WPQ 21 July 2008: Issuance of Employment Passes, S Passes, Dependant's Passes and Long Term Social Visit Passes

I filed this question in a continuing quest to -- in the absence of any freedom of information legislation in Singapore -- get into the public domain statistics that I am interested in, which the Government may not otherwise release. Immigration statistics are one such area.

Comparing this reply with a previously asked WPQ, it seems that there may be over 600,000 work permit holders (i.e. semi-skilled and unskilled foreign workers) in Singapore. What would be even more interesting, would be the breakdown between EP and S Pass holders -- something that the Government declines to provide.

[Update: upon further reflection, this 600,000 figure is almost certainly incorrect -- the EP and S Pass figures below reflect the passes that are issued annually, whereas the 756,000 figure cited in the previously asked WPQ is a cumulative figure.]

WPQ

ISSUANCE OF EMPLOYMENT PASSES, S PASSES, DEPENDANT’S PASSES AND LONG TERM SOCIAL VISIT PASSES
(Statistics)

Mr Siew Kum Hong: To ask the Acting Minister for Manpower for each of the past 5 years (a) how many Employment Passes and S Passes have been issued; (b) how many Dependant’s Passes have been issued to dependants of Employment Pass and S Pass holders; (c) how many Long Term Social Visit Passes have been issued; (d) wh at is the average duration of the Long Term Social Visit Passes issued; and (e) how many Long Term Social Visit Pass holders have been issued with work passes.

Mr Gan Kim Yong: See Table below for the detailed statistics.

Year	2004	2005	2006	2007
Number of Employment Pass (EP) and S Pass holders	80,000	90,000	110,000	143,000
Number of dependants of EP and S pass holders on Dependant Pass/Long Term Social Visit Pass	53,000	59,000	60,000	69,000
Number of Long Term Social Visit Passes issued	51,000	58,000	62,000	64,000

The stock of Employment Passes (EP) and S Passes has generally increased in the last few years in tandem with the robust economic growth and job creation. As of December 2007, there were about 143,000 EP and S Pass holders.

Foreigners on EP and selected S passes may apply for Dependant Passes or Long Term Social Visit Passes for their dependants, such as spouses and children below 21 years of age. As of December 2007, there were about 69,000 dependants on Dependant Passes or Long Term Social Visit Passes.

Long Term Social Visit Passes are also issued to other groups of foreigners such as family members of Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents. In 2007, there were about 64,000 Long Term Social Visit Passes issued. Long Term Social Visit Passes can be issued for up to 5 years.

Long Term Social Visit Pass holders and Dependant Pass holders must apply for work passes to work in Singapore. The number of these pass holders working in Singapore is not high. As of December 2007, there were about 6,600 Long Term Social Visit Pass holders and Dependant Pass holders with work passes.

Budget 2008: MICA, 29 February 2008

I decided to speak on this topic after my abortive attempts at getting immigration and citizenship figures last year. It's no secret that the Government guards its secrets jealously, and uses official information to its strategic advantage, especially in responding to critics.

I'm not convinced that, in this day and age, this is the best way to go. Indeed, this may even be unhealthy for Singapore in the long run. A book on the civil service last year (the title escapes me right now) highlighted the danger of "group think" in the civil service, but it is well-nigh impossible to have a diversity of rigorously-researched views or analyses in the absence of adequate information to do research or to analyse.

The Senior Minister of State mentioned how MOM had published two papers on that day, about the employment of Singapore citizens, PRs and foreigners, and the quality of employment creation for Singapore citizens. I think that, far from supporting the SMS' argument, the fact that these papers were only published then, despite repeated requests by so many people -- not just myself -- really drives my point home. Why was the information not released earlier? Also, will it take a "cut" every Budget debate for such data to be released, or will MOM update and release this information regularly?

The SMS also referred to a survey by Transparency International. Someone pointed out to me that this was actually TI's Corruption Perceptions Index, and not transparency as such. He questioned whether it was deliberate obfuscation, or lazy incompetence by a staffer. I have no answer to that. But it should be clear that while transparency is an important component of the standard policy prescriptions on fighting corruption, this particular survey is really not relevant to what I was saying.

