EDUCATION ENDOWMENT SCHEME (AMENDMENT) BILL

Column: 1391

EDUCATION ENDOWMENT SCHEME (AMENDMENT) BILL: Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister for Education (Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, the Education Endowment Scheme (EES) Act establishes the Edusave Pupils Fund (EPF) with the aim of enhancing citizen pupils' education. It provides citizen pupils with an Edusave account and yearly contributions if they are between 6 and 16 years of age and studying in primary schools, secondary schools, special education schools and ITE. Pupils can use funds from the Edusave account to pay approved fees and enrichment programme charges. The current Edusave Pupils Fund contribution rate is $170 for pupils in primary schools and special education schools and $200 for pupils who are studying in secondary schools and ITE.

In his 2005 Budget Statement, the Prime Minister announced a special top-up of $100 to be made to the Edusave accounts of eligible pupils. Section 7(1) of the Education Endowment Scheme Act currently allows for the Edusave Pupils Fund to be funded from income of the Edusave Endowment Fund. However, it does not provide for the Edusave Pupils Fund to be funded via a direct injection of funds from the Government. Thus, in order to allow for special top-ups to be made to the Edusave account of each

Column: 1392

eligible pupil, section 7(1) of the Education Endowment Scheme Act has to be amended to allow the Government to inject funds directly into the Edusave Pupils Fund.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr S Iswaran) in the Chair]

5.05 pm

In conclusion, Sir, the amendments proposed in the Bill will allow for special top-ups to be made to the Edusave accounts of eligible pupils by the Government.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Column: 1392

COMMUNITY CARE ENDOWMENT FUND BILL: Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (Dr Vivian Balakrishnan): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second

time."

Objectives of the Bill

This Bill seeks to establish the Community Care Endowment Fund. This fund was first announced by the Prime Minister in January 2005 in Parliament. The Fund will start off with a capital sum of $500 million and be built up over time to $1 billion.

Column: 1393

The setting up of a Community Care Endowment Fund (or ComCare Fund) will provide a sustainable source of income, in both good times and bad times, to run social assistance programmes that will help needy Singaporeans and their families to tide over difficult times. ComCare aims to help Singaporeans in a way that will enable them to stand on their own two feet eventually. Our objective is to help the needy to become self-reliant, to help the children from needy families break out of the poverty trap, to maximise the potential of the disabled so that they can be contributing members of our society, and to provide community care and support for those who need long-term assistance.

There will be new money for new programmes. We will also streamline our existing assistance programmes. We will review the processes so that needy Singaporeans can receive help faster, and in a more effective manner. The Community Development Councils, together with the grassroots and community organisations, being closer to the ground, will be empowered to exercise more

flexibility to deliver these assistance programmes for needy Singaporeans.

The ComCare Fund complements the other elements of Singapore's social safety net, such as Medifund, Edusave and the Lifelong Learning Fund. With economic restructuring and globalisation, a small but growing minority of Singaporeans will face economic hardships from time to time. ComCare will provide a safety net for this small group. It will focus on addressing the social and financial needs of these Singaporeans and their families, in particular the medically unfit, the severely disabled and the frail elderly. It will aim to look at the underlying problems faced by the needy and address them in a holistic manner. ComCare will be based on mutual responsibility. It will help those who are

Column: 1394

willing to do their part to help themselves. ComCare will complement the Workfare programme by focusing on the social support needed to enable low wage workers, especially women, to return to work.

ComCare Budget

ComCare will provide up to $55 million a year for assistance schemes. Apart from supporting the existing nationwide social assistance schemes which are administered by the CDCs, $10 million from this $55 million budget will go towards 'seed money' for pilot programmes initiated by the CDCs, the grassroots organisations or the voluntary welfare organisations. Another $4 million will be set aside for the Citizens' Consultative Committees to exercise flexibility in helping genuinely needy residents who may not strictly meet the criteria for social assistance programmes, or to set up local programmes to help the specific needs of their residents.

Provisions in the Bill

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me now address the key provisions of the Bill. The ComCare Fund will consist of money from the Consolidated Fund and the Community Assistance Fund, which currently supports a number of social assistance schemes. Clause 19 provides for the termination of the Community Assistance Fund and for the moneys to be transferred to the ComCare Fund as capital moneys. Clause 5 provides for the appropriation of moneys from the Consolidated Fund to form the capital moneys of the ComCare Fund.

Clause 5 further provides that all gifts and bequests to the Fund are required to form part of its capital moneys. The capital moneys must be applied only for purposes of investment and if any part of the capital sum is spent, it must be made

Column: 1395

good out of the income of the Fund before the income can be paid out.

Clause 6 sets out the objects of the ComCare Fund, which are to provide assistance to persons in financial or other difficulties to enable them to meet their basic needs; to address the developmental issues faced by children from families with financial or other difficulties; to provide financial or other assistance to persons who require help to integrate into society; and, lastly, to develop programmes to enhance the capacity of the community to undertake all these tasks, for example, giving funding to a voluntary welfare organisation to run a programme to help needy children, the frail elderly or the disabled.

Under clause 6, the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports can authorise the income of the ComCare Fund to be paid out as grants to individuals and families through organisations, or to an organisation directly, in order to carry out the objects of the ComCare Fund.

Conclusion

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as the Prime Minister said at the launch of ComCare in June, the ComCare Fund is an expression of our concern for the weakest members of our community. It reflects this Government's commitment to devote more resources and do more for those who are at risk of being left behind, but who want to get ahead and become fully participating members of our society. Through ComCare, we will provide these vulnerable members of our society with the means to support themselves and their families. We will help to ensure that no Singaporean is left behind while Singapore progresses.

Sir, I beg to move.

Column: 1396

Question proposed.

Mr Sin Boon Ann: Sir, the Bill before us is the culmination of our recent discussion on the setting up of a substantial fund to provide financial and other assistance to the poor and needy in Singapore. It puts in place a more solid framework for social welfare, both in terms of the amount that we can extend to those who need it and the flexibility with which we can deliver it. The fund size will eventually grow to $1 billion and the grassroots organisations, such as the CDCs and CCCs, will be given the task of targeting delivery specifically to those who need it most. This development indeed is a significant milestone for us in the way we want to move forward to help those who need help.

