeeshop assistant, but he found that the job went to a China worker who is willing to work 12 hours for $900, whereas he was hoping to work seven hours for $1,200, which is what he needed to support his family. Can I ask the Minister: what assurance can he give to Singaporeans, especially the older ones, who feel that it is an uphill battle, an almost impossible task, to compete with foreign workers who are cheaper.

On the flip side, can I ask the Minister to also guard against the exploitation of foreign workers, because we see many of them exhausted, sleeping at corridors, and they work long hours at cheap rates? Can I ask the Minister to also take care that, because of the exploitation of foreign workers, our own workers cannot compete with them?

Sir, I thank Ms Irene Ng for her observation, which I would say, give hope to those who feel that they cannot compete. And indeed our figures show that the employment rate has increased overall. So more of even those who were structurally at risk and who were vulnerable have found jobs. That is a good sign that our policies are working right. If the number of people working in Singapore as a result of allowing foreign workers to work here has dropped, I think we worry. But it has grown as the economy has grown. And it has produced more jobs, as I showed yesterday, than other economies that have employed exactly these policies by trying to make the labour market very rigid.

Exploitation of foreign workers, yes, it is something that we watch over. Our basic strategy is to explain to the foreign workers their rights, and to take enforcement issues where we can. And it will help if we can communicate and create channels for them to be able to have access to inform the right agencies in their languages, and we are working at that. But this is something that we also want to watch, because I agree with the Member that if they are overworked, they can have safety lapses, they can have physical aspects. We also want to make sure that the foreign workers are well treated and their well-being is guarded.

Sir, looking at this chart, which was also flashed on the screen yesterday, I can still vividly remember that when we were at this point in 2001 how bleak things were then. And to achieve the phenomenal progress that we have accomplished over the 5-6 years to where we were in 2006 and where we are today is certainly no mean feat. So, for this, I really would like to congratulate the Minister for Manpower and his team for the sterling performance, especially in creating an unprecedented number of jobs for Singaporeans. Most of everything else is academic if there are insufficient jobs for Singaporeans. I would like to thank the Minister, Minister of State Gan and Senior Parliamentary Secretary Hawazi for their comprehensive and detailed responses and clear explanations to the multitude of issues raised.

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $687,107,400 for Head S ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $37,738,300 for Head S ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

Head I – Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports

Head I - Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports. Mr Sin Boon Ann.

The Widening Income Gap, Inflation and Social Cohesion

Sir, I beg to move,

That the total sum to be allocated for Head I of the Estimates be reduced by $100.

Sir, last year, in the Committee of Supply, the debate on public assistance prompted the Minister to ask, "How much is enough?" The response raises rather deep questions on how we should continue to help Singaporeans cope, as the country powers along on the back of a strong and performing economy.

Looking at this year's Budget, it would be difficult to fault the Government as being niggardly in its handouts to Singaporeans. We note the Growth Dividends, the income tax rebates, and the Medisave top-ups, to mention a few. This is over and above the other measures that were announced earlier, such as Workfare and Hope schemes. And I do applaud the Government for adopting the principle of sharing the fruits of success with the people.

Sure, there are many in this House and those outside who question whether the Government could have been more generous in giving back to the people. No matter how much the Government has given or promised to give, not everyone will be satisfied. There is a constant clamour for the Government to give more, even if the Government has given out $1.6 billion of the surplus, even if up to

the 40th percentile of households are going to get more from the Government than they are paying to the Government, and even if the 2-room retiree households will get $3,100 in benefits from this year's surplus sharing package.

Yet many people are still unhappy. Unhappy with the steep increases in the cost of living, with having to pay more for almost everything from transport charges, school fees, and medical fees if means testing is fully in place. This is no doubt aggravated by the fact that the Gini coefficient is expected to be higher, meaning a growing income gap between the rich and the poor in Singapore.

It does not help that the visible signs of wealth among those in Singapore with plenty of cash to flaunt are fairly prevalent here. Singapore is about one of the few places in the world where there is such a high concentration of premium continental cars.

Such visibly open and naked display of wealth can only help to breed deep resentments among the majority of Singaporeans. For many, the lifestyle of the rich and famous in Singapore can only be the substance of their dreams and never a reality. The resentment runs deeper where there are pressures that come out of having to cope with the escalating cost of living. How do we begin to tell that fellow Singaporean that the future will continue to look bright when he cannot see himself as ever being in a position to join the ranks of the rich in our society? For many Singaporeans who barely make $24,000 a year, the idea of earning more than a million annually is just mind blowing.

The unhappiness among many Singaporeans, Sir, is not one that can be solved by generous hand-outs alone. We have often heard that what has been given is soon forgotten. Soon people will be asking for what is next that the

Government can give them. Giving is the opiate of society. The more you give, the more will be asked. Giving generously tends to breed a dependency and a rights mentality that places increasing and increasingly unreasonable demands on the Government over time.

Sir, we have often heard of the difference between giving a person fish and teaching him to fish. There is a difference between consumption and investment. Our approach towards helping the poorer and more needy Singaporeans should be likewise. Giving Singaporeans cash hand-outs and rebates across the board may not be the most effective way to use our resources to strengthen social cohesion. We should instead set aside more resources to provide a more holistic approach in helping needy Singaporeans to bridge the social divide. I would like to suggest three approaches.

First, we should strengthen our community-based organisations, such as the Family Service Centres, CDCs and the grassroots organisations to provide better integrated and coordinated assistance on a case management basis. Currently, needy families who approach these organisations are dealt with on a symptomatic basis. Unfortunately, for many of these families, there are root causes that have to be dealt with if their difficulties are to be resolved. In this regard, case ownership and information sharing between the various agencies would assist greatly. The Minister could perhaps let us know how much of this is possible currently.

Secondly, what is important to us, as a nation, is that the underclass must never have the complete resignation and despair with our society and feel totally disenfranchised from it. There must be the feeling that social mobility still exists within our society. Creating a sense of hope and mobility gives many Singaporeans the drive and the aspirations to

better themselves and helps to reduce the amount of resentment against those who have done well in present circumstances, because one day they hope to be like them too. In this regard, channelling more resources into training and ensuring that children from disadvantaged background are given every opportunity to pursue an excellent education must continue to be a key pillar in our policy landscape.

Thirdly, fostering a culture of care and share between the rich and the poor and championing values of thrift and frugality should continue to be the focus of our efforts at community bonding. Much has been said in recent years to encourage and promote philanthropy. While it is good that people should now be encouraged to give more, it would be even better if those who are well-to-do could be seen working within the community. The Government should continue to promote and encourage active participation in community work by those who are well-to-do and to make a virtue of modest living and less than ostentatious lifestyle. It would therefore help if the Minister could enlighten this House on whether such steps are being taken.

Social Assistance

Sir, first, I would like to point out that I am not here to ask for more money.

The amount of financial assistance that MCYS has been extending to needy Singaporeans who need help has grown significantly over the years. I would like to thank the Minister for heeding the calls of several Members in this House, myself included, in increasing the Public Assistance (PA) allowance. It is a significant and most welcome increase.

Sir, I must say that in my ward, I do not have that many residents on PA.

Beyond the allowances they receive, they also get additional help from other sources. Our CCCs and our RCs help too. For the RCs, in particular, they will pay regular visits to them as well and, from time to time, we give them some food provisions.

As we know, the criteria for Public Assistance are very stringent. Sir, I am speaking for some 3,000, not a very large number, especially measured against the larger policy issues the Budget addresses. Nonetheless, it is a measure of our society that we spend time and attention to care for the very poor and the most vulnerable, as well as for big businesses and high net worth individuals.

Is the increased amount enough? The Minister has said that his officers have conducted an exercise which shows that one can eat very well on a little more than $90 a month. The Ministry has provided to these 3,000-odd PA recipients some very good news recently. It is a result of the review that the Ministry has conducted. As a result, I hope that the Ministry can institute a mechanism where PA allowances are reviewed on a systematic and regular basis.

1.15 pm

If the CPI is not a good proxy, perhaps it can be tied to some basket of goods. If food is the main item of expenditure, then it could be tied to that. Alternatively, a survey could be done on the spending of PA recipients to find out the base cost, and then the inflation rate of these items and future increases can be tied to this rate.

Whatever formula determined by the Ministry as appropriate, I would like for it be reviewed regularly, and for it to be made public.

Sir, I urge the MCYS to review its financial assistance

scheme in two areas: first, the $1,500 income ceiling for social assistance is too low, and excludes needy families who need help. With rising costs of living and sandwiched between caring for their own children and elderly parents, they really struggle. Yes, exceptions can be made but this is case-by-case and lacks the certainty of knowing that you are eligible to get help in the first place. Therefore, I urge MCYS to raise the cap and to put in place a system to review the amount yearly.

Second, the current scheme provides for long-term assistance through the PA, which is very stringent, as there are only 3,000 cases now. All the other schemes are short term and recipients have to re-apply every three months. This is onerous and cumbersome. I urge the MCYS to review this and provide for financial assistance of a much longer period, as some of the problems faced by families take a longer time to resolve.

Housing Need

Sir, it is an irony that in a developed and prosperous Singapore, we still see homeless people around us. For one reason or another, there are still some who cannot manage to get a roof over their heads. Some simply cannot afford as market rental costs have increased substantially in the last year. Others are not eligible for HDB rental flats because they do not meet the qualifying criteria. Whatever the reason, with no other means or avenues of help, they end up living in HDB void decks, underground passes, beaches and even the airport. Additionally, without an address and a place to call home, many may not be able to take advantage of the many job opportunities that are being created. In reality, a roof comes first.

As such, I hope that the Ministry could extend greater help to such distressed

individuals and families before they reach such a stage of deprivation. I understand that the Ministry spearheaded a pilot project, New Hope Shelter for Displaced Families, which provides temporary shelter for homeless families last June. They are accommodated temporarily for a few months until they find alternative lodgings or a more permanent arrangement. Could the Minister give us an update on:

number of families who have been helped by this project;

number of families who have managed to get back on their feet and moved on;

profiles of such families and their average length of stay.

From what I read, I believe it is a scheme worth developing further. From the experience of this pilot scheme, we could learn and improve on what can be instituted as an avenue where such distressed individuals and families can turn to for help and hope.

In our pragmatic approach to solving problems, there is always the concern that help schemes may be abused. However, let that not stand in the way of providing immediate temporary accommodation, to take homeless people off the streets and help put them on the road to economic independence and self-sustenance. Often times, with such distressed cases, there is no time to do a thorough assessment. Let us give the benefit of the doubt first. House them first and if they are later discovered to have abused and unfairly or dishonestly taken advantage of the system, then they should be penalised.

Developing the People Sector Beyond Social Safety Net

Mr Chairman, I am heartened that MCYS has

increased public assistance as well as the budget for Comcare and Medifund to strengthen the social safety net.

I would like to bring the focus from the bottom 10% to those just above this line – the 20-30 percentile group. These are people who are likely to be in the lower-middle or 'sandwiched' class. My concern is that many bursaries and low-income assistance are too closely pegged to the Government safety nets, and the stringent qualification that is being used for PA and assistance schemes such as Comcare and Medifund get replicated into welfare schemes and bursaries the other 'helping hands' provide such as VWOs, especially those that are funded by MCYS.

So, I understand and agree with MCYS' principle that the Government's welfare schemes have to be low on entitlement and high in flexibility. But if we do not have sufficient 'helping hands' across the spectrum, particularly reaching the 'grey areas' at the lower-middle and sandwiched class segment, then our whole social assistance scheme framework will seem very rigid.

There is always a tension when we talk about where the Government's role starts and where social responsibility of the community needs to play a more active role. And I think more can be undertaken by the people sector to help those in the area just above the safety net criteria – to provide the flexibility and assistance needed and for a variety of interests.

Late last year, when Dover Park Hospice opted out of Medifund because they felt that the Government's Medifund scheme was too stringent in its criteria, I was especially heartened. I wish that there would be more to step forward, to be more flexible in their approach, to

render greater assistance beyond the Government's safety nets.

Therefore, I urge that the MCYS need to finance and cultivate the people sector better so that the entire social assistance framework can be more effective and flexible by spreading our resources over a wider spectrum and help base, and not just focused on the 'Government-standard' low income criteria.

To do this, the people sector also needs to develop innovative and effective social programmes. However, such talents are not easy to obtain in the people sector, because it is difficult to pay well, especially with public scrutiny.

Many qualified social workers decide to undertake other careers, some perform counselling work in the Government sector, such as MOE, while others decide to take different career paths. To illustrate my point, there is a salary difference between working as a social worker in the VWO and being a counsellor in a school under MOE. Most prefer the latter because it pays better. And we also tend to forget the executives and administrators who support them.

So the Government also should help by increasing support to the running costs of IPCs and accredited VWOs. The public also needs to be educated that good management and staff are needed to deliver good programmes, particularly programmes which address the needs of the sandwiched class and disadvantaged because without good talents, we only get more of the same and low income type schemes and subsidies.