Finally, a couple of weeks after this exchange, the Straits Times ran an article on this issue. Hard to argue with its conclusions.

Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts

Official Information

29 February 2008

Mr Siew Kum Hong (Nominated Member): Sir, the Government collects and holds a lot of information. Yet, much, if not most, of that is unavailable, even to researchers for research purposes. The Government controls how much data to release, and how and when. Available data is sometimes presented differently at different times, making comparison difficult.

Even MPs, it seems, are not able to obtain certain data. I know, because I have asked for citizenship and PR figures in Parliament, but I have been told by MHA that it is "unable to provide this specific data requested." No reasons were cited. And it seems parliamentary convention permits this.

Meanwhile, we simply do not record some types of data. Most notably, when MOM tracks resident employment data, it does not differentiate between citizens and resident foreigners. I think most Singaporeans would consider that essential information if only to better understand how their country is changing. This Government fiercely prides itself on its transparency and accountability.

I therefore ask the Government to be more proactive in collecting and publishing official statistics. Any official data that does not invoke national security or similar concerns should be made available. Indeed, I urge the Government to enact a Freedom of Information Act to set the rules under which Government information is made available to the public as of right.

In 1946, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution describing freedom of information as a fundamental human right. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which forms part of customary international law, explicitly provides for the right to seek and receive information. The right to information is therefore a fundamental human right. It is timely for Singapore to have its own Freedom of Information Act. Such legislation promotes transparency and accountability. It allows citizens to understand their governments better. It facilitates independent research. It enriches the history of the nation.

Today, over 70 countries around the world have such legislation. Even China, a Communist state, is implementing a statute on access to government information. It will come into force on 1st May 2008. It is time for Singapore, as a developed country, to take its rightful place within that group of countries.

The Senior Minister of State for Information, Communications and the Arts (Dr Balaji Sadasivan): [...]

Let me now turn to Mr Siew Kum Hong’s concern about freedom of information, which was a subject of discussion in this House at least twice before. Sir, Singapore is plugged into the globalised world and thrives on a free flow of information. The Political and Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC) in its Asian Intelligence Report’s assessment of economic statistics noted that for Singapore, "a wide range of topics are quickly compiled and made available to researchers on a regular basis". The range, coverage and availability of our economic and social statistics compare very favourably to those compiled and disseminated by more statistically developed countries, for example, US, UK, Australia and Hong Kong. The IMF, in its annual Article IV consultations, has also consistently assessed Singapore’s economic statistics to be timely, credible and reliable.

Mr Siew also asked about the availability of information such as employment data differentiating between citizens and non-citizens. In line with national statistical practice, MOM regularly publishes employment figures by residents (Singapore citizens and PRs) and non-residents (foreigners). MOM has also released two papers today retrievable on their website - the first on the employment of Singapore citizens, PRs and foreigners, a subject that Mr Siew showed interest in, and the second on the quality of employment creation for Singapore citizens.

Similarly, the Department of Statistics publishes regular demography statistics according to this breakdown, in addition to other economic and social statistics. In fact, all Government agencies regularly provide updated information on matters of public interest, such as health, education, and finance through the media, publicity campaigns as well as the Internet.

The National Archives of Singapore is also a rich repository of historical data that is invaluable to researchers. As stipulated by the National Heritage Board Act 1993, most archived public records are made available for public consultation after a 25-year period.

The lack of legislation on Freedom of Information has not prevented Singapore from doing well in international studies of transparency. In 2007, Transparency International ranked Singapore fourth in an international survey, above the United States, which does have a Freedom of Information Act.

That Singapore is a financial, information and economic hub, and that the people’s trust in our Government remains high, is proof that the system we have today is working well.

OPQ 22 January 2008: Workfare Income Supplement Payment

It's almost a year since the Workfare Income Supplement scheme was announced, and the first tranche of payments were recently made on 1 January. So I thought it was an opportune time to get an update on it.

When I spoke on last year's Budget (my maiden speech to boot), I said:

"In my view, the WIS is one of the most important programmes to help the low-income in Singapore’s history, and I applaud the Government for introducing it."