While I am glad and cheered by the

setting up of the Community Care Endowment Fund or ComCare Fund which is now finally underway, the timely introduction of this Bill gives rise to an occasion for us to consider further issues that are associated with it. Unfortunately, the introduction of the legislation is not going to banish forever some issues relating to the poor and needy in our society.

I will touch on three broad themes today. These are:

(1) The short-term nature of financial assistance;

(2) A realistic assessment of needs; and

(3) A proper measure of the effectiveness of the ComCare Fund in achieving what it sets out to do.

First, the short-term nature of financial assistance. Sir, as the saying goes, "It never rains but pours." When bills come to those who are in financial hardship, they all seem to come at the same time.

Column: 1397

In the course of our MPS, almost all of us would inevitably come across cases of residents for whom the prospect of financial stability on their own may just not be possible. Let me pull out just one of the many that I have on my record. I have a resident who is over 60 years of age. He has a wife and two sons. Both sons are mentally unsound and are thus unable to find work. The father is past retirement age and, even if he wanted to, would be unable to find work on account of his poor health. Without an income and relatives they can rely on, it is evidently clear that they are not able to support themselves by working, and that they would require long-term intervention. Unfortunately, under our schemes, we do not typically put families on long-term support unless they qualify for public assistance.

Sir, there are not many who qualify for long-term public assistance based on our rather stringent criteria, and there are many who fall through the gap. For instance, in the whole of the North East CDC, there are, as of now, only about 168 families who qualify for long-term public assistance. This is out of a total of 205,000 families in North East CDC. If it is true, Sir, it is unfortunate. It cannot be that there are so few numbers of destitute families that require the state to look after them in the long term. It would appear that, for the majority, the main solution to their financial problem may not be interim assistance. For now, interim assistance seems the most available form of assistance. What happens then is that the resident is left with having to come every three months to the MPS to ask for financial support. Why put the family on short-term assistance when it is evidently clear that the family requires long-term intervention, even if they do not on the surface meet the strict requirements? Why are we so hesitant in putting more families on longer-term support?

Incidentally, apart from some food items and vouchers, the monetary support

Column: 1398

that we give to a family comes in the form of allowances of between $100 and $150 per month. Realistically, for an unemployed family of four adults, this is really not enough, even including other forms of intervention.

Secondly, a realistic assessment of needs. Sir, I am glad to note that the Minister has pointed out that the ComCare Fund will seek to address the holistic needs of those who are in need of assistance in Singapore. But that begs the question: what exactly are our needs and how do we define these needs? How much financial assistance should the State be giving before it is considered adequate? The conventional wisdom appears to be that our assistance should be placed at a level that is just below the comfort level. Sir, I have no quarrel with that principle. However, the question really is: just what should be the comfort level for Singaporeans? Should a middle-class family with young children attending enrichment classes now be required to stop these classes immediately simply because both parents are out of a job and are seeking public support? Should the children of poor families be given some form of assistance so that they can get a chance to travel and also share the meaningful experience as their other friends who are blessed with better opportunities? For that matter, should these children be denied rights to toys and other useful accessories simply because their parents are too poor, or should the children of these families be given proper food supplements to ensure that their physical development is not affected simply on account of their parents' inability to pay for these items?

While many may see the needs as being relative, I would submit that there are some requirements today that would and should be seen as essential items, as opposed to being treated as luxuries, which they may well be the case 10 years

Column: 1399

earlier. The examples I cited relate more importantly to the needs of children. Very often, and unfortunately, when parents fall into hard times, it is the children who suffer. The experience that these children go through will no doubt toughen them mentally. Yet, at the same time, for many, their circumstances will also put them at a distinct disadvantage in this highly competitive society. While I laud the achievements of those who are able to break out of the cycle of poverty and recount their stories at the height of their career success - which unfortunately tends to be more the exception than the rule - let us also spare a thought for those who could have got much further in life but for the limited opportunities that they had.

I know that part of the remit of the ComCare Fund is committed to ensuring that the educational needs of the poor and needy children are taken care of. The question really is whether grassroots organisations are sufficiently focused on targeting the needs of these children to ensure that the concerns that I have just mentioned are properly addressed in a holistic manner. The simpler solution is to target their needs that are most obvious and easiest to solve, ie, pocket money, school transport, school fees, and so on. I believe that there is no one who can truly say that the holistic needs are taken care of, as opposed to sporadic needs, if we just did that. We want to ensure that our assistance is effective and, in many cases, would help a child break out of the cycle of poverty. So, I am heartened to note that the principle underlying the ComCare Fund is to ensure a holistic approach to helping the poor and needy. But let us just spare a thought about applying this when we implement the Fund.

Thirdly, a proper measure of the ComCare Fund. Sir, much money will be

Column: 1400

dispensed under the ComCare Fund in the coming days to the poor and needy. While we applaud and laud the giving of substantial financial assistance to those who require help, we should also ask ourselves whether or not we should expect more appropriate governance and measurable objectives and outcomes from such commitments. There are two issues that we need to consider really, if we want to go down this route.

(1) The manner in which the money is disbursed, how it is accounted for by those who give it away; and

(2) How we can go about assessing every programme, in terms of the performance index, to ensure that the money is properly spent.

On the first issue, the recent saga involving the National Kidney Foundation clearly demonstrates a need for strong governance, if we want to prevent another failure of similar proportion. At the moment, CCCs are given only $33,000 to give out as interim assistance. The CDCs, on the other hand, are given more funds at their disposal. The guidelines given merely set out the broad compass by which the funds may be used. It does not give sufficient guidance other than just some examples of how money should be spent. To give an example: should the ComCare Fund be allowed to blow $30,000 on a grand event to promote the various public assistance schemes? Should there not be an avenue of appeal to the committee for hardship cases who are unsuccessful, so as to provide the assurance that full consideration has been given? And, related to this point, should the decision whether or not to give financial assistance be left in the hands of managers alone? Are they guided by appropriate advice from social workers? Should we also set an appropriate benchmark of responsiveness for CDC with regard to applications for financial assistance from the residents?

