Hansard, 2012-01-18

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 by the Speaker to be absent from sittings of Parliament (or any Committee of Parliament to which they have been appointed) for the periods stated:

1 Mrs Lina Chiam asked the Minister for Health in the last five years (a) what is the number of (i) people infected with tuberculosis; (ii) students infected with tuberculosis; (iii) foreigners in Singapore infected with tuberculosis; (iv) adult Singaporeans infected with tuberculosis; (b) what is the current number of infected patients who are under treatment; and (c) what are the measures the Ministry has adopted so far to prevent an outbreak of this contagious and dangerous disease.

Sir, please allow me to first explain the difference between active tuberculosis (TB) and latent TB infection. Active TB is a disease state where the patient is symptomatic and the disease can spread to others. Latent TB infection is an asymptomatic disease state during which the disease cannot spread to others.

The majority of people with latent infection, about 90%, will not develop active TB disease. Only about 10% of persons with latent TB infection develop active TB disease. This may take place many years after the infection, although there is a higher risk of active TB during the first two years of infection. On average, about 1,380 Singapore residents were diagnosed with active TB each year over the last five years, or about 40 cases per 100,000. Most, or about 95% of these cases, are adults. Among non-residents excluding short-term visitors, the average number was also about 40 cases per 100,000 over the same period, or about 450 per year. Short-term visitors were excluded as many of them were workers who were diagnosed during pre-employment medical screening for application of work passes, and will be rejected if they were found to have TB. Others were here specifically for TB treatment. There were about 100 students diagnosed with TB each year during the last five years. More than 75% were students aged 17 years or older. About 1,000 people are currently being treated for TB.

I would like to highlight that Singapore has one of the lowest incidence rates of TB in Asia, besides Japan. Singapore has a comprehensive national TB control programme which was enhanced in 1997 with the setting up of the Singapore Tuberculosis Elimination Programme (STEP). Under STEP, the key control strategy for TB is, firstly, early detection and effective treatment. This is important to stop the spread of TB in the community. Secondly, the TB Control Unit, which runs STEP, closely monitors compliance with treatment until cure. Whilst most patients would voluntarily be compliant with the treatment, the Infectious Diseases Act gives us the power to mandate treatment of TB patients who are non-compliant, if necessary. By actively monitoring the treatment process of all TB cases, the risks of treatment failure and development of multi-drug resistance are lowered

Finally, as TB could only be transmitted through prolonged close contact, contact-screening is conducted among household contacts and other close contacts in institutions like schools to identify persons with latent TB infection. Persons with latent TB infection are offered preventive treatment to reduce the likelihood of developing active disease. My Ministry will continue to monitor the effectiveness of the TB control programme closely, and implement enhancements from time to time.

Sir, I thank the Minister of State for answering my question. I have a supplementary question. I believe when foreign workers apply for work passes, they have to undergo X-rays to detect whether they have got TB. Am I correct? If the X-rays show black spots, it would be easy to presume it might be TB. Is there any other way to detect infection other than black spots on the X-rays?

For foreign domestic workers, before they are granted the Work Permit, they have to undergo medical screening, as the Member has rightly noted. And we screen for active TB. As I have said earlier in my reply, active TB cases are symptomatic cases. This is a disease state where the disease can be spread to others in the community. We do not screen for latent TB cases. If they are found to have active TB, they will be rejected and sent home. When a foreign domestic worker re-applies for a Work Permit, she would be screened again. The screening is done every time they apply for a Work Permit. The reason being that we feel that active TB can present itself in between screenings. The best way to prevent the spread of such a disease would be to get foreign domestic workers to go to the doctor, especially if they have a chronic cough, because that is the main symptom of TB.

Sir, I would like to ask the Minister of State whether it means that when a foreign worker applies for a work pass and has undergone a screening test or an X-ray, there is no way to identify whether they have active TB or not, is it, if there are no spots on the X-ray?

We screen them for active TB, and if they are confirmed to have active TB, they will not be given the Work Permit, and they will be sent home. I have also said in my reply that we do not screen latent TB because the risk of these cases developing into active TB is actually very low. Only about one in 10 of such cases will develop into an active TB case, and it could develop over the course of many years. Of course, the risk will be higher in the first two years – 50%. But the risk is spread over a lifetime, so it is very low. We do not screen for latent TB.

So X-rays are not really a means to test whether they have got TB or not.

No, no. I have just confirmed that the test that they have gone through will screen for active TB. The test is robust in that sense.

2 Mr Alex Yam asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the number of employers who have been fined for contravening the Road Traffic Act in respect of the ferrying of workers by lorries since the enhanced penalties were introduced in February 2011; (b) what is the impact of the tighter regulations on the provision of transport for workers; and (c) whether there are plans to review the regulations.

Mr Speaker, Sir, to reduce business costs, owners and hirers of goods vehicles are currently allowed to use their vehicles to transport their workers to and from their places of work or business, subject to various safety regulations. LTA has put in place a set of rules under the Road Traffic Act to enhance the safety of workers transported at the rear of lorries and pickup trucks.

These rules require the workers to be safely seated at a height of not more than 1.1 metres from the carriage deck and the vehicle must not travel faster than 60 km/h. Lorries must also be fitted with canopies and higher side railings if they are to be used to transport workers on the carriage deck. A Maximum Passenger Capacity (MPC) label must be displayed on the goods vehicles to indicate the maximum number of workers that can be transported, based on a minimum space requirement per person. If goods are also transported, the number of persons should be reduced accordingly. The label serves as a reminder to the vehicle owner/driver on the maximum number of workers the vehicle can carry as well as facilitates enforcement against errant employers/ drivers who overload their vehicles.

Since 1 February 2011, LTA and Traffic Police (TP) have imposed higher fines and demerit points for non-compliance with safety regulations for the transportation of workers on lorries for greater deterrence. A total of 1,329 offenders have been caught for non-compliance with these safety regulations from February to September 2011. Enforcement records showed there has generally been a high level of compliance to these safety rules. The number of violations of these rules during the eight-month period before and after the enhanced penalties were introduced has fallen by 49%. Similarly, the accident statistics over the same period showed that the number of fatalities has dropped from five to no fatality while the number of injuries has fallen from 199 to 83 cases.

I would like to assure the Member that notwithstanding the reduction in the number of violations, LTA and TP remain vigilant. The safety regulations that are in place, in our assessment, have helped to ensure a higher level of safety for workers who need to travel on lorries in the course of their work. The efforts put in by all the relevant agencies underscore the Government's concern about the safety of workers transported on lorries. Employers and drivers must also play their part as safety is also their joint responsibility. LTA will continue to monitor the situation and, if necessary, review the current measures.

I thank the Minister of State for the very comprehensive reply. I am heartened to note that the safety standards for transporting workers have improved since the introduction of the new penalties. I have just one supplementary question. In terms of the summons issued, I understand that it allows for business owners and hirers to transport their workers from lodging to place of work, and in between places of work. However, for some estates, there have been instances where workers are transported from their lodgings to public transport hubs for workers to commute further. Is this an area that is covered under the Act and are there any penalties issued for contravening the Act in this area?

Mr Speaker, Sir, if I understand the gist of Mr Yam's question, I believe he is concerned about the employers allowing their workers to be transported to the MRT stations, so that they can then use the public transport system to get to their workplaces. Could I seek that clarification from him, please?

Yes. That is correct.

Currently, there is no restriction against transportation of such nature. The broader concern that Mr Yam highlighted is that this is adding to the public transport load. We do not encourage the employers to over extend the use of public transport for their workers travelling between workplaces. If Mr Yam knows of specific instances, we could talk to the employers to help to moderate the situation and we would be very happy to facilitate.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I think this practice is quite rampant. It is not just happening at any one particular place. A lot of residents have given such feedback. I want to urge the Ministry to look into this: whether the contractors are allowed to let their workers take the public transport, when our public transport is already so packed.

I thank the Member for her question and for expressing her concern. The very nature of public transport must mean that the public can use it. Whoever you are, working in Singapore, living in Singapore, even if you are a tourist, you can use public transport. But I understand the Member's concern and would be very willing to work with various advisors to take a look at this problem and, where necessary, work with the employers to reduce such incidents.

3 Mr Yee Jenn Jong asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources since the implementation of the Points Demerit System (PDS) for operators of food courts, coffee shops and canteens in November 2010 (a) how many operators have been issued with demerit points; (b) what are the three most common offences; (c) how many operators have had their licences suspended or revoked; (d) how frequently is enforcement being carried out; and (e) what programmes are put in place by NEA to educate all operators and their cleaning contractors on hygiene standards.

Mr Speaker, the Points Demerit System (PDS) was first implemented in 1987 for hawker stalls. PDS was extended to food courts, coffee shops and canteens in November 2010 to motivate operators to pay more attention to the cleanliness of the common areas in their premises. Food courts, coffee shops and canteens are routinely inspected at least twice a year. NEA also carries out additional inspections based on the feedback it receives from the public. Potential problem areas, such as toilets in coffee shops, are inspected monthly.

