Hansard, 2012-05-14

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:

The following Bills were assented to by the President of the Republic of Singapore on the date stated:

16 April 2012

The President has on 2 May 2012 concurred with the following resolution on Government Securities, passed by Parliament on 9 April 2012:

"That this Parliament, in accordance with Article 144(1)(a) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore and section 11(1) of the Government Securities Act (Chapter 121A of the 2002 Revised Edition), resolves that the Minister for Finance be authorised to borrow, by the issue of Government Securities in Singapore under the Act, a further sum not exceeding One Hundred and Seventy Thousand Million Singapore Dollars (S$170,000,000,000), thereby in total a sum not exceeding Four Hundred and Ninety Thousand Million Singapore Dollars (S$490,000,000,000)."

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move a motion to extend today's Question Time?

I give my consent. Does the Leader of the House have the general assent of hon Members present to so move?

Hon Members indicated assent.

With the consent of Mr Speaker, and the general assent of Members present,

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved, "That notwithstanding Standing Order No 22(1), Questions for Oral Answer set down on the Order Paper for today may be taken till 5.00 pm at this day's sitting."

1 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) if the Ministry is considering taking more measures, other than appreciating the Singapore dollar, to reduce the CPI-All Items inflation rate for the rest of the year; and (b) how does the inflation rate for the past 15 months impact the long-term goal of growing real wages by 30% over the next decade.

2 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Trade and Industry, given the increase in the Consumer Price Index, whether there are any plans by the Government to contain the increasing cost of living in Singapore.

3 Ms Mary Liew asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what is being done to control the current inflation rate; (b) what is the Ministry's assessment of the inflation rate for the rest of 2012; and (c) what measures will be put in place to assist affected Singaporeans mitigate the higher cost of living.

Sir, can I have your permission to take Question Nos 1 to 3 together, please?

Yes, please.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore's CPI inflation was 5.2% in March and 4.9% for the first quarter of this year. In the next few months, CPI inflation is expected to remain at around 5%. Barring external shocks, we expect this to ease gradually in the second half of the year to bring full year CPI inflation to between 3.5% and 4.5%. The two largest contributors to CPI inflation are expected to be imputed rentals on owner-occupied accommodation and car prices. Together, they will account for more than half of the inflation this year. As the majority of resident households in Singapore own their homes, they do not actually incur rental expenditure. Likewise, the majority of resident households will not be directly affected by the rise in COE premiums as new car buyers make up a small proportion of all resident households.

Nonetheless, the Government remains committed to keeping inflation in check. Last month, MAS tightened the monetary policy stance further through an appreciation of the Singapore dollar. This keeps imported inflation in check and also moderates the external demand for our exports, thereby reducing demand-led pressures on inflation.

While the appreciation of the exchange rate is a key measure used to curb inflation on the demand side, it is not the only measure that the Government has implemented to dampen inflationary pressures. The approach we have adopted is a multi-pronged one, which also includes measures to ameliorate domestic supply-side constraints.

For example, the Government has implemented fiscal and macro-prudential measures to cool the property market. Where we can increase supply and moderate supply constraints to relieve cost pressures in the housing, industrial and other property segments, we have also done so directly. Another supply side measure is the Government's effort to work with unions and companies to raise productivity. These include incentives to encourage companies to invest in automation, innovation and capability development, as well as to support the training and upgrading of workers. By enhancing productivity, firms will be able to afford higher wages and cope with the higher business costs, without having to pass on the increased costs to customers. In addition, the Government is also looking at ways to ease the Certificate of Entitlement (COE) supply, to address the concerns of high COE prices.

Although households without cars and staying in their own accommodation may experience a lower rate of inflation than what the headline CPI inflation suggests, the Government recognises that the rate of inflation is still higher than what was experienced historically. The slightly positive note this time is that unlike the situation in 2008, where food prices rose by nearly 8% due to weather events and a global supply shortage, recent food price inflation has been lower. For example, prices of white rice have been fairly stable at around $700 per metric tonne this year, compared to the peak of $1,300 per metric tonne reached in 2008. In 2011, food prices rose by 3.1%. In February and March this year, food price inflation remained at below 3%.

Nonetheless, the Government is committed to help cushion the impact of rising cost of living on households. The Government provides cash grants, such as the U-Save rebates which help HDB households to directly offset their utilities bills. Although these grants do not reduce headline CPI inflation, they help to offset the higher cost of living experienced by Singaporeans.

Further, the Retail Price Watch Group (RPWG) keeps a close watch on excessive price increases of daily necessities. The RPWG also includes the Competition Commission of Singapore (CCS) and CASE to deal with businesses that engage in anti-competitive practices and unfair trading practices. The RPWG has worked with supermarkets, wholesalers, hawkers and food courts to promote the availability of cheaper alternatives and educate consumers on how to shop smartly. For example, the RPWG's supermarket members – NTUC FairPrice, Giant and Sheng Siong – held constant the prices of their house-brand products for at least six months last year to help consumers cope with the rising costs of living.

Mr Ang Wei Neng asked about the impact of inflation on Singapore's real wage growth over the next decade. This will be addressed by the Ministry of Manpower in its response to a similar question raised by Mr Yee Jenn Jong in Question No 8.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for the thoughtful and comprehensive reply. I have a couple of supplementary questions. As reported in The Straits Times in April, there were three years since the 1980s whereby inflation exceeded 4%: in 1980, 1981 and 2008. High inflation in these years was mainly driven by imported inflation as oil and food prices increased rapidly. What proportion of the March 5.2% inflation rate was due to imported inflation? Would MTI consider publishing the proportion of the inflation rate that is due to imported inflation on a regular basis? Sir, the second part of my question is related to the real wage increase which I would probably ask the Minister for Manpower later.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I mentioned in my reply, the main components of inflation this time round are imputed rentals caused by property prices and the prices in rent, as well as the COE prices. Food prices average about 3%. So, if we looked at the overall situation, this time round, it is different. It is a result of global liquidity: because of the problems in the developed countries, there is a lot of very loose monetary policy in the developed countries, resulting in global liquidity and in asset prices, particular in our case, property prices going up. This translated into rents. We also have the COE which is an internal policy. In response to the growing congestion on our roads, we have curtailed the number of COEs, but this is something that the Ministry of Transport is looking at. So, overall, the situation is different from previous years. There is some element of oil prices impacting us and, of course, food prices have some impact but it is relatively lower at 3%.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank the Minister for his very comprehensive response, and also the measures that have been put up to assure our workers. I would like to ask whether there would be any specific initiative to help our lower income groups in the event where high inflation continues to persist. Would there be a one-off measure as well to help the lower income groups? Also, how can the Government prevent any disrupt in price stability?

What was put into the Budget package this year was done in consideration of the inflation situation we expected. We had expected inflation to remain stubborn this year and to tail off gradually towards the second half of the year. This was one of the key considerations in our Budget package which had a very generous and inclusive package for the low-wage households.

Mr Speaker, the feedback given by my residents is that generally food prices have gone up. This is not just at the hawker centres but also from food purchased at the supermarkets. What they spend weekly at the supermarket has gone up quite drastically. Likewise, residents are also complaining that utility bills have gone up. Can I ask the Minister if there would be any plan to review the way utilities are charged for every consumer, in terms of how water and electricity usage is billed? Are there any other measures that the Ministry can implement to monitor the price of food? Would the Minister also consider monitoring rentals for shops and industrial properties, because this is how some of the inflation gets passed back to consumers?

I thank the Member for the questions. Basically, we look at the inflation situation as a whole and we also look at the components. For the utilities, our policy position, so far, has been the correct one. We ought to price utilities the way it costs us and not subsidise them directly. But we provide utility rebates to our households. This year, the Ministry of Finance has been rather generous. The utility rebates amount to more than $240 for the lower wage households. From our house visits, we know that $240 is a very significant assistance to our residents.

On food: there is a wide range of food items. Overall, 3% is higher than what we normally experience, but, again, we have had a more challenging situation in 2008. And we managed to overcome that situation. Today, the situation is not as bad as 2008. On rentals of properties, whether they are commercial, industrial or residential, our approach is more to deal with it directly through addressing the supply constraints and making sure there is enough supply in the property market, whether commercial, industrial or residential. As Members have noticed, for commercial properties, the rentals have come down. We are similarly hopeful that this will also happen in the residential market. For the industrial property market, we have taken several steps, as I had mentioned in previous sittings, to make sure that the investment funds that are going into industrial properties do not cause a bubble to be built up in the industrial property segment.

Mr Liang Eng Hwa, last question.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask the Minister whether we are increasingly seeing a trend of a higher propensity to consume and lower propensity to save, as a result of the persistently ultra-low interest rate, which disincentivises savings and encourages more spending due to the low cost of borrowing money. And I would like to ask if this is the key contributing factor that we are seeing higher domestic inflation. Can we really manage this domestic demand without having the interest rate as a policy tool?

Sir, I thank the Member for his very interesting question. I have to take a look at the numbers again, but my impression is that our savings rate has not come down. So, I assume, our consumption rate has not gone up significantly either, but it is worthwhile taking a deeper look into those numbers.

4 Mr Laurence Lien asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what is the Department of Statistics' (DOS) latest estimate of the Minimum Household Expenditure (MHE) for a four-person household; (b) how many working-age households have employment income below the MHE currently; and (c) whether DOS can publish annually the median total and per capita household income of working-age households, by percentiles.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minimum Household Expenditure, which was renamed the Average Household Expenditure on Basic Needs in 2006, is a measure of household expenditure on essential needs such as food, clothing and shelter.

