EXEMPTED BUSINESS (Motion)

Column: 1427

EXEMPTED BUSINESS:

(Motion): 6.12 pm

Resolved,

That the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 2. - [Mr Mah Bow Tan].

Column: 1427

COMMUNITY CARE ENDOWMENT FUND BILL: Debate resumed.

Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank the Members for

Column: 1428

their comments and suggestions. Let me just deal with some of the specific questions raised by the Non-Constituency Member, since he said that is what is preventing him from giving unreserved support for this Bill.

First question: are we discriminating between citizens and PRs? If you look at the fine print of our assistance schemes, assistance will be provided to a PR only if there is one or more Singaporeans in his direct family. In other words, we are treating this as a Singaporean family or, in his words, a true blue Singaporean family. And the reason for that is quite simple. The unit of assistance is the family. If you were to give this PR member of a family less, you are just imposing extra hardship on the Singaporean family. So, let me reassure him on that, and can I then take it that he will give us his unreserved support for this Bill? [ Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong indicated in the affirmative. ] Thank you.

Now, let me now deal with the substantive points which have been raised by my colleagues. Dr Amy Khor talked about the impact of globalisation and income disparity. Let me state right at the onset, that ComCare, workfare and all our assistance schemes are not going to eliminate the income disparity. There are fundamental economic forces at work and these assistance schemes are not going to correct that. But what we are trying to do is to ensure that all Singaporeans, regardless of social/economic class, have a chance to live with dignity, have hope for the future and that their children can break out of the poverty trap. So, it is very important for us to state right at the onset what this is designed to do.

The next point I want to explain is the complementary way in which ComCare will work with workfare. The workfare concept is something which is still being fleshed out and we are, in fact, now engaged in a public consultation exercise.

Column: 1429

This is being led by an Inter-Ministry Committee, led by my colleague Dr Ng Eng Hen. But, fundamentally, workfare is based on the belief that the best form of welfare is a job - any job - even if it is a low-paying job. But having said that, we believe that there are things which we can do to optimise the situation. For instance, upskilling and up training workers so that they can get better paying jobs which are more productive. Redesigning jobs so that the jobs can also give a person an honest day's wage,

and an honest day's wage which will hopefully be more than what he would get otherwise. It is also possible to look at various ways to make work pay or to make it worthwhile. But the key point here in workfare is to tilt and adjust the playing field in such a way that it is clearly in your interest to get a job, rather than to stay at home or to go on a protest march, as Ms Irene Ng talked about, after a hurricane and chanting "We want aid. We want aid." With workfare, it is to get a job. We will help you find a job. We will make it worth your while.

Having said that, there will always be a small minority who cannot get a job. As some of you had said, if they are severely disabled, or they have major health problems, and if they are all alone and there is no family support, then these are people who truly need assistance, and it will be long-term assistance. That is what the public assistance scheme is for.

There is also another group, and that is very eloquently described by Mdm Halimah Yacob, of mothers, especially single mothers, who have to look after their children. If we are serious about the concept of workfare for everyone, including mothers, then we need to look at optimising the social support so that these ladies can get back to work. And I will take all her points about the availability and affordability of childcare, and this is something which, over the next few months, we will have to consult

Column: 1430

and we will have to try to see whether further refinements are necessary. In other words, we have to think of workfare and ComCare as complementary. Workfare is to get everybody who can work into a job; ComCare is to help those who really cannot get a job or to optimise the social support so that those who previously would have said, "I need to stay at home and look after my kids." can now go and get a job. If we can get this balance right, then we will be able to achieve a social safety system in which the work ethic is not eroded, in which a positive domestic environment will be created because we want children to see their parents working. We do not want children to see a dysfunctional family dependent on handouts. We also want children to receive the optimal educational experience possible.

And this brings me to this point that Mr Sin Boon Ann brought up of defining "eligibility" and "needs". I accept the point that our criteria for eligibility for long-term assistance are strict. But I think you will all agree with me that if we are not strict, we will run the risk of tilting the balance into a welfare model where people will treat their assistance schemes as an entitlement. The psychology changes. Yes, it is now painful, awkward and tedious for someone to come to you every three months at your MPS. But there is a world of difference between that transaction and a transaction in the UK where someone comes to the dole office every month for a cheque. It is painful but it underlines the point that assistance is not necessarily an entitlement and you are going to do something about it.

It also reminds everybody that, in Singapore, you are responsible first for providing for yourself and your family. The second line of support is your family. The third line of support is the community. And once you accept such a model, a "many helping hands" model, it

Column: 1431

necessarily means a holistic, comprehensive package becomes that much more difficult to fashion, not impossible, but more difficult because it means this person now actually has to decide and take the trouble to look for the agencies, look for the people who will help, look for a job if he or she can, and come to you as a last resort.