Column: 1401

In the course of my work at the constituency, I have often heard complaints about lack of responsiveness from the welfare agencies. Granted that some forms may not be complete but, surely, incomplete information alone cannot account for the long response time that the agencies take to respond. It is not uncommon to hear sometimes how these agencies may take up to three months to respond. And, if it is true, I will be very concerned indeed.

Moving on, I did mention earlier that we need to move towards adopting a performance measurement index to help us focus on the way in which we spend the money. I would like to remind us here in this House, Sir, that we need to move away from the mindset that ComCare Fund is welfare hand-out to the poor and needy Singaporeans and permanent residents. To do that would be to demean them and would rob them of their sense of dignity. We should see payments out of the ComCare Fund as investments in social capital that will ultimately yield results for the long-term good of our country. Seen from this perspective, the financial support that the community gives out, whether it be the CCC or the CDC, is not incidental and isolated but rather linked to the larger question of how best to assist the person concerned so that he or his family can be lifted out of the poverty trap and be of use to society. For instance, the KiFAS should not be positioned as only helping to pay the school fees of the poor children but rather as a programme to enhance the learning capacity of the child so that he or she can get an even chance of competing in society. Equally, when it comes to providing welfare grants, the approach should be to use the money to set up an appropriate framework that would allow the welfare recipients to work, even if the income is somewhat subsidised through the ComCare Fund, than to give the money outright. Although this principle

Column: 1402

may not be applied in every instance, it at least provides the appropriate perspective by which one would view how assistance should be rendered and one which would allow us to effectively measure the outcome of what we put in by way of assistance, something which I will elaborate on later.

Sir, it is perhaps our desire to want to be flexible with the ComCare Fund that we have worded the parameter of assistance broadly to include financial and other difficulties. As to what "other difficulties" meant, one would suppose would depend very much on the exigencies on the ground from time to time, as it would be rather difficult to tell in advance. However, in keeping the legislation broad and flexible, we also run into the risk that there is not enough guidance from Parliament on how the money should be spent and, with it, the attendant risk of abuse. This should be and can be avoided, if there are provisions in the main body of legislation that allow for guidance in some form of circulars or subsidiary legislation for MCYS as to what constitute "other difficulties".

At the moment, there is much concern over the way in which charity money is spent by those in whose hands lies the responsibility of spending. In the case of welfare assistance, if one were to look at it, it would be easy to give a proper explanation of it, so long as we are able to show that the money was given to the poor or is used to help those who are in difficulty. If we did that at the grassroots level and even at the Government level, one could not be faulted. However, if we did that, are we being honest with ourselves in the way we want to help those in need? This attitude seems synonymous with a person just continually giving small sums of money to those who see him and send him away without actually applying his mind as to

Column: 1403

how welfare recipients can properly be helped to be financially independent in the longer term. We have heard the common and popular saying that we do not just want to give him fish which is good only for the day but rather teach him to fish so that he will have fish for a lifetime.

I have no doubt that the objective of the ComCare Fund is to enable families and those in need to look after themselves. However, if we are not careful, we could fall into the trap of just giving the fish and not teaching the recipient to fish. The $500 million - and subsequently $1 billion - is a fairly substantial sum to be giving away over a period of time. What would be remiss on our part would be to give away the money without being in a position to determine for ourselves just how effective the giving has been to those in need, whether overall the quality and conditions of our general poor and needy have improved over a period of time. In other words, we need to develop a proper measure of effectiveness and framework of accountability for the ComCare Fund programme overall, and I hope that the Government will come up with one in due course.

Sir, finally, it would be wrong of me, as Chairman of the GPC for MCYS, not to register my deep appreciation and thanks to the Government, in particular the Prime Minister, for sincerely trying to help the poor and needy in Singapore. When I think of the Fund, I can think of the family in my constituency whose father is a dialysis patient, mother is diagnosed with cancer, both of whom are not working and with a child in primary school. The money from the Fund would go a long way for them. I can also think of the family I mentioned at the beginning of my speech. At least, as their MP, I can give them the assurance that their father, who is in his late 60s, does not have to worry

Column: 1404

about having to go out to work so that he can support his two sons who are mentally unwell.

Sir, there are many more families that I am sure each of my colleagues in this House can recall. For each family, the ComCare Fund will provide some relief and help to help carry a part of that burden. In doing so, we are telling fellow Singaporeans that this Government cares for them and is prepared to walk the talk with them, unlike so many other countries that we know of.

Sir, with that, I support the Bill.

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Sir, before I begin, let me declare my interest as the Mayor of South West District and also a member of the ComCare Supervisory Committee.

Sir, the establishment of the ComCare Fund could not have come too soon. Back in 2000, a study by the Department of Statistics showed that income disparity began to increase in 1999, a significant departure from earlier periods when household income distribution remained relatively unchanged. This increase in income disparity stemmed from an increase in the number of households in the lower income brackets. That was the start of an ominous trend.

Two recent surveys by the Department of Statistics and the HDB have confirmed this observation. Both surveys showed that income for the bottom 20% of households fell in the last few years even as overall average incomes went up.

Yet another aspect of the seriousness of this situation came from MOM's recently-released job employment statistics. The latest figures show that whilst the job creation rate for the first half of this year hit a four and a half year high of 49,600 new jobs added compared

Column: 1405

to 24,600 for the same period last year, the jobless rate of workers aged 40 years and above and with below secondary education actually increased from 5.9% to 6.8% in the 12-month period ending June.

The widening income gap, if not managed, has serious social repercussions and will lead to increasing tension between the have lots and the have nots. The setting up of the ComCare Endowment Fund to provide assistance to the lowest income groups so that no needy child, elderly poor or disabled would be left without community care and support indicates the Government's recognition of the seriousness of this issue.

