Hansard, 2012-01-17

Under the provisions of clause 2(d) of Article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the following Members have been granted permission by the Speaker to be absent from sittings of Parliament (or any Committee of Parliament to which they have been appointed) for the periods stated:

1 Mrs Lina Chiam asked the Minister for Health (a) whether there are sufficient programmes in place to promote dental care; and (b) what dental procedures are subsidised at the National Dental Centre and what procedures are not.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in Singapore, we place a strong emphasis on prevention and inculcating good oral hygiene practices from young. The Health Promotion Board's (HPB) School Dental Service provides free basic dental care for all Singaporean children aged seven to 18 years old, within the school dental clinics. This includes cleaning, screening and fillings, as well as dental health education, to promote good oral hygiene amongst our students. Subsidised treatment is also available for pre-schoolers at HPB's School Dental Centre.

As a result, the oral health status of our 12-year-olds, measured by the DMFT index – that is, a common measure of the number of decayed, missing or filled teeth – is among the best in the world. At 0.6, it is much better than in most OECD countries, including Japan and South Korea – which are at 1.3 and 2.1 respectively.

For adults, HPB works with professional groups and industry partners to promote good oral hygiene through events, such as the annual Oral Health Month. HPB has also started a Community Functional Screening Programme for seniors 60 years old and above, to detect early signs of functional decline, including poor oral health, and to institute the appropriate follow-up measures.

Mrs Chiam also asked about subsidised dental procedures at the National Dental Centre (NDC). NDC provides the full range of subsidised dental treatment – such as for crowns, bridges, dentures and root canal treatment – to meet the needs of all patients referred to NDC for management. Only procedures deemed cosmetic in nature, such as dental laminates and bleaching services, are not subsidised. Eligible patients who require root canal treatment, crowns and dentures can also receive subsidies for treatment at private dental clinics under the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS). Subsidised basic dental care is also available at the polyclinics and at private dental clinics under CHAS.

Sir, I thank Minister of State Amy Khor for her reply. I would like to ask two supplementary questions. Can MOH provide the exact breakdown of what is being subsidised at NDC and what treatments are not subsidised? What is the rationale for not providing subsidy for some treatments and what if they were necessary? Can MOH update the House on what is being done to shorten waiting time for dental appointments for fresh or new cases at polyclinics?

Sir, with regards to the first question on the types of subsidised dental procedures at the National Dental Centre (NDC): firstly, in fiscal year 2010, the subventions that were given for subsidised dental treatments at the various centres amounted to $23 million. At the NDC, various procedures are subsidised – from basic dental services to more complex dental procedures like crowning, root canal treatment and dentures. The subsidy rates can vary from 20% to 76%, depending on the type of treatment or procedure. Please allow me to list some of the procedures where subsidies are available. The basic dental procedures will be scaling, polishing, fillings and extractions. The more complex ones would be crowning, root canal treatment, dental treatment related to traumatised teeth and non-vital teeth, dental treatment for patients who are under rehabilitation following cancer surgery and so on. Most of these procedures which are required medically are subsidised.

The procedures which are not subsidised by National Dental Centre are basically procedures which are cosmetic. For example, dental laminates and veneers, bleaching, orthodontic treatment for cosmetic purposes. If orthodontic treatment is required for medical purposes, there will then be subsidy.

Sir, I am not too clear about the Member's second question, so perhaps the Member could repeat it.

Sir, I would like MOH to update the House on what is being done on the NDC front. A lot of people have been complaining about long waiting times to see a dentist or dental surgeon. By the time they are ready, the teeth would have fallen out, or the dental problems would have grown worse. Can the NDC do something about that to shorten waiting times for fresh cases and for cases referred by the polyclinics?

Sir, I thank the Member for the question. Let me say that we are aware of some of these feedback and concerns. In general, for emergency cases or where severe pain is experienced, these are treated as urgent cases and will be prioritised. They will be treated immediately, say, the day itself, or within the week, depending on the level of urgency. Another example would be the elderly who need urgent denture replacements. These cases would be prioritised and they would be treated.

For those on the waiting list, generally, they would have been assessed by the dentists as stable or pain-free cases. We would then put them on the waiting list. The waiting time would depend on the level of complexity of the procedures. In fact, for the NDC, the median waiting time for first appointment, where the dentists will make the assessment, for non-emergency, non-urgent cases, is 18 days. And depending on the type of treatment that they need, if it is urgent, they will be sent almost immediately. As I said, if they call up and it is an urgent case, they will also be treated on an urgent basis.

On 15 January, we implemented the expanded PCPS, which is now called the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS). Eligible patients who have the CHAS card can also have access to subsidised dental treatment at participating dental clinics. There are 218 such participating dental clinics around the island now. They can get subsidised dental treatment for crowning, root canal work, dentures and basic dental services. For this group of people, it would offer convenience and, of course, waiting times would be much shorter. In the longer term, we are also increasing our intake of dentistry students at the National University of Singapore, to increase capacity in our healthcare system.

2 Mr Alex Yam asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Manpower (a) what is the current employment rate for fresh graduates from polytechnics and universities; (b) whether the number of young PMETs on contract employment has increased in the past five years; and (c) whether his Ministry would consider requiring employers to offer fair employment benefits to employees on permanent renewable contracts.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we try to ensure that we provide a strong foundation for all Singaporeans via education and continuing training. This is a draw for companies operating here, both local and foreign. We also watch the employment landscape very carefully so that our young Singaporeans continue to have good opportunities when they leave school.

From the 2010 Graduate Employment Survey (GES), over nine in 10 polytechnic and university graduates who entered the job market in 2010 were employed within six months. In the past five years, among employed resident PMETs aged 20-29, the proportion of those on contract employment decreased slightly from 12.3% (or 20,600) in 2006 to 11.3% (or 21,200) in 2010. Amongst all resident employees, the proportion on term contracts has fluctuated between 12% and 13%.

Term contracts are part of the employment landscape. Companies generally hire employees on term contracts for two main reasons. First, contract employees provide greater flexibility for companies to manage their costs in an environment of increased global competition and shorter and less predictable business cycles. This is true globally – outsourcing and non-traditional employment arrangements, including term contracts, have become more common. Second, there are also occasions where companies need to turn to contract employees with specific skill sets not available within the company for fixed-term projects or assignments. Some companies may also place an employee on a term contract for a specific period while they assess the employee's competency and suitability for long-term employment. Further, some employers may pay a premium to their employees to compensate for the short-term nature of certain contracts in certain professions where skills and expertise are in demand. In general, term contracts provide flexibility for the market.

However, let me emphasise – regardless of whether employees are on term or permanent contracts, we will look after our workers. They are protected under our employment legislation, such as the Employment Act, CPF Act, Work Injury Compensation Act and Workplace Safety and Health Act. Notwithstanding this, we do encourage employers to consider converting their contract employees into permanent staff if they are found to be suitable for the job and if the job is in fact expected to be available on a permanent basis. This will provide greater employment certainty to the employee and help enhance employee engagement.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Minister of State for the reply and the re-assurance to employees on contracts that their rights will be taken care of. However, referring to the same GES that the Minister of State mentioned earlier, out of the total number of graduates who were employed, only 68.5% were on full-time permanent employment while the rest were on temporary employment. This year's preliminary GES also indicates that trend as well. With the increased number and the feedback that benefits, such as medical insurance and leave, are being curtailed amongst younger employees, does the MOM intend to re-look into this area, especially since most of the PMETs would earn above $1,600 and not be fully covered by the Employment Act?

Sir, the figures for 2010 are as follows: total employment rate for university graduates is 90.7%, and full-time permanent employment rate is 84.8%. We do track the figures carefully. The slight difference in figures between the Member's figures and these figures is something we can discuss further later on. I just want to reiterate that having term contracts do serve a purpose, although we are very mindful of the landscape. There are employees who will be on term contracts but we do encourage employers to take them on, on full-time basis, should they be suitable. Most of them, even on part-time contracts, would be subjected to the Employment Act and the various legislations I cited earlier. In terms of the specific concerns – those are things we can look at and will take up the feedback from the industry and from the unions.

3 Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs if the Ministry would consider stopping the issue of licences to sell alcohol in residential estates, especially in HDB blocks in estates where foreign workers are inclined to congregate, such as Little India.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member has suggested that the Ministry considers stopping the issuance of liquor licences in residential estates, especially where foreign workers congregate. I think it is a good suggestion, but as far as we have seen, such a measure is unlikely to resolve the problem of physical consumption of liquor at HDB void decks and other common areas. Those who consume liquor in these areas can easily circumvent such restrictions on sale by bringing in liquor purchased from outlets in other areas.

We will instead try to address the problem at its core. The SPF will continue to work closely with MOM to educate foreign workers on our social norms, and work with dormitory operators and employers to take greater responsibility over their foreign workers' behaviour. We have also deployed uniformed Auxiliary Police Officers (APOs) to patrol foreign worker congregation areas to deter, counsel and educate foreign workers against undesirable behaviour. The APOs have the powers to arrest persons who cause law and order problems and will take action against those who commit offences, such as littering and even spitting.

My Ministry will also explore with MND and other stakeholders alternative solutions to address alcohol consumption and related problems in residential areas. We would be happy to work with the Member to study this further. The Government will continue to monitor the foreign workers' congregation areas closely and tailor our ground measures accordingly.

Sir, I thank the Minister of State for the reply. I want to register my deep appreciation for the deployment of the Auxiliary Police Officers (APOs) in our area – that helped a lot. I have two supplementary questions for the Minister of State. First, is the Ministry of Home Affairs aware that some shops in Little India, which are just below the residential units in the same block – have the licence to sell alcohol. Some of them have actually stocked up, not just beer, but entire shelves of alcohol, including whiskey and so forth. And so, this has created a great ease for foreign workers or other visitors, to buy these liquor easily, and then opportunities to get drunk and the need to relieve themselves arise as well. These are issues that the residents are facing, so I would deeply appreciate if the Ministry could re-consider the issue of licences to sell alcohol to these shops in this vicinity.

