Lam Pin Min

There is no doubt that Singapore has done well economically. We have transformed ourselves from a third world, to a first world country in just over 4 decades, in spite of our lack of natural resources and many other challenges. Our strength is in our ability to transform and adapt to the ever changing environment, both regionally and internationally. Besides making Singapore economically strong by constantly upgrading and restructuring our economy, there is also an urgent need to make Singapore strong socially, by building up social resilience among Singaporeans. However, we are currently still far from the ultimate goal of being a socially resilient Singapore.

Let us go back to 2011, where the last GE introduced a new word into the political vocabulary of Singaporeans – “a new political norm”. We had witnessed several milestones in the political arena, both in the ruling party, as well as in the opposition. After the elections, everyone – politicians, society, people, agreed that there is a need to forge a new social compact based on this new political norm. One, where the government is more receptive, more consultative and more engaging. One, where the populace is more vocal and more aware of its rights and not afraid to voice its opinion. This I think is inevitable with a more educated, aware and developed society.

While a new social compact is forged upon this new political norm, there must be a common consensus on the tasks that lies ahead and what we, as Singaporeans, and not just the government, must do. This is something that we have often heard – the government cannot do this alone, we must work hand in hand. And this is no less true. An often heard Chinese adage, tells us that one chopstick is broken easily, but ten chopsticks together, makes for strength in unity.

With the impending silver tsunami, the government has catered for the building of more long term care facilities, and acute care hospitals.  However, even more importantly, Singaporeans must excogitate and reach a common consensus on what the task is ahead and how we can all come together to help.

There was an article reported in the BBC last year after the tsunami and nuclear reactor disaster that took place in Fukushima. It reads:

“The deadly tsunami had struck and resulted in a nuclear leak crisis in Fukushima last year. It was while watching the news on television that Mr Yasuteru Yamada decided it was time for his generation to stand up and volunteer themselves. No longer could he be just an observer of the struggle to stabilise the Fukushima nuclear plant. The retired engineer reported back for duty at the age of 72, and organised a team of pensioners to go with him. A group of more than 200 Japanese pensioners volunteered to tackle the nuclear crisis at the Fukushima power station. The Skilled Veterans Corps, as they call themselves, was made up of retired engineers and other professionals, all over the age of 60. They rationalized that they should be facing the dangers of radiation, not the young.

Mr Yamada had said, “Volunteering to take the place of younger workers at the power station is not brave, but logical. I am 72 and on average I probably have another 13 to 15 years left to live. Even if I were exposed to radiation, cancer could take 20 or 30 years or longer to develop. Therefore us older ones have less chance of getting cancer.”

Such is the courage and resilience we see in the Japanese people in the face of adversity. The Japanese people have faced many disasters, from world war, to earthquakes and deadly tsunamis. These have helped built social cohesion and resilience in its people. The fact that he was elderly showed how the elderly too had a role to play in our society.

As a nation, we are far from achieving this ultimate goal of being a socially resilient society. We must learn to work together as a team, as one people in handling difficult situations, including the silver tsunami. We must discard the mindset that “this is not my problem” and that “the government will solve the problem”. We must learn to take responsibility of our living environment, our lives and our own destiny.

We must take the responsibility of looking after our senior citizens well. Our children are watching and learning from us. We will grow old one day and similarly, we want our children to take good care of us in our silver years. We want a Singapore that is strong and inclusive, where its people can live meaningfully and age gracefully and with dignity.

HDB launched the tender of a commercial site at Sengkang West Avenue/Fernvale Road, next to Fernvale Point and Fernvale LRT station. The land parcel has a site area of 8,790.3 sq m and has a maximum allowable gross floor area of 26,370.9 sq m.

The tender exercise for this commercial plot attracted a total of 12 bids, with Earth Holdings, a subsidiary of Singapore Press Holdings (SPH), offering the highest bid of S$328 million.

A retail centre, as big as West Mall (in Bukit Batok) or two-thirds the size of Compasspoint , with a trade mix will cater to the needs of residents staying in Sengkang West and the Seletar area.  This will definetely add to the amenities around Fernvale estate, which is currently served only by Fernvale Point and the newly opened Greenich V along Yio Chu Kang Road.