The Average Household Expenditure on Basic Needs varies for households of different sizes. For a four-person household, it is estimated to be $1,250 in 2011. For households with fewer than four persons, it will correspondingly be lower. In 2011, around 4,830 four-person resident households with at least one working person, or what we called "employed resident households", had income from work, including employer CPF contributions, that fell below this level. So, 4,830 four-person households had income below $1,250. This represented less than 2% of all four-person resident employed households. Some of these households would have received cash grants or other forms of social welfare assistance from the Government, which would not have been included in the computation of household income from work. In addition, there are targeted assistance schemes, such as rental rebates as well as medical and education subsidies, in place to help such households.

The Member also requested for annual data on household income. The Department of Statistics (DOS) publishes an annual report on "Key Household Characteristics and Household Income Trends" which contains commonly used indicators on household income. These include the median total and per capita household income from work, as well as the average total and per capita income from work of households in different deciles. The public can access this report from the DOS's website.

5 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Manpower what can be done to ensure that workers share in the profits resulting from productivity improvements enjoyed by their employers, particularly in respect of the lifting of income levels of workers earning less than $1,500 per month.

6 Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Manpower (a) whether his Ministry will consider implementing the "shock therapy" proposed by Professor Lim Chong Yah to revamp the wages of low-income Singaporeans; and (b) if so, what is the impact on the economy, productivity and on businesses especially the SMEs.

7 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Government is tailoring specific solutions for wage growth in industry sectors where wage increases lag productivity gains and, if so, how will this be undertaken; and (b) whether the Government is going to encourage wage growth to a living wage for Singaporeans in persistently low-wage occupations and, if so, how will this be achieved.

8 Mr Yee Jenn Jong asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Manpower in view of the recent inflation figures (a) whether the Government will adjust its target of a 30% rise in median wages in real terms over the next 10 years from 2010; (b) what will be the forecast for inflation rate over the 10-year period and the resulting target median wage in nominal terms; and (c) whether the Government will set a target for the amount of wage increase in real terms that will be achieved for the lowest 20% of income earners over a similar 10-year period.

(for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Manpower): Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may take the next four questions together?

Yes, please.

In my constituency, I meet a number of my residents regularly. A number of them fall under the low-income category. Some have wide-ranging and varied needs. Some are clearly struggling to make ends meet. Others manage. We step in to help in a wide range of ways. We tap on national schemes and, more importantly, we also find local solutions.

As a Member of Parliament on the ground, I can see the impact, as many of you would, of the Government's effort in trying to uplift our low-wage workers and their families. Being in the Ministry, I am able to also see the efforts put in behind the scenes, particularly over the last five years. The creation of jobs and good jobs is probably the best thing, and the most important thing that the Government can do for the low-income families. It allows everyone to stand on their own two feet. They can take pride in providing for themselves and for their families. In this regard, we have introduced many initiatives to help businesses create better jobs with better wages, to subsidise workers' training so that we can upgrade them, provide them with better opportunities, and to supplement their wages with Workfare. Many of us have seen a number of our residents benefiting from these schemes and opportunities.

However, helping lower income workers and their families is not confined to jobs alone. We have enhanced our housing grants and subsidies to help lower income families own their own homes and this has enabled many of our residents to either own their own flats or to be able to rent at below-market rate rentals.

We have also expanded education subsidies and programmes to give their children a leg up in education. We have improved access to affordable healthcare, including long-term care for the aged. In this year's Budget, we further introduced many major and significant initiatives to take us forward in building an inclusive Singapore. On the ground, all of us here can see how these various efforts can, in very real ways, impact on the lives of those who fall under the lower income bracket.

As we can see, helping low-wage workers to achieve better incomes must be a key part of our strategy, but it is not the only way we are helping them and it is important to make this clear upfront. It is about having a comprehensive and active strategy to help low-income families improve their overall quality of life and share in Singapore's continued progress. It is about adopting a comprehensive and active strategy and not just simply focusing on jobs alone.

The focus of many of our Members' questions is on raising wages for our low-wage workers. As explained, this is only one part of a broader equation. The issue of wages has been widely discussed over the past few weeks, including some very spirited debate on whether Prof Lim Chong Yah's "shock therapy" proposal is the best way to sustainably raise their incomes. This was a very useful trigger to generate thoughts and many have weighed in, both from within Parliament and from society at large, with their views on the matter. It is very heartening to see the level of passion involved. Clearly, many of us feel very deeply about this issue.

While there are varying views about the solution, all of us agree that more can and should be done to raise the wages of low-income Singaporeans. The key question therefore is how do we then achieve this in a sustainable fashion, so that our lower income workers keep good jobs and can remain better off for the long term.

Let me briefly talk about what actually happened to wages at the lower end of the income ladder in the past few years. We have said this several times now but it is worth repeating and important to review this again. I have circulated a handout which captures some of the key data [Please refer to Annex on Pg 227]. Wages picked up significantly over the past five years for most lower wage workers. Adjusting for inflation, the real incomes of Singaporean workers at the 20th percentile grew by 11.5%, or 2.2% per annum, from 2006 to 2011. This contrasts against the decline of real incomes in the first half of the last decade, 2001-2006, where we experienced two significant recessions and lower wage workers were hit particularly hard. In those years, the income levels actually decreased. However, taking the decade as a whole, real incomes were roughly flat.

Next, let us look at the income growth from the household perspective. Here, the picture is more positive. If we look at Singaporean households at the 20th percentile, household income per member grew by 13.6% in real terms in the last five years. Last year, those in the bottom 20%, in fact, saw the highest percentage growth in income per member. The average of the first decile, in other words the average of the bottom 10%, saw income growth of 6.8% after adjusting for inflation. And the second decile saw real income growth of 5.2%. This is higher than what households in the upper deciles experienced.

As a result of the stronger growth in the last five years, our low-income households also saw growth in their real incomes over the decade as a whole. At the 20th percentile, incomes per household member grew by 11.7% in real terms from 2001 to 2011. Let me just repeat, at the 20th percentile, incomes per household member grew by 11.7% in real terms from 2001 to 2011.

This improvement at the household level reflects not just the rise in individual wages, especially in the last five years, but it reflects the fact that more members of the household have found employment in the economy as it has created more jobs with the good economic growth in those years. It is also worth recognising that this significant growth in incomes in the last five years occurred despite the rise in the proportion of foreign workers in the workforce.

I should highlight that this is a picture that stands in stark contrast against what we see in many other countries. In fact, you just have to turn to the papers today to read about the riots and challenges that are facing many countries in Europe today. The global financial crisis, coming on top of the powerful structural forces of globalisation and technological change that we all face, has led to Europe and the US being mired in high unemployment, low job creation and dismal or negative real income growth for both lower income families and especially those in the middle as well.

The reality therefore is that we have not done too badly in the last five years. And this is especially so when we consider the very significant and comprehensive support that we are providing to lower income families such as through Workfare, housing subsidies and better support for children and the elderly from low-income households. So, the figures cited do not include these transfers and assistance.

However, there is another part of labour market realities that concerns us. While the broad group of lower income workers has seen better real incomes, some Singaporeans in specific low-wage occupations have not experienced this improvement in incomes. For example, office cleaners, who are amongst the lowest paid in the workforce, have seen weak improvement in nominal wages over the last decade, and therefore we have seen a decline of about 2.7% in their real wages over the last decade.

Ms Denise Phua asked whether we would consider implementing "shock therapy" to revamp wages of low-income Singaporeans.

I share Denise's and many Singaporeans' dismay when we look at the state of some of these sectors. In October last year, during the Parliamentary debates on the President's Speech, I had said that I was not happy with the wages of our cleaners. Let me be quite clear about where we stand. While the broader group of low-wage workers have seen improvement in the last five years, the current levels of pay of our cleaners and some of our other lowest wage occupations is unsatisfactory. We have to find the best ways to improve the incomes of all lower wage workers, in particular for those groups which have seen very little or no improvement.

What are the strategies to increasing and raising wages? Well, to do this sustainably, we must continue to do three things right. First, we have seen that the incomes of low-wage workers are actually very badly affected when economy falls into recession or when the economy does not do well. So, we have to ensure that we recover quickly whenever the economy takes a dip and to make sure that we are able to sustain good, decent economic growth over time. That is the only way in that we can ensure that we can keep unemployment low, keep our labour market tight and therefore create pressures to help grow incomes and wages.

Second, we must invest in and continuously improve the productivity, innovation and skills of our companies and workers. Without significant productivity improvements in the next decade, we will not be able to improve incomes significantly and in particularly on a sustained basis, for Singaporeans.

And, third, we must pay attention to ensuring that our lower wage workers, especially in those sectors mentioned earlier, benefit from the growth that we enjoy. And I will talk about this in more detail later. In essence, all three strategies must go hand-in-hand if we are to succeed in achieving inclusive growth.

Ms Foo Mee Har and others, including union leaders, and many members of the public have asked if higher productivity will indeed lead to higher wages. This is an important and valid question.

Over the long term, real wages of our workers have risen broadly in line with productivity improvements. Since 2000, our productivity grew at about 1.7% per annum, while real total wages grew at a comparable rate of about 1.6% per annum. While real wage growth may not match productivity growth in each and every year, the two tend to be consistent over the long term.

