Gadgets: Rubik's Cube For the Lazy
Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance what is the justification for keeping Ministers on the pension scheme when all other public and civil servants have been converted to the Central Provident Fund scheme.
The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (Mr Lee Hsien Loong): Mr Speaker, Sir, when the civil service phased out pensions for most of the public sector in 1986, it consciously decided to retain the pension scheme for officers in a small number of key services, one of which is the Administrative Service. Administrative Officers need deep knowledge and long experience of policy issues. The service takes in some recruits mid-career, but it continues to rely heavily on officers who have joined at the entry level. For these reasons, the pension scheme remains relevant to them. As part of their overall package, pensionable officers receive lower CPF contributions than non-pensionable officers. Political appointees are also on pensions because their terms of service follow those of Administrative Officers.
Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong: Sir, how does the Deputy Prime Minister expect citizens to take the uncertainty of retirement planning under the CPF, which is a defined contribution scheme, at their own cost, whereas Ministers and public officers themselves are under a guaranteed and defined benefit pension scheme, using taxpayers' money? In other words, their CPF may run out before the citizens die whereas qualified Ministers are taken care of by the taxpayers' money until they die. Am I right to say that?
Mr Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, it is an entire package. When we calculate the salary, we look into how much a person receives now, how much he receives in the CPF, and how much he can expect to save in pensions. And when a person retires, he has a choice of having a pension stream for the rest of his life or taking a commuted lump sum at the point of retirement. In fact, as a matter of fact, nearly everybody who retires prefers the commuted lump sum. Because you take a lump sum, you invest it, you do what you want. If it runs out, it runs out. There is no free lunch. If you do not have your CPF, you have the pension. If you have the pension, you have less CPF. So it all adds up to a finite amount. The Member's implicit question is: are the Ministers enriching themselves again? And the answer is, we are going on market terms and, if anything, we are paying below what the market is.
Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong: Clarification from the Minister. Does any serving Minister who turns 55 actually receive both salary and pension at the same time? If yes, should he be serving?
Mr Lee Hsien Loong: I believe the answer is yes. That is the rule for the civil service, and the Ministers follow the civil service rules.
Mr Chandra Mohan K Nair (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Parliamentary Pensions Act was enacted in 1978 to provide for the grant of pensions and gratuities in respect of service as Members of Parliament and as holders of ministerial and other offices.
My understanding is that over the last decade or two, the emphasis has been to convert the pension scheme and encourage the granting of Central Provident Fund for our civil servants and employees. Of course, as volunteer employers, one can make voluntary contributions towards their respective CPF accounts. Would it, therefore, not be in line with the general policy of the Government to also convert pensions for Members of Parliament, ministerial and other offices, to keep in line with the rest of the working people in Singapore? In this way, our citizens would observe that Parliament has not introduced in any way any form of discrimination, as perceived by them, in favour of MPs, Ministers or other officers connected to Parliament, eg, Mayor, that is being introduced through this proposed amendment.
As regards Mr Chandra Mohan's question, I was quite curious as to why he is interested in Parliamentary pension when the subject does not really concern him. I now understand he is talking about a different issue, like why do we want to consider office-holders' appointments even as pensionable. He says that the trend has been towards CPF. Yes, indeed, it has been, but there are certain key appointments that we have kept as pensionable service, eg, the Administrative Service, Foreign Service and Intelligence Service are still pensionable services. There are good reasons for this. Similarly, for office holders, we think that it is important that they remain on pensionable service and, hence, we keep them on pensionable service.
But for Members of Parliament, we have made a decision way back in 1995 that all new Members of Parliament, elected henceforth, shall be paid CPF.
"future Member" means a person —
(a) who becomes, by election or appointment, a Member at any time after 1st January 1995 without previously having been, before or after that date, a Member or an office-holding Member;
(b) who, having been a Member before 1st January 1995 but not being a Member on that date, becomes, by election or appointment, a Member at any time after that date; or
(c) who, being an elected Member on 1st January 1995, becomes —
(i) a non-constituency Member or nominated Member at any time after 1st January 1995 with or without a break in his service as a Member; or
(ii) an elected Member at any time after 1st January 1995 with a break in his service as a Member after that date,
and for the purposes of paragraph (c), a Member’s service shall be deemed not broken but continuous if, following the dissolution of Parliament or his seat therein becoming vacant under the provisions of the Constitution, he is elected as a Member at the ensuing general election or the ensuing by-election to fill that vacancy;
2A. —(1) Unless otherwise expressly provided, a future Member shall not be eligible for any pension or gratuity under the provisions of this Act in respect of his reckonable service as a future Member, including any period which may be counted as such service by virtue of section 6.
(2) For the avoidance of doubt —
(a) a future Member who holds any office shall remain eligible for a pension under the provisions of this Act in respect of his reckonable service in that office; and
(b) a person who, on the date immediately before he becomes a future Member, has the minimum period of reckonable service as a Member to be eligible for a pension under section 3 (including any period of reckonable service which may be counted by virtue of section 6), shall remain eligible for a pension under the provisions of this Act in respect of his reckonable service as a Member as of that date.
