Learning through community services

Life has an interesting way of making internet activities become part of real life.

On Saturday, I was at the 35th College Day of Temasek Junior College, its annual prize giving ceremony. I was there as the representative of the College Advisory Board to present prizes, as well as to receive an award of my own.

Of the some 200 student prize recipients, one name stood out for me – Kwek Jian Qiang. Some may recall his letter to the TODAY newspaper in Dec 2011 comparing facilities in junior colleges and ITEs that had many netizens angry and flaming him. Upon reading the letter in the newspaper, I immediately whipped up a quick blog entitled, “Educating our youths to develop empathy, appreciation and resilience“. I was seriously concerned about what I feared was a growing lack of empathy in an increasingly competitive education system and an attitude of entitlement by those who had performed better.

To Jian Qiang’s credit, he very quickly apologised online after the backlash from netizens.

So it was a pleasant surprise to find him as the recipient of the Goh Eng Yeow Trophy for Community Outreach, which is given yearly to the student who “is a champion of, and demonstrates a passion for, community service.”

I spoke to Jian Qiang after the prize presentation. He repeated what he said in his online apology that he had learnt from the letter incident and had since moved on. I was particularly interested in what community services he had done to win the prize.

He shared that he got involved in community projects quite by accident through the KTM railway land after reading about Nature Society Singapore’s fight to preserve the greenery. He felt moved to take some personal action and linked up with the Nature Society to organise the Team Naturact Fun Carnival 2011, an event to raise funds both to protect the greenery around the railway land and to raise awareness of the plight of the Kranji Marsh.

He later became active in the Bedok CC, spending his weekends in various fund raising events for the needy. In his second year in TJC, as part of the college’s Mazarin Programme (a talent development programme with mentorship by senior staff of the college), he chose to work with the AG Home, a refuge for troubled girls who faced abuse and neglect at home, ran afoul of the law or who have lost their parents at an early age. He worked with the local community to raise $20,000 which went into enhancing the Home’s ability to take care of the girls and funding the girls’ education. Jian Qiang also shared about other community projects he did with the college for the underprivileged in the Bedok neighbourhood as part of the college’s Community Involvement Programme (CIP).

Chatting up with Kwek JQ during the reception

I recall my own schooling experience too, when as a then-shy teenager in St Patrick’s School, I was thrust into community projects through my St John’s Ambulance Brigade ECA (now termed as CCA). I found volunteering for first aid duties in public events exciting. I ended up clocking some 100 hours a year in such duties. That process opened me up and it started a life-long journey of active community involvement. When I entered Temasek Junior College as a student, I took part in many ECAs and continued through with many community projects right till today. Some activities have brought me to interesting places such as Bhutan and the interiors of Sarawak and Kalimantan. As I look back at my own schooling experience, it was the ECAs and the many activities I took part in that had shaped me more than the knowledge from books. So I was glad to find a young man like Jian Qiang who also believed that life must be lived to the fullest and without regrets, and that academic achievements and career should not be everything.

As I wrapped up this blog post, I read through Jian Qiang’s Dec 2011 online apology note again. It ended with, “Thank you for helping me to realise my mistake, thank you for helping set my moral compass right, thank you for helping me wake up. I will repent and not commit to such mentalities again. Please do give me a chance to do so. Lastly, I want to thank everyone who had believed in me and I’ll like to show you that I can change.”

It is good to know that Jian Qiang will soon be reading Social Sciences at SMU. From the community services activities he had been doing and his winning the prize for community services in a college that has community service as one of its niche focus, I am sure this young man has learnt from that infamous letter experience and demonstrated that he has indeed changed.

Investing in a Dynamic Population and Workforce

Speech delivered by Yee Jenn Jong at the Institute of Policy Studies Corporate Associates luncheon at Regent Singapore on 22 March 2013

 

It is my privilege to be in the presence of many distinguished guests who are captains of their industries and top researchers. I thank IPS for inviting me to speak.

I have titled my talk “Investing in a Dynamic Population and Workforce”. I will touch on the fundamental premise the Workers’ Party’s population policy is based on, that is, when we foster a dynamic Singaporean population and workforce, we can achieve a sustainable economy in the long term. For a more dynamic workforce, I will talk about three areas with room for improvements: productivity, work-life harmony, and female labour force participation. We also need to adjust our mindset as political and business leaders of the nation and to think outside the box to foster a creative economy held up by innovative workers.

Let me begin by arguing that we need to shift our comparative lenses. We tend to think of ourselves as a global city. Implicit in this mindset are the specter of our nearest competitor, Hong Kong, and to want to be like New York and London. But let us not forget that we are a country. As a country, the government’s primary responsibility is not to the economy but to the people. Economic growth must not be an end in itself, but the means to the people’s prosperity. I feel it is better to compare ourselves with small and dynamic countries that have achieved sustained economic success.

Let us take a look at this table, which was published in The Economist on 2^nd February this year, just as we began the White Paper debate.

The Economist 2 Feb 2013

Singapore is ranked 7^th. It is interesting to note that the top 5 countries in the list are small and dynamic countries. They are Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Switzerland. They are not unfamiliar. The Nordic countries are often brought up in our debates on education reforms, birth rate promotion, and social development. Switzerland was once our gold standard, as we pursued growth towards a Swiss standard of living in the 1990s.

Perhaps it should be again. The problem was that we defined the Swiss standard of living in terms of GDP per capita. We assumed perhaps correctly then, that growth would be shared and distributed more or less equitably. This assumption has not held. We now have one of the highest income inequality in the world. There are many reasons for this and I would not have time to discuss them today.

If you take a look at the table again, you will see an indication of why the wealth of our nation is not shared equitably. Singapore ranks in the top 5 in global competitiveness, ease of doing business, global innovation, and corruption perceptions. But when it comes to human development and prosperity, we are 26^th and 19^th respectively. Prosperity refers to the Legatum Prosperity Index, which goes beyond GDP. It also measures other factors such as entrepreneurship and opportunity, governance, education, health and social capital.[1]

This suggests that we have structured our economy to enable businesses to drive growth and be able to generate profits, but we have under-developed our people, such that Singaporean workers are not benefiting as much from growth as their peers in other developed countries. In 2011, our wage share as a percentage of GDP is 42.3%.[2] This is low compared with developed economies such as the United Kingdom (53.8% in 2011), Canada (52.3%), Switzerland (59.7%), Australia (47.5%) and the European Union (49.2%), which ranges from nearly 50% to almost 60% share of the GDP for wages.[3]

More than ever, there is a great urgency to invest in and to develop the Singaporean workforce to ensure our growth is driven by Singaporeans at the core.

