HEAD U - PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE

Column No : 549

Head U - Prime Minister's Office

The Chairman: Head U - Prime Minister's Office. Mr Wee Siew Kim.

Zero-In-Process

Mr Wee Siew Kim (Ang Mo Kio): Sir, I beg to move,

That the total sum to be allocated for Head U of the Estimates be reduced by $100.

I have been much impressed by what I hear about the Zero-In-Process (ZIP) set up under PS21. Its objective was to find and resolve X files. These are recurring cases which cut across different public agencies, pointing to an underlying systemic problem. ZIP aims to review regulations, procedures and policies regularly to ensure their relevance to the public's evolving needs.

I would like to request for a progress report on the achievements of ZIP since its inception. I believe that such a report card will bring to the attention of many more Singaporeans the tremendous efforts put in by our Government to eradicate red tape and resolve inter-agency issues. Beyond this current set of achievements, I would like to ask if there is a push to expand and extend ZIP and do more work along these lines. In the machinery of the Government, like in most other sizable organisations, there will be issues of turf and silos. However, the public should not be affected or disaffected by boundaries between agencies. Hence, I am convinced that expanding the role of ZIP, which is client focused, will bring much benefit to all Singaporeans.

Scholarships

Prof. Ivan Png Paak Liang (Nominated Member): Sir, once upon a time, the Government faced a shortage of talent. The civil service paid poorly, and white officers were leaving for their home countries. The Singapore Armed Forces had to start almost from scratch. However, today, the situation is vastly different. The civil service and SAF offer exciting careers, pay market salaries, and attract plenty of talent.

Yet, the Government and statutory boards continue to grab young people at the age of 18. Today, the Ministry of Education announced GCE 'A' level results. Every year, about this time, the Straits Times makes thousands of dollars from its scholarship supplement.

Our talent pool, however, is quite fixed. So, the scholarship competition is just a zero-sum arms race. Sir, it is time for a performance review of the scholarship system. Scholarship selection is based on interviews and examination results at age 18. However, using such information to predict a person's future aptitude and interest four to 10 years later is almost like speculation. I know this from personal experience.

For instance, what proportion of Administrative Officers reach the Superscale Grade at the end of their bond? What proportion of SAF officers reach the rank of Colonel at the end of their bond? And likewise for Police officers. I am not saying that the "failures" were not talented. It is simply a matter of poor fit - they might have been better suited for another career.

Who loses from the scholarship scheme? First, the person himself/herself? Young people are attracted to scholarships. Indeed, I have heard that in certain junior colleges, it is shameful not to win an overseas scholarship. Yet, eight, even four years later, will they fit the organisation that they are bonded to?

Second, and ironically, another loser is the scholarship-granting organisation. One loss is the money spent on university tuition and allowances. A bigger loss is in the morale and contribution of "non-scholars". As I have said, the Government does attract talented people without scholarships.

However, Sir, there is at least a perception that the career opportunities of "non-scholars" are limited. Indeed, I have even heard that they are called "farmers". This is very disheartening to me.

The third loser from the scholarship is our Singapore universities. We have world-class institutions here. So, why do Government and agencies discriminate between "overseas" and "local" scholarships? Indeed, in a recent report from the Ministry of Trade and Industry on A*STAR, it also mentioned overseas and local scholarships. Sir, there should be only one class of scholarships. Give the student a fixed sum of money and let him/her choose how to spend it. That would be true empowerment.

Sir, there was a time for Government scholarships. Let us agree that that time has passed. Forty-one years after independence, our country has matured. Our Government has also matured. It is time to compete for talent on a level playing field.

The Chairman: Dr Tan Tze Wee is not here. Mdm Halimah Yacob.

Older Workers

Mdm Halimah Yacob (Jurong): Sir, much has been said about how rapidly our population is ageing, living longer and hence the need for Singaporeans to work longer to provide for their needs. It is important for the public sector to take the lead, as it is the largest employer in Singapore and its HR practices have an impact on the private sector.

The Committee on the Employability of Older Workers has made many recommendations on how to help older workers above 62 years old stay employed. In this light, I would like to ask the Public Service Division the following questions:

Firstly, what is the policy on the employment of older workers above 62 years in the public sector?