From the perspective of a Government that has hitherto religiously shunned any semblance of welfarism, it also signals an acceptance that many more Singaporeans than before need assistance, whether on a short-term or longer-term basis.

I would like to comment on four key features of the ComCare Fund and the considerations that ought to be taken into account in its implementation.

Firstly, the independence of the ComCare Budget and topping up of the ComCare Endowment Fund.

The key intent of the ComCare Fund, to dispense help to the less

fortunate and assist them to become self-reliant again without breeding a crutch or entitlement mentality and to delink the funds needed for social assistance from the Government's budget, is a practical and sensible arrangement.

This is also in contrast to the social assistance schemes of many other countries, who have depleted their treasuries or led to high income taxes due to well-meaning but poorly structured welfare schemes which are open to abuse.

Column: 1406

As the Minister earlier noted, the setting up of the ComCare Endowment Fund, as an independent fund, means that this amount is sheltered from any adverse fluctuations of the economy. Other programmes may be cut during periods of economic downturn, but it is precisely during such difficult times that poorer households need the most help. This is yet another acknowledgement by the Government of the need to have more sustained and focused efforts to help our less fortunate.

Going forward, and as provided for in the Bill, the Government should consider topping up this Endowment Fund whenever the economy permits, even after the initial target of $1 billion is reached. Since the fund's namesake is "ComCare", or short form for Community Care, the community could also be roped in to raise funds to enlarge the sum available for rendering social assistance. This way, the community would truly feel a part of this movement to allow itself to help the less able in its midst. In this respect, the Government should work with NCSS to rationalise such fund-raising efforts from individuals and corporates so as not to generate donor fatigue.

Periodic augmentation of the fund is necessary to take into account inflation, depletion of incomes or reduction in returns from a weak investment environment, long term increases in the cost of living and the likelihood that the needs of the less fortunate segment of our population could increase in the future, in view of our rapidly ageing population and the persistence of structural unemployment.

Secondly, constant monitoring and review of qualifying criteria for social assistance schemes. The Government should also regularly review the qualifying criteria for many of the national social

Column: 1407

assistance schemes, chief of which would be the cut-off monthly income or per capita, which is currently at $1,500 per month or $450 per capita for most schemes. Already, there are not an insignificant number of feedback and appeals for various social assistance schemes to be extended to those with household incomes of more than $1,500 or per capita of more than $450 per month, as there are households with incomes above this level who are genuinely struggling to make ends meet.

A unique feature of the ComCare Fund is allowing for a "flexible" fund component to be administered by the ground, ie, at the grassroots level. This "flexible" ComCare Fund is to allow the grassroots, who know and understand the needs of the residents more intimately, to render more timely "stop-gap" assistance before referring the cases to the CDCs for more detailed evaluation and assistance. It also allows the grassroots to help those who may not qualify under the existing national schemes administered by the CDCs on behalf of the relevant Government agencies, but who are in genuine need of help.

At the present moment, those who fall outside the key qualifying criteria may be assisted, but on a case-by-case and piecemeal basis. But the Government should undertake regular evaluation and studies to determine if the income ceiling or per capita for the schemes, for instance, should be raised due to rising costs, and so on.

In this regard, I would like to ask the Minister how the key qualifying criteria, such as the income ceiling for the various national schemes, are determined, and if a systematic review mechanism is already in place to monitor the relevance, effectiveness and appropriateness of

Column: 1408

these schemes and their main qualifying criteria.

If not, would the Minister be setting up a proper review mechanism as well as conduct studies to monitor and evaluate these schemes? One suggestion would be to peg the criteria to, say, the Consumer Price Index of the lowest 20 percentile of households.

Thirdly, welfare and workfare. The Government has recently identified "workfare" and not "welfare" as a strategy to help low income workers so as to preserve the strong work ethic that has prevailed and avoid breeding a welfare dependency syndrome. It wants to send the message that work is the best way to assist people. Hence, the Government will render assistance, but only if these low wage workers make the effort to find and keep jobs and upgrade their skills to earn more.

The Minister for Manpower, Dr Ng Eng Hen, who chairs the Ministerial Committee on Low Wage Workers, noted that only those who really cannot work and do not have family support will get welfare. He also said that ComCare will continue to serve as a safety net for those who are truly needy but physically and mentally incapable of work.

Sir, it is hard to argue against the philosophy underlying the workfare strategy and I must say that I fully endorse this more targeted and sustainable approach to helping the low income families.

Nonetheless, I feel that there are instances where the welfare component of workfare, for it is undeniable that there is a welfare component, may play a more important role and could need greater expansion in scope than what is currently available. For instance, there are groups of people who face genuine constraints in skills upgrading, thus seriously limiting

Column: 1409

their ability to earn more. These could be, amongst others, some of the disabled and educationally sub-normal who, even if they can find work, cannot earn enough for a decent living. Secondly, those with psychiatric problems and have been past patients of the IMH and who have extreme difficulty finding work, as well as, thirdly, single parents and families where it is not possible for both parents to work for various genuine reasons, like inability to find affordable and appropriate childcare, and so on. There are compelling reasons for such groups to receive longer term welfare as it could take some time, if at all possible, before they can become self-reliant.

Currently, social assistance schemes provided under ComCare are available generally on a short-term basis and reviewed every three months, as my colleague, Mr Sin Boon Ann, has noted earlier. However, the circumstances of the foregoing groups of people are unlikely to change after three months or, for that matter, three years. Consequently, longer term financial assistance would be more relevant for them.

Whilst the recent announcement of a CPF top-up for low income families to help them own their HDB flat is useful, the more urgent need for many poor families is actually to provide for the basic needs of their family, such as food on the table, paying their utility bills, etc.

Such assistance schemes could be reviewed on a longer term basis, say, on a yearly basis, for this group of people. I therefore feel that whilst we want to avoid a crutch mentality, there is a need to also look at some expansion of the welfare scheme to embrace those who are in genuine need and are unlikely to become self-reliant in the short to medium term.