Today, I highlight three areas with room for improvements: productivity, work-life harmony, and female labour force participation.

The Workers’ Party shares the government’s target of 2 to 3% productivity growth. The challenge is in achieving these goals. Last month, MTI reported that labour productivity fell by 2.6% last year. Labour productivity has fallen for five consecutive quarters. There is therefore urgency to improve labour productivity, particularly in industries where we lag far behind international benchmarks.

The second area we need to invest in is work-life harmony. A study by the Ministry of Social and Family Development found that only 23 per cent of workplaces offer flexible working hours. According to the study, work-life harmony has not improved over the last six years. Our score is 63 in 2012 out of a possible 100, no different from 64 in 2006.[4] The numbers clearly show that we need to increase our efforts. The MSF study found that those who scored higher on work-life harmony were more likely to be engaged and productive in the workplace, have better physical and mental health, and reported better family relationships and desire for more children. In other words, work-life harmony is important in improving our national TFR and promoting productivity growth.

One tool to promote work-life harmony is flexi-work arrangements. A recent study by the National Bureau of Economic Research in the US found that work from home employees performed 13 to 22% better than those in the office.[5] Flexi-work arrangements would also attract stay-at-home mothers to enter the workforce.

This is the third area Singapore needs to invest in: female labour force participation. In 2012, there were over 160,000 economically inactive residents who intended to look for a job within the next two years. Of these potential entrants, 64% were female.[6] There were around 270,000 economically inactive female residents aged 15 to 69 years old. This is a big potential pool of new workers.

The Labour Force Participation Rates (LFPR) for women in the prime working ages of 25 to 54 years is 77% in 2012.[7] Compared internationally, 77% is not the best that we can achieve for a developed economy with an educated workforce. There is room for the rate to rise to 85%. Some may also argue that the trade-off for higher female LFPR is lower TFR. This is where our comparative orientation to the small dynamic countries would help. Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden have prime-age female LFPR of between 83% to 88%, and TFR between 1.76 and 1.90.[8] Promoting female LFPR may actually have the reverse effect of improving TFR, as the sense of security on the part of women and overall gender equality are important factors in promoting birth rates.[9]

Ultimately, Singapore’s long-term goal should be to improve our TFR to foster a dynamic workforce. Meanwhile, we need to improve overall labour force participation rate to moderate the effects of an ageing workforce. Our current labour force participation rate is 72% for residents aged 15 to 69 years old. The Workers’ Party has called for this rate to be improved incrementally to 79% by 2025 through facilitating elderly reemployment and encouraging more women to re-enter the workforce, while we strive to improve our TFR. Again, let’s look at other small dynamic countries. Switzerland has a labour force participation rate of 80% for ages 15-64 years old and 72% for 15-74 years old. Switzerland has also climbed out of a low TFR of 1.38 in 2001 to achieve 1.52 in 2011.[10]

Finally, I wish to conclude with some personal thoughts about the challenges facing us. Besides being an NCMP, I am also in the business community. I ran an education group as an employed professional in the late 1990s and have started various education-related businesses since 2000.

There are indeed great challenges ahead as our population ages and our economy restructures to move away from the labour-fuelled growth that we are familiar with. Our foreign workforce is already at 1/3 of our total workforce. Singaporeans today form only 62% of our population. Working through the population data with various scenarios, we concluded that the window to restructure Singapore’s economy is a rather short one if we are to avoid massive new inflows of foreigners that will further greatly dilute the core Singapore identity. From now till 2020, the local labour force is still increasing as we will have more new job entrants than those retiring. During the remaining 8 years of this decade, we will all need to work together to raise productivity, find new markets and have more innovation driven growth.

I am reminded of a Chinese word for crisis, called “危机”。“危” stands for “危险” or danger while “机” means “机会” or opportunity. There are dangers and challenges right now for those in the business community. We are forced to adjust to a situation of tight manpower and changes in government policies and regulations. Technology changes are much faster than before. Global connectivity means greater competition for our businesses.

Yet, every time in history when there is great danger, there are opportunities too for those who can see the changes that are coming, adapt to it faster than others, and seize new opportunities that emerges. This is because the playing field may become leveled in a crisis or when there are changes in the operating landscape. Those that emerge first with good solutions will be winners.

I am reminded of my own experience when I ran an education technology business during the dotcom boom. The industry saw intense competition. Many players were wiped out within a couple of years. Then a great crisis came upon Singapore, in the form of SARS. Ironically, it was in this time of crisis that our clients became aware of the need for our type of solutions. Out of the crisis and the massive industry consolidation that took place, a few players managed to emerge with viable business models and growth.

Every situation is different and every industry has its own challenges. My encounter with “危机” or crisis, convinced me that we need to keep looking at the “机会” or opportunity every time there’s “危险” or danger.

In 6 years’ time, Singapore will celebrate the 200^th anniversary of Sir Stamford Raffles’ founding of modern Singapore. Next to the parliament house stands a statue of Raffles, with the inscription “On this historic site, Sir Thomas Stamford Raffles first landed in Singapore on 28th January 1819 and with genius and perception changed the destiny of Singapore from an obscure fishing village to a great seaport and modern metropolis.”

Singaporeans have had genius and perception in the past to overcome and grow stronger with each great challenge. Today, Singapore is at another crossroad, already a great seaport and modern metropolis but in need of a new model to move forward. We will need to search deep inside ourselves, build up the Singapore core, both in the population and in the workforce and have confidence to take ourselves forward in this 21^st century.

Thank you.

---

[1]
http://www.prosperity.com/Methodology.aspx

[2] Department of Statistics, Yearbook of Statistics Singapore, 2012, July 2012, p. 75.

[3] OECD Statistics, stats.oecd.org.

[4]
http://news.asiaone.com/A1Business/News/Story/A1Story20121206-387957.html

[5]
http://www.nber.org/papers/w18871

[6] Ministry of Manpower, Labour Force in Singapore, 2012, p. 47.

[7] Ministry of Manpower, Labour Force in Singapore, 2012, p. 3.