Policy Matter

Sir, may I urge MCYS to better provide the safety net for our poorest population, numbering some 90,000 to 100,000 households, who still earn around $160 per month per

capita, the equivalent of around $640 a month for a family of four. Could MCYS be more pro-active and prioritise this group, especially their children? Could they be given a household comprehensive package based on human capital development as a family to achieve upward mobility?

How does MCYS ensure that families in need do not fall through the cracks despite the existence of varied assistance schemes? Could MCYS fine-tune our present social services by revamping the delivery aspects? Could MCYS provide more social workers and assign them for hands-on approach to take charge of families in need, to match them with the assistance they require to get out of the poverty trap. These families are also required to be followed up continuously for better outcome. There is a need to have inter-ministry cooperation, especially with MOM, for job opportunities and upgrading, and MOE to ensure that these children get the extra assistance in education. And I would like to echo Straits Times' writer Chua Lee Hoong's suggestion when she wrote in ST last week: "Political will and the need for a lead agency to champion this multi-faceted problem".

Social Enterprises

Sir, in the late 2007, the Social Enterprise Committee headed by Mr Philip Yeo published a report on ways to grow the social enterprise sector and to encourage social entrepreneurship in Singapore.

This is a milestone report and I must congratulate Mr Yeo and his committee for the work well done. The coverage has been comprehensive and covers the three broad areas:

encouraging socially responsible enterprises;

building pro-social enterprise environment; and

creating a culture of social entrepreneurship.

Some of the key thrusts and suggestions include, for instance, getting both the private and the public sectors to demonstrate greater social responsibility by seeking to hire more of the physically disadvantaged and needy Singaporeans and enabling them with the capacity for work by providing them with adequate training and to redesign the job scope and the physical environment where necessary to accommodate them. Besides promoting social responsibility, the report of the committee also seeks to encourage greater funding options for social enterprises and to provide a supporting framework through the establishment of an association and a centre that will serve as a resource base for social entrepreneurs.

Minister Vivian Balakrishnan accepted the report, recognising that social enterprises and socially responsible companies can play a role in helping the needy and those from dysfunctional families to be self reliant.

And, indeed, I am glad to note that while the ideas of social entrepreneurship and promoting socially responsible companies are relatively recent ideas, the Government was quick to recognise the potential of such undertakings and its impact on the wider community. The acceptance of the report by the Government and the study of the ways to implement them is indeed an exciting time for those, including myself, who believe in the big potential of social enterprises in helping the poor and needy achieve self reliance.

Minister Vivian Balakrishnan has also said in his response to the Report that he

will be announcing the ways in which the Government will be implementing the recommendations of the committee. And I would therefore appreciate it if the Minister is able to give his response today, if possible, and in particular, I would like to hear from the Minister whether the Government intends to "let a thousand flowers bloom" by actively promoting such initiatives and educating the public at the grassroots; whether the Government intends to review the regulatory environment and form of business organisational vehicles; whether it would be in the form of cooperatives or otherwise, and to make it easier for social entrepreneurs and the community to start social enterprises; and also whether the Government intends to give further tax incentives to encourage the adoption of more socially responsible initiatives by the private sector.

Sir, I would like to add on to the chorus on social enterprise, obviously, and would like to declare my interest.

I start with a quote from Bill Gates, the former Chairman of Microsoft, who said, "We need a creative capitalism where business and non-governmental organisations can come together to create a market system," a market system, I repeat, "that eases the world's inequities." The challenge is to design a system where market initiatives, market incentives, including profits and recognitions, drive the change.

Sir, social entrepreneurs ask innovators who create value by addressing market failures and elevating current and potential social issues whether due to demographic or economic trends. In addition, due to its grassroots and bottom-up nature, social entrepreneurs are a great social and economic leveller and

should be perceived as a treasured partner of both the public and the private sectors.

How can the Government show clear signals and help boost the development of social entrepreneurs in Singapore? I would like to ask the Minister for an update on the social entrepreneur development in Singapore to further define the role of Government in the promotion of the SE industry, including:

leveraging on private and public resources;

testing and developing solutions;

seeding social innovation and R&D;

creating and enabling an overall environment;

rewarding initiatives;

scaling initiatives;

producing knowledge that enhances the SE efforts; and

how can cooperatives also play a role in promoting and shaping the SE sector and vice-versa.

The rest of it, I will attempt to speak in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A *. ] Laissez-faire economy or socialism? Which is better? Obviously, the laissez-faire approach will win. This is so because laissez-faire economy offers efficiency, opportunities and innovation. However, the laissez-faire system does not guarantee that enterprises will gain from business opportunities and profits. Rather, it is the presence of tax and legal infrastructure, banking and bankruptcy laws, financial regulations and institutions, that offer enterprises a thriving ecosystem.

Pure capitalism however, leaves gaps in certain sectors – for example, healthcare, education and ageing population problem. Many statistics bear out this social phenomenon of inequality. If left untackled, it will further widen the gap between the rich and poor. Social inequity can result from many causes, but a common consequence is that some people have good jobs while others do not, leading to an income gap. Some may say that this is due to personal or genetic disability, but it could be argued that we have not learnt to make full use of the market economy to develop everyone’s potential to the fullest.

Therefore, I would like to propose that bold efforts be put into developing social enterprises that use market-based solutions for solving social challenges, including innovative job creation for the less abled. However, social enterprise is a relatively new concept, and our legal and financial infrastructure has yet to keep up with it. For example, currently, under the tax legislation, organisations are largely classified into two groups: tax-paying for-profit enterprises and non tax-paying charitable organisations that deliver social goods. Social enterprises fit into neither category. Social enterprises are hybrids with double bottomlines, often having limited economic profit but deliver maximum social goods. However, without a reasonable regulatory infrastructure and ecosystem, social enterprises will not be able to maximise its potential for social good.

Therefore, I hope that our Government will develop an enabling regulatory infrastructure and ecosystem, encourage the development of double bottomlines industry, and attract capital into social enterprises. In so doing, we can contribute to Singapore’s growth, prosperity and social harmony.

*Cols. 2277-2278.

Importance of Families

(In Mandarin ):[For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A *.] Sir, I grew up in a family with many members and extended families living together under one roof. Living in the kampung, we foster family relationship and cohesion through having meals and working together, and the children play games and catch longkang fishes along the drains and canals. Through such activities, we foster family relationship. But such big family structure is very rare today.

The scenario now is very different due to socio-economic changes. Let me share with you a teenager's experience at the “Father and son bonding programme”. The aim of this exercise was to help the child appreciate the hard work and effort of the father. However, the son, when asked and approached by the organiser, said that he did not feel anything for his father because he was never at home. The father was taken aback after listening to what the child said. Because all this while, he thought that he has struggled and do all that he can for the family. But the truth is not so. Therefore, this example illustrates the importance of family bonding. Just as it takes two hands to clap, it involves the effort of all family members to stay united.

Given the changing social family structure, we thus need innovation, more efforts as well as resources to bond our families. This year, I support the move that was initiated earlier in encouraging fathers to send their children to school on their first day. More such programmes should be organised, for instance, family packages for visits to local places of interest, especially for those that are from the lower income. These activities include visits to the Night Safari. However, the expense of incurring the entrance fee of

$32 per ticket and transport fee is not affordable to them. Therefore, I would like to urge MCYS to explore more of such activities and provide more of such programmes.

*Cols. 2279-2280.

Childcare

Sir, in recent years, there has been a mushrooming of childcare centres in Singapore. According to the MCYS' website, there are currently 743 childcare centres or CCCs that are licensed. The Child Care Centres Act makes it compulsory for childcare centres to obtain licensing from MCYS. This is indeed a lucrative and important industry in Singapore. The MCYS is responsible for licensing, monitoring and lending support to CCCs in Singapore. The MCYS' website assists a potential client, for example, a parent seeking a childcare centre by prompting for the geographical location desired, price range, menu and services required. MCYS does not get involved in guiding a parent but advises that the parent visit the childcare centre and evaluate first hand the quality and suitability of the CCC for the child concerned.

An individual who wants to establish a childcare centre is assisted online with information such as the CCC must observe the childcare regulations and provide information to MCYS through the childcare link. In this way, MCYS receives regular update of the services and other important factors, such as hygiene, staff-child ratio, etc. A licence is provided for a period of minimum 12 months and maximum 24 months. A licence must be renewed before the tenure of the licence expires. There are regulations relating to staff such as the Centre Director must be having a Diploma in Pre-school Education, 70% of the staff have to be trained, and about half must have certificates in pre-school teaching.

From the customer's or parent's perspective, what would he or she like to know? By visiting the CCC once or talking to the staff or even knowing about the CCC by word of mouth is not sufficient for the young parents of today. What they would like to know is reviews from past parents. In the USA, a potential parent can go to a State subsidised website maintained by a not-for-profit agency and find out all about the childcare centres in the constituency. For example, the Community Child Care Coordinating Council, Alameda has been in existence since 1972. It has been providing services to potential parents seeking family care or childcare as well as existing childcare providers with technical assistance and low cost training. The complaints of parents lodged within the last two to three years are available by phoning in the CCC and, in this way, the parent has additional information.

When we have such a large expatriate population in Singapore, this source of information would be very valuable to them, apart from the local clientele. An additional significant benefit from such a source of information is that the quality of the CCC will be publicly available. It will incentivise CCCs to provide better service and centre supervisors to be on their toes for any parent's queries. On the other hand, good quality childcare can be recognised and this provides a role model for the rest.

I would urge MCYS to consider providing such a channel of information to the public. Both the praises or the complaints made by parents can be anonymous on the website and updated maybe every three months. Just as the public is keen to have transparency in the healthcare sector, and the MOH has done something about this, MCYS could practise a similar gesture to meet the needs of educated parents. Needless to say, the final decision as to where the child is placed is always the parents'

decision. I would like to ask the Minister for MCYS whether he has plans to improve the current system of monitoring by a distance. I am told that there are only two times that the childcare centre is visited, one if a parent makes a complaint; and two, when the childcare centre's licence needs renewal.

Currently, the CCCs vary widely. And from my conversation with childcare teachers, the quality depends largely on the childcare manager. My suggestion is an effective and economical way to keep CCCs motivated and to provide child-centric and professional service.

(In Mandarin): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A *. ] Sir, human capital is an important growth engine for the development of our country. In order to ensure the continuous prosperity of our country, apart from economic restructuring, we need to invest heavily in our future generation, which means to strengthen the education investment. We have a lot of foreign maids and their pay is less than $300 per month. Whereas sending your child to the childcare centre will cost more than an average $560. What is MCYS view on this? Is there any difference between sending our children to the childcare centre or leaving them to our maid? In this regard, can MCYS coordinate with MOE to include all pre-school education into the mainstream education system.

For those non-profit making childcare centres, for example, NTUC Childcare Centre, the Government should provide grants to help them to defray their operating cost and to reduce the school fees so as to improve the quality and strengthen our manpower resources.

Cols. 2281-2282.

(In English ): Sir, we see MOE's expenditure for primary school children has increased by 69% over the last 12 years. MOE has also extended its annual

recurrent grant from year 2002 to help non-profit kindergartens to meet childcare teachers' qualification. So for the childcare industry, the non-profit childcare operators are also expected to meet similar requirements. However, there is no Government grant to help them.

As such, I urge MCYS to increase the amount of the childcare subsidies extended to parents and also, at the same time, extend the grant to childcare operators, particularly the non-profit childcare operators, to defray the building and operation costs. Working parents who wish to give their children a good headstart in life, should not have to be deterred from doing so because of the affordability issue.

Youth at Risk

Sir, one important aspect of working with youth at risk is the identification of the target group, that is, who is actually at risk and at risk of what – delinquency, premature school leaving, anti-social behaviour, offending or reoffending.

Unless we are clear of what we hope to achieve, we will constantly be asking why we are still talking about youth at risk after all these years. Many programmes have been implemented – Streetwise, Guidance, STEP-UP, etc. But what is MCYS' assessment of the effectiveness of these programmes? Has systematic evaluation of these programmes been conducted? And what are these results? For youths who do not show positive outcomes, what are the subsequent paths for them that have been laid by MCYS?

Sir, the above programmes have been around for many years and they are aimed at youth at risk for getting involved in crime and delinquency. One wonders who

do we explain the over 4,000 youths arrested every year, over 1,200 teen girls going for abortions every year. The question that arises then is whether these youths fell through the cracks and did not receive the preventive intervention programmes mentioned above or whether these programmes were not effective enough to achieve the desired outcome of preventing such behaviour. Has MCYS studied this issue and assessed where are the gaps in service delivery in reaching out to these youth at risk?

Sir, while we often look at the youth at risk to prevent them from committing crime and delinquency, we must also look at those who are already involved and work towards preventing further crime and delinquency. In this regard, what is the current success rate of rehabilitation programmes such as probation service and programmes in custodial homes, institutions like the Boys' and Girls' Homes. There is also a group of homes run by VWOs. What is the effectiveness of the programme in these homes? What are the recidivism rates of youths who have undergone the programmes in these homes? What are the KPIs set by MCYS and whether they have been very effective?

