SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST APRIL, 2001 TO 31ST MARCH, 2002

Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [Allotted Day].

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

The Chairman: Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1st April, 2001 to 31st March, 2002, contained in Paper Cmd. 8 of 2001.

Head T, Ministry of Manpower. Mr Low Thia Khiang.

Head T -

Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head T be reduced by $10 in respect of Code 3000 of the Main Estimates.

Sir, I learn from a press report that programmes supported by NTUC Education and Training Fund have benefited about 80,000 workers since 1998. I have the following questions to ask: (1) What are the training programmes supported by the Fund? (2) What are the objective and focus of the fund in training workers? (3) In view of the current unemployment situation, will the Fund focus more on the training of retrenched workers, ie, older and lower-educated workers? (4) Would NTUC publish a profile of workers who have benefited from the fund so far, in terms of their age, education level, job position and income?

The Minister for Manpower (Dr Lee Boon Yang): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member has asked questions on what the NTUC Education and Training Fund is used for, how is it being used to help workers and what kind of training programmes. Let me explain that the NTUC Education and Training Fund, which was first set up in October 1998, is used to support workers who are not getting training support from their employers. So it is an individually motivated skills upgrading and training programme. When a person is already employed and his employer wants to send him for training, they can use the Skills Redevelopment Programme directly. We have very generous grants for employer-supported skills upgrading and retraining. But there are of course some workers whose employers are not so far-sighted and who do not want to send their workers for training. In which case, there is a danger that these workers may be left out of all these opportunities for skills upgrading. This is where the NTUC Education and Training Fund comes in to fill up this gap and provide another safety net for workers, especially those who are lower-skilled and, in fact, older workers.

So this Education and Training Fund is especially for these workers who want to go for training or skills upgrading on their own. Generally, the types of courses that NTUC will support are similar to the courses that are available under the Skills Redevelopment Programme. These are courses or training that would help workers to acquire skills that are needed for either the manufacturing sector or service sector and is quite broad based, and it covers many industries. It is a fairly long list. I think there are about 100-odd such courses available and we are in the process of continuing to increase the type of courses, or enlarge the list of training courses, that can be supported under the Skills Redevelopment Programme and, therefore, also supported by NTUC under the Education and Training Fund.

Sir, as the NTUC Education and Training Fund is an endowment fund, the money that is being collected and the Government's subvention to NTUC are not spent directly. They form part of the endowment fund and its interest returns are being used to support the workers who want to go for skills upgrading. In this way, we can continue to ensure that NTUC will have a flow of interest returns from the endowment fund to continue its support for workers who need this assistance.

I have already touched on the objectives. It is to help prepare workers so that they can acquire the skill that is needed for them to seek re-employment. The labour market has turned bad. We are now facing a serious crisis. As DPM Lee has mentioned on Friday in great detail, I would not have to go over it again. We are facing a major downturn. The employment market will continue to be very, very difficult. More workers are going to be retrenched and for those who are retrenched, they are going to have greater difficulty in finding new jobs. In this environment, the worker who has got higher skills and is willing to acquire new skills will stand a better chance in getting re-employed, compared to one who is lower skilled and not willing to make an effort. Of course, retraining or skills upgrading does not mean that he will automatically get a new job because the whole job market has shrunk. So it is going to be very competitive. It is going to be very difficult as many people are chasing after so few jobs.

But all things being equal, if a worker is not prepared to make this effort to upgrade his skills, or acquire new skills, that means, go for retraining, then his chances of getting a new job are going to be worse off than the other guy who is making every effort to upgrade his skills and is very ready to pick up new skills, learn something different, or do a different job. Hence, all our programmes, including those under NTUC Education and Training Fund, focus on this aspect of preparing and helping our workers so that they can cope with this changed environment.

On the question about whether the fund will support retrenched and lower-educated older workers, the answer is "yes". That is the focus. Similar to the Government's training programmes, the focus of the NTUC Education and Training Fund is on the group of workers most in need of help. So they turn out to be that these are the older, lower-skilled workers. And this is what we will continue to do.