[8] Prime-age female LFPR data are from skills.oecd (
http://skills.oecd.org/informationbycountry/
); TFR data are from National Population and Talent Division, Marriage and Parenthood Trends in Singapore, June 2012.

[9] Peter McDonald, “Explanations of Low Fertility in East Asia: A Comparative Perspective”, Ultra-low fertility in Pacific Asia: trends, causes and policy issues, edited by Gavin Jones, Paulin Tay-Straughan and Angelique Chan, London: Routledge, 2008, pp. 23-39.

[10]
http://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/en/index/themen/01/06/blank/key/02/05.html

Blogging about blogging

I was just browsing through some of my old blog entries when I realised that today is the 2nd anniversary of my blog site.

It seemed almost like yesterday that I had decided to create this site. It was a tentative first step. Within the first week, I started by posting whatever I could find of my published letters to the Straits Times and TODAY newspapers. I also shared my reflections sparked by overseas travels made during that month. The next two months, the posts turned more political with the intense activities due to GE2011.

150 blog posts later, I have thoroughly enjoyed this blogging journey. This site has been the place where I share thoughts sparked by news; where I post speeches that I have made in parliament and in rallies; and where I write to seek the views of others on various issues. I have made new friends, including Singaporeans as far off in Finland, UK and USA. Some of the entries are spontaneous pieces, sparked by a moment of inspiration or a sudden thought; just like this post made after a 450-km drive around greater KL and back home at 11 pm. Some pieces are prompted by news or comments by others. Some articles are contributed pieces by readers, whom I have made friends with after they have read my pieces and had written to me to share their thoughts.

This site has grown with my own political journey. These two years have seen four elections (GE2011, PE2011, Hougang and Punggol East by-elections) and various hot issues such as Ministerial Pay, the National Conversation and the Population White Paper. There have been plenty to write about. My favourite topics are related to education, a matter close to my heart and work experiences.

I have enjoyed reading my readers’ comments. As a blogger, I have learnt to accept and value the different viewpoints and opinions. Blogging is like engaging in a conversation with people from all walks of life. Some comments have spurred me to think deeper about the issues and to make subsequent follow up articles.

Thank you for your feedback. They have made my blogging journey a meaningful one.

COS 2013 – Environment Impact Analysis

Committee of Supply Cuts by YJJ on Ministry of National Development

Environment Impact Analysis

Much has been said about infrastructure in the Land Use Plan.  Livability is not just about buildable infrastructure. Sustainability of our natural habitat is also important.

Apart from being a habitat for flora and fauna, natural environments alleviate drainage issues by retaining water and slowing surface runoff, and can moderate ambient temperatures.  The 2012 Expert Panel on Drainage Design and Flood Prevention Measures found that large-scale rapid urbanization is a key contributor to the recent increase of flooding.

A comprehensive environmental impact assessment (or EIA) should precede major developments.  Many countries already require EIA before commencement of projects. By alerting us to the potential hazards that may arise, precautionary measures can be taken.  An example is the urbanization of a grass knoll to house Ion Orchard.  Preventive measures could have been taken if nearby complexes and authorities were alerted to potential problems arising from the development.

Another effect of urbanization is the increase in ground temperatures due to the loss of trees.  EIAs can help us better understand this issue, and help planners plan the siting and even method of development to minimise this.

The Nature Society of Singapore has noted that Singapore has a higher carbon footprint than other developed countries. Naturally wooded areas help absorb this carbon. If more naturally wooded areas like Bukit Brown and Pasir Ris wetlands go away, our carbon footprint may become larger.

I hope EIA can be a pre-condition for any major development and findings made available to the public.

YJJ Budget 2013 Speech

Madam speaker, I wish to touch on three areas in this year’s budget – SMEs, new industries and preschools.

 

I wish to declare that I own and operate private companies classified as SMEs. I have previously managed and owned childcare centres though I no longer do so now. Part of my current business supplies products and services to education institutions.

 

SMEs

SMEs form 99% of business entities in Singapore, employ 70% of all Singaporean workers and contribute 50% to the GDP (1). SMEs are facing great challenges due to higher rents, higher cost of goods and services and a manpower crunch.

 

DPM Tharman spoke of the pain that companies, particularly SMEs will go through as the economy restructures to one that’s based on higher productivity. Some companies will not survive the restructuring. I’d like to share about the pains of restructuring and some lessons we can learn when an industry restructures. I happened to have been in an industry segment that underwent very severe restructuring and experienced one of the highest rates of company closures.

 

During Singapore’s dotcom peak, I started a company developing e-learning solutions for education institutions. It could not have been at a worst time. From 1999-2000, there were suddenly some 50 companies in this space, most of them new start-ups fuelled by dotcom investments. Funding very quickly dried up after the NASDAQ crash of April 2000.

 

But the companies were already formed and operational. The industry demand was much smaller than what these companies had thought it was. These 50 companies fought tooth and nail over the meager market, for customers who were then not yet ready for the services being offered. I witnessed many companies shutting down, merging or being acquired. Companies tried different ways to stay relevant to the market. We too experimented with different business models and products, and had to go through the painful process of chopping off unprofitable business segments and to let go of excess headcount at our darkest hour, just to stay afloat.

 

Within seven years, the 50 companies were withered to around 10, and I reckon less than 5 had respectable growth and profitability. There are some lessons that I have learnt observing this brutal industry restructuring first hand.

 

The first lesson is that those that survived had adapted their business processes to merge certain job functions to stay lean. Faced with poor prospects for better revenue, companies had to look internally to keep costs down. Being in a human resource driven knowledge industry, the biggest cost was manpower. Companies had to re-examine business processes to see which job functions could be merged or reinvented to cut costs. Company structures were flattened and employees empowered to do more.

 

A second and important lesson was that surviving companies had to find new business models to try to create new revenue sources. There is a limit to how much cost one can cut to be more productive. Revenue had to increase and companies had to find these revenue sources. Some companies merged or acquired other smaller players to achieve better economies of scale or used their combined strengths to create new business models.

 

The government is calling for companies to be more productive to overcome the immediate challenges. What is productivity?

