Committee of Supply − Head U (Prime Minister's Office)

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Head U (cont) −

The Senior Minister of State, Prime Minister's Office (Mr Heng Chee How): Sir, do I take my three cuts together?

The Chairman: Yes, please take all three cuts together.

Re-employment in the Public Service

Mr Heng Chee How: The first cut is on re-employment in the public service. The Civil Service had taken the lead in implementing re-employment since July 2011, six months ahead of the re-employment law taking effect throughout Singapore. What has been the outcome of this seven-month experience of system-wide implementation within the Civil Service? What percentage of civil servants are now re-employed? How does that compare to the situation before the system-wide implementation? Were there cases where re-employment was not offered? If so, what were the reasons? What problems surfaced as implementation became system-wide? How does the Civil Service approach re-employment balance between the need for consistency across a wide service and the need for sufficient flexibility for entities to take into account the reasonable factors when re-employing? Would the Civil Service take into account the private sector's experience and practices in re-employment to refine its own approach over time?

Medical Benefit in Re-employment

Sir, the second cut is on medical benefit in re-employment. Older civil servants are generally on the comprehensive co-payment inpatient medical benefit scheme (CCS). A smaller number are on the co-payment of ward or CPW scheme. Newly employed civil servants are on the Medisave–cum-subsidised outpatient medical benefit (MSO) scheme. When a civil servant is re-employed at age 62, he is emplaced on the MSO scheme, and in that scheme he gets 1% of his pay credited into Medisave subject to a cap of $70 a month and he can use that to buy medical insurance. By the age of 62, many, if not most, would not be insurable on account of pre-existing illnesses. On the other hand, if they had bought insurance on their own earlier, while on the CPW or CCS schemes, they would have over-insured themselves and paid unnecessary premiums. The re-employed civil servants are asking to be allowed to continue on CCS up to the age of 65. The CCS pipeline, I understand, is about 20 years long − that means 20 cohorts of civil servants before everyone becomes MSO. And I would like to ask the Civil Service whether there would be any help that it can extend to these re-employed civil servants on account of their moving away from the CCS onto the MSO and thus not being insurable.

Page: 1636

Lower-income Public Servants

Finally, Sir, a cut on lower income public servants. The public sector continues to employ persons in the daily-rated and Division IV categories. Many of these have been working in the public sector for years and decades. They, like those in the private sector, would also want to see sustained improvement in their real wages. I would like to ask for an update on how many public sector employees fall within these two categories, namely, daily-rated and Division IV categories and how many public sector employees are also supported by the Workfare programme and what has been done over the past several years to improve their employability and earnings. I would also like to ask the Government what additional measures would be considered to enable these lower wage public sector employees to increase their job value and earn a better income on a sustained basis.

Civil Service's Medical Benefits

Mr Yeo Guat Kwang (Ang Mo Kio): Sir, I would like to declare my interest as Executive Secretary of the unions for the statutory board employees.

Sir, since 1994, public-sector officers are on the MSO medical benefit scheme. For outpatient treatment, the Public Service Division (PSD) provides a co-payment annual cash budget of $350 regardless of pay and for treatment at the private clinics the limit is $10 per visit. As for inpatient treatment, the PSD provides 1% additional Medisave contribution based on the officer's total monthly salary but capped at $7,000. What it means is that it is only up to $70 per month.

On dental benefit, an officer is eligible for outpatient dental treatment subsidies of 50%, subject to a maximum of $70 per year. This was with effect from August 1980. The subsidy rate was decided more than 30 years ago. The cost of dental treatment has gone up many folds since then. As we all work towards building up a comprehensible medical coverage for all and to help all citizens to cope with their medical needs, I would like to urge the PSD to review the medical benefits for civil servants, especially for the older ones.

In view of the rising cost of treatment, is there any way that we can enhance the quantum so that the cash component paid by the officers is not so high? Or could we consider that we actually pay the quantum based on different age band? And we also want PSD to review, with the 1% additional Medisave contribution, how does it ensure that all employees have sufficient medical insurance coverage to cope with their inpatient medical needs and their expenses?

The Chairman: Mr Pritam Singh, please take both your cuts together.

PSC Scholarships for Minority Students

Mr Pritam Singh: Sir, the first cut is on PSC scholarships for minority students. During the last general elections, I raised the issue of the relatively low number of PSC scholarships awarded to minorities relative to their numbers in the overall population. In the July/August 2011 copy of Challenge , a bi-monthly publication of the Public Service Division, the Chairman of the PSC, Mr Eddie Teo, acknowledged that the Commission nudges itself when it finds too few non-Chinese applicants. However, in view of the disproportionately low number of minority scholars from 2002, an informal policy of nudging, I feel, may not be enough. I am not asking for an affirmative action programme or quotas for minority students, but for the PMO to look into ways to encourage Malay, Indian, Eurasian and other minorities to actively apply for PSC scholarships. In particular, the PMO can look into working with ethnic self-help groups like MENDAKI and SINDA and even the Eurasian Association in the larger way. In addition, it may be worthwhile for the self-help groups also to track the total number of minority applicants for PSC scholarships with PMO's assistance if it is not doing so already.

Page: 1637

The PSC Chairman was quoted as saying in the Challenge article that some may not want to join the public service. This ought to represent an opportunity for the self-help groups to work together with the PSC to encourage more minority students to apply for Government scholarship, especially since public service is a noble career.

PSC scholarships are not the only way to ensure a strong minority community. Not every bright Indian, Malay or Eurasian student may achieve the minimum requirements necessary to qualify for PSC scholarships. SINDA, MENDAKI and other self-help groups have an overarching duty to look after all students regardless of their educational profile. But drawing a connection between the number of minority applications and successful recipients of PSC scholarships would be a useful indicator of how far the minority communities have come along in the nation-building journey.

Ombudsman

Sir, I will move on to my next cut under Head U − the Ombudsman. During his Presidential campaign last year, President Tony Tan noted that the ombudsman was an institution that ought to be looked into. The office of the ombudsman was first proposed to the Government by the 1966 Wee Chong Jin's Constitutional Commission, and in 1994, then backbencher and current Law Minister K Shanmugam also raised it in Parliament. The role of an ombudsman is to investigate complaints about the unfair administrative decisions or actions of a public agency, including delay, rudeness, negligence, arbitrariness, oppressive behaviour or unlawfulness.

