Shin Leong's Speech On Ministerial Salary Review

Mr Speaker Sir,

In response to our Prime Minister, honorable members Mr Vikam Nair, Mdm Halimah and for the benefit for all, I shall repeat The Workers’ Party position on this debate.

The Workers’ Party does not endorse the white paper “Salaries for A capable and Committed Government”. We reject the white paper as the basis for setting salaries of the political appointment holders because we are of the view that the formula used to derive the benchmark for Ministerial salaries is flawed.

The basis of setting salaries benchmark based on the top 1000 private sector income earners is unsound. The outcome of the formula based on the salaries benchmark could potentially result in political appointment holders’ salaries become outliers to the general wage level over time.

On the surface, the fixed monthly pay out may between the WP & the White paper position may seem to differ little at this point of time. Yet it is a well known fact that the top earners’ rate of income rise will rise faster than that of ordinary Singaporeans, over time.

Even though the entry level benchmark for the MR4 is $55,000 now. If it is pegged to the top 1000 earners, we have estimated that it will increase by 51% by 2020. Under our WP formulae, our estimate is that the rate of increase will be about 41%, a more modest rate.

Also for bonuses, the committee’s recommended maximum bonus is 13.5 months. Whereas for the WP, we recommend not more than 5.5 months.

This means in a typical bonus scenario – the committee’s proposed pay cut benchmarked against 2010 levels for MP, Entry Grade Minister and Prime Minister would be just 3%, 31% and 28%. WP’s proposed cuts would have been more substantial at 28%, 46% and 50%.

In a maximum bonus scenario – the committee’s proposed pay cut benchmarked against 2010 levels for MP, Entry Grade Minister and Prime Minister would be merely 3%, 8% and 5%. Compare this toWP’s proposed cuts would have been consistently substantial at 28%, 37% and 42%.

The WP’s proposed cuts in the MP allowance and Ministerial salary would result in savings of about $21 million in a conservative estimate of the typical bonus scenario. The savings could be then be redirected to fund aids to our needy and elderly.

Mr Speaker Sir, in Mandarin

议长先生 ，

我的工人党国会同僚已经阐述了我党对政治职位薪金检讨委员会报告书的看法, 并提出建议；他们也对部长薪金的推算方式和其细节做了详细的说明。

我则将集中讨论，在决定政治职位的薪金数额时，政府应该遵从什么原则，以及如何向人民负责。我也会建议我们应该制订怎样的薪金检讨制度和国会的监督，以确保政府在以后要决定政治职位的薪金时，持续对人民负责。

大家都知道，我国的政治体制是采纳英国”西敏寺” (Westminster)政府的制度。薪金检讨委员会报告书中也提及在”西敏寺” 政府的制度下，属于行政体制的部长， 他们除了领取薪金，也应该享有国会议员的津贴。 “西敏寺” 的政治体系以司法、立法和行政－也就是政府，三权分立为原则。国会的立法主权则是国家的最高权力机构。换言之，属于行政体制的部长所提出的动议和政策，必须经过立法机构－即是国会－的讨论和决议後才决定。

我们也都明白国会议员是各个选区选民所推选出来的代表。受了人民的委任，就得对人民负责。新加坡的立法机构和许多国家的结构不同，我们没有上议院可发挥另外的监督和平衡作用。行政体系的成员都来自立法体系，部长和总理都首先成为议员，然后才受委任成为部长 。所以，

我认为我们立法体系的国会应该对政府行政机能有所制衡。总理在第十二届国会辩论总统施政方针的演讲中也说：“政府对国会负责，我们欢迎议员提出各种尖锐的问题，在国会里进行辩论。”

此外，我认为，政府的透明度也很重要，要有理性的辩论和有效的公众问责的制度，需要资讯公开。因此，公布政治领导人所获得的薪金应该是合理的要求。

[Mr Speaker Sir, I will continue the rest of my speech in English]

This is especially so given that the taxpayer pays for the salaries of our political leaders. Therefore how much they are paid and the process of how their pay is determined has to be open, transparent, and accessible to the general public. Members throughout the course of this debate also brought up these principles. Indeed the committee report also mentions on many occasions that transparency and accountability to the public is key in their determination of political compensation. This was also the guiding principle under which the Committee recommended a clean wage.

These principles are in line with practices common to the dozen countries and territories in our survey that my colleagues have already mentioned. Only with transparency and meaningful information available can Singaporeans be — and remain — convinced that changes to the pay of our political leaders are not undertaken solely to advance their material interests, and any changes must first be and always should remain respectful of the costs borne by taxpayers.

WP’s Proposals

Therefore we have three proposals to ensure that the twin towers of accountability and transparency are enhanced in the political compensation process.

FIRST, we call for an independent commission to be appointed each time the Prime Minister seeks to change the terms by which compensation is determined.

SECOND, that the findings of the independent commission be always made subject to debate and also approval of the Legislature.

THIRD, a complete list of political salaries should be published on an annual basis.

Keeping The Committee Independent

Taking each point in turn, we note that the committee has recommended that an independent Committee should be formed every five years to review the salary framework. The Prime Minister would determine the members of the Committee.
We would like to see this taken one step further. We think that it is important that an independent (by which I mean non-partisan) commission free from executive direction be appointed each time any changes to the formula for political compensation is sought by the Prime Minister. This is in line with practices in many jurisdictions. I will return to a detailed analysis of the practices in some of these countries later.

The Importance of Parliamentary Sovereignty

It is also not enough that such a committee is formed each time changes are proposed. The committee must be accountable to and take directions from Parliament. To response to Vikram’s point on WP’s contributions to this debate. I would like to reiterate that ‘all roads lead to Parliament’, and this is most true here. The principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty is of utmost importance: the report should be published to Parliament and thus to the public — not first for the Prime Minister’s eyes only, and certainly not first to a ruling-party caucus.

The findings of the independent commission must EACH TIME be subject to debate, modification and approval by Parliament.
As the Committee mentioned a Westminster system, we should take a look at some of the systems that evolved from a Westminster system of parliament.

In Australia, there is an independent Remuneration Tribunal which has three members appointed by the Governor-General. Its determinations are subject to Parliamentary oversight.