Since November 2010, 179 operators have been issued with demerit points, in addition to being fined for cleanliness-related offences. The three most common offences are the failure to keep the premises and the toilets clean, and to maintain the sanitary fittings in the toilets in good working condition. An operator who chalks up 24 demerit points within 12 months will have his licence suspended for up to three days. Thus far, no operator has accumulated the maximum number of demerit points for suspension.

Besides educating the operators during the inspections, NEA also carries out outreach and educational programmes, such as the "My Coffee Shop Shines" programme in the South-West district and the "Clean Food Shops" programme in the North-West district. Under these programmes, NEA works with the operators and stall owners to improve their cleaning regimes and works with the grassroots organisations to educate the public on keeping food shops clean and hygienic. NEA also works with the Public Hygiene Council (PHC) and Restroom Association of Singapore (RAS) to improve the state of toilet cleanliness in food establishments.

To raise cleaning standards, NEA also initiated a voluntary accreditation scheme for the cleaning industry in July 2010. The scheme recognises companies that have in place operating systems that ensure the provision of quality cleaning services by a professional cleaning workforce. We hope that this will bring about improvements in cleaning standards in the longer run, and encourage operators to hire accredited companies for cleaning so as to increase industry demand for more reliable cleaning services.

We need the concerted efforts of operators, cleaners and patrons to ensure a clean environment in food establishments. Moving forward, more educational efforts will be carried out together with the PHC, and we urge the public to also play a greater part in demanding a cleaner dining environment by providing feedback to NEA and not visiting establishments that are poorly maintained. At the same time, the public can also help the situation by being considerate when using the facilities in the food establishments and keep them clean for the next user. This will help to raise the level of public hygiene and improve our living environment.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for the very comprehensive answers. I have three supplementary questions. The first is: these rules and enforcement, how are they being applied to the hawker centres which are run by NEA? The second is: I have noticed that there are large numbers of foreign cleaners working in the various eating establishments in Singapore and they have various acceptable hygiene standards from their own countries. How is the Ministry monitoring this and are they satisfied with the level of cleanliness by these workers? The third question is whether there is any rating or grading of eating establishments' cleanliness like the way hawker stalls are being graded.

Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Member for the supplementary questions. For the enforcement, NEA hawker centres will be subjected to the same regime. Second question about foreign cleaners: I would like to stress that we do not make a distinction on the nationality or the race of the cleaners. What we will focus on really is the outcome and we would like to apply that same consistent principle, looking at the outcome of overall level of cleanliness. We have a standard that we apply on the various areas to watch. For example, as I mentioned in my reply, how clean is the toilet, whether the toilets are properly provided with the necessary supplies, and so on. So it is really outcome-driven.

I would like to respond to the question I think that most Singaporeans are concerned with. It is really the overall hygiene standard and cleanliness at our food establishments. My Ministry has worked very hard to improve on that level but we are not satisfied, and we would like to see a bigger improvement in the level of public hygiene. This is an area that my Ministry will work very, very hard on for the coming years. On the standards of cleanliness of eating establishments, this is something that we will be prepared to consider, and if the Member would like to give us specific suggestions, we will be very happy to incorporate them.

4 Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar asked the Minister for Education whether elitism exists in schools, in particular, the better performing ones or those with more well-to-do students.

Mr Speaker, our education system and schools operate on the belief that every child is valuable and important. We believe that each child has intrinsic worth, and that he can learn and achieve. These beliefs are articulated in the Philosophy of Education, the Desired Outcomes of Education and the Teachers' Pledge. Teachers are also guided by the Teachers' Creed which explicitly states that they should treat all students fairly and provide opportunities and resources to all students of different backgrounds.

Meanwhile, values, such as respect, care and harmony, are emphasised to our students through the Character and Citizenship Education (CCE) curriculum. Schools reinforce the values through many programmes and activities that provide valuable learning experiences for their students. These include community service and joint activities among schools with different student profiles within a cluster or zone.

We have also designed our education system such that each of the different educational pathways is valued and resourced appropriately. However, occasionally, the behaviour and actions of some individuals may not always live up to the beliefs that we wish to uphold. And when this happens, the schools will take steps to correct them.

There was a recent letter by a JC student to the media comparing the facilities of ITE and JCs. The letter sparked a lively debate, with many Singaporeans coming forward to defend why ITE students deserved quality facilities. Subsequently, the JC student who wrote the letter issued an online letter expressing his sincere apologies. I think the public reaction shows that many Singaporeans share the value of respect and care for others. And in particular, this episode highlights the importance for schools and community to continue to work together to mould the character and values of our young people. Ultimately, shaping the values and attitudes of our young people is a collaborative effort and one that is always a work-in-progress. We will continue to work hard at educating our young to respect and value others.

I thank the Minister of State for his reply. Through Character and Citizenship Education (CCE), we try to inculcate values that we hope students will grow up with. But how can this be further emphasised to students because, as it is, there is already segregation among the different academic streams in schools, for instance? And will the establishment of the two new specialised schools for Normal (Technical) further segregate students who are of lower academic ability from other students?

I thank the Member for the supplementary questions. This is something that MOE is always very mindful of. I talked earlier about the mindset of students and what we are doing in each and every school through Character and Citizenship Education to cultivate sound values and to instill character. But at the systems level, when MOE looks at our education system, our overall approach has always been to provide opportunities for all children to develop to their fullest potential. Enabling social mobility has been and will continue to be the hallmark of our education system.

We recognise that every child is different and that learning needs and abilities are different. And that is why we have customised progression pathways that are different. Not just one single track, but multiple pathways to cater to the different abilities and needs of students. No single pathway is superior to another. That should not be the mindset. The diverse pathways are meant to cater to different learning needs and each one customised for people with different needs. Somebody may be academically slower and they may need a longer time to study and to progress in their pathway, but they may be a slow learner initially and a faster learner later on. What we also want to do is to have many bridges and ladders across the different pathways, so that as you progress along one pathway and as you do well subsequently, you can move on to a different pathway – adapted, again, and customised to the needs of that individual.

I think we have made a lot of effort and investment to develop these different pathways, to resource these pathways appropriately and to have customised curriculum for each of these pathways. But the broader issue is a real one that we have to continuously reach out and get people to understand: that no pathway is superior to another, that these are multiple pathways for learning, catered to children with different abilities and needs, and we should embrace all of these different learning pathways. As each person, embarking on a particular pathway, achieves success, we should embrace that broader definition of success in our society.

This is a continuing challenge that MOE tries to address through our system, through our schools. But it is not a job that MOE can do alone, and we would certainly need the continuing support and engagement with parents, with community groups, certainly with Members of this House to continue to shape the mindset in society.

Supplementary question, Sir. I am happy that the Minister of State mentioned engagement with parents. In my engagement with parents of children in the Gifted Programme, very often, my friends and colleagues expressed their concerns about the students being different, thinking differently and sometimes they even mention the word "elitist". How do we partner with parents to help them bring up their children with proper values because sometimes the parents themselves are worried? Even though they want the kids to be in the Gifted Programme, they also see the concern as something which they need to manage.

Sir, this goes back to what we can do through our schools and through our teachers. Yes, there are different pathways and there are some which are catered to students who are academically very strong. I think it is good that they are able to cope with their studies and they will do very well. Some of them go on to great achievements even in international competitions. But that is where I think within the school system, the teachers, the principals set the tone and they make sure that the students are grounded in sound values, in character building -- that is a new emphasis that we have placed through Character and Citizenship Education and through the curriculum that we are putting in place through the schools, encouraging each school leader and the teachers to think about how best to implement this curriculum, not just within the school environment but also involving parents and the community to make sure that the curriculum is something that is effective, something that will truly shape the character and nurture the right values in each and every child.

I would like to ask the Minister of State and the Ministry if it is healthy for students to be physically separated in different schools from a young age: in SAP schools, Special schools, now specialised Normal schools. Would it not be healthier if, even if they cannot study in the same academic class, that they could – in the non-academic periods or time – eat, have recess together, play and interact from a younger age? I know it is easier said than done, and I would ask if the Ministry is open to consider piloting models that will test more effective inclusion and integration practices, so that children from different backgrounds can be educated together from a young age just like some of us – the older ones amongst us – were educated that way when we were young.

I thank the Member for the question. I am not so old but I remember growing up, going to school in Tanjong Katong Technical and that was the situation, too – an integrated environment – and we had students from all sorts of diverse backgrounds. Certainly, we want to do that, and the majority of our schools are like that. I think we have a few specialised schools catering to a select group of students where we think that, from an educational point of view, they may be better served because it is a more homogeneous group and their needs are very different, and so more special attention, a customised curriculum can be developed to reach out to this group. It is a balance. We cannot take that approach and take it to an extreme. Then certainly every school will be specialised and then you would really have very separate and distinct groups of people rather than integration as we would like it to be.

We do it in a very controlled and deliberate environment, and we are monitoring the results of what we are doing. For example, in the new specialised schools for students who did not qualify for Normal (Technical), at least, the initial evidence shows that they are doing quite well. Academically, they are coping better in this new environment. As we monitor, we will feel our way forward, in terms of evolving new models. But, certainly, I agree with the Member that we will be very open to looking at different models, new ways of promoting better integration. We have a school system the way it is with the mainstream schools across the board, but a few very specialised institutions catering to specific needs.