Secondly, how many per cent above 62 years old in the public sector over the last three years have been extended or re-employed?

Thirdly, what is the target the public sector has set for the employment of those above 62? How many percent will be extended in employment or offered re-employment? Finally, will the employment of those above 62 be automatically extended or re-offered and, if not, on what conditions will they be denied re-employment or extension of employment?

Registration of Criminals Act

Ms Indranee Rajah (Tanjong Pagar): Sir, I wish to speak on the Registration of Criminals Act amendment. The Act was amended recently to allow the records for certain categories to be considered as spent. And the reason behind this was to give offenders a second chance to find jobs. But that amendment only works depending on the question that the employer asks. If the employer asks, "Do you have a record?" Then the person can say, "No", because it is spent. But if the employer asks, "Have you ever been convicted of an offence?" Then the person has to say, "Yes". And the purpose behind that amendment is then lost.

I would like to ask whether the Government, as a major employer, is considering amending its forms. Its employment application forms, as I currently understand, actually ask the second question, which is "Have you ever been convicted of an offence?" I wish to know whether the Government, having amended the Act, will, as a major employer, also walk the talk and amend its forms to give such offenders a second chance.

The Minister for Defence (Mr Teo Chee Hean): Sir, first, let me thank Members of the House for their interest in issues related to the public service.

The challenges facing the public service are in line with those facing Singapore. The issues confronting us today are more complex and multi-faceted. Some can strike us with immediate and potentially devastating effect, such as a pandemic flu or a terrorist attack. Others are of a longer term but critical nature which will shape our society, country and region for decades to come - education, entrepreneurship, ageing population, healthcare, falling birth rate and new regional dynamics.

Our citizens are better educated, more globally connected and expect a higher level of service. They also expect more avenues for expression and participation. The public service has to be responsive to these developments. It must adapt and innovate in order to create the right conditions for peace and prosperity, and help seize opportunities for Singapore.

Today, the public sector consists of 15 Ministries and 66 statutory boards. These agencies, for reasons of accountability, have clear lines of responsibility. However, many issues do cut across agency lines. To be effective, the public service has to think and to act as one. There must be greater inter-agency coordination, not just in policy formulation but also in implementation of policies. This is why the public service is paying much attention now to working on what we call a whole of Government approach.

Various mechanisms have been put in place to tackle cross-agency issues. Where inter-agency problems are due to differences in fundamental policy orientation, there is a need to review the policies themselves and decide on potential policy trade offs, if necessary. To achieve this, we have set up inter-Ministry committees and project teams to carry out reviews. Examples of such high-level panels are the National Population Committee, the Ministerial Committee on Low Wage Workers and the Committee on Ageing Issues - the last two having recently released their recommendations. Much dialogue and collaboration between agencies happen with these committees which draw on public, private and people sector expertise.

We have also created new platforms to sensitise senior public officials to national imperatives and to build a common understanding of the challenges and issues facing Singapore. Managers are also put through milestone courses in the Civil Service College to attune them to cross-agency issues and national considerations so as to increase their capacity to think beyond their departmental work.

Besides addressing issues at the policy level, the public service has also set up similar mechanisms at the operational and implementation level to bring public officers together to resolve operational and service-related issues. One such mechanism, as Mr Wee has pointed out, is the Zero-In-Process, which he has requested for an update.

The Zero-In-Process Panel (ZIP Panel) was started in 2000. It is a mechanism in the public service to identify and resolve issues faced by members of the public that cut across public agency boundaries. Issues are typically identified through feedback from members of the public. All issues surfaced are addressed. Where appropriate, they will be channelled to the ZIP Panel, which is chaired by the Permanent Secretary of the Prime Minister's Office. If the issue is complex, the ZIP Panel may even commission study teams to look into the issue and make recommendations for its consideration.

Since 2000, the ZIP Panel has identified more than 110 cases for action, with 22 inter-agency teams formed to tackle how the more complex cases can be resolved. For example, the ZIP Panel implemented the no-wrong-door policy in 2004. This policy requires all public officers to put a member of the public in touch with the right agency for help. This has enabled citizens and businesses to get in touch with the right agencies more quickly, instead of being given a run-around.