Hence, the assistance schemes offered under workfare should be carefully

Column: 1410

considered and packaged to synergise and/or dovetail with the help provided under the ComCare to avoid confusion and waste. We would also need to allow for some flexibility in the implementation of these workfare schemes.

Finally, enlisting the help of the community. Whilst the decentralisation of social assistance schemes from the Ministry to the CDCs has generally improved the delivery of such assistance to the needy, the ComCare Fund takes this a step further as it recognises that the grassroots are closest to the ground and hence should be even more effective in identifying those in need in a community.

Additionally, the residents in the constituency could assist in identifying and alerting, say, the relevant grassroots and/or CDC of anyone who is in need in the community. Appropriate and timely help could then be provided to the residents.

This morning, I read with a heavy heart the case of an elderly couple who have apparently made their home in a multi-storey carpark in Woodlands for the last six months as reported in the press, Today .

Their reasons for doing so are, I think, still under investigation. Nonetheless, this reinforces the continuous need to raise the awareness of the general public and enlist their cooperation to inform the relevant CDC or grassroots of such cases as soon as they are detected so that timely help can be dispatched. Though such unfortunate cases are, thankfully, quite infrequent, we do read of them from time to time in the press.

Whilst efforts to raise public awareness on where social assistance can be sought have been undertaken by the Ministry together with the CDCs and the grassroots organisations, it would appear

Column: 1411

that even more concerted efforts are needed to educate the public on where they can seek financial and other social assistance for themselves or their fellow constituents. Like our battle against SARS and now, dengue, our fight against poverty also needs the joint effort of the public. To borrow a quote from a resident commenting on her fight against dengue, which I feel is equally applicable in this instance, I quote, "No matter how much the Government promotes this, (she is referring to dengue while I am referring to community self-help), it is up to the public to practise it."

In this regard, I wish to note that the CDCs have been adopting more proactive approaches to identify and help the needy in the community. These include providing training programmes to the grassroots to help them assess the circumstances of those who seek help and better identify the type of help needed. At South West CDC, for instance, we are also reaching out to families whose children are on the Kindergarten Financial Assistance Scheme to assess if they are in need of other help, such as employment assistance and so on, even though they may not have sought further assistance in this area. It could be that they are still unaware of the various forms of assistance available.

Going forward, we would also need to encourage and enlist more residents, particularly those with a passion to help the less fortunate, to step forward to be our eyes and ears and identify those who need help in the community. This would be aligned with the objectives of the ComCare Fund which is to show that the community cares for its less able and would render assistance to them.

Sir, in conclusion, I applaud the Government's move to set up the ComCare Fund. It acknowledges the need

Column: 1412

for more resources and efforts to be directed to assist the less fortunate in our society. The twin forces of globalisation and technology that we so heartily embrace as the means for our future prosperity are also the very forces that can tear apart our social fabric. We need a compassionate counter to the brutality of these twin forces. The establishment of the ComCare Fund and helping low wage workers through workfare are clearly steps in the right direction towards PM Lee's vision of a more inclusive, compassionate and more resilient society.

Sir, I support the Bill.

Mdm Halimah Yacob: Sir, I rise in support of the ComCare Endowment Fund Bill.

When the Prime Minister announced that the Government will be establishing a ComCare Fund to help needy Singaporeans and their families, there were a lot of expectations. As a result, some of us have seen a spike in the number of cases coming to our meet-the-people sessions for help. I am not quite sure whether the message to the ground is clearer now, but the objectives were clearly defined by our Prime Minister when he launched the ComCare Fund a few months ago. He said that ComCare aims to help the needy help themselves and work towards being able to support themselves and their families.

This is an important point. We have to ensure that we do not create a welfare-dependent mentality. At the same time, we have to ensure that those who receive help can do so with pride and dignity as they know that their efforts to help themselves will reap benefits.

Sir, the most effective way of ensuring that our needy are self-reliant is to make sure that they have jobs and can support their families. Currently, one group that finds it particularly difficult to

Column: 1413

continue working or to re-enter the workforce are mothers with young children, particularly single mothers. They need a more comprehensive and holistic range of services than what is currently provided if we want to make sure that they can work and do not have to depend on welfare.

I would like to urge the MCYS to critically re-examine our existing social support schemes to make it easier for mothers to work. If we were to look at the statistics, the signs are not encouraging. Women's labour force participation rate reaches a peak at the rate of 85% for those aged 25-29 and then begins to decline as a number withdraw from the workforce after marriage and childbirth. Hence, only about 61.9% of the women in the age group of 45-49 remain economically active, compared to their male counterparts, which is 96%. This figure continues to decline to 53% for those in the 50-54 age group, compared to their male counterparts, which is 93%, and 40% for those in the 55-59 age group, compared to their male counterparts, which is 78%.

In contrast, in countries with a stronger system of state assistance, they have seen a rise in the number of women in the workforce. France, for example, has the highest rate in the EU of female employment and professional activity. 80% of French women between the age of 24-49 work, including those with children less than three years of age. The strong social support system in France has not only benefited women and their employment market. France, together with Ireland, has the highest birth rate in the European Union - 1.9 children per woman as against a 25-nation EU average of 1.4. This is possible because of state assistance which enables working women to have a second or third child without damaging their family budget.

Column: 1414

In the 1970s, the French government expanded free full-time municipal creches, free public pre-kindergartens and canteens were vastly increased in number as well as subsidised vacation colonies during the summer and winter school holidays. There are also State financial incentives, family allowances, support for volunteer creches formed by groups of mothers

and family tax benefits, many of which increase significantly with a third child. As one newspaper report described it, all these had an important psychological and practical effect, legitimising the decision of young mothers to go back to work.