An ombudsman does not have the power to make decisions that are binding on the government. Rather, the ombudsman makes recommendations for change as supported by a thorough investigation of the complaint. A crucial element of the ombudsman is its independence from the executive or administrative branch of government. There are many variations of the ombudsman office around the world. Singapore can and should find a variation that suits local needs and conditions. An ombudsman with a well-defined role and clear mechanism for action can be beneficial for Singapore.

Sir, Singaporeans today are well educated, well travelled and well informed. This invariably leads to higher citizenry expectations when it comes to political and corporate governance. Higher expectations are not necessarily negative developments for they signify growing interest in local politics and the national agenda. The establishment of an ombudsman will address higher citizenry expectations in two ways. First, it will signify the Singapore Government's acknowledgement and respect of a maturing Singapore polity's desire for a variety of institutions that can reflect the concerns of the ordinary citizen. This will serve to build trust between society and State. Secondly, it will develop local civil society by empowering institutions. While many would agree that capable and honest leaders are vital for good governance, the signs of a mature and self-sustaining society are decentralised and independent institutions.

Page: 1638

The establishment of an ombudsman would also be in keeping with the Prime Minister's vision for an open and inclusive society and, most certainly, in tandem with Budget 2012 which has also been characterised as an inclusive one. An ombudsman is not designed to serve as a check on the Government. That is the Opposition's role. An ombudsman should not use its office or mission to disrupt the work of the Civil Service. It should not mischievously aim to embarrass Government agencies and offices or erode public confidence in the Civil Service. The need for an ombudsman, Sir, is not based on any inadequacies of the Singapore Government, but rather on the fact that Singaporeans and Singapore society have evolved. Singaporeans are now more politically mature. With maturity comes the need for empowerment. Empowerment is necessary for a sense of ownership to develop. An ombudsman would be a step in this direction.

Promoting the Ethos of Public Service

Asst Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene: Sir, in January 2012, this House debated the White Paper on Salaries for a Capable and Committed Government. I agree with the White Paper which puts forth three principles in determining Ministerial salaries. I will touch on two principles, namely: (1) Salaries must be competitive so that people of the right calibre are not deterred from stepping forward to lead the country; (2) The ethos of political service entails making sacrifices and hence there should be a discount in the pay formula.

In raising this cut, the intention is not to revisit the debate on a very controversial topic. Rather, the aim is to urge the Government to work with Singaporeans to refine and secure buy-in for these principles.

Sir, the key question is this: How will the recalibrated pay benchmarks impact upon the recruitment and retention of talented and committed Singaporeans not just for the political leadership but the Public Service as well? We urgently need to develop a societal consensus on what is needed to attract competent and honest Singaporeans to serve the larger good.

In recent months, the Public Service has been very much in the news with high-profile media reports on alleged illegal or unethical behaviour by public servants. These have affected the image and reputation of the Public Service and certainly the morale of officers who serve there. Questions have been asked about the robustness of the selection system for officers in leadership roles.

Sir, the "new normal" political climate has upped the demands of political office. The Public Service is not spared either. A more demanding electorate is more questioning, less easily impressed, and has higher expectations. There is nothing wrong with that since politics and Public Service are not for the faint-hearted, especially if one wants to serve at the highest levels.

Sir, I am of the view that the three principles of Ministerial pay must evolve if they are not to lose their relevance, legitimacy and impact. First, the principle that salaries must be competitive. Competitiveness of pay is both a loaded and contested concept. It puts at the forefront the question of what is the market value of a public sector leader. And nestled within that is the mantra of "top dollar for top talent". I am aware that even as our political leaders and top civil servants are paid well, they are paid "by reference to the market" rather than at market value. Public sector pay also lags rather than leads private sector pay.

Page: 1639

Sir, we should recognise that for high-calibre Singaporeans today, public service is but one option among many. However, can we consider making a shift in the discourse to "fair pay" rather than "competitive pay"? The notion of competitive pay is too infused with market and managerial logic. This makes the public sector all too vulnerable to concerns and criticisms that it is ultimately about a "race to the top" where pay is concerned. But it is compounded by the popular public perception that the public sector is too insulated from the discipline and incentives that drive private sector performance. In fact, I fear that the public would rather a "race to the bottom" in terms of pay. Fair pay is a universal value that we can all identify with. Fairness is the language of Budget 2012. A focus on fairness recognises that we should not discriminate against good work, even in the public sector.

Sir, I am worried that in comparing public sector pay with private sector pay, the whole notion of "competitive pay" will only maintain the abiding focus on one's market value. Keeping up with private sector pay is almost an exercise in futility. Further, a balance needs to be struck between competency, material rewards and integrity. They are not mutually exclusive. There need not be a Faustian bargain between the value of and the values of public service. It is crucial for our public sector leaders to have a nuanced understanding that the craft of government they practise does exist for more than just its own sake.

My second point relates to the principle that the ethos of top political service entails making sacrifices and hence there should be a discount in the pay formula. Sir, can we instead steer the narrative towards how we, as a society, can nurture the ethos of public service and encourage the sense of duty and obligation to serve the larger good? "Sacrifices" sound almost too altruistic.

For a young nation, we need to imbue Singaporeans with a strong sense of duty and obligation to serve. Duty and obligation comes across positively as "life-giving" rather than somewhat fatalistic idea of sacrificing. In essence, the market for virtue certainly could be strengthened, particularly for the public sector. In so doing, as a society, we are striving to protect and strengthen the best values, practices and traditions of the public service so as to continue to earn the confidence and trust of Singaporeans.

Sir, ultimately, it is the public service itself that has to be the staunchest advocate and promoter of its ethos, ethical standards and aspirations. This will help it compete for Singaporeans with talent, drive and integrity.

4.00 pm

Review of Administrative Service

Mr Lim Biow Chuan: Sir, there are about 76,000 civil servants of which about 0.3% are from the Administrative Service, which is about 300. Their accelerated promotional prospects as well as their much higher salary scales have caused some unhappiness amongst many civil servants. Sir, in 2007, when we debated the revision to the salaries of the civil servants, I had expressed reservations about pegging the salary scale of the senior civil servants' salary to that of the top private sector salary earners. I was concerned as to the kind of message we are sending to the rest of Singapore when we pay such top dollars to the officers in the Administrative Service.

Page: 1640

The question is whether by paying such high salaries, the Government is inadvertently sending the wrong message to the rest of Singapore that we promote elitism within the ranks of civil servants. Do we give the impression that Administrative Officers do not have any role to play in nation-building and that the value of their services can all be computed based on dollars and cents? What about the other civil servants, many of whom put in hours and hours of hard work and made huge sacrifices just to make sure that the essential services of the country continue to run smoothly?