I accept the point and I agree with the Member that we should as far as possible avoid that sense of separation at an early age when our children are growing up, and for these schools to come up with more programmes. And we would be quite happy to work with the community, in terms of thinking of new programmes that would help students in these specific institutions integrate better with peers of different backgrounds. That is something we would explore developing even more of. But I think our fundamental approach is to look at the students' needs, to look at the students' abilities and to try as far as possible to make sure that we have a programme and a curriculum that addresses each child's needs and maximises his or her potential. That is what we have done. It is an education system that is student-centric. It is meant to be focused on the students so that the different pathways can cater to each and every child.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Minister of State for his reply on elitism in schools. Many schools typically channel good teachers to the better classes and sometimes parents also expect the school to channel better teachers to better classes. Does MOE provide guidelines to schools so that they would spread good teachers to different classes? For that matter, does MOE consciously deploy good teachers to different schools?

I thank the Member for the supplementary question. Indeed, MOE's policy is to resource all our schools well, not just a few schools. And this is what we have done and we will continue to do so. We provide the same base funding to all schools which have significantly increased over the past decade to benefit all students. At the teacher level, we maintain a balance of the quality of MOE teachers allocated across all schools, and we would continue to do that. We continue to expand our teaching force so that schools can afford to have more targeted programmes catering to the different needs of all students. This is what MOE does at the headquarters level, in terms of our allocation of resources, whether it is financial or teaching resource, across the school system.

Within the school system, I think we have capable school leaders and they have guidelines and I am sure, from the school principals' point of view, they want to make sure that their teachers cater to their different student profiles and different student needs. Given the diversity of students, it is not possible to have a single ruler to measure success. The principals know how to allocate or make sure that there are teachers with the right inclination, with the right skill sets to teach students of different profiles. That is what the principals do. MOE has constant dialogue with the principals, with the school leaders, to make sure that this is done appropriately at the school level.

Mr Yee Jenn Jong. Last question.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to join in this interesting discussion. I would like to follow up on the specialised Normal (Technical) school. I can understand the rationale is that we want to have more resources to be channelled to this group of students, because at the current moment, each school has maybe just one or two Normal (Technical) classes and it is difficult to find the resources. Is there going to be a trend that there is going to be more of these specialised Normal (Technical) schools spread across Singapore? And whether MOE will instead consider perhaps clustering resources together so that, perhaps, within the cluster, they can help to set examination papers across the Normal (Technical) classes in the schools? Or maybe MOE can do that, so that we can still let these Normal (Technical) students stay in a normal school rather than separate them?

I thank the Member for the supplementary question. In fact, the second part of what he said is already happening. Within the clusters in the zone, the teachers who are involved in teaching Normal (Technical) do share notes, do come together and share experiences and resources. But the specialised schools are really a step forward in terms of thinking about perhaps a different way of doing things. So it is, to some extent, an experiment in terms of trying out something different where we have a specialised institution catered to this group of people, appropriately resourced, with a different curriculum catered to them.

There will be pros and cons, and we have to strike a balance. There is no plan for us now to expand these specialised schools because this is something new. As I mentioned earlier, we are developing these programmes and we are looking very hard and monitoring the results of what is happening through these schools. The initial findings are positive. We think these children are coming out better and they are coping better in their studies, and they are learning better, more effectively. That does not mean that we should proliferate and expand them. I do not think there are any plans now. But what we would want to do, as I mentioned, is to focus on these institutions to see how they can do better, in terms of developing their children in these schools. At the same time, we will take up Ms Denise Phua's suggestion of programmes that can better integrate students across different institutions. We are working on multiple approaches. These are things that we will continue to evolve and develop. If we think there are indications that a particular programme offers success and is useful, then we would look at ways to expand it in the most effective manner.

5 Mrs Lina Chiam asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance for the last five years, what is the total amount of stamp fees collected by the Government in respect of property transactions.

Mr Speaker, Sir, over the five financial years from FY 2006/2007 to FY 2010/2011, the total amount of stamp duty collected in respect of transactions on sales and purchases of properties was $10.87 billion.

6 Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar asked the Minister for National Development whether the Ministry would consider allowing the sale of HDB studio apartments to singles below the age of 55 years old.

Sir, the HDB Studio Apartments are purpose-built with senior-friendly features. They are sold with a 30-year lease to keep them affordable, while ensuring that the owners have a home in their golden years. They, therefore, do not quite fit the housing needs of young singles.

Sir, I thank the Minister for the answer. There are residents who have come and approached me, and they are singles without family members, not very well to do, so they cannot quite afford the high Cash-over-Valuation (COVs) of the resale flats or buying a flat from the open market. There is not much option for them, really. What can be done? Can there be Studio Apartments, small apartments with shorter leases for them, instead of just for the elderly, those who are above 55 years old?

As I said, Studio Apartments are not quite the option because they were really not designed for such young singles, and also because the Studio Apartments are already on very short leases, of 30 years, which are quite appropriate for retirees. For young singles, I am not quite sure whether that is appropriate. Of course, as I have explained in this House two sittings ago, there is a wide range of potential house buyers. Housing is a very complex problem. I have to approach this problem systematically. I have to set priorities. In due course, I would be able to address all the various segments. But I decided to zero in for the first 12 months of my term on the first timers. I think we are delivering some results, which now allow me, as I blogged about last night, to for the next 12 to 24 months focus on the second timers. That itself is another very big group, with a wide range of needs and differing needs. It is a subject that is now occupying my mind. In due course, I will tackle the other buyer groups, for example, the singles, too.

Mr Speaker, a supplementary question. Would the Minister agree that Studio Apartments represent a very good option, probably the best option, for elderly residents to monetise their current flats? Sell their current flat, buy a Studio Apartment and have a decent amount of balanced proceeds to retire on. And if that is the case, would he be stepping up the construction of Studio Apartments?

Indeed, last Sunday, in one of my MPS cases, there was such an elderly gentleman. A retiree, living in a 5-room flat and a widower. So, he is all alone and he decided to just sell the 5-room flat, apply for a Studio Apartment, and he will have some cash which he can then keep for his retirement. So, that certainly is a good option. It is not the only option for seniors but MND offered this option which I think can be quite attractive for some of these seniors. We intend to expand it. I have been looking at the application rates for the Studio Apartments – quite good, quite healthy, not overly subscribed, but well taken up, practically 100%. So far, we have launched 6,000 units. Last year alone, we launched 2,300 units. This year, I will continue to press on.

7 Mrs Lina Chiam asked the Minister for Transport from 2009 to 2011(a) what is the total amount of ERP charges collected by the Government; (b) which ERP gantry collects the highest amount of fees per day and what is the amount; and (c) which ERP gantry collects the lowest amount of fees per day and what is the amount.

Let me begin by providing a recap on the purpose of Electronic Road Pricing (ERP). The ERP is a tool to manage congestion. It is not for revenue generation. The rates are set and reviewed based on the latest traffic conditions. The key measure of the effectiveness of ERP, of course, is whether it is able to keep traffic speeds within the optimal range, rather than the amount that is collected by each gantry.

The total amount collected for each Financial Year from 2009 to 2011 was about $149 million for FY 2009, $159 million for FY 2010 and $97 million up till the end of October 2011. The ERP gantries that collected the highest and lowest amount per day based on a typical month's weekday average are at Nicoll Highway for the highest and Upper Boon Keng Road for the lowest. For Nicoll Highway, it is $32,000 and for Upper Boon Keng Road, it is $130.

Sir, I thank the Minister for answering my question. I would like to ask whether these vehicles are mainly from other countries like Malaysia, or are they from Singapore, or do the figures relate to all vehicles?

Do I answer you now or do you have another question?

No, no. Just this question.

Okay. I do not have the breakdown. This is the consolidated amount that is collected every month. I suspect that, by and large, the vast majority of it would be from Singaporean vehicles.

I am just curious to know what will happen to gantries that collect so little, like the Minister mentioned, the gantry at Upper Boon Keng Road. Would there be a plan to scrap gantries like this?

I should explain the difference, why the Nicoll Highway gantry seems to have such a high collection at $32,000 and Upper Boon Keng Road only $130 per weekday. For Upper Boon Keng Road, the gantry operates for about half an hour in the morning from 8.30 am to 9.00 am. That is the only time that it operates. The Nicoll Highway gantry operates from 7.30 am to 8.00 pm, rests two hours, and from 10.00 am to 12 noon. The durations of operation are different, and the rates are different.

The reason why we need some of these gantries, for example, like at Upper Boon Keng Road, is that they are part of an outer cordon through which vehicles have to pass in order to get to the city, and we also need to control the movement of vehicles in this direction. We have to make sure that we have a cordon that is sufficiently effective. We look at the speeds every quarter. When the speeds are above the optimal range, we have the option then to reduce the rates or to do away with it altogether, as we have done for CTE in the morning for certain hours. We have also done it for the CTE northbound, at night. The last time we looked at the Upper Boon Keng gantry, the speeds were not above the optimum range. They were within the optimum range and, hence, we continued to operate the gantry.