Ministerial Salaries have been a controversial and emotive topic since 1994, when the White Paper on Competitive Salaries for Competent and Honest Government established private sector salary benchmarks to peg the salaries of Ministers and Administrative Officers.  I have heard the various important issues arguing for or against the formula proposed by the Ministerial Salary Review Committee. Ihave also heard the need to pay competitive salaries to attract talents.  Yes, Singapore is a small country and we have a limited pool of talents. Competitive and fair salaries must be paid so that we can attract the right people in their prime to serve the nation.

Ethos of Public / Political Service

I remember one of the more memorable speeches made during the last parliamentary debate in 2007, was that by MP Ms Denise Phua.  She spoke passionately of the differences between the public and private sectors.  In the public sector, especially for political leaders, the main difference herein, lies in the amount of power, influence which one could wield.  She warned that concentrating too much of both; power and pay, would attract the wrong type of people to public service.

This is a view which I wholeheartedly agree with. Public service is a calling.  High ministerial salaries or monetary rewards should not be the reason why people are motivated to serve the nation.  As Catherine Lim wrote in a Straits Times Article in 2007:

“No Singaporean with any practical sense of the real world would want to see a minister denied a salary commensurate with his status and dignity, or living less well than any prosperous Singaporean.  But, at the same time, no Singaporean would expect a minister to feel disgruntled if he is paid less than the top CEO. If the disgruntlement actually causes him to leave his job, then he was not cut out for public office in the first place. Thus, to offer him a matching salary to enable him to stay would be to demean that office. ”

It is as simple as that:  The motivation for public service should not be pay. 

But should we not then pay our Ministers sufficiently well – a salary that commensurate his important role and heavy responsibility as a Minister?  Similarly, is it right to demand an immense financial sacrifice from people to serve the nation?  By this argument, is it then right to say that we should demand the same type of ‘financial sacrifice’ from Teachers, Police Officers, Military Personnel, Nurses, Judges or our civil service because they should be serving out of a sense of dedication and devotion to the public good?

I would like to share the life of one great political leader:

His father was a high official in a small state in British India. He studied law at the University College of London and became a lawyer. When he finally returned to the country of his birth, advocated non-violence and became the greatest leader India or even the world ever knew. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi’s peaceful nonviolent resistance movement galvanized Indians and led to the independence of India.

Gandhi earnestly believed that a person involved in public service should lead a simple life. He first displayed this principle when he gave up wearing western-style clothing, which he associated with wealth and success. When he returned to India, he renounced the western lifestyle he led in South Africa, where he had enjoyed a successful legal practice. The practice of giving up unnecessary expenditure, embracing a simple lifestyle and washing his own clothes, Gandhi called “reducing himself to zero”.

When I read the story of this great leader, I thought to myself that this should be the epitome of the ideal leader.  But let us remember that political leaders in the past, in different parts of the world, served in different contexts from local political leaders today. The scenarios and challenges they faced were totally different from those we see today. But as I read stories of great leaders both in Singapore and elsewhere, I wondered, what were the common reasons that motivated them to serve the public good? What gave them the motivation, in certain admirable situations, to give up everything to serve the nation?

The esteemed James L Perry, distinguished professor from Indiana University, and author of the book “Motivation in Public Management: The Call of Public Service” calls the reasons to which people are attracted to public service: “public service motivation”.  In examining the US system of governance, Perry argues that there are 6 key dimensions which people could be called or attracted to serve.  These are:

1) attraction to public policy making,

2) commitment to the public interest,

3) a sense of civic duty,

4) social justice,

5) compassion or a patriotism of benevolence, and

6) self-sacrifice – the willingness to substitute service to others for tangible personal rewards. 

These should be the reasons that we should use to attract our future leaders.  I believe that up to today, we have been able to attract talent who have joined the public service not because of pay.  Examples include our current Minister for Foreign Affairs and Law, K Shammugan, Minister for Defence Dr Ng Eng Hen, ESM Goh Chok Tong or then Minister for Finance, Richard Hu and the late Dr Balaji Sadasivan who gave up their plump jobs in the private sector not for the monetary rewards in serving the nation?  Many politicians are in this parliament, not because of the financial and monetary rewards that are offered, but rather, inside all of us, regardless of party affiliation, we have this deep rooted duty to serve.  It is indeed a great privilege to serve the public and to serve the nation.  Neither money, power nor fame has motivated us to be here.