In Canada, a commission to review the salaries of Parliamentarians is formed within 2 months after each general election. The report of the Commission must be published within 6 months of its formation, and the report must be tabled in Parliament for debate and approval.

Finally, in the UK itself, in response to our Prime Minister, while it is true that a widespread abuse of expenses by MPs was uncovered in 2009, like all good leaders, politicians in the UK learnt lessons and sought to improve. The Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 was passed by the Westminster Parliament to reform the way MP expenses were dealt with, and to increase the transparency and accountability of the process in order to ensure that such an issue would not recur in the future. There is also a Senior Salary Review Board, which is an independent body that advises on the pay and benefits due to politicians. Because all of this is regulated by statute, Parliament ultimately retains oversight.

We propose that all reports from the committee should always be open to public scrutiny via the legislative process. Citizens can give their thoughts and feedback on it to their MPs — who are their elected representatives. Such public scrutiny would increase transparency and enhance public trust in the procedural rigour of determining political pay. It would also reinforce the position of the Legislature as the one of the gatekeepers for the nation’s finances. I would also like to emphasise that seeking public feedback before the report is published, is not the same as subjecting the report to public scrutiny via the legislative process before it is debated, amended if necessary, and finally approved by Parliament.

Upholding Transparency

Finally, I would like to bring us back to the committee’s proposal that we maintain a ‘clean wage’ for political salaries in Singapore, particularly to ensure transparency and accountability to the public. My colleagues have already spoken on how we think that a whole-of-government approach should be taken when determining a set of goals and bonuses for our political leaders. I will instead focus on the criteria to which we think transparency should be upheld.

We note the list of salaries published in the report, and it is a step in the right direction. Our proposal is however, that a list of political salaries should be published ON AN ANNUAL BASIS in the Government Gazette and/or on the Parliamentary website. There should also be a disclosure of the amounts of national bonuses paid to office-bearers. The list should also clearly state which categories the national bonuses relate to. This will be in line with the ‘clean wage’ principle.

Coming back to the three Westminster countries I spoke of before, all three publish detailed lists relating to political pay. While it is true that each country has a different system of remuneration, with a series of allowances and expenses, we are still able to find a common thread running through these systems. That is, a thread of transparency.

In Canada, one is able to easily retrieve information sorted by year on the amount of compensation each office-bearer is paid. Car, rent and other forms of salary and allowances are clearly laid out in one website.

For Australia, this information is available from the Remuneration Tribunal’s website. A series of annual reports from the Tribunal lay out the salaries, allowances and entitlements of each MP and office-holder.

The UK has in the last couple of years increased the scrutiny and transparency standards in relation to political pay. A full list of salaries and allowances for all office holders is available on the UK Parliament’s website.

The UK Parliament also recently set up a new independent body — the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority– to ensure that there is rigorous regulation of and oversight over MP’s expenses. With a few mouse-clicks, a complete list of all expenses claimed for each individual MP is downloadable from the website. Expenses are published on a bi-monthly basis.

Regardless of how the compensation of political leaders are determined by these countries, the bottom-line is that we have stringent disclosure rules relating to the use of taxpayer funds relating to the compensation of political leaders. It is this level of transparency that we are holding up to be the gold international standard. It should be the standard to which Singapore should hold itself up against.

The benefits to this approach are many-fold. First, it would help to ensure that misleading, speculative information is not circulated in the public domain about how much our leaders are paid. Second, this will keep lawmakers accountable to the electorate in respect of their compensation throughout their entire 5-year term in office, not just at the ballot box. Third, an annual publication of salaries with discloseable national bonuses will allow Singaporeans to be able to see in the, then-and-now how their leaders have performed, and how the pay of their leaders is tied to the fortunes of the nation.

Throughout the course of this debate, we have heard several members draw comparisons with other countries, which may not score very highly in terms of transparency and accountability of their political systems. Instead of using these countries as examples of how Singapore is different, is exceptional or is better than them, I think that we should instead be focusing on learning from them. We should use their experience, and add to it the rigorous standards from well-governed jurisdictions, in our quest to ensure our system is robustly and proportionately answerable to our people.

Conclusion

I would like to end by saying that we have a well-informed, intelligent electorate whom I trust will be able to draw their own sensible conclusions from meaningful data made available to them. Singaporeans are not clamouring to know how much the net worth of politicians are, but instead their chief motivation is to ensure that their wages are both fair and commensurate to the performance of their Government. And Singaporeans have a right to know how their leaders are being compensated — and rewarded — out of taxpayer monies. We in this house must have faith in our people that if we follow the proposals above to improve transparency of political pay, we will come out stronger for it, as a nation.

Above all, I think we are all in agreement that lawmakers should have a strong sense of responsibility, accountability and service towards all Singaporeans, and should work towards our common goal for our country to have an enhanced sense of inclusivity and sensitivity. What better means to start this than in a First-World Parliament?

Thank you.

Delivered in Parliament on 17th January 2012

MTE Charitable Concert 2012

Yesterday evening, I was invited by Mr Roger Koh, (MTE Committee Chairman) to attend the MTE (Meet The Entrepreneurs) Charitable Concert 2012.

The MTE concert was to raise funds for Club Rainbow & Dignity Kitchen and to promote corporate social responsibility. It was organized in Serangoon Gardens Country Club and put together by local entrepreneurs.

It is really amazing when entrepreneurs of diverse background got together for worthy causes. It is also equally amazing when these entrepreneurs showcase their talents.

Dr Tan Cheng Bok was the GOH (Guest Of Honour). He sang his touching rendition ‘I Understand’ with his Ukulele. I was requested to sing the song ‘要拼才会赢’ with three others and I gamely did so. Subsequently I had the opportunity to chat with Dr Tan and several members of his dedicated PE campaign team.

MTE Charity Concert 2012 was a great success that was only possible as a result of the volunteerism and the hard work of entrepreneurs over many months. If more of our business community would to take lead in such initiatives to give back to society, our country can only become a better place.

More Photos here.