As another example, organisers had to apply for many licences needed to hold community events, concerts, sporting events or exhibitions. As a result of one such specific case that was brought to the ZIP Panel's attention in 2005, a project team was convened to look into the matter. The project team helped to identify the typical licences and permits needed to hold events and made these available to the one-stop on-line business licensing service. This can be done now on this on-line service.

Apart from the Zero-In-Process, there are other mechanisms to resolve inter-agency issues. The Pro-Enterprise Panel has so far reviewed close to 1,500 suggestions, some of which also involved more than one public agency. Besides responding to public feedback, the public service proactively re-engineers processes to deliver integrated e-services. The on-line business licensing service is a prime example of how more than 30 Government agencies have worked together

to provide an integrated one-stop solution in the area of application, update, renewal and termination of business licences. As a result of process re-engineering, the time taken, for example, to incorporate a new company has been cut from five days to 15 minutes. Since the launch of the on-line business licensing service two years ago in 2004, more than 28,000 businesses have benefited from it. The public service strives to function as many agencies, one Government. Notwithstanding the achievement, there will always be cases where we can do better. Citizens and businesses who face problems with inter-agency coordination can surface this for attention at the PS21 website.

3.15 pm

Sir, to have a first-class public service, it is crucial for the public sector to attract a fair share of Singapore's most able people. Government scholarships are important as they are key source of talent to build capable public sector leadership. I would like to assure Prof. Ivan Png that the public sector is careful not to take in more scholars than we need. For the past few years, the total number of Public Service Commission and statutory board scholarships awarded had been kept relatively constant, at an annual average of about 300. For the year 2005, 249 scholarships, 93 in the civil service and 156 from the statutory boards were awarded. This is not a large number, considering that the public service, the Armed Forces and the Home Team have many challenging and demanding jobs that require very good people. It is also not a large number compared to the approximately 12,000 students a year graduating with 'A' level, or approximately 2,800 a year with three 'A' grades or more at their 'A' levels. If there were not sufficient people of high ability in the public service, we would not be able to have the quality and integrity that has become the hallmark of the Singapore Public Service which is recognised, not just in Singapore, but internationally, and we would not have the quality of a public service that the people of Singapore expect.

Students have a choice of whether to apply for a Government scholarship. If they do, they should be aware of the obligations and be ready to commit themselves to a public service career. For those who are not sure if they are suited to a public service career, they can pursue their university education on their own first and then decide on a career after graduation. And the public sector welcomes these individuals to join us if they wish to do so later on.

Prof. Png also asked how many of the scholars achieved Superscale grade or Colonel grade at the end of their bond. The bond today is six years and it will be quite an achievement if they do achieve Colonel grade or Superscale grade at the end of just six years of service. But many of them do stay on longer in their career, do achieve these grades and reach the highest ranks in the Armed Forces and civil service. That is precisely why we have taken them in. If we did not have such able people joining the civil service, committing and dedicating themselves to the profession, we would not have a constant flow of people, the refresh of people that is required in the service to have at the end of a 15-, 20-, 25-year career - people who can rise to the top and lead these very important organisations.

Government scholars are sent to both local and overseas universities. The PSC awards the prestigious Local-Overseas Merit Scholarships which are on par with Overseas Merit Scholarships for an undergraduate education in Singapore with the opportunity to do a masters programme overseas. PSC also sends scholars to top overseas universities in countries like the US, UK, PRC, France, Germany and Japan. Experiencing what the best foreign universities can offer and being exposed to diverse perspectives is good for the public service. We do not want a public service which has been brought up only within Singapore. I think that would not be very good for us.

To keep overseas scholars rooted to Singapore, the PSC brings them back after two years of study to attend a mid-course programme and to undergo a six to eight-week attachment in a public service agency. PSC scholars studying overseas can also choose to do their masters locally. Overall, the scholarship schemes have worked well. A vast majority of scholars adapt well to their working environment and live up to the high expectations demanded of them. Those who leave the public sector after working for some years generally still contribute to Singapore in one way or another at large.