Rationale of Clean and Fair Remuneration

It is important that we pay our leaders fairly. In deciding what a fair remuneration is, we should also be aware of the sacrifices that one makes to become a Minister or a political office bearer.   Let us hypothetically explore several options. 

On one hand, we can peg pay to private sector salaries, which is what we are doing currently.  On the other, we could offer all Ministers and leaders of our nation a nominal wage; say $1 a month.  Well I think there are problems to that; for one we run the risk of possible corruption (not questioning the integrity of leaders though) but worse, I think we will only attract people who are ‘sufficiently comfortable’  or who have attained a certain measure of success in their lives, to come forth and serve the nation.  I am not saying that all who are rich and wealthy and who come forth, do not come with a deep seated intent to serve the nation.  Rather I am highlighting a scenario where only the money rich and wealthy elite, capable of setting aside their concerns with daily lives, would come forth and serve and govern Singapore. 

Even the suggestion to peg Ministerial Salaries to a certain percentage of the lowest income earner is flawed, for there is the counter argument that Ministers should be concerned for the well being of all Singaporeans, rather than just the lower income Singaporeans.  They should be concerned for the well being of all in the nation and should not focus just on growing the lives and wealth of the poor.

The Review Committee also looked at comparisons with other politicians from other countries. However, we do not know how the other countries derive their formulae, and these countries do not face the same sort of socio-historical-political contexts and environment as we do.  Moreover, the pay packets of politicians of other countries are not transparent, and often have other hidden components.  What we want is a clean wage, with no hidden perks and entitlements, and the current recommendations offer just that.

In deriving a new formula for Ministerial Salaries, it is important not to be too fixated with just the Private Sector Benchmarks. While the Private Sector would serve as a significant competitor for talent in the civil service, coming into politics and serving the nation as a leader, as a Minister, is a unique set of circumstances that cannot be solely compared to the private sector.  Thus, the pay of a Minister can never be successfully pegged to and equated to that of the private sector alone, because the scope and responsibility are very different.  The pay of a Minister must reflect the work he does.  The job of a Minister, or any public servant for that matter, must be to serve the people. 

The Review Committee rightly introduced the National Bonus which draws a direct link between the salaries of political leaders and the socio-economic progress of Singaporeans.  Besides GDP growth, real or inflation-adjusted median income growth, the real income growth of the poorest 20 per cent in Singapore, and the unemployment rate, will be considered in computing the remuneration.

Conclusion

There is really no magic formula in determining the salaries of Ministers.  This current formula is a right step forward and we need to regularly review its relevance moving forward.  Having strong and committed leaders is critical in the survival and progress of Singapore.  Our leaders’ task must be to create a nation where all Singaporeans can enjoy the fruits of their labor and hardwork.  While pay should not be the key motivator for political service, it should also not be a deterrent. Let us pay our leaders a fair wage which reflects the work that they do in ensuring that all Singaporeans benefit from the growth of the country and in ensuring that the lives of Singaporeans are all being looked after.

We have often talked about comparing apples to apples in deciding Ministerial salaries.  I would like to end off with an analogy: one that reflects the type of political leaders we hope to see in Singapore.

            The Gardener and the Tree

The job of a Minister is like the guardian of an apple tree; in other words he is the gardener.  In tending to the apple tree, do we pay him low wages, that he is forced to take the apples from the tree and sell them?  Or should we pay the gardener fair wages, be satisfied, such that he is not tempted to take from the tree but instead would freely share the fruits of his labour with others?  Our Ministers are like gardeners.  They take good care of the apple tree; they put in their time and effort.  They sacrifice their lives, their times and other opportunities, to devote attention to this tree that is Singapore, sowing the fruits of their labour such that Singaporeans can share in the growth and fruits of the tree.  Let us pay them the right wage that commensurate with the heavy responsibility they have been entrusted with.  For as the Ministers sow the seed, today we will reap the harvest for ourselves, for our children and for our future.