Enhanced EP Frame Work & Tightening EP Criteria

Below is the question I filed in Parliament for oral answer on Enhanced Employment Pass Frame Work & Tightening Employment Pass Criteria (16th January 2012 sitting)

Yaw Shin Leong: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry: (i) is taking steps beyond the Enhanced Employment Pass Framework in moderating the number of EP/S-passes issued, given the expected slowdown in the economy 2012; (ii) will consider further tightening of Employment Pass criteria to protect Singaporeans' jobs if the economy worsens beyond expectations?

After the MOS replied to the above, I asked 2 supplementary questions respectively to his replies.

SQ1 -- During the last crisis in 2008 and 2009, retrenchment was high, but the stock of EPs and S-Passes increased by 54,000. This is a 20.8% of total net increase. Can the minister clarify if the Enhanced Employment Pass Framework is any different from the previous Framework in buffering resident PMETs against job loss during economic downturn?

SQ2 -- The government has always touted foreign labour accessibility as a key competitive advantage that creates jobs for Singaporeans. Has this accessibility come at the expense of retrenched Singaporeans? (Mr Eugene Wong's story, ST 16-12-2011 showed the general pain of retrenchment but it is not directly related to too much foreign labor accessibility)

The Minister's replies will be available in the Parliamentary Hansard online shortly.

Water And Energy Efficiency Labels (Impact Of Labels On Consumer Behaviour)

Below is the question I filed in Parliament and the written answer for Water And Energy Efficiency Labels (Impact Of Labels On Consumer Behaviour) (16th January 2012 sitting)

Mr Yaw Shin Leong: To ask the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources in respect of PUB's Water Efficiency Label and NEA's Energy Label and Fuel Economy Label (a) whether these green labels have been effective in influencing consumer choice for more environmentally-friendly products; (b) whether the relevant agencies have monitoring mechanisms in place to evaluate the effectiveness of the labels; (c) what are the plans to improve the effectiveness of the labels; (d) beyond labelling, what other initiatives have been undertaken to encourage the consumption of more environmentally-friendly products by the public.

Dr Vivian Balakrishnan:

The government uses green labelling to provide information and raise public awareness, thereby influencing consumer choice towards more environmentally friendly products.

PUB’s Mandatory Water Efficiency Labelling Scheme (MWELS), NEA’s Mandatory Energy Labelling Scheme (MELS) and Fuel Economy Labelling Scheme (FELS) are schemes that respectively provide water, energy and fuel efficiency information to consumers to encourage better-informed purchasing decisions that take into account the operating costs when household appliances and cars are purchased.

These labelling schemes have so far been effective in leading consumers to choose more water and energy efficient appliances. For instance, the share of water efficient water fittings (models that attained 1-tick or more) registered under MWELS has increased from 850 models by almost 8 times to 6,600 models as of Nov 2011, since its introduction in 2009. 75% of the 331 washing machine models registered under MWELS possess a water efficiency rating of 1-tick and above. The share of energy efficient refrigerator and air-conditioner models (3- and 4-tick models) registered under MELS have also increased from 46% to 79% and 30% to 57% respectively from 2008 to 2011.

From the recent public consultation exercise on climate change-related issues led by the National Climate Change Secretariat (NCCS), a number of suggestions have been received on improvements to existing energy labels. One of the suggestions was to include the estimated energy cost of operating the appliance. NEA is reviewing the design of the energy labels and will look into incorporating this cost into the energy labels in a way that balances between providing timely and accurate information, and the associated costs to suppliers and retailers when these energy labels have to be updated when household electricity tariffs change.

Green labelling has also been effective as a step towards the mandating of performance standards. After introducing the MELS in 2009, NEA subsequently implemented the Minimum Energy Performance Standards (MEPS) for household air-conditioners and refrigerators on 1 Sep 2011. MEPS remove the most inefficient models from the market by prohibiting the sale of appliances that fall short of a specified minimum energy efficiency level. They help consumers avoid being locked into the high operating cost of inefficient appliances. MEPS also encourage suppliers to bring in more energy efficient appliances as technology improves.

For vehicles, FELS has been complemented by the Green Vehicle Rebate (GVR) scheme. The scheme aims to encourage the purchase of green vehicles, which are more fuel efficient and emit less air pollutants than their conventional equivalents, by narrowing the cost differential between a green vehicle and a conventional equivalent model. The GVR scheme provides rebates for electric, petrol-electric hybrid and CNG vehicles and is valid until 31 Dec 2012. The government is currently undertaking a review of measures to promote the adoption of green vehicles, as part of efforts to promote sustainable development and reduce emissions. More details will be announced in due course.

Besides targeting the greater use of efficient products, PUB and NEA also shape consumer behaviour towards resource conservation through campaigns such as the 10-Litre Challenge for water and the 10% Energy Challenge. Roadshows, media publicity, a website and brochures are part of the campaign to raise public awareness, and encourage the public to choose water and energy efficient appliances and adopt water and energy efficient practices.

In implementing these various measures, the government has taken into consideration the success of similar practices in many other countries such as the US, EU states, Australia and Japan. The pace of implementation has been established through extensive consultations with stakeholders to ensure that they understand the objectives and that there is smooth implementation with no supply disruptions.

Beyond government actions, the community and industry will have to do their part for Singapore to achieve a higher level of environmentally friendly consumption. Ground-up programmes such as the “Simple Ways I Take to Change my Habits” (S.W.I.T.C.H) programme by the Central Singapore CDC and the “Environment & Community Plan” (ECo Plan) by the South West CDC bring the community and corporations together to improve energy and water efficiency. An example of an initiative under these programmes is the light bulb exchange programme, where volunteers help replace the light bulbs in the homes of low-income families with energy efficient ones. Such ground-up initiatives by the community and the corporations help raise environmental consciousness and promote resource conservation, and we encourage more of these.

Citizenship And Permanent Residence Applications (Profile of Applicants)

Below is the question I filed in Parliament and the written answer for Citizenship And Permanent Residence Applications (Profile of Applicants) (16th January 2012 sitting)

Mr Yaw Shin Leong: To ask the Prime Minister from 2005 to 2010 what is the breakdown by age, detailed education profile, number of years of residency, and income level for the number of (i) citizenships that are granted each year; and (ii) permanent residence applications that are approved for EP/S pass holders in each year.