However, our approach is not merely to leave things to the market, or to chance. We are dedicating extra effort and resources to ensure that our lower income groups benefit from the economic restructuring and future growth. Indeed, our lower and middle income Singaporeans must be the main beneficiaries as we restructure our economy over the next decade.

Now, let me go into the specific on how our specific strategies can help lower wage workers. First, we are helping lower wage workers to stay in their jobs by helping them upgrade their skills, helping employers to pay them higher wages. We do this through the Workfare Income Supplement Scheme (WIS), Workfare Training Support (WTS) and the Special Employment Credit (SEC). In 2011 alone, for example, WTS helped 50,000 lower wage workers undergo training, and enhance their skills and their employability.

Importantly, we now provide a Special Employment Credit to employers of older workers. This is significant as a large proportion of our lower wage workers are in fact older workers. Since SEC increases along with wages, it helps employers raise wages and reward their workers in turn.

Our second strategy is focused on specific occupations and industries. A key way to do this is through the Inclusive Growth Programme (IGP) which is led by NTUC. This addresses Ms Sylvia Lim's question about whether we have specific solutions tailored for industries where wages have lagged. Indeed, this is the approach taken. The IGP will be focusing especially on sectors where wages have lagged, such as the cleaning, the F&B and the retail sectors. In return for the IGP's support, companies are required to share productivity gains with their lower wage workers. We have recently increased Government funding to expand this IGP programme to benefit a total of 100,000 lower wage workers by 2015.

A further aspect of our targeted approach is to tackle this issue of cheap sourcing. The cleaning and security sectors are good examples where we face this problem. We will be taking steps to support best sourcing for cleaning and security services, and also to tighten industry regulations and accreditation frameworks to raise standards and enable workers in these sectors to enjoy better employment terms. This will include a requirement for cleaners employed in accredited companies to receive appropriate wages commensurate with the higher training, standards and productivity required of accredited companies. The details are being finalised and we will announce this shortly.

To summarise, we are addressing the problem of low wages through a multi-pronged approach. First, broad-based approaches to improve productivity, skills and incomes; and second, targeted approaches that address issues specific to certain sectors. Not just economy-wide incentives, but industry by industry, company by company, working on a tripartite basis to put in place very practical and concrete plans to restructure companies' operations, upgrade jobs and tie in wage gains with productivity improvements. Both are intensive efforts, and are already in motion. There are practical and sustainable ways in which we can uplift incomes for low-wage workers.

Is the productivity target of 2%-3% per annum achievable? We have set ourselves a target of achieving this growth per annum over the decade. If we achieve something nearer the upper end of the range, let us say, at about 2.7%, we will be able to increase productivity by 30% over this decade. That, too, is how we hope to raise median wages by 30% in real terms over the decade.

It is a stretch target. Most developed countries enjoy productivity growth of about 1%-2%. But these are matured economies, and at the steady state, they enjoy 1%-2% of productivity growth a year. However, the good news is, in a sense, most of our industries are operating well below the levels of productivity seen in many of these developed countries. Our productivity growth was also relatively slow in the last decade. So, unlike a matured economy, we have the space to move up. This is something that we must and we should do.

Mr Yee Jenn Jong asked about the inflation forecast for the next 10 years, and whether it means that the 30% rise in real median wages will not be achievable. The Monetary Authority of Singapore, like other central banks, does not have a 10-year inflation forecast as over a long period, the combined impact of structural and cyclical changes in economy on inflation is very uncertain. Global price trends are also very difficult to predict far in advance. Nevertheless, we do not expect our current high levels of inflation to persist in the years to come. As the Minister for Trade and Industry just mentioned, the Government will also be doing what it can to manage and to bring inflation down.

Ms Denise Phua asked about the impact of a "shock therapy" on productivity and our businesses, especially the SMEs. Let me share what we learnt from our last experience of sudden and large increases in wages in the 1980s. The NWC's wage correction policy from 1979-1981 came after a period when wages had in fact been held down. However, wages ended up rising much faster than productivity, and hence Singapore's unit labour cost (ULC) rose by almost 40% from 1980-1985. This was a sharp increase compared to that of our competitors during the same period, which were mainly the other Asian NIEs. Not all of this was due to the initial three-year wage restructuring, as wages continued to rise quickly after 1981. However, when wages are pushed up artificially and pushed up much faster than productivity is able to improve, there is a continuing dynamic of wages and prices feeding into each other, together with expectations and demands. And it forces wages to continue to go up and moving up, and this moving up of wages is difficult to avoid – and that was what essentially happened.

In the first half of the 1980s, the loss of competitiveness because of this increase in wages did not have a significant impact on our exports because external demand was booming. But the moment external demand began to decline and the demand eased, the effects of a loss of competitiveness was very severe. Tens of thousands of local jobs were lost. And it is not just tens of thousands of local jobs, tens of thousands of workers, but tens of thousands of families were affected as well. The impact is not trivial.

To regain competitiveness and to create jobs as a response to the situation in 1985, in 1986 the NWC recommended a wage standstill for three years. We also had to cut employer's CPF contribution rates very sharply from 25% to 10%.

Equally important was the NWC's emphasis on the need to focus on productivity improvements as the basis for sustainable wage increases. Over the last two-and-a-half decades, this focus has served us well. Wages overall have increased and grown substantially, along with productivity.

What it comes down to essentially is this: we have to avoid extremes of one form or another. One end of the spectrum of policy options is to mandate large rises in wages and hope that productivity gains will follow. In fact, this would be seemingly the easy option. At the other end, we could take a completely market approach, we could simply wait for market forces do the work of raising wages in a tight labour market with minimal Government intervention or tripartite efforts.

The approach we are taking is essentially a balanced one which involves deliberate intervention to support restructuring, to raise skills and to ensure that our lower wage workers get a fair share of productivity gains. It is an active strategy and we are not leaving things to the market – but neither should we engage, we feel, in experiments which would put our workers and businesses at risk.

In particular, we have to bear in mind that our SMEs are the major employers of our low-wage workers, and will be at real risk if we force their wages up suddenly. Many of them have indeed expressed their grave concerns over such a move. This is also why we have been increasing our foreign worker levies gradually, in small steps each year, so that the companies, the businesses, the SMEs, are able to manage and adjust. We are also actively supporting our SMEs to restructure and improve productivity and, in turn, this would have an impact on the workers themselves.

To conclude, let me return to where we started – which is about our people. We have provided reasonably well for the majority of Singaporeans and have avoided the situations that plague many other developed countries today. But we know that there are certain segments of our low-wage Singaporeans that have not enjoyed that same improvement. We are addressing this resolutely and will leave no stone unturned to help them move up the income ladder. We are also taking a holistic approach that goes beyond the labour market. We help them own their own homes by providing heavy subsidies. We have taken various measures to improve their retirement adequacy, through WIS payouts and CPF top-ups. We are doing more for their children and providing more medical and long-term care subsidies to lower income families to ensure that they will always have access to good healthcare. Many of these have been taken further in the recent Budgets.

We will continue to work with our tripartite partners and press on with our efforts to improve productivity and restructure our economy. While the Government will do its part, we will also work with business-owners, and unions and workers to ensure that we make real progress, so that all Singaporeans, especially our lower wage workers, can look forward to better jobs and higher incomes.

Sir, I want to thank the Minister of State for the good response. I, too, do not agree with Professor Lim Chong Yah's idea of the "shock therapy", without concern whatsoever of the cost impact on especially the smaller enterprises. I also believe that the Workfare that the Minister of State has spoken about is superior to Minimum Wage. The cost of Workfare is borne by the Government with the intent of sharing the fruits of economy. But I do believe that every worker should be paid a fair day's wage. I still meet cleaners €”

Ms Phua, can you ask the question, please?

I still meet cleaners who are being paid an amount of $700 a month for a full day's physically demanding work. And I think that needs to be corrected. So, I would like to ask the Minister of State if the Ministry would consider adopting the corporate practice of job evaluation to study the nature, the profile and the size of jobs like cleaners' jobs, so that a right pay level can be determined. That benchmark can then be woven into the Workfare formula and into the industry's pay practices. That is my first question. My second question is: I am very heartened to also note that BCA has taken specific measures to help construction firms, the smaller ones, to increase their productivity. I would like to ask the Minister of State if the same is being done, specifically for other industries, like the F&B and the cleaning industries, especially for the smaller players.

I would like to thank Ms Denise Phua for her statement and her questions. I would completely agree with her that the wage level at which some of our lower wage workers are operating at is quite unacceptable. I meet them myself, a number of my residents who are cleaners, some in other sectors as well. I agree that every individual worker should be paid a fair day's wage. So, this is precisely why for sectors especially cleaning, a sector in which many of our low-wage and older workers are found because of their skill levels, educational levels, and so on.

We are taking a very specific approach to improve their conditions. So, as highlighted in my speech earlier, we are working on the schemes to make sure that the accreditation takes place and this will be tied to the wage levels at which they are paid. This is something that we intend to do and we also intend to build on it, in terms of not just cheap sourcing, but best sourcing, how different companies are able to do that. The Government will take a lead in that as well.

In terms of Workfare, it is something that we will review in detail next year. We believe that Workfare remains an effective way to incentivise work but at the same time look after our low-wage workers by supplementing their level of income. We have received much feedback over time. Some of the suggestions like those that Ms Denise Phua had raised are things that we can take on board, but we will carry out a comprehensive review of Workfare next year.