The second supplementary question is: is the Ministry willing to consider the practice in some countries where businesses that are issued licences to sell liquor are physically located a bit further away from residential areas so that the problems that I have raised will have less potential to occur? Sir, for your consideration, please.

Sir, I thank the Member for her clarifications. Well, I am not surprised they will be stocking up a large variety of alcohol, because of the congregation of foreign workers in that area. The workers come not only from that area but from dormitories all over Singapore. I think we can work together; work with them, together with grassroots, perhaps advise them that it is not the issue about the stocking up, but the alarm they are causing to our residents and how we, perhaps, can address this together.

On the second question: how we can implement other measures? MOM, MHA as well as MND are working together on the issue of foreign workers' congregation, and these are the kind of inputs we will take in and consider, and then will reply to the Members when the questions are raised.

Ms Phua, last question.

Sir, I thank the Minister of State for being so open. I want to ask if the Minister of State is aware that the practice of not issuing alcohol licences to these shops in the same vicinity that I spoke about was actually practised before. It was quite effective then, but somehow through the course of time, this issuing of licences re-surfaced and the problems are arising again. I would ask the Minister of State and the Ministry of Home Affairs to seriously consider stopping the issue of these licences in our area.

We have to balance the demands not just of the shopkeepers to sell liquor, but also the locals who may sometimes want to buy from the shops at the ground floor of their blocks. So while we understand these issues are also causing other problems because foreign workers congregate in that area, these issues are rather unique to the area that the Member, Ms Denise Phua, has mentioned. Because it is quite a unique area, we have to think a little bit out of the box on how to work together with the storekeepers, how to work even with the foreign workers, the dormitories, to prevent such disamenities from causing problems to our residents over there. As an example, we do inform the employers of recalcitrant foreign workers who keep getting arrested for disorderly behaviour. And because of that, their Work Permit pass may not get renewed because they are such a nuisance to our society.

Mr David Ong, last question.

Sir, may I make a point to the Minister of State that this situation is not unique only to Little India. We see this in the heartlands and at the void decks. These shops sell liquor and we have people congregating in those areas. They drink, they litter, they urinate and they cause nuisance at times, and fights as well. So, especially for kiosks located at these void deck areas, if we can restrict the sale of alcohol, that will help. I hope that the Ministry can consider this.

Sir, I thank the Member for the clarification. When I mean "unique" I did not mean that it only occurs in Little India. Little India is unique because it is a congregation point for foreign workers from all over Singapore. In other places, like we have found in Mr Cedric Foo's area, they are usually from the nearby dormitories, and usually the way to resolve the problem is slightly different from that which we have to face in Little India. For example, we do not have to deploy APOs in these areas, whereas in Little India, because of the size of the crowd and the intensity of the merrymaking, and so forth, we have to make sure that our presence is felt.

In the case of Mr Cedric Foo's area, for example, we have been working with him. They have Citizens-on-Patrol who go around making friends – not just the residents but the foreign workers as well. They become advocates to their fellow members not to cause a nuisance to the nearby residents, and I think the same kind of solutions and other kinds of solutions are possible for us to work together with the MPs of the area.

4 Ms Low Yen Ling asked the Minister for Education in the last five years (a) what was the total number of students who have taken out study loans to finance their tertiary education in public and private institutions; (b) what was the total loan quantum; and (c) what was the default rate of these study loans.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Member for the question. From 2006 to 2010, about one-third of undergraduates and 5% of Diploma students from our publicly-funded institutions tapped on Government-funded loan schemes to finance their studies.

The Government provides loans for these students through two schemes. First, a Tuition Fee Loan, which covers up to 90% of the fees payable by a Singapore student at the undergraduate level, and 75% at the diploma level.

Second, a means-tested Study Loan, which covers the portion of fees not covered by the Tuition Fee Loan, in other words, up to 10% of the fees at the undergraduate level and 25% at the diploma level, and also provides an amount for living expenses.

On average, over the last five years, the overall amount taken out in new loans was around $100 million a year. And from an individual student perspective, the actual loan amount will typically vary according to the course fees payable as well as the availability of other sources of financing, such as Government bursaries.

The default rate for these loans has remained low. Non-performing loans are less than 1% of the total outstanding loan amount. MOE does not track the number of students in private institutions who take up education loans.

5 Mr Alex Yam asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the progress on improving bus speeds from 16-19 kph in 2007 to a target speed of 20-25 kph by 2009 as stated in the LTA Long Term Master Plan; and (b) what is the current bus speed for trunk and feeder buses.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the Land Transport Masterplan, we set an ambitious target to improve bus speeds from 16 kph-19 kph to a target of 20 kph-25 kph. These average bus speeds factor in the time taken for passenger boarding and alighting activities, to give an accurate reflection of the average speeds experienced by commuters over their bus journeys.

Since then, we have introduced a host of bus priority measures geared towards improving bus speed and reliability. In 2008, we extended the length of normal bus lanes island-wide from 120 km to 155 km, and more than trebled the length of full-day bus lanes from 7 km to 23 km. This has helped improve bus journey speeds along these heavily-used bus corridors by an average of 7%, and even up to 20% along some stretches. To help reduce the time taken for buses to pull out of bus bays, we also introduced the Mandatory Give-Way to Bus Scheme in 2008, and this has now been implemented at 202 bus stops across the island. The scheme has helped reduce the time taken by buses to exit bus bays by up to 73%.

However, despite these targeted improvements to bus speeds along specific routes, overall average bus speeds have decreased slightly from 19.1 km/h in 2007 to 17.8 km/h in 2011. We believe that one major factor that has likely contributed to the decrease in speeds is the increase in bus ridership, which has grown by 16% from 2.9 million per day in 2007 to 3.45 million per day in 2011. As more buses are introduced to cater to this increase, this would have caused buses to wait a longer time at bus stops to accommodate increased passenger boarding and alighting activities.

To help address this, the LTA recently announced the selection of 35 bus stops to be expanded to bus hubs by the end of 2013. This is to allow more buses to berth in the bus bays for simultaneous boarding and alighting activities. This will reduce the average time each bus needs to dwell at the bus stops and in turn improve bus speeds and the journey times for commuters.

We will continue to monitor our bus speeds closely, and look out for opportunities to introduce more bus priority schemes where it makes sense to do so, bearing in mind the potential impact on other road users. We will also continue to explore other measures to improve bus speeds.

Sir, I thank the Minister of State for the comprehensive reply. I note that the bus speeds have reduced and Minister of State's explanation that this is due to the higher ridership. Two supplementary questions. One is: the Minister of State mentioned that some schemes are under study. Would the Minister of State be able to share with the House what some of these schemes may be? And, secondly, as a suggestion for the Ministry to consider that on longer and wider trunk routes, for the installation of bus stops along the central median which will reduce the need for left-turning vehicles to block the buses going ahead.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. One of the things that we think will help improve the bus speeds is to reduce the dwell times at the bus bays. If we consider the fact that when we introduce more buses into the system, apart from road congestion and making it easier for the buses to get through on the roads, we also have to consider the fact that people boarding and alighting contributes to the dwell time. And so for people who are already on the buses, it adds to their journey time. And that is one of the bottlenecks that we have to overcome. The identification of the 35 bus hubs, with expanded bus bays to allow more buses to stop at the same time, is a major effort that is ongoing. We have already started work since October 2011, and we are making good progress. It is an important part of our initiatives to try and improve bus speeds. So that is a priority project and we will focus on it to ensure that for those very busy bus stops, it will help reduce the dwell times. For those passengers who regularly use those bus stops, or whose bus services pass those bus stops, they will not be unduly held up. So that is important.

As to the Member's second question, if I understand correctly, he is talking about creating storage lanes? If I could seek a clarification from the Member on his suggestion?

Sir, if I may: this is one of the examples that have already been introduced. It is along Somerset stretch where the bus bay, instead of being on the left-most lane, has been relocated to the central median to avoid conflict with heavy traffic moving straight or turning left into the Clarke Quay area.

Yes, it is one of those measures that we will consider. I just want to point out that the areas or the roads where the central medians are wide enough for us to build a bus stop, are not that many in number. So, this is the main constraining factor. Where there is enough space and it makes sense to do so, yes, we will consider.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask the Minister of State, besides the speed issue, I think there is also the issue of the drivers' familiarity with the routes. I would like to ask for the Minister of State's comment on the recent few reported cases of drivers taking the wrong route. I understood from my residents that it happened to those bus routes that serve Yishun South residents. What measures have been taken or will be taken so that such incidences can be reduced?

Sir, I think the Member's question is relevant. As we expand the bus fleet, we do have to hire more bus captains. It is not an easy thing to do because the work conditions of a bus captain are quite demanding. So quite apart from finding people with the correct driving skills, we also need people who have the right service aptitudes. And of course, the ability to be familiar with the bus routes, adds additional layer of complexity.

Part of the problem has been contributed by the fact that we sometimes need to deploy drivers to the bus routes that they are not used to driving. That is because there are occasions where there are services that need to be improved very quickly, and we need to pump in the buses, and so the drivers have to be re-deployed. One of the measures with which we can deal with this, is to allow more of the bus captains to be cross-trained on different routes so that each driver perhaps being just familiar with his own route that he drives on a regular basis, is also familiar with several other routes. This measure obviously takes time to implement because there are so many drivers and, apart from their usual duties, we have got to find the capacity for them to be extracted from their regular service in order to go for the training.

But I want to assure the Member that it is something that is taken seriously. We want to have more flexibility to be able to cross deploy the bus captains when it is necessary to do so, so that they can be more responsive to emerging needs in bus services. This is something that has to be done quite properly.

6 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Transport whether the Public Transport Council (PTC) could review its current policy of de-regulating taxi fares and whether previous objectives of de-regulation of taxi fares have been met.

7 Ms Tin Pei Ling asked the Minister for Transport (a) what defines public transport in Singapore; (b) how do taxis feature in our transport system and whether they qualify as public transport, either de jure or de facto; (c) whether the market share of Comfort DelGro's cabs (which include CityCabs) constitute market dominance; and (d) whether his Ministry will consider defining peak periods.