Sir, I do not deny that many of our Administrative scholars are brilliant and deserve a fair and reasonable compensation for their services. However, I am of the view that it is timely for us to carry out a review of the Administrative Service. We should ensure that the Administrative Service continues to remain relevant; and it does not promote elitism or divide the country in today's political climate.

Whole-of-Government Coordination

Mr Heng Chee How: Sir, for any organisation, the ability to integrate and coordinate amongst its different parts to produce a good experience for the customer is key to its success. This is the same for government. Seamless and caring government is a hallmark of successful government. Hence, the whole-of-Government approach is both important and necessary. Where the ground experience has proven to be otherwise, it is usually due to silo mentality among public sector agencies where the citizens get pushed from pillar to post, or a "no man's land" mentality where no one seems to be in charge of a particular subject matter, or less than customer-centric approaches when coordinating plans. I would like to ask for an update on the state of whole-of–Government coordination and implementation. From the civil service perspective, what lessons have been learnt over the past several years of implementing such an approach, and what is the mechanism to share such lessons across public sector or agencies for organisational learning and improvement?

Coordination of Ministries and Agencies

Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef (Marine Parade): Sir, in 2004, the "No Wrong Door" policy was introduced, as public officers were empowered to participate in continuous improvement, service excellence and public engagement. It is in line with PS21 aims to nurture public officers who are motivated, engaged, enterprising and innovative. This policy helps deal with misdirected feedback and must cross cover agencies' issues efficiently and effectively. There are many day-to-day examples which I can quote, for example, between LTA and SLA, between NEA, AVA, Town Councils and HDB, and many others.

In these cases, time delays cause anxiety and frustration on the ground. Explanation and communications seem to be lacking in these cases. I hope some of these examples can be covered as teaching elements in the "No Wrong Door" course (code: OANWD1), run by the Civil Service College.

Page: 1641

I strongly believe that once we have all these basic fundamental principles put right, our public service would have lived up to its objective of delighting customers, engaging the citizens. In going the extra mile, we can not only meet their expectations but also exceed them. Thus, the "No Wrong Door" policy certainly needs enforcing. Every door must be the right door.

Mr Teo Chee Hean: Sir, I would like to thank the Members for their interest, and support for the Public Service. This year's Budget has committed to building a fair and inclusive society, and the Public Service will play its part as a responsible employer. Mr Heng Chee How asked for an update on re-employment in the Public Service. The new Public Service guidelines on re-employment for retiring officers took effect on 1 July 2011, six months ahead of national legislation.

Even before 1 July 2011, the Public Service was already re-employing many of its retired officers. In the first half of 2011, 385 officers or 74% of those who retired were re-employed. In the second half of the year after the guidelines took effect, 448 officers or 81% of those who retired were re-employed. This is a seven-percentage point increase. Of the 107 officers who were not re-employed from 1 July to 31 December 2011, 48 did not meet the qualifying criteria, such as the minimum performance requirement. Fifty-two chose not to be re-employed. The remaining seven officers were not re-employed due to reasons such as poor health and lack of suitable positions. Agencies have the flexibility to re-employ officers who did not meet the qualifying criteria. In the second half of 2011, 22 such officers were re-employed as they were assessed to be able to continue contributing to the organisation.

In general, the implementation of re-employment has been smooth as they were the result of extensive consultation with public sector agencies and unions. Our older officers have generally kept an open mind about the re-employment options presented to them. There were some appeals from officers who did not meet the qualifying criteria. The national legislation for re-employment has just taken effect on 1 January 2012, and PSD will monitor the implementation of re-employment in the private sector, and see how we can learn from best practices there.

Mr Heng also asked about medical benefits for re-employed officers. When public sector agencies offer re-employment, this is seen as a fresh episode of employment. This allows for flexibility in job arrangements, to take into consideration officers' preferences and availability of suitable positions in the organisations. As such, re-employed officers are placed on the prevailing medical benefit scheme available to those entering into new employment contracts, that is, the Medisave cum Subsidised Outpatient (MSO) scheme.

Civil servants on the MSO scheme receive an additional sum of 1% of their monthly salary, capped currently at $70 per month, in their Medisave Account. This sum is meant for the purchase of MediShield or Medisave-approved medical insurance. Since October 2006, PSD has made arrangements for a panel of insurance companies to provide Medisave-approved medical insurance coverage at discounted rates to public officers and their dependants. Some 98% of MSO officers have taken up such insurance plans.

Older civil servants on the Co-payment on Ward medical scheme or Comprehensive Co-payment Scheme should also take up medical insurance early. While these two schemes provide good medical coverage while the officer is in service, non-pensionable officers will cease to have these medical benefits after retirement. Officers should therefore plan early to take up medical insurance to make sure of coverage after their retirement.

Page: 1642

The Civil Service will also work with insurance companies to examine the feasibility of having appropriate medical insurance packages to cater to these non-pensionable officers who wish to have medical coverage only after they retire. The insurance companies will have to assess the viability and cost of the proposal based on commercial considerations.

Mr Yeo Guat Kwang asked for a review of the Civil Service medical benefits. The Civil Service reviews its medical benefits periodically to ensure that they are adequate. Our past reviews have shown that the provisions of the MSO scheme have been adequate when compared to the private sector. As part of our regular reviews, PSD will take another look at the MSO scheme, and see whether any adjustments need to be made. We will also engage the unions as part of this process. The review should be completed in the second half of the year.

Mr Heng shared his concerns for the development, employability and wage growth of the Division IV officers and daily-rated employees in the Public Service. As at the end of last year, there were 3,761 Division IV and daily-rated employees, or about 3% of the total public sector staff strength. The Civil Service has a Training Incentive Scheme to encourage officers to upgrade themselves. Officers may receive cash incentives for completing specific work-related National-level Training Programmes, and Ministries may also customise their own training schemes to develop their officers. The employability and earnings of these officers are also improved through job re-design. Last year, the National Environment Agency re-designed the jobs of more than 600 daily-rated employees. The revised work scope resulted in better career advancement. Their monthly salaries were also increased by 4%.