(3) Any person who on 1st January 1995 is a nominated Member shall not be eligible for a pension under the provisions of this Act in respect of his service as a Member on or after that date.
Sir, the People's Association is a statutory board, a public body funded by the people through the State. As Mr Charles Chong has said, it has been passed between the Prime Minister's Office to the MCDS and now back and forth. Officially, its objective is to promote racial harmony, social cohesion and community bonding through its many CCs, CCCs and RCs. The People's Association is a public body and it should be politically neutral.
Yet, ever since its establishment in the mid-60s, the PA has played a very important role in rallying grassroots support for the PAP. This is not right, Sir. Can the Minister clarify if this is not an abuse of State funds? If the real objective of PA is to serve the people, then why did the PAP Government deny legally elected MPs from serving their wards by appointing PAP candidates who lost in the elections as grassroots advisors? It is so strange that all the grassroots advisors are all Members of Parliament, except in Potong Pasir and Hougang constituencies. Can the Minister justify why the PA is not appointing Mr Chiam, Member for Potong Pasir and Mr Low, Member for Hougang, as the official grassroots advisor respectively? Can the Minister explain why he allowed the PA to appoint the losers in the general election as grassroots advisors instead?
Mr Steve Chia asked a question on PA that any Opposition Member would ask. He asked probably on behalf of Mr Chiam and Mr Low, but I think both have asked this question many, many times, and the answer is still the same. He got it right. The People's Association is a Government statutory board. It is not part of the PAP. The PAP MPs draw a very, very clear line between our PA activities, as well as our PAP branch activities. We do not hold our branch activities in the community centres. I can assure him of that. We are very professional about it. And since it is a Government statutory board, members of the public can come and use the facilities and take part in the programmes, regardless of political affiliation. But, when it comes to picking the people in charge, the Government, like picking people in charge of other Government agencies, will have to look for people who have the same vision, share the same objective, in order to do this job of leading the various grassroots organisations.
If we put the Opposition Members as the Advisors of the grassroots organisations, we can be sure that the grassroots organisations will be politicised. There will be no end of quarrels between the People's Association, who is supposed to be a Government body, and the ward which is with the Opposition. This will not serve the objective of achieving social cohesion. We owe it to the residents to ensure that politics stays out of our community centres. That is why PAP stays out of the community centres and we appoint people in charge to make sure that politics stays out of the community centres and the grassroots organisations.
Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong: Sir, I have three clarifications for the Minister of State. What vision and what objective are the Minister referring to? Has he tried any of the Opposition MPs to realise that their vision and objective are quite close to the PA?
Second clarification. Just because it is an Opposition MP, the grassroots organisations become politicised. It would not be politicised when the PAP candidates are appointed as grassroots advisers. Is that the case?
Third clarification. If the Minister wants politics to stay out, should not the elected MP stay in as the grassroots adviser instead?
Mr Chan Soo Sen: Sir, that is why the PAP MPs are the grassroots advisers, not the head of the grassroots organisation. We are only there to advise. So he got it right there.
Mr Low Thia Khiang: The MOS, in his answer, says the PA's objective is social and community bonding. CCCs, RCs, the community centres are non-political. And he said, "We draw a very clear line." I want to know from him how clear the line is, and how sure he is about what he says.
Mr Chan Soo Sen: Sir, I think I have not answered Mr Steve Chia's questions completely. So I shall answer his questions first.
I did not say that the Opposition Members do not share the objective of, for example, social cohesion. I am just saying that Opposition MPs, by their nature, would have to oppose some of the Government policies, and that would include some of PA's programmes and the methods of implementation, and so on. In doing so, bearing in mind the kind of passion that I hear when this subject was discussed in the Committee of Supply, we risk getting the grassroots organisations from opposition ward into political conflicts with the People's Association, rather than concentrating on helping the residents improve their lot. That basically is my point.
We, the PAP, are very clear about this point. Therefore, we draw a clear line. All Government programmes can be political to the extent that if we do a good job in any Government programme, for example, in education, or transport, we will get greater support in the next General Election. So if we do a very, very good job in achieving social cohesion, racial harmony, and we achieve better support in the next General Election, I would say that there is nothing wrong, Sir.
Mr Low Thia Khiang: The Minister of State seems to be confused with social cohesion, community cohesion and support for the nation to one that is ensuring bonding with the PAP. Would he clarify that?
Mr Chan Soo Sen: Since when did I say "bonding with the PAP"? I said anybody, regardless of political affiliation, could come and take part in PA's activities because PA is a statutory board and the community centres are public places. But when it comes to appointing people to lead these organisations, like all Government agencies, all Government statutory boards, Government will be responsible for those appointments, and Government has got the responsibility to ensure that the people appointed would have the ability to carry out the task that the agency is supposed to carry out.
Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong: Sir, if I may clarify with the Minister. Are not elected MPs part of the Government service, as the elected MPs are elected by the people? We are here [Interruptions] not as Government, but as part of the body where we actually do this service to the people. Specifically, the Minister said that Opposition MPs are always opposing. Can the Minister give specific examples of what the Opposition MPs are opposing for the sake of opposing? Is it not the case that the PAP MPs nowadays are actually even more opposing than the Opposition MPs?