8 Mr Alex Yam asked the Minister for National Development if his Ministry would consider requiring operators of foreign worker dormitories to provide transport for workers to their workplace on a compulsory basis before awarding tenders for the operation of these dormitories.

Mr Speaker, Sir, workers staying in foreign workers' dormitories come from many different employers. They are currently transported to and from their workplaces by their employers or by private transport operators. The modes of transportation include chartered buses, mini-buses and lorries. These are private arrangements made between employers, private transport operators and the foreign workers.

Our preference is for employers to have flexibility in deciding how best to safely and efficiently transport workers between the dormitories and the workplaces, instead of the Government mandating a single approach for all employers to adopt. This is because employers' requirements could differ significantly, depending on the number of workers they have, as well as the nature of work, location and working hours of their workers.

Order. End of Question Time.

Before this House resumes the debate, I would like to remind Members that the decorum of this House must always be maintained. While I fully appreciate and encourage vigorous debate, Members should not make reference to another Member using words like "you" or "your". Members ought to address another Member by referring to the constituency that the Member represents, or by his or her full name.

When seeking clarification from another Member, Members ought to seek my consent before posing their questions. The Member should then take his or her seat and allow the Member from whom clarification is sought to fully answer the questions. If the Member wishes to seek further clarification, the Member should seek my consent again before asking any further questions. I thank Members for their co-operation.

Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [16 January 2012].

"That this House endorses Paper Cmd. 1 of 2012 on "Salaries for A Capable and Committed Government" as the basis for setting the salaries of the President, Prime Minister, Speaker and Deputy Speakers of Parliament, political appointment holders, and Members of Parliament.". – [Mr Teo Chee Hean].

Question again proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, for a country with a voting population of only 2.1 million citizens, Ministerial salaries in Singapore are by far the highest in the world. It should therefore come as no surprise to anyone in this Chamber that the debates surrounding Ministerial salaries are also the most emotive anywhere in the world as well. In the minds of many citizens, Ministers cannot make mistakes. The connection is logical. If you pay top dollar, you would expect top performance.

Over the Christmas period, I took the opportunity to ask friends and relatives what they would consider to be a fair wage to pay a Minister and an MP in Singapore. Although this was not a scientific exercise by any stretch, on average, the figure for an MP hovered around the $10,000 mark, while the total wage for a Minister, excluding his or her MP's salary, ranges from $30,000 to $50,000, bonuses included. As reinforced by the Committee, with figures such as these, no Minister would need to worry about his ability to meet the financial needs of his family or have to face a drastic reduction in his standard of living. Many whom I spoke to were shocked that Ministers have hitherto received their pension. If anything, public servants who have for the longest time deserved the pension are our Division 3 and Division 4 civil servants, some of whom draw a salary of around the $1,500 mark. But paradoxically, even years after the private sector removed this anachronism, the PAP Government persisted in retaining for their high flyers until this Committee's recommendations.

Once again, the emotive reaction of Singaporeans is completely logical and understandable. A few months ago, I asked via a Parliamentary Question the monetary amount each Minister in the last Cabinet could expect to receive in pension. The Prime Minister, however, gave an answer to another question – one that was not asked – instead explaining how pensions are calculated. The reluctance to reveal hard numbers provides yet another glimpse into the reasons behind the emotive reaction of Singaporeans to Ministerial salaries. I can confidently say that this Government will never release how much each retiring Minister received in pension, although I hope I will be proved wrong, especially since one PAP MP announced on Monday that Ministerial salaries are transparent and published. Well, following that logic, we should expect the pensions received by retiring Ministers to be published as well.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the political landscape today is anchored by expectations of significantly higher levels of transparency and accountability. To that end, the Committee must be commended for its decision to remove the very concept of a pension for Ministers. In my mind, this has been an apocal recommendation made by Gerard Ee's Committee and I hope Singaporeans duly credit them for it. They did not just remove pensions for Ministers. They have set the benchmark for good governance, accountability and transparency in public service. The Workers' Party welcomes this development as the high water mark of the Committee's recommendations.

It is in the good governance, transparency and accountability that the Workers' Party proposes a simple, straightforward formula by which to determine political salaries. Unlike what was reported by The Straits Times today, specifically one headline which read "WP proposals on pay not that different", the principles behind the Workers' Party's proposals differ significantly. The reasons for these differences were, perhaps, best illustrated by Deputy Prime Minister Teo on the first day of this Debate. Because it is the principles behind the numbers that matter. Where the Committee could have done much better was to remove this concept of pegging Ministerial salaries to the top 1,000 earners in Singapore. It also persisted in pegging MPs' salaries to a percentage of the Administrative Service superscale -- yet another visage of elitism that should not be extended to the political realm.

My erstwhile colleague, Mr Chen Show Mao, made the point about pegging political salaries with the rank and file of the civil service in his speech on the first day, at the MX9 level. But no PAP MP wanted to go there. It is apparent that the PAP are fine with pegging salaries to an elite corps of individuals, many of whom, discerning Singaporeans note, are also cultivated for PAP political office. In the minds of these discerning Singaporeans, the PAP Ministerial selection process is clear. You have to be selected as a Minister first before becoming an MP.

Two PAP MPs tried to address this Administrative Service elephant in the committee's report. One of them only managed to scratch the surface of the issue. Expectedly, that MP was the veritable conscience of the PAP, Ms Denise Phua, and the other was Mr Lim Biow Chuan. If I heard Ms Phua correctly, she wanted Administrative Service salaries to be reduced in line with the spirit of the recommendations of Mr Ee's Committee. Singaporeans should know why she felt that way. What is so special about this elite corps of 300-odd Administrative Service scholars out of the 127,000-strong civil service, a mere 0.02% of all civil servants? And why is the MPs' salary pegged to a percentage of the Administrative Service salary and why not to those of ordinary civil servants?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I started off my speech by referring to how much emotion political salaries generate in Singapore. The essence of the WP's proposals, specifically the de-linkage of MP's salary to some percentage of the Administrative Service salary and the top 1,000 earners' peg for Ministers, was precisely formulated by the Workers' Party to remove this emotion from any debate on Ministerial salaries, and to remove the overbearing odour of elitism from political office. It is the Workers' Party's contention that when you remove the connection to elitism, you take the emotive element out of the debate.

In retaining the unmistakable connection to the top 1,000 and to the Administrative Service, respectfully, the Committee has missed an opportunity to fundamentally address the emotive reaction of Singaporeans to political salaries. In The Straits Times today, Review Editor, Ms Chua Mui Hoong, wrote and I quote: "The issue of Ministerial salaries will continue to draw heated disagreement. The formula will be tweaked again, and the future Prime Minister would have to stand up in Parliament and seek the support of MPs and Singaporeans for yet another round of changes." If this comes to pass, it would indeed be a most unfortunate eventuality.

Like my party colleagues, I trawled the Hansard for a record of previous debates on political salaries. Nothing this Government has said over the last three days signalled a real shift in the mindset of how to peg political salaries. Substantively, it certainly looks like business as usual. The Workers' Party proposed the MPs' be pegged to the MX9 level, the starting salary of entry-grade civil servants into the superscale ranks, not the elite Administrative Service scale when an officer at the age of 32 should expect to receive around $400,000 a year, depending on bonuses. If the Government pegs political salaries at the rank-and-file level of the civil service, a level the average Singaporean can aspire to, you remind all political aspirants what it means to be a servant-leader and you unmistakably inject substantive empathy into Singapore's political culture.

Ministerial salaries come next, and, like many developed countries around the world, you choose a suitable multiple that is politically acceptable to Singaporeans. We opine that Singaporeans can be persuaded by the reasoning behind the Workers' Party proposals. While they may be close to the Committee's proposal, the Workers' Party certainly expects a reality check on the 13.5-month bonus a Minister can receive – a figure that flies in the face of the Committee's commitment to clean salaries. For the record, standing to secure a bonus of half your salary can hardly be expressed as a clean salary. In monetary terms, it is akin to the perks some MPs in other countries get, like a car or housing allowance. With respect to the Committee, the Workers' Party proposal of a five-month bonus is much clearer, much cleaner and publicly conscionable.

As many Singaporeans would understand by now, the Workers' Party proposals take their cue from the rank-and-file of the civil service. Ordinary respectable civil servants who represent the spine and the spirit of the public service. One PAP MP was dissatisfied with the dental benefit of $70 the Committee proposed for Ministers. But if the rank-and-file civil service is extended a $70 dental benefit, why should it be different for Ministers? Do they have golden teeth? If this Government wants its Ministers to have more dental benefits, then extend the same privilege to our civil servants, for they serve the public, too. This is much preferred instead of treating Ministers differently. They are MPs and public servants first.