Most of our Division IV officers are in the Operations Support and related schemes. To ensure that salaries remain competitive, the monthly salaries of these officers were increased by approximately 5% in February 2012, and this benefited about 2,300 officers. From 1 April 2012, the Public Service will also re-employ all eligible Division IV officers at their last drawn salaries at the point of retirement, and this will benefit about 590 officers retiring from 2012 to 2015.

Mr Chairman, Sir, Mr Pritam Singh asked about PSC scholarships for minority students. PSC scholarships allow us to attract and develop some of the most capable and committed people with the right values each year, to ensure a steady pipeline of high calibre officers to serve Singapore. Scholarship holders are selected on the basis of merit. Beyond academic records, the PSC is particularly interested in candidates with strong leadership qualities, good character and a keen interest in public service work. The PSC, through its Secretariat, partners our schools to reach out to all students who have demonstrated the highest potential, to apply for PSC scholarships, regardless of race, religion, family background or household income.

4.15 pm

Page: 1643

The Ministry of Education works closely with the self-help groups to give them the necessary support to raise the quality and the academic performance of students in the various racial groups. There is no quota for the number of PSC scholarships awarded. Hence, if candidates qualify and are equally deserving, PSC will award the scholarship to both. I thank Mr Pritam Singh for acknowledging that the Public Service Commission is already working with these various agencies and I can understand why it is natural for him to ask for more to be done. We also would like more to be done but we need to have practical suggestions on how this can be further improved.

Let me now turn to Asst Prof Eugene Tan's points on promoting the ethos of public service and his reflections on the debate which we had here recently on Ministers' salaries. During the debate on Ministers' salaries, the Prime Minister explained that establishing an appropriate salary framework is important to ensure that we have the leadership needed for our future. The Government agrees with the three principles for determining salaries of political office holders that were proposed by the Committee – competitive salary, ethos of public service embodied through sacrifice and clean wage. And these three principles were also endorsed by both sides of this House.

I agree with Asst Prof Tan that we should encourage and nurture the ethos of public service among Singaporeans so as to groom future public service leaders. The idea of duty and doing something for your country and your people − these are important things which will inspire young people. Asst Prof Tan also reflected on how to determine a fair wage. He was uncomfortable with the idea of sacrifice. The whole process of determining a fair wage was a very difficult one, which we asked the Committee to help us to do. And the Committee, with the assistance of HR consultants, assessed what the fair wage would be for a job which is equivalent to that of a Minister, given the calibre and experience required of Ministers, the responsibilities and impact of their jobs and the scope of decisions that they were expected to make. And then the Committee applied a discount to reflect the ethos of political service which was not just a principle put forward by the Committee but also endorsed by this House and expected now by many people in our society.

Asst Prof Tan also expressed his views on applying some of these principles to the Public Service and how we might develop a competitive or an appropriate pay framework for the Public Service. The Government's policy is to pay competitive salaries that follow but not lead the market. An important point that the Committee on Salaries expressed was that public officers "are professionals and hence should not be subject to the same degree of sacrifice as political appointment holders". And the Government agrees with this. The principle of paying salaries that are competitive relative to their market benchmarks is applied to all schemes of service in the Civil Service.

I have asked the PSD to carry out a review of the salaries of Administrative Service officers, the judiciary and statutory appointment holders to ensure that the salary framework remains fair and competitive for those officers who do very important jobs for us. This will ensure that the Public Service can continue to get a steady flow of able and committed people to help staff the key appointments in the Public Service and organs of state. I expect that this review will be completed and ready for implementation in six to nine months.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan spoke about the Administrative Service. The Public Service needs strong and capable leaders to work with the elected government to formulate and implement policies for Singapore's long-term success. Such leaders are expected to possess outstanding leadership qualities, uphold public service values and provide whole-of-Government perspectives in tackling complex issues. The Administrative Service inducts and trains a steady pipeline of high-calibre officers for top leadership positions in the Public Service. And this is a system that has worked well for Singapore and it is a key element in ensuring that we have a Public Service of high quality to serve Singaporeans. Anyone, both from within or outside the Public Service, can apply to join the Administrative Service. Of the 190 appointments to the Administrative Service in the past 10 years, more than 90% started from other schemes of the Public Service. These include the management executive scheme, the uniformed services and the economists, teaching and foreign services. And of the 43 permanent secretaries and statutory boards CEOs who are in the Administrative Service, 22 were selected to join the Administrative Service later in their careers, after they had established themselves in their previous schemes of service.

Page: 1644

Not all of our Public Service officers are suited for the wide-ranging and cross-sectoral work expected of Administrative Service officers. And some officers may be better suited, or prefer, to specialise or to work in specific Ministries or agencies. Training and leadership development opportunities are also offered to all good officers. For instance, the key milestone programmes at the senior level offered by the Civil Service College are extended to both Administrative Officers and officers from other schemes of service. Selection and training help us to promote and reinforce the ethos of public service. And we expect all our public officers, and not just Administrative Officers, to demonstrate the values of public service − Integrity, Service and Excellence. And this is reflected in the way that we evaluate, reward and promote our officers.

Sir, good officers, especially those suited for the Administrative Service have many attractive career options. Hence, it is important that the remuneration and terms of service of these officers are kept competitive if we are to recruit and retain them in the long term.

Mr Pritam Singh has called for the setting up of an office of the ombudsman. Sir, in principle, the idea of having such a function is a good one. Indeed, there are already many avenues for members of the public to raise complaints if they feel that they have received unfair or unreasonable treatment by Government agencies or if they want to report poor public service delivery or improper behaviour or wrongdoing. I appreciate his comments that he does not feel that there are inadequacies in the Public Service today. Citizens, who feel aggrieved by Government decisions, already write directly to the public service agencies in-charge of the policy. There are processes for such grievances and appeals to be carefully considered.

Some also approach their Members who help their constituents make representations to the relevant authorities. I am sure that Mr Pritam Singh must have received some visits from his constituents and must have written some of these letters himself. Members also raise pertinent concerns during Question Time in Parliament to be addressed by the Minister-in-charge or the Prime Minister. Members of the public can also lodge complaints on unsatisfactory public service delivery, or hopefully send plaudits to the quality service manager in each public agency. Beyond the individual agency, they can send complaints to REACH, the Government's feedback unit that proactively engages citizens and promotes active citizenry, or the Public Service 21 Office at PSD which coordinates service quality efforts across the Public Service.

Page: 1645

As I said in Parliament last month, there are already many channels to report wrongdoing in the Public Service. Apart from reporting to the head of the department or agency, a member of the public can report the matter to the permanent secretary overseeing the Ministry or indeed to the Minister. Alternatively, he can make a report to the Head of Civil Service or the Public Service Commission. Corruption cases should be reported to the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau.