On Prof. Png's concern about morale in the service, I assure him that scholars are not automatically placed on a career fast track. I wish all of them could become enormous successes because we have great hopes for them when they join us. But we do assess them on their performance and potential rigorously when they are in the service compared to all other officers in the service and only if they do well, do they progress. They must prove their worth and demonstrate aptitude and ability before they are promoted. The public service values and rewards talent, whether they be scholars or non-scholars. And it certainly would be our loss to neglect talented non-scholars in the service.

Sir, let me now move on to an issue of national concern which Mdm Halimah Yacob has touched on - the employability and employment of older workers. Mr Yeo Guat Kwang and Mr Loh Meng See touched on this yesterday as well. Mdm Halimah has focused on those who are aged 62 and above. I should say that the public sector looks at older workers, not just focusing on this age group, which has specific issues regarding them. But we also look at older workers in general, and we look at workers who are above 40 years of age and see how we can make them more welcome in the public service as well.

The public sector does welcome older workers who have the skills, experience and passion. The public sector has a diverse workforce, comprising both younger and older workers with different strengths and talent to build an effective and efficient service. Recruitment is based on merit. The public sector employs a candidate who best fits the job requirements regardless of age, gender or race. Currently, about 39% of public officers are above 40 years old and 17% are above 50 years old. On average, about 15% of the new hires each year are older workers above the age of 40. Between 2002 and 2004, the public sector has recruited more than 2,800 such older workers.

Public sector agencies are free to employ retired officers if these officers wish to continue working and where the agencies have a need for their expertise. Over the past few years, more than 800 officers have been re-employed. This number does not include retirees who are employed on casual terms or on short term, ad hoc projects. The re-employed officers are in a diverse range of jobs, for example, retired teachers are re-employed as adjunct teachers and school counsellors. In the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority, retired officers are re-employed to maintain experimental farms and control stray animals. The Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports employs retired SAF and Singapore Police Force officers to undertake operational duties in the juvenile homes. And the Public Utilities Board re-employs about 100 retired staff mostly in the technical fields. So retired officers are being re-employed in the service.

As a large employer, the public sector has a role in addressing this national concern of employment of older workers. I believe that we can do better without compromising our ability to deliver cost-efficient public service. The Public Service Division will step up efforts to re-orientate the attitude of public agencies towards the employment of older workers. In December last year, we organised a seminar to raise awareness among public sector HR practitioners on this issue and will continue to promote sharing and best practices among the agencies. But PSC recognises that its efforts cannot stop here. It has therefore also engaged Ministries and statutory boards to identify and open up more job opportunities for older workers, and these could also be people who are not directly employed by the public sector. But these could be jobs created in the public sector. For example, the Ministry of Education has worked with private sector companies to provide more than 600 security guards for deployment in schools, and many of these positions will be taken up by older workers.

Public sector agencies will also be strongly encouraged to tap on WDA's ADVANTAGE Scheme, to redesign jobs and retrain the older employees. The response from some agencies has been encouraging. We will work with Ministries and statutory boards to create more flexible avenues to re-employ older workers. Although the public sector is not setting hard targets for the employment of older workers, we will be monitoring the progress of public sector agencies closely.

Finally, let me close with good news for Ms Indranee Rajah. The civil service supports the movement to give ex-offenders a second chance. As far back as 2000, Ministries have started to employ ex-offenders taking into consideration the type of offences and the nature of the job. We will take the additional step. The civil service will amend the job application form to ask applicants to declare if they have criminal records in Singapore, instead of whether they have ever been convicted in court. Candidates with spent records can now indicate that they do not have any criminal record. The new forms will take effect on 1st April this year. Ministries will work with the statutory boards under their charge to implement similar application forms by the second quarter of 2006.

The Chairman: Mr Teo, you have to leave some time for the second answer.

Mr Teo Chee Hean: Sir, a clean and efficient public service is the foundation for good governance in Singapore. The service will continue to strive to live up to its core values of integrity, service and excellence. It believes in continuously challenging itself to excel so that it can function effectively to serve Singaporeans better. As an employer, the service will also ensure that its human resource practices are progressive, responsive and flexible. With this, we will have a first-class public service worthy of Singapore.

The Chairman: Item (e), Mr Chiam See Tong, two minutes.