The new normal does not call for super heroes, as one PAP MP suggested. It calls for servant leadership. Servant-leaders are those who back proposals that are akin to what mainstream Singaporeans can aspire to. As the Workers' Party numbers show, this is achievable and you can still attract high quality individuals to politics, but only if you do not limit your MPs to come from the top 10% to 20% richest Singaporeans, as PAP MP Mrs Josephine Teo desires. Other PAP MPs have gone about the shortcomings of Workers' Party approach: to apply a multiple to MP's salary and thereby deduce the salary for Ministers.

Others suggested it is arbitrary and that you could decide to pay your Ministers by working backwards from a pre-determined figure. I was a little surprised to hear this from MPs like Mr Vikram Nair and Mr Zaqy Mohamad because the reasoning behind the Committee's proposals is no less arbitrary. As recommended by the Committee, MP's allowance is pegged to 17.5% of an entry-level Administrative Service superscale scholar. Ministers get a 40% discount of the salaries of the top 1,000 earners. Is that not arbitrary? Why not 10% or 12.5% of entry-level Admin Service super-scalers, or a 50% discount for Ministers as opposed to 40%? Can you not get to the figures you want, by manipulating these percentages? But it leaves me to acknowledge the intellectual honesty of Mdm Halimah Yacob who noted that whilst a specific multiple for Ministerial salaries proposed by the Workers' Party can be interpreted to be arbitrary, so were the numbers and percentages contained in the Committee's recommendations.

The neutral may say both the WP and PAP proposals are arbitrary, and I think the intellectually honest in this Chamber will be the first to raise their hands and say there is a lot of truth to this. But the difference lies in the principles behind the WP's proposal. We seek to persuade Singaporeans that political salaries ought to be underwritten by a key Workers' Party philosophy: that public service is open to all Singaporeans. The privilege of being of service to your fellow countrymen is the attraction of being an MP. You are an MP first before becoming a Minister. Public service in Singapore is for all Singaporeans, and opportunities to be a Minister should not be restricted or institutionalised to the few with silver spoons.

To conclude, Mr Speaker, if human resource is indeed our most precious commodity, as Mr Gan Thiam Poh has reasoned, then it is indeed pragmatic that we send the right signal to all Singaporeans and open the prospects of political service, including becoming Ministers, to all Singaporeans, not just the top 10% to 20%. The Prime Minister also alluded to the difficulty that PAP may face recruiting individuals to become Ministers if salaries are not competitive. With respect, I would urge the Prime Minister to leave some room to consider the possibility that perhaps it is not the salary, career or family circumstances that is the issue. On the contrary, another reason could be that in light of the new normal, talented people feel that the PAP is no longer capable of hosting the aspirations for Singapore and no salary can move them.

We in the Workers' Party believe that choosing the appropriate benchmark is critical as it sends an unmistakable signal when the principles behind your salary peg is at a level the average Singaporean can empathise with and aspire to. In doing so, we believe that the emotions that have justifiably bedevilled the debate on political salaries over these decades will finally be assuaged. I may not have convinced this House but I certainly hope to have convinced Singaporeans that while the numbers behind the PAP and WP recommendations may not be worlds apart, the principles behind them most certainly are. Mr Speaker, Sir, I oppose the principles behind the salary benchmarks chosen by the Committee and therefore I oppose the motion.

Mr Vikram Nair, do you want to make a clarification? Keep it short, please.

Sorry, Mr Speaker, I was trying to get your attention yesterday because I think Mr Yee Jenn Jong asked me three questions. And I would like to address the one point that Mr Singh made, if I may?

Keep it short.

Yes. The first question Mr Yee asked was whether I made my recommendations to the Committee: the short answer is "yes, I did" but I did it in writing because I did not think I was sufficiently special to ask for an audience. The second, and this is the more fundamental question: what is the difference I think between the Workers' Party's proposal in terms of salary and ours because I think the Member asked me to check with the Prime Minister why he said it was higher and I said it was lower. The answer is actually quite simple. I think I should perhaps correct the error which I realised Mr Chen mentioned in his Facebook page yesterday as well. The Workers' Party's starting salary for Ministers is $55,000. That is also the benchmark. On the Committee's side, however, the benchmark is $55,000 but the starting salary is lower. So, it is $47,250. That is one of the key differences. Now, what is the result of that difference? The result of that difference is that the Workers' Party's proposal results in a higher base pay for the starting Minister but a lower maximum bonus, whereas on the Committee's proposal, the starting salary would be lower but the variable bonus is higher. So what does this mean in principle? This means that earlier ---

Mr Nair, keep it short, please.

Okay, sorry. The key difference in principle is that in a year when performance targets are not met, the Workers' Party's proposal will provide more pay. And in a year when performance targets are met or exceeded, the Committee's proposal will provide more pay. That is the key difference in terms of how they work. The final question is how we should vote. I think one of the key points I was making is obviously we should all vote according to our conscience but there is not much difference in principle. We all believe public service should be the most important thing. Now, the Workers' Party has not said the salary should be reasonable, but looking at your proposal, the salaries are in the same ballpark. So, I think there is a lot of common ground. All I was hoping to do is to highlight the common ground.

Now, in terms of Mr Singh's point that I highlighted that the Workers' Party's proposal was arbitrary, that was not really as a criticism but more actually to highlight the fact that whatever formula you come up with, there is some element of arbitrariness. But one point I should make is that the Workers' Party arrived at $55,000, apparently independently by coincidence at the same number as the Committee did. What is interesting is that the probability of two four-digit numbers coinciding is miniscule, as anyone who has bought 4D would tell you. The probability of two five-digit numbers coinciding, I would say, is probably miraculous. This means there is probably some special agreement between us.

Mr Pritam Singh, do you want to respond?

Thank you, Mr Speaker, I would like to thank ---

Similarly, please keep it short.

Yes. I would like to thank Mr Vikram Nair for his comments. I just do not understand. Did he ask a question that he would like me to answer because I am not sure whether you were making a statement or whether you were asking me something? Could you just clarify, please?

No, I was making a response in relation to your allegation that I had accused you of being arbitrary. In fact, that was really not an issue because we both agree there is some degree of arbitrariness in both proposals. But what I was pointing out is that we somehow arrived at the same benchmark, miraculously, through two independent routes.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr Nair, thank you very much for that clarification. I am not going to agree with you about the "miraculousness" of the figures in the proposals that were decided upon by the WP and the Committee. But the point I made in that paragraph was to identify what Mdm Halimah Yacob had said. I think she brought up the point acutely. Well, I did not think that that point was made by you as acutely as she did. That is all I am saying.

Ms Denise Phua, do you have a clarification, too?

Sir, I would like to ask a few questions to the Member, Mr Pritam Singh. First, I would like to ask if you would please agree not to comment further that I am the conscience of the PAP. I just want to state to everyone in the House that the conscience of many of my PAP colleagues in this House is intact and I am not the only conscience or the conscience of the PAP.

The second question is: can his colleagues not try to punctuate every comment that they make in Parliament with the Workers' Party brand. This is no more the General Election rally. We are here to discuss issues and serve our constituents, represent our constituents as MPs first and I think there is no necessity to try to politicise and brand the party every time we discuss important topics like this.

My third comment is, to ask the Member if he had pre-empted what I said, even though I mentioned about the need to take off the cloak of secrecy over the Administrative Service, I really had asked the Prime Minister to conduct an independent review of the top civil service leadership that will go beyond pay to attract, develop and retain talent for a capable and committed Government. And that is what I have asked the Prime Minister to do. And I also agree very much with the Member that servant leadership is ---

Ms Phua, do you have a question?

--- a very important feature of serving in this nation and also that is a very desirable feature of trying to be a "superhero politician" here to have this ability to meet the broad bandwidth of expectations of politicians. Servant leadership definitely is a desirable feature of a politician that I would admire.

Mr Singh, do you want to respond?

Mr Speaker, I do not have anything to add to what Ms Denise Phua has said.

Mr Yee Jenn Jong.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would just like to reply to one point by Mr Vikram Nair about this $55,000 versus $47,000. Mr Vikram Nair seems very determined to prove that the Workers' Party's proposal is higher than that of the Committee. Now, we have always been, in our recommendation, focusing on the main principles behind our proposal which I feel is important, the starting point from the MP pay. So, we have been using benchmark pay versus the Committee's benchmark pay. Of course, we understand that when we go into details, there will be some salary range and, as the Committee proposed, it will be between 0.85 times and 1.1 times of the benchmark. Workers' Party has not gone into the details of this because we feel it is not necessary at this point. It is better to debate on the broad principles. I do not know for whatever reasons he wants to continue to harp on these reasons that ours is higher than the Committee's, but I do not feel this is necessary and actually diverts attention from the main point that we are bringing up.

Mr Alvin Yeo.

Sir, I would like to seek clarification of comments made by Mr Pritam Singh and by Mr Gerald Giam earlier, where they criticised the level of bonus set by the Committee as being up to 13.5 months as somehow not being consistent with a clean wage. I would just ask Mr Singh and Mr Giam whether they are aware that it is a commonly accepted ---

Well, Mr Yeo, Mr Giam is not around, so you may want to address Mr Singh's point.