This is the latest post by Minister for Health in his MOH blog:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

On several occasions, MPs, the media and Singaporeans I met have asked me whether we can ease the current squeeze on the capacity of our restructured hospitals and whether our new hospitals and other healthcare infrastructure can be built faster. We have indeed accelerated our hospital building programme over the past few years, to keep pace with the rising healthcare needs of the population. Ng Teng Fong General Hospital and Jurong Community Hospital, and Yishun Community Hospital, will open in 2014-2015. We are also building a number of nursing homes, which will be opening over the next few years.

I had indicated earlier that MOH is studying whether we can bring forward the opening of Sengkang Hospital, scheduled for 2020. The planning team has completed their review and I am happy to share that we would be targeting to bring forward the building completion date to 2018, and to open the hospital thereafter in phases to serve the residents living in north-eastern Singapore.

However, adding more beds to the system is only part of the solution. We also need to find more innovative and cost effective ways to deliver health-care services and to optimise the use of our healthcare capacity. That is why the Sengkang hospital, when it is ready, will need to work closely with other healthcare partners (e.g. nursing homes, GPs and home healthcare providers) in the same region to provide coordinated and seamless care.

Over the past two months, we shared with our stakeholders the draft Primary Care Masterplan and we have received valuable feedback and suggestions. We hope to finalise it by early next year. MOH is also working on a master plan for intermediate and long-term care to address the challenges of our aging population. I will share more of this later.

As we build more healthcare facilities, we will need the continued support and understanding of Singaporeans, especially those who live in the vicinity of these facilities, so that we can meet Singapore’s immediate and future healthcare needs.

In the closing speech of the Debate of the President’s Address last month, I related the story of ”The Giving Tree”.  

This is a story which I used to read to my children when they were much younger.  It was published in 1964 by Harper and Row. It is a children’s book written and illustrated by Shel Silverstein. This book has become one of Silverstein’s best known titles and has been translated into more than 30 languages.

It reads:

~~~

Once there was a tree and she loved a little boy. And everyday the boy would come, and he would gather leaves, make them into crowns and play king of the forest. He would climb up her trunk, swing from her branches and eat apples. And when he was tired, he would sleep in her shade. And the boy loved the tree And the tree was happy.

But soon the boy grew older and one day he came and asked, “Can you give me some money to buy things and have fun?” “I have no money,” said the tree, “Just apples, twigs and leaves.” “But you can take my apples, boy, and sell them in the city.” So he did. And the tree was happy.

But soon again the boy came back and he said to the tree, “I’m now a man and I want a house to keep me warm.” “I can’t give you a house”, the tree said, “The forest is my house.” “But you may cut my branches off and build yourself a home” So he did. And the tree was happy.

And time went by and the boy came back with sadness in his eyes. “I want a boat that will take me far away. Can you give me a boat?” “Cut down my trunk and make a boat,” said the tree, “Then you can sail away and be happy” So he did. And the tree was happy.

And after many years the boy came back, both of them were old. “I really cannot help you if you ask me for another gift.” “I’m nothing but an old stump…and sorry I’ve nothing more to give.” 

“I do not need very much now, just a quiet place to rest,” The boy whispered, with a weary smile. “Well”, said the tree, “An old stump is still good for that.” “Come, boy”, he said, “Sit down, sit down and rest.” So he did. And the tree was happy.

~~~~

Metaphorically, I see the tree was our country, Singapore, and the little boy – its people, like you and me.  Like many Singaporeans, my siblings and I have benefited from the meritocracy and the social mobility Singapore has offered.

My siblings and I, four of us, grew up in a 3-room HDB flat in Tanglin Halt Road. Although there were two bedrooms, all of us squeezed into one. My parents slept on a bed, while the four of us slept on mattresses on the floor. We were contented. We were happy.

My father, who had only primary school education, supported all four of us through university locally, by sheer hard work and thrift. All of us have a decent job now, make a decent living, own our own homes and are now parents ourselves.

The PAP Government, like the tree, has done well in providing and caring for its people over the last 46 years. We should give credit, when credit is due. However we should also not rest on our laurels but must continue to do more to improve the lives of Singaporeans.

The changing demographics of Singapore will pose a significant hurdle for the nation. In 2010, the fertility rate was an all time low of 1.16, way below the replacement level of 2.1.  A recent IPS study also warns that if fertility rates were to remain the same, there would be severe implications on Singapore’s ability to compete in the global world.
More needs to be done to address the declining TFR.  Besides taking a microscopic analysis of the current procreation package, there is also a need to have a macroscopic review of the social support required to encourage Singaporeans to have more children, including childcare and preschool facilities as well as more family friendly workplace arrangements.