Many Singaporeans also write to the media or express their views through the social media and new media. This is something that did not exist in 1966. There is thus no shortage of official or unofficial channels for citizens to lodge their complaints. In a sense, there is not just one ombudsman – everything centralised and embodied in one person and one agency − but many who collectively serve the same function. Therefore, our view is that we do not need to create a separate office of ombudsman in our system of government. I was doing some background research on the subject and I was struck by how remarkably similar Mr Pritam Singh's speech is to a 23 September 2008 article on the Internet called "Time for an Ombudsman in Singapore". Almost word for word.

Finally, let me address the points on service delivery and whole-of-Government coordination raised by Mr Heng Chee How and Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef. The challenges in service delivery usually occur where no clear agency is in charge or where the problem needs to be dealt with by several agencies. And I do empathise with the frustrations that members of the public may face from time to time. The dual role of being a Minister in our Government system is that he is also a Member of Parliament, so I do face some of these frustrations myself when representing my constituents. So, you know that everyone is dealt with very fairly. We all have our fair share.

The Public Service introduced the "No Wrong Door" policy in 2004. When an agency receives a query that is not under its charge, it must identify the right agency or agencies to look into the issue and help to coordinate a response. This has helped to resolve a good number of issues. However, there are still situations that are poorly defined and fall through the cracks and the Public Service can do better in finding solutions to these. I freely acknowledge that. To improve on the "No Wrong Door" policy, the Public Service Division will pilot a First Responder Protocol. Under this protocol, the first agency that receives the feedback, if this agency has some domain expertise, must diagnose the problem and draw the required expertise from across the agencies to coordinate an effective response. This agency must then close the loop with the member of public who raised this issue in the first place so that he knows some action is being taken.

The Public Service will pilot the First Responder Protocol in the area of handling feedback about animal-related issues, with Agri-food and Veterinary Authority being the First Responder. Depending on the lessons from the pilot, the First Responder Protocol could eventually have broader application across more service delivery areas and agencies. There is also a group of issues where, quite frankly, we will find it hard to meet the expectations of members of the public. People will have different views on, for example, whether a bird singing in the morning is noise or a happy reminder of nature. And some members of the public want public agencies to act against neighbours or sometimes even family members with whom they have a private disagreement. In these cases, we hope that members of the public understand that it may not be possible for the Public Service to meet their expectations.

Mr Chairman, Sir, while I want to reassure the Members that the Public Service is working hard to coordinate solutions to address the needs of the public, I would also like to urge the public to also be reasonable in their requests. Let me cite a few examples of some requests that our officers on the ground have dealt with patiently and with good humour.

Page: 1646

I am told that a member of the public dropped four books at a HDB counter and told the officer to return them to the National Library Board because there is a "No Wrong Door" policy [ Laughter ]. On another occasion, a resident in Jurong called the National Library Board call centre to ask for the weather conditions in Ang Mo Kio. Well, in both cases, the public officers did help. The HDB officer dropped the books off at the library on her own time while the NLB officer called a colleague at Ang Mo Kio to check and told the caller that "the weather is very hot" [ Laughter ]. I am not saying that such stories are rampant but we should all take a reasonable and even-handed approach. Policies like the "No Wrong Door" policy are meant to address real and pressing needs, and the time and resources taken to deal with unreasonable requests means that someone else's needs are being put on hold. This is surely not how we want our public officers' time and taxpayers money to be utilised.

The Public Service must also proactively identify service delivery issues that require a more structural or long-term solution. One such area is the cleaning of public spaces, which is under the responsibility of various agencies such as the National Environment Agency for public roads and the PUB for drains.

The Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources will provide an update on an initiative to better integrate the public cleansing efforts of our various public agencies.

4.30 pm

Mr Chairman, Sir, we have covered a wide range of topics on the Public Service today. In Singapore, we are fortunate that our public officers serve with commitment, pride and passion. They are the heart and soul of the Singapore Public Service, which is recognised internationally for its excellence, honesty and effectiveness in delivering public services to Singaporeans.

I thank Members for their interest in and support for our public officers. A career in the Public Service offers the opportunity to shape Singapore's future and do meaningful work which impacts the lives of Singaporeans. The recruitment, retention and general morale of personnel within the Public Service, therefore, goes beyond monetary considerations as the Public Service offers intrinsic satisfaction to our officers. But it also depends on whether the work they do is recognised and appreciated by Singaporeans. I encourage our public officers and members of the public to continue to work together, in the spirit of cooperation and understanding, to make Singapore a better home for us all.

Climate Change

Dr Teo Ho Pin (Bukit Panjang): Mr Chairman, Sir, over the last few years, Singaporeans have experienced the impact and effects of climate change in Singapore. The weather in Singapore has become more unpredictable. The ambient air temperature is rising, and extreme downpour of rain has caused flooding in many parts of Singapore. Thus, there is no need to spend too much effort to increase the awareness of Singaporeans on climate change. Everyone knows that climate change is affecting Singapore and Singaporeans. What we need to do is to work out a strategic plan to fight climate change effectively in Singapore.

Page: 1647

Sir, rapid urbanisation has contributed to climate change and global warming. Many studies have identified buildings and vehicles as main contributors of greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, buildings and their electrical appliances account for 40% of the global greenhouse gas emissions. As such, we should focus on our built environment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Sir, only 1,000 new buildings in Singapore have attained the BCA's Green Mark while the remaining stock of buildings is not energy efficient. Thus, we need a legislative framework and more incentives to ensure that both new and old buildings meet energy-efficiency performance standards.

Sir, last year, the PAP Town Councils embarked on a massive energy conservation programme to replace 340,000 light fittings at their common property into energy-efficient LED lightings. This will save the Town Councils about $5 million per year on electricity bills, and reduce our carbon footprints drastically. I would urge other building owners to do likewise and change their inefficient lighting systems to more energy saving ones.

Sir, vehicles are responsible for emitting carbon dioxide into our environment. There are two ways to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by vehicles: first, reduce usage of vehicles on road; and, second, use more eco-friendly vehicles. We must continue to improve our public transport system and educate car owners to plan their travel routes efficiently or take the public transport where possible.