Juvenile Homes

Young offenders reside at the Singapore Boys' Home or Girls' Home when the Juvenile Court thinks that they need to be removed from the community in order to be rehabilitated. But how successful have these homes been in helping our youngsters turn over a new leaf, or have we inadvertently made things worse?

According to Ministry data, the rate of recidivism or those who reoffended within two years of release rose from 23% for those released in 2000 to between 25%

and 30% in subsequent years. Recently, the Minister gave a written answer that for the cohorts released in 2003 and 2004, the rate was 38.5%. In the Budget estimates, the actual recidivism rate in FY06 was a peak of 48%. What are the reasons for the sharp upward trend?

Regarding the Boys' Home, about a year ago, Dr Carol Balhetchet of the Singapore Children's Society noted that there would always be boys who emerged from the home even more aggressive and would have "contaminated" others too. She noted that boys she counselled did not fear going to the Boys' Home. So the boys released from the home told the press that the disciplinary regime was too lax.

I note that MCYS is increasing its expenditure on the purchase of additional security services to reforce the supervision and security in MCYS' Homes. Is this a recognition that the homes are too lax?

Dysfunctional Families

Sir, the family unit is an important cornerstone of our society. What we are and who we are is very much determined by the upbringing we get as children and young adults. Conventional wisdom believes that having strong and stable families would provide the right environment to bring up better adjusted children who are emotionally stable and who in turn can contribute to an orderly society.

Unfortunately, for many, including those in my generation, starting a family and being able to keep the family unit strong is very much of an experiment; an exercise of learning by trial and error. Certainly, when I started my family, it was based on my own experience with my parents and my wife's parents. And with the changing values that come with the changing times, we had to adapt as

we went along. Surely, there were classes and books that existed. However, we never felt a compelling reason to read up or attend classes on starting a family because there was very little expectation to go for any formal training during my time.

My wife and I tried various methods on our three children and, after close to 20 years, I am grateful to say that my three children are reasonably well adjusted and I have a wife who still stands by me today. I am sure, however, if both my wife and I had more formalised exposures to parenting and acquired a better understanding of family dynamics, we could have been spared the trial and errors and the risk of failures as parents.

1.45 pm

Not everyone has been as fortunate as we have been in building a successful family unit. There are many out there who, for one reason or another, have been unsuccessful and the family has become highly dysfunctional, resulting in divorces. From our MPS sessions, we can appreciate that, for many of these families, the situation at home can be highly tense and stressful. The root causes can come from a variety of sources, such as financial, physical, illegitimate relationships, drug abuse and early marriages. When a family is broken, it is sadly the children who suffer. It cannot be denied that, for these children, it is their very own experience that will leave an indelible mark in them; oftentimes, leaving them emotionally scarred.

Help for these dysfunctional families often come from many fronts - financial, counselling and job placements, to name a few. Unfortunately, by the time help is extended, it is often rather late in the day and usually limited to temporary relief. One, therefore, often asks whether more could have been done to save the day for

these families. I would, therefore, be grateful if the Minister could respond to the following questions:

Does the Government feel that it has done enough to prepare Singaporeans for marriage and to raise a family?

Is there not more that could be done by way of early detection and counselling to minimise or reduce the risk of families becoming dysfunctional, such as better coordination between the various agencies assisting the family concerned; and

What more can be done to help dysfunctional families, particularly children of these families, to cope in their situations?

(In Malay): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A *. ] The issue of dysfunctional families is becoming an increasing concern to the community. These families usually involve divorced couples, single parents or children involved in negative activities. The issue of dysfunctional families must be controlled, as it can affect the community's progress.

One main way is to encourage women, especially single mothers, to work and to be independent. I hope the Government will think of ways as to how we can encourage companies to establish a more flexible work system for women, especially single mothers. Besides medium and large enterprises, another system can also be introduced in every HDB estate where grassroots organisations, or the CDCs, can link up with stalls and service providers to offer job vacancies to mothers who are seeking part-time work. I hope the Government will consider these ideas and look for ways to give incentives for its implementation.

Apart from that, more efforts should be done to help single mothers who are

suffering because their ex-husbands neglect their responsibilities and do not pay maintenance to their children. Some are unsure of their rights and do not realise that they can bring their cases to court. I hope public education and awareness efforts can be increased in this regard. Social workers and counsellors must also make the single mothers aware that they should not let their ex-husbands ignore their responsibilities to their children.

Sir, some of these divorcees then start new families. Although there is nothing wrong with this, the newly-married divorcees are not prepared emotionally, mentally and financially and this can bring about new problems when they remarry.

The situation is worsened if it involves a low-income man who is unable to pay maintenance for the children from his previous marriage. Then the man remarries another divorcee with children, or a single woman, and they start a new family. From one dysfunctional family, this low-income man might then start another dysfunctional family.

Media reports say that the rate of remarriages, ie, second marriages, and so on, is higher among the Malay community a few years ago. It is the same for the rate of re-divorce. Does the Ministry have the latest figures?

Today, Malay couples who want to remarry must attend a two-day course. I feel this is enough for couples who are emotionally, mentally and financially prepared. However, I propose that the counselling and mentoring process be extended to three groups, namely:

Couples where one partner has divorced at least twice;

Couples where the man does not have the financial means to start a new family; and

Couples where the man has neglected the responsibility to his children from his former family by not paying maintenance.

A more advanced mentoring course that is more detailed, and maybe tailored for such couples, must be made. Without this measure, the problem of dysfunctional families can worsen.

A media report in 2003 said that three out of four re-divorces or serial divorces involved unemployed men or women, or those with salaries less than $500 a month.

Must such individuals be allowed to remarry when they obviously do not have the financial means to start a new family?

In this matter, can ROMM delay marriages for such couples for the time being? These couples can be required to attend advanced counselling and mentoring courses, and be given job matching services. After they have shown the capacity to be self-sufficient, they can proceed with their marriage plans.

*Cols. 2283-2286.

Sir, families, as the basic social institution in the community, play a pivotal role in contributing to raising healthy responsible members of society. Family breakdown and the social isolation of some families contribute to social problems in many communities. The fragmentation of family life and the emergence of a higher number of dysfunctional families are all too often the symptoms of a deteriorating society.

Sir, in a secure nurturing home environment and healthy family life, the individual can naturally develop his or her sense of self-worth, belonging and sharing, can develop self-control, tolerance and a sense of morality and, not least in importance, cultivate feelings of affection and willingness to sacrifice for others. Numerous studies have proven

that dysfunctional family conditions contribute to future delinquency. Dysfunctional family members, especially children, are deprived of developing into rounded human beings. Ultimately, a broken nuclear family with no real support impacts the society negatively. It is almost certain that, without support, the dysfunctional family problem will perpetuate into the next generation, a vicious cycle of fragmented families will continue, and the problem can never end. Such families desperately need the chance to stand up on their own feet, not just through financial resources but also through proper attention, care, such as counselling and empowerment programmes that build esteem, confidence and self-determination that are all focused in creating change and improvement in their beleaguered lives.

Recognising the issue of dysfunctional families has become the new social menace and plagues our society, we have to ask ourselves: have we done enough to tackle the problem? What kind of help is available presently? Are we allocating our resources in the right areas? Are we giving our hands to those who are reaching out for help?

Community-based Social Assistance

Sir, our communities have been generally structured along geographical boundaries by virtue of the success of our public housing programme. The delivery of social and community services have also taken a geographical perspective with the formation of CDCs, GROs, FSCs, etc. Between these organisations, there is a wide range of services that families in need can access, eg, financial, job placement, marital counselling, childcare, eldercare, befriender services, the list goes on. We see annual reports of the number of Singaporeans who have benefited from these services. Yet, we also hear

Members of the House repeatedly call for more that needs to be done – more assistance for the poor, more assistance for dysfunctional families and the elderly. Does this mean that the help is still not enough, help is not reaching out to the targeted group, or that not the right help is being delivered, thus resulting in the failure to help these families get out of their predicament?

Sir, working with dysfunctional families is more than addressing the financial problems that they present when they first seek help. The complexities that these families come with require a comprehensive and systemic assessment of behavioural, developmental, marital and environmental factors. Indeed, there is much that exists in the community that needs to be done.

Sir, helping an abusive husband to accept the responsibilities of his actions and to stop the violence, helping an abused wife and her children pick up the pieces of the suffering years of abuse when she finally decides to leave her husband, helping women whose husbands are constantly going in and out of prison to cope with pseudo single parenthood, helping youths involved in gang activities overcome self-esteem issues due to failure to cope with the mainstream system or helping families with heads of households who suffer from chronic illnesses, these are only some of the typical cases confronting social service providers in the community. Intervention with these families is often resource-intensive, involving personnel equipped with professional social work skills. Financial assistance, such as ComCare, is only merely touching the surface.

Sir, much has been said about the role of social workers in this regard. Today, they are located in the FSCs providing intensive casework services. One can imagine the intensity of the work involved and the energy that is required of the

social workers. It is not only physically draining but emotionally and psychologically challenging. The attrition rate of social workers is very high. On the average, they stay for three years and they burn out. I urge the Ministry to comprehensively review the structure of our community-based social service system, with particular emphasis on manpower needs and development. We need to attract more people to come in and stay in the profession. As the challenges facing these families become more intensified and complex, so too will be the need for trained social workers to work with them.

Sir, much has also been said about the coordination of services and collaboration between service providers. I urge the Ministry to take a more proactive role in this effort. We have started the development of the ComCare local network. However, we need a clear understanding of how such a network will operate. What is the desired outcome of such a network? And how does this relate to the overall strategy of addressing problems of dysfunctional families? As we adopt a community-based approach to address the needs of these families, who in the community is monitoring the progress of such efforts? We need to build the capacities of our community service providers in assessing needs, implementing intervention and evaluating effectiveness. Otherwise, we will continue to just touch the surface with financial assistance and face downstream problems, including the potential inter-generational transfer of dysfunctionality.

Social Workers

Sir, I echo the sentiments raised by my colleague on the conditions for social workers. This is a topic I raised last year, and the Minister, in his reply, affirmed the Government's

commitment to introducing a $1 million package under the Social Work Professionalisation Package and new schemes to offer good and experienced social workers paid sabbatical leave to recharge, re-energise and renew themselves.

Sir, I would, therefore, like to ask the Minister for an update of what has been done since, eg, how many social workers have benefited from increasing fundings to these voluntary welfare organisations in the form of better salaries and how many good social workers have been able to take advantage of the sabbatical programmes that have been promised?

In addition, I would also like to ask the Minister whether the Government would consider reorganising the present profession of social workers to be governed by a chartered body similar to the Law Society, with powers to admit and recognise professional social workers, set standards, maintain discipline and to improve the image and standing of social workers in Singapore generally.

Sir, with rapid development, globalisation, a fast ageing society and the coming up of the IRs, etc, those who cannot cope physically, psychologically and financially will be needing more assistance in the various forms in our community. One of the main and crucial approaches to these issues is counselling and case management. In this light, the demand for social workers and counsellors can also increase tremendously.

Currently, there are only about 600 or so social workers in Singapore. Many have left the related sector and some did not even work in this area in which they qualified. We realise there are challenges related to the job, which include the low level of recognition, the relatively low remuneration and the very labour-intensive type of work. Are there plans to recruit and train more social workers and

counsellors? Can their career path be made more comprehensive and exciting, in line with the need to retain and recruit more social workers?

2.00 pm

(In Mandarin): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A *. ] Sir, a social worker friend recently shared with me her plight. She hopes to see some improvements in the professionalisation of the social work profession. I was at first very puzzled.

Why? This is because, last year, the Government had injected $12 million into the voluntary welfare sector. This is to boost the social workers’ salaries and provide upgrading programmes for them. But after talking to some of them, I realised that it is common for social workers to be treated as merely volunteer workers doing community work instead of recognising them as professionals. Therefore, many social workers still feel that more can be done for them to enhance their image and improve their profession. Many feel frustrated with the profession and they leave the job to pursue other careers.

Last year, MCYS rolled out plans to put in place a social worker accreditation scheme. Besides accreditation, MCYS has also put in place various initiatives to help to enhance the professionalism of social workers. I know that it takes time to upgrade the social workers’ image, but how long can we afford to wait? We know that a social worker’s work has great impact on peoples’ lives, especially those involved in court cases. The nature of a social worker’s job is not as simple as a 9-to-5 work. It requires fine assessment skills with the ability to listen, counsel and connect.

As a family lawyer, I have come across complaints of the social workers' poor attitude and prejudices. But,

fortunately, these are in very small numbers. When these social workers are not up to a reasonable standard, the reports they put up can be very harmful and damaging, especially in cases where their reports are relied upon during the court trials.

The court requires such reports to decide on whether to grant probation in juvenile cases, divorce proceedings involving custody, care and control of the child in a marriage, and also in adoption proceedings. And in some cases, I know of some fathers who felt that they have been prejudiced against because they cannot see their children as often as they hope to, and they feel that strangers are dictating their lives as far as their children are concerned, after a few interviews.