Mr Teo Chee Hean: Following the tightening of our immigration criteria in late 2009, the number of new Permanent Residence (PR) applications granted declined from 59,460 in 2009 to 29,265 in 2010, while the number of citizenship applications granted declined from 19,928 in 2009 to 18,758 in 2010.

PR applications from Employment Pass/S pass holders are typically assessed under the Professionals, Technical Personnel and Skilled Workers Scheme (PTS). The number of new PTS PR applications granted correspondingly declined from 27,042 in 2009 to 11,161 in 2010.

Each PR and SC application is evaluated holistically on a set of criteria which includes factors such as the individual’s economic contributions, qualifications, age and family profile to assess applicants’ ability to contribute, integrate well into society and commitment to sinking roots.

The profile of applicants granted citizenship or PTS PR from 2005 to 2010 is as follows:

a. Age. The majority of new Singapore citizens (SCs) and PTS PRs are working individuals and their dependants. More than half of new SCs and PTS PRs granted were aged 30 years and below (on average 55% and 56% respectively).

b. Number of Years of Residency. The majority (85%) of PTS PRs were granted PR within 5 years after their first long-term pass was issued, while the majority (73%) of SCs naturalised within 10 years after the issue of their first long-term pass.

c. Highest Education Qualification. The majority (83%) of new PTS PRs held diploma/degree-level qualifications or higher. The education profile of new SCs is more diverse, with 36% of new SCs holding diploma/degree-level qualifications or higher, as it includes new SCs granted on account of family ties. Children sponsored by their parents comprise a significant proportion of this group.

d. Income. Applicants earning more than $4,000 a month (i.e. the qualifying salary for a P2 Employment Pass prior to 1 January 2012), comprised 23% of PTS PRs and 28% of economically active new SCs granted from 2005 to 2010. The income profile of new SCs and PTS PRs has since improved following the tightening of our immigration criteria in late 2009. Those earning more than $4,000 a month constituted 43% of PTS PRs and 45% of economically active new SCs granted in 2010.

Dependants Of Employment Pass Holders

Below is the question I filed in Parliament and the written answer for Dependants Of Employment Pass Holders. (16th January 2012 sitting)

Mr Yaw Shin Leong: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Manpower from 2005 to 2010 (a) what is the number of employment pass holders' dependants who are allowed entry into Singapore each year; and (b) what is the number of dependants who subsequently gained employment here each year.

Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam: Please refer to the table which shows the a) average number of dependants of Employment Pass (EP) holders who were issued Dependant Pass (DP)/Long Term Visit Pass (LTVP) from 2005 to 2010 and b) average number of DP/LTVP holders who gained employment to date.

No. of dependants of EP holders who were issued DP/LTVP: 35,000

No. of DP/LTVP holders who gained employment to date: 4,200

With Influence, Comes Responsibility

In the Straits Times yesterday, there was a special report titled ‘The Social Politician’. (Part D, Saturday, 14th January 2012)

I read through the report and was a little surprised to find myself listed in all the eight categories. The eight categories & my respective rankings were:

1) Top 10 MPs who generated the most buzz on social media - 3rd Place
2) Top 10 MPs in terms of audience size on Facebook and Twitter - 2nd Place
3) Top 10 MPs who post most frequently on Facebook - 4th Place
4) Top 10 MPs who leave the most number of comments on FB wall - 3rd Place
5) MPs who got the most number of comments from Netizens - 6th Place
6) MPs who use social media most effectively are - 3rd Place (Joint)
7) Buzz per output ranking - 7th Place
8) Top 10 MPs in terms of share of positive comments out of all comments received - 4th Place

While these rankings don’t mean much to me and will not change the way how I interact with Singaporeans both online or offline, still understanding these categories and rankings means that every single word and action from me does have an influence to a varying degree, at least via the social media!

Of course we remember Uncle Ben Parker (from Spiderman) who said ‘With great power comes great responsibility’. As such I would like to take this opportunity to leverage upon the little influence I have to share some responsible words of encouragements with my fellow younger Singaporeans.

In life, we are unique beings and we must have purpose-driven convictions. Strong purpose driven convictions are the inextinguishable fuel that propels our passion.

Since we are imperfect beings, we must have the courage to admit mistakes. For the courage to admit mistakes, to apologize and to take corrective actions are the hallmarks of personal leadership.

If you have a passion for something, find out the reasons behind that something. Talk to your friends and loved ones, if those reasons are worthy. Pursue your passion with deep convictions unceasingly until success is to come.

Likewise, if you think you have made mistakes, talk to your friends and loved ones, even if those are serious mistakes, acknowledge them. Do not attempt to cover one mistake with another. Two wrongs do not make one right. Acknowledge them, take corrective actions and reconcile yourself with those around you.

Guess the above were too philosophical for the night. I will stop here and I better do so. This is because similar to my fellow WP MPs I’m also in the midst of finalizing my parliamentary speech on ministerial salaries for this week's sitting!

Lunar New Year Ang-Pow Give Away 2012

This morning MP Yaw Shin Leong kept up with the annual traditions of WP Hougang Constituency Committee (HGCC)’s Lunar New Year Ang-Pow Give Away 2012. Forty elderly Hougang residents who are on the existing welfare list of Hougang Welfare Network were beneficiaries of the Ang-Pow Give-Away.

In his message to the elderly Hougang residents, MP Yaw extended Lunar New Year greetings to all. He wishes each beneficiary firstly good health, so that when other blessings are to bestow upon each, such blessings could then be enjoyed.

HGCC Lunar New Year Ang-Pow Give Away 2012 would not be possible if not of committed volunteers, generous sponsors, who sponsored mandarin oranges, Lunar New Year provisions and even cash donations to Hougang Welfare Fund (HWF).

Taking this opportunity, HGCC wishes all Singaporeans (especially Hougang residents!) a blessed 2012 Lunar New Year. May we overcome each new challenge and may all our dreams come through :)

More photos are available here.

'Ponding' Phenomenon in Orchard Road

Below are the parliamentary questions I asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources for the 'ponding' phenomenon in Orchard Road (9th January 2012 sitting).