On the profile, I would convey his request to NTUC. At the appropriate time, I am sure NTUC will be willing to share its experience and the profile of the union members who have benefited from this programme with Members.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: I would like to know whether those who are not union members, and their employers are not supportive of their training requests, could benefit from this fund. If not, where can they get help from? The other question is perhaps not so related to this cut, and I do not know whether the Minister is prepared to answer, is whether the new increased grants for workers who undergo for training programme announced would be subject to some abuse. Workers may take the grant of $1,000 or $2,000 during this situation to go for training but they may not get the job at the end of the day. Could the Minister clarify the point? Although the DPM announced that the grant for those workers who need training during the downturn would be increased, the question is whether or not you will find employers for these workers when they are retrenched, and link them up and provide the training, or you actually allow them to go for training without any employers. And will there be workers who keep on going for training but they can never get a job at the end of the day?

Dr Lee Boon Yang: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member asked whether those who are non-union members can also benefit from this training assistance. The answer is yes. If they are union members, of course, and if they are union members who are employed, they can take advantage of the Skills Redevelopment Programme as an employer-supported training. I had mentioned that earlier. If they are union members and they are unemployed, they can go to NTUC and seek support from the Education and Training Fund. For those who are non-union members, whether they are unemployed or their employers are not prepared to support them for skills upgrading, we have a third avenue to assist them. This is through the community self-help groups, ie, SINDA, MENDAKI and CDAC. These community self-help groups will play the part of the "surrogate" employers. They will become the sponsoring agency for the unemployed worker, or for the worker whose employer is not prepared to send him for training. They would then put up a proposal to send this worker for training and the Government will give him support and financial assistance through the community self-help group. We have already quite a number of people who were trained under this community self-help group route. As of October 2001, the number of workers who were supported under the "surrogate" employer group, ie, the community self-help groups, is about 7,800 workers. They also receive financial subsidy or training fee subsidy to achieve skills upgrading.

Sir, his second point is whether we will help those who are undergoing training to find new jobs, instead of remaining just on a permanent long-term training. Yes, that is the focus of our programmes. We will certainly make every effort to try to job-match those who have undergone skills upgrading or taken up retraining and place them in new jobs that are still available. We will make every effort to ensure that those who sign up for skills upgrading will have a chance to be re-employed.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, a further clarification. If, let us say, a worker is retrenched, he has yet to find an employer and he has approached the Ministry for help, what would be the process and arrangement for that worker?

Dr Lee Boon Yang: If an unemployed Singaporean or a retrenched worker comes to my Ministry and says, "Look, I need help", my officers at Career Link@MOM, which is our main service centre for helping unemployed Singaporeans, will try to find out more about his working background, experience and skills level. Then we will try to identify which would be a suitable sector that he should direct his job search efforts at. And where we find that he has inadequate skills for particular job vacancies, we will then try to structure a suitable training programme for him. If he does not have the right kind of skills, we will try to arrange for him to get this training. If he is unemployed, of course he does not have an employer to sponsor him, then we will recommend that he either goes to NTUC to seek help under the Education and Training Fund or goes to one of the appropriate community self-help groups to seek assistance, with the self-help group acting as a surrogate employer.

We will try to do everything possible to help this person, including providing him with a training package that would be suitable for his particular background, because different people may come with different kinds of background. Some have more skills, some have less, including even some executives and middle management people, for whom maybe it is not just a question of training but opening up the job search to look at more different kinds of industry or business where he could perhaps look for alternative work.

So we will do everything possible. In some cases, we even do counselling on a one-to-one basis, to help these unemployed Singaporeans to acquire a more pro-active mindset in looking for jobs. There are things like job-search skills which some people may not have - how do you prepare your curriculum vitae when you are sending out a resume, how do you present yourself at interviews. Some of these things, eg, if you do not present yourself properly during this downturn, when employers really have such a wide range to choose from, you would not get picked. So some of these job-search skills, we also try to impart. We run little workshop sessions for people who register with us in our employment register, we bring them in and conduct little seminars to help them to improve job-search skills.

The Chairman: Mr Low, would you like to withdraw your amendment?

Mr Low Thia Khiang: One more question, Sir.

The Chairman: All right.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, I would like to know what is the response time of the Ministry from the time an approach is made by a worker to the time of referral. Is there any timeframe set for the Ministry to conduct that? Does the Ministry follow up after the worker has been referred for job matching, because I understand that some workers, after being referred, go to the employers and the employers say they have enough people.

Dr Lee Boon Yang: Sir, during this downturn, the number of people coming to my Ministry has gone up by leaps and bounds. On the other hand, the number of jobs available in the job bank has also declined, as part of the overall economic downturn. So job matching will obviously take a longer time than what we used to be able to do. We do not have a specific timeframe to find a match, but we will try as soon as a person registers with us, maybe within a few days, to give him some recommendations of job openings that are available.