Many of you have asked why short term, when sometimes it should be long term, and why flexible as opposed to a standard obligatory package. It is precisely for this reason. We have a combination which hopefully has the right balance between flexibility on one hand and the standard public assistance package on the other hand, and between short term and long term. The examples, which Ms Irene Ng brought up, are really that if anyone needs long-term assistance, that person should not be just going to you every three months for assistance at your meet-the-people session. That person should be evaluated by the CDC, and if that person and family are eligible for public assistance, they will be put on that scheme. If they are not eligible for public assistance, there are other schemes, including KiFAS which will help subsidise the kindergarten education for their kids, childcare, food vouchers. There are a whole host of other schemes. But the point here is to ensure that it does not become an entitlement. So long as you want to keep that, then Members in this House have to live with the fact that there will be a little bit of messiness at the edges. But with the judicious application of flexibility, it is possible to ensure that nobody slips through the cracks.

Even the examples which were cited about people either sleeping in car parks or parks in Singapore, let me tell you very categorically that, in Singapore, if you are poor, you will have a roof over your head, you will have food in your stomach, your

Column: 1432

children will get an education and you will get healthcare. I do not know the specific details of the case she brought up, but, very often, the people who are hanging out in parks and car parks are doing so because they refuse or do not want our assistance and do not want to take advantage of the homes for the destitute which we have in Singapore. And in those specific cases, you have not even yet evaluated the family circumstances and whether or not there is a family or family members who should rightly be taking care of these people.

I want to move on to the next point about the role of community organisations. Because we want a "many helping hands" model and because we want peer review, we have decided that we will not deliver public assistance through the Ministry of Community Development. Instead, we work through grassroots organisations, we work through voluntary welfare organisations, we work through organisations on the ground, in other words, peer review of your needs. So you do not come and convince a bureaucrat as to what you need in your home or flat. You persuade your neighbours and your neighbours who live with you are in the best position to decide whether or not you truly require or need that assistance.

Yes, again, it means that, as Mr Sin Boon Ann brought up, there is a requirement for proper governance because we do not want corruption, we do not want money to be misused and we do not want money even to be politicised, as Mr Steve Chia has spoken about. We have deliberately chosen non-political organisations to do so. The People's Association (and the associated grassroots organisations) is a statutory board of the Government. If we were to appoint you or any of the Opposition MPs, that would politicise the exercise. So long as this is money - this is assistance

Column: 1433

provided by the Government - the Government then has a responsibility to channel those funds and operationalise it through the appropriate statutory board, in this case, it is the People's Association. So let us not rehash that old debate about whether the Opposition MP should be the Advisor. The point is that, if you are poor or needy in Singapore regardless of where you live, see your local grassroots organisations, explain to them your needs, let them evaluate it and let them help you.

I am also cognisant of the fact that we need outcome measurements. I take the points that I think Dr Amy Khor brought up about whether we need performance measurement, how fast does the CDC take to evaluate the cases. Most of the time, I have been told, it is due to incomplete documentation, or when you call someone, he or she is not in, it is difficult to make sure that person keeps that appointment. I think you can speak to our five Mayors, they are working as hard as they possibly can, we do keep track of their performance.

As far as supervision and governance are concerned, there is a ComCare Supervisory Committee, chaired by my Minister of State, Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon. All the five Mayors are on that Supervisory Committee and so are relevant people from the voluntary welfare sector. So we have a system in which there is supervision, a system of governance and outcome and process parameters being monitored. Whether I would need to expose that and have a certain amount of comparison between the CDCs is not something I am going to decide today. But I want to assure this House that we will make sure money is spent properly, money is not wasted and that there is no corruption or undue political influence in this process. This is a process for the Government to assist Singaporeans.

I am very glad that Dr Amy Khor supports this fund to the extent of asking,

Column: 1434

if I got her right, even for an additional top-up to the ComCare Fund. I think that is something which we can discuss with the Prime Minister at some other date. Right now, we only have $500 million. We are trying to reach $1 billion. When we get there, we can talk about going beyond it. But the critical point here, and she understood it perfectly right, is that because this is an Endowment Fund, it is a sustainable source of income in good times and bad times. In bad times, when the Ministries' block budgets are cut, as it must be as part of fiscal discipline, the social assistance schemes will still be able to draw on the interest income from this Endowment Fund.

So, in conclusion, let me say that this is work which will never be finished. But if you are a poor person, of all the places in the world to be poor or needy, I would put to you that Singapore is probably one of the best places to be in, in terms of being able to live a life with dignity, to look for a job, to bring up the family securely, to educate your children, to receive healthcare and to have a community that cares, not just the Government, but the community in the fuller sense of the word.

Sir, on that note, I thank you all again for your support and suggestions.

Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, can I clarify with the Minister about his statement that we, the Opposition, would politicise it? Is he implying that he does not trust the people's elected choice but rather choose to trust in his party's cadre member who is supposedly appointed as the grassroots advisor to manage the fund, rather than the Member elected by the people?

Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: We heard this debate so many times ad nauseam . Let me just say that this is a Government scheme being operationalised through a Government statutory board.

Column: 1435

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. - [Dr Vivian Balakrishnan].

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