Chairman Sir,
The Jobs Re-creation Program (JRP) aims to redesign jobs to make older workers more productive and hence higher paying. The Workforce Development Agency sets aside $40 million over three years in 2007 for this program.
Globalisation and Singapore’s rapid development into a more knowledge-based economy has resulted in less-skilled older workers finding employment opportunities more difficult. The current recession worsens the employment prospects of these older workers as even younger workers risk retrenchment when businesses downsize.
Therefore, it is important to scale up the JRP to sustained employment for older workers in these “re-created” jobs. Is the budget of $40 million over three years enough?
The NTUC’s website shows that the JRP has helped 43,484 workers from 2005 to July 2008. What is the number of workers to be helped in 2009? Are these Singapore Citizens or does it include permanent residents as well?
I would like to know what is the Government’s strategy in helping older workers in this economic down turn. Many of them have contributed to Singapore’s development from a third-world to first-world status only to find themselves unwelcome in the job market in our supposedly “Swiss” standard of living.
How does the Government reconcile the prospect of structural unemployment for this group of older less-skilled workers with the continued extension of the retirement age as well as increasing minimum sum amounts that limit many of these older Singaporeans to very little payouts at age 55?
(Note: this speech was delivered in Parliament on 13 Feb 2009.)
Sir, the SPUR program costing $600 million aims to provide workers the opportunities and resources to upgrade their skills & employability. It also gives an allowance to jobless Singaporeans who attend courses – combining training with benefits.
I understand that for those who are unemployed, there is currently no disclosure of the eligibility criteria but will be assessed on a case by case basis. The reason given was that it might discourage some from coming forward or encourage others to abuse the system.
With training places under SPUR doubling from 110,000 in 2008 to 220,000 in 2009, I would like to know :-
1.On what basis does the government based on in the formulation of SPUR? How does MOM decide what training courses and skills to support?
2.How do we measure its effectiveness?
3.Would there be some key performance indicators (KPIs) to evaluate the impact of training on the economy and the workers? Such as how many found new jobs as a result of re-training? How many re-employed with larger work scope? What is the average wage for those who have undergone re-training?
4.Would it be more efficient to have some form of allowance eligibility criteria for the unemployed versus the current approach on a case by case assessment?
Sir, the subsidy rate for PMET courses under SPUR will be increased to 90% and will include all Specialist and Advanced Diplomas offered by our polytechnics. Again the question is how do we measure the effectiveness?
A considerable amount of money was allocated to SPUR, it is important that SPUR focuses on the employability of trainees with new jobs created and with a long term view to cater for the future manpower needs of Singapore as well as to prevent wastage of resources.
(Note: this speech was delivered in Parliament on 13 Feb 2009.)
As mentioned earlier, the proportion of resident contract employees last year was 189,100, a 5% rise from the previous year. The number of resident employees on short-term casual and on-call employment is about 72,000.
The vulnerability of this group has been well-reported. Compared to permanent staff, these workers often receive no medical benefits, and may not receive any CPF contributions. There are also no retrenchment benefits.
As the government has identified this as an area of weakness, what plans does the government have to give more protection to these workers?
On the Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) touched on by Minister earlier, informal employees will only get the WIS CPF benefit if they contribute significant sums into their Medisave accounts. A year ago the Senior Parliamentary Secretary told Parliament that this requirement to pay into Medisave is a likely reason why many casual workers did not receive WIS benefits. Has the take-up rate improved?
(Note: this speech was delivered in Parliament on 13 Feb 2009.)
The CPF LIFE scheme, which will start in 2013, will provide qualified Singaporeans with payout at least $350 per month for those with full Minimum Sum in their Retirement Account.
I would like the Minister to consider helping elderly Singaporeans who do not have much in their CPF and are not covered by CPF Life.
These Singaporeans have less than the minimum sum at the draw down age. As the rules require whatever small savings they have to be drawn over 20 years, many of them will draw down less than what a PA recipient will receive of $360 per month.
Read more
Many countries now recognise that the traditional criminal justice system focuses too much on the offender and how he should be punished. By contrast, the victim is a pawn in this process – he is to cooperate with the State, to participate in police investigations and later to give evidence in court. He often gets no compensation for losses, pays for his own medical treatment, and suffers inconvenience during case processing.
To addresses this, the United Nations in 1985 adopted the Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power. Countries such as the United Kingdom and Australia among others have since changed their domestic laws and procedures in line with the Declaration. There has been growth in victim studies and victimology movements, not only in the Western world but also in Asian countries like Japan.
The focus of these efforts is towards giving the victim more voice in the case and some redress for the wrongs suffered.
Read more
陆路交通管理局在今年一月所提供的数据显示：在去年的首11个月里，德士司机接获的可记分罚单，多达将近1800张，比前年的407张多出三倍以上。其中近七成的罚单与抵触在市区内的德士站条例有关。
我在接见选民时，也有不少居住在后港的德士司机因为接获类似的罚单来向我求助。据他们反映，有些时候是在他们没有办法的情况下被开罚单。其中一个较普遍的情形是：乘客随处下车，但受罚的却是德士司机。
有些乘客虽然知道市区内德士站的条例，但也常常因为他们要去的目的地离德士站太远而坚持在特定的地点下车。更有些人在红灯前，丢下车钱，就开门走人。司机们往往就在这种不受他们控制的情况下受罚。
另一个情况是，有些较受欢迎的德士站没有足够可供德士等候乘客的车位。在稀有的德士侯车位停满了之后，德士司机的选择只有两个：一、是冒着被开罚单的险，排在后面；二、是空车在市区里兜，找寻其他的德士站。这种情况不但增加德士司机的负担，也不利于环保。
有一些在市区内的繁忙德士站，也被修改成只准让乘客上下车而不允许德士排队等候乘客。在市场不景气的大气候下，这些种种的限制对德士司机们来说无疑是雪上加霜，让他们的生活过得更加艰苦。
我希望陆路交通管理局能够探讨如何在受欢迎的德士站附近修改路旁的镶边石（kerb)，规划出更多的德士侯车位。这样一来，不但能够使德士司机受惠，更多的乘客也能在最短的时间内搭到德士，形成双赢的局面。
(Note: this speech was delivered in Parliament on 12 Feb 2009.)