(a) What are the reasons for the 'ponding' phenomenon in Orchard Road and what are the technical differences between 'flash floods' and 'ponding'; (b) whether the drainage improvement projects scheduled for 2012 will have any impact on the flooding/ponding situation in Orchard Road; and (c) to what extent was due diligence done to ensure that Orchard Road's drainage systems were clear of debris that could obstruct the flow of water.

http://www.todayonline.com/Singapore/EDC120109-0000088/PUB-to-increase-Stamford-Canal-capacity

After the MEWR Minister replied, I asked 3 supplementary questions.

SQ1) Would the minister agree that the introduction of large-scale developments in Singapore has potentially resulted in an acute loss of open space that could absorb rainwater into the ground water table, reducing excess run-off that could otherwise contribute to flooding?

SQ2) Would the Minister consider going further upstream to treat the problem at its source, by requiring developers to submit Environmental Impact Assessments prior to each new construction? This being a common best practice in liveable cities around the world.

SQ3) Is MEWR integrating and coordinating such studies as part of its routine and ongoing systemic review of PUB's drainage master plan?

The Minister's replies will be available in the Parliamentary Hansard online shortly.

Should our MRT train windows have emergency ventilation panes?

Below are some clarifications I fielded in Parliament to Transport Minister’s Statement on Disruption of MRT Train Services on 15th & 17th December 2011 (9th January 2012 Sitting)



Why do our MRT train windows not have emergency ventilation panes built in, that commuters can manually open in the event of an emergency like this one (or say if there was a chemical attack on the trains)? The Hong Kong MTR has such panes in every train window, which can be pulled open easily in the event of an emergency. Shouldn’t this have been part of the design specifications of the trains? Is LTA intending to require this feature in future train deliveries? Will it modify existing trains to implement this feature?



The Minister's reply to the above will be available in the Parliamentary Hansard online shortly.

Preserving Jobs For Singaporeans

Below is the question I filed in Parliament and the written answer for Preserving Jobs For Singaporeans (9th January 2012 Sitting)

Mr Yaw Shin Leong: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry will preserve Singaporeans' jobs in light of the uncertain economic outlook for 2012 by (i) requiring employers to look for qualified candidates at agencies such as the WDA and e2i before issuing employment passes; (ii) slowing down the approval rate of employment passes for firms which have conducted retrenchment exercises in the past one year involving 5% or more of Singaporeans in their workforce.

Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam:

MTI has estimated that economic growth in 2012 will slow down to between 1-3%, below our medium term growth potential of 3-5%. While we may help companies weather a slowdown, we must also avoid moves that create unnecessary difficulties and uncertainty for businesses, and hence risk hurting the prospects for a recovery in growth and jobs for Singaporeans.

To enhance the employment of Singaporeans, both in periods of growth and slowdown, we have adopted a multi-pronged approach.

First, we seek to maintain a conducive environment for businesses to grow in order to create and sustain job opportunities in Singapore. At the same time, we invest heavily in education and training opportunities for Singaporeans to continuously upgrade their skill-sets to remain competitive and employable.

Second, we seek to progressively raise the quality of foreign manpower inflows and reduce over-reliance on foreign workers. From 1 January 2012, new Employment Pass applicants will have to meet more stringent eligibility criteria which include better educational qualifications and higher qualifying salaries. Foreign worker levies are also being raised every six months until 2013, to incentivise productivity improvements. We also refer companies seeking foreign manpower whose skills and expertise are available locally to the Workforce Development Agency (WDA) and the Employment and Employability Institute (e2i) so that they can meet their manpower requirements.

Third, we utilise Tripartite Guidelines to help ensure that Singaporeans are not disadvantaged in their employment opportunities and that Singaporeans remain the core of our workforce. The Tripartite Alliance for Fair Employment Practices (TAFEP) released a set of revised guidelines on Fair Employment Practices in October 2011. The guidelines, which all employers are expected to adhere to, call for employers to make reasonable efforts to attract and consider Singaporeans for job positions on merit, and to train and develop their potential and careers. Such efforts include ensuring that all jobs advertised are open to Singaporeans, working with educational institutions, career centres and recruitment agencies such as WDA and e2i to attract and recruit Singaporeans, and developing the skills and expertise of Singaporean employees and grooming them for higher level jobs.

During the last downturn in 2008/2009, we also developed a set of “Tripartite Guidelines on Managing Excess Manpower” to help guide companies facing a business downturn to manage their workforce flexibly through alternative measures (e.g. shorter workweek, training) instead of resorting to retrenchment. If the need arises, similar measures may be adopted to help employers and workers deal with the downturn.

The combined effect of the range of measures above is to help Singaporeans remain employed even during an economic slowdown. At the same time, we have to avoid measures which hinder companies’ ability to build up the skills and expertise of their teams. Doing that will reduce Singapore’s attractiveness to investors and businesses, limit our ability to respond quickly to changes in global market conditions, and ultimately dampen companies’ ability to create more and better jobs for Singaporeans.

Nevertheless, we will continue to monitor the economic and employment situation closely and make further refinements to our measures as necessary to help Singapore-based businesses and Singaporeans weather the impending economic slowdown.

Employment Passes Issued

Below is the question I filed in Parliament and the written answer for Employment Passes Issued in 2011 (9th January 2012 Sitting)

Mr Yaw Shin Leong: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Manpower as at the end of 2011 what are the respective numbers of passes that have been issued for (i) P1 Employment Pass; (ii) P2 Employment Pass; (iii) Q1 Employment Pass; and (iv) S-Pass.

Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam: The end 2011 statistics on Singapore’s foreign workforce will only be available in early February 2012. The table below provides the year-end stock of Employment Pass (P1, P2, Q1 and Personalised Employment Pass) and S Pass holders for 2010.

Year 2010
EP and S Pass: 240,000
EP: 142,000
S Pass: 98,000

Straits Times Interview - Informal Dialogues With Estate Agents

Here is the report on the interview I did with ST's Tessa Wong on the informal dialogues with estate agents.