Taiwan, which has the lowest TFR in the world, has
seen a surge of 16% of babies born in the first 9 months of this year, after
the government offered incentives to couples in a bid to boost the dismal birth
rate.  Are there lessons we can learn from the Taiwanese to help reverse this worrying trend in Singapore?

This problem will be exacerbated by a rapidly aging population or what is called the silver tsunami.  With 20% of the population above the age of 65
come 2030, we need to prepare ourselves right now to ensure that those who need help are taken care of, medically and socially. With more elderly Singaporeans, the demand for healthcare services will inevitably increase and many will suffer from age-related chronic diseases. This dual pronged danger, if not met and addressed, will leave us with an elderly population supported by fewer and fewer working adults – a high dependency ratio.

Hopefully, the dragon year in 2012 will offer a ray of hope in chasing the elusive dragon babies.

1) Uncertain Global Financial Situation Ahead – The Economy

Singapore, as a small nation, has to overcome many challenges in order to maintain our lead and ensure long term survivability.  On the economic front, we have just overcome the 2008 global economic recession, sparked by the failure of major banks in the United States, with fortunately minimal injuries.   This episode has demonstrated the resilience of Singaporeans and the resolve of the government in solving tenacious issues faced by Singapore. Our economy, guided by the sound policies of the government has rebounded and is growing strong. Our GDP grew by a sterling 14.5% last year, and by 5.9% on a year-on-year basis in the third quarter of 2011. Total employment grew by 24,800 in second quarter of 2011 and unemployment rate is at 2.1%. By all measurements, our economy is healthy and our people employed.

The world is threatened with a repeat of the 2008 financial meltdown, but on an even more cataclysmic scale.  Just as we thought that the United States’ economy is showing initial signs of a recovery, their debt situation appears to be spiraling out of control. In Aug 2011, major credit rating agencies downgraded the US’s rating to AA+. Europe is still deep in recession and the financial storm engulfing Europe is far from over.  The worrying signs of “Japanisation” of the American and European economies have sent ripples across the globe and many Eurozone governments are still struggling to find solutions to their economic and social problems.  The profligacy of PIIGS (namely Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain) is one root cause of the financial woes faced by the Euro zone. As one sagacious Eurocrat told the Economist: “We are speleologists (scientific explorers of caves) trapped in a tunnel. We cannot go backwards; we can only go forward.”  What lies ahead though is far from certain.

While Singapore has been relatively insulated from these problems, we must remember that we are an open economy. When the world economy falters, our economy will falter too. It is important, that we in Singapore must always be alert and ready for a global economic recession in the near future. We must be ready to put through the necessary policies for Singapore to pull through tumultuous times. We must continually look to equip Singaporeans with the right skills to enable them to survive in this competitive globalized world.    

2) Stiff Competition from Region and Worldwide

Singapore is one of the most open and freest economies in the world. As a small economy, Singapore has no other choice but to embrace globalisation, open up its markets, and foster competition. It is in Singapore’s vital interest to advance the global trade and investment liberalisation agenda and to ensure a strong rules-based multilateral trading system. Singapore has been a consistent champion of liberalisation on the multilateral, regional and bilateral fronts. To date we have signed 18 FTAs with major economies and regions around the globe. These FTAs have positively contributed to Singapore’s growth in recent years.

 Moving forward, we need to focus our attention on these FTAs and ensure that they are optimally utilized to the benefit of our economy.  Let us ensure that all Singapore companies, be it SMEs or larger companies, know and can leverage on these agreements. This will allow our companies to stay competitive globally and help strengthen our economy.

With the ongoing financial woes in the United States and Europe, the Asia-Pacific region seems to have emerged as the epicentre of world economic growth in the near and medium term. We need to be cognisant that our fortunes are tied to external developments. As a small economy, Singapore can never seek to determine these developments nor can we insulate ourselves completely from these developments. Rather, we need to sharpen our responses to adapt, adjust, restructure, and transform ourselves to make the best of these developments.  The pressure has been heightened due to globalisation and competition from lower-cost manufacturing locations. 