Sir, I hope that the Government can further justify the $1.1 billion funding to provide 550 buses for the two public-listed transport operators by making all these new buses green buses – that is green gas-operated buses. Instead of funding the operation of the buses for 10 years, the budget allocated should instead be used to convert the existing 4,000 buses into green buses. May I ask the Minister what is Singapore's long-term strategy to tackle climate change?

Dr Lam Pin Min (Sengkang West): Mr Chairman, Sir, climate change has been the buzzword in recent years. Since former US Vice President Al Gore championed climate change, we have seen numerous international initiatives in this area, such as the Friends of Fossil Fuel Subsidy Reform and the recently announced controversial European Union Emission Trading Scheme. All in all, these are positive steps the human race is taking to make the world a sustainable, better and more liveable place.

Global warming, with its profound global impacts, has become perhaps the most complicated issue facing world leaders and policy makers. Warnings from many climatologists are becoming more resonant, as an increasing body of scientific evidences point to increasing dangers from the on-going build up of human-related greenhouse gases.

For almost two decades, the United Nations has sponsored annual global talks, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), an international treaty signed by 194 countries, to cooperatively discuss global climate change and its impact. But the meetings have often ended in disillusionment and disappointment with incremental political progress but little real impact on the climate. The negotiating process itself has come under great scrutiny from various quarters, including the poorest nations and small countries who blame their needs are often overlooked or neglected in the fight among the major economic powers.

Page: 1648

As a low-lying, highly urbanised city state and island country, Singapore has a stake in these multi-lateral efforts, given the potential impacts of climate change on our island. The possible impacts of climate change and global warming include increased flooding and unpredictable weather patterns as we had witnessed over the one to two years, coastal land loss, public health impact, heat stress and threat to biodiversity, just to name a few.

In 2009, the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Climate Change chaired by then Senior Minister, Mr Jayakumar, had laid out firm targets to cut carbon emissions growth. Under the Sustainable Singapore blueprint, the Government has committed S$1 billion over five years to improve the energy efficiency of our economy in industry, transport, households and buildings. Singapore has also pledged to voluntarily work towards reducing projected "business as usual" (BAU) emission levels in 2020 by 16%, contingent on a global agreement being reached.

Yet while we embrace the challenges posed by climate change, we must remember that as a small nation without natural resources, we must, as we have done previously, continue to stay ahead in the world competition and ensure our survivability both economically and physically.

I would therefore like to ask the Prime Minister the following questions: (1) What are the initiatives implemented so far under our Sustainable Singapore blueprint and how has the response been from the various industries?; (2) What is Singapore doing to reduce its carbon footprint and what measures are we introducing to enhance our resilience against climate change?; (3) How can Singapore reduce our carbon footprint while maintaining economic vibrancy?; and (4) who will be the most affected by these reductions and how will these adverse effects be mitigated?

Mr Charles Chong (Joo Chiat): Mr Chairman, as a low-lying urbanised island city-state, Singapore is particularly vulnerable to the potential impact of climate change, as mentioned by the speakers before. Now, moderate rise in sea levels around us will have a significant impact on our nation. While we therefore need to be aware of the dangers of global warming, we also need to ensure that we do what we can to slow its rate and mitigate its impact. Beyond the immediate dangers posed by rising sea levels and climate change, there is also the economic impact which results. For example, a change in weather patterns could result in rice harvest in rice producing countries being adversely affected with rice costing more to import into Singapore. It is, therefore, not just a physical threat but also one with very real economic consequences.

Much of the scientific data point to one key cause of climate change − the build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, particularly carbon dioxide − and significant amounts of time and effort have been spent internationally negotiating reductions in greenhouse gas emission levels. As a party to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, as mentioned by Dr Lam, could the Minister please elaborate on what Singapore is doing to reduce its carbon footprint and to encourage Singaporeans generally to do so?

Page: 1649

In addition, could the Minister elaborate on the environmental standards which need to be adhered to in the construction of Government-sponsored projects such as public buildings, and whether there is a different standard for private buildings? And given our geographical situation, what steps are being taken to mitigate the effects of the rise in sea levels which is widely expected in connection with climate change more generally? What is the level of engagement in dialogue with other countries in similar situations and have any collaborative effects resulted from this engagement?

Now, clearly, the Government cannot do it alone and we will need to rely on the cooperation of Singaporeans to think green and to change their lifestyles if we are to succeed as a nation doing our part to battle climate change. Could the Minister give us some indication as to what steps are being taken to encourage Singaporeans to adopt a greener way of living? And while the Government seeks to grow the economy, it should do this with the mindset of a responsible global player and promote growth in a sustainable manner with one eye always being kept on the impact from a climate change perspective in such growth. Could the Minister elaborate on how the Government intends to promote the sort of green growth?

Mr Teo Chee Hean: Mr Chairman, I would like to thank Dr Teo Ho Pin, Dr Lam Pin Min and Mr Charles Chong for their questions on climate change. The world's climate is changing and the unusual number of extreme weather calamities may be a prelude to what is to come if no action is taken. As Members have highlighted, Singapore is a low-lying island and we are vulnerable to the effects of climate change. We must prepare ourselves for this challenging future.

Singapore has long strived to achieve the twin goals of growing the economy and protecting the environment. We have switched from fuel oil to natural gas, the cleanest form of fossil fuel, for most of our power generation. We are also possibly the only country to cap vehicle growth and price vehicle usage in accordance with congestion and the impact this makes on our living environment.

As global resources become scarcer, we will need to accomplish more with less. We can achieve economic growth in a sustainable manner by development and deploying energy-efficient and clean technologies. Investments and capability development in this area will give Singapore a competitive advantage. This will help contribute to our economic vibrancy, even as we reduce our carbon footprint over the long term, which Dr Lam asked about.

At the same time, we need to enhance our resilience towards climate change. For example, we have made plans to protect our coast and to improve our drainage. Singapore's coastal reclamation sites were previously required to be at a minimum level of 1.25 metres above the highest recorded tide level. This has now been raised by an additional one metre to safeguard against projected sea-level rises by the year 2100. We also build our expertise in climate science and modelling and study the adverse impact of climate change on us. So, we will be investing capabilities in these areas.