As to closing the feedback loop, it works both ways. We also need the job seekers to come back to us and tell us the outcome. Quite often, people go for interviews, if they get the job or even if they do not get the job, they just do not come back to us. Or, sometimes, after having recommended several job opportunities to a job seeker, he may or may not go for an interview. He may have found another job on his own, because people do not just look for jobs through our Career Link@MOM service. They are also actively looking for jobs through their own network of friends, making enquiries, what is available, what are the jobs they have, etc. So MOM offers only one of the contact points for them in terms of job search. Sometimes, when they find jobs through other avenues, they do not come back to us. So we cannot completely close the feedback loop for every case that comes to our attention. We cannot give him a definitive answer in that sense, partly because the registrants themselves do not help us to close that loop.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $15,000,000 for Head T ordered to stand part of the Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1st April, 2001 to 31st March, 2002.

Head Z -

The Chairman: Head Z, Ministry of Finance. Mr Low Thia Khiang.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head Z be reduced by $10 in respect of Code 4000 of the Main Estimates.

Sir, can I take my two cuts together?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, before I go into the query on the subject matter, I wish to state that I regret the Government's style in pushing these Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure in Parliament.

I was notified of the Supplementary Estimates and to submit a cut, if I wished to raise any query. The deadline for the submission of a cut was 9th October, before the New Singapore Shares were announced in Parliament on 12th October. How does the PAP Government expect Opposition MPs to be able to query the matter in detail before any announcement is made?

Secondly, Sir, even today, when we are supposed to pass this Estimate for the New Singapore Shares, I know very little about the New Singapore Shares scheme. I think it is only fair that the detailed scheme should be made known in this House before the Estimate is passed. I would like to know the following:

1. How many shares will each individual be allocated, and what is the basis of the allocation of the shares?

2. Are the shares allocated linked to political support for the PAP?

3. How much would the cash benefit of the shares be per individual when they are first redeemed?

4. What is the Government's projection of the cash value of the shares at their maturity in 2007? Assuming that a person keeps his share till then, how much cash benefit will he get?

Sir, I now move to my second cut on assistance to needy families. Sir, I understand that $200 million is needed for the Government's contribution to the Community Assistance Fund, and I suppose these are contributions to CDCs and other organisations. I would like to know:

1. How this $200 million will be allocated. If it is to CDCs, how much will each CDC get, and how much Hougang CDC will be allocated and what is the basis of the allocation?

2. Since the fund was intended to assist needy families, what mechanism is there in place to make sure that CDCs use the fund for its intended purpose?

3. What are the specific programmes mandated by the Government for the CDCs to carry out to achieve the objective of the allocation under the Budget?

The Minister for Finance (Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau): Sir, on the first question asked, on the adequacy of the notice, I think the Standing Order requirements have been met. If the hon. Member needs any further elaboration, he should address this to the Leader of the House. This is not my responsibility.

The second question is on the New Singapore Shares - how many shares will be allocated - and Mr Low also wants to know why Parliament is asked to approve the sum of money without details being known. I can only suggest that this is a giveaway scheme. Where money is being given, unless you are objecting to the principle of giving New Singapore Shares to citizens, I do not see how this question is relevant.

As to how many shares will be given, this will be announced by me at the Ministry of Finance tomorrow at a press conference at 9.00 am, in which all the details will be released. The principle is to allocate qualifying citizens with New Singapore Shares amounting to between 200 shares per individual, up to 1,700 shares per individual. Those who are in the lower income groups and elderly persons will get somewhat more shares; those who have served National Service will get more shares. Of course, the lower sum of $200 will apply to those who are in the higher income groups.

I can give Mr Low a categorical assurance that there is no political link. All residents who qualify within Hougang constituency will receive their fair share.

As to the value of these shares in the year 2007, I cannot give him a fixed figure because it depends on the basic interest rate, which is fixed at 3% per year, plus the real GDP growth rate of the preceding year. So, I do not know what the GDP growth rates will be in the year 2002, 2003, etc. But it will certainly be more than the principal sum, plus 3% per annum. At the end of the 5-year period, any person who has not cashed in any of the shares will get the full principal plus the interest accumulated.