These are exciting yet treacherous times ahead in Asia.  We must stay strong, cohesive and alert. To maintain our competitive position despite rising wages and overall costs of business, the government must continue to promote higher value-added activities in the manufacturing and services sectors, and to raise productivity.  We need to stay ahead of the power curve and remain competitive against our regional and worldwide competitors.

We must not cease to think out of the box and explore new ideas and innovations to strengthen our competitiveness.  We have injected new life to the tourism sector, by bringing in the most coveted SingTel Formula 1 Singapore Grand Prix Night race which has earned the accolade of being F1’s black gemstone.  In addition, the government has also taken the bold decision in 2005 to develop the 2 integrated resorts which opened their doors last year with much fanfare and success. Moving forward, we must explore creative ways to ensure that our economy remains ahead of our competitors.

The 2011 Singapore General Election was a water-shed event in Singapore’s political history, not because for the first time ever, an opposition party managed to secure a Group Representative Constituency (GRC), nor was it because the PAP’s popular vote had fallen by about 6% point from the previous election in 2006.  Rather, it was a result of Singapore’s political landscape being dramatically altered with the advent of the Internet and social media.

Although a recent study by the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) concluded that the internet did not have a decisive effect on the 2011 General Election, there was no doubt a surge in the utilisation of new media platforms by political parties to reach out and connect with the electorates before and during the campaign period.

The take-away message from the last General Election is that these online spaces, whether they are social-media tools, online news sources or blogs, are inevitably now part of the standard tool kit for people engaged with politics.  As more Singaporeans gravitate towards the social web in their daily lives, the social media will become an important space for them to share their views and interpret what is going on in the world around them.

The internet and social media, will be a tremendous tool for us to reach out to all Singaporeans. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has also said that the government “can do better” in harnessing cyberspace to “explain issues, shape opinions and rally support”. At the last National Day Rally, PM Lee had mentioned that the government as a whole, needs to be more active and spry in engaging Singaporeans online. With this in mind, Singapore’s government agencies are also set to get more structured training in the use of social media. The use of social media will enable the Government, to reach out and to engage Singaporeans. The ultimate aim of this is to foster a greater sense of shared ownership.

Singapore is one of the most wired society in the world. The combination of high broadband penetration, heavy online engagement and the overall high digital literacy of Internet users have made Singapore one of the most advanced digital markets in the Asia-Pacific region. Technology website ZDNet reported that online research outfit Firefly Millward Brown ranked Singapore as the most evolved social media market in the world. There are currently more than two million active Facebook users among the country’s five million population.

Even as the traditional media still has an important role to play, the proliferation of social media is certainly challenging many norms, and its current and future impact is and will be profound on all aspects of life. In particular, social media is slowly supplanting traditional media as news and entertainment outlets.   According to a news article in the BBC, independent think tank Demos observed that many young people did not know how to navigate the vast information available on the Internet.  The social media is likened to a “Wild Wild West” on the internet with very limited regulation and control over its content.  On one hand, there may be a huge amount of very trustworthy, academic, good bits of journalism on the internet; on the other hand, equal proportions of distortions, propaganda, lies, mistruths, half-truths and all sorts of rubbish can be found too. 

As such it can be very difficult, especially for netizens, to sort the wheat from the chaff.  While we have focused thus far on increasing the IQ and EQ of Singaporeans, let us remember that there is an urgent need to enhance the DQ or Digital Quotient of Singaporeans by educating Singaporeans, especially the young, proper digital judgement in discerning what is right and what is wrong.  MOE should work with MICA on taking concrete steps to teach and inculcate our young children with sound digital literacy and judgement as part of their curriculum in schools.

PM Lee has announced many new initiatives at the National Rally 2011, addressing many hot button issues such as healthcare cost, immigration, housing and social safety net for Singaporeans. 

Ministry of Health followed up with the release of more details on the changes in health policies that will benefit many more Singaporeans, especially those from the lower and middle income groups:

***************************

The Ministry of Health (MOH) will be introducing a series of initiatives to make healthcare more affordable for Singaporeans.  This is part of the Ministry’s on-going effort to review and evolve our healthcare system to better serve the needs of Singaporeans. These changes will be implemented by the first quarter of 2012.