General Election

Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): Sir, I have three points to make. Firstly, I ask the Prime Minister in the coming elections to provide two or more election rally sites at Potong Pasir constituency. In the last general election in 2001, only one rally site was provided. That was not enough. I ask the Prime Minister please to provide at least two or more rally sites this time round.

Secondly, Sir, I would like to request that the election deposit be reduced from $13,000 to $5,000, or less. The Opposition candidate has to finance his own election expenses, including paying for the election deposit. Opposition candidates are not wealthy people and many cannot find a ready cash of $13,000 to pay for the election deposit. It is also really not democratic to bar serious candidates from taking part in the election. The $5,000, which I propose, is big enough a sum to show that a candidate is a serious contender in the election.

The third point I wish to make is that it concerns police action. In the last two general elections, the Police had been very strict with the Opposition. They did not allow the Opposition candidates to come down from the stage to speak and bond with the crowds. They insisted that the Opposition parties station a vehicle near the election stage and, immediately after the election rally, they whisked the Opposition candidates quickly away from the rally site. This is unnecessary as it only makes the crowd angry because they want to meet the Opposition candidates after each election rally. They are strong Opposition supporters and there is absolutely no danger to the candidates. I hope the Police shall not be so strict

and allow Opposition candidates to meet their supporters after an election rally.

3.30 pm

Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong: Sir, I know the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee is working hard now, that the Report will be out soon, and that the GE will be around early June 2006. This is my guess. It is only three to four months away. The Prime Minister and his team must have already decided on the nomination and the polling dates by now. I believe that the Prime Minister cannot be still undecided at this point of time.

Sir, can the Prime Minister please tell us exactly which day is Nomination Day, and how many days of campaigning has been assigned? Also, can we have the assurance that there will be at least three months between the publication of the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee's Report and the dissolution of Parliament?

Secondly, Sir, as explained in the Budget debate, I hope the Prime Minister can heed the numerous citizens' request to reduce the GRC size back to the 1988 proposal of a three-man team each. This will increase the number of SMC to 42, allowing at least 50% of our citizens to experience voting in this general election. If the Prime Minister disagrees to this request, I hope he can give good justification and still get the people's genuine support.

The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Wong Kan Seng): Sir, I must make a note of his questions, because he spoke so fast.

The Chairman: You may have to speak as fast, too, because you have 20 minutes left.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: I will try to make it fast. We have up to 3.50 pm.

Sir, Mr Chiam asked for the usual things, such as more rally sites and for election deposits to be reduced, which he had also done in the past, and I am sure he also knows the answers I am going to give.

Sir, let me deal with the question of deposits first. The law specifies that the election deposit shall be 8% of the total allowances payable to an elected MP in the year before the election. This formula is not a new formula. The formula has been in place since 1954 when the MP allowance was about $500 and the deposit was also $500. So when the MP allowance was subsequently raised, the election deposit was also raised by the same absolute dollar value. Then, later on, we decided that instead of changing it every time the MP allowance was raised, we just have a formula. The formula is 8% of the total MP allowances payable in the preceding year. Therefore, it works out to be about $13,500 for the next election.

Should we reduce this to just $5,000 as Mr Chiam suggested? At one time, he even asked for much less than that. I would say that election is a very serious business. People who want to contest in the election must really have the ability or the confidence to be able to even get 12.5% of the valid votes. That is all he needs. If he can get 12.5% of the valid votes, he gets back his money. Very few candidates who took part in elections actually lost the election deposits. I have explained in this House before why, in the previous election, two candidates lost their deposits. One was because he just did not show up at all in Ayer Rajah. The other was because he went to contest in a single constituency where there were three candidates and he did not appeal enough to win even 12.5% and, therefore, he lost the deposit.

The Chairman: Mr Wong, sorry to remind you. You have not much time.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Yes, Sir.

On the question of rally sites, I think Potong Pasir has one rally site, and that one rally site is enough because, in the last election, Mr Chiam managed to hold only two rallies throughout the whole campaign. He could not get the last night because he was late, he lost out to the PAP candidate, so he went to Lavender Street. As a result, he attracted 13,000 people who went to attend this rally. Imagine that if the police did not have a system to ensure the security of the candidate, I am sure Mr Chiam would have found great difficulty in getting out of that situation where almost 200 of them went quite unruly and, as a result, quite a number got arrested for their unruliness.