 

Productivity is output divided by input. Financial output divided by labour input is also known as labour productivity, or value added per worker. Output is commonly measured as revenue less cost of purchased goods and services. (2)

 

In the context of my restructuring experience, survivors changed business processes to become lean. By reducing labour input while maintaining the same financial output, there will be productivity gains. But more critically, to make quantum leaps in productivity, financial output has to be significantly increased without corresponding increase in workforce. This can be done either by expanding the current market or modifying business models to gain new revenue sources or by merger and acquisition.

 

I believe these lessons can apply to other industries. For example, in the F&B industry, we have heard feedback about the lack of Singaporeans wanting to work in the industry. In his budget speech, DPM Tharman said that over the past 5 years, the F&B workforce has increased by 31% with Singaporeans actually making up half of the increase. So Singaporeans do enter this industry. Yet we hear of a shortage of manpower. The boss of Jumbo restaurant was pictured in the Straits Times clearing dishes.

 

DPM Tharman cited F&B as an example of a fragmented industry structure. Could there be too many F&B outlets in this industry chasing the limited customers’ dollar? Is there too much mall and shop spaces allocated for F&B? When an industry consolidates, manpower that is not fully utilized will be redeployed to companies that most urgently need them to cope with the bustling business. Or some companies may have to reinvent their business model or product offerings to generate new revenue streams.

 

Given Singapore’s limited market size, for meaningful productivity to be sustained through revenue growth, there should also be increased efforts to secure new overseas markets. The role of agencies such as IE Singapore becomes even more important. Singapore firms will need to create strong expertise and brands around products that have high demand in new markets. We have some success in areas such as oil rigs, food, and water technologies. The challenge is for the government to help identify more industry clusters and match that with emerging new markets.

 

The government has implemented various new schemes to help locals companies. The Productivity and Innovation Credit, or PIC was introduced two years ago. This year we have an interesting Wage Credit Scheme or WCS.

 

While WCS’s objective is to help companies share the fruits of productivity increases with workers, I believe it is intended to also provide companies with extra cash. Employers generally give increments to retain workers. WCS will run for the next 3 years. The 40% share by the government will be given back to employers only after the end of the year, which will impact the company’s cash flow. This means that employers will be careful not to give wage increases unless they have to and can afford to. Employers will likely be giving regular wage increases as they would generally have done so even without this scheme. Cash strapped companies will still resist wage increases.

 

Madam, I welcome any scheme that can help local companies cope with the current economic challenges. It will be interesting though to see which companies will benefit from WCS. MNCs, larger companies and more profitable companies have been and will be able to make wage increases. Smaller and struggling SMEs will still not do so. Perhaps the DPM can share what type of companies will likely benefit most from WCS looking at wage data from the past 2 years of CPF records. What is the government’s expectation of SME’s share of the $3.6 billion payout? If in reality, WCS ends up not helping SMEs much, the government will need to find more targeted ways to support them.

 

PIC is given a new push with the new one-for-one top-up grant of $5,000 per year. It’s a generous payout over and above the earlier PIC payouts. I think that should get many more smaller companies to use PIC as they will get more cash than what they have invested.

 

The PIC process is relatively easy to administer compared to most other government grant schemes. While PIC is useful to provide some relief to companies, it is limited in effectiveness for some types of companies which really need a major transformation. It is not always automation that will help companies restructure. Sometimes, it requires drastic changes to business processes, organization structures and to business models.

 

I would like the government to consider additional ways to help companies restructure. One is in the area of M&A.

 

In fragmented industries where there are too many companies chasing the market, it makes sense to consolidate. Merger and acquisition done strategically could boost revenues or result in greater manpower efficiency. In Budget2010, the government implemented the mergers and acquisitions, or M&A scheme (3). The scheme is hardly attractive as it allows M&A allowance of 5% of the value of acquisition as tax allowance. Budget2012 provided for 200% tax allowance on transaction costs. Transaction costs cover professional fees, legal fees and valuation fees.

 

These two provisions benefit mainly large transactions. To encourage M&A activities amongst SMEs, we need the scheme to be more targeted. The M&A scheme could be graduated to allow higher allowances for smaller SME consolidation and M&A transactions. For example allowance could be 30% for deal size of $500,000 or below, another
scale at $1 million, and a further lower rate at say $5 million. This would cover the typical deal size for acquisition of smaller SMEs.

 

The current scheme allows only for outright purchase of shares. Many acquirers prefer to buy over operations and businesses of SMEs, but not the entire company as they do not wish to be entangled with liabilities that may be associated with the target company. We can loosen the definition of M&A to include such type of acquisitions.

 

We can also incentivise the acquirers to automate the operations of their acquired businesses to achieve greater productivity and to change old business models. We already have the PIC scheme with its schedule of qualifying activities. We can look at allowing even higher than 400% tax allowances for investment in automation and higher than the existing cap of $400,000 in tax allowances for merged business entities to get them to speed up investments for productivity improvements.

 

New Industries

I am glad the government is constantly looking at new industries to develop as the economic landscape is rapidly changing due to globalization and technological advancement. This is important as Singapore companies continue to seek areas it can fill a niche in.

 

One area I hope the government can give more attention to is renewable energy.  Last Saturday, the Straits Times reported energy scenario projections by Shell. The report projected that total energy demand could double in the next 50 years as the world’s population rises to 9.5 billion. In a high energy demand scenario, Shell predicted a strong push for the development of solar power as an alternative source of energy. By 2070, solar photovoltaic panels could become the world’s largest primary source of energy.

 

Singapore is constrained by a small land size. We have been told that even if all our rooftops and building surfaces are covered with photovoltaic panels, we could only have up to 14% of our energy needs being met.

 

I think that should not stop us from aggressively promoting and pursuing renewable energy installation expertise and technologies at a faster pace so that our companies can export their renewable energy products and services to fast developing countries in regions hungry for more energy.

 

Our public projects can be more aggressive in using renewable energy. The government can actively support local companies to build up their abilities to install such set-ups. Just as we had supported local companies to build up capabilities in water technologies that allowed them to become global players in this field, we can do likewise now in renewable energy.

 

Preschools and Student Care

The government has planned to more than double its spending to $3 billion for the preschool sector over the next 5 years. It is good that the government is acknowledging the importance of early childhood education and is putting significant investment into it. It is forming the Early Childhood Development Agency to combine the preschool functions of MSF and MOE. This is something that many industry players, experts and observers had been calling for.