Therefore, I would like to ask the Minister how many of the social workers in MCYS have a degree in social work, or how many of them have been trained professionally in this area. And how many people, not trained in social work, are holding such jobs in the community? If training is required, how much time is needed to train someone who has no background in social work?

I am aware that a social worker has to have a degree in social work to practise, but I have received feedback that there are agencies which employ people from various disciplines as social workers. These people take up counselling courses, some as short as three to four months, and then become a counsellor. If this is true, is the training sufficient?

A distinction must be made between the two – counsellor and social workers. Social workers do case work, and they are trained in generic counselling, but counsellors do not do case work. It is not as simple as interviewing people and putting up reports and the case is closed for filing. Good and professional social workers are concerned with social

problems and they assess the problems presented to them and the impact their assessment has on the individual and the system.

Therefore, in short, I do not think that this is a straightforward and easy job. Therefore, I strongly urge the Government to dedicate resources to upgrade this profession and to improve the image and standing of this often neglected sector of our economy.

*Cols. 2287-2290.

The Social Service Sector Landscape

Sir, I would touch on two areas which the Ministry oversees – the charity sector and the Enabling Masterplan for the Disabled.

In the aftermath of the NKF incident, the charity sector is swamped by a wave of control measures to ensure charities do not get out of line. This included the launch of the Code of Governance for Charities and IPCs, the Charity Council, and transfer of the Commissioner of Charities from the Ministry of Finance to MCYS, and numerous governance training workshops and audits. Three levels of governance checklists now apply to a wide diversity of registered charities, churches, temples, homes for the aged, philanthropic foundations, special schools, community hospitals, and special interest groups promoting animal welfare, environmental protection and the arts.

Sir, whilst I am all for accountability, we must not think that the magic pills of governance and audits will transform the charity sector. I have three suggestions for the Minister to consider:

One, distinguish the different types of charities and provide more tangible support for those deemed critical. Sir, some services like step-down hospital care, early interventions, special education

are critical functions which in some countries are undertaken by the State. Board members and key staff face tough challenges. Quite a lot of them need to raise funds to close the gap where Government funds fall short, but, more importantly, attract competent, technical and leadership talents in the face of fierce competition from the private and public sectors which have deeper pockets to pay their people. The same leaders are now faced with doing even more.

I urge the Ministry to review the proposed terms of reference, spelling the deliverables members in each board committee in the board – in audit, programmes, fund raising, HR, finance, etc – are accountable for. Many of these deliverables cannot be realistically expected of part-time volunteers.

It is difficult enough to sign up good board members or even schedule board meetings convenient for everyone to attend. I suspect even the full-time Commissioner of Charities himself faces challenges in resources too because his last annual report in the charity portal is for the year 2005.

Sir, I urge the Minister to continue to seek ground feedback on the progress of the current governance system and simplify the Code further without compromising the need for accountability. I ask him to consider funding the cost of not just installing but maintaining the governance systems that were recommended and other tangible ways to add value to the charities.

Two, in conducting governance audits on the charities, sector administrators should stick to the basic principle of materiality, and beware of the excesses of the auditors' enthusiasm to surface every deviation. I received feedback from discouraged board members of several big charities which have recently undergone governance audits.

I urge the auditors to treat the board members and staff respectfully and not assume that they are premeditating criminals where past lapses in governance are found. Those of us who have sat in boards of commercial firms know realistically that there is a limitation to what board members really know about the business or what they can do to prevent planned frauds.

Albert Einstein once said: "Ours is the generation that has seriously mistaken means with ends." The Charity Council, the Code of Governance, the training and audits are all means to the ends of serving the mission of the charities. We want to encourage and not deter good volunteers from serving, and for the target community to be helped. Let us keep a balance and not mistake the means for the end.

Three, I propose that the Ministry and its agencies take on some duties directly instead of resorting to the default mode of outsourcing to a VWO each time a need arises. This is a special regard to the essential services I have mentioned. I applaud the recent decision by the police force and the NCSS to directly set up a Police SMS hotline for the deaf community, knowing that security is an essential state service even for the deaf.

Sir, my next point focuses on the Enabling Masterplan for the Disabled. The Masterplan was released more than one year ago. It covered 30 main recommendations with many sub-recommendations. When I accessed the Ministry's homepage, the Masterplan was nowhere to be found. I found it only after I used the search function.

Sir, if I may use an analogy – the person with disabilities is like a diner eating at a restaurant. He had come in response to an advertisement showing the Masterplan or menu of food items he

could look forward to. The appetiser arrived in the form of some assurances. Desserts were sometimes served in the form of awards, but the chef had too much to do and was busy with the casinos and the Youth Olympic celebrations just down the street, and the diner was still waiting for his main course.

Sir, I urge the Minister to appoint a focus team to eyeball the implementation of the Enabling Masterplan, refine the Plan, track and communicate its progress.

I also ask the Minister to re-examine the way the proposal for a National Office on Disabilities is implemented. I hear the office has been formed and populated by top civil servants, some of whom may not have seen or heard directly from the ground. I recommend Patricia Seybold's book "Outside Innovation – How your customers will co-design your company's future", which recommends the engagement of key users to co-develop successful products and services.

Sir, more than one year has passed since the releasing of the Masterplan and we are waiting for the main course to be served.

Lastly, I wish to specially thank the Minister and his Ministry for taking on what –

Ms Phua, sit down, please.

Governance and Charities

I will provide the dessert.

Sir, the recent media attention on the potential impropriety of certain decisions taken by certain members of Ren Ci Hospital has once again put the spotlight on charities and governance. But like private sector organisations, charities are organisations headed by governing boards

and held accountable or answerable for any wrongdoings of the organisation. However, unlike private sector organisations, charities by their very nature are not-for-profit entities. The entire philosophy and foundation of charities are often based on the need to help with particular noble causes, usually the alleviation of poverty, and would therefore expect a voluntary spirit and some measure of sacrifice on the part of anyone who works or helps out with these charities. This understanding provides the basis on which charities are allowed to raise monies from the public without the need to pay tax on the monies raised. However, the lavish lifestyles of some members of charities, the failure of governance and the public censure of some board members, have raised issues that I believe charities and even the Commissioner of Charities are still trying to resolve. I shall name three.

Firstly, as a result of the relatively onerous nature of running these charities, how can charities continue to get good men and women of high integrity and substance to provide governance as board members and managers? For the private sector boards, financial incentives are often the reason why people are prepared to come on board. However, the very suggestion of appropriately remunerating board members and paying executive would run counter to the philosophy of charities. Not only are charities going to find it difficult to find suitable and capable men to serve, even auditors are reluctant to come on board because of the perceived high risks involved. In any event, it is my understanding that if an auditor would agree on the assignment, there is usually a premium to be charged. Essentially, one can no longer get the auditor for the charity on expectations that the rewards are going to be in

heaven. The question is: have we thrown the baby out with the bath water?

Secondly, at the moment, our policy is not to interfere with the way the money is raised and spent so long as the charity is able to disclose the spending and have proper resolutions to back the decisions of the board. What made for a bad case for NKF was not the gold taps but that the gold taps were not disclosed to members of the public whose donations went towards their acquisition. However, there is a deeper concern here. What if the leader of a charity is able to, through sheer charisma, raise money from members of the public to partly fund his lavish lifestyle, and his followers willingly give the money, even if the wider society may frown upon it? Should the State intervene and decide otherwise for the charity?

Thirdly, should the monies raised by a charity be separately and independently managed by external parties so that the people who run the programmes will not face the temptation of putting their fingers in the till? Part of the problem of rich charities lies in the freedom to spend the money once raised, at their absolute discretion. Whilst the rules may be tightened to some extent in this regard, a case could be made for putting the money in the hands of an independent trustee and only to be applied for the purpose for which the money is raised, with the trustee closely scrutinising the budget. This process of putting charity money in the hands of the trustee would help to strengthen public confidence and trust in charity funding.

Mr Chairman, Members of this House, this is my fourth occasion at the MCYS COS. Each year, it gets longer. This year, we have budgeted six hours and 35 minutes for this debate. I do not intend to go that long. What is coming

round to Members is a file which contains some handouts, not money, brochures, which will summarise the progress of what we have committed to do last year, and also a summary of what we intend to do in this coming year. So I do not want to go through those details because I am hoping that we can assume them as read. Instead, what I will spend my time doing is to share a personal story, and then attempt to answer some of the more urgent and relevant queries which you have raised. My colleagues in the Ministry will also take all the other questions, and then we will settle it at clarification.

First, a personal story – about 80 years ago, in fact, exactly 80 years ago, a young man on a business trip to China fell ill and passed away. That young man was my grandfather, my mum's father. When he passed away 80 years ago, he left behind a young widow. This young widow had two children and was on the verge of delivering her third child, my mum. You can imagine the deep grief, sorrow, fear, helplessness and despair of a young widow, losing a young husband and about to deliver her third child.

And because this was 80 years ago, there was no MCYS. We only started 60 years ago. And all those schemes which we debate and quibble about were not present.

2.15 pm

My grandfather and his two brothers ran a motorcar and, I suppose, bicycle spare parts shop in Dhoby Ghaut. Because my grandmother was a young widow, she was not going to inherit a share of the business. But, nevertheless, his two brothers continued to run the business, committed to giving an allowance and helping my grandmother bring up the children. They were not penniless, they were not roofless, but life was tough and money was tight.

My mum had a tough life. She talked about malnutrition. She talked about

losing all her front teeth. She talked about getting TB (tuberculosis) as a teenager. She talked about being so skinny that when she married my father, she told my dad, "I'm probably infertile." Of course, she was wrong. She went on to have five of us.

But this experience of childhood left an indelible imprint on my mum. For the rest of her life, she could never spend money on herself. She could never really even enjoy taking luxuries. She could definitely not accept wastage. She worked hard. She became a teacher, and I can tell you in those days, MOE was not as enlightened as it is now. I do not think she enjoyed the final few years of teaching, but she slogged through it anyway because it was a means for living. The family was middle class but we were not rich.

My uncle went on to become a doctor. He became a GP in Albert Street. Those of you who were treated by him or lived in that area will know that, I think in the first 10-15 years as a GP, he never took a single day off.

So what does all this mean and why am I sharing this? I am sharing this with Members so that they will get some idea of what my inner most feelings, values and attitudes are to poverty, to family, to social safety nets, and also to give them a better understanding of what I bring when I contemplate policies and plans in this area.

What have I learnt? First, life can be tough, life can be unfair, and life is unpredictable. And bad things can happen to good decent people, and good decent people, regardless of whether it is their fault or not, at some point in time in their lives, they will need help, deserve help, and need hope.

The second thing I have learnt from this family story is that one needs family

support. Do not talk about MCYS first. The first thought is: who in your family is going to be there, to be with you at times of crisis, at times when everything looks bleak and dark? My grandmother had her two brothers-in-law, and my family has to be eternally grateful to them for supporting my grandmother.

The third lesson, a value imbibed from my mother, is that it is all about discipline and hard work. No matter how wealthy or successful we think we are, if we lose that ability for discipline and hard work, we will fail. Life for me has been, in comparison, very much easier and much blessed. But, at least, for me, I think my mum has successfully transmitted those values.

My current angst, when I talk about young people, is whether our children or our grandchildren, born in the midst of plenty, spend more time thinking about how to spend their inheritance. And sometimes even in this House, we hear debate that we are a rich country, we can spend more even if it means being wasteful. Instead of coming back to the basics that, yes, we do need safety nets, but we have to start with the family, and we have got to be self-reliant, disciplined and hardworking. Because we must remember that, at the end of the day, even when we talk about MCYS, money is important. Anyone who has been poor, directly or indirectly, will tell you money is very, very important. But money is also not enough. All the wealth in the world will not buy you happiness and success, nor will it eliminate all the social problems which we face. Those of us who do regular meet-the-people sessions, we see people coming with problems. Let me ask Members: do you really think their most fundamental problem is the lack of money? Is it a poverty of material wealth? Or is it usually a poverty of relationships?

I think those of us who have been in this and lived long enough will agree that the real and bigger problem is the poverty of relationships.

So we all need families and we do need a compassionate society. And if we look around us, and we look at a child, we will know that the greatest predictor for failure is a dysfunctional family, if his parents are not there, if his parents do not care or do not know how to care, or his parents are physically in prison or because of addiction, gambling or whatever, and not there to provide that ballast and the emotional stability for the child.

But we also know that it is not just about families, because we all want a more compassionate, caring, a "softer" society. However, Singapore will fail, if our society degenerates into nothing more than a collection of successful individuals just achieving success and earning money for themselves and looking for pleasure and satisfaction for themselves. If we have no shared values, no shared ideals and no dreams, the Singapore experiment will fail, even if we have money and even if we have reserves.