8 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Transport (a) what measures has the Government put in place to ensure a sufficient level of competition among taxi operators; (b) whether these measures are adequate; and (c) whether further measures to ensure greater competition for the benefit of consumers will be implemented in the near future.

Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, I would like to take Question Nos 6, 7 and 8 together.

Yes, please.

Sir, public transport is a service that is available to any member of the public as a means of travel from one location to another for a fare. It includes our public buses, trains and taxis. Taxis are positioned at the higher end of the public transport spectrum, filling the gaps between buses and trains, and providing a door-to-door service that is closer to that of private transport.

The setting of taxi fares was deregulated in 1998 and the supply of taxis was deregulated in 2003. The objectives of these two measures were to inject greater competition within the taxi industry and allow market forces to determine the supply and pricing of taxis that best meet the demand for taxi services.

Since the deregulation of fares, taxi companies have made both upward and downward adjustments to their fare structures in response to changes in demand for taxi service. For example, to encourage commuters to call book for taxis during peak period where demand is high, some of the taxi companies have reduced the call booking surcharge from $4.00 in 2005 to the current $3.

30. Taxi companies have also delayed the commencement of the evening peak surcharge period from 5.00 pm to 6.00 pm given that a significant number of commuters now leave work later with the implementation of a five-day work week in Singapore. On the other hand, as the demand for taxis in the evenings after 8.00 pm continue to be high resulting in feedback on the difficulty of getting a taxi after 8.00 pm, taxi companies have extended the evening peak surcharge to midnight, instead of ending it at 8.00 pm to better match the demand and supply for taxi service. Concurrent with the extension of evening peak hours, taxi companies have chosen to soften the impact of this extension by reducing the peak surcharge from 35% of metered fare to 25%.

Besides using fare changes to better match the demand and supply of taxis at different times of the day, taxi companies have also expanded their fleet size to meet the general increase in taxi demand. When compared against the period prior to liberalisation in 2003, the total number of taxi trips increased by 13% from 2003 to 2011 while in the same period, the size of the taxi fleet increased by 27%.

Over the years, the taxi industry has also become more vibrant with the entry of new taxi companies into the market. Consumers can choose among seven taxi companies, up from the previous three companies prior to deregulation. The taxi services rendered have also become more varied, catering to the wide-ranging demands of the commuters. For instance, taxi companies have brought in many more models of taxis into the market, including larger taxis with higher seating capacity up to seven passengers, as well as the introduction of additional modes of fare payment such as credit card, NETS or stored value card which has brought greater convenience to passengers.

The LTA's role in the liberalised market is to facilitate its workings and ensure that quality service is provided. To do this, LTA sets Quality of Service (QoS) standards for taxi companies to comply and also administers the Vocational Licence Point System (VLPS) on taxi drivers.

Under the QoS framework, taxi companies are required to meet standards on call bookings, safety, taxi drivers' conduct, etc. Companies that fail to meet the requisite standards are liable to be penalised financially. In October 2011, the LTA tightened the QoS system. Call booking monitoring was extended to the morning peak period on weekdays, from 6.00 am to 11.00 am. LTA also fine-tuned the computation of call booking performances from averaging over a three-hour period to an hourly basis.

Besides regulating the taxi companies, the LTA also takes a serious view against any misconduct on the part of taxi drivers against the interest and safety of taxi passengers. Regular enforcement checks are carried out by LTA at various hotspots to nab errant taxi drivers and deter would-be offenders. Under the Vocational Licence Point System, taxi drivers who infringe the LTA's rules and regulations will be imposed with composition fines and demerit points based on the severity of the offence. The accumulation of demerit points will lead to the suspension of vocational licence and, in severe cases, the revocation of the licence. Sir, I would like to take this opportunity to encourage members of the public to provide feedback on who they believed to be errant taxi drivers to help LTA step up its enforcement measures and ensure quality taxi service on the ground.

Sir, in summary, the deregulation of the taxi industry has brought about benefits to commuters. Specific to the recent round of fare revisions by the taxi companies, I acknowledge the public's expectation for better quality service with any fare increase. Hence, besides continuing to monitor the performance of taxi companies with respect to the current QoS, LTA will also study how the QoS system will need to be adjusted.

On Ms Tin's question regarding the market share of ComfortDelgro's taxis and whether this constitutes market dominance: allow me to clarify that market share, while it is an important factor, is not in itself a sufficient indicator. Other indicators, such as presence of any market barriers, contestability for the industry, degree of service innovation, and so on, should also be considered, and I believe the taxi industry fares well on balance. Ms Tin may also wish to note that ComfortDelgro's market share has declined from 86% in 2003 to about 58% today, indicating that competition within the taxi industry has indeed intensified over time.

Ms Tin also asked if we would consider defining peak periods. With the deregulation of taxi fares, peak periods are determined by taxi companies based on their assessment of market demand and supply of taxis at different time periods of the day. We currently have no plans to re-regulate taxi fares but we will continue to work closely with the taxi companies to study other measures to better match demand with supply and improve service standards for the benefit of commuters.

Sir, I thank the Minister for the comprehensive reply. I would like to ask, in light of the recent episode whereby ComfortDelgro taxis initiated the rise in taxi fares, a lot of Singaporeans felt that the definition of "peak period surcharge" has been exaggerated. Therefore, I would like to ask if the Ministry would consider, if not defining "peak period", putting other levers in place so as to prevent exaggeration or irresponsible changes to cab fares. As the Minister has pointed out, taxis are seen as part of the public transport system in Singapore which a lot of Singaporeans do rely on to get from Point A to Point B.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me thank the Member for her supplementary question. I think the genesis of the extension of the peak period in the evening beyond 8.00 pm arose because there was a lot of feedback of the difficulty of getting taxis after 8.00 pm and prior to midnight. Normally, our taxis are actually under the two-shift system, although a good number of them are driven by only one driver. Therefore, the rational behaviour would be such that the driver would pick the best time to drive his taxi. And for him, the best time is the revenue that he would derive as a result. And hence, with the peak period in the past stopping at 8.00 pm, there was a lot of feedback on the difficulty of getting a taxi, including through call bookings. Hence, that was one of the main reasons why the taxi companies starting with ComfortDelgro decided on the need to extend the peak surcharge period.

Mr Speaker, the fact remains that each time ComfortDelgro raises their fares, all the other companies follow suit. Does the Minister agree that this is a clear indicator that there is insufficient competition in the taxi market? And if so, in the absence of sufficient competition, will the Ministry of Transport (MOT) consider re-introducing some form of fare regulation?

Let me thank the Member for the supplementary question. It is a good question. But it is also behaviour that extends beyond the taxi industry. For example, for those of us who drive, we find it somewhat coincidental that petrol prices, when they go up, they go up across the different companies – Shell, Esso, Caltex, and so on.

And I think the Competition Commission had actually investigated and explained this in the past. There are good economic explanations for such behaviours. ComfortDelgro, I think, now has more than 50% of the market share, dropping from 80-plus percent in the past. We now have more players in the industry. But I think they also, in a sense, draw reference from the behaviour of the market leader. So there is a certain harmonisation in that sense of the fares over time, in terms of, for example, flag-down rate increases after every 400 metres, but there are also differences. For example, in the booking fees – in the advanced booking fees and the current booking fees – there are variations across taxi companies. It is not a complete harmonisation across the seven companies.

We have looked at it, we felt that there is no need at this time to re-regulate the taxi industry according to fares. What we want to do is to look very closely at the quality of service and see what else needs to be done in this regard.

If I can ask the Minister: the constant complaint is that there are long waiting times for taxis. Can the Minister share with the House whether the waiting time has been cut down ever since the taxi fares have been increased? How else can LTA help to improve the service? Would LTA be prepared to review the Quality of Standard service for taxis? Another question is whether the Minister will agree that having so many types of surcharges will confuse most taxi commuters. Will LTA regulate the imposition of such surcharges?

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me thank Mr Lim for his two supplementary questions. It is still early days yet because it has been barely a month since the increase in the fares. We do not yet have the full picture but based on what we have been able to gather so far and in some instances I would also draw comparisons with what took place in 2007 – with regard to the Member's specific question on waiting times, there is an improvement in waiting times, both within the CBD and outside of CBD. It has also been easier to call book for a taxi. So that is the initial indications that we have.

What we need to do is to see how this pans out over a longer period of time because we know that in 2007, we saw some variations and then over a period of time it stabilises. This is similar to the earnings for taxi drivers. In 2007, when fares were last increased, for the first two months, there was a decline and after the third month, we saw an increase. And when we compared it on a year-on-year basis, in the first year, we would see about a 10% increase in the revenue for the taxi drivers. So, I would say that it is probably still early days but the early indications are that, for waiting times, there is an improvement.

With regard to surcharges and whether this confuses the public: I think the point is that the demand for taxis varies according to the time of the day and it also varies according to the location. If you do not have surcharges that will also influence the behaviour of the drivers as well as to shift the supply patterns, what you will find is that in some instances and in some locations, it will become very, very difficult to get taxis. We saw this before the recent round of fare adjustments, where we had quite a bit of feedback that it was very difficult to get a taxi after 8.00 pm. Now, there is hope.

Mr Speaker, Sir. I would like to ask the Minister, compared to pre-liberalisation and post-liberalisation, is there a reduction in the number of complaints? Is there an increase or improvement in the service? Did we achieve the objectives set out in the liberalisation? Next question – very often my residents tell me that their experience in taking taxis in Hong Kong is much more pleasant, much faster though they have smaller fleet of taxis. So is this true and is there any lesson that we can learn from Hong Kong?

Sir, I do not have the data with me with regard to whether there has been an increase in complaints. I ought to get back to the Member on this. We hear the same feedback with regard to taxi service in Hong Kong that you have taxis waiting for commuters and that it is so easy to get a taxi. And there are no peak surcharges. From the commuters' point of view, it is not a bad situation. The flipside of it, as we also hear from the drivers, is that they find it a lot more difficult in terms of making a living. The indications are that they seem to be working much longer hours compared to the taxi drivers in Singapore. There are two sides to the equation. In the case of Hong Kong, it may be easier for the commuters to get a taxi but, on the other hand, quite a lot more difficult for the taxi drivers.