With regard to the incentives provided, for example as announced by BCA, we are constantly working with various industries to see how to help them. There is a wide range of funds available to help companies restructure to improve the productivity. The IGP, as I have highlighted earlier, is one specific programme where we work with specific sectors and with companies to improve the situation. We have seen the impact of that, not only in terms of how they have changed the way they do business, but how that has flowed down to improving the wages of their workers as well. So, that is something that we will continue to do.

Sir, three supplementary questions for the Minister of State. First, the Minister of State mentioned in his answer that in general, at a macro level, we see productivity gains, sort of roughly moving in line with wage increases. Does he accept – which I seem to gather from his speech – that at the sectoral level, actually, the links are weaker in that sense. And in particular, there was a report put out by MTI in 2011, a feature article which mentioned certain sectors where there had been productivity gains, for example in electronics, but the wage gains were not apparently moving in tandem. So, does he accept that actually at the sectoral level, we do have some issues there, where productivity gains have not brought back wage improvements for the people in the sectors?

Earlier, he mentioned that the Government was looking at some mechanism by which employers who enjoy productivity gains will be forced to share the gains with the workers. So, I wonder if he could elaborate on what kind of formula or mechanism the Government is looking at to ensure that this is done, and done in a fair manner with the workers.

Secondly, the Minister of State did not touch on the part of my question on living wage. I would like to ask the Minister of State whether the Government has this concept of living wage in its calculations and this links to WIS, for example. And thirdly, the Minister of State mentioned the security industry, and I note that in the May Day speech by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Manpower, he did mention that the Government will take a lead in the way it appoints security companies, for example, by appointing only well-graded security companies. From what I know from the grading system in place under the MOM criteria, annual wage increments, for example, are only an optional submission item in the grading. So, I would like to ask whether the Government is actually going to review that.

I would like to thank Ms Sylvia Lim for her questions. Firstly, the question of productivity moving in sync with wages. At the macro level, indeed, we have found that the level of productivity increases over the last decade has moved roughly in sync with wages. But Ms Sylvia Lim is also correct to say that there are variations within sectors, and this is something that we need to look out for. There will be certain sectors where productivity has increased, and perhaps wages have not moved directly at the same rate. This is something that companies have to factor in. By and large, we find that when companies do well, and productivity increases, they are able to increase their wages and then to transfer them to their employees. That, as a broad rule, is what happened. But whether it is able to move exactly at the same time rate or not, a lot depends on the specific circumstances of those companies. So, this is something that we encourage.

We work closely, on a tripartite basis, with businesses, workers and the unions. For example, in the NWC recommendations, we take a look and we suggest a broad range at which wages should move. Companies would take reference from that, given their specific circumstances. This is something that we work closely with the industries on, and we work with employers. Not every wage level will move directly in sync but, by and large, there is a correlation with that. And I think it is difficult to expect every single company to move exactly the same because conditions vary. But, by and large, we find that most companies when their productivity increases, would see some of this transfer of productivity gains in the wages. This is something that we will constantly encourage companies to do so and, of course, the unions will also do the same by pressuring the employers to do the same.

Secondly, on the question of living wage. By living wage, we are really referring to how much a Singaporean needs to earn in order for him and his family to subsist or to meet their basic needs. But this is not a very straightforward concept and it is quite complex, because one figure alone does not capture every single family or every individual worker. Depending on the individual circumstances, he and his family could have very different needs, and we meet many of these low-income families in our constituencies today. But a lot of their conditions and circumstances vary. Large families would generally have greater needs than smaller families. The number of employed persons in the household also matters. So, someone earning, say, $1,500 or $2,000, and supporting five members of the family as opposed to two members would have very different challenges, because the expenses can be shared out if more people work.

A lot also depends on the household, that is, how many people are working. For this reason, we believe it is more meaningful to consider household incomes rather than an individual's income when considering if they have enough to meet their basic needs. And what is considered the basic lifestyle is also very subjective, with different people having different standards and expectations. Many Singaporeans would use their own yardstick to measure at which how someone earning $1,000 or $1,200 ought to live their life, and they feel that that amount of money may not be sufficient. But that is because sometimes we use our own yardsticks to measure what we think ought to be minimum. But it varies, and we have also met many of our residents who may be earning low income for their families but it is not easy; it is challenging, but they manage, and there is a lot of pride that they take as well in being able to provide for their own families.

So, a simple thing, like whether air-conditioning is essential in a house or not, has a lot of impact in terms of not just installing the air-conditioner but also electricity bills, and so on. All these things vary. Given the different considerations, it is actually very difficult to pinpoint exactly what that so-called living wage ought to be.

Some commentators have also recently been using the figure of $1,700 as the amount a household needs to meet basic subsistence needs. This figure has been referred to a few times in the last year. But we have taken a look at it and to find out where this $1,700 came from. Essentially, the figure was derived by taking the average expenditure of the bottom 20% of resident households, as published by the Department of Statistics (DOS). For a sense of the expenditure required to provide for basic needs, let us consider the amounts that are provided under the Public Assistance (PA) Scheme to recipients who are unable to work. MCYS makes a detailed assessment of how much Public Assistance recipients need in cash to help with basic living expenses. Based on that assessment, the PA Scheme provides a household with four adults, with a cash allowance of about $1,050, and a household with two adults and two children with $1,350. In addition to the cash allowance, Public Assistance recipients receive free medical care as well as free education for their children.

Similarly, many households at the bottom 20% also receive assistance from the Government, for example, Medisave top-ups, MOH's Community Health Assist Scheme, MOE's Financial Assistance Schemes, Kindergarten Fee Assistance Scheme, Centre-based Fee Assistance for Childcare, Student Care Fee Assistance Scheme, GST Vouchers which was just introduced, and so on. These schemes all help to pay for healthcare and education and go to reduce the cost of living in general.

Let us take a look at how earnings compare. In 2011, the average monthly income of resident employed households in the bottom 20% was $2,358, including CPF contributions. After deducting CPF contributions, the take-home pay would generally be sufficient to meet the basic expenditure levels I just described. But what is clear is this: we recognise that finances are tight for households in the bottom 20%, and we know that because we meet some of the residents at the constituency, and we understand the challenges that they face. But we should not also equate living on tight budget with being unable to earn enough to subsist. Many low-income families are proud that they are able to provide for their families. We should not demean their effort and achievement by suggesting that what they are providing is not enough.

So, our focus in Government really is to help the breadwinners of these families translate their hard work into high incomes, so that they can enjoy higher standards of living. On what the Government is doing to bring this about, I have elaborated earlier. In essence, the approach that we take is to go for a more targeted approach, look at the circumstances of every individual person, and particularly his family, and then to tailor a range of solution sets upon which he can draw on.

With regard to the Member's third question – could she remind me what was the third question again?

Grading of security companies and the fact that under the grading system, currently as I know it, it is optional for employers to indicate whether there is any annual wage increment in their employment terms.

Indeed, I think for the security sector, and for the cleaning sector in particular, these are two sectors that we are in the process of scrutinising and looking at the schemes, particularly the accreditation scheme. So what the accreditation scheme will do is to take into account all the different factors – as pointed out by Ms Denise Phua earlier, and the concern that Ms Lim has for some of the members in this sector – and to make sure that wage increases will be fair, wage levels will be fair, and wage increases will be fair.

The details are being worked out, and this is something that we will be announcing shortly. But the intent is to take an active role in intervening in these sectors, to make sure that they are accredited, there is upskilling, and to make sure that their wages will be commensurate for their effort put in. So, as far as these two sectors are concerned, we are quite determined to make sure that the wages increase and to make sure that the wages are not just increased on a one-off basis but on a sustainable basis.

With regard specifically to the point that Ms Sylvia Lim has pointed out, that is something that we will take into consideration amongst the various ideas that we put forward by the industry and the public, and this is something that we will announce in detail in subsequent months.

Ms Foo Mee Har, last question.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Minister of State for his comprehensive answers. I have two supplementary questions. First, much has been said about the need to improve the wages of low-income workers through productivity initiatives. However, initiatives to improve productivity are typically driven by company management, and therefore dependent on the will of the management to make meaningful changes. To provide the needed impetus to drive productivity growth as well as to ensure company financial gains from productivity are transferred to workers, I would like to ask the Minister of State if he would consider obliging companies to set aside a certain percentage of their profits towards building up a productivity improvement fund to be used by company management solely for training, skills upgrading or performance incentives, especially for the lower-income employees.

My second supplementary question. Employees are in the best place to uncover opportunities for process and system improvements. I would like to ask the Minister of State how his Ministry sets about encouraging companies to involve the employees in productivity drives and if this would involve financial incentives for employees' suggestions, leading to profitable improvements in productivity. How can workers feel invested in surfacing and realising opportunities for productivity improvements for their employers?

I would like to thank Ms Foo Mee Har for her questions. The issue of productivity, as highlighted earlier in response to Ms Sylvia Lim's questions, is that productivity largely forms the basis for sustainable wage increases. When companies make profits by being more productive, it can afford to share the gains and reward its workers with higher wages in return for their higher productivity. Because without higher productivity and higher earnings, companies are not able to share those gains, and whatever little gains they have, with the workers.

It is difficult to implement and derive a measure of productivity for every single worker. Many companies which are doing well already do provide higher pay for their productive workers, simply because in order to retain and to reward workers, which is why as I highlighted earlier, when the economy does well, we are able to keep unemployment low and the labour market tight, and there is competition and high demand for workers, this actually creates a pressure for companies to make sure that they remunerate their workers fairly and competitively. That will also allow wages to move up in time as well.