WORKERS' Party MP for Hougang Yaw Shin Leong has attracted brickbats for hosting two dialogues for estate agents to discuss ways to improve their profession.

The unhappiness centres on suggestions from the first dialogue, held on Nov14 last year, which Mr Yaw later posted on his blog.

Netizens have pounced on some suggestions, including one calling for the Council of Estate Agents (CEA) to ban individuals from transacting among themselves. Instead, the dialogue participants wanted home owners to transact only via property agents.

The CEA is the body that regulates real estate agents.

Other suggestions include: compensating agents for half of the deposit forfeited if a property deal falls through; converting the CEA's annual licence fee for agents into a one-off payment.

In criticising the proposals as unfair, netizens also asked why Mr Yaw seemed to be representing the interests of property agents instead of home buyers.

Yesterday, Mr Yaw told The Straits Times that he personally opposes the suggestion to ban individuals from transacting among themselves.

'I think the free market must prevail in this instance. You cannot insist that you must hire an agent to get the transaction done. I did make my view known to the agents that I disagree with them,' he said.

He initiated the dialogues after meeting a Hougang resident who is a real estate agent, during a house visit last year.

The dialogues he hosted covered issues of concern to a significant number of real estate agents who are Singaporeans, have families to feed, and want to be heard, Mr Yaw said. There are some 33,000 registered real estate agents.

The first-term opposition MP also said it was 'a good thing' his blog entry has generated discussion, as he had posted it to encourage public discourse on the proposals.

This week, he also posted on his blog transcripts of e-mail interviews he did with Chinese newspapers Shin Min and Lianhe Zaobao, in which he elaborated on his views.

He did this to 'make myself clear... let people read and understand what I'm doing as an MP. When a resident comes to me with a problem, I can help foster active citizenry'.

He added that the next time he posts estate agents' views, he may add a disclaimer that he is just a facilitator.

Lian He Zao Bao Interview - Informal Dialogues With Estate Agents

Below is the full email interview I did with Lian He Zao Bao on informal dialogues with Estate Agents.

ZB: Dear Mr Yaw, we saw in your blog post that you have some recommendations on the practices of agents in Singapore and hence hope to interview you on this.

Can we either do a phone interview or face to face interview with you these two days?

Thanks for your help on this!

YSL: Hello Shu Xian, I am currently out of town & will only be back on the 4th Jan 2011. My idea is to give these agents an organic platform to discuss/ brainstorm of ideas on ways how to further professionalize the industry. The work in progress recommendations placed in the blog/ FB are collective ideas from agents themselves. These are not finalized yet. Once finalized, the collated recommendations will be forwarded to the relevant stakeholders in the industry, to further refine/ improve upon the ideas/ recommendations raised etc. Likewise these would be made available online too.The spirit is one that encourages fellow Singaporeans to step forward to discuss about policy issues that affect us. Hope the above helps. If need to, we can do a Facetime etc. I will be happy to assist.

ZB: Dear Mr Yaw, Thanks for your prompt reply. I hope you can answer a few of my queries if possible. I don't need it by today so you don't have to rush. :) For the recommendations raised, do you share the same views as well? Or are the recommendations from agents only?

YSL: These work-in-progress recommendations raised thus far are fully raised by the agents themselves. I do not necessarily share the same views for each recommendation.


ZB: On the part that "The Council should not permit sellers, buyers, landlord and tenants to transact any property deals themselves", do you feel that is unfair to consumers who wish to conduct the deals themselves? Their main aim should be to save on the commission.

YSL: I strongly agree that it is important that, for consumers who wish to conduct property deals themselves; they must be able to continue to do so.

ZB: On another point, "The real estate agents must be compensated half of the deposit that is forfeited by the sellers and the landlords when deals are aborted", do you feel that this protects the interests of the agents at the expense of the consumers?

YSL: In fact this is a valid concern. In my opinion consumer rights must come first. Also at the same time, I have heard of negative experiences shared by the agents. In view of the delicate circumstances, it is good for the agents involved in this journey to collectively deliberate & brainstorm recommendations that are acceptable to consumers-at-large and themselves.


ZB: Why do you feel there's a need to stand up for this group of agents? Did they approach you for help?

YSL: It is not an issue of 'standing up' for this group of agents. Rather it is about 'providing a platform' for this group of agents to brainstorm of ways to improve & further professionalize their industry. The informal dialogue session idea originated during one of my house visits sessions, where an estate agent & Hougang resident shared with me about the plight of estate agents in Singapore. I offered to host an informal discussion for this resident and likeminded agents to better appreciate the situation & also to provide a platform for these estate agents to organically brainstorm ways to further professionalize their industry.


ZB: Do you feel that this review might be seen as a politically motivated move against the authorities?

YSL: I sincerely don't think so. As mentioned, the spirit behind this informal dialogue is one that encourages fellow Singaporeans (in this instance estate agents) to step forward & to discuss about policy issues, hence ideas/ recommendations to improve the industry. Collectively, with a candid intention, robust debates, reasonable compromises and prudent discourses, I am highly positive that our Singapore society can only emerge stronger.

Shin Min Daily Interview - Informal Dialogues With Estate Agents

Below is the full email interview I did with Shin Min Daily on informal dialogues with Estate Agents.

SM: Dear Shin Leong, sorry to trouble you when you are on a holiday.

YSL: It is ok :)

SM: This is a blog entry I saw that had some comments on your post:
http://unbrandedbreadnbutter.wordpress.com/2011/12/27/yaw-shin-leong-who-is-he-representing/ below are my questions: There are a number of negative comments against you, as reflected in the post. Do you think that by associating with the group of agents, others think that you are endorsing all their proposals which some may not be yours. What do you have to say? What do you think of this episode, as in you are just trying to help by providing a platform for the agents, but being "pointed fingers at" by Netizens.