On Mr Chia's question about having enough time and whether the ---

The Chairman: Mr Wong, I am sorry, your time is up. Unless Members have any clarification to raise, I can stretch it out. Yes, Mr Steve Chia.

Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong: Sir, the Deputy Prime Minister has not replied to my question.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, on Mr Chia's question, the Boundaries Review Committee has already worked hard. They have completed their report and the report is now before the Prime Minister who will be informing the President of it, and I am very certain that, before the end of the week, the Members will receive a copy of the report.

On the question of reducing the size of the GRC to three, it really does not matter whether we have bigger or smaller GRCs, more singles or fewer. It is a question of whether the parties themselves are able to get enough people to contest in the election. And it is not the PAP's fault that the Opposition parties have not been able to get enough candidates. I think those who say that the PAP has denied the people a choice should ask themselves: should they themselves not take part in them? I have heard of the panel discussion reported in the papers just a few days ago that the PAP had denied the people a choice. I think those panel members should go and form a political party. If they want to form a political party, I will make sure that the registration will be expedited. Or they can join another party. Then, we will have more people contesting the election. I welcome that.

Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong: Sir, the Deputy Prime Minister has not answered my question. When is Nomination Day and how many days of campaigning are being assigned?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, I am very certain that what was experienced in 2001, when there were only two days between the publication of the report and the dissolution of Parliament, will not happen this time. Therefore, it means that Mr Chia will have more than two days after the report is out before the dissolution of Parliament. He may have two months or he may have more than that, I do not know. But if the Prime Minister decides, and when he decides we will have the election and dissolve Parliament, I think all of us will know of it.

Prof. Ivan Png Paak Liang: Sir, responding to the hon. Minister's explanation on scholarships, let me say that I am not saying that we should not send scholars overseas. Rather, I was advocating one scholarship. There should not be a local scholarship or overseas scholarship. If we are going to offer scholarships, let us offer one scholarship, ie, same terms to everybody, a certain lump-sum of money, let them decide how to spend it. From the Government's point of view, same expenditure and no discrimination between local and foreign universities.

Secondly, will be the Minister please confirm that the usage of this ---

The Chairman: It is a pretty long clarification, Prof. Png. Can you make it short, please?

Prof. Ivan Png Paak Liang: Yes, Sir.

Secondly, would the Minister please clarify this term "farmers" is not used to distinguish people from scholars?

The Chairman: Do you want to reply to that, Mr Teo?

Mr Teo Chee Hean: Mr Chairman, Sir, we fund people who go on scholarships according to how much it costs for them to study. So if we give the same amount of money to a person who goes overseas to study as a person who goes to a university in Singapore to study and we try to balance out the two, we will probably be over-funding one of them quite a lot and under-funding the other quite considerably. The one who is studying in Singapore could stay with his mother and father and not incur an enormous amount of cost, whereas the one who goes away, say, to France, Japan, Germany or the United States for several years will, I think, be seriously out of pocket, if we give them the same amount of money. I should say also that we have to respect the choices that these young people make. The world is their oyster. If we were to limit their choices by limiting the amount that we give them, I think we will be doing ourselves a disservice as well and doing the public service a disservice.

The second question the hon. Member asked was whether or not the term "farmers" has been used. Sir, I think Prof. Png has come to this term very late. For as long as I have been in the SAF, we have been talking about such terms and we have dealt with that and gone past that for many, many years already. So Prof. Png has made this discovery a little bit late.

Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong: Sir, the Deputy Prime Minister has not answered my question. Are we going to see more than the nine days for campaigning?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, the law specifies a minimum of nine days and we will get nine days. I do not see a need for change because, even with five years, if you have not done enough campaigning, then nine days is nothing.

The Chairman: Mr Wee, are you withdrawing your amendment?

Mr Wee Siew Kim: Yes, on behalf of the Members who have raised cuts, I thank the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for their replies. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $163,875,010 for Head U ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $62,180,700 for Head U ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.