Ultimately, employers do have to pay fair wages to workers that are commensurate with their contributions if they want to retain and attract workers in a tight labour market. For sectors in which the translation of productivity gains through wage increases while market forces are not strong, for example, in those sectors we mentioned earlier, in the cleaning sector and the security sector, that is where Government intervention will kick in, and this is something from a sector-specific perspective we will play an increasing role. The IGP is another example where we will step in to work with specific companies to also improve the way they do business so that as their businesses do well, this will invariably also be tied to the way wages move up for the workers in those companies as well.

So, the long and short of it is we do need to keep our labour market tight, to provide companies with an impetus to improve labour productivity, to ensure that relationship between productivity and wages is maintained. Workers do need to play an important part in the overall productivity drive. Whether companies should set aside funds to do that or not is something that individual companies have to decide. But what we are doing at the national level is to set aside a very substantial amount of money, in terms of funds, to help and incentivise companies to undertake these productivity gains, both in terms of restructuring, changing the way they do business or just to bring IT into the way they operate in order to improve productivity. So, that is how the Government intends to step in through a whole range of measures, to make it as user-friendly as possible.

We are very open to feedback from the sectors to improve some of these measures, to make it more user-friendly and more targeted. The main idea is to help companies improve their productivity. The companies, in turn, when they see the benefit – and many companies do that as well, whether in terms of setting aside a fund specifically for the workers or not – do undertake their own productivity moves. IGP, for example, is one programme where we work intimately with companies, and we see many of these companies respond by involving workers to improve the work processes, thereby improving productivity and not only improving the bottom line for the companies but, in turn, seeing the knock-on effect on wages.

Whether workers are being involved, like I said earlier, this is something that we do encourage companies to do. Right now, the main focus on productivity is in large part with the companies. The major shift in doing business needs to come at the company level, particularly as we restructure the economy in the next decade. Essentially, what it means is that we need to move up the productivity chain. We are tightening in terms of foreign labour, particularly companies need to re-adjust the way they do business and focus more on productivity growth. So, for a lot of productivity efforts, the major shifts will be done at the company level but this does not preclude workers playing an active role in that. And that is something that we encourage both through the IGP or other schemes. But this is something we do hope companies will embrace, and we will work constantly with the companies to make sure that productivity is a big part of most companies so that they can adjust to a tight labour market and to put them on a better footing so that as the economy grows and transforms, our companies will be in a very good shape and good position to compete on the global market. And when they do well, in turn, the knock-on effect on our workers will be there, and we hope to also see the knock-on effect at the lower end of the workforce as well.

9 Mr Teo Siong Seng asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether the Government will consider reviewing and reducing all taxes and charges levied by Government departments and agencies so as to curb rising business costs and increased costs of living for the average Singaporean.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we share the hon Member, Mr Teo's concerns over rising business costs, and what it could imply for the cost of living. As far as fiscal charges are concerned, we intend to keep the overall burden of taxes and fees low for both households and businesses. Taxes and fees are already low and we intend to keep them low.

Government fees and charges, including service and conservancy charges (S&CC), University fees and hospital and polyclinic fees, make up about 6.4% of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) basket. Over the past one year, CPI has increased by 5.2%. As the Minister for Trade and Industry has stated in response to Members' earlier questions, a large part of this increase in 'headline' CPI is a result of imputed rather than actual housing rentals, and the sharp spike we have seen in Certificates of Entitlement for private cars (COEs). COEs contributed 1.2 percentage points to the increase.

To put things in perspective, other Government fees and charges accounted for 0.1 percentage point of the March 2012 CPI inflation. So, for the 5.2% 'headline' CPI, 1.2 percentage points attributable to COEs and just 0.1 percentage point attributable to other Government fees and charges.

The Government has taken a few initiatives to help households with their costs of living. The Ministry of Transport has announced that LTA is reviewing its plans on the slowdown of the vehicle growth rate and whether the claw back of the past over-supply of COEs should be implemented in a more flexible way. These measures may ease COE price increases.

We are also helping to cushion the impact of rising costs on lower and middle income households. These include the GST Voucher Scheme introduced in Budget 2012, which will make its first payout in July. For retiree households who are not well-off, the GST Vouchers should in most cases fully offset the total GST payments they make each year.

The reduction of marginal income tax rates for the first $120,000 of chargeable income from Year of Assessment 2012 will also ease the tax burden of middle income earners.

Further, as was also mentioned by Minister for Trade and Industry, our efforts to cool the property market will also help prevent current asset price inflation from translating into future CPI inflation. If property prices keep going up, they will tend to put pressure on prices of goods and services elsewhere.

For businesses, the main driver of cost increases due to Government fees and charges has been the recent increases in the Foreign Worker Levy (FWL). As explained previously in this House, increases in Foreign Worker Levy are necessary to manage our dependence on foreign workers, promote our needed economic restructuring, so as to achieve productivity-driven economic growth. In the short term, this may translate into domestic cost pressures, while the effects of productivity improvements will be realised over the medium to longer term. This is one of the reasons why we are increasing the Foreign Worker Levy gradually, and in steps.

To support businesses, we have provided various measures to help them upgrade productivity sooner rather than later, and to help them reduce costs. In Budget 2012, we enhanced the Productivity and Innovation Credit (PIC) Scheme, provided more help to support SME upgrading and productivity, and gave businesses strong support via the Special Employment Credit for hiring of older Singaporean workers. The SME Cash Grant will also help companies offset higher business costs.

In conclusion, we will continue to monitor the situation carefully. All Government agencies will also do their best to keep costs and, hence, fees as low as possible, and continue to seek new ways to provide the best value to the public.

Sir, I am very heartened to hear that it is the Government's intention to purposely keep the charges low. However, will there be a review in how it is being executed? I would like to give an example – in BCA. In construction, very often amendments need to be done due to site constraints. And if you repeat the same changes, for example, if it is 50 storeys, instead of $200 per amendment you will have to multiply it by 50. Instead of collecting $200 amendment fee, very often they will collect $10,000. I believe it is the implementation stage. So, I hope that this can be reviewed.

Mr Speaker, I will refer the Member's feedback to the BCA. I am sure they will look seriously into her suggestion.

10 Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong asked the Minister for Defence (a) what is the outcome of his Ministry's investigations into the deaths of full-time National Serviceman Private (PTE) Lee Rui Feng Dominique Sarron, and Private (PTE) Amirul Syahmi Bin Kamal; (b) what are the measures in place to ensure the safety of our servicemen, especially those with medical conditions, as they undergo training; (c) whether the investigations revealed any deficiencies in systems and procedures or human lapses; and (d) whether remedial measures would be taken to prevent similar incidents in the future.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to again offer my deepest condolences to the families of Amirul Syahmi Bin Kamal and Lee Rui Feng Dominique Sarron. MINDEF is committed to assist these families during these difficult times.

Sir, in every case involving the death of a National Serviceman, a number of investigations have been activated and are proceeding concurrently to specifically address the same queries which the Member has posed. First, in MINDEF, the Armed Forces Council has convened an independent Committee of Inquiry or COI to thoroughly examine the circumstances surrounding each of the two incidents. The COI is to ascertain fully the facts leading to the death and determine the contributory cause or causes of death. The COI is also tasked to determine if measures taken to treat, resuscitate and evacuate the affected NS men were adequate and prompt, and recommend measures to rectify shortcomings, if any. It shall also determine whether there were any breaches of relevant instructions, directives, orders and safety regulations. The COI shall ascertain whether the incident could have been prevented or avoided, and recommend appropriate measures to prevent future occurrence. This four-man COI is chaired by a senior civil servant from outside of MINDEF, with a senior doctor from the public sector as one of its members. The Committee is empowered to call any witness and hear his or her testimony, as well as receive any evidence regardless of its admissibility in civil or criminal proceedings in court.

Second, the Police will submit their independent report to the State Coroner who shall ascertain the cause of and circumstances connected with the death. The Coroner's inquiry is held in an open court. As part of this process, the Police will report to the Public Prosecutor if their investigations conclude that a person or persons may be arrested and charged in connection with the death.

Third, the State Coroner will review findings from post-mortem examinations to establish the manner and cause of death. The period to complete full post-mortem examinations by the Health Sciences Authority varies depending on the need for supplementary laboratory tests. For some complex cases, it can take as long as three months. As a matter of routine, MINDEF does receive the findings of these post-mortem examinations, to aid us in our investigations.

As these investigations are on-going and MINDEF has not received the finalised reports of post-mortem examinations of these two cases, I can only reveal some facts at hand in response to the Member's question.

First, on PTE Amirul. On 15 March this year, PTE Amirul did not turn up for a routine roll-call. A search was initiated and PTE Amirul was found unconscious in a locked toilet cubicle, with a rope tied around his neck and hanging from the shower beam.

Resuscitative procedures were immediately activated on site and continued en-route and at Changi General Hospital. Unfortunately, the resuscitation failed and PTE Amirul was pronounced dead at Changi General Hospital.

Second, on PTE Lee Rui Feng Dominique Sarron. PTE Lee was noted to have breathing difficulties while participating in a platoon exercise involving the use of smoke grenades at a training facility at Lim Chu Kang on 17 April 2012. The unit Chief Safety Officer immediately accompanied him to exit the building. Outside the building, PTE Lee lost consciousness and received Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation on the spot. He was given supplemental oxygen and evacuated in the safety vehicle to the Medical Centre. Resuscitation efforts by a SAF medical officer continued at the medical centre as well as en-route to the National University Hospital in an SAF ambulance. Unfortunately, the efforts were not successful, and PTE Lee was pronounced dead at NUH.