 

The government plans to bring more operators onto the Anchor Operator or AOP scheme. At last year’s national day rally, the Prime Minister had said there will be 2 or 3 more AOPs. There will be an additional 16,000 places by AOPs to add to the existing 17,000 places. (4)

 

I have previously spoken on this issue and I believe this will drastically alter Singapore’s childcare landscape. It is currently being served by a diverse number of private and non-profit operators, with a good deal of variety and innovation. The AOP scheme was initiated in 2009. It provides AOPs with easy availability of new centres at typically under 10% of prevailing monthly rental cost of private operators, a generous combination of start-up grants which I worked out to be around $600,000 per new centre and grants for teacher training and scholarships. (5)

 

In return, AOP are expected to charge fees below the industry median. That’s hardly any challenge at all, given that the generous grants and low rents will easily allow them to achieve this without having to be innovative or be cost conscious. The dearth of remaining new sites for non AOPs have seen rents being bided to highly unsustainable levels. This budget has increased salary grants to AOPs. This will accelerate the outflow of teachers from non-AOP centres to AOPs. There are 2 important things necessary for operators to succeed in this industry: Location and Teachers. Non AOPs will be choked off in these two key areas.

 

While it is good that the government is pumping a lot of money into this sector, the industry is wrongly structured and the huge grants will worsen the situation. There will be negative consequences arising from the current AOP scheme. It will wipe out many existing players, especially operators charging fees that cater to lower and middle income families. The 2 current and 2-3 new AOPs will not have to compete hard to be innovative. A healthy level of competition is needed for operators to be innovative, to continue to offer high quality services at competitively affordable prices. I believe we can instead structure childcare as a public good, with regular competition by all operators for packages of sites at fees regulated by MSF. With the same level of investment the government has planned, I believe it will achieve in better outcomes for affordability, accessibility and quality.

 

The higher number of working parents has seen fast rising demand for childcare. These same parents will also need good quality and affordable student care facilities.  It will be another important area as a social leveler.

 

I will touch on childcare and student care further in my COS cuts on MSF. Thank you.

 

References

1. Spotlight On SMPs and SMEs – The SMP, SME
http://www.icpas.org.sg/mediacentre/admin/upload/20120522022044634732932440629198.pdf

2.  A Guide to Productivity Measurement
http://www.spring.gov.sg/resources/documents/guidebook_productivity_measurement.pdf
)

3.
http://www.iras.gov.sg/irashome/ma-allowance.aspx

4.
http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/govt-raises-funding-pre-school-sector-s3b

5.
http://app.msf.gov.sg/PressRoom/Disbursementofgrantstononprofitchildcare.aspx
and
http://app.msf.gov.sg/PressRoom/Allocationofnewvoiddeckchildcarecentres.aspx

A magical journey

Snow Storm in Jubilee Hall

At the recently concluded WP Bricks In Blue variety show, I had thanked the audience for their wonderful support. I shared that I had personally experienced the magic of the support of everyone during my two years in politics. It is the magic of their support that has carried the Party so far, and it is this magic that makes dreams come alive. Whether the help is small or big, when many come together to help, we can make dreams come true. With that, I turned a piece of wet tissue paper into a snow storm lasting nearly a minute.

I meant every word of what was said. For this show, I was brought on a magical journey. It was magical not because I had put up a magic performance, but for what I had experienced in the process.

When the idea to put up a variety show to thank our supporters became serious, each MP had to put up an item individually. Singing was never my forte. I needed an alternative, and soon.

Being fascinated with magic from young, I toyed with the idea of performing magic. A WP member, Michael heard about it and offered to teach some tricks to me. So I picked up a few tricks and acquired some small props. Still, I was not confident how the tricks would work on the big stage, and how to script the sequence of acts. For lack of a better alternative, I committed myself to doing magic for Bricks In Blue, despite having never performed for anyone before.

A month before Bricks In Blue, the publicity went online. That same evening, I received a Facebook message from Eugene, a young man living in Aljunied GRC. He is a full-time student living overseas and is back on holiday. He had worked full-time for a professional magic team and had performed on the big stage. He had some professional props which he could loan me as well. It was God-sent.

So I loaned his props, including a crate with which I was to be handcuffed and locked in. I would have just a few seconds to unlock myself, escape, and change position with my assistant. He warned it would take a month of practice to get the act perfect. The assistant would be my eldest daughter, Faith. The practice required both of us to be fast and coordinated.

Eugene also helped to sequence the routines, polished our script and introduced a few more tricks. Then, we tested some of the effects in five of the Christmas parties held in Aljunied GRC and in Hougang. When Faith could not attend two of the sessions, I recruited my son, Harel to stand in. He loved it so much that we decided to add him into the big show. He would turn a burning torch into a rose.

Magical family with magic consultant Eugene before the show

For Bricks In Blue, we had three full-dress rehearsals and two other combined practices for the singing items in a studio. It was at these sessions that I saw how the many volunteers from all the divisions in Aljunied and Hougang put in so much sacrifice to make the show a good one. In the 56 years of WP history, the Party had never put up a variety show before. Everyone was determined to put up a good show. Many of the volunteers have a demanding day job. By day, they are lawyers, accountants, businessmen, office executives, hardworking workers and many more. Many have their families to take care of. Some are students and some even had school tests in between the rehearsals. Yet they would practice hard to make things as perfect as they could.

None of us are professional entertainers. Most do not have performing experience. The back stage crew worked tirelessly too, ensuring that the setup, sound system, backdrop and lighting worked according to plan. There seemed so much to do in the short two weeks that preparation for the show went intense.

As I watched how these volunteers piled in the hours after work and after school, I wondered what drove them. I also thought about all the hours they piled in at the weekly Meet-The-People sessions and in organising all the constituency events. I recalled the energies they burned during GE2011 and during Hougang BE. I remembered how empty fields and stadiums were transformed into huge rally sites. The logistics were immense. Setting up within hours and dismantling immediately thereafter, repeating that night after night. Combing houses tirelessly to meet as many residents as possible. All these were executed by the determination of hundreds of volunteers, many of whom have day jobs.

These volunteers are the engine behind what keeps the Workers’ Party going when the going gets tough on the ground. They are the volunteers who do not get to go to National Day receptions at the Istana which are for official grassroots members recognized by the government. They will never get any awards by the government. No PBM, no BBM. They will not get any priority for registering their children into their preferred primary school. They will not get parking privileges. Yet they work on tirelessly.