YSL: I really think that it is okay. Freedom of expression/ speech must be upheld. It is a good thing that a mini-public discourse resulted from my informal dialogues with our estate agents. In this way, our estate agents would then be able to bear in mind the issues at hand & public sentiments as they formulate their recommendations to further professionalize their industry. I see an emergence of active citizenry & actually I am quite happy about it :)

SM: I quote the below from the blog "NOW Mr Yaw and his group of real estate agents is proposing that the CEA ban individual seller and buyer from any property transaction. .... this is the most ridiculous of suggestions, it is anti-consumer and gives an unfair unending meal ticket to real estate agents. 2. what are the proposals that you do not share the same view with the agent? in such a case, do they incorporate your ideas or you will merely facilitate and the views are all up to the agents?

YSL: All the views/ recommendations are up to the agents. As the estate agents have yet to put together the finalized version of their recommendations, meaning it is still work in progress. As it is important that agents themselves must steer the discussions/ recommendations, I did not contribute to the recommendations raised thus far. However I have made my objection known to the agents' proposal disussion group that consumers' right to sell/ purchase their own flats must be upheld.

SM: Some people take issue with the one off license as well, what is your take on this? the blogger mentioned that if the CEA license fee is only one-time payment then the long-term budget of the CEA would be borne by taxpayers.

YSL: Which regulatory body's body isn't borne by taxpayers? Why CEA should be excluded?

SM: The blogger suggested that the dialogue could be kept out of blogosphere and addressing it directly with the relevant interested parties together with perhaps the Institute of Estate Agents, a professional body of real estate agents. how do you view the suggestion?

YSL: It is a most ironic suggestion, had the spirit of this suggestion being upheld in the first place, we won't be even discussing this here ;)

SM: So far, are there other groups that you have helped to facilitate discussions? what was achieved? and going forward, how to you see yourself helping other groups other than the property agents?

YSL: Yes, (do check out the different groups I held informal discussions with from my blog). The spirit is one of encouraging fellow Singaporeans to step forward to discuss policies & issues that affect us. If possible, Singaporeans should organically organize ourselves and to come up with ideas/ recommendations to better our society. Collectively when ideas/ discussions & recommendations are made organically, we see active citizenry in motion, when more of such active citizenry take place, stake ownership in our country deepens, and the fibric of our nation can only become stronger. Yes, I will continue to play a role in this meaningful nation building process :)

Paying homage at the Tomb of 72 Martyrs in Guangzhou

Earlier this week, during a trip to 广州 (Guangzhou), I took the opportunity to pay homage to the Tomb of 72 Martyrs in Guangzhou.

This tomb was built in 1918 in memory of the martyrs who died in the failed Guangzhou uprising led by Dr. Sun Yat-sen on April 1911.

The 72 Martyrs played an important contributory role in the eventual fall of imperialism in China.

Interview With Lian He Zao Bao - Hello 2012

Below is the transcript of my email interview with Lian He Zao Bao’s reporter Yew Lun Tian for the article ‘Hello 2012’ published on the 1st January 2011. The segment on WP in the published article ‘Hello 2012’ is available below.

ZB: Dear Shin Leong,Hope this email finds you well. Would you be keen to be interviewed by Zaobao about your work as the Hougang Member of Parliament so far?

YSL: Ok

ZB: Zaobao is doing a "2012 Look Ahead" piece, focusing on first time members of parliament. My colleagues are interviewing the PAP MPs while I am tasked to write about the Workers' Party MPs. I plan to interview you and Pritam for this story. This way, I would have covered both Aljunied GRC and Hougang SMC.I would like to ask you:1) How would you take stock of the constituency work you have done so far?

YSL: Being an MP in the constituency is liken to that of a village headman. Residents will reflect to you on both 'big things' (national issues) and 'small things' (municipal issues). The work is definitely purposeful, and fulfilling. There are also plentiful to be done. As I have limited hours each day, it is important to maintain a healthy pace to sustain the efforts of constituency work.

ZB: Looking forward, what visions or plans do you have in developing your constituency?

YSL: Developing a constituency can never be complete and is not done in '一朝一夕'. Being the elected MP, my vision is to continue the good work that Mr Low had done thus far, and to further build upon the strong foundation laid. We are always seeking ways to improve the Constituency and this process is a continuous one. Given the limited resources, being an opposition ward, I seek to achieve more for the Constituency through creative means, by being prudent and leveraging on the resources we have. The people of Hougang have a vision in their heart, and they had placed their hope and vision with their vote for the WP over the last 2 decades. This itself is a manifestation of a collective vision and the WP & I will do our best to serve our residents. This also means work in both Hougang and the larger context of Singapore is still in progress.

ZB: With a global economic crisis looming, how are your residents coping? How have their lives been affected? What are you doing to help?

YSL: Given that this is an integrated world, it is very real for Singaporeans to be affected by the issues that the world is facing economically. At this juncture, I have seen several hardship cases pertaining to housing, unemployment, cost of living and even educational issues. Lives are definitely being affected in many different ways. As a MP, while I may not able to solve every single issue, but the least I can do to help is to explore options and possible strategies in coping with the challenges residents face. This include working closely with governmental agencies, family service centers, welfare groups or even private companies to ensure that no Hougang resident get left behind. We have also started our own constituency welfare fund, supported by generous donors, to assist some of these residents who fall through the gaps.

ZB: How would you describe the relationship or rapport you have built up with your residents and grassroots leaders?

YSL: The rapport built up between myself with residents is one of trust, friendship and accessibility. For instance, every Hougang household would have my direct personal contact number (they can also contact me via email or even facebook). This had been useful especially for the elderly residents. Despite so, the residents had been understanding, and had only contacted me when really in need. With such understanding residents, how could I not give anything but my very best to Hougang? For WP Hougang's grassroots leaders, many are the same grassroots leaders who had served alongside Mr Low Thia Khiang, I am very thankful for their time, sacrifices and loyalty to the cause. I am also very heartened to see many younger Hougang residents stepping forward to volunteer their time. Many of them had fought alongside with me during the campaign period. Some of them are serving actively despite their full time job, and with no 'benefits' other than the intangible sense of meaning and purpose in being part of the process. This is what I call the 'Hougang Spirit' and the 'Hougang Pride'.

ZB: Any pressing ground issues?I would like to complete this story by the end of this week. Would you be able to give me some preliminary answers over email? If you don't mind, I would like to come down to your MPS this Wednesday to chat with your residents. We can chat more on Wednesday too.