Yes, Mr Giam is not here, so I would just ask Mr Singh then whether they are aware that it is a commonly accepted remuneration practice that the more senior the position, the greater the weightage of remuneration is placed on bonus. So, for instance, it is typical for a CEO to have more than half his remuneration based on bonus. The idea here is not that it is not a clean wage, it is made quite transparent so the Committee has made it clear that with the good bonus, a Minister would get $1.1 million. That is out in the open. The idea of having a heavier weightage of bonus is to make it clear that the Minister will not get that pay unless his performance is in keeping with KPIs which include national outcomes which improve the lot of Singaporeans. And my request for clarification is, does Mr Pritam Singh not accept that that is consistent with the principle of having a Minister being made accountable for his performance, not just with his own KPIs but with that of nationally set outcomes which better the lives of all Singaporeans?

Mr Pritam Singh.

Mr Speaker, thank you very much. I would like to thank the hon Member for his question also. I think he has probably put in the best way possible why the principles behind our proposals are so different. We are not looking at the private sector, the CEOs in the private sector, how bonuses are paid out to them. We are looking at the rank-and-file civil service. I believe that political salaries ought to have some comparison with the rank-and-file civil service. Now, if the rank-and-file civil service are not paid double-digit bonuses, then we feel in the same way that Ministers should not get double-digit bonuses.

And I think the other point that I tried to make in my speech was, if you pay these high bonuses, sure, it may be common or expected for CEO of GE or some other big MNC but what that works out in reality is an additional part of your wage which when you compare with other countries, you have these additional perks, motorcycle allowances, bicycle allowances that Mr Inderjit Singh spoke about. We feel that it comes to the same thing, in some different roundabout way. So, what we are saying is, there is a cleaner way to reach that clean wage definition, and that is by keeping bonuses a little bit modest and sober.

Mr Alvin Yeo, do you have a clarification?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not believe Mr Singh has answered my question as to whether a higher weightage of bonus, more than half, is consistent with the principle of making Ministers accountable for performance. And with respect, I do not agree that the motorcycle allowance stands in the same shape and form as a bonus which is made transparent and known to the electorate.

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you. I thank the hon Member for the follow-up question as well. I disagree with him, obviously. And the second point I would like to make is even if your bonus was, let us say, five months or 5.5 months, as the Workers' Party is recommending, does it mean that Ministers would be somehow less accountable? I do not believe so and my party also does not believe so. We feel that bonuses can be capped at 5.5 months and that is our position.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think Mr Pritam Singh probably misheard me when I spoke yesterday. There was a point where the Workers' Party talked about how the benchmarks result in monetising the value of political office, and I said that even the benchmarks made by the Workers' Party is an attempt to put some cash value, cash component to the work contribution of the Ministers. So, in that sense, would you then argue that this was an attempt to monetise the value of political office?

The second point I said was that whatever benchmark used will always be subject to question. And in any event, how did the Workers' Party come to a multiple of five times when it comes to the remuneration for Ministers? One could also question whether that is a right benchmark. So that was in the context of the point I made, whatever benchmarks, including the benchmarks made by the Workers' Party, why must it be a multiple of five, why not a multiple of two, why not a multiple of seven? And in that context, every form of benchmark would be subject to question.

And I think that is precisely what I am saying as well, that any benchmark will be arbitrary. And I think the Member Mr Zaqy was suggesting that the Workers' Party's multiple was arbitrary but the difference between him and you -- not "you", I cannot say "you" -- between him and Mdm Halimah Yacob, the important thing that she did was she pointed out that both parties, both proposals, had an element of arbitrariness to it, and I respected that.

Mr Speaker, Sir, allowing me to seek a clarification. This is to Mr Pritam Singh, of course. I was just puzzling over his comments about what I said and thinking about the proposals that have been put forward by Members from the Workers' Party. Well, as it turns out, the number that the Member has proposed to pay a Minister, is actually not very different from the number that the Committee chaired by Mr Gerard Ee is paying. What that means, in effect, is that the Member is also proposing to draw roughly from the same population that the Committee is proposing to draw from, to fill our political leadership. So, how is it then that the Committee's proposal is elitist but then the Workers' Party's is not elitist? That is the part I fail to understand.

I thank the Member for her question. I think, really, the essence of where we are coming from was best enunciated by the Deputy Prime Minister on the first day. It is not the numbers that is the issue. It is the principle behind those numbers. And we have moved away from pegging Ministerial salaries to the salaries of the top 1,000 and the Administrative Service. And that is the principle we are getting at. And what we are suggesting is we do not need to peg it to people right up there. Peg it to the average Singaporean, at a level where Singaporeans can aspire to, not the numbers, the principle.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, much obliged. Again, Mr Singh, two clarifications. Did I not hear Members agreeing that the principles that were enunciated by Mr Ee's Committee are the same principles that you also subscribed to, unless I heard you wrongly? The second thing is that I also remember very distinctly the Deputy Prime Minister when he talked about pegging the salaries at number 1,000, he also distinctly said it does not mean we only draw people from around that salary range. Did he not make that clear or did you not pick that up?

Thank you, Mr Speaker. At the risk of repeating myself, I think what we are getting at and I think we have made this very clear: if you try and differentiate what the Committee recommended and what we are recommending, we are saying that the Committee's use of the percentage of the Administrative Service salary scale is something we do not agree with. So that is one principle that is fundamentally different. So I hope you are clear on that. If you are not clear, I am sorry. I cannot be clearer than this.

The other point was the one pegging the salaries to the top 1,000. Again, we do not agree with that. We think there is another way which is more acceptable to the public and critically, critically, we feel that will take the emotion out of the debate. And it will set the tone in future decades for a more sober assessment of political salaries.

Sir, can I just make a clarification? The Committee is not here but I have read the report. I do not see in the report anywhere that the Committee has pegged the salaries to the Administrative Service scale.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. To the Deputy Prime Minister Teo, from what I understand from the Committee's report, MPs' salary is 17.5% of the entry level of an Administrative Service officer. That is where we have a difference of opinion.

Mr Speaker, I have read the report very carefully. I hope that Mr Singh has also read the report carefully before he has made extensive comments on it. The MPs' allowance is pegged at 17.5% of the Minister's salary. That is what the report says.

Mr Singh, would you like to answer that? No. Dr Janil Puthucheary.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to ask for the hon Member, Mr Pritam Singh's opinion whether he agrees that the Workers' Party recommends that an independent body look at the salaries of the political appointment holders, the Ministers and the MPs going forward; whether he imagines that this body would seek a wide range of opinion from Members of this House - from the PAP, the WP and any other members of parties that may be present in the future. And I would like to specifically ask whether he believes this has already happened. It appears that Mr Ee's Committee, as an independent body, has sought views of the PAP MPs, it has sought views of the WP MPs and has come up with a non-partisan recommendation. And if he does not agree that it has happened, could he explain why? If he does agree that this has happened, could he explain why the WP does not support the motion, Sir?

Mr Speaker, I beg your pardon. I did not catch the initial parts of Dr Janil's questions because I was checking on the comments made by Deputy Prime Minister Teo. From what I understand from the report -- and if I have made a mistake or error, I apologise to this House because I think it is only honourable for me to do so – but where I am coming from really related to the numbers and I felt that the numbers were high and those numbers are specific, quite similar to Administrative Service officer salary numbers. But it is very clear in the Report that it is at the MR4 level and I acknowledge the error that I made. Could I ask Dr Janil to repeat his questions, please?

Mr Speaker, I asked whether Mr Pritam Singh believes that the process of salary review that the WP has recommended by an independent non-partisan body has already occurred? WP has made a proposal that going forward, the salaries be reviewed by an independent body. I have imagined that this body would seek views from PAP MPs, opposition MPs and I am asking if he believes this has already occurred in the process of Mr Ee's Committee making the recommendations.

I would like to thank the hon Member. Just to clarify. I did not make any comments on this independent Review Committee's report. So I am not sure I can answer that question. Not because I do not want to but I did not refer to it in my speech. So, I do apologise to the Member but if I did not make any comments with regard to that particular aspect, I cannot answer that question.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I was not asking about the comment that Mr Pritam Singh made in his speech. I was referring to the WP's proposal which he based his speech upon for the salary reviews going forward, Sir. So, I would just like to ask the question – does Mr Pritam Singh believe or agree or accept that, today, here in this House, we are discussing a recommendation, a motion to support a recommendation that has been formulated by an independent, non-partisan Committee which has taken the views of PAP MPs as well as the opposition MPs as well as the wider public and put forth a non-partisan recommendation that it believes is in the best interests of Singapore? I am asking, Sir, if the hon Member agrees that that has happened. If he does not, I would like to ask why the WP opposes the motion?

Mr Singh, if you feel that it is not in your speech, you do not have to answer.

Mr Speaker, Dr Janil, I believe, is asking do I feel that the Committee was independent, non-partisan. I have no reason to believe otherwise. But I can only speak for myself. I am not speaking for the Workers' Party.

Let us move on. Mr Baey Yam Keng.