I too had experienced how many would come up to offer help to us. I experienced that during GE2011 as a newbie in the political scene. People I had never met before would magically coming forward to help in all sorts of things just when I needed help. Even for this show, I took up the challenge without any idea how I would learn my magic or how to handle the performance. Yet, everything happened magically, with people who came along the way.

This is the real magic which I had experienced. It is the magic that had carried the Party through difficult times and will continue to carry the Party forward. The magic is in all of you. Thank you, wonderful volunteers. Thank you, wonderful supporters.

Finale of Bricks In Blue – Thanking everyone

Goodbye 2012, Hello 2013

“Your success and happiness lies in you. Resolve to keep happy, and your joy and you shall form an invincible host against difficulties.” Helen Keller.

It is hard to write about 2012. In this supposedly auspicious Chinese year of the dragon, we seemed to have a fiery dragon. The news has constantly been filled with unpleasant things, from the start to the end of the year.

Perhaps 2013 may not get rosier. So my new year’s wish for all is this quote I found by Helen Keller. Blind and deaf since she was 19 months, Helen Keller overcame great difficulties to become the first deafblind to graduate with a Bachelor degree. She became a world famous speaker and authored 12 books and many articles.

There will constantly be challenges in life. Helen Keller is imminently qualified to speak about challenges, having to live her life in blindness and total silence. Yet she overcame these to become a powerful influence to others around her.

We recently earned the unenviable title of being the most emotionless and unhappy country in the world. May you find strength to be happy and joyful in 2013. The key to success and happiness is in your hands.

Happy new year!

New Attitudes for Better Government-Citizens Engagement

This piece was written for the NUS Students’ Political Association The Diplomat publication. I was a panelist at their Top Gun Forum held on 17 October 2012 which had discussed government-citizens engagement since GE2011. I had contributed this article in October at their invitation. This issue of The Diplomat will only be distributed in January 2013. The views expressed here are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of The Workers’ Party or the NUSPA.

—————————————————

Dr Yaacob Ibrahim, minister for the new Ministry of Communications and Information, said in a TODAY news report that more ministries and statutory boards are stepping up efforts to make their presence felt online by having Facebook and Twitter accounts. The government has also started a National Conversation with citizens. Since GE2011, the government seems to have a renewed zest to want to be seen to engage.

It is good that the government wants to engage with citizens. However, I think in order to truly engage, government institutions need to go beyond posting information on Facebook and Twitter. One can use these channels to disseminate information, but is that true engagement? How prepared are these institutions to be open with information and be responsive to alternative views? How will they deal with hard questions?

It is not the first time the government wants feedback from citizens. In 1985, it set up the Government Feedback Unit. It was once referred to by then-PAP backbencher Dr Amy Khor as “a black hole from which no light emits”. She was later asked to chair the Unit, which was renamed as REACH, or Reaching Everyone for Active Citizenry @ Home. The Government Feedback Unit and REACH are supposed to be already engaging citizens actively on a continuous basis. Also, we had major one-time exercises such as S21 and Remaking Singapore.

Despite these efforts, we see growing discontentment on the ground, made more visible by the easy availability of social media for citizens to voice unhappiness. Why have the government’s efforts been less than successful in winning over the hearts of the people?

I believe there has to be a mindset change in the way the government deals with feedback.

I am no stranger to giving feedback. Prior to becoming a politician in March 2011, I was actively writing to the forum pages of newspapers since 1993. From 2007-2009, I became a member of a policy workgroup in REACH, by their invitation.

My occasional frustration in dealing with government agencies are their sometimes evasive replies when it comes to hard questions. In February 2011, in response to news coverage of Budget2011, another contributor and I wrote separately to The Straits Times over how the government supports preschools beyond PCF and non-profit centres. MCYS and MOE made a joint reply which did not fully answer the questions. It prompted former NMP Siew Kum Hong to make a blog post titled “Answering the question you wish had been asked”. In it, he lambasted the joint reply as choosing to evade some parts of the questions.

I continued to pursue the issue after I had become a parliamentarian.  It took me several parliamentary questions and speeches before I could extract more answers regarding government’s support for the preschool industry. I found there were occasions where ministries seem to miss out answering parts in questions filed in parliament. In January 2012, I asked about foreign scholarships by our government. I was instead given the figures for ASEAN scholars. I had to follow up in a subsequent parliament sitting to extract the figures for all foreign scholars. That prompted blogger Alex Au to question why the full figures were not disclosed initially.

In our REACH’s workgroup, we made bold recommendations to improve the preschool sector. I found our challenge was not about extracting feedback from the ground. It was to persuade policymakers who would rather have status quo, to go for change. I noted our toughest but most required recommendations were avoided.

In an interview with The Straits Times, former permanent secretary, Mr Ngiam Tong Dow said that “the civil service is in danger of auto-pilot, unwilling to change until reality hits”. He also commented that some civil servants even behave like little Lee Kuan Yews, believing they have the mandate from heaven.

I believe for true engagement to take place, there has to be an attitude change in policymakers. Ground feedback should not be deemed as “noises” and social media viewed as being dominated by those on the “lunatic fringes”. If the government wishes to engage using new media, it must be prepared to deal with some messiness. It must come with an open mind to sieve out and seriously consider good alternative views. Suggestions can come from all mediums – through REACH, through online media, through the forum pages of mainstream media, through focus group discussions and even through other political parties. Amidst the many voices on social media, I have often found sensible opinion pieces.

Engaging is not about disseminating carefully crafted press releases to the public. It is being open with information, being open-minded enough to consider suggestions, and bold enough to push for difficult policy changes when it is necessary to do so.

The government can start with enacting a Freedom of Information Act to make accurate information more openly available to citizens, so that citizens do not have to seek out alternative sources of information. With proper information, citizens can then dialogue more meaningfully with the government.

One People, One Nation, One Singapore – As We Celebrate Our 47th National Day

On 1 Aug, Singapore received an early birthday gift for her National Day when Feng Tian Wei won Singapore’s first individual Olympics medal since Tan Howe Liang’s silver in 1960. I posted a simple “Congratulations Tianwei!” message on my Facebook. Not unsurprisingly, it garnered positive comments as well as a number of uncomplimentary remarks about our use of foreign talents.