On the second question of the $200 million, it is the money given to the Community Assistance Fund (CAF). Let me explain what the Community Assistance Fund is. The Community Assistance Fund was formed by the pooling of two charitable funds, ie, the 25th Anniversary Endowment Fund and the Silver Jubilee Fund in the year 2000. The CAF funds the following financial schemes: special grants; rents and utilities assistance scheme, interim financial assistance schemes, centre-based financial assistance schemes for back-to-work childcare schemes, and other approved voluntary programmes for low income individuals. These schemes are administered by the Community Development Councils which act as one-stop agencies to administer social assistance. A Board of Trustees appointed by the Ministry of Community Development and Sports decides on the allocation policies and budget for the financial assistance expenditures. A committee of management headed by the People's Association, with representatives from all CDCs and National Council of Social Services, allocates the budget to each CDC and voluntary welfare organisation.

The CAF's principal currently stands at $43 million, plus the $200 million grant, which is the subject of today's approval. The principal sum will be invested by professional fund managers to generate an annual income of approximately $5 million to fund all these financial schemes. The requirement for the CAF will be reviewed in 2005.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Clarification, Sir. While I do support the allocation and issuing of New Singapore Shares, it is only fair that Members should know the details before we can go into it to better debate and decide on the subject of the New Singapore Shares.

I do know that under the Standing Orders, it is totally perfect and legal to actually give the notice for this Supplementary Estimates. Does the Minister agree that although the timeframe given is in accordance with the Standing Orders, how would he expect Opposition MPs - I suppose PAP Members all know beforehand - to debate when we do not know what actually are the New Singapore Shares about. What we know is the announcement by the Prime Minister of New Singapore Shares at his National Day Rally Speech.

With that kind of situation, how does he expect Opposition MPs to ask relevant questions when they do not know anything at all? Is that fair? Would he like to comment?

Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau: Sir, I think it is eminently fair, because the proposal really is for the Government to spend money to give shares to Singapore citizens. Either you agree or you do not agree. Or, if you agree, perhaps you consider the amounts insufficient or too much. All other matters relating to the details of the allocation are the privilege of the Government, in much the same way you may or may not object to a tax cut. But you are in no position to query what the form of the tax cut should take. That is the prerogative of the Government.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Is the Minister aware that, given the PAP Government's policy and stand of dishing out benefits, with a track record of linking to political support, it is only prudent for the Opposition to know what is the detail and how is the allocation, before I come here to say whether I support or object?

Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau: I think the Prime Minister and DPM Lee have already explained it will be based on income levels, with people living in flats as a proxy. So there is no political content in it. It depends on the income level, whether you have served national service or whether you are an elderly person. I do not see the political connection in such a distribution scheme. Do you?

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, if my recollection is correct, an announcement on 12th October in Parliament has made it clearer. But I was supposed to send in this cut by 9th October. So what does the Minister expect me to know more than that?

Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau: Sir, as I have said earlier, it is not a question of whether you support giving away $2.7 billion in this form. If you support, then you support the Bill. If you do not, then you object and we will have a vote.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, I have stated that I do support the scheme but before I come to that support, does the Minister agree that I have got to know what is the allocation principle? And for me to ask the question in detail, I need to know more information about that beforehand, before I submit the cut on 9th October. But I only know of the announcement on 12th October. So, is it fair to a Member like me?

Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau: I really do not understand. I know you are arguing on technicality for which I agree that you may have a point. But, nevertheless, because it is a proposal to share Singapore's surpluses with the population, the distribution is not something which you can argue against.

The Chairman: Mr Low, do you want to withdraw your amendment?

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Since the Minister for Finance agrees that I do have a point although he said it was on technicalities, fair enough, at least I have got some details now, I support the scheme. I withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

That the sum of $2,900,000,000 for Head Z ordered to stand part of the Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1st April, 2001 to 31st March 2002.

Question, "That the sum of $2,915,000,000 shall be supplied to the Government under the Heads of Expenditure for the public services shown in the Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1st April 2001 to 31st March 2002 contained in Paper Cmd. 8 of 2001", put and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported.

Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.

Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply have come to certain resolution.

Resolution reported.

"That the sum of $2,915,000,000 shall be supplied to the Government under the Heads of Expenditure for the public services shown in the Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1st April 2001 to 31st March 2002 contained in Paper Cmd. 8 of 2001".

Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

"That Parliament doth agree with the Committee on the said resolution."

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution accordingly agreed to.