If I were to just give a quick comparison in terms of fares, for instance, this is after the increase that has taken place in December of last year, for a 10-km trip in Singapore, off-peak period, it is about S$10 and with the 25% peak surcharge which has gone down from 35%, it would be about S$12.30, during the peak period. In Hong Kong, they do not have the surcharge but for a 10-km trip, I think it is about $14.

50. So the fares are higher. It appears to be easier for the commuters to get a taxi but we also know that it is more difficult for the drivers to make a living.

Mr Low Thia Khiang, last question please.

One supplementary question, Sir. I would like to ask the Minister whether he is aware that taxi drivers' income is also affected due to the fare revision. There seems to be fewer people taking taxis now. I would like to ask whether the revised fare has exceeded the threshold that commuters who take taxis were prepared to pay.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his question. This is an interesting question, which is why in my earlier reply I said that it is still early days because it has only been a month since the introduction of the fares. The last time this happened was in 2007. We also had the same initial feedback from the drivers that the increase affected their livelihoods, the takings went down. Indeed, when we looked at the data that we collected, it was so for the first two months after the last fare increase in 2007. But by the third month, it had actually exceeded the data prior to the adjustments and thereafter, it went up. Overall, if you then, in a steady state compare on a year-to-year basis, in their first year, their revenue actually went up about 10%. That was the last fare increase. This time round, it is only a month since the increase took place in December last year, so we will need to have more time to collect the data and then we will be able to do a better analysis.

9 Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked the Minister for National Development in respect of the state acquisition of Rochor Centre (a) what is the rationale for (i) the need to paste acquisition notices on the exterior of all affected units; and (ii) asking residents to state the amount which they opine that they should be compensated for during the Collector of Land Revenue's inquiry meeting; and (b) whether such practices had been explained to the affected residents.

Sir, the Land Acquisition Act requires the Collector of Land Revenue to post acquisition notices at convenient places at or near the land to be taken. This is to notify any interested persons to make their claims to compensation to the Collector.

We have received feedback that the posting of notices on the exterior of the flats is unpleasant for the owners. Hence, the Ministry of Law is removing this requirement, and replacing it with a requirement to publish notices in at least four daily newspapers, one each in each of the four official languages. This change is in the Statutes (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill, which will be moved in this House tomorrow.

As for the need for owners to state their claims at the Collector's Inquiry, this is to enable the Collector to take relevant claims and information into account when determining the statutory compensation in accordance with the Land Acquisition Act. After the statutory compensation is finalised and awarded to the owners, should the owners decide to make an appeal to the Appeals Board, the claims that the owners had earlier submitted will be considered by the Appeals Board.

For the acquisition of Rochor Centre, the Housing Development Board is appointed the Collector. In this role, HDB provides all relevant information and explains the acquisition process to the residents. For instance, during the Collector's Inquiry, HDB will invite the flat owners to submit a claim by asking them to fill up the claim form. HDB will also explain to the flat owners their right under the Land Acquisition Act. HDB officers have been working closely with the owners on the ground and helping them with their questions, including any queries on the compensation value that residents opine they should receive. The Collector's Inquiry is on-going and is scheduled to end on 8 March 2012.

I thank the Minister for the reply, and I really want to thank him for conveying to Ministry of Law about the need to change the practice of pasting the public notices on the doors and on the walls of the flats. Just one point -- my residents who have gone for the Collector's Inquiry meetings have spoken to me. Is the Ministry aware that some of the residents who are affected for the first time by Selective En bloc Redevelopment Scheme (SERS) and acquisitions were asked how much their compensation of the flats should be. Some of them are quite clueless as to how to respond and, in fact, such questions do raise the expectations of some of the residents on how much they would really like to be compensated. Those who are not educated on this might not be sure about the amount they should put down, or how their compensation should be quantified. I think that is also a practice that may need to be improved. For consideration, please.

The answer is yes. We should all do our best to help them. These are, as the Member put it, some fairly old and senior members in our community and may not be as well clued on what to do. And I think it is an opportunity for the MPs and grassroots leaders, working together with HDB officers, to get them to understand their rights under the law. Information will be quite freely available. For example, the claims will be very much dependent on what is the prevailing market value of the flats at the time of acquisitions. On the HDB website, we have published the resale value of those flats. I am quite sure the residents should not have too much difficulty making claims. So far, we are halfway through the process. HDB officers have covered almost half of all the flats which are affected, and about two-thirds of them have already filed their claims.

10 Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked the Minister for National Development with regard to the state acquisition of Rochor Centre (a) whether the Ministry would explain the rationale for the compensation of acquired flats and the pricing of new replacement flats; and (b) whether it would favourably consider (i) added compensation for the current flats, especially for those who have purchased their flats at higher price points; (ii) giving priority to Build-to-Order applications in other areas should residents choose not to relocate to the allocated Kallang replacement site; (iii) reducing the resale levy; (iv) waiving the need to top-up the CPF Minimum Sum for affected retirees as a result of the enforced sale; and (v) giving priority to co-occupiers of the flats, especially adult children, should they apply for units under the sale of balance flats in the new Kallang development.

The extent of compensation that the flat owners at Rochor Centre will receive is governed by the Land Acquisition Act. Specifically, they will be compensated based on the prevailing market values of their existing flats as at the date of the acquisition, which is, 15 November last year. The market value will be assessed by a qualified and professional private valuer licensed by the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) after a thorough physical inspection of each flat. In addition, they will also be given reasonable expenses, which comprise a removal allowance as well as stamp and conveyancing fees to buy a comparable replacement flat.

As home ownership is an important social objective, flat owners whose homes are acquired for a public purpose, like in the case of the Rochor Centre, are given a relocation package, with benefits similar to those offered under the Selective En bloc Redevelopment Scheme (SERS). The new replacement flats, with a fresh 99-year lease -- and I think this is a very important point -- will be offered at subsidised prices, similar to those applicable to all eligible public applicants in HDB's sales exercises. However, the prices will be frozen as at the date of acquisition, 15 November, with a further 20% price discount, of up to $30,000, for eligible flat owners.

Ms Denise Phua has made several requests on behalf of her constituents. She is a very good Member of Parliament and a very hardworking one, too. Let me reply briefly to the requests as the individual package for each flat owner is still being computed and communicated to the affected flat owners.

First, on whether there could be added compensation for those who have bought their flats at a higher price: we need to be fair to all residents. Hence, the compensation has to be on the same basis of market value, irrespective of the original purchase prices. The valuer will take into account the resale transaction prices just before the acquisition was announced, as well as the individual attributes of the flats, including the extent and the condition of renovation, amongst others.

Second, on whether to give Rochor Centre residents priority to Build-to-Order (BTO) applications in other areas should they choose not to relocate to the Kallang replacement site: here we need to balance the needs of Rochor Centre residents and those of the other public applicants. We are, nevertheless, studying the proposal carefully.

Third, on whether the resale levy can be reduced: we can extend some concessions to help the flat owners. For example, for those eligible for the 20% price discount, they can choose to forgo the discount in lieu of paying the resale levy, provided, of course, it is advantageous to them. For those who are not eligible, they may incorporate $30,000 of the resale levy as part of the purchase price of the replacement flat, and defer the balance amount, without interest, until they sell or they transfer the replacement flat.

Fourth, for retirees affected by the CPF Minimum Sum, HDB will help them appeal to CPF Board to use part of the amount to be refunded into the CPF Retirement Account to pay for the replacement flat. As each case is unique, CPF Board and HDB will work together to help the affected flat owners as much as we can, subject to financial prudence.

Finally, on the request to give priority to co-occupiers of the flats should they apply for units under the sale of balance flats in the new Kallang development, the married children can benefit under the Married Child Priority Scheme. They will have double the chances compared to other applicants, once their parents have selected their replacement flats in Kallang.

Sir, to be fair, I think not all the terms of the forced acquisition and the relocation for my residents are negative. For example, the fresh lease of 99 years versus the current 60 years. And, of course, I have been told many times that these practices have been in place for many years, and that the terms apply to other SERS projects. What I am asking Minister for is perhaps for Minister to consider a small work team that comprises some of us to represent the residents' needs, to see if some of these practices can be updated and improved. Especially in the case of, I guess, forced acquisitions where residents actually lose the choice of the time that they would prefer to sell and also the choice of their preferred dwelling. I think there is a case for studying some of these practices – which have been told to me many times – that have been in place for so long. I just ask for a work team to do that. Some of the practices that may need to be re-considered are, for example, the valuation of the current flat –

Ms Phua, can you ask the question?

Would the Minister consider the appointment of, for example, more than one valuer to value these flats? And for those who have just reached retirement or in the last few years reached retirement, relieve them financially without having to top up their CPF Minimum Sum and then have to use whatever is left in the nett proceeds to pay for renovation and upgrading, if possible and also to repay the resale levy at the time that is not of their choice. I know Minister is very compassionate so I ask Minister to consider allowing us to work with the agencies and the Ministry to update some of these practices.

The short answer is a big yes, since both of us personify compassion. Specifically, we would definitely want to work with the MP and her activists to try to find the best way out for the residents who are affected by this. We are extremely mindful that this is an acquisition and suddenly all these come along and then you lose your home where you have stayed for a number of years. We will be as fair as we can and, at the same time, the fact that this is not a first acquisition in Singapore, we have to maintain a certain amount of consistency. Otherwise, the previous owners who were affected would rightly yell and say, "What is happening? Why do you have inconsistent practices in place?" But where we can find a good reason to vary or improve on some of the terms because the situations are unique, we will certainly try to do so.

I think the choice of one valuer versus more than one is quite simple. Whenever valuation is involved, two valuers may come up with two different answers. For the same estate, we try to have one common firm. I think that will help the process of valuation and future disputes. In any case, for anybody who is unhappy with the valuation, there is an appeal process involved. There is an Appeals Board in which case probably the valuation may require a re-valuation by a different firm. So the opportunity for a separate valuation is out there.