Dr Teo and Mr Chong asked about our measures for engaging the public, private and people sectors in combating climate change. Our vision for Singapore is a climate resilient, global city that is well positioned for green growth. Our national Climate Change Strategy and plans will be set out in greater details in a document called the National Climate Change Strategy 2012 (NCCS 2012). As part of this preparation work, the National Climate Change Secretariat, together with the agencies under the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Climate Change, conducted consultations with a wide range of stakeholders from September 2011 to January 2012. Various channels were used to reach different segments of the public, including an online consultation portal, focus group discussions and public forums. The public forums were held in partnership with the five Community Development Councils (CDCs) to reach out to grassroots leaders and residents on how they could play a part to address climate change, and I would like to thank Dr Teo Ho Pin, Dr Lam Pin Min and Dr Amy Khor for chairing the forums organised in their respective CDCs. I also commend Dr Teo for his Town Council's efforts to save energy, fight climate change and also save money for those living in his Town Council.

Page: 1650

4.45 pm

In all, these consultations resulted in over 1,000 comments from stakeholders and members of the public. National Climate Change Strategy 2012 will be released in the middle of this year. It will explain what the Government is doing on climate change as well as what individuals, households and businesses need to do to collectively tackle this challenge effectively. In addition, the messages regarding climate change will also be disseminated to various avenues such as public exhibitions, the mass media and school curriculum to reach out to more individuals.

Dr Lam and other Members have asked about what progress we have made to achieve the goals listed in the Sustainable Singapore Blueprint. Progress has been made towards the targets listed in the Sustainable Singapore Blueprint which fall into the broad categories of energy efficiency, water consumption, recycling, air quality, and green and blue spaces. In the area of energy efficiency, we have implemented programmes that target the household, industry, transport and building sectors. For example, the National Environment Agency has introduced a number of programmes to provide assistance to companies to encourage them to design energy-efficient facility, conduct energy audits, train energy managers and invest in energy-efficient equipment or technologies. The National Environment Agency has implemented the Mandatory Energy Labelling Scheme for household air conditioners, refrigerators and clothes dryers which are energy-intensive electrical appliances. Since September 2011, Minimum Energy Performance Standards (MEPS) were also set for household air conditioners and refrigerators which remove the most inefficient models from the market by prohibiting the sale of appliances that fall short of a specified minimum energy-efficient level. They help consumers avoid being locked into the higher operating costs of inefficient appliances. MEPS also encourage suppliers to bring in more energy efficient appliances as technology improves.

In lowering our domestic water consumption from 165 litres per capita in 2003 to 153 litres in 2011, PUB implemented initiatives such as the mandatory water efficiency labelling scheme. This scheme was introduced in 2009 to help consumers make more informed purchasing decisions and encourage suppliers to introduce more water efficient products into the market. This scheme covers water fittings, such as taps and mixers, dual-flush low-capacity flushing cisterns, urinal flush valves and waterless urinals. We can go into this further if you want. As part of the scheme, suppliers are required to label the water efficiency of their appliances on all displays, packaging and advertisements.

Page: 1651

Singapore's recycling rate increased from 40% in 2002 to 58% in 2010. Since 2009, all condominiums and private high rise apartments are required to provide recycling bins or bags for residents. Coupled with the National Recycling Programme for HDB and private landed estates, all households now have access to recycling facilities.

To reduce our levels of fine particulate matter, the National Environment Agency has announced mandatory Euro V emission standards for new diesel vehicles from January 2014 and mandatory registrations standards for off-road diesel engines from July 2013. To ensure good air quality, the National Environment Agency will regularly review emission standards for industry and transport.

For blue spaces, we plan to open up 900 hectares of reservoirs and 100 kilometres of waterways by 2030 for recreational activities. As of January 2012, 795 hectares of reservoirs and 81 kilometres of waterways were opened for recreation use. For green spaces, we aim to meet the target of 4,200 hectares of parkland in Singapore by 2020. Currently, we have 3,822 hectares of parkland and also 200 kilometres of park connectors, including the recently opened North Eastern Riverine Loop, which is 26 kilometres long and connects Buangkok, Hougang, Punggol, and Sengkang towns, which I am sure Dr Lam is very familiar with.

Indeed, everyone has a part to play and to make the needed adjustments. Industries, developers and households must adopt energy saving practices.

Mr Chong asked about the environmental standards for new buildings. The Building and Construction Authority has set minimum environmental sustainability standards through its Green Mark scheme for new buildings since 2008. Government will take the lead by requiring new public sector buildings to achieve the Green Mark Platinum rating, which is the highest standard. Just last Sunday, I was at the new Pasir Ris Sports complex when BCA recognised it as the 1,000th Green Mark building in Singapore.

To facilitate this transition to a greener Singapore, the Government will introduce new policies and legislation, including those which will help consumers make informed choices. Several of these measures will be announced by the Ministries under the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Climate Change during their respective Committee of Supply debate. For example, MOT will introduce a new Carbon Emissions-based Vehicle Scheme to encourage car buyers to switch to vehicles with lower emissions. Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources (MEWR) will raise the Minimum Energy Performance Standards for air-conditioners and refrigerators, as well as extend it to lighting. Ministry of Trade and Industry will work with MEWR to extend the Grant for Energy Efficient Technologies to continue support for energy conserving industries. MTI will also pilot repayable financing schemes to catalyse private sector investments in energy efficiency.

Dr Teo also asked about our desired outcomes. We have set a target of reducing our emissions by 7% to 11% below business-as-usual levels in 2020. This will be raised to 16% below business-as-usual levels in 2020 if there is a global agreement on climate change.

Page: 1652

Every nation, big or small, will be affected by climate change, and we will all have to work together to address it. Many countries have implemented or are looking to introduce policies to cut their emissions. A key decision at the Climate Change talks in November last year in Durban was that countries have agreed to start negotiations on a new climate change framework for post-2020. This will require all countries to do more.

Singapore supports international efforts to reduce emissions and we will play our part.

To achieve more emission reductions over time will require behavioural adjustments and changes in business processes. We will need to consider more stringent energy efficiency standards and legislation, along with measures taken by other countries. Further measures that need to be considered include putting a price on carbon emissions, especially if there is a new binding global framework. Where these measures result in additional costs, the Government will assist our stakeholders, especially the more needy, through policies, such as grants and rebates, where appropriate.

I am encouraged by the results of a recent public perception survey commissioned by the National Climate Change Secretariat, which showed that there is strong support for climate change action among Singapore residents. Eighty-six percent of the respondents felt that they play a part in taking action on climate change. Fifty-eight percent of those surveyed also stated that Singapore should take steps to address climate change even if it involves some costs.