The key changes are as follows:

1)    MOH will enhance subsidies to make medications more affordable by offering greater financial assistance on selected high-cost drugs to middle – low income patients.

MOH will increase the drug subsidy for selected high-cost standard drugs for eligible patients, required for chronic disease management from the current 50% to 75%. The same eligibility framework as the PCPS will apply i.e. patients with per capita monthly household income of $1,500 or less, economically inactive households, and patients with residential Annual Value of $13,000 or less. 

These drug subsidies are applicable to eligible patients seeking care in the Restructured Hospitals, National Centres, as well as at the Polyclinics.  They will have to show their healthcare benefits card to qualify for the subsidies.

In addition, MOH will enhance subsidies under the Medication Assistance Fund (MAF). This fund was set up in 2010, to help patients pay for expensive drugs used for specific medical conditions. The MAF currently covers selected expensive medication, including certain cancer drugs.

However, some patients, especially those with less common diseases or complex conditions, may not respond well to the standard drugs. To financially assist these patients, the MAF will be expanded to cover other non-standard drugs if they are assessed to be clinically necessary and appropriate for the treatment of the patients’ conditions. The hospitals will put in place a framework to assess patients’ need for the drug on a case-by-case basis. The level of subsidy provided under MAF will also increase from the current 50% to 75% for needy Singaporeans.

 2)    Private outpatient primary care will be made more affordable and accessible for middle-low income patients, thus enabling these Singaporeans to better manage their chronic diseases early, remain healthy and active and avoid unnecessary complications.

The qualifying income for the Primary Care Partnership Scheme (PCPS) will be raised from the current $800 to $1,500 per capita monthly household income. At the same time, the age criteria for eligibility will be lowered from the current 65 years old to 40 years old.

 There will be two benefit tiers under the expanded scheme. With this change, 710,000 Singaporeans can receive subsidised care at participating PCPS GP clinics to better manage their chronic conditions. Successful PCPS applicants will receive a healthcare benefits card to identify them as PCPS members to the participating clinics.   There are currently more than 31,000 PCPS members, and 405 participating GP clinics and 170 participating dental clinics.  The new changes will be implemented from early 2012. 

3)    The annual withdrawal limit for Medisave use for outpatient care will be raised so that patients can tap on more Medisave to pay for their bills.

To help Singaporeans better manage chronic diseases like diabetes, high blood pressure, lipid disorder and stroke in the outpatient setting, the Medisave withdrawal limit allowable for such outpatient treatments will be raised from $300 to $400 per Medisave account, per year. The scheme will be renamed Medisave400. 

Medisave400 can also be tapped on for preventive mammogram screening and selected vaccinations. About 112,000 chronic disease patients will stand to benefit from the scheme.

4)    Medifund will also be expanded to include non-residential Intermediate and Long Term Care (ILTC) services, so that elderly Singaporeans can recover and age gracefully in the community. 

The Government will further enhance Medifund to include non-residential ILTC services such as day rehabilitation, home medical and home nursing.  With this, needy Singaporeans will be able to opt for non-residential care, thus helping them recover and age in the community in the company of family and friends. This is expected to benefit about 1000 more Singaporeans, a 10% to 20% increase in the number of Medifund recipients in the ILTC sector.   These schemes will be introduced from early 2012.

The Sengkang LRT West Loop was opened in January 2005, 2 years after the opening of the East loop in 2003.  Since the beginning of its operation, LRT trains serving the West Loop only ply in one direction all day till recently in January  2010 where during weekdays on peak hours, the trains will ply on both directions.  This was indeed welcome.

However, with the growth in the population in Anchorvale and Fernvale, and increased ridership, residents have been experiencing congestion especially during the peak hours.  This problem has been highlighted to LTA and SBST with frequent requests  to improve on the frequency.

From 8th August, 34 more trips will be added daily during the weekday peak hours. This will reduce waiting time by about a minute on average. Another 47 trips will be added throughout the day on weekends.  This will definitely help alleviate the current congestion faced on a daily basis by residents.

I will continue to monitor the ridership closely and will request for full bidirectional service (full day) once we have met the target.  I believe this will not be too long taking into consideration the rapid developments in Sengkang West.