As for the CPF Minimum Sum for seniors who are affected, as I have said in my reply, we are on the same side here. We will work together with the MP and the residents to try to make a case to CPF to try to help out. As far as we can see, provided the movement is lateral, in other words, if you stay in a 3-room flat and you move to an equivalent 3-room flat, they should not end up having to get money out-of-pocket. That has always been our experience in previous SERS cases. I see no reason why, in this instance, that should not also be the case.

Mr Speaker, Sir, before I raise my question, I would like to declare my interest. I work in a bank. Question 11, Sir.

11 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Prime Minister whether the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) would consider disallowing banks to finance either the full or partial Certificate of Entitlement (COE) premiums as part of the measures to moderate the rise in COE premiums.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Gan Thiam Poh's question has to do with whether the MAS should disallow banks from financing, either fully or partially, Certificate of Entitlement (COE) premiums as part of the measures to moderate the rise in COE premiums. We did, in fact, have financing limits on car loans by banks from 1995 to sometime in 2003. They were, however, not very effective in influencing COE prices one direction or another and in particular in stemming an increase in COE prices.

One reason is that banks are not the only financing source. In fact, their share of car loans today is somewhat lower than it was10 years ago. Individuals can borrow from other entities such as car dealers and non-bank credit or leasing companies to get around the rules that are in place for banks. They can also draw on their own savings to pay COE premiums.

The more fundamental factors which impact on COE premiums include the economic outlook which shapes demand, the supply of COEs which is determined by the allowable vehicle growth and by car owners' decisions on their own part on whether they decide to de-register their cars at the preceding period. That determines the supply of COEs.

In addition, I should say from the perspective of financial stability which is the MAS' primary concern, car loans granted by financial institutions do not pose threats to financial stability. These loans form a very small proportion of total loans in the financial system, or even of total consumer loans and the proportion of car loans that are non-performing loans is low – extremely low. Disallowing banks from financing COEs fully or partially would therefore not be an effective or appropriate tool for addressing pricing COE premiums. I can assure Mr Gan Thiam Poh, however, that MAS expects financial institutions to exercise prudence when extending loans for the purchase of cars, taking into account the credit worthiness of the borrower, his debt servicing ability, and the value of collateral.

I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for the comprehensive reply. What I am concerned about is that the rising COE premiums will have an impact on the cost of living in Singapore. That would translate into higher transport costs such as taxi fare, bus fare, etc. My point is that there could be different ways to moderate the rise in COE premiums in addition to alternate sources of financing for consumers or users. It could also be fiscal measures, such as cooling measures, to moderate the rise in COE premiums. Will MAS consider all those measures?

I think part of Mr Gan's question is a broader question about price inflation and part of it really is the issue for LTA and MOT to address. The COE system, if I could just say very briefly on behalf of MOT or LTA, is not one that is designed to stabilise COE prices as such. It is a system which allows an available supply of COEs as determined by the allowable vehicle growth rate to be rationed. And depending on demand, which is itself shaped by the economic climate, we then have the COE price being determined through open bidding. The policy is not to stabilise COE prices as such.

However, Mr Gan does have a valid concern as we all do about the overall cost of living and the COE premiums can, if they spike up very suddenly and substantially, influence the cost of living, indirectly through business costs as well as directly for those who are purchasing their cars. This is something that has to be addressed more broadly and MAS does play a role in addressing inflationary pressures. It is something which we keep a very close watch on. I would add, however, that the impact of the COE premiums on the CPI index can sometimes be a little exaggerated because not many people buy COEs in any particular year, but the impact of that price spike can be quite significant on the measured CPI index.

It is a valid concern but not one that I think should be addressed by re-imposing rules on bank loans because we have found from the past – and, in fact, I had a look at the data because of Mr Gan's question – it is quite clear from the data on COE prices and the restrictions we placed on bank loans that the measures on bank loans had virtually no impact.

12 Mr Zainudin Nordin asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) what are the plans and steps taken for all Government Ministries to support the Best Sourcing Initiative (BSI); (b) how and when are the different Ministries changing their procurement procedures to illustrate the clear intent of the Government on BSI; and (c) how will the Government measure the positive outcomes of the BSI in helping low wage workers get better employment terms.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Member for his question. The Government recognises that Ministries as significant buyers of services have an important role to play in achieving momentum in the Best Sourcing Initiative. In support of the BSI, many public agencies already take into consideration quality and not just price in awarding services tenders. To give just one example, the National Parks Board requires landscape service providers to adopt best practices such as employing professionally certified workers and the use of technology to meet expected performance standards.

All public agencies are also encouraged to adopt recommendations in the Tripartite Advisory on Responsible Outsourcing. This advisory, first released in 2008, is currently being updated by the Ministry of Manpower and its tripartite partners. When the new advisory is ready, the Ministry of Finance will ensure that public agencies are aligned with the revised requirements.

Some Government agencies like the NEA and the Singapore Police Forces' Security Industry Regulatory Department (SIRD) have gone one step further to help professionalise and uplift the cleaning and security sectors which hire large numbers of low wage workers through grading or accreditation schemes. The grading scheme for security agencies was started in 2006 and was made mandatory in 2009. Similarly, the NEA introduced a voluntary accreditation for cleaning companies in July 2010. We have observed that such efforts are effective and will encourage more public agencies to introduce similar programmes.

To give such efforts an added boost, the Government is currently working with its tripartite partners who identified further measures that can be taken to raise the productivity and professionalism of low-wage jobs and help the workers receive higher wages and better employment terms. The Government will also look into how procurement can be done to support these measures. More details on these measures will be announced later.

Mr Zainudin, who has been a tireless champion for low-wage workers, has brought up these issues several times in this House. He is certainly right that the Best Sourcing Initiative should be assessed by its impact on the wages and employment terms of low-wage workers over time. We hope that this initiative will help not just low-wage workers who are engaged to fulfil Government contracts but also other low-wage workers throughout the economy to achieve better employment terms.

Sir, supplementary questions. Based on my personal experience in the past few years with BSI, there are varied outcomes from different partners that we worked with. SIRD has been very positive, PAP Town Councils have been very positive. But I believe that there needs to be some willpower among the Ministries and Government to make sure this change takes place. So my question is: is an advisory sufficient for such a will to make things happen so that changes can come about? Or should there be more than just an advisory, maybe an SOP or an instruction, to clearly articulate the intent of Government to adopt BSI?

Mr Speaker, Mr Zainudin has asked a question of how do we get public agencies to respond to what is essentially a set of guidelines that encourages individuals to do something rather than imposes it as a mandatory regulation. He is very right to ask this question. Let me share a little bit of how procurement practices are supervised. One of the important things that is issued and Ministries adhered to, is really the Finance Circular. So when we issue an advisory and supplement it by a Finance Circular, the instruction and the signalling given to the Ministries is that this is something to be taken very seriously and we want them to incorporate it into their procurement procedures.

And so, when the Member talked about the SOP, although it is not strictly a set of procedures that is prescribed, nonetheless, the emphasis is given through the circular. We have adopted this approach of the advisory because practices have to be suitable to the circumstances in which the agencies operate. We also want the agencies to take ownership of it and not just follow these advisories for the sake of it. We want them to go beyond it. So the earlier examples that we cited, SIRD and NParks, are very good examples of how even in the presence of our advisories, agencies can go beyond what is expected of them. I want to assure the Member that this is something that we want to take very seriously. We do recognise that as major buyers, we have an important role to play to sustain this momentum.

I thank the Minister of State for the reply and the concern for low-wage workers. However, the NParks and SIRD's initiatives have been put in place for a number of years, and these are just two of the positive examples that we have so far. So perhaps if I can ask the Minister of State to update the House, if possible, the proportion of workers on contract with the Ministries who have been hired through the BSI initiative and whether the wages of all these contract workers are also being monitored.

Sir, what I can share with the Member, Mr Yam, is that the Government employs, through its contractors, about 6,000 cleaners. Now, this is a significant share of the estimated 46,000 local cleaners in Singapore. I do not have the exact figures that will respond to his question directly but what we can say is that what we do in the public sector does have its significant impact on the private sector. The interest to continue to support the BSI and the emphasis on its importance is something that we think and agree is important in moving the momentum forward.

Sir, I thank the Minister of State for the reply. Can the Minister of State give the assurance that the wages and the employment rights of the outsourced workers under Government BSI contracts will not be worse off compared to if they had not been under a Government BSI contract?

Sir, Mr Zainal Sapari has asked a question of whether we will ensure that the terms being offered under the Government contracts are not worse off than in private sector.

Worse off compared to if they have not been evaluated under a Government BSI contract. Because the move now is for all Government contracts to adhere to BSI guidelines. So can the Minister of State give the assurance that the wages and employment rights of the workers will not be worse off compared to previously, had the contract been a non-BSI contract?

That is certainly our intent and we will work towards that.

Mr Patrick Tay, last question.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask the Minister of State, as the Ministries embrace the BSI, whether it would be also extended to the statutory boards as well as the Government-linked companies.

Our emphasis is on the Ministries. For the statutory boards that are within the Ministries' purview of supervision, we would also very much encourage them to adhere to these guidelines. As to the Government-linked companies, they are actually a set of entities that will have to observe their own procurement practices. Our intention, as significant buyers in the market, is to be able to influence the direction in which the market moves whilst not dictating the terms.

13 Mr Zaqy Mohamad asked the Minister for Trade and Industry whether there is a practice by retail developers and managing agents to require retail outlets to declare their profits or link their point of sales systems to monitor profitability of the outlets and, if so, whether the Ministry would study the impact of this practice on the competitiveness of the retail sector in terms of rental rates and prices to consumers.

Sir, some mall operators do require their retail outlets to declare their revenues or link their point of sales (POS) systems to a mall-wide system. The revenue data may be used to determine the rents of their tenants and this allows mall operators to charge rental rate that varies with economic and business conditions, rather than a flat rate regardless of business performance.

The contractual agreement between the mall operator and retailers is a commercial arrangement, and does not inhibit competition in the retail sector. Such contractual agreements are best left to the market players to negotiate among themselves. To support the business environment, the Government maintains an adequate supply of commercial space to meet medium-term demand and ensures that businesses do not engage in anti-competitive practices. The Ministry of Trade and Industry and the Ministry of National Development will continue to monitor the commercial property market closely.