PTE Lee was noted to have a history of asthma during pre-enlistment screening on 4 January 2011 with his last reported asthma attack more than three years prior to enlistment. Based on the SAF medical classification system which is devised in consultation with leading senior medical specialists from the public and private healthcare sectors, NS men with well-controlled asthma are given a PES grading of A or B and certified fit for military training. Based on SAF's medical records, PTE Lee did not report sick for any asthmatic attacks in the five-month period after enlistment until this incident.

The concurrent investigations will examine all the facts to determine the cause of death, and if the asthma or smoke grenades were contributory factors. Smoke grenades have been commonly used for many years during military training and the SAF has not had any similar incident in the past. Sir, we will have to await the conclusive findings of these investigations to determine the cause and measures to be taken arising for these two specific cases.

But allow me to share general aspects on the existing system, which have incorporated lessons learnt from previous incidents. The on-going investigations are conducted so that we can continue to improve our system to ensure the highest standards of training safety for our NS men. This is our top priority and the SAF will do its utmost to implement all recommendations. This includes appropriate disciplinary action against any SAF personnel whose negligent actions have contributed to the death.

For NS men, the SAF stands guided by leading medical specialists drawn from the public and private sectors to formulate both medical screening protocols as well as a classification system based on known medical conditions to ensure the safe training and appropriate deployment of our servicemen. For this purpose, all NS men are subjected to a compulsory and detailed pre-enlistment medical screening to detect anomalies and diseases. Additional screening is also conducted prior to onerous training activities such as overseas exercises. We have and we will continue to review our medical screening procedures on a regular basis, to make sure they stay in line with international and national standards of clinical practice. After medical screening, NS men are deployed to suitable vocations to undergo military training. This Physical Employment Status or PES system has been in use since 1971, and NS men with a history of well-controlled asthma have been graded PES A or B and suitable for military training for more than 20 years.

In addition, ground commanders know that they have a responsibility for the safety of their servicemen during training. They have to keep a keen eye on the safety and condition of their servicemen before, during and after the training is completed. They have the prerogative to stop training for any serviceman at anytime if they sense something is amiss.

The SAF also reminds individual servicemen to ensure their own safety and that of their NS buddies. Servicemen who are unwell at any time during training are required to highlight their condition to their commanders. They are asked proactively before exercises and given the opportunity to excuse themselves. If in the course of their national service, they develop a new medical condition or injury, they have ready access to SAF medical officers or the public health care system. If need be, they would then be excused from certain types of training or redeployed to a role more suited to their medical condition.

Sir, safety is top priority for MINDEF and the SAF. We know that we have the responsibility to keep sons of Singapore safe while training. Every incident resulting in injury or death is painful to us and gets top management priority to make it right. We will spare no effort to investigate every incident thoroughly. We will also incorporate findings and recommendations from independent investigations by the Police and Coroner. Where there are mistakes, we will own up to them, learn, rectify and continuously improve. That way, we can put in place a robust safety system that will prevent all avoidable injuries and deaths. Once again, MINDEF and the SAF extend our deepest condolences to the families of the late PTE Amirul and PTE Lee.

I would like to thank the Minister for his useful replies. I would like to focus my supplementary questions on PTE Dominique Lee who was my resident. He suffered from asthma. Sir, asthma attacks can kill quite quickly if the sufferer does not receive emergency treatment. Yet, despite the seriousness of the condition, PTE Lee was exposed to asthma triggers such as the smoke grenades during the training exercise.

Can I ask the Minister, given the fact that NSF medics are not trained or equipped to give emergency treatment for asthma, why does MINDEF not exempt soldiers with asthma from such training which puts their life at undue risk? Can I also ask the Minister, given the fact that acute asthma attacks can lead to death and can be triggered by exposure to dusty and smoky environments, would the Minister agree that there is a need to confront the problem of asthmatic recruits given that the militaries in the US and UK have also reviewed their processes, and in fact discharged soldiers with asthma? Can the Minister review the SAF's medical classification system and screening tests and improve the safety culture to ensure that our military system identifies and disqualifies recruits with chronic diseases such as asthma that could be exacerbated by combat training?

Third, can I urge the Minister to expedite the work of the Committee of Inquiry so that things can be put right quickly to prevent such unnecessary deaths and to assure parents that indeed MINDEF does take the safety of our NS men seriously and that preventable deaths will have the utmost seriousness of MINDEF and will be eliminated?

Sir, before I reply to Member Irene Ng's question – and I share her concerns – I just want to state a caveat that we do not know the cause of death and we should await the investigations of the COI. As I said, the terms of the COI will determine if the cause of death was contributed by the asthma and smoke grenade, but until then, we should not make that conclusion. It is better for the panel of medical experts and the COI to determine it. So, the questions that I am answering in her specific questions related to asthma does not mean that SAF/MINDEF had prejudged that it was indeed related. We have to await the findings of the COI.

With that caveat, the Member's concerns are similar to ours. And we are careful to ensure that the medical classification system that we have developed is safe enough for our NS men to train. As I have said, the SAF stands guided by our medical experts who are drawn from the public and private sectors. They tell us which diseases, or in a particular case of asthma, whether mild, moderate or severe asthma, where they can be deployed. And as I have said in my reply, mild asthmas have been PES A or B for the last 20-over years and this is the first such incident that we have had in the presence of the smoke grenade. I do not know whether it has been the cause, and the COI will determine if it may have been the presence of the smoke grenade.

Just in terms of frequency, asthmatics are quite prevalent among our servicemen and they follow the general population. The prevalence of asthma – around 20% of our servicemen are found to have some form of asthma, the majority are mild and many of them have been put through military training without adverse effects.

The Member asked if our medics are trained to deal with asthma attacks and the answer is "yes". They are trained to administer substances like Ventolin through metered dose inhaler if patients are already prescribed with one. In this particular case, supplemental oxygen was administered.

I take the Member's suggestion that we should review our medical classification system if the COI does recommend it. And we will try to expedite it but we will have to wait for a number of investigations to be completed, including the forensic reports and lab tests. But I share her concern and we should try to do this as quickly as possible without compromising full fact-finding.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank the Minister for his reassurance that the SAF takes safety as paramount, especially in training. And certainly it has been the concern of many, many mothers after hearing the mishap that happened recently, especially over the last weekend, Mother's Day. I received much feedback on that.

I would like to ask the Minister: what is the estimated duration of the COI. Is there a time limit given for the COI? It cannot drag on forever. When does SAF declare a time-out for this, like for example in the earlier case, why was a time-out not declared; in the recent incident, why was a five-day time-out exercise declared? What is the purpose of the time-out? Would the safety review of the time-out be made public after it is done? And last of all, it is that there was one further question asking whether the SAF will review the medical response to severe injury, whether the evacuation to the medical centre should be the most appropriate or should they be evacuated directly to the hospital if there is a nearby hospital because a hospital's capability is definitely higher compared to a medical centre's.

Sir, the first question on whether there is a timeline for the COI to be completed. Obviously, the SAF/MINDEF is also keen to have the COI conclude so that we can improve our system if there are any recommendations. As I have said, sometimes it depends on the laboratory tests which can take up to three months. So, it varies. Experience shows that it usually takes around a few months, not forever, but a few months. And we will expedite it as much as we can.

On when SAF takes a time-out: that is a command decision that our commanders on the ground have to assess. In this particular instance, they felt that it was necessary and I backed them. What was done during the time-out, basically, there was a stop to all field training. The Chief of Army called all commanders, all warrant officers who were in command positions, to emphasise to them, to give them the facts. And independently, the safety inspectorate would also review our SOPs, our processes to make sure that the safety guidelines were adhered to.

Another question related to our evacuation and resuscitative norms: apart from the COI examining this, we are not going to wait for that. Obviously, our HQ Medical Corps within the SAF is also reviewing the norms to see whether the steps taken and whether the facilities and expertise are up to par.

I want to assure Members that every incident does cause us to re-examine the system. As I have said, we want to do this deliberately. We are giving top-management priority and learn the right lessons to make our system stronger.

11 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Defence (a) whether National Service enlistees are screened medically for specific allergies especially to substances that they may be exposed to during their military training; and (b) if not, whether there are plans to do so.

Mr Speaker, Sir, all National Servicemen undergo compulsory and detailed medical screening by the SAF before their enlistment. When a medical condition is declared or detected, the SAF will conduct follow-up medical assessment to determine the suitability of the pre-enlistee for NS training.

As part of this medical screening, pre-enlistees are specifically asked whether they have any previously known or suspected allergies. The SAF medical officer will then conduct a more detailed clinical assessment of any allergy reported. Depending on the outcome of the clinical assessment, the pre-enlistee could be referred to a specialist doctor to confirm the diagnosis and to determine the underlying substance causing the allergic reaction. The result of the screening will be factored in the deployment and employment of the serviceman. Similarly, if a serviceman reports that he has an allergy during his National Service, his case will be assessed using the same procedures.

As the Minister has highlighted in his earlier reply, the SAF's medical screening protocols are developed and reviewed on a regular basis in consultation with leading medical specialists from the public and private sectors. Likewise, our approach to allergy testing is in line with established national and international clinical practice guidelines. We will continue to monitor these guidelines, and as these guidelines change, we will also adjust our protocols to enhance the robustness of our medical screening.