One point I want to come back to in today's debate is I want Members to remember Mr Sam Tan's brilliant speech last week. I was not here because I was overseas with the President, but I read his speech three times. He talked about how it is not a dilemma between the young and the old. It is not even a dilemma between the rich and the poor, but between head and heart. He said that the head knows we cannot be overly generous; the head knows that we sometimes have to be cruel to be kind. And yet the heart wants the poor to be rich and the weak to be strong. And he said that it is better that now we are preparing for all these problems before they become insoluble problems; the time to do it is now.

I also read with great distress Mr Siew Kum Hong's speech. I am a debater. That was a very brilliant debating speech. And I actually share his hopes when he said that he wants Singapore to be a more generous society that helps its most vulnerable members – beautiful words. But the danger was in the rest of his speech when he said, in order to fulfil this hope, we should be prepared to waste, we should be prepared to have a bloated bureaucracy, all in the name of helping people.

I believe in getting all the different actors on the social stage to do what they are best at. I believe in a small, efficient, rational, even calculating Government, because that is what governments can and should do best. I believe in a social service sector, a voluntary welfare sector led by many champions, people like Ms Denise Phua, no matter how much I disagree with her on points, I will always respect people like her because they do what they believe in, and they care passionately about it.

When we say we want a more generous, compassionate, caring society, the lazy way out is to say, "We want the Government to be generous, compassionate and caring, and the Government can express that generosity, caring and compassionate by simply spending a lot of money." Raise taxes, spend a lot of money and pretend that we have achieved a generous society that helps people who are most vulnerable.

Our model is a small, efficient Government, with low taxes, so that people like Dr Loo Choon Yong can still continue cheerfully paying his taxes, because they are actually very low than if he were to live anywhere else in the world. But more than paying low taxes, we want him and people like him to donate money, time and attention to social causes which they care about. So I was very happy when I saw his name and

Mr Sim Wong Hoo's name mentioned in the Forbes list of philanthropists.

What I am trying to spell to Members is a system in which individuals work hard, individuals look after their families, community organisations care and express the best parts of our heart, while the Government acts in the background carefully, rationally, logically and sensibly to make sure that the overall system functions. That is the context behind which I view every single policy, every single plan that my Ministry puts up.

Sir, let me now go through some of these. I ask Members to look at the handout which describes the Public Assistance Scheme. Much angst and many words have been uttered in this House about the quantum of the Public Assistance. Last year, we had a long debate on $290 and whether it was enough. This year, we have raised it to $330. I am sure if Members want to, we can have another long debate as to whether $330 is enough. But I put this up because I want Members to understand and put things in perspective. The cash allowance that we were arguing about, whether it is $290 or $330, is just one component of the overall Public Assistance Scheme. There are three other components. Look at the second column which lists the Government subsidies for housing, medical care, rebates for utilities and service and conservancy charges. And, also, later on, I will describe the educational subsidies.

Obviously, these subsidies, not everyone gets all of them. It depends on their needs. But these subsidies are considerable.

2.30 pm

Then, now, we move across to the third column. I have labelled it "Many Helping Hands" – community expression of support, in a very real way. You look at that column, – the first item there [indicating] that says average hong baos ($27). First, I was very suspicious, and I

asked: "Are you very sure, exactly this amount?" And they said, yes, we know of at least three organisations in Singapore that make it a practice to give every PA recipient $100 a year. So that is $300; $300 divided by 12, you end up at least $25. This is just from three organisations. You include all the other organisations out there, you will know this adds up.

And then look at the fourth column. I just totalled it up. I asked my staff, just calculate in cash and rebate terms, what has the Government given away this year to PA recipients who you know will generally be old and, obviously, by definition, low income. Because of the way our Budget giveaways are structured, you know it goes disproportionately to them. So you add column 1 and column 4, what would you end up with? My understanding, and I have checked it with my staff again this morning, is that for this year, every PA recipient, in terms of cash and rebates, actually gets at least $450 a month.

Last year, Dr Lily Neo insisted that $290 is not enough, it must be $400. This year, she has not asked for it yet. But Dr Loo Choon Yong asked for $400. I have never wanted to let the cat out of the bag. But the truth is they actually received more than what you have asked for.

But, if you add up the other two columns, the variable subsidies given by Government and the other subsidies given by community organisations, the number goes up several-fold. Just think about healthcare, for instance. We had a long debate the day before about healthcare. The PA recipients are the only people in Singapore, with a totally blank cheque, as far as healthcare is concerned. For all of Mdm Halimah's pleas, even NTUC cannot secure that for the workers of Singapore;

but for the PA recipients, it is totally free. Those of us who work in public hospitals, and I have run SGH, would know if it is a PA recipient, no need to worry, the doctors can do anything they like, and Government foots the bill. So I hope this will show you that the question is not lack of money.

Let me move on the next slide, which will show you the amount that a family on public assistance will get. The cash allowance – the first column – for a family (two adults, two children) is $1,020. You look at the right-hand side, all the Budget giveaways. You will see that, in effect, this year, a family on public assistance receives in excess of $1,200, cash and rebates. Then, you include healthcare; more importantly, you include education, and again all the other variable components that community support gives, you get a considerable sum of money.

Now, I am not here to make a case that we are treating people on public assistance very generously. But I would ask you this – one of our favourite questions we ask: how much do you give your parents every month? Some of you may be generous, but there are many other people, whether or not they are wealthy, who will give their parents less. When their parents fall sick, they have to pay for those bills, whereas a person on public assistance does not have to pay any bills.

So that allows me, really with a very clear conscience, to say that there is no reason for anybody in Singapore, if you are truly destitute, if you have no family support, to say that you must go hungry, or that you have no roof over your head, or that you will suffer. Yes, I know there will be cases, you can point out to me from time to time, but those cases are the exception to the norm. And you must point out those cases to me so that I can make sure help goes to them. But the key

message is: nobody goes hungry, nobody should go hungry.

Our social safety net is robust and multi-layered but, more importantly, is sustainable for the long term. I lived and worked in London for two years – home of the great, from cradle to grave, welfare state. I looked at their housing, I looked at their healthcare, I looked at the lives and the hopes of people on welfare down there. They are not better off; in fact, they are worse off than our people. So, please, while you criticise and whilst you ask for more, put a sense of perspective of where we come from and how we compare to any other country. And I will still say to you, in terms of housing, in terms of healthcare, in terms of educational prospects, in terms of social mobility – this is still the best place in the world. If you are going to be poor, or may be disadvantaged, you have a chance and you can succeed.

The story that I told you about my family is not unique – all of you, all Singaporeans will have their own stories – which proves the fact that there is social mobility and there is hope. But do not destroy the foundation upon which we achieved our success. Let me move on now to people with disabilities.

I was a bit upset when Ms Denise Phua said that people with disabilities have been forgotten in this Budget. I am sure she did not really mean it literally. So I asked my staff: what are we doing for people with disabilities? So they showed me this chart [indicating ] which I made sure they did to scale, meaning between the years 2002 and 2006, how much did we spend on the disability sector? They told me – $400 million. Then, I said, "Okay, from the years 2007 to 2011, how much are we intending to spend? How much have we committed to spend on the disability sector?" $900 million. We have not forgotten the people with disabilities. In fact, some others will

say that maybe we are spending disproportionately or spending too much on one segment of people of the larger sub-set of people who need help in Singapore. But I do not want to engage in that debate and pit one group versus the other. But, nevertheless, look at it, it is $900 million. How are we spending the $900 million? Primarily in education. Why education? Because we want people with disability to fulfil their potential. We want people with disability to have a chance to make their own living if they can or, at least, to achieve a dignified living, and we want them to gain access to larger society – mainstream society – and to be integrated, and the key to that, I am sure we will agree, is education. So, a big chunk of it on education.

Ms Denise Phua also said that she appealed for more flexible implementation of means-testing. Those of you would remember that we introduced means-testing for early education for disabled children about two years ago. It is still being implemented. What I will say, and the assurance I will give you, is that no child, no disabled child of any family, rich or poor, will have to pull out of the early intervention programme (EIPIC) because of a lack of funds. Yes, we will still do means-testing. Means-testing will be used to determine the level of subsidy which that child is entitled to. But over and above that, if you still need additional help, we will establish – when I say "we", in this case, NCSS and MCYS – another fund. We will put in $3.6 million into this fund and we will call it the Support Grant. And this fund will be used flexibly to enable children from borderline families, who have difficulty coping with the fees that they would have had to pay after means-testing. And we will then chip in and make sure they continue with their education. So, we will implement means-testing flexibly in this area.

We have also extended the Foreign Domestic Worker levy concession to the

disabled who require care-giving assistance. There were 853 applications last year and 99% were accepted. This meant that MOF has forgone revenue of $1 million per year. As this number grows, the amount of revenue forgone can only increase.

In addition, my Ministry has also set aside half a million dollars over the next five years to fund the Caregiver Training Fund, and this has benefited 140 caregivers so far. Because clearly for people with disabilities, the caregivers may sometimes need additional skills and training.

Ms Denise Phua also expressed concern about paying GST. For those Members who do not know, there are 21 schools for special education. Of these 21 schools, six schools have now reached the status where technically they have to pay GST, because their parent organisation has now grown so big that their revenues exceed $1 million. We should congratulate Pathlight, run by Denise, for having grown so successfully that they have now graduated into the GST class. The other five schools are run by MINDS, which, as Members all know, is a very long-standing and large VWO that has been in this line for a very long time.

Denise made the point that by imposing GST on these organisations, they, in turn, have to pass it on to their beneficiaries, and we are, in a sense, penalising them for success. I thought about what she said, and I think she has a point. I will therefore work with MOE – I have not decided exactly who is going to pay for it – to provide additional funding to those schools who now have to pay GST because their parent organisation has become so successful. So, you will not be paying more GST and you should not charge your beneficiaries more in the

name of GST. I hope that satisfies her request.

The other thing I want to update this House on the Mental Capacity Act. Remember, last year, I floated the idea. In fact, we put up a draft for public consultation. We have been very pleased with the feedback and suggestions that have come back. We are going to make some amendments to that draft and we should be ready to come to Parliament with the introduction of the Bill sometime in the second half of this year. So that is work in progress.

Let me now ask Members to move on to the next handout, which is our key initiatives for 2008.

Our first priority, the first theme throughout our plans, is to make Singapore a great place for children and families.

Our children are our future. And it is our duty to nurture them and educate them to the fullest potential. There is increasing scientific evidence that investing in early childhood development yields a great impact on the child's cognitive, emotional, physical and social development. And many Members have expressed concerns and, in fact, appealed for more investments in the early childhood development centres. I sympathise with all these appeals. So we have decided that we will enhance the supply, accessibility, quality and affordability of centre-based childcare facilities. This means infant care, childcare and student care facilities.

As of January this year, we have some 740 childcare centres across the island, that means a total capacity of about 63,000 places. If all these places were occupied, it would mean that we have capacity for 30% of the cohort between the ages of 18 months to six years. But, currently, we have not

reached full utilisation. So about 23% of each cohort attends institutional childcare.

But this 23% represents an increase because in 2003, only 16% of children were going to childcare centres. So we have seen an increase of some 7% in the last five years alone. I anticipate that this demand will increase and therefore we are planning on having another 100 childcare centres over the next five years. And MCYS will facilitate the development and the roll-out of these additional 100 centres.

2.45 pm

But having said that, it is not just a numbers game because people also want these childcare centres to be nearby. Today, 70% of childcare centres in the HDB estates are within 300 metres of their homes. Those of you who use such centres will agree that closeness, accessibility, is an important factor because you can just walk, you do not need to take a bus or a train, bring and leave the child there and then go to work or do whatever other commitments you have to fulfil.

We will work on increasing the number of childcare centres, especially in HDB estates and also near key transport nodes so that people can leave their children there before they go to work. But at this point, I must share with Members one implementation problem which I had on the ground. I want to build the childcare centre in the void deck within my area. I had a petition from the residents who said, "Yes, you can build a childcare centre, but not in my void deck." This has become a variant of the "not in my backyard" syndrome.

I must appeal to all Singaporeans. As we say we want to be a gracious and a more child-friendly society, we must give space in our public areas for childcare centres. Do not always complain about congestion and noise. Of course, there will be some congestion and noise. Of

course, we will ask the operators to control themselves and try to minimise the disamenities. But let us learn to be a little bit more tolerant, and to give and take.

I also heard Prof. Kalyani when she said that quality is important. And the key thing about quality in childcare centres is, like everything else, like most things in life, the quality of the staff, specifically, the quality of the teachers. Yesterday, you heard MOE's announcement that we are going to raise the hurdle for teachers in kindergartens. MCYS decided that we should follow suit and the same criteria will apply for childcare teachers. So that means new entrants must have five 'O' levels, and a Pass in English. And they will also have to be properly trained in the certificate or the relevant Diploma in Early Childhood Education. Of course, in the case of childcare centres, because it is not only teaching but child-minding facilities, we need some additional staff. So we will not place as onerous a condition on the academic qualification for those additional service staff who are not necessarily involved in teaching. But I give Members that assurance that we will raise standards.