Mr Zaqy, do you have a supplementary question?

Yes, Mr Speaker, just one supplementary question. The reply by the Minister of State is certainly good but the feedback that I get from the retailers, especially the small ones, is that the practice swings towards a playing field to favour the developers. So there is little incentive for the retailers to improve productivity and to reduce costs because they know the developers will know of their profitability. What is the Ministry's view on this practice? If landlords increase rental rates, the costs will also increase and these will be passed on to consumers. Will this also mean that the retail sector will favour the larger players and we are seeing the smaller players being a bit more disadvantaged as a result of this practice?

Sir, to begin with, the retail sector is a very competitive sector. Competitive because the threshold for entry is relatively low and many would-be entrepreneurs would want to begin a business idea from the retail sector.

Retail space prices go in cycles and what we have observed is that the retail rentals in the last quarter have returned to the pre-crisis peak in 2008. And the previous peak was in the 1998. There was 10 years of lull period, where retail rental was relatively low. The Government's role is really to ensure that in the median term, there would be an adequate supply of retail space and, in fact, based on known projects, the retail space supply would be between 90,000 and 108,000, compared to the five-year past average of just 85,000. So this is about 27% more than the previous supply.

We believe that with this supply coming on-stream, the mall operators and their tenants will work together to cope with the increased space as well as to innovate. It is a narrow view to say that by participating in the mall-wide point-of-sales system, there would be a lot of downsides. In fact, by integrating sales information, I think the mall operators and the tenants can better share information about their customers, about what is selling, what is not, about the best-performing stalls and the least-performing stalls in the mall and from there, they can decide how to promote the malls to the targeted customer segment. In that sense, my personal observation is that the better organised malls are the more successful ones, and are the bigger crowd pullers.

Having said this, I think it is important to emphasise the importance of raising our retail sector productivity. This is why the National Productivity and Continuing Education Council (NPCEC) launched the National Retail Sector roadmap for the productivity improvement in the 2010. Under this roadmap, the Government will provide a lot of resources to help SMEs train their workers and improve the service level as well as to invest in the necessary technology systems to help them to be the best of class.

Mr Zaqy, last question. Keep it short.

I understand the market dynamics approach that MTI adopts and the issue here is, for the retailer, with your books being very transparent to the developer, all you are doing is really running on the treadmill. You do more, you make more; they increase the rents. There is very little incentive to invest in better service, better quality for consumers. That is one. Two, I understand there are market dynamics in terms of having aggregate rentals going up or down vis-a-vis the market conditions. The only issue is when you have Profit and Loss statements being put up to the developers, they can target rent increase, whether to a small segment –

Mr Zaqy, you need to give the Minister of State time to respond.

Thank you, Sir. Well, to put things in perspective, I could probably highlight one survey. Singapore retail rent is comparable to many other cities in the world. For instance, compared to New York, we are about one-sixth or one-seventh of Fifth Avenue rents. We are about one-sixth of that of Hong Kong and one-third of that of Ginza in Tokyo. Retail rental is one component of the costs. Apart from just looking at cost containment, which is something that SMEs retailers must do, they also must look at value creation.

Order. End of Question Time.

[Pursuant to Standing Order No. 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos. 10, 11-31 and 33 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix (Pg 990-993). Question Nos. 12 to 15 have been postponed to the sitting of Parliament on 18 January 2012.]

Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question (16 January 2012).

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

Question again proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank you for the challenge for being the first speaker today. The Committee headed by Mr Gerard Ee has spent many months soliciting public feedback and suggestions on the issue of political salaries and of course MP allowances included as well. Many passionate Singaporeans have stepped forward during the course of the consultation process to provide their perspectives and also detailed ideas on what would be an equitable salary to ensure both a capable and committed government that continues to place emphasis on service as an integral part of holding political office.

The bold adoption of the full recommendations of the Committee by the Government signifies a continued commitment to listening to public feedback and concerns and acting on it. A debate on the issue in this House is an important one especially if it involves the political leadership of our nation for the present and the future. However, I hasten to add that whatever our views on the subtle differences on mathematical formulas and benchmarks, it is important for us to remember that at the end of our debate the number of people who will be impacted directly by the adopted changes will add up to a grand total of just 100. This includes all eventual Members of this House as well as the President of the Republic. Only a grand total of 100 will experience the real impact of the change out of our entire population of 3.26 million Singapore citizens.

As such, Mr Speaker, Sir, I urge that beyond the debate that we are having now, which is important, we will all need to re-focus in future on the real business of government. And that involves keeping our focus on the people of Singapore.

In the Budget Statement of 2011, which this House adopted, we pledged collectively that the target is to raise median income of Singaporeans to $3,100 by 2020, which is to say a 30% increase in real wages in 10 years. That, in my view, is a debate that we should truly be having.

That a decrease in allowances or salaries by 99 members of this House and the President will not realise real wage increases for the rest of Singaporeans is not the moot point. What is of importance is that we fulfil that pledge through coherent and well thought-out policies that will help to drive up real take home income of ordinary Singaporeans. This is where a capable and committed Government is important.

Mathematically, looking at Goal 2020, we will require an average of 2.7% wage increase every single year to meet the targets. At the current moment, depending on who you ask and what statistics you look at, different analyses will derive different figures on the current rate increase. One report indicated that the average increase is about 2.8% for last year but has dropped to 0.1% if part-time workers as well as contract workers are also included in the calculation. Another statistic that was also shared recently at the SHRI conference was a much lower figure.

It is perhaps not ironic that the debate we are having now is occurring about the time that many Singaporeans are receiving news about their annual increments (AIs). HR consultants in a report by TODAY newspaper, at the start of the work year, projected a modest wage increase of 4% to 5% for this year. Taking into account the laws of averages, we seem to be on track.

However, at the same time, averages do not always tell the full story. This is because in the same report economists were quoted that the projected inflation may hover about 2.5% to 3.5%. That brings the target back down. In my interaction with workers over the past few months, many continue to be genuinely concerned over prospects for 2012. Some companies have also used the backdrop of a projected slowdown in the world economy to try to adjust lower AIs and bonuses in certain sectors. But the companies in sunset industries have not had an AI for their workers over a number of years. For these workers, their aspirations for real wage increase will certainly be a challenge especially with the global outlook and inflation. Workers wages certainly cannot take a discount.

One lady I spoke to recently is raising a family of five on a take home pay of only $760. She works six days a week. That to me is a real challenge of this House. While it is important for us politically to discuss the sensitive issue of political salaries, it is equally if not more important that we hunker down and plan for the improvements in the lives of our workers in Singapore.

Even amongst younger Singaporeans, we have seen in the recent Joint Graduate Employment Survey by the polytechnics that while many poly graduates are securing higher starting wage jobs, many are now on part-time or contract jobs where wage increases are more challenging year on year. So while a reduction of political salaries and allowances is a significant move, let us not forget that Singaporeans expect Members of this House to continue to focus on their interests and their daily lives in a bleak global economy.

Over the years many schemes have been introduced, for example, the Inclusive Growth Programme. Companies, such as McDonald's Singapore, have come on board. Last year, through productivity and efficiency improvement, full time crew members have seen an almost 20% increase in their wages. Yet, this is just the tip of the iceberg. There are many other workers and many more challenges ahead for working people.

Returning to the subject of political allowances and salaries, I applaud the bold move by the Government to adopt the proposals by the Committee. Whether or not we all agree on the benchmarks or percentages, it is indeed a positive move and one welcomed by Singaporeans. What will be even more welcomed will be a continued display of capable and committed leadership in this House to positively debate on changing and improving the livelihoods of ordinary Singaporeans. 照顾弱势，缩小贫富差距，新精神，新思维. Let us continue in this House to show our care and concern for the less fortunate, reduce the income gap, and build a new consensus and a new spirit for Singaporeans. With that Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I will first deliver my speech in English followed by Malay. I wish to express my concern that this Government is still pushing the notion that Singapore needs to pay the highest political salaries in the developed world to ensure an honest government and attract talented individuals to serve the people. Are we sending the right message to the next generation that our top leadership may not function at a desired level if the Ministerial pay is not benchmarked against the highest income earners in Singapore? Do we really believe our top leaders will be less capable, less honest, and less committed if their political pay is not benchmarked against these top 1,000 private sector earners? Therefore, that the consequence of not paying top dollars to secure the service of future leaders is an incompetent and corrupt government? Does this House seriously believe we can have an honest government and prevent corruption simply by paying millions of dollars to our Ministers? If a Minister has a character flaw lurking inside him, can a million-dollar salary be the cure? How many Members in this House would have a second thought about serving the people if your salary is not benchmarked against top earners in Singapore?

The Deputy Prime Minister said yesterday that there is no right answer to this complex issue of determining public office salaries. He also said it is a judgement call. But the message we send in this judgement call is important for the next generation. We certainly do not want to encourage and inspire the wrong people to enter politics.

This brings me to my views on our human capital and values we want to inculcate in our country. Yes, we are a small country with a small citizen population and we operate in an open economy. Our talent pool is naturally limited. The people's will to succeed is definitely not. This nation was started with less than two million people. Our forefathers have worked hand in hand with the first generation leaders to build this nation and they did well. Now that we have added over a million more citizens, is our will to succeed a lot less now than we first started? Have we left our values so far behind that we are beginning to believe that the best incentive to attract people to step forward to serve the community is just money?

In my experience as a counsellor, people who are passionate about serving the community do not quantify their sacrifice in dollars and cents. Likewise, people of the right calibre will not be deterred from stepping forward to lead the country even if they have to take a pay cut in the process.

Given that the ethos of political service encompasses a fair amount of sacrifice, to think that we can quantify that sacrifice by a 40% discount to the median income of the top 1,000 earners in the revised salary benchmark for Ministers, may be bordering on insult to many people who are serving the community at meagre wages.

Can we put a value on passion, ethics and sacrifice? Is the 40% discount in this revised pay formula a sacrifice on the part of the Ministers? Is there even a sacrifice to begin with when some of these potential talents are not even featured in the list of top 1,000 earners in Singapore before they entered into politics?