I had read up about Tian Wei. I summarised a part of Wikipedia’s post of her as follow:

Feng Tianwei was born on 31 August 1986 in Harbin, PRC. She is the only daughter of Feng Qingzhi, a granary worker, and his wife Li Chunping, an employee of a department store. Feng’s parents, who were poor, lived frugally for years to pay for her table tennis training. Her father suffered from multiple sclerosis, but she was not told how severe his illness was. He died in 2002, weeks before Feng tried out for China’s national B squad. Although Feng topped the qualifying matches a month later and was called up for the national team in 2003, she suffered from a long illness; a source close to her said it was “because she missed her father too much”. Feng left China in 2005 to play in the Japanese professional league. While there, she was spotted by a coach with the Singapore Table Tennis Association, in 2006. In March 2007 she was invited to train in Singapore under the Foreign Sports Talent Scheme. She became a Singapore citizen in January 2008.

For Tianwei to be where she is today, she had to work hard and overcome many personal struggles. That’s great resilience and something worthy of celebrating in a human’s achievement. From what I have read of her in the media, she has so far been a good sports person and without any controversial news that I am aware of.

We also had Shanghai-born Jing Junhong who was the first to break into the semi-finals of an Olympic table tennis singles in Sydney 2000. She is now married to Singaporean former paddler and Table Tennis team manager Loy Soo Han. Junhong is a coach for Team Singapore as well. They have a son, Darren Loy who is now in Singapore’s junior Table Tennis team.

When I made a national day blog post last year, some netizens commented in unflattery tones that my parents came from Malaysia. It didn’t matter to them that I was born here or that my parents came when Singapore was part of Malaya and that they had long become Singapore citizens. We cannot choose where to be born in, nor can we choose our parents. From what I read, I would say Junhong has integrated well into Singapore, establishing her family here, producing a son who is now representing Singapore, and training our national team. Tianwei has been fighting for medals in Singapore’s name since 2008. She came to us as world no. 73 and is now world no. 6 and an Olympic individual medalist. Tao Li came to Singapore at age 13, speaking hardly any English at all. Today, she conducts her interviews regularly in English, with the occasional “lah”s in it.

That had me reflecting why each time a foreign-born sports person wins something for Singapore, we have such a large number of unhappy people. The problem may not lie in the athletes themselves. Having large number of foreigners injected into our midst over the past two decades has created many problems in society. Unfortunately, some people will project the problems we are facing with foreigners onto all non local-born. Irresponsible headlines by the media like “Feng Tianwei shows FT is the way” (The New Paper, 3 Aug) only serves to stir up more resentment amongst locals.

I recall when I was younger, foreigner means fair-skinned ‘ang mohs’ (the westerners), who did not get into the way of locals very much. We have always been having Malaysians and people from ASEAN in our midst, mostly as students and as workers, with some as professionals. We never complained so much then. Culturally, they are closer to us and live quite like Singaporeans. A fair number of Malaysians who study here regularly become PRs and citizens. Foreign domestic workers have also long been a feature in Singapore as well. They gather mainly at specific spots during the weekends. The jobs done by the workers and foreign domestic workers are also not the ones that Singaporeans aspire for.

In 1990, Singapore celebrated ’25 years of nationhood and another 25 years of achievements’. That was the slogan of the National Day parade of 1990. The theme of the parade that year was “One People, One Nation, One Singapore”. Back then, our population was 3.047 million, of which 2.634 million were citizens and 112,000 were permanent residents (PRs). Foreigners made up around 311,000, or 10.2%. Together, PRs and foreigners made up a total of only 13.9%. Singaporeans did not seem to have any major issues with foreigners then.

By 2011, our population grew to 5.184 million. Of these, there were 3.257 million citizens (including new citizens), 532,000 PRs, and 1.394 million foreigners. Foreigners constituted 26.9% while PRs and foreigners together formed 37.2%. When we combine this figure with another 15,000 – 20,000 foreign-born that are being added yearly as new citizens, the percentage of local-born citizens becomes even smaller. Source:
http://www.singstat.gov.sg/pubn/popn/population2011.pdf
(with rounding off).

In 1990, we had by then built the nation largely on Singaporeans. We were of different races, but we formed the vast majority of the population and we understood each other’s habits, religions and cultures. Sure, it didn’t happen naturally. It took some effort to constantly remind ourselves of the diversity amongst us. We could live with and adjust to one another. We were indeed one people, one nation, one Singapore.

I love to travel. I would mix around the locals when I travel, take their local transport, eat at their local eateries, buy at local joints and do things locals do. My travels were all self planned itineraries. You get to understand people better that way.

China has been quite an experience. In one of my early trips to China, I was once stuck in Pudong, Shanghai at night with three young children in the drizzle trying to catch a cab to Puxi across the river with our bags of shopping. There was no queuing bay. Many people were on the streets trying to grab a cab too. The locals were rough. I had people cut me off even though cabs alighted passengers in front of me. I nearly got into one after I had negotiated with the driver through his window where we wanted to go when suddenly, a young couple barged into the cab and the cab took off with them. Half an hour later, a taxi driver who had been parked on the side all this while drove over and told me that this is Shanghai. He said I would never get into a cab by being so mild, and that I should just jump into the first cab and demand to be taken to where I want. He said he was taking me on account of my three young kids, as he usually would not go across the river at that time of the night.

Another Singaporean friend who had been living for several years in China told me in a cab one day at a chaotic traffic junction in Shanghai that there is only one rule to follow at such junctions in the cities. The car whose head juts out first has the right of way. Forget about official traffic rules. Hence they drive aggressively. I noticed this too in some crowded Asian cities.

I watched a recent video that had gone viral on the Internet of a China woman scolding two elderly Singaporean ladies over the priorty seating on a bus. I have seen such scenes in China. People are conditioned to demand their rights, sometimes in loud and forceful ways because in their system, you will lose out if you are too gentle. I found out the hard way trying to get my cab.

We may be seen as sharing the same ethnicity. Our way of life has become very different though. China had gone through a traumatic cultural revolution and now a long economic boom. It is a big country where people may have grown used to roughing things out.

I do not wish to generalise that all from China behave badly, or that foreigners of other nationalities do not bring with them issues that also challenge the integration with Singaporeans. I have chinese friends who are cultured and who have decided to set roots in Singapore. But with so many foreigners of so many nationalities, each with their own deep-seated culture that had shaped their behaviours, our way of life is bound to become upset; from bus quarrels to spitting on roads to complaints about curry cooking. It does not help that in some areas, foreigners may even outnumber locals as the foreigners tend to be clustered together by their communities. It also does not help in our multi-cultured society that some of them work as service staff but speak no English at all.