Prof. Kalyani's idea about making some indices publicly available so that parents can make informed choices, it is a good idea. I am not so sure whether we should publish every complaint that goes up because, sometimes, people have an agenda. But we have to find the way to make more information available so that parents can choose which is the most suitable centre for their child. So we will work on her idea. This then brings us to the final point in childcare centres. If you increase the number of childcare centres, if you increase the quality of teachers and you put all kinds of checks and balances in place, what about affordability? Members will know as well as I do that, ultimately, that means prices must go up.

I would remind Members of this House, in case you have forgotten, that every child whose mother is working receives a subsidy of $150, if he or she attends a childcare centre. So we call that a universal subsidy. In addition, you will also remember that since 2001, we have introduced the Baby Bonus and especially the co-savings element in which Government matches what you put into that account, and that account can be used for attendance at kindergartens or childcare centres. So additional Government help has gone in there.

We have also had schemes like the Financial Assistance Scheme for Childcare and Kindergarten Financial Assistance Schemes (KiFAS) for low-income families which make it very, very affordable for low-income families to put their child in kindergarten or childcare centre. I can tell you honestly, especially for dysfunctional family, we can get a child in childcare centre for close to zero, so long as the mother is willing to go out to work.

In addition to that, just now I mentioned the Baby Bonus, I also have got some further good news for that. From 1st August this year, we will have Baby Bonus account which will be able to pay higher interest rates. How did I achieve that? It is not my money. Basically, what we did was to use competition. We put up a tender to the banks and we said, "We have these accounts that need to be managed. Give us your best offer and, in particular, we are looking for higher yields and more convenience for parents." So from 1st August, two banks will be operating the CDA accounts. Parents will get a choice as to which bank and, with this competition, interest rates, terms and convenience will go up. More details will be released later on.

We will also be working on Student Care Centres. We know that it is quite

popular to have Student Care Centres within school itself because it is very convenient. The child does not have to take transport to another place. And we will have to work with MOE and the schools so that we can increase the number of such Student Care Centres within the school compound itself to make it more convenient.

The second key theme in our new plans focus on the protection and rehabilitation of children and young persons. We are currently reviewing the Children and Young Persons Act. We have engaged in public consultation the last few months as to what amendments we need to make to provide better protection and make the entire scheme more relevant. Many of the ideas we have received relate to increasing the standards of care in our institutions. I will give Members an example. Currently, there are 24 homes where children, either they are orphans or for a variety of reasons their parents cannot look after them, are placed there for institutional care. Eleven of these 24 homes are gazetted homes and therefore directly regulated by my Ministry. Last year, we realised, especially because there was a problem in one of the ungazetted homes, that there were statutory limits to how far we could intervene in inspection, auditing and ensuring standards. So we have decided that we will license all homes for children and young people. So there will be a board of visitors; there will be minimum standards imposed; there will be checks and balances in place to make sure that no child abuse takes place and that optimal child developmental environment is present in these homes.

I listened to Ms Sylvia Lim's query on the rate of recidivism in our Boys' Home and Girls' Home. And I will tell you I share her discomfort with the rate of recidivism. The figures which I have is that 31% of juvenile offenders reoffended within two years of their release from

homes, that means, one-third. I was not happy with that figure, although my staff told me that actually this compares very well with the published rates overseas which range between 30%-40%. I said, never mind, even if we are not doing too badly with respect to overseas rates, we still need to bring our own rates down.

Why have our rates gone up? Partly these changing social norms. Partly also because the boys whom we are admitting into the Boys' Home now are a tougher sub-group who perhaps, in the past, may have been put in a more rigorous regime in Prison or otherwise. But be it as it may, we need to do more to make sure we bring this rate down. And I also agree with her that a key thing is to make sure discipline is enforced. Because in these homes, if you have no discipline, you cannot ensure security. If you cannot ensure security, boys will have to look for protection through the formation of gangs. So we must not allow that culture to take place. I will be very happy to bring Ms Lim for a guided tour or maybe she can become a volunteer in our Boys' Home and our Girls' Home, and we will take whatever ideas she has on board to solve this problem, because this is a problem worth solving.

Another announcement which Members will see in there is that we have decided to accede to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, what it actually means is that now, especially with more of us marrying foreigners living overseas and sometimes, unfortunately, marriages break up and one parent or the other is tempted to kidnap a child from one jurisdiction into the other. By acceding to this international convention, we are trying to put the necessary safeguards so that children do not get kidnapped transterritorially, and that judgments awarded by a court with proper jurisdiction are enforced in other parts of the world as well.

Let me move on to the third theme which is dysfunctional families which many Members have also referred to. Families at risk of dysfunction include families where one or two parents are incarcerated, families where there is minor marriage before the age of 18, or, as some of you have also alluded to, serially reconstituted families, ie, you got children by his and hers and ours, and it becomes large and complex, and you will see problems on the ground.

Many Members have asked what measures we are going to take. We have formed an Inter-Ministry Committee. Apart from me, Prof. Ho Peng Kee, Mdm Yu-Foo Yee Shoon, Mr Masagos, Dr Maliki as well as Mr Teo Ser Luck are in this Inter-Ministerial Committee which includes basically MOE, MCYS, MOH and MHA. There are three principles on which this Committee will do its work. First, there must be holistic support for the child. Second, we must not take away family and community ownership of the problem because we must not make these children of dysfunctional families wards of the state. They must remain members of families. And, third, as some Members have quite rightly said, "do not treat symptoms, identify the cause, and then deal with the root cause".

So there will be a couple of things which we will do. First, better identification of families at risk, those who need help. And this means better coordination between the Ministries. I will give Members an example. If one child drops out of school, very often, there are other siblings who may also be at risk. There may be parents who are facing social problems, or financial problems, or absent parents. So we need to have a system in which what happens in MOE's sphere of influence, the message gets transmitted to MCYS, gets shared with MHA and sometimes with MOH, so that there is a coherent system that transmits information. But even as we devise this system

to transmit information and establish the database, we also have to be mindful if issues like confidentiality and the right to privacy. So it is easy for me to describe it. I will tell you honestly, operationalising that will be difficult. But, nevertheless, we should have a system which identifies proactively children and families at risk.

The second thing is, having identified families at risk, to take preventive measures. In the several programmes which we actually already have in place, for instance, the Healthy Start Programme which provides intensive case work centred on the child. Another example is the Home Ownership Plus Education (HOPE) scheme in which we provide up to $100,000 of grants and training support to a family if both parents are low income and really do not have good prospects in the short term to improving their economic status. So far, we have 1,300 families who have come on board and that means that the Government has committed more than $120 million to help these families.

We are currently reviewing some of the criteria for eligibility for the scheme. I will tell you that we are not changing the Stop-at-Two policy for these families because we really do want them to focus limited resources on the two children. But one criterion which I am thinking of tweaking is that, for instance, if a person becomes divorced, to allow that woman, even though she is divorced, to carry on HOPE so long as she commits to keeping her family small, ie, not having more than two children. So even if she gets married, as long as she herself does not have more than two, we will continue to make sure at least all or some of the benefits of HOPE stay with her. Because what we really do not want is a situation in which a vulnerable woman or a widow desperately needs to find another man, offer fertility, produce more kids, and they are abandoned by that man and then she has got to go and look for a third or fourth

man. Unfortunately, what I am describing is a reality amongst some families on the ground. So the key thing is to reassure women that they do not need to look for or be dependent on another man.

I enjoyed the speech by Dr Ahmad Magad. It was a speech in Malay but I hope Members will all listen to the translation. He talked about the problem with multiple divorces, serial reconstituted families, and men unable to afford paying off the alimony in support of their first family going on to find another woman and setting up a second family, and ultimately shortchanging both families. At the risk of being politically incorrect, I will tell Members something I have always shared with my staff, that I suspect most social problems we have in the world today are because of irresponsible men, and the burden almost always falls on the poor women with the children. And we see that in our MPS. We see the woman desperate, the man has gone off having a good time or whatever else he is doing. I do not want to make this a sexist debate, but this is the reality which I see on the ground. Maybe the women MPs can take that cause up. I do not have any quick fix for this. For myself, even before we got married, every single cent I earned goes into a joint account in my wife's name. Every single dollar in my wallet comes about because she gives it to me. I cannot help wondering whether if women insisted that men handed over all their money first, whether it will result in fewer dysfunctional families. Just think about it. I know this sounds politically incorrect. But just think about this. Reflect on the relative roles of men and women and the attendant social problems that result from this.

If we can get men to understand that we have to fulfil our responsibilities, the moment a woman has agreed to marry you and have your children, regardless of whether or not you fall in love with her, you have to support her and your children.

And you do that first before you go and think about starting another family. That is the way it has been in traditional societies, even in societies with polygamy. But if we start fooling ourselves that simple monogamy will solve everything and what we see in effect is serial monogamy and irresponsible men, then we have not really improved as a society. So much for the politically-incorrect portions of my speech!

Let me now move to social workers, because this is another area which many Members in this House have highlighted. Social workers are professionals and they deserve to be treated as such. Last year, MCYS revised the salary benchmarks for social work professionals, and we increased funding to the VWOs by some $11 million, ie, we increased the total funding to that sector to $80 million. And I said, when I announced that, that I would be watching to see how much of that money actually reaches the professionals, ie, both the social workers, the counsellors and the other professionals involved with this sector. We had a 2007 manpower survey conducted by NCSS which showed that 72% of VWOs have implemented or are implementing the salary revisions. I do not have the exact figures, so I do not know exactly how many dollars it has gone up by. But even the remaining VWOs have indicated that they had already adjusted salaries earlier. But to further address this pay issue, MCYS is now studying benchmarking the salaries of social workers in the VWOs against that of their contemporaries in the public service. In the case of social workers, an easy benchmark is: what is a social worker in a public hospital paid? We have those figures and we can use them as a benchmark. Making their pay competitive in a sense recognises their contributions but it is not a complete solution in itself. We also need to structure the job correctly, make sure their precious time is used most productively and to also make

sure that there is a professional track. What does that mean?

First, we need to increase the intake of training capacity for social workers in our institutes of higher learning. Then, we also need to make sure they have time to recharge. We have a sabbatical leave scheme so that they can take time out. MCYS will cover part of their time for them to recharge, upgrade professionally.

Second, we also have the Professional and Leadership Development Scheme (PLDS) which will groom dynamic leaders to prepare them for leadership positions.

In tandem with all these, we are also exploring the possibility of accrediting social workers with a view to eventually licensing them. This will be a big step, and it is not one which I want to make unilaterally. So we will have to discuss with the sector to see how best to bring this about. But it will, I believe, put the sector on a surer footing that this is a profession, there are proper entry criteria, proper training, proper standards, and not anybody can get in there and say, "I am a social worker" but who is actually untrained. It is almost like being a quack doctor. So we do not want to have that situation. But let us manage this transition carefully.

Let me now turn to the management of charities which, again, unfortunately, is a hot issue. We seem to have a regular litany of problems in this area. My first suggestion to all of us would be not to over-react. Yes, there are problems, and, yes, problems will surface from time to time. But we should not jump to the conclusion, as someone has said, that everybody involved in the social service sector or in the boards is a criminal. That is not the case at all. The vast majority are good, well-meaning people. Nevertheless, we do need to have a system. My job in MCYS has been to make sure that, despite all the political pressure to have

more checks and balances, more systems, we do not over-react and throttle the sector by over-regulation.

What we have now is a Commissioner of Charities. And, as Ms Denise Phua has said, yes, he is heavily overworked, because there are so many charities. I agree with her that the Commissioner of Charities has to adopt a tiered approach and a priority, which means he cannot check every single one. But we can identify those which are bigger, those which are at higher risk if they fail, and we can have a tiered approach, ie, more intensive checks for those at higher risk, but less intensive for those not at such high risk.

Secondly, we will, wherever possible, still promote self-regulation in the sector. That is why we have the Charity Council. Although it is appointed by MCYS, it is led by the people sector. Mrs Fang Ai-Lian is currently the Chairman of the Charity Council. I wanted her to lead because not only is she an accountant, but she also has real experience running and being in charge of voluntary welfare organisations and, in fact, being the Chair person of several organisations. So I believe that she would have both the professional expertise as well as the sensitivity to make sure that our codes of governance and the rules which they promote be sensible, practical and reasonable.

So far, I think the work that they have done is excellent work, considering the pressures and the time limits within which they are operating. If we look in terms of what we are actually asking from the VWO sector, yes, we have got some things which are compulsory, we have many other things which are good to have which we are not insisting on, but we are asking for greater transparency. For instance, if you cannot comply with this

best practice, tell us that you have not complied and why you cannot comply. Publish it on your website so that donors can read and make their own decisions as to whether or not you are worthy of support.