What kind of values do we wish to inculcate in the next generation? This is precisely why the Workers' Party is advocating a different approach in determining the benchmark for political salaries rather than starting the benchmark at the median income of the top 1,000 earners. The rationale is simple. Not everything is about money.

During the debate on the President's Address last October, there was a call to build an inclusive society. The proposal by the Workers' Party takes into consideration this notion. We call for a whole-of-government people up approach in pegging the salaries of Ministers and MPs to the salaries of senior executives in the civil service. The civil service pay is competitively pegged to general market conditions and any market adjustments made to this benchmark, positive or negative, will be reflected in the political salary. This approach I believe has the hallmark of an inclusive society as compared to the proposal to peg Ministerial pay to the top 1,000 earners. By aligning the political salary structures to the civil service, the empathy gap between our political leaders and the general population will narrow over time. As selected leaders, we should lead by example in an effort to build an inclusive society.

At this time, I want to address the points brought up by some Members of this House yesterday. MP Mr Inderjit Singh has highlighted that, unlike politicians in the UK, our elected Members here are not given additional perks on top of our salary. We cannot compare apples to oranges. Looking at the geographical size of the United Kingdom, we can probably understand why political leaders there are given such perks like housing, a chauffeur-driven car, meals and even laundry allowance. We do not need to travel long distance and spend time away from our family to attend parliament sittings, but our UK counterparts do.

The Workers' Party has studied and deliberated on the issue of perks and other forms of allowances which are not implemented here. That is why we propose to peg the salary of the Ministerial salary at five times the salary of an MP. This multiple is more than what is being practised in some of the countries we surveyed, which ranges from 1.2 to 4.6 times.

Next, I share the view of Member Ms Denise Phua about perception. That a glass can be seen as either half empty or half full. I still believe there is no right answer to the formula put up by the Review Committee. However, we need to remind ourselves that we are servants of the people. We need to remind ourselves to be humble, compassionate and sincere. The whole-of-government people up approach to benchmarking political salaries, as proposed by the Workers' Party, is a step towards building the emotional bond with the people we serve. It is a step towards creating an inclusive society. It is also a step towards inculcating good values in our future generations.

Sir, while we want to attract people of the right calibre to serve, we must also ensure we attract people of the right values to lead this nation. While we cannot leave the recruitment and development of leaders to chance, we certainly cannot entrench the belief that paying high salaries is the primary way to get competent people to enter politics. For many of us, our journey to this august Chamber began with a dream to build a better Singapore for all. This journey is certainly not going to end just because we are not benchmarked against the highest wage earners in Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to continue in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Pg 995 for Vernacular Speeches*.] I agree with my colleague, Mr Chen Show Mao, that the move to reduce the salaries of Ministers and political leaders should be welcomed. However, the formula put forward by the Committee to Review Ministerial Salaries is inaccurate or dissatisfactory. The recommendation by the Committee to use the median income of the top 1,000 Singaporean earners, less a 40% discount, is still a top-down approach. We are of the view that this approach does not really show the inclusive and concerned character that the Government wants to inculcate. We believe that this approach can result in an emotional gap between our political leaders and the general public of Singapore.

We acknowledge that it is important that Singapore be led by political leaders with competency and skills that are good and appropriate. However, salary alone should not be the main factor to attract competent individuals. The involvement in politics should come from sincerely wanting to contribute and serve the people. So, we believe that the formula and criteria used for the ministerial salaries should be based on community service and inclusiveness. We propose that the whole-of-Government approach or a bottom-up approach be used.

The objectives and principles of political service are in line with the objectives and principles of the civil service. With this similarity, we propose that the ministerial salaries be based on the allowance of Members of Parliament, and in turn, the MP's allowance should be based on the salaries of the senior executives in civil service. In Singapore, the civil service pay depends on the general market conditions. Based on this proposal, the salaries of Ministers and political leaders will experience the same rise and fall that is experienced by a larger number of Singaporeans, and not tied to the top 1,000 Singaporean earners.

Before I end this speech, I would like give a reminder, especially to myself as well as to the leaders in the House, that this leadership position we hold is a trust given to us by the people. In carrying out this trust, we should emulate the spirit of community service, sincerity and humility. We must learn from the eminent world leaders, and understand and internalise the principles held by these leaders. Among the examples of eminent leaders is Mr Sun Yat Sen, a leader who sacrificed his career as a doctor in order to devote himself to change the lives of the Chinese people. He did not care or worry about leaving his job as a leader for sake of the people. The second example is Mr Mahatma Gandhi, who sacrificed his heart and soul for the people of India. I think that his virtues speak for themselves. Thirdly, Mr Umar Al-Khattab, an eminent leader in the Arabian Peninsula is famed for his humility and devotion to the people. He was a leader who chose not to have a throne or palace. He was more comfortable having the same living conditions like an ordinary citizen because of his highly cohesive nature and his wish to be in touch with the people's lives. He had also rejected the proposal that his son take over the leadership after he is gone. He rejected it firmly by saying that it is sufficient that just one member from his family becomes the leader.

What we can learn from these leaders are the principles that they applied and held to, and the leadership that they demonstrated. This allowed the leaders to successfully make major changes and bring a lot of benefit to the people that they led.

Mr Speaker, with this, I would like to end by rejecting the recommendations by the Committee to Review Ministerial Salaries because I believe that the formula used in the proposal is still lacking in terms of producing the inclusive and concerned character in Singaporeans.

Mr Speaker, serving as a Member of Parliament is indeed an honour. I was nervous when I first ran for elections because I recognised it was a heavy responsibility. The job was certainly not easy, but the sense of fulfilment one gets from making people's lives better is more than anything money can afford to buy. I am humbled and touched each time a resident comes over to say "thank you" or expresses appreciation for what our team members have done for them. At the same time, I recognise that if one wants to be a Minister, one would also need skills in managing large budgets in organisations and in making decisions involving complex considerations. In some Ministries, such as law and finance, it is necessary to have Ministers who have strong technical skills in the areas, too.

It is, in fact, precisely because Ministers and office holders require special skills that are quite different from the skills of ordinary MPs, that many countries, including the US, have office holders who are appointed rather than elected. Even in the UK, which is probably the closest we have to our system, office holders are sometimes placed in the House of Lords because they have the necessary technical skills even if they are not MPs.

Now, I for one certainly do not think I have the skills or experience to run a Ministry and I am sure many other MPs would share that view. We are happy to serve and fight for our residents, but the running of Ministries requires people who are not only MPs but who also have the necessary skills and experience in making decisions at that level.

I certainly do not think we want Ministers who are motivated by money. I also have the fullest confidence that both our party and the electorate are sophisticated enough to weed out such people. At the same time, though, we do not want money to be an obstacle to people entering politics. I think many of our current office-holders probably took pay cuts to enter politics at the various levels they entered at.

Now, this is naturally an emotional topic. When dealing with divisive issues, I always think it is helpful to start on common ground. Surprisingly, notwithstanding the language used, I think there is actually a lot of agreement between people in this House. When I listened to some of the debates yesterday, they reminded me a little bit of the story in Gulliver's Travels. When Gulliver landed in the land of Lilliput, there was a big divide between people who wanted to break soft-boiled eggs at the top end and people who wanted to break the eggs at the bottom end. But at the end of the day, what you arrive at is a cracked egg. So, what is interesting here is: the Workers' Party has used very strong language to criticise the proposals of the Committee, essentially calling it "elitist" for pegging Ministerial salaries to the top 1,000 income earners. They then put forward their own rather precise proposal of pegging MPs' salaries to the MX9 pay grade in the civil service using a five-time multiple for the Minister's salary.

When I asked the Workers' Party if they had made this proposal known to Mr Ee's Committee, it was only out of fairness because I myself have not heard that before. The first time I heard it was yesterday. And if they are going to level such strong criticisms at Mr Ee's Committee, the least they could have done was put their ideas forward before the Committee came out with its proposals, rather than slamming them afterwards by saying, "Why did you not think of this before?" The public consultation was open for many months, and I think many Singaporeans had written in. I understand they received about 500 emails and messages. And that will probably mean there were 500 different opinions on what should be done. So in that sense, I think the Committee had a very difficult job.

However, in examining the exact principles used by the Workers' Party in its calculation, I actually think there is not that much difference between what the Workers' Party is proposing and what the Committee, in fact, put forward, except there is a small discount at each level. The Workers' Party has also come a long way from their previously-held public positions and pretty much abandoned most of them. So, in that sense, I think that the gap between Members in this House has, in fact, become extremely narrow.

The Workers' Party said at the starting point, that calculation of MPs' allowances should be pegged at MX9 civil service pay grade. I am not a civil servant myself, so I just checked. From what I understand, this is, in fact, not a wage that is at par with the average working level as the Workers' Party has tried to represent. In fact, this is the wage, I understand, that of a Superscale in the civil service. I think less than 2% of people in the civil service get this. So, the Workers' Party's starting point is certainly not the average wage level as they have represented. It is, in fact, much higher than that. I also disagree that an MP's allowance should be compared with a civil servant's pay because, for one thing, I do not know about the Workers' Party, but I know certainly most PAP MPs do not pocket the entire allowance. It is, in fact, a large part of the expenses we incurred in running our constituencies as well. I mean, in other countries, MPs get expense accounts. We do not get that. The allowance is, in fact, the sum total of the expense account and if there is anything left then that could be considered a "salary", but I would hardly consider it that. So, in that sense, thinking of the MP's allowance as a salary is, perhaps, the wrong starting point because I do not think that is what it is. It is, in fact, an all-in package that encompasses an amount you have to give back to the community as well.

But having said that, while I may disagree with them using that as a starting point, the number they come up with is not too far away from what we have right now. So, again, we may disagree on how we want to crack the egg but, at the end of the day, I think the number we arrive at is not too far apart.

The next point: the Workers' Party says that the Minister's salary should be pegged at five times the MP's allowance. This basically means the MP's allowance is about 20% of the Minister's pay. In fact, the Committee recommended 17.5%. Again, not very far off – a 2.5% difference. And the Workers' Party does not explain why it came up with the multiple of five times rather than four or six times. It could be any number in the air, but they decided on five, which miraculously, brings them very close to what the Committee came up with.