主席先生，
据我所知，教育部2006年开始在25间小学推行新的华文教学课程。2007年起，在全国小一小二班实施新的小学华文课程，这个课程现今已经推行到小五班。教育部是否对实施这一套新的课程做过评估？这一套新的课程达到了什么教育成果？
这一套在小学推行的新华文教学法，所注重的是听和说的部分，学生读和写字的能力被视为其次。从小学一年级上半年的华文课本来看，105页厚的课本里，前面的66页用来先教汉语拼音，其中有几篇课文在遇到生字时只标上了汉语拼音，没有把字打印出来。在这样的教学方式下，学生就算学会了字的正确读音，也未必学懂该用那一个华文字才正确。
有些教育学者也许认为在小学先学习汉语拼音，减轻学生学习的负担，打好听和说的基础，以后再认字和写字。然而，华文字不是拼音文字，如果读音不和字形同时联合起来学习的话，以后是否能凭读音来认字还是个未知数。
另一项华文教学的改革是允许学生在作文考试时使用电子字典。虽然说这是为了进一步减轻学生记忆华文字的负担，但也同时加剧了学生日后使用错别字的可能性。即使用汉语拼音输入法，就算是在旧制的华文课程下同时学习读音和字形的国人也都可能出差错。
以汉语拼音为本的教学制度已经出现了一些令人关注的问题。联合早报就曾刊登了一则家长的来信，说读小四全年级最好的华文班在朗读课文时，全班除了她女儿，都把“莱佛士”念成“菜佛士”！
在韩国，类似的情况已经使他们陷入了“文化危机”。年轻人普遍不懂得汉字，越来越多“汉字盲”。问题的严重性使到韩国的20位前总理，联名上书现任总统李明博，提出解决危机的建议。虽然韩国的情况和我国不尽相同，但在很大的程度上，问题的症结在于他们的语文教育着重于类似汉语拼音，以拼音为主的表音文字，而忽略了汉字字形的学习。
我国目前推行的这一套新华文教学法，把华文文字的字形和字音生生剥开来教，并在小学教育的阶段以学习汉语拼音为主，这样的教育政策是否会在若干年后使我国的学生沦为汉字盲呢？
(Note: this speech was delivered in Parliament on 10 Feb 2009.)
Sir, in this financial crisis, Singaporeans are naturally concerned about the health of our reserves managed by GIC and Temasek.
According to reports, Temasek invested nearly US$6 billion in Merrill Lynch which is now worth about 20%. It has large paper losses in Standard Chartered and Barclays. GIC’s investment in Citibank of US$6.9 billion may now be less than 20%.
Last Oct, the Finance Minister discussed the government’s stance on transparency of GIC and Temasek as follows: “public disclosures had to be shaped by the SWF’s characteristics as long-term investors, with the ability to… ride out cycles. A short-term focus in financial disclosures would…not shed light on the right areas.”
However, the government is but the legal trustee of the funds and the ultimate true owner is the people. They deserve to know how this turmoil has affected our national wealth. Can the government tell us how much paper losses have been incurred? How have these losses affected the liquidity of the funds and their ability to take opportunities in the downturn? Does the fact that both funds invested so heavily in the financial sector at the same time undermine the diversification objective for our sovereign wealth?
(Note: this speech was delivered in Parliament on 10 Feb 2009.)
Sir, I understand that Singapore currently ranked the sixth best nation in the world for its medical advances and the best in Asia by the World Health Organization. Singapore’s hospitals and medical centers have achieved high marks in clinical indicators that equal and even surpass those in the developed West.
However, it is important for us to strive to maintain the high standards and quality of our medical and healthcare services.
Recently, I received feedback from my constituent that some patients who were admitted to Tan Tock Seng Hospital (TTSH) was infected by virus in the hospital and died of pneumonia.
I would like to ask the Minister for Health was there an unusual increase in the number of patients at TTSH who died of pneumonia?
Read more
IMH maintains the WH Endowment Fund to raise public donations. The purpose of the Fund is stated as providing welfare and medical care for needy patients.
In explaining the need for public support, the IMH website states: “Although there is the Medifund, there are some patients from the lower income group who do not qualify because of the stringent criteria”. Examples are given of the programmes supported by public donations. For instance, IMH highlights that mental patients need not only medicine but also psychotherapy sessions. However, noted the hospital: “Some patients do not seek treatment because they cannot afford to pay for this service”.
It is worrying that the IMH needs to ask the public to donate money directly to provide essential treatment to its patients. Should the Medifund criteria be further relaxed for mental health services?
(Note: this speech was delivered in Parliament on 9 Feb 2009.)