Sir, let me thank the Minister of State for his answer. Yes, certainly, I believe that the SAF will await the medical review to see whether allergen testing is required. But may I ask the Minister of State that, in short, his answer is "no", which means that there is no allergy testing at all done in MINDEF currently, unless the serviceman gives an answer that he has an allergy? The problem now is that a lot of allergy may go undetected. Since SAF already knows what your SAF men are being exposed to, there is a lot of range of antigens, and antigen testing now is possible, I would like to urge the SAF to reconsider to ask the medical community within MINDEF to review this seriously and to see whether can they introduce an allergy test for all NS men.

I thank the Member for the supplementary question. The first part of the clarification is, indeed the current medical guidelines do not recommend routine allergy testing in individuals who do not show any symptom of allergy. We go through a process which I have elaborated earlier. As to the question of whether this system is robust enough today and can be reviewed, I think we are reviewing, as I mentioned, on a regular basis. There is also the COI which is ongoing, and if there are observations made within the COI pertaining to this particular aspect, certainly we will improve our system.

Ms Irene Ng, last question.

Sir, given that there are some soldiers who suffer from asthma but they may not have the symptoms at the period of time or even for several years, can MINDEF explore improving its diagnostic tools and implementing some tolerance tests for lungs so that they are properly assessed before they are sent out for combat training which involves exposure to dust and smoke and allergens?

I thank the Member for the supplementary question. I understand where she is coming from and the concerns that she is highlighting on behalf of the soldiers, especially if they were to develop some medical symptoms along the way. I think there are processes in place where if the National Serviceman is to develop something, finds difficulties through the course of his training, there are processes where he can approach his commander and get appropriate medical attention at the medical centre. We do have avenues and platforms for the National Serviceman to approach the commander to go to the medical centre and to get attention, and if indeed something has developed in the course of the training which may not have been identified earlier, then the National Serviceman will be redeployed, will be put to another appropriate level of training, the training will be adjusted according to his medical condition. So, we are aware of these concerns.

We will continuously make sure that the system that we have is adequate, is robust and will ensure the safety of our national servicemen during training. As we have highlighted, it is a very serious matter, we take the issue very seriously. We will continuously fine-tune our protocols and guidelines not just for screening but also for medical treatment of servicemen through the course of their training, whether they are in schools or whether they are in the units. And we will continue to fine-tune these guidelines and procedures in consultation with leading medical specialists both in the private and in the public sectors.

12 Ms Low Yen Ling asked the Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts (a) what is the estimated number of parents being reached through MDA's Parents Portal and Parental Guidebook for cyber wellness; and (b) whether the Ministry has plans to target parents of preschoolers to receive cyber wellness education and to prevent premature video game addiction by preschoolers.

Mr Speaker, Sir, parents have always been a key partner in MDA's outreach programmes as they play a pivotal role in guiding and nurturing positive media and Internet consumption habits among their children.

Empowering parents with the necessary information, tools and resources can go a long way towards the cyber wellness of our children. From February this year, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) have been required to actively promote Internet filters at the point of sale or renewal of residential broadband subscriptions. This will help raise awareness among parents about the availability of such tools to help protect young children from undesirable online content. MDA's Cyber Wellness and Parents Portal webpages provide parents with information on media classification tools, content ratings, cyber wellness issues, as well as tools such as parental locks and content filter services. The information is also available in the parental guidebook which has been distributed at schools and public events. I am pleased to note that the cyber wellness website (http://www.cyberwellness.org.sg) has been well-received, with close to 220,000 page views, and is currently being refreshed to engage more visitors. MDA is also currently assessing the need to include more in-depth information in future editions of the parental guidebook, or even print copies in vernacular languages.

Beyond providing tools and resources, MDA also works with various stakeholder groups to drive home the cyber wellness message. MDA works closely with schools and community self-help groups to conduct public workshops and talks for parents. Last year, close to 2,000 participants attended these workshops. MDA also works with publishers to reach out to more parents. Recently, MDA collaborated with Motherhood Magazine to highlight tools available for parents to protect children from undesirable content. MDA also shared cyber wellness tips through the online publication TheAsianParent.com.

We recognise that younger children are becoming increasingly exposed to activities and games on the Internet as parents use connected devices like smartphones and tablets as "baby-sitting" tools. MDA will continue to study changes in demographics and media consumption habits and work with various partners to extend and strengthen its outreach efforts. As we work together with parents, teachers and the rest of the community to safeguard our children as they explore our changing media environment, we welcome and will support initiatives that help promote safe, responsible and ethical Internet use and behaviour.

Sir, I thank the Minister for the comprehensive reply. I have one supplementary question. Besides parents, does MDA have any plan to work with MCYS and MOE to extend outreach to the pre-schoolers directly? I ask this because just last month, the Health Promotion Board launched a new initiative called CHERISH Junior, where teachers will use lessons and activities to teach pre-schoolers about health-related topics. Is there any scope to dovetail both the Cyber Wellness Programme and the CHERISH Junior programme for pre-schools?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Ms Low Yen Ling for the supplementary question. The short answer is "yes", we will definitely take on her suggestion for MDA to work closely with MCYS and MOE to reach out to our young children.

13 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Education (a) whether there are any measures in place to deter attempts by students to cyber bully their teachers; and (b) to what extent have schools stepped in to institute both educative and strong deterrent measures to ensure cyber bullying of teachers does not continue.

Sir, our schools teach cyber wellness based on the principles of "Respect for Self and Others" and "Safe and Responsible Use" of technology and these principles guide students in their actions in cyberspace. Students learn to respect others by thinking through what they publish online so that they do not hurt others.

It has been our strong belief that the inculcation of the values of respect and responsibility is fundamental to the education of our students; and hence the emphasis on values education in the Citizenship and Character Education curriculum. That is what we have been doing, and will continue to do. It is, however, imperative that students understand that cyberspace has its unique set of challenges and therefore, specific focus had been placed on cyber wellness.

Currently, cyber wellness topics are integrated into the instructional materials for Civic and Moral Education (CME), English Language and Mother Tongue Languages where appropriate. For primary schools, cyber wellness is also being delivered through the Form Teachers' Guidance Periods. Moving forward, for secondary schools, each level from Secondary 1 to Secondary 4 or 5 will have four hours dedicated to the learning of cyber wellness in the CCE curriculum. This will be rolled out progressively from 2013.

Aside, resources are also provided to support schools in planning and implementing their cyber wellness programmes. These resources equip students with proper netiquette and strategies for self management in cyberspace. Issues such as cyber bullying, for example, harassment or flaming, are discussed.

Students who have engaged in cyber bullying of whether peers or teachers are dealt with by the schools and the actions would typically involve having students understand why their action is wrong and where warranted, appropriate disciplinary action.

Sir, I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for his response. Given the fiduciary relationship between teachers and students, and the need for mutual respect between the two, what more can be done for local deterrent measures within schools to reduce cyber bullying by pupils of their own teachers?

Sir, generally, we want to inculcate in students good habits and the right values. If they know what is right, what is wrong, what is good, what is bad, and the consequences of their behaviour, they will be able to conduct themselves well, either in their personal interactions or in cyberspace. That is principle number one. Appropriate actions will be taken against students who indulge in bullying, whether physical bullying, emotional bullying or cyber bullying, whether it is against teachers or fellow students, appropriate actions will be taken. They range from counselling and advice to some more serious actions.

Sir, I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for giving us the explanation. I just want to ask for a clarification in terms of the number of students or teachers having such cases reported. A couple of years ago, there was a survey by Touch Community Services, whereby 25% to 35% of our students said they have faced some form of cyber-bullying or other. So, the question is really effectiveness, and whether we are able to prevent such acts.

Sir, I do not have information of that survey. However, we should look at surveys conducted by various organisations in the proper context, whether, firstly, they are representative of the situation. We can be easily alarmed by instances of bullying against teachers or against fellow students. However, if we look at the data collected by MOE and schools, it is not a major problem. Nevertheless, we understand that it may be a growing problem in future because our students are exposed to cyberspace and they must learn to behave responsibly. That is why we would like for schools to work with parents so that parents are equally educated on how to manage and how to educate their children on how to navigate cyberspace. In a nutshell, I would say that we should take a look at surveys conducted by various organisations in the proper context.

14 Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs what is his assessment on the recent political developments and reforms in Myanmar, and how will ASEAN encourage Myanmar to continue on this democratic path.

15 Mr Nicholas Fang asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs what is Singapore's position on the latest political developments in Myanmar with respect to Myanmar's chairmanship of ASEAN in 2014 and the implications this will have for achieving an ASEAN Community by 2015.

16 Ms Mary Liew asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will give his assessment of the situation in Myanmar and what is the impact of the recent developments in Myanmar on Singapore and ASEAN as a whole.

Sir, as Question Nos 14, 15 and 16 are related, with your leave, I will take them together.

Please do.

I last spoke on this issue two months ago at the 14 February sitting. Let me provide a short update on developments since then. Myanmar has successfully held peaceful and inclusive by-elections on 1 April 2012. Myanmar invited observers from ASEAN Member States, ASEAN Dialogue Partners, and regional and international organisations to this important event. Just two days after, Myanmar President Thein Sein briefed ASEAN Leaders at the 20th ASEAN Summit in Phnom Penh on developments in his country. ASEAN Leaders welcomed the successful by-elections, in line with ASEAN's position to support Myanmar's implementation of its Seven-Step Roadmap to Democracy. To this end, the ASEAN Leaders also called for the immediate lifting of all sanctions on Myanmar.