Another point that is interesting is the Workers' Party suggested that the benchmark we use for an entry-level Minister be $55,000. What is interesting is this: the Committee recommended $55,000 monthly salary as a benchmark, but the entry level was actually lower than that. In fact, it was precisely $46,750. So, in fact, the Workers' Party is proposing a higher starting salary for Ministers. And this is interesting because the difference in salary for one month is about $8,250. If you multiply that over the course of a year, the Workers' Party's proposed starting salary for Ministers amounts to about $99,000 more than what the Committee recommended. $99,000, incidentally, is about a two-month bonus based on the base salary of $46,750. The Workers' Party has raised a big ruckus about the quantum of the bonus. The starting salary they have proposed incorporates a two-month bonus based on the current starting salary. So, they have, in fact, proposed a higher starting salary for Ministers than even the one the Committee recommended. While the Workers' Party kicks up a big fuss about the bonus right now, it is important to keep this in mind because any bonus they calculate, for an entry-level Minister, would also be based on this higher starting salary.

Now, on the other point: this is where we deal with the bonus itself. Mr Giam says that the average bonus should be pegged at three months rather than the six months that the Committee recommends. Now, one of the interesting points is this: my initial reaction to the bonus component also was that it was extremely high. And, to be fair, that is a larger sum of money most ordinary people would ever get. But when I looked at the targets that were set for the National Bonus, I would also say that those targets are extremely hard to achieve. And I believe that the Deputy Prime Minister also clarified that the individual bonus component would be determined not only by the Minister's contribution to his own Ministry but also by how much he contributed towards achieving the national bonus matrix. In that sense, the national bonus matrix has become the target that our Government has set out to achieve. This target is a target I do not think leaders of any other countries have set out to achieve. And if you look at recent history, I do not think leaders of any other country have achieved.

We will just look at some of the targets. In order to achieve, say, the six-month bonus – the so called average bonus – this sounds like a big number. If you look at the targets, the GDP has to grow, and in real terms, by 3% to 5%. The income of the lowest 20% has to grow by 2% to 3% in real terms, and the median income has to grow by 2% to 3% in real terms. The word "real" basically means that this has to take into account inflation. Inflation, as at November, I believe, was about 5.7%. And inflation is pretty much a worldwide phenomenon. Central banks all over the world are printing money, commodity prices are shooting through the roof. Controlling inflation, in itself, is a challenge.

The targets the Government has undertaken actually involve not only making sure that incomes rise in line with inflation, but exceeding it. What that basically means is that GDP growth, in actual terms, may have to be – well, if it is 3% to 5% in real terms, that would be 8.7% to 10.7%. Incomes, likewise, will have to grow between 7% and 8%. If inflation comes down, those targets would come down. But the real point is that inflation is incorporated into all of these targets. And I do not know of any developed country, anywhere in the world where the government has been able to achieve these targets. So, indeed, even the target to get the so called "average" bonuses is a very difficult one. And if our office holders achieved that, I think the benefits to Singaporeans would be tremendous, especially to the average Singaporeans and also to those in the lower income groups. So, in that sense, I would not begrudge them that.

While the Workers' Party also makes a big issue about the so called "13-month" maximum bonus, needless to say the targets to achieve that would be astronomical, especially when inflation stays at the current levels. If our Government is able to achieve that, then I think the people of Singapore would be so much better off and that a couple of months' difference in pay is probably not that big a deal to divide this House over.

I was also a little surprised when Mr Giam ended his speech by saying he opposes the motion. Because given how much common ground there is between the parties, it is stunning that he would actually want to oppose a motion that, in my view, is extremely progressive, and brings us much closer to the Workers' Party's ideas than anyone that has ever proposed before. Because by opposing the motion, what he is actually saying is that he would rather keep the existing pay scales, than to move forward with the proposal the Committee has put up. And I do not think anyone here would agree to that.

Now, let me also deal a little bit with some of the previous positions taken by the Workers' Party because I actually think this proposal touched on a lot of the principles that were brought up back then as well. In 2006, for example, in an interview, Mr Low Thia Khiang said that the Ministers' salaries should be set at about a hundred times that of a worker in the lowest 20th percentile. At that time, he believed that this figure was $800. So back in 2006, Mr Low was actually comfortable with a salary of $80,000 a month for a Minister. He also took out the implication of this. What he said then was that it also meant that if the income of the person in the lowest 20% group rose by $1,000, the Ministers would get $100,000 more, not just a year but a month. So, he was actually quite comfortable with having the Ministers earn more, if the lowest-income workers earned more back in 2006.

In many ways, the Committee's proposal actually takes this principle into account. It, in fact, pretty much says that the income of the lowest 20% has to rise. It is, in fact, even less generous than Mr Low in two respects. One, the base pay is lower; and, two, the actual bonus is capped – it is not unlimited, whereas in Mr Low's example, the upside would have been unlimited. So, in fact, the salaries are less generous than what the Workers' Party proposed in 2006 in many ways.

Now, in the Workers' Party's manifesto, the position was slightly different. They actually said, both in 2006 and 2011, that the Ministerial salaries should actually be pegged to the salaries of foreign leaders with all their expenses and so on taken into account. But the reality is this: this is a notoriously difficult exercise and I notice that the Workers' Party, despite having said this for the last five years, has not come up with a single proposal on what the numbers would actually be if this formula was applied. And they have had five years to come up with this.

I myself tried to do this exercise and it was very, very difficult because a lot of the actual bonuses and perks are actually very obscure. I took a stab at Australia just now because it was the first country on the list. Over there, I think, the Prime Minister receives an annual salary of $495,000 a year, which obviously looks more, compared to what our Ministers earn. But the Prime Minister has two official residences while she is in office. In previous sessions, the Members of Parliament of the Opposition had said, "We are quite happy to have our Ministers live in bungalows." The rental of a bungalow in Singapore, according to Property Guru, checked as of this morning, was between $25,000 and $42,000 a month. So, if we include that as part of the pay package, as one of the perks, just monetising that perk alone would probably amount to $300,000 to $400,000 more a year. And this excludes other perks such as free first-class travel for herself and her spouse for the rest of their lives, a fully-paid-for office for the rest of their lives and, of course, all the expenses involved in keeping up the house, and so on, would also be paid for by the state. And these are just some of the perks. There are, of course, lots of other perks – I have not had the ability to find out the values for all of them because they are found in so many different pieces of legislation and are so difficult to put together. So in that sense, our clean wage system – what you see is what you get – is, in fact, one of the most transparent you would find. And because of that, our Ministers come under flak. But I think that is fair game because people should know exactly what the cost of public office is, nothing hidden.

Ministerial pay is a highly emotive issue. I think the fact that the two sides of this House do not, in fact, differ that much in the ultimate outcome is a good start and I hope that we can all get together and support this proposal because, ultimately, it seems like we have more similarities than differences. [Applause.]

Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.55 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.35 pm until 3.55 pm.

Sitting resumed at 3.55 pm

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Pg 996-998 for Vernacular Speeches.] Mr Speaker, I support this motion.

Yesterday, the hon MP Chen Show Mao and other MPs from the Workers' Party said that pegging ministerial salary to the salaries of the top 1,000 earners is not appropriate. I think we must try to understand why the Committee made this decision from another angle. I believe all of us accept that a Minister's responsibility is no less than that of the one thousand people. We use this benchmark to affirm the importance of political appointments because they relate to the welfare of 3.5 million Singaporeans and this country's future as well as our expectations and the requirements for these positions.

To make it easier for the common populace to understand the required responsibilities and accountabilities of Ministers for Singaporeans, we can try to look at the issue from another perspective or angle, as suggested by some Singaporeans, for reference. The Prime Minister is our leader and he must be responsible for the well-being of 3.5 million Singaporeans. Therefore, his salary can be based on our population, say, one person $1 per year, so that is $3.5 million per year. With that, perhaps all Singaporeans are able to feel the balance at a more comfortable level. Regardless of our ethnic, religious , language and cultural background, we are all Singaporeans. Poor or rich, we are all Singaporeans. As long as you are Singaporeans, the Prime Minister looks after your well-being. Notwithstanding, some may say $1 per year is not much, some may say it is not little. The Prime Minister takes a pay cut of, say, 37%, so as to remind himself there is a need to work even harder to improve the livelihood of the 40% lower middle-income Singaporeans. With that, the figure was adjusted downwards to $2.2 million, which is not much different from that recommended by the Committee.

If we set the entry-level ministerial salary as half of the Prime Minister's because his responsibility is half, that will work out to be $1.1 million. And this is similar to the amount recommended by the Committee so the result is all the same. The difference is just a matter of angle/perspective.

Honestly speaking, the appropriate compensation for political decision makers is a sensitive topic and it is not easy to reach 100% consensus. Everybody has a different view and everyone's line of reasoning has its valid points, and we should respect them.

The Government has sensed the ground sentiment from the election results and is willing to accommodate public opinion, hence the establishment of the Committee to Review Ministerial Salaries. No policy is 100% perfect. I believe that the report has presented sufficient and convincing data and basis for their recommendations, and it is transparent. The pay recommendations are based on three principles. I support these principles and thank MPs from the Opposition party for their support as well.

Firstly, the pay must be considerably competitive to attract talent. I think we should adjust our focus, not to look at numbers alone, but on the requirements of the job, the responsibilities and contributions towards our country, society and all Singaporeans. Scouting for the best talent is not something that only the Government will do. Even in our daily life, we often try to get them. For example, many of us hope to find a capable, hardworking domestic worker to do the household chores, take care of the young and old; those running a business will hope to find a good helper to bring in profits for the company, expand the business and create more jobs; at hawker centres, we look for the best food, the most value for money and the most economical; when we see a doctor, we will look for the best to cure our illness; when we look for a wife or husband, we also hope to find a good partner. Hence, to want the best is understandable. Many even pray to the gods and hope to be granted their wish. In order to get the best, some of us are even willing to pay for a premium, in the hope to avoid risking paying an even higher price in future.