Mr Speaker, Sir, when I entered politics in 2006, I had to leave my public sector job of 10 years to join a local real estate company. I was fortunate that my subsequent two-and-a-half years there coincided with a period of property boom and, as with many other colleagues, I enjoyed about nine months' of bonus, stock options and accommodation perks as the company also owned a serviced apartment subsidiary. Three years ago, I made another career switch and joined an international public relations consultancy where I still am now. This company practises a 12-month salary package and, comparing apple to apple, the terms and conditions are much less attractive.

However, I know that I should not make comparisons as it is a different industry now. I made a switch because I wanted to try something different and, looking back, I am happy that I made a jump, as I am now convinced that communications is where my heart is. Joining this line has offered me many good opportunities to develop as a professional and as a person. It is also very relevant to my role as an MP.

If I have expected the PR company to match or better the annual package and all the perks I used to enjoy, I would not have taken up the offer and would have missed entering a new, exciting phase of my career. As the Chinese saying goes: 赛翁失马，焉知非福.What we may lose now could give us better returns in future. So, we should not miss the forest for the trees.

The job of a political appointee is fundamentally different. It is not a position we can apply to. First, there is no application form. You need to be first elected by the people. And we have seen how voters' choice can change a person's destiny overnight. Then, the Prime Minister appoints his Cabinet. And it does not mean that once you are a Minister, you are going to stay as a Minister forever. There are now several veteran former Ministers serving as MPs.

The Prime Minister said yesterday that he does not discuss the terms and conditions with his prospective Ministers. As we can see this time round after GE, our Ministers were already working hard in their jobs without knowing what they will be getting. And the cycle starts again every five years. I need to add that it is not easy to resign or quit for a Minister, if he or she finds a better opportunity or he or she does not like the work. It is like a five-year contract with no exit clause. In 1985, during a debate on Ministerial pay, Mr Lee Kuan Yew responded to Mr JB Jeyaretnam's proposal to cut Ministerial wages by at least a third, "And then we all become honourable men who have suddenly sacrificed ourselves for duty and public service."

Indeed, getting or agreeing to a lower pay does not make one more honourable. Likewise, being a Minister, whether past, present or future at a higher pay does not mean the Minister is less honourable. At this point in time, whether it is 53% for the Speaker, 37% for a junior Minister or 3% for MPs, this should not affect our commitment to serve the country, community and people of Singapore. It is a commitment that we all made when we went to the polls. Our constituents have voted us in and it is our duty to do our best to serve them.

The time that we all spend and the efforts we make in our public duty cannot be compensated by money. However, the experience and learning that we all gained working with the many volunteers and activists, interacting with residents and people from all walks of life, as well as the opportunity to make a difference for Singaporeans -- this is not something that money can buy.

Yes, the salary revisions will affect some people who are considering politics. Yes, we all cannot live on air, and we all have our families to support. However, people's aspirations change over time. There are people who give up successful careers to pursue different interests and passions in life. I believe and I hope that there will be enough good and talented Singaporeans who are not put off by material limitations. We need to have better faith in our fellow countrymen. Hence, I support that while we need to pay decent salaries, we need not be fixated on matching private sector pay. I fully applaud the discount taken off the benchmark.

Mr Speaker, Sir, usually in a company, only your boss and HR know your salary. Your superior does your appraisal and HR policies guide your salary adjustments. However, almost everyone will feel that he is underpaid and deserve an increment and a higher bonus. Likewise, most people will think that others are overpaid and should get a pay cut and a lower bonus. Now, everyone knows what the Ministers are getting and everyone is the HR director. Everyone has a right to his opinion and to provide input to this review.

At this point, I am surprised by Member Yee Jenn Jong's clarification yesterday that the Workers' Party (WP) had met Gerard Ee for two hours, but had chosen not to share with him and his Committee all the points that his party has made in this debate in the last three days. Instead they kept some suggestions to be raised only in Parliament. Even if all WP's suggestions to the Committee were not incorporated in the final report, they could still have raised them in Parliament. So either they have not thought through this matter thoroughly, or they have changed their position, or perhaps there are other political motivations, I wonder. In fact, I am also a bit confused by the position taken now. I thought I understood WP's points that they are taking a different approach and, hence, the principles about how the salaries should be benchmarked or calculated, although the quantums are the same. But I heard Mr Pritam Singh's point just now that he made the reference towards Administrative Service pay – not in principle but because the quantum was similar to what is proposed by the Review Committee – so I am getting confused.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there will never be a right formula. We can have an issue over the approach whether it is pegged to top 48th, 1,000th or 10,000th salaries, or should it be benchmarked against the lower percentile, or the civil service? I think we all agree that the public duty should have a discount, but is it a 40% or 80% discount? I think we all agree that it is arbitrary and very subjective.

Sir, I would like to make two suggestions. One, given that the benchmarks are based on the 1,000th salaries, there will be a one to two-year lag before data are available from IRAS. Hence, the situation may happen when top Singaporean earners enjoy healthy income increments in a buoyant economy, but when these salaries are used as the benchmark two years later, Singapore has gone into a recession. It then becomes politically not tenable to increase political salaries when people are being retrenched. We have seen it happened several times when increments based on the previous formula were deferred or forgone. I suggest that we fix the salary and have no adjustment for the full term of Parliament – that is, a fixed fee for a five-year contract. The National Bonus and Performance Bonus can stay.

I initially wanted to suggest an annual salary adjustment based on our Consumer Price Index. However, I know critics will jump to say that there is a conflict of interest as Ministers would then have no incentive to keep inflation down. So, therefore I know we cannot win on this, so let us keep it simple and stay with a flat basic monthly salary for five years.

My second suggestion. While I agree that we should have a "clean wage" without any hidden benefits and perks, I cannot help but agree with Member Denise Phua and disagree with Member Mr Pritam Singh that the medical benefits are really quite basic. I believe people can accept that our political leaders should have the best medical care either with increased coverage or even free of charge. We all cannot choose when or whether to fall ill or not, and it is in the interest of the country and Singaporeans that our Prime Minister, our Ministers are given the necessary medical treatment and recover well and fast to continue serving the nation.

I hope the Review Committee will consider my two suggestions when it does the review again in five years' time. On the review frequency of five years, I am not sure whether the Committee has the intention to coincide it with the General Elections (GE). I think it may be good to let the Committee decide political salaries after GE. Hence, no candidates would know what salaries to expect when they are running for a seat. So perhaps voters will then be able to assume that all the candidates are really altruistic.

Sir, the public has been very demanding and critical of politicians, especially since GE last year. While expectations and standards should not be compromised, we need not get too emotive. We need to be patient and understanding that it takes time for the right action to be taken, for issues to be resolved and things to improve. Hopefully, the salary revisions will appease people's feelings, whether it is 53% or 3%. Let us unite as a country and as a people to overcome the many other challenges facing Singapore. With that, Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Yee Jenn Jong, do you have a point to clarify?

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to clarify on the point that is made by Mr Baey Yam Keng. He asked why we withheld information. I would like to clarify a few things. Number one, I did not say that he met Mr Gerard Ee. Mr Giam met the Committee of Gerard Ee. And I would wish to clarify the error in the report in today's newspaper that my colleague, Gerald Giam, met with the Mercer consultants who were sent by Gerard Ee to seek input from MPs.

As to the clarifications to be made, number one, Workers' Party was never asked to be part of the Committee but, nevertheless, we have very obligingly met for more than two hours and we shared all the key points that are in our proposal. There were no changes in our position. We shared our benchmarking principles, we shared various KPIs and stuff like that that is needed to be inside. What I meant when we say some details were not given, of course, we also need time. We met the Committee quite early in the stage and we ourselves have to convene our own research to go and gather information from various countries to benchmark. Of course, we would not have reached, at that point in time when we met the Committee, all the details that we need to share. But I would like to say it publicly that there is no shift in the positions of the Workers' Party and we have not withheld important information from the Committee.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Member for clarifying that and I am surprised that the Workers' Party expected to be invited to give inputs to the Review Committee because it was a very public review and any member of the public was invited to send in their recommendations and suggestions to the Committee. But I can understand that perhaps the Workers' Party expected to be invited to give their points. And I did hear quite clearly yesterday Member Yee's point that not all information were shared so I now understand that he has now said that not all the details were not given, but all the principles and approaches were shared with the Committee. So I take it as what the Member has explained now.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Of course, we understand that all members of public were invited to give their inputs and which we did. What I said was we are not part of the Committee. We are not a member of the Committee. If we are a member of the Committee, we would have behaved differently. Of course, we would be part of the research, gathering the data, analysing together with the Committee. But having not being part of the Committee, we, nevertheless, gave other inputs that we felt it is needed. It is the framework that we have used in our final report. We needed time to gather some data before we arrive at certain final figures. Was there any other part that I have missed out?

No, I think that was all, Mr Yee. Mr Baey Yam Keng.

Thank you, Sir. I would just also like to reiterate that I think none of us in this House was a member of the Committee. And, in fact, I need to categorically say that the Review Committee did invite every Member of this House to contribute to the review. I think it was stated publicly by the Committee when it was first convened.