Let me now turn to a new entity which the NVPC is thinking of starting. This is the Community Foundation. Members would be aware of reports that the number of millionaires in Singapore has increased, partly because of our own economic growth and partly also because globalisation has presented huge opportunities to people with talent and innovative ideas. Even as these emerging newly wealthy people come about, many Members have said that we want them to also contribute back to society. We have a few large family foundations. Members would know the Lee Foundation, Shaw Foundation, Tsao Foundation, Tan Chin Tuan Foundation and now, of course, more recently, the Khoo Foundation. But, unfortunately, we do not have as many foundations as we ought to have.

So what we are hoping is that, as these newly wealthy people emerge, we would get them to start thinking about starting foundations. But, obviously, a foundation is not worth starting if you have only a million or even $5 million to put aside, because the administrative cost of running a foundation could make it not worthwhile. But NVPC's plan is that, by establishing a Community Foundation, by aggregating these million-dollar donations or $5 million donations, we can create an endowment pool with economies of scale and managed professionally. The money would be donated by you but you would still have a say in how the proceeds from that money are used for your favourite causes. In other words, it is a kind of a starter kit for foundations. We hope that once people get used to giving a million, $2 million, $5 million or $10 million, eventually, when they become fabulously wealthy, they will decide to start their

own foundations. So this is a new idea which NVPC will be working on this year. If everything goes according to plan, we hope that they will be able to find significant donors who will build up a pool of $50 million and get that going.

On the part of MCYS, we have committed to giving them the administrative support and the start-up cost in the first instance so that the people who are donating in the initial years will not feel that they are just paying for administrative cost. The money which they put aside would be used to earn interest, to generate dividends which can then be used for charities and causes of their choice.

Sir, I think I have spoken for quite some time now. I was going to suggest that Mdm Yu-Foo Yee Shoon carry on with the detailed queries. But perhaps you might want to take the break now.

Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.35 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.17 pm until 3.35 pm.

Sitting resumes at 3.35 pm

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

Head I (cont.) –

Mr Chairman, Sir, I wish to reiterate my Minister's point about making Singapore a family and child-centric nation. Singapore must be a place where our children can grow up safely and get a good education, where youth and adults can realise their potential and

contribute to society, where the elderly can age gracefully but actively, and where those who fall behind are helped by a caring community to get back on their feet.

However, the Government alone cannot build this society. The Government will be the facilitator and lay down the overall framework. But we need to mobilise the social capital in our community and adopt a Many Helping Hands approach. Every individual must take responsibility for his own future, each family must be a source of strength for its members, and the community must be actively engaged in helping the needy. These are the foundations of our success as a society and we must build on these foundations.

The Government can and will do more to help Singaporeans. We will do so by strengthening marriages and families, helping the low income and strengthening self-reliance under ComCare schemes, promoting good relationships, neighbourliness, and empowering the community to help itself, and forging a close partnership with the people and private sectors.

Let me begin by talking about families. Strong families are the bedrock of a resilient society, so we must ensure that family ties are robust. And, we will provide a range of services to support families at different life stages.

We will continue to create an environment conducive for marriage. A 2006 MCYS' survey showed that eight out of 10 Singaporean respondents agreed that it is better to get married than to remain single. However, many are either unable or unwilling to find that special someone. A relatively high proportion of males and females remained unmarried in 2006. Among those aged 35 to 39 years, 19% of males and 16% of females were single, compared to 11% and 12% in 1985.

Developing the local dating industry will help create an environment conducive for marriage. Through The Partner Connection Fund, the pioneer batch of recipients has successfully launched their dating services. The development of credible and professional dating agencies will offer more options for singles to socialise, and hopefully, find that special someone.

And it looks like there are plenty of fun and easy ways to find Mr or Miss Right. For example, Eteract.com offers online speed-dating services for singles. Alternatively, he or she could try out GoMovieDate.com, which allows members to send movie invites online or through SMS. The enterprise and creativity of these commercial dating agencies are good signs that the industry is vibrant and growing.

But getting married is only the beginning. We must ensure that marriages can withstand the test of time. This is an increasing challenge, as divorces are on the rise. The crude divorce rate increased from 1.29 per 1,000 resident population in 1994 to 1.96 in 2006. The absolute number of divorces and annulments has been increasing, from about 3,800 in 1994 to 7,000 in 2006. The number of marriages has stayed at about 24,000 over this period. More worrying is that "young marriages" are breaking up. In 2006, marriages of less than five years formed about a fifth of all divorces. There was also a rising number of divorces among long-lasting marriages. Divorces for marriages that lasted more than 20 years increased from 10% of all divorces in 1988 to 18% in 2006. These divorce trends are a cause for concern, especially if they affect children.

Although Singapore's divorce rates are low compared to countries like Japan, Australia and the US, we must continue

to strengthen marriages. That is why the National Family Council, or NFC, announced its plans to set up the Marriage Central in March 2007. Marriage Central will provide one-stop access to marriage information, resources and counselling. It will tap on existing service providers like voluntary welfare organisations specialising in marriage issues. It will equip married couples with skills, and enable couples in difficulties to seek help before it is too late. My Ministry will work closely with the NFC to set up Marriage Central this year.

Let me now move on to talk about strengthening family ties. I am glad to report that Singaporeans' attitude towards family bonds is still very positive. A 2006 MCYS' survey showed that 96% of respondents agreed that they have a close-knit family. Inter-generational bonds are strong. A 2005 MCYS' survey showed that more than 70% of 2,000 seniors interviewed speak to their children daily.

While attitudes towards families remain positive, families in Singapore are facing challenges with rapid globalisation and competing demands. We share the views of Mr Ong Ah Heng, Mr Sin Boon Ann and Dr Lim Wee Kiak that the family needs to be strengthened. To promote strong and stable families, my Ministry adopts a proactive approach through various public education efforts. These are implemented mainly through People-Private-Public partnerships, or a 3P approach. We need the people and private sector to play a part, as the Government alone cannot preserve family ties. I shall touch on some of the efforts in this area.

The mass media is very effective at reaching out to people. With the support of my Ministry, the National Family Council will tap on the influence of television to raise awareness of family bonding. You can look out for an emotive

mini drama on the importance of family on TV soon. One major effort held annually is the National Family Week (NFW) which was organised by NFC. More than 150,000 people, young and old, participated in some 80 events and talks in last year's NFW.

We have established a large network of partners in the schools, community and workplaces to help us in our public education efforts. In schools, the Parent Education in Pre-Schools (PEPS) and the School Family Education (SFE) programmes have been much welcomed. There are also the community based Family Life Champion and work-based Family Life Ambassador programmes. Such efforts are growing in numbers – we now have over 370 schools and centres offering PEPS and SFE programmes. We have over 1,500 Family Life Ambassadors. We also have 84 Family Life Champions representing each constituency. Some of our 880 Deputy Registrars of Marriage have been trained to provide mentoring and counselling services to those about to get married.

Through these efforts, our partners have helped to organise many family education programmes and events. These include marriage education, parenting skills and personal work-life effectiveness programmes. Programmes like "Parenting with Confidence" and "Connected Family", available in some SFE schools, provide skills to individuals and family members and help to promote family bonding.

Businesses are also important in our 3P partnership. To further promote a pro-family environment, my Ministry encourages businesses to provide services and infrastructure that welcome families through the Pro-Family Business Pledge, Mark and Grant. To date, more than 2,900 establishments have adopted the pledge and 160 have been awarded the Pro-Family Business Mark. To provide

practical support, the Government offers a grant of $2 million over three years to assist and encourage businesses to adopt and implement pro-family business practices.

But, most importantly, the nurturing of family bonds and values starts at home. Parents and relatives play a critical role in inculcating the right values in their children from young. Families are encouraged to make use of the many avenues made available to equip themselves with the relevant skills, so that they can promote bonding with family members.

While these initiatives will equip families to deal with challenges head on, we also need to understand present family dynamics and anticipate new problems that families may face in the future. My Ministry will set up a Family Research Network to involve policy-makers, professors and practitioners in research on family issues. The Network will discuss policy challenges and share research findings regularly. There will be collaboration among network members and exchanges with international family research experts.

Developing such research capability is vital, as we keep a close watch on global and local trends that affect families in Singapore. Good policies are grounded in solid research. The Network will help to encourage a vibrant local research ecosystem which will enable our policies and programmes to remain relevant even as our environment changes. This is the Ministry's commitment to be family and child-centric.

I agree with Dr Amy Khor, Mdm Cynthia Phua, Mdm Halimah Yacob, Prof. Mehta, Mr Yeo Guat Kwang, Ms Ellen Lee and Ms Lee Bee Wah that the long-term financial security of women is important. Many women, especially housewives, have little in their CPF accounts.

On average, women over 35 years have

lower CPF balances than men of the same age. Women over 60 have around $11,000 in their CPF. This is about half as much as what men over 60 have. They are also likely to outlive their husbands. Moreover, about a third of female respondents in a 2007 survey of baby boomers have never worked before. Recent MOM statistics showed that 89% of economically-inactive women, aged 25-54, were not working or not looking for work for family reasons, such as childcare, eldercare or household responsibilities. This is about 230,000 of them. I urge husbands and children to take responsibility for the well-being of their wives and mothers by transferring money into their CPF accounts. A practical suggestion for husbands and children is to consider this as a gift for their birthday, wedding anniversary or Mother's Day.

The Women's Desk in my Ministry will work with the Singapore Council of Women's Organisations (SCWO), People's Association Women Integration Network, NTUC Women Development Secretariat, grassroots organisations, CDCs, and the Ministry of Manpower to raise awareness of the CPF transfer options through a personalised outreach. I am glad that Mdm Halimah Yacob and Dr Amy Khor had agreed to this campaign yesterday.

I also hope to see women take advantage of opportunities to join or re-join the workforce. My Minister had earlier elaborated on more accessible, affordable childcare services to facilitate this. I would like to encourage women to go for skills upgrading and training to re-integrate into the workforce. The Tripartite Workgroup on Enhancing Employment Choices for Women, chaired by Mdm Halimah Yacob, will be coming up with recommendations to enable and empower women to harmonise their family and work commitments.

I will now talk about help for needy Singaporeans. Let me give an overview of social assistance in Singapore. I think the Minister has outlined the philosophy of the Ministry.

The ComCare Fund was set up in June 2005 to help the neediest, which are the bottom 20% of our society. Through ComCare, we ensure that no needy Singaporean is left behind. With the $200 million top up to the ComCare Endowment Fund, the Fund now stands at $800 million. We will be able to do more for the needy. I would like to refer Members to the handout, which lists all the ComCare enhancements we will be making. All in, we will spend $63.7 million in FY2008. In comparison, we spent $47.6 million in FY2007.

We base our help for the needy on several principles. In particular, we are work-focused and low in entitlements. We stress family as the first line of support. We help the needy to stand on their own two feet. And we focus a lot of our help on the children, so that they can break out of the poverty cycle.

Our help for the needy is mostly delivered through the Community Development Councils (CDCs). MPs who feel that there are too many schemes need not worry, as these schemes can broadly be grouped into three pillars.

First, ComCare Self Reliance is targeted at those who can work. The Work Support Programme comes under this pillar. The new ComCare Transitions will also be part of this pillar.

Second, ComCare Grow is targeted at the children. Besides administering childcare, kindergarten and student care subsidies, the CDCs also administer bursaries. They also link needy school children with help under the MOE Financial Assistance Scheme, and give them free textbooks and school materials.

Third, under the ComCare Enable pillar, the CDCs administer Public Assistance, and also work with hospitals and HDB to apply for Medifund and rental flats respectively.

Mdm Halimah Yacob had suggested raising the income ceiling for social assistance schemes. Our ComCare schemes should remain targeted at the neediest. The Government already provides substantial support for lower middle-income Singaporeans, such as housing grants, medical subsidies and growth dividends.

Nonetheless, we are child-centric and keen to do more for lower-income families with children. This is the best way to ensure social mobility. Already, ComCare expenditure for children from lower-income families made up 40% of all ComCare expenditure in 2007. In 2006, about 5% of children did not attend pre-school. Thanks to the extensive outreach efforts by the grassroots, today, only 3% of children in Singapore did not attend pre-school in 2007. We will continue to work with the grassroots to reach out to such children.

And we will do even more. Currently, only families earning $1,500 or less per month can receive up to 90% subsidies for kindergarten and $320 per month subsidies for childcare, under ComCare Grow. We will extend kindergarten and childcare centre financial assistance to help children of families earning between $1,501 and $1,800 per month. These families will receive a 70% subsidy to cover the cost of sending their children to pre-school.

For example, a two-child family earning $1,700 a month, with one child in kindergarten and the other in childcare, will need only pay about $25 per month for kindergarten and $150 a month for childcare. They will save about $265 each month. It will make pre-school much

more affordable for them. We expect an additional 5,000 children to benefit from this change.

We will also extend kindergarten financial assistance to cover the fees of children attending nursery programmes. Families earning $1,500 or less a month will receive a 90% subsidy, while those earning $1,501 to $1,800 a month will receive a 70% subsidy. A family earning $1,500 per month may receive subsidies of about $65 per month to offset the cost of the child's nursery education, and have to pay only about $7 a month to attend nursery. We expect some 3,500 additional children to benefit from this.