Mr Chan Soo Sen: So you are saying the Opposition MPs are now irrelevant?
The Chairman: Mr Charles Chong, could you withdraw your amendment?
Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, can I have a clarification?
The Chairman: Mr Charles Chong, please.
Mr Charles Chong: Sir, I thank the Minister and the Minister of State for the responses and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The third point Dr Amy Khor raised was this issue about implicit subsidies. How do we price our flats? The most important criterion in pricing of new HDB flats is affordability. We track affordability very closely. We track what are the various household incomes at various percentiles. We also track the market prices. We ensure that the price of a new flat is always at a discount to the market price of that similar flat, as far as possible. She knows, as a valuer, that it is not possible to have everything exactly the same. But as far as is possible, as far as the valuers can advise, we try to price the new flat at a subsidy to market price of a comparable flat.
What is the amount of this subsidy? It varies from place to place. It varies from time to time. The important criterion, as I said, is to ensure that there is affordability at various price points and at various flat types. And that is the reason why it is not possible for me to name a certain amount as the subsidy of the flat.
Mah to SDA: Want to build flats for me?
SINGAPORE: National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan has reacted strongly to statements by a Singapore Democratic Alliance (SDA) candidate that the Government is excessively marking up the prices of Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats.
On Sunday night during the SDA rally in Yio Chu Kang, its candidate for Tampines GRC, Mr Edmund Ng Say Eng, said that he estimated, based on various tender reports, that the building cost of a $250,000 flat was only "$70,000 to $80,000".
This drew a firm response from Mr Mah, who is heading the PAP team in Tampines and will do battle with Mr Ng's five-man team at the polls this Saturday.
"Maybe I should invite him to come build my flats for me. It's certainly very misleading for anybody to quote figures just like that, so the onus is on him to tell me how to do it. If he doesn't, I'll ask HDB to subcontract all our building to him for $70,000 to $80,000. Maybe I'll give him a little bit more than that to cover his costs," challenged Mr Mah.
Speaking during a morning walkabout with his fellow candidates at Tampines Street 21, he told reporters that the actual cost of a flat depended on various factors like location and land prices, in addition to the construction costs of the flat.
Just metres away, the SDA team was doing its own rounds meeting residents though, unlike on Sunday morning, the two sides did not cross swords. When asked how he derived his estimates, Mr Ng, a 33-year-old businessman, explained: "This is based on reports that we have, some tender information and results, and our own calculations of building a five-room flat. The HDB has not been transparent in telling us what's the cost price of building a flat. We don't assume (our estimates) are correct, but we hope the HDB can clarify."
One other election rally issue that Mr Mah addressed was that of the vast amount of money being spent now on lift upgrading.
Workers' Party secretary-general Low Thia Khiang recently blamed the Government for a lack of foresight in not building flats with lifts stopping on every floor to cater to the current ageing population.
Mr Mah explained that it was "not a mistake" on the part of the Government. He said: "The flats built in the earlier years did not have lifts on every floor (because) the cost of the flat and the affordability to the people were very important, so we built as cheaply as possible."
He added: "Then gradually, the standard of living and cost of living increased, and flats became more sophisticated. So we started, from 1990, to build flats with lifts on every floor. Now we have to go back and retrofit (the older) flats, and we will do it within the next 10 years. That's the promise we make and we intend to keep it." - TODAY /dt
SDA's Edmund Ng takes up PAP's challenge to build HDB flats
SINGAPORE : Singapore Democratic Alliance's candidate for Tampines GRC, Edmund Ng says he is taking up the challenge by National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan to build HDB flats at lower cost.
Mr Ng says he has written to the Housing and Development Board requesting for costing information.
But Mr Mah, who is leading the PAP team in Tampines GRC, says the SDA candidate is just 'fishing' for figures and he has asked the HDB not to entertain him.
At a recent rally, Mr Ng had said it costs just $70,000 to $80,000 to build an HDB flat priced at $250,000.
In response, Mr Mah issued him a challenge, asking the HDB to subcontract building projects to Mr Ng.
When asked about Mr Ng's letter to HDB asking for cost details, Mr Mah says the onus is on the SDA candidate to back up his estimates.
Mr Mah says: "He is fishing for figures. He's got absolutely no clue what is going on. He just makes this allegation, just shooting from the hip. I've asked HDB not to entertain him."
He says HDB flats are heavily subsidised and that its prices are based on market value.
Mr Mah says: "The market value of the flat includes construction cost, land cost, infrastructure cost, providing lifts on every floor, and it varies from place to place."
So what is Mr Ng's next move?
Mr Ng "We have better things to do. We are currently very busy with the unemployment job portal. We don't run the HDB. It's up to them to disclose the figures."
As for the SDA employment website, Mr Ng says it has so far received 50 applications from Tampines residents since it was launched on Labour Day.
Mr Ng says it will kick start phase two of its employment initiative by linking up with companies situated in Tampines, Changi, Bedok and Loyang to help residents find jobs nearer to their homes. - CNA/de