Sir, we are in agreement that having more than one breadwinner in the family is important in today's context. I believe that this has also been identified as one important strategy in helping low-income families. A working mother will help to strengthen the family's financial situation. Many low-income families suffer not only from income instability but also job insecurity. A lot of the jobs performed by low-income workers are more precarious, subject to outsourcing or are casual or short-term in nature. These are also jobs that are subject to intense pressure from international competition which, in turn, has an impact on the wage levels. So a working mother will help to reduce the insecurity that the family faces in the event that the father loses his job or something happens to him. There is at least a buffer for the family. However, the existing support structure that we have is, in my view, inadequate to help mothers with young children to continue working, or those who are not working to re-enter the workforce.

Let me just cite a few examples, Sir. We have schemes, such as KiFAS or the Kindergarten Financial Assistance Scheme, under which mothers can get up to $65 subsidy per month for putting their children in a kindergarten. Another scheme is the CFAC or the Centre-based Financial Assistance Scheme for Childcare

Column: 1415

to help low-income mothers who work. Such schemes are good, Sir. But, again, what we suffer from is that we tend to look at such schemes in isolation. As a result, there are gaps in the kind of assistance that is provided to working mothers. For instance, a mother with two children - one of kindergarten age and the other of school-going age - will still encounter problems. Her younger child may be placed in a kindergarten so that she can work but there will be no one to take care of her older primary school child before or after he comes back from school when she is still working.

There are bodies providing before-and-after-school care services, but these are not extensive enough. Moreover, the privately-run before-and-after-school care centres are too expensive for low-income families. Currently, the MCYS subsidises this service, but the subsidy is given only to before-and-after-school care centres run by the VWOs. There are not enough of such services run by VWOs all over the island. Therefore, this service remains unaffordable as well as inaccessible to mothers.

Sometime ago, Sir, I raised a question in Parliament over whether the MCYS would consider giving the subsidy to all before-and-after-school care providers, much like how we treat the kindergarten service instead of confining the subsidy only to VWOs. The MCYS' response, at that time, was that it would look into the matter, but there has not been much progress since then. I hope that this is one area where we can see some improvement with the establishment of the ComCare Fund.

Another difficulty, Sir, for low-income mothers is that there are no childcare services after 7 pm. This is indeed one gap in the provision of service for working mothers as we have a 24-7 economy

Column: 1416

where shift work is very common. This makes it difficult for mothers who have no one to take care of their young children to perform the graveyard shift and therefore limit their job opportunities. Why is there no childcare operator operating at night? The answer is probably because it is not commercially viable due to the low volume and extra cost involved. Whatever may be the reason, this absence of childcare facilities at night for working mothers is a long standing issue and is one of the gaps that we should address. I hope that the Ministry will look into this matter and together with the childcare operators as well as VWOs suggest some solutions on how to provide for this need.

Let me now come to my next point, Sir, and that is the case of mothers who are neither really low-income nor high-income who are sandwiched in between. For low-income mothers, there is the CFAC to help them pay for childcare fees. But the CFAC applies only to mothers whose household income does not exceed $1,500. Hence, mothers who are in the lower middle income range do not benefit from this subsidy. So a mother with a household income of $2,000 will not enjoy the CFAC, although if she has two children in a childcare centre, the cost will be too high for her and it may not make it worthwhile for her to work. I would like to suggest that the Ministry consider reviewing the household income and raise it to a more realistic level so that more mothers can go out to work and strengthen their families' financial position.

Sir, the Ministry should also consider reviewing the $150 subsidy that is currently given to every child of a working mother who is placed in a childcare centre. This subsidy was fixed for quite sometime now, and I think that it is appropriate that this subsidy be reviewed to a more realistic level so that more mothers can benefit from it. If the whole

Column: 1417

idea is to encourage mothers to work in order to raise the quality of life and income levels of families, it is time the Government reviewed this subsidy and increased the amount.

Sir, I would also like to urge employers to be more open and receptive to flexible work schemes at the workplace. The number of employers that have implemented flexible work schemes in Singapore remains small despite tripartite efforts and even with some Government funding. In 2004, there were only 39,700 private sector employers who were involved in flexible work schemes. Employers can do a lot more to make it possible for their female workers to continue working as well as enable others who are not currently in the workforce because of difficulties of balancing work and family to work.

Sir, I support the Bill but I wish to reiterate that there is a need for a more comprehensive, holistic and integrated range of services to help low-income mothers stay in the workforce as part of the overall strategy to break the poverty cycle in Singapore. I think the crux of the issue is this. We understand that if mothers work, this could help raise the family income and improve their quality of life. Also, this will help to strengthen the work ethics and provide positive role models for the young. However, without an adequate support structure, mothers will not be able to work. Or if they do so, their young children may be neglected, causing a whole range of other problems in the future. Hence, I urge a critical re-examination of our existing support schemes so that we can identify the gaps, assess new needs and be more effective in helping low-income mothers stay in the workforce.

Sir, I support the Bill.

Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong (Tampines): Sir, first, I would like to commend the Minister for setting up the ComCare Fund.

Column: 1418

It is a timely move, given the social and labour trends, and reassures Singaporeans who need help that they will not be left to struggle alone as Singapore progresses.

Sir, of particular note is the initiative under the ComCare programme to engage the community, especially the Citizens' Consultative Committees (CCCs) to deliver assistance. This is most welcome, as the grassroots organisations are more in tune with the needs of the residents and can help residents more quickly without too much red tape. For this purpose, about $33,000 is given to each CCC to disburse to deserving cases.

But, if I may put up a little red flag, since the ComCare Fund was announced in early June and the CCC ComCare Fund was set up, my CCC and I think others also in other wards have observed a spike in the number of residents coming forward for help. Not all can be said to be deserving cases. Indeed, before the CCC ComCare Fund was set up, my ward usually saw about 10 residents seeking financial help every month. After the ComCare Fund was announced in late June, we saw a sudden jump to almost 50 cases for the month of July. But to our relief, it then tapered down to about 14 cases in August. This is the trend.