I am not sure what is the point that the hon Member is trying to get at. I would just like to state again that we have given whatever information that we had available at that time and, of course, we are rather disappointed that our benchmarking formula did not feature inside, and, of course, that is why we could not support the proposal.

Mr Yee, I think we have got the point. Dr Lim Wee Kiak.

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you very much for allowing me to clarify with the hon Mr Yee regarding whether he thinks that for this independent Committee, the members should come from different political parties – to sit together. In that case, where is the "independence"? Or should this independent committee be formed by non-politicians – by different segments of the entire society, eminent people to sit together and decide on the politicians' salaries? So, should the politicians' salaries be decided by the politicians or by non-politicians?

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to clarify that I am not saying that we must be invited. And I feel that what is more important is that the Parliament remains the platform for us to debate our proposal. We gave whatever we felt it is necessary to be given and we reserve the right to debate this in Parliament because that is the whole purpose of why we are here.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me this opportunity to share my thoughts on this issue. A lot has been said over the last few days in Parliament and a lot of views have been exchanged by the public who obviously take an interest in this topic. I would like to, perhaps, take a slightly different tack to share on the rhetoric and the reality of service.

I am a new Member of Parliament as many of my friends are on both sides of the House. And this debate is useful for us to take a few steps back to ask ourselves very fundamental questions. I will address three things today: why we serve, what price our service and the rhetoric and the reality of this service.

We serve because we all, in this House, believe that this place called Singapore is our home and it is worth fighting for. We may have different views, and as I have said it before, if we strip the politics, the rhetoric out of these few days' exchanges, there is a lot more in common than we care to admit. We should not try to speak as if we are the most committed, the most passionate, the most principled, etc. We all are in our ways.

Secondly, as the hon Mr Chen Show Mao states so eloquently, we serve because it is a privilege, and I agree. I would add that we serve because it is a calling. It is not a career. It is an honour that none of us takes lightly. I think all of us here believe in this. Importantly, we make sure that we do the real work on the ground. And we serve because we want to make a difference. For example, there is a prospect of economic downturn coming, not everything is within our control but we have been planning on how best to ride it, manage it and to look after Singaporeans.

Livelihoods are at stake. We do what we can, as we do on a whole range of issues. It is not just talk and debate.

Things are not perfect by far, but we continue to try and do as best we can.

On balance, Singapore is in pretty good shape considering the difficulties in the last decade or so.

Our work continues.

Who do we serve? We serve our people, our country, for today and for tomorrow. As the hon. Mr Yee Jenn Jong states, Singapore is not a company, nor a business. It cannot be run as such. All of us agree. It is far more than that. But should we not be prudent? Should we not put in place systems and processes to keep things going well? Should we look at numbers? Should we look at details? Should we make those difficult decisions that are sometimes necessary but painful for some?

We face these decisions everyday in our households, do we not? At our work place? These are the realities of life. There is no point pretending otherwise and it is no less for a country. Does addressing these things make Singapore a company which is inferred when you made that statement? We address these because we are responsible and we care for the well-being of our people and our nation.

Let me share with you this card I received on Monday at my Meet-the-People Session from one of my residents. She is a single mother with an abusive ex-husband, with school-going children and was finding it difficult to secure a rental flat.

It is addressed to Member of Parliament, Mr Tan, not Minister.

谢谢你给我的帮助, 孩子们已经搬进新家了。心里对您的感激永远不会忘记。您帮助了我重新开始人生的第一步 ，也是最困难的第的一步。我会好好珍惜和努力往前走。 在这里还是要多一次说谢谢您。 祝您新年快乐、万事如意。

In English: Thank you for your help. The children have moved into their new home. In our hearts, we will never forget your help. You have helped me to take the first, which is also the most difficult, step to begin our lives afresh. I will treasure this and will continue to work hard to move forward. Thank you once again and Happy Lunar New Year.

This is not unique – I think all of us from both sides of the House receive such cards, acknowledgements from time to time.

We are all Members of Parliament, elected by the people.

Can we price our responsibilities? Impossible. This effort is not about pricing the office. But we all know that once we move beyond the proclamations of service, we need to work the mechanics of this. It is something we need to do, whatever the formula.

As we have seen, Worker's Party accepts that we need to do that as well. Honestly, I think these principles are not dissimilar and are in the same ballpark. The numbers do not necessarily differ greatly, depending on what the performance is and so forth, and I do not intend to go into details on this.

So is the Opposition also pricing our service as well in this effort? Of course not!

Are the models very different? Let us look at this.

A very emphatic statement was made about us being MPs first. Indeed, we are. But I was curious when hon Member Pritam Singh made these grand statements of a political nature -- that for us, we are Ministers first, before MPs. There is no such thing. He added that only the top tier can become Ministers. I would suggest that it is rather untruthful. We are MPs first unlike certain MPs who have stated that it is not their responsibility to look after the low-income group, that it is the Government's responsibility.

That is why all of us as Members of Parliament, even as office holders, make sure we look after our residents as best as we can. We push the Government to do more, and complement the national efforts when we are able to. We do not wish away our responsibilities. We walk the talk as best as we can.

The Worker's Party suggests that an MP's pay be based on MX9 because it is an extension of public service. But then again, MX9 is also based on market considerations. This is part of the entire pay structure of the civil service -- from MX9 to beyond the Administrative Service pay. We look at the private sector pay and adjust it accordingly. MX9 is the entry level to the Superscale level. So, I suppose we add in some multiples to make up a credible political number.

So, on one hand – you have multiples of a top civil servant's pay at MX9. On the other hand, as proposed by Mr Gerard Ee's committee – a so-called discount factor on the top 1,000.

Mr Chen states that political service is not a discount factor. I agree. It is not. I have talked about why we serve.

So in the same spirit, would it be correct to say that in WP's reckoning, that Political Service is a "mark-up factor"?

I do not think so. That would be a cheap political shot. Because that is not what you mean.

My main puzzle is a logical one: the Workers' Party formula must come from some foundational perspectives – either it chooses the market-peg that we have worked on, or it puts forward another basis altogether. Pegging it to the public sector sounds good at first glance, but it does not count because the public sector too derives from that market-peg. So statements like "Cabinet is not an extension of the Private Sector" again sounds very good and we agree. But does it not then follow that under the Workers' Party formulation, "the public sector is an extension of the private"? Surely not, as well.

Pays are linked across sectors not because their missions are similar but because the empirical reality is that the same pool of people can flow to either side. There is no point pretending otherwise.

So I suggest that we are, in many ways, on the same song sheet. Which leads me to the last point.

As I said earlier, I totally agree political service is a privilege.

But you know it's not a credit card sort of privilege, and membership in Parliament does come with some privileges. I do not primarily think of it that way nor many of my fellow Members. For me, it is a calling to serve. It is a hard-won honour, but more importantly, it is a responsibility. Our responsibility as leaders is to apply our hearts and also our minds to best serve our people. There are practical issues we need to manage -- the budget, sustainability, and trade-offs. They may not be emotive or gut stirring, but that is what responsible leadership is about.

Responsibility is not about flowery rhetoric but about translating this belief into reality on a daily basis, to make things better for our people.

Establishing a fair, transparent and pragmatic pay structure is part of that responsibility. Why do we pretend and paint it in negative political tones when in reality, you are doing very much the same with your approach?

What I found most troubling was that a committee was set up in good faith to seriously review the political salaries. Yet it now appears that the Opposition has chosen not to share with the Committee the ideas that they are so passionately championing. I understand that Mr Yee has explained. But two days ago, Mr Gerald Giam would not give a clear answer. But I thought Mr Yee's response yesterday was illuminating. In essence, the thrust of what he said was -- there is no need to share that much with the Committee because they would rather table it in Parliament. But the fact of the matter is that the Review Committee was set up to review the structure and the robust debate that we have today can still continue.

So, what does this suggest? I think if we are sincere in trying to make things better, we should help the Committee do the best job possible rather than focus on gamesmanship in Parliament.

Is this the First World Parliament that they are talking about? I see many First World Parliaments out there floundering. They consume their future and are embroiled in rhetoric and politics that keep them from helping their countries get out of their respective ruts.

But I trust that that is not the First World Parliament that you are talking about. And I think all of us want a model that works for us – regardless of what you want to call it.

There is this matter of sacrifice that I would like to address. It was shared that political service is not about sacrifice.

We do not all wrap ourselves in a flag and proclaim our patriotism. I believe all of us on both sides of the House serve for the right reason. We all take different routes. The hon Mr Chen, for example, left Singapore for many years. He became exceedingly successful and then returned to serve our people. Some of us have stayed on and served our nation in various capacities. For some of us, it is our entire lives. And in our own simple way, we are proud to have served and to continue serving.

I admire those who proudly proclaim that there is no sacrifice in stepping forward to political service. It took me a long time to decide even though I had been serving in our Army. Political service is public service but somewhat different. Does this make me a less committed Singaporean?

I am pained by the knowledge that I will miss the many moments when my children are growing up and time with my family. My parents are not getting any younger. Those moments missed do not return. Ever. In time, I will look back, and there will be gaps. But that is life.