The current Myanmar government's commitment to national reconciliation is starting to show results. At this important juncture, we hope that the opposition parties as well as the government will continue to make efforts to work together for the good of their country. Moving forward will require all stakeholders to display pragmatism and political flexibility as they navigate unprecedented situations.

ASEAN's consistent advocacy for the lifting of sanctions is gaining traction in the international community. After Australia and the US announced that they intended to ease some sanctions against Myanmar, the EU quickly followed suit and agreed to suspend most of its sanctions too. On 30 April 2012, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who had just visited Myanmar, also called for the international community to lift sanctions on Myanmar.

The overall trajectory of political developments in Myanmar in recent months has been positive. The gains will need to be consolidated and the way forward will be fraught with uncertainties. This is inevitable in any transition of the magnitude we have witnessed. The steps that President Thein Sein and his government are taking ought to be recognised and encouraged. To that effect, ASEAN maintains that all sanctions should be lifted. Not only will it send a strong signal of encouragement to the people of Myanmar to continue on this path to reform, it will also help integrate Myanmar's economy into the global system. These would stand Myanmar in good stead as it heads towards assumption of the ASEAN Chairmanship in 2014.

Myanmar's ASEAN Chairmanship will come at a crucial time, just before ASEAN's goal of achieving an ASEAN Community in 2015. Myanmar is aware of the stakes, and is taking steps to address the unique challenges of the Chairmanship. We are confident that Myanmar will work hard to make its Chairmanship a success. Singapore has continued to provide capacity building assistance to Myanmar officials and will fully support Myanmar's efforts to ensure successful outcomes in 2014.

Sir, I would like to thank the Minister for the updates. I would like to ask some supplementary questions. We could probably get an assessment from the Minister. Would there be a situation whereby the foreign investors would prefer Myanmar than Singapore in the long run; and how would that affect Singapore and its economy as well as our workers?

Sir, the Member should probably ask the Minister for Trade and Industry, but I think the approach we should take to these things is that Myanmar is a country of 60 million. It is rich in resources. By integrating it into the regional and international economy, we should see it as offering tremendous opportunities to Singapore as well as other countries. If you look at the nature of economies and where Myanmar is, and where the other countries in the region are including Singapore, we are at different levels of development. We are in a position to help Myanmar in a number of ways and it should be a win-win outcome.

Sir, I thank the Minister for his reply. One supplementary question to follow up to that. The Minister mentioned some areas that we are looking at, and obviously, the lifting of sanctions will benefit Myanmar's economy. Have there been any updates since the last time we spoke about specific sectors where Singapore companies looking to invest could possibly move into in Myanmar? I know some have been mentioned in the past. Have there been any latest updates?

It is not just Singapore companies which are looking at Myanmar. We have to be very clear about what we are talking about. When I make my statements, we are talking about helping Myanmar in capacity development, public governance and to be able to absorb the changes that are taking place and to help their people improve their lives. In addition, of course, we facilitate investment trips to Myanmar. Likewise, companies from all over the world are looking at Myanmar.

Myanmar has got to assess what sort of partnerships and investments will help facilitate its development at this point of its transition. We have had a number of visits by our business people. Singapore Business Federation has led highly successful visits, over-subscribed each time that SBF has gone. You know our approach – we do not make decisions for business people. They go there, they look. These are early days, but I think what I can say is the interest in Myanmar is very substantial. We believe that interest can be developed in a way that is beneficial for Myanmar and beneficial for the world, including Singapore.

Dr Lim Wee Kiak, last question.

Mr Speaker, I would like to ask the Foreign Minister a question. I have read many reports regarding the treatment of the minority groups within Myanmar, especially the Karen group as well as the Shan group. It seems that there are suppression and human rights violations. Does the ASEAN Foreign Minister group have any opinion on that and how these should be resolved and whether this will affect the image of ASEAN ultimately?

We have always encouraged Myanmar to adopt the international norms in the treatment of all of its people. The way we have done it is to first say to the world that sanctions are not the most effective way. And at the same time to encourage Myanmar to adopt practices which are consistent with international norms, not just vis-Ã-vis the minorities but vis-Ã-vis all of its people and I think it is inappropriate for me to comment on specific treatment of minorities as such, but the developments that have taken place since, say, October of last year right up to now, including the signing of peace agreements with a very substantial number of minority groups, all forbode well; they are in the right direction and ought to be encouraged.

Ms Irene Ng, last question.

Yes, Sir. Can I ask the Foreign Minister for his assessment of the military junta now in Myanmar in terms their approach towards reforms and their commitment to political reforms, and also his assessment of Aung San Suu Kyi on her ability to forge a united Myanmar which champions democracy?

Listening to the Member's question, one almost thinks that she has taken in, hook, line and sinker, all the propaganda against Myanmar. First of all, there is no military junta in charge. Members might recall that there were elections held a little bit earlier and there is an elected president in parliament. There may be different views on how that parliament and leadership ought to be viewed, but certainly I think that we are dealing with a sovereign country that has dealt with its institutions through an election, whether perfect or imperfect. And by most accounts, the most recent by-elections have met norms which have satisfied most people. If you look at the actions of the president who has been elected, particularly in the last six months or so, it is not just Singapore, it is not just ASEAN, but the world. I refer to the US, Australia, the European Union, everyone recognises that these are real, credible changes which ought to be supported. They are very positive.

Second, as regards Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's ability to, I think the Member said, "manage the country", again I think the Member may be running a little bit ahead of the events. She is the leader of a party that has the minority of seats in parliament. It is encouraging that the president, the government and Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, all have pledged to work within the current framework to transform Myanmar. We hope that that practical flexibility and pragmatism will continue to prevail. And if it does, there is reason to be optimistic.

Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again for the continuation of Question Time at 3.40 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.20 pm until 3.40 pm.

Sitting resumed at 3.40 pm.

Resumed.

17 Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked the Prime Minister (a) what is the impact of the Total Fertility Rate (TFR) on the future of Singapore if it continues to remain low; (b) what is the level of awareness among Singaporeans of the impact of low TFR and how this level of awareness may be raised; (c) what measures is the Government adopting to mitigate the negative effects and challenges of the low TFR; and (d) what are the Government's efforts to engage Singaporeans on this significant issue.

(for the Prime Minister): Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore's Total Fertility Rate (TFR) in 2011 was 1.2, and our TFR has been below the replacement level of 2.1 since 1976. This means that as a society, we are having fewer children than needed to replace ourselves. At current birth rates and without immigration, our citizen population is projected to start shrinking by around 2025. With fewer Singaporeans being born, our citizen population will also age rapidly. The median age of our citizen population today is 39 and it will rise steadily to 47 years in 2030. By 2030, the number of elderly citizens, that is, those aged 65 and above, will triple to about 900,000, but they will be supported by a smaller base of working-age citizens aged between 20-64 years old. By 2030, there will only be 2.1 working-age citizens to each elderly citizen, as compared to 6.3 today; so one-third. This will place greater pressure on the citizen population in the working ages, not just in the household, but in society as well as economically.

These challenges, while serious, are not insurmountable. The Government has also invested heavily in education, healthcare and housing to ensure that Singapore remains a good place to get married and raise children. We have been making significant investments in supporting marriage and parenthood; in monetary terms, from $500 million per year in 2001 to $1.6 billion a year since 2008. The Marriage and Parenthood package comprises a broad range of measures, such as the Baby Bonus, maternity and childcare leave, infant care and child care subsidies as well as tax benefits for parents. And we will continue to fine-tune our policies and measures to support and encourage Singaporeans in this regard. Apart from policy incentives, we will also need to foster a social climate that supports family life.

Beyond supporting marriage and parenthood, the Government has stepped up efforts to raise productivity and encourage more Singaporeans to enter the workforce, to expand the potential of our small local workforce. We are also putting in place measures that ensure that older Singaporeans can look forward to an active, fulfilling and secure future.

This year, the National Population and Talent Division in the Prime Minister's Office has commenced engaging Singaporeans on population issues, including our low birth rates, and how we can overcome these demographic challenges together. We will share relevant information about our population challenges, like the Occasional Paper on Citizen Population Scenarios released by NPTD last month, to facilitate discussions, such as those which took place at the Institute of Policy Studies seminar just a couple of weeks ago. We will take into account the concerns and aspirations of Singaporeans in the White Paper on Population to be released by the end of the year. Through this process, we hope to engage Singaporeans and develop a shared understanding of our strategies to build a sustainable population that secures Singapore's future.

Sir, I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his response. Since financial incentives do not seem to work that well and our TFR had remained fairly low, I would like to find out a little more about promoting this social climate that Deputy Prime Minister is talking about. Sharing with the population the merits of having children and the joy of family and children: is that part of the strategy that can go beyond just the current package of incentives? What currently are your thoughts on this?

Well, certainly encouraging people to appreciate family, marriage, having children, having a good family life and the joys of family life: I think those are the things which you can see the Government has been trying to do. You will see from time to time advertisements, nice advertisements and so forth. You will see in the community all kinds of family life activities to encourage family bonding, to enjoy family life. But, this is not one of those things which the Government is necessarily the best at doing. So we would hope that many more members in the community, NGOs and community groups, will also step up and encourage the joys of family-hood and parenthood.

Sir, I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether he would consider giving more help to those families with, perhaps, three children or more. Some of my residents propose giving more help in childcare for those with three children or more, or during Primary 1 registration.