Sir, we have to be careful in how we disburse the ComCare Fund, which is public money, and make sure Singaporeans do not develop a hand-out mentality. This has been stressed but I think it bears repeating. At the same time, we must make sure that residents who need help get the help they need, and this is not always only financial assistance.

Sir, I would like to make three points. First, we need to send and reinforce the message that the CCC ComCare Fund is

Column: 1419

only for needy, short-term cases, an interim stop-gap measure to tide over difficult periods such as a sudden loss of job or medical illness or the loss of a breadwinner. It is like an emergency fund, a last-resort fund when all else fails. It is not for long-term support.

Sir, I am glad to hear the Minister stress mutual responsibility, and it is worth emphasising because we have seen cases in Tampines-Changkat and I am sure also in other wards, where some residents expect unconditional financial support for more than three months. In fact, if they do not get it, they come back to us and they threaten suicide and sometimes threaten to see the PM. Some cases are intractable as they are unable to find a job, and even if they do find a job, they find that the pay is too low to raise a family on, often less than $800 a month, some even citing less than $500.

We have referred many cases to the CDC for jobs and also for longer-term financial support, but our experience is that the processing at the CDC level takes more time and, sometimes, too much time. And some cases get rejected. Residents not helped by the CDC then return to us at the CCC or to my meet-the-people session to ask for help from the CCC ComCare Fund.

Sir, we need to manage expectations or else the CCC Fund will dry up in no time. May I suggest that the assessment form for the CCC ComCare Fund, which is now quite simple, be redesigned to allow a box for us to refer the case directly to CDC, so that there will be a seamless management of cases, rather than separate and disparate appeals made. It will also help in terms of job-matching. So it is clear in our ComCare and it is a clear message to residents that if they apply for financial help at the CCC level, yes, but, at the same time, straightaway,

Column: 1420

they must go to the CDC for job-matching. And this is a clear signal that can be sent when they fill up the form.

Sir, I would urge the MCYS, like the hon. Member Sin Boon Ann, to have performance indicators, especially for CDCs, to monitor them closely on their performance and job placements and in attending to cases promptly. And perhaps to give them incentives or disincentives to do so.

The help at the CDC level should, where possible, also shift away from unconditional cash assistance towards helping more in kind, in the form of food voucher, transport and utilities vouchers, and cash payment conditional on work, or attempts to find work.

Sir, at the CCC level, we do not have as many levers to work with to find jobs for residents or the wide array of schemes to refer them to. We do not have full-time staff as all on our CCC welfare committee are volunteers. On our own, we have tried to place some residents in jobs - the desperate ones - but they are difficult as they may also need long-term counselling.

Let me just give one recent example. A housewife came to see me in April this year at my MPS. Her story was that her husband had left her for a younger woman, but did not want to give her a divorce because it would mean that he has to pay for the household bills and has to pay for the maintenance of the family. So her husband left her with three teenage children and a pile of household bills. In the MPS, she threatened suicide. She said she was very depressed. Of course, I immediately helped her with $50 cash from the welfare fund. I then advised her on the need to get a job as a long-term solution, and to seek counselling on her marital situation. I referred her to the Syariah Court to advise her on her options for a divorce.

Column: 1421

From the CCC welfare fund, she received $200 to pay for her son's examination fees; another $250 a month for the next three months, on top of the $50 one-time cash that I gave her at the MPS itself. So, in all, we gave her about $1,000 from our CCC welfare fund. We also gave her utilities vouchers ($60) for her Singapore Power arrears. And we also went the extra mile to help her find a job. I got my branch secretary to call one of our eldercare centres - Metta Day Rehabilitation Centre - to ask if they could kindly help her to find a job in the interim period while she works out her problems. At my request, Metta offered her a job as a general worker, $800 per month at their Simei Centre, which is quite nearby Tampines. She reported for work and left one hour later. She never returned to work.

Also, at my request, the Town Council tried to help her offset partially her outstanding S&CC charges by offering her the job of a Temporary Estate Inspector. She turned up for the briefing but did not carry out any inspection.

So she did not enjoy the benefits of having her arrears reduced. I also referred her case to North East CDC, who also helped her financially, and to the various Government agencies, such as HDB, to defer payment.

Cases like hers are long-drawn and complex. They are beyond the capabilities of the CCC. We need to put in place a more robust system at the CDC level to help residents get back on their feet, including counselling, and we do need proactive case managers who will take cases seriously and help them to find jobs and give them the counselling necessary to stay in jobs.

I want to also repeat the question that Mr Sin Boon Ann raised, because I think it is a worthy question. It is about the long-term cases. We see repeat cases coming back at MPS. Surely, we do not have to put them through the agony of coming

Column: 1422

back and crying in our MPS and asking for more help for another three more months. Can I ask the Minister: what are the schemes available for longer term assistance and what are the criteria for ensuring that this help is given to residents who need it?

Sir, I understand that there is a Ministerial Committee on Low Wage Workers, and I hope that the committee will look into strengthening the effectiveness of ComCare schemes as part of the overall framework and to take a more holistic approach to welfare.

My second point relates to another trend, which was also pointed out by Dr Khor. We see more single mothers seeking help, unable to take on full-time jobs as they need to take care of their young children at home. They also often complain of their ex-husbands not paying maintenance. This is a national phenomenon and it manifests itself when the single mothers come to us for help.

I was going through some recent cases, and I would like to highlight two quickly to show how difficult it is for the CCC to resolve this, using the ComCare Fund. The first case: one who applied for help was a babysitter earning about $500 a month. She is about 40, a divorcee with the custody of two children, aged 10 and 11. She lives in a 5-room flat. In the form there is a column which asked them to describe reasons for rendering assistance, and she wrote: "Maintenance of children not paid." Then there was another applicant, this time a man. He is 42 and works as a part-time telemarketeer earning about $700 a month. He has divorced and remarried. In the same column asking reasons for rendering assistance, he wrote: "Do not have a proper job even though have gone for a few interviews. To support household monthly expenses and maintenance of my two sons whose mother I have divorced."