When I was a student, I remember the many campaigns to teach us how we should behave as responsible Singaporeans. I remember the ‘Use Your Hands’, anti-littering and courtesy campaigns. I remember once a few of us did an overnight hike to a secluded part of Pulau Ubin while we were college students. The next morning, we packed up to leave. We had a few bags of rubbish. Our first tendency was to leave the rubbish there since the nearest dustbin was several kilometers away, past a plantation we had hiked through. Someone from the group picked up the rubbish bags and carried it along, together with his camping load. Another asked why he didn’t just leave it behind. He said, no, we should not litter the place. I still remember such lessons well to know that we should not litter. How do we tell that to 37.2% of the population (more if we count new citizens) who had not gone through our education system? How do we teach courtesy to those who grew up believing they need to demand aggressively to get what they want, and where spitting and littering are acceptable where they used to live? Will their way of life influence us instead and undo what we had learnt from young?

I am not anti-foreigner. I have spoken out before on such issues like foreign scholarships. That is because I feel the policy had spent to much, took in too many, failed to attract people of the right quality, and failed to get them to root themselves in Singapore. People like Junhong, Tianwei and Tao Li have done Singapore proud on the sports front. I wish all foreign-born sports person in Singapore can follow the example of Junhong and truly root themselves here even when their competing career is over. The issue of foreigners in our midst will continue to be hotly debated, even more so in the coming months with the recently publised paper on Population.

The call to be ‘One People, One Nation, One Singapore’ is even more urgent today than it was in 1990, when there were then fewer cracks in society. Today, the cracks are between the haves and a growing class of haves-not, between local born citizens and a sizeable pool of new citizens and between residents and a very large number of foreigners. We may have 47 years of economic progress as a nation, but do the newer citizens and permanent residents have the same understanding as other Singaporeans of ‘One People, One Nation, One Singapore’? That is the unenviable challenge that the PAP government has set for itself by its policy of liberal immigration.

As you mull over this, do enjoy this song which is one of my National Day’s favourites:

 

Happy 47^th National Day.

Speech on Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) (Amendment) Bill – 9 March 2012

Sir, many I spoke with welcome this amendment because of prior bad experiences with purchases. Like them and Member Mr Lim Biow Chuan, I had at some point in time purchased products that failed to work soon after the purchase was made. Most retailers in Singapore do not have a ‘no-question-asked’ refund policy. This Lemon Law will force retailers to re-think the business model they use to transact with consumers.

The amendment now makes provision that if a product is found defective within six months of delivery, the customer has the right to demand the seller to make repair or replacement within a ‘reasonable time’ and ‘without causing significant inconvenience’ to the consumer. Or the customer can keep the defective product and be given an agreed discount, or return the product for total refund.

There are four areas I wish to highlight as potential concern areas in the execution of the bill, for which I would be grateful for the Minister’s clarifications or assurances:

1. What constitutes a refund? Like Mr Hri Kumar, I wonder if retailers will attempt to get around compensation issues by offering or contracting in-house vouchers of the same value as the defective product to the customer as compensation. How do we prevent retailers from such attempts to dilute the consumer’s rights?
2. A retailer may sign a contract with the customer to state that the product is “As-Is” due to special pricing or promotion or due to the nature of that particular product, with no refund or exchange allowed. Section 13 of the existing Act seems clear enough that it bars sellers and buyers from contracting out of a refund for other considerations such as a lower price.

However, many retailers and consumers may not know of this provision. Retailers may attempt creative ways to contract themselves out of the provisions in this Act during the initial implementation stage. A lot of monitoring and education needs to be done.

The Minister of State has spoken about “As-Is” products. What must retailers now have to do to highlight specific defects in specially priced products, and state that clearly in their contracts and advertising?

3. The amendment covers physical products. I understand a big area of consumer complaint is regarding packages offering services, such as Spa services. I am citing this as an example but I do not wish to generalise that such packages are bad. One may purchase a package only to find that the centre is perpetually overbooked and can hardly use the package. Or if we sign up for some miracle treatment to restore hair only to find that it does not work after 6 months of faithfully trying the services? What recourse avenues are there for consumers have under the current law now? I appreciate that the Ministry will need time to work out this current amendment on dealing with physical products. I trust it will cover services more comprehensively in a future amendment of the Act.
4. I understand it will be difficult to cover online purchases as online shops will likely be outside of our jurisdiction or we may even be unable to identify or locate some online shops. Nevertheless, online shops registered in Singapore should have to abide by these rules. I like to hear from the Minister of State on his views on online purchases.

I support the Bill as it is a move in the right direction towards the type of shopping experience we get in first world countries. The execution must be managed carefully to ensure that retailers and consumers are adequately educated so that both groups are fully aware of their rights and obligations under this amendment.

We should be mindful that Singapore is a cosmopolitan city, with consumers, retail frontline staff and even retail owners coming from a diversity of international backgrounds. Non-Singaporeans may be used to the retail practices in their native countries. A good engagement programme with different stakeholders in the implementation is critical to its success. Can the Minister of State elaborate on the steps which the ministry will take to educate retailers and consumers in conjunction with the implementation?

We have just finished the Budget debate, which had a lot of focus on SMEs. The bulk of our retailers are SMEs. The larger retailers will have better resources to get themselves acquainted to and cope with the changes. Smaller retailers may find the changes difficult to understand and deal with. Retailers should also be mindful that they need work out their own agreements with product manufacturers to ensure that they are not stuck with an untenable position when servicing the customers. They will need to factor for refunds and exchanges. Retailers may also now turn conservative about carrying lower-priced products that may not be built-to-last, even if there are consumers willing to buy these because these consumers are highly price conscious. This will lead to changes in our retail model over the next few years.

I hope MTI can extend good support to the SME retailers to ease them in the implementation. Engaging in partnership with organisations such as the Singapore Retailers Association will be helpful. I hope too that there will be a balanced approach in the implementation so that we do not unnecessarily put genuinely good but small retailers out of business.

I trust that if we execute this amendment well, there will be a more pleasant and reassuring shopping experience for us all.