On top of this, we will ensure that families receiving financial assistance for their children in childcare will not be affected by the recent increases in the childcare fees. We will increase the subsidy amount by up to $20 for children attending childcare. This is the same amount that childcare fees have risen by. This brings the total subsidy for childcare fees to $340 a month. It means that despite the recent increases in childcare fees, a two-child family earning $1,500 will still only need to pay about $100 for each child to attend childcare.

All in, some 19,000 children from lower-income families are expected to benefit from these changes. It will help to make pre-school affordable, so that every child has the opportunity to benefit from a good education.

Many of my colleagues, including Mr Inderjit Singh, Mr Siew Kum Hong, Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed, Dr Ong Seh Hong, Mr Seah Kian Peng and Dr Loo Choon Yong have expressed particular concern for the needy elderly. My Minister had earlier announced the revisions to the Public Assistance rates. At the same time, we recognise that although some needy elderly have working children, their children themselves live from hand to

mouth while supporting their own families and children. They often do not have much left to give to their aged parents. Hence, we will revise the Public Assistance eligibility criteria to include needy Singaporeans whose children are unable to support them. With the revision, needy elderly Singaporeans with children can still be eligible for PA as long as their children are supporting their own families and children with a household income of less than $1,000 a month. They will receive the PA allowance as well as extensive support from the Government and the community. We expect about 600 households to benefit from this revision. Mdm Halimah Yacob and Mr Liang Eng Hwa had previously called for more to be done to help those who are temporarily unable to work. We currently help them on a case-by-case, short-term basis. To give them more assurance, we will launch a new scheme, the ComCare Transitions, to provide medium-term assistance for them. The help would be flexible and calibrated to their needs. It could include a subsistence allowance, rental, utilities, services and conservancy subsidies as well as support for their medical expenses. At the same time, case workers may be assigned to help them improve their family circumstances. They will be eligible for assistance of up to 12 months, and subsequent extensions may be granted, subject to a thorough review. We expect about 1,400 households to benefit from ComCare Transitions.

The CDCs and grassroots are flexible when helping the needy. We will work with these agencies to be even more flexible.

We will be providing a further $10 million boost to the CCF, VWOs and Self Help Groups over the next four years. In particular, the CCF will be topped up by $5 million. This is on top of the $10

million injection which was given last year. With this boost, there will be $6.25 million per year available in the CCF. I trust that grassroots leaders should have more than enough resources to help their needy residents. Furthermore, a ComCare Review Committee for Financial Assistance, chaired by myself and involving all five Mayors, has been set up to ensure flexibility in implementation. It will ensure that deserving cases do not slip through the net. The Review Committee will provide a platform for valuable experience to be shared and guidelines to be standardised.

To ensure that the needy know where to go for help, MCYS has launched ComCare Call – 1800 222 0000. If you see someone needing assistance but do not know how to help, ask him or her to call ComCare Call or make the call for them.

Mr Wee Siew Kim and Dr Magad have highlighted that some families urgently need a roof over their heads. MCYS' focus is on the destitute. If a person is destitute, he can be admitted into a welfare home. However, very often, individuals or families become homeless because of estranged relationships or repossession of their flats. We try to help them resolve issues with their families. The majority of them are eventually able to move in with family and friends or rent a room. Nevertheless, sometimes such options are not feasible. MCYS has therefore worked with HDB and a VWO to use a few HDB flats as temporary shelter for these displaced families. We have helped 20 such families under this arrangement as of end January 2008. But I still want to emphasise that MCYS' duty is to help the destitute.

Together, these changes will enhance our social safety net, and provide greater assurance that needy Singaporeans do not

fall behind. We will continue to ensure needy families are able to get help.

Nonetheless, we agree with Mr Sin Boon Ann that simply increasing the payouts from our social assistance schemes would not be sufficient to address the full effects of globalisation on all quarters of our society. Our Many Helping Hands approach towards helping the needy has served us well over the years. We agree with Mr Zaqy Mohamad that the community has a key role to play to help not just the needy, but also the sandwiched lower-middle class. The Government will continue to empower the community to help the needy.

Like Mr Sin Boon Ann and Miss Penny Low, we recognise the major role social enterprises can play to help the needy and disadvantaged. In December last year, the Social Enterprise Committee submitted its recommendation on improving the social enterprise sector. We are accepting 25 of the 26 recommendations. One is being studied further. MCYS will continue to partner and support the social enterprise sector. We have committed about $4.5 million this year to implement the recommendations. We will focus on building up the capacity of social enterprises, while continuing to seed-fund new social enterprises.

A key recommendation is to form a Social Enterprise Association to provide leadership to the sector. It will be set up by the middle of the year.

4.00 pm

Last year,

a study by the Lien Foundation Centre for Social Innovation pointed out the need to improve the business competencies of social enterprises. They must be able to compete on a level playing field with other commercial enterprises. Hence, we will help strengthen social enterprises' business viability by setting up a social enterprise

development centre. There will be training opportunities to develop the skills of social entrepreneurs. At the same time, we will revise the criteria of the $3 million a year ComCare Enterprise Fund to emphasise that social enterprises should have good business models.

In addition to social enterprises, we want to encourage more socially responsible enterprises. Therefore, the $1 million Caring Companies initiative will be a focused effort to encourage companies to employ the needy disadvantaged. It will provide them with financial and operational support as well as recognition, when they hire the needy disadvantaged.

Entrepreneurs can also choose to set up social enterprises as co-operatives. Co-operatives can tap on the $30 million Central Co-operative Fund. The Fund can be used to support part of the startup and operating cost of new co-operatives. The CDCs are looking into setting up co-operatives to provide employment to the disadvantaged. At the same time, we will promote the involvement of the business community in the social enterprise sector, by encouraging them to mentor social enterprises. I think mentorships are very important, so we would like to encourage successful businessmen to volunteer their services to hold the hands of new social enterprises.

Mdm Yu-Foo, sorry to interrupt, but there are three more replies after this. Give them enough time.

OK. Sir, now, let me just say a few words about bonding in the community.

(In Mandarin): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A *. ] Minister Vivian Balakrishnan has clearly explained the importance of the social foundations of education. It is to train our people and to enable everyone to go to school to receive training, education or retraining, so that everybody can find a job.

Like what Mr Ong Ah Heng had said earlier, parents are so busy at work nowadays that there is lack of communication at home. So, we must start from ourselves, just as the Chinese saying goes, “Hao Ren Hao Shi, Zhou Bian Zuo Qi 好人好事，周边做起”. This means that, to advocate good deeds, we must start with ourselves. However, whenever we have a problem, we always point our fingers at the grassroots, the Government and the social workers.

In today’s society, we have about one million families and only about 600 social workers. Even if we were to increase the number of social workers to 1,000 or 2,000, we will still not be able to cope with the needs of our families, the households and the people. I am happy to note that the People’s Association, the National Volunteer and Philanthropy Centre and the clan associations have recently come together to build and promote stronger relationships within the community and the family. In fact, they have come up with an initiative to input the residents’ contacts in their networks and database, so that every year, they can invite the residents for networking sessions, or maybe have tea and chit-chat with them, so as to foster greater bonding among residents. Take, for example, one of our residents, a respectful Hainanese elderly, recently passed away, but his children were overseas when he passed away. The Hainanese clan took on the responsibility to take care of his funeral arrangements. Another example is the Nanyang Girls’ High alumni. The students love and care for all their former teachers and, when some of the retired teachers passed away, it is the school’s alumni that helps to take care of the funeral arrangements.

Recently, one of my retired friends told me that her mother is getting senile and her father is also suffering from

dementia. The rest of her siblings are overseas and she is worried that no one can look after the parents when she is away from home. In this case, she turns to her neighbours for help to take care of them. Just now, the Minister and I have already announced a number of initiatives and we have said that there are enough funds.

What we need is more people who work in the social sector, like Ms Denise Phua and Miss Penny Low. We need them to work with the Government to further strengthen our social system. A Japanese Professor once said that the Asian society has a strong social system. Besides having a strong social system, we also have a strong legal system. As our nation becomes more and more prosperous, we should not neglect the importance of family relationships. We should strengthen family ties and promote stronger bonding with our friends, relatives, etc. As Minister Khaw Boon Wan said yesterday, if we want the Government to pay for everything, then we will regress over time.

*Cols. 2291-2292.

Elderly Abuse

Sir, there are at least 100 cases of battered and neglected elders each year. These helpless elderly for various reasons were just the tip of the iceberg as most cases were not reported. Laws are enacted to regulate the behaviour between individuals, for example, laws to protect domestic workers. Is it not our obligation to look after the people who had built Singapore of today? Why can we not have elderly abuse laws for our elders who merit protection? And lastly, Sir, what are the steps taken by MCYS to strengthen the social fabric of our society and to reinforce the virtue and the practice of social piety?

Caregivers' Support

Sir, allow me to relate this story published in the

Straits Times Forum page last year by a fellow Singaporean, Mr Raymond Anthony Fernando. He wrote:

"As a sole caregiver to my wife who was stricken with schizophrenia 17 years ago, my journey with her has been extremely painful. With hardly any support from family members, I have been burnt out several times - physically, mentally and financially. It is a very real struggle for me to provide a safe haven for her in a world that is filled with prejudice and discrimination against people with mental illness. I am often helpless, laughing on the outside, crying on the inside. There is no one to provide even a listening ear in my weakest moments."

He went on to say:

"The structural support for caregivers in Singapore is very weak; many a time, it is just not there. This is why I have been relentless in speaking up for both the mentally ill and their caregivers. I raised the issue of a caregiver's allowance last year because caregiving is a full time job, especially with those stricken with mental disorders. I urge the Government to help in our very difficult journey. Do not neglect citizens who need support badly."

This story is real and it is not unique. There are many Singaporeans out there who are facing the same predicament, many not knowing where to turn to for help, suffering in silence. It very much sums up what I have to say. There are basically two fundamental issues at hand: Caregivers' support and allowance and social support for patients with mental disorders. However, my cut will only touch on the former.

Caregiving is a challenging task that can impact a caregiver emotionally and physically. The caregiver's role for a family with persons with disability or mental disorders can be very demanding and could be a lifelong responsibility. Without adequate support. caregivers are prone to exhaustion, emotional stress,

financial and other care-related strains, resulting in burn-out of the caregivers and premature or unnecessary institutionalisation of persons who can otherwise benefit from home care.

Yes, the Ministry would argue that there are already existing programmes, incentives and services, such as caregiver training grant, foreign domestic worker levy concession, family or caregiver support group, etc. However, the common feedback from caregivers is that whilst they are appreciative of the efforts put in by the Ministries and the VWOs to support them, they felt that many of these efforts are ad-hoc and there was a need to ensure continuity.

In Mandarin, Sir.

(In Mandarin): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A *. ] With the high standard and cost of living in Singapore, most of us would require a regular paying job to support our families and ourselves. However, there are many families among us with elderly sick or disabled family members who require special attention and care. The care of a disabled family member and the elderly sick can be emotionally, physically and financially draining. Often times, caregivers have to quit their job to care for their dependent loved ones at home. Many countries have already embarked on providing caregivers with monetary allowances designed to compensate family caregivers for their unpaid effort and stress.

In Singapore, our increasingly ageing population with one in five expected to be above the age of 65 in 2030, we will all be receivers or givers of care at some point in our lives. In anticipation of such demographic trends, I hope that MCYS will study how to better support caregivers, both financially and psychologically.

(In English ): Often times, caregivers have to quit their jobs to care for their loved ones at home. Home-based care not only provides the ideal cost-effective long-term care of the elderly frail and disabled in the family, it also helps free up limited vacancies in daycare centres and old folks' homes for families who genuinely requires such services. Having said that, it is ultimately the responsibility of family members to provide the necessary love and care, and such fundamental values of filial piety should never be eroded with time. I hope that MCYS and PA would also continue to inculcate and promote such family values and virtues among Singaporeans.

I am not advocating that caregivers be given an exorbitant amount of allowances but rather token amounts to help alleviate the financial burden faced by such families. Another alternative would be to register bona fide caregivers as part of the workforce, thus qualifying them for workfare bonuses under the Workfare Incentive Scheme. One might argue about the practicality and difficulty in defining a bona fide caregiver. But I believe such semantics and administrative hurdle should not be a road-block to providing the financial support such deserving caregivers so desperately need.

I would therefore like to urge the Minister to consider providing allowance to caregivers in Singapore or even extending the Workfare Incentive Scheme to them so that their sacrifices and hard work will not be left unrecognised.

*Cols. 2293-2294.

Recently, Sir, the Government looked into schemes to assist the disabled. For example, there is talk of a trust scheme to assist the disabled with their finances after their caregivers die. There are also existing measures such as income tax relief for the families of

disabled persons and a discount on the foreign workers levy for families who employ maids to look after disabled persons. However, in addition to these schemes, I would like to propose along the same lines as what Dr Lam has proposed, that the Ministry reconsider the provision of a monthly allowance to the carers of disabled family members. Let me give three reasons why.