Column: 1423

So we have single mothers writing to us for help because their ex-husbands had not paid their maintenance, and we have ex-husbands writing to us for help because they want us to help them pay the maintenance for their former wives. Clearly, this cannot be sustained.

Sir, we need to address wider labour and social trends, such as contract work which pays low and the rising number of single mothers unable to take on full-time work. The wages earned, usually way below $800, are not enough for Singaporeans to raise a family on, given today's rising cost of living. We need to get at the root of the problem: low wages and increasingly unstable work which have driven the more lower-skilled Singaporeans from the labour market to our welfare system. At the same time, we must stress that, irrespective of its size, a pay cheque is better than a handout.

But as we can see, welfare dependency is partly also caused by fathers leaving, families falling apart - issues that should be boldly addressed by MCYS. If divorce or separation occurs, most mothers seek and accept primary responsibility for the care of their children even when they are not financially well-equipped to do so. Indeed, if women did not continue to shoulder these risks and burdens, it is hard to see how any social institution could make up for the services they now provide. I would urge the MCYS to work on ways to make absentee fathers or divorced fathers pay more for the support of their children and to stick to their maintenance payments.

Sir, a final point. I think we should all stress the message that we need to beware of the welfare mentality settling in. Our ComCare programme is to help residents to be strong and not to weaken them. If I may take a lesson from the

Column: 1424

hurricane Katrina. When it hit New Orleans, I followed the events on CNN. And the images that came through were jarring. Some of the victims - they looked very well-bodied, in fact, quite well fed - acted helpless, and they preyed on each other by looting shops; some of them raped the women among them, and they were shooting their rescuers. But there was one scene that particularly stuck in my mind. It was a group of men and women, able-bodied, and with their children, all chanting very loudly: "We want aid! We want aid!". And they were chanting it like it was a nursery rhyme, and I could see the look on the children's faces - they took it like it was a normal thing to say. And these are the messages that have been purveyed to the community and the children. It made me ask: where was the sense of community? The resilience and instinct to help one another? What kind of values are the children learning from their parents?

Sir, if I may quote a column by Robert Tracinski, which was published in the Straits Times on 12th September:

"What hurricane Katrina exposed was the psychological consequences of the welfare state. What we consider "normal" behaviour in an emergency is behaviour that is normal for people who have values and take the responsibility to pursue and protect them. People with values respond to a disaster by fighting against it and doing whatever it takes to overcome the difficulties. They do not sit around and complain that the government has not taken care of them. And they do not use the chaos of a disaster as an opportunity to prey on their fellow men."

Sir, we need to remind ourselves that we are a small vulnerable state with no resources, except our people, and we have to maintain a community that is ever ready to overcome difficulties on their own and be resilient and rugged. Studies from various countries have shown that children from homes which depend on

Column: 1425

welfare will grow up to expect handouts as adults. We need children to grow up in homes where work and individual responsibility, rather than welfare and dependency, are valued as a way of life. And we need to build up people's resilience even as we offer a safety net for those who need it.

Before I end, I just want to say that it is a good scheme, and I want to thank the Minister for the scheme which has allowed me to set up Silver Connect - a programme to help the elderly among us who are needy and lack a strong family support - which should, hopefully, make life better for many of the elderly in my ward. This scheme has great promise.

On that note, I support the Bill.

Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, for allowing me to speak on this Bill.

Sir, I wanted very much to support this Bill. It is very good of the Government to set up an endowment fund to help care for the weak and needy - the poor, the sickly and the unemployed - in our society. This is an important initiative of the Government, and another opportunity for the rich and successful people in our society to reach out and help the less well-off in our midst.

If we - as a society - do not stretch our hand to help the weak and the poor, who can they then rely on to help? If the Government does not make an effort to take care of the down and out in our society, then it speaks very badly of our Government and our society. But now that we are a developed first world society on our third stage of economic progress, it is high time we put in more resources to care and help the weak and the less fortunate in our midst, whether in the form of welfare, workfare or ComCare.

Column: 1426

So, in this respect, I want to speak in support of this ComCare Fund. However, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have one question and another major concern that I hope the Minister will help address. Please reassure us so that we can give our hearts to fully support this caring initiative. First, the question.

Sir, this ComCare Fund was set up for the purpose of providing assistance to citizens and the Permanent Residents of Singapore and their family members living in Singapore. I am surprised that this ComCare Fund is extended to Permanent Residents and their families too.

I have spoken out in previous parliamentary sittings that citizenship must have its privileges. There must be a distinction in terms of privilege and help to be given to our citizens and the Permanent Residents. This is important so that Singaporeans will feel more valued by the Government and cherish their citizenship even more. As it is, citizen workers are already feeling that their wages have been squeezed out by the huge supply of foreigners - talented or not - working in Singapore. There is already this negative feeling that Singaporean workers are considered third class citizens. So, let us not make it worse by ranking Singaporeans with the same help and privilege as a Permanent Resident. There must be a distinction of help and privilege given between the two.

Therefore, I would like to ask the Minister if the level of financial help to be offered for PRs and their families will be at a markedly lower level than a true blue Singapore citizen. This distinction will also help encourage more PRs to give serious consideration to the Singapore citizenship.

Next, Sir, I want to talk about my major concern.

Column: 1427

Sir, who are the people who will be authorised to give out money to help the weak and the needy citizens from this Fund? Do all elected MPs qualify? Will all MPs be authorised to make use of this Fund for their residents? Or will this ComCare Fund be politicised by the PAP Government such that only PAP cadre members, who are the grassroots advisers, will be allowed to dip into this Fund? Apparently, PAP candidates in Opposition constituencies, acting as their grassroots advisers, are given unfair political mileage when they have access to this Fund that the elected MPs do not have access to.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, my serious complaint is that this great caring initiative will again be politicised such that the Opposition MPs (and their constituents) are excluded from participating. I really hope that the Government will clearly reassure all of us that all elected MPs will be authorised to issue out of this ComCare Fund. Otherwise, I find it difficult to fully give our hearts to support this Bill.