YSL: MPS would not be appropriate because most of the residents are there to seek help, and would not want media coverage. Perhaps you would want to visit some of the coffee shops and chat with residents instead?

ZB: Please share with us any concrete plans to develop Hougang in 2012, eg are you building any new facilities or rolling out any new programs? Any interesting major community events planned for 2012?

YSL: The Hougang Welfare Fund (HWF), supported by generous donors, to assist some of these residents who fall through the gaps will turn operational in January 2012. The building of new facilities, LUP aside, I don't think so, unless HDB approve AHTC submitted nominations of Hougang for HIP/ NRP etc.

ZB: ‘Given the limited resources, being an opposition ward, I seek to achieve more for the Constituency through creative means, by being prudent and leveraging on the resources we have.’ -- Can you flesh out for me, perhaps by way of one example, what you mean by this sentence?

YSL: For instance, in our recent Christmas Children Party held last Saturday, the two Christmas trees were complimentarily t-loaned from an events company. The Christmas backdrop & decorations were recycled from previous years, first used when Mr Low was still the MP of Hougang. You may read more about our Christmas Party here: http://yawshinleong.blogspot.com/2011/12/hgcc-christmas-children-party-2011.html

ZB: Which long-serving grassroot leader would you recommend I interview? Could you give me his or her contact info please?

YSL: You may wish to contact Mr XXX (XX/m). He is an alternative (WP) grassroots leader in Hougang. This means, this person will never ever get his PBM or BBM, Neither will he get to park his car for free in the constituency ;) He is contactable via XXXXXXXX

Headline: 为居民伸出援手 新议员做好准备

哈啰 2012

工人党：求助居民没有显著增加

另一方面，坚持照顾穷人是政府责任的工人党议员却表示，前来求助的居民并没有显著增加。尽管如此，它还是分别为阿裕尼集选区和后港区成立了福利基金，计划从今年起开始发放给有紧急需要的居民。

工人党主席林瑞莲不愿透露阿裕尼福利基金的数额多大，只说基金获得几位捐款者慷慨解囊。

“就算经济危机持续一年，我有信心我们有足够资源帮助选民渡过难关。”

后港区议员饶欣龙则延续前任刘程强的做法，将从刘程强之前所成立的教育信托基金拨款颁发助学金。

limhh@sph.com.sg
yewlt@sph.com.sg


Headline: 工人党：救济人民是政府责任 不应由议员承担

哈啰 2012

虽然部分民众已开始受到经济趋软的影响，但这些冲击似乎还未来到由工人党议员管理的选区。阿裕尼集选区议员林瑞莲、毕丹星和后港区议员饶欣龙都表示，他们去年每周接见选民的个案保持平稳。

毕丹星每周接见二三十名选民。大选前阿裕尼集选区的行动党议员每周接见60至80名居民。

对此，毕丹星重申工人党立场：救济人民是政府的责任，不应由议员来承担。

“我们不希望陷入得自行推出福利计划的局面，因为这将让国人不去关注政府为什么没有帮助穷人，这也会把照顾穷人的责任放在反对党手中，那是不对的。”

碰到前来寻求经济援助的居民，这名负责友诺士区的议员会请他们到友诺士民众俱乐部，向那里的社区发展理会职员申请援助。

难道他不担心选民因此认为工人党议员帮不上忙，不投他一票吗？
毕丹星说：“这反映国人对社理会角色的误解。如果明天反对党执政，社理会还是得继续运作。选民无论把票投给了谁，政府的责任就是得照顾选民。”

他表示，反对党议员的作用之一是在国会里提出执政党议员因碍于党督限制，而没有提出的尖锐议题，而不是发放福利金。

林瑞莲指出，向议员求助的居民只占整个选区人口的少数。“如果我们把议员接见选民活动当成我们的政治基础，那是不具代表性的。”

她说，工人党议员过去几个月与多个政府部门或机构交涉时，并没有被怠慢。她对这种正常化的关系表示欣慰。

林瑞莲是阿裕尼—后港市镇理事会主席。她表示所有在大选前敲定的各类翻新计划，现在都如期展开。

Headline: 阿裕尼集选区居民：社区活动比以前少了
Publication: ZB

哈啰 2012
自从工人党接管阿裕尼集选区后，住在实龙岗北的家庭主妇林丽丽（53岁）发现社区活动比以前少了。

“以前人民行动党在的时候，基层组织经常举办一些社区活动，我也有参加。这些活动挺不错，小孩子在幸运抽奖抽到小礼物后会很开心。”

她期待工人党议员也能主办类似活动，不过也体谅地说：“他们上任不到一年，可能还不知道怎么办活动，没关系，我们再等等看。”

其实秘书长刘程强过去20年担任后港区议员期间，许多党员、党工和志工等也参与主办后港的社区活动。不过集选区的规模毕竟比单选区大好几倍，办活动所需的资金和人手也相对比较多。

工人党议员去年当选后的当务之急是搞好阿裕尼—后港市镇理事会，以证明他们也能把市镇管理妥当。

为加强组织能力，工人党去年6月成立了类似人民协会的基层组织的阿裕尼选区委员会（Aljunied Constituency Committee），安排志工协助议员接见选民或举办社区活动。

林瑞莲：打算增加社区活动

阿裕尼集选区议员、工人党主席林瑞莲受访时透露，目前每名议员有约三四十名志工帮忙，阿裕尼选区委员会的总人数至少有200人，包括工人党支持者及阿裕尼集选区的居民。
如今市镇会上轨道了，基层团体也壮大了，阿裕尼集选区议员更有条件举办社区活动。林瑞莲表示，他们打算从今年起增加举行社区活动的次数。

工人党也考虑从今年起举行“同楼共住联欢会”（block party），以拉近新议员与居民的距离。不少行动党议员近年来也透过这类联欢会加强与居民的联系。

阿裕尼集选区另一议员毕丹星上个月增设了一个接见选民的地点，并推出健康步行活动。

后港区议员饶欣龙为了方便居民联系他，把手机号码给了每一户居民。“对年长居民来说，这特别方便。居民都很体谅我，只在真的需要寻求援助时才联络我。”