To prepare ourselves, a working group under the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Climate Change will study how we can stabilise our long-term emissions. This will be challenging, given our limited ability to draw significantly on alternative energy, such as solar, wind or nuclear. The Government will adopt a pragmatic approach and pace the implementation of policies appropriately so that our economy and our people will adapt to the new environment.

There are also opportunities arising from climate change. We can create high value jobs for Singaporeans and enable our economy to benefit from a green growth trajectory, if we continue to strengthen our R&D capabilities and attract investments in green industries. We are well-positioned to tap on the opportunities in this transition to a clean energy future.

Sir, we need a whole-of-nation effort involving the people, the private and the public sectors to realise our vision. Together, we can ensure that Singapore remains a vibrant and liveable nation for our future generations.

The Chairman: Members, we have some time for clarification. Mr Hri Kumar.

Mr Hri Kumar Nair: I would like to thank the Deputy Prime Minister for introducing the new LTVP Plus. I think marriage pass is a better term. Could I ask for clarification on its implementation? First, as I understand it, this pass plus will only be offered after the married couple have been living in Singapore for some time. That would mean a time lag or delay before that facility is available to them, and therefore hold back their family plans. Would the Deputy Prime Minister consider compressing this? The second clarification is, as I understand it, they are eligible to purchase a public flat only after they have a child. That also may create issues of timing because after they have a child, which I presume may take some time, they will then go into the BTO queue and get a flat maybe three or four years down the road, which means only getting their first home perhaps six, seven, maybe eight years after marriage. Again, would the Deputy Prime Minister consider compressing the time frame so that they can purchase a first house as soon as possible and start a family as soon as possible?

Page: 1653

Mr Teo Chee Hean: Mr Chairman, Sir, we are taking a step-by-step approach. Such families previously would have qualified for a Long Term Visit Pass, with very few other benefits associated with it. We are now looking at a sub group of these families who are not yet ready for PR or citizenship, but we would like to extend to them more benefits so that they can stabilise and build stronger family foundations on the way to PR or citizenship. But it is not just something which the Government does, it is something which the families and couples too have to work at themselves to improve their financial situation, to make sure they can support themselves and their family, and to make sure that the marriage itself is stable, before they take further steps.

So, the LTVP is a step to help them stabilise their family, strengthen their foundations. It will provide medical benefits for hospitalisation, which can be a major cost for them. This will also cover childbirth, if they have not had a child yet. It will also provide the opportunity for the spouse to work. And when the spouse works, the spouse does not need to have a work permit. The employer will not have to pay the foreign worker levy, and the foreign spouse will not be counted against the employer's foreign worker quota, if that is applicable to that employer. So, these are considerable benefits beyond what is currently available and we hope that this will help families to settle. I am sure that there will be many more things that they would want, but I think that we should graduate this as the families stabilise.

Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef: Mr Chairman, I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his reassurance about the "No Wrong Door" policy. Some of the issues that fall through the gaps continue to be down in the gaps for the last few years since I have been an MP. My suggestion is, if it is possible, we can get some civil servants and people from the agencies to come down and share with us certain issues, and look at the ground situation. Maybe we can iron out and maybe make some review and revamp to certain policies and tweak certain issues?

Mr Teo Chee Hean: I know that Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef is a particularly active Member of Parliament. She has a very complex division to look after. I know that a number of various agencies have been working together with her and will continue to do so to resolve some of the very difficult issues that she faces.

5.00 pm

Dr Lim Wee Kiak: Mr Chairman, Sir, I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister with regard to the use of non-renewable energy: what is its role, and whether nuclear energy is still on the cards?

Mr Teo Chee Hean: To be precise, nuclear energy has not yet been put on the cards. We are studying all the alternatives, but compared to other countries, we are severely disadvantaged with regard to alternative energy possibilities. Even if we covered the whole island with solar panels, we would not be able to generate enough electricity for ourselves. It would contribute a small percentage of the energy we need – a worthwhile effort, but it will not be a substitute. We will continue to push solar energy as far as we can go. Many of our new HDB flats have been built with solar panels. Wind and tidal waves also have limitations. I would say that nuclear energy is an option which we cannot rule out. We will continue to study it, but we see it as a very long-term possibility. Nuclear plants will have to be a couple of orders of magnitude more stable, safer than they are today before we will feel comfortable having a nuclear plant in Singapore.

Page: 1654

Mr Seah Kian Peng: Sir, I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister to clarify. I have proposed quite a few measures for marriage and parenthood and ways to boost Total Fertility Rate (TFR). I know these are difficult and complex issues. I wanted to get the Deputy Prime Minister's thinking of which are those which he feels are the areas that the Ministry will be focusing on in the coming year and years.

Mr Teo Chee Hean: Mr Seah and several Members have actually come up with a few suggestions on marriage and parenthood. Let us look at all of them. This is an area which has not made much progress, but it is not for want of trying. We have instituted a variety of measures over the years. We have very generous monetary support schemes for families. We have introduced extended maternity leave. For paternity leave − something I know Mr Seah is particularly keen on − there are pluses and minuses. We would have to study the impact, and the experience of other countries. The experience of other countries on paternity leave has been mixed. For shared leave, most of the time, it is the mother who has taken the leave rather than the father. There are also implications like cost to businesses. So, we have to study this very carefully. As I have said to Mr Seah – and in his own words – we will study them carefully, if not for this year, maybe for later years.

The Chairman: If there are no other clarifications, Asst Prof Eugene Tan, would you like to withdraw your amendment?

Asst Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene: Sir, I would like to thank Deputy Prime Minister Teo for his replies, clarifications and views on a very broad spectrum of matters that come under the Prime Minister's Office's jurisdiction. The PMO covers a broad range of issues, from the mundane like the "No Wrong Door Policy" to existential issues like our population crisis and climate change.

I would like to thank Members for filing their various cuts, which touched on issues of how to get Singaporeans to try harder to have more babies, to looking out for our seniors, to foreign spouses and to re-employment issues and climate change. We have covered a wide range of issues this afternoon. Also, on behalf of Members, I would like to thank the officers of the Prime Minister's Office for their good work and their background work in the getting up and in helping to make this debate informative. Sir, on that note, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

The Chairman: Before we proceed, I would like to make a comment that in withdrawing the amendment, I would remind Members to keep their withdrawal short. In this Head, we had some time so I allowed Asst Prof Tan to continue, but in the COS of certain Heads, we may not have that luxury of time.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Page: 1655

The sum of $302,518,100 for Head U ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $41,897,900 for Head U ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.