Back then, I pointed out that the requirement for the self-employed and casual workers to make Medisave contributions before they are entitled to the WIS payments is likely to deter them, making it a self-defeating proposition. I think the numbers bear it out -- it seems that only one-third of those eligible have signed up. In our effort to ensure that no resources are wasted, are we effectively barring people from the help we want them to get?

OPQ

Workfare Income Supplement Payment

12. Mr Siew Kum Hong asked the Minister for Manpower in view of the first Workfare Income Supplement payment on 1st January 2008 (a) how many persons received this payment; (b) what was the aggregate amount paid under this first payment; and (c) what was the average amount received by each person.

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Manpower (Mr Hawazi Daipi) (for the Minister for Manpower): Sir, the first payment of Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) was made on 1st January 2008 for work done in the first half of 2007. 287,000 workers received a total of $146 million. On average, each recipient received $510. The WIS for work done in the whole of 2007, less the first payment, will be paid in April for employees, and in May for self-employed persons.

Mr Siew Kum Hong: Sir, I have two supplementary questions. My first question is what is the Ministry's preliminary assessment of Workfare to date?

My second question is: what are the ongoing efforts to encourage more persons, especially casual workers, to sign up for Workfare? Because when I went back to the 2007 Budget Statement, it seems that the estimate was that there were 438,000 persons who could potentially benefit, and only 287,000 workers had received Workfare.

Mr Hawazi Daipi: Sir, our assessment is that workers are quite aware of WIS and the benefits of it. People are gainfully employed and we want to encourage employment of Singaporeans and this has worked. As to how to encourage more casual workers to sign, I think we have done some work. MOM has worked with grassroots organisations, reaching out to hawkers and other casual workers, and self-employed persons to inform them about WIS. We have published a booklet on Workfare Income Supplement Scheme distributed at grassroots outlets, including the community clubs. So, people can look up this information.

The public can also look up the website. If they want to find out how much they need to contribute as casual workers or part-time workers to their Medisave account, they can look up www.wis.sg. It is very simple. Even if they do not have a computer and do not have access to Internet, they can go to a community club and find out for themselves.

Mr Speaker: Mr Siew, last question.

Mr Siew Kum Hong: Sir, given all these outreach attempts, it seems that there are still a number of workers who are not signing up for Workfare. What is the Ministry's assessment as to the reasons why they are not signing up?

Mr Hawazi Daipi: We have not found out the reasons. But it is true that quite a large number of casual workers and self-employed have not signed up for WIS. Only 54,000 such workers received WIS, as compared to 160,000 workers who received Workfare Bonus the year before. Some informal workers may not be aware of this. So, we want to step up effort and reach out to them through various organisations. Already in the past year, quite a number of activities were organised - briefing grassroots leaders and voluntary welfare organisations, including residents, hawkers and hawker assistants.

Secondly, unlike the Workfare Bonus Scheme, self-employed and informal workers need to fulfil their Medisave liabilities before they can receive WIS. Many such workers did not receive WIS because they have not yet contributed to their CPF. Nevertheless, if they contribute before 31st March 2008, they will get the full sum of WIS on 1st May this year.

Mdm Cynthia Phua: Sir, just one question. I would like to inform SPS that during the recent walkabout, the residents complained that they did not -

Mr Speaker: Mdm Phua, are you asking a question or informing the SPS?

Mdm Cynthia Phua: The question is this. A lot of them do not know that they need to apply every year. Can the SPS do a little bit more publicity?

Mr Hawazi Daipi: Sir, the suggestion is taken.

OPQ 22 January 2008: GST Revenues

Given Singapore's stellar GDP growth last year, the Government would have collected more GST revenue than originally projected. In last year's Budget speech, the increase in GST rate from 5% to 7% was projected to raise an additional $750 million in revenue. So given that the actual additional revenue raised was $990 million, the Government ended up collecting $240 million, or a hefty 32%, more than the estimate.

Quite apart from the question of whether it was necessary to increase the GST rate in the first place then (which, admittedly with the benefit of hindsight, is an even better question today than it was last year), it is important to ask what will happen to these unexpected GST receipts, as well as the GST credits that were not paid out. I guess we will only know on 15 February.

OPQ

GST REVENUES

4. Mr Siew Kum Hong asked the Minister for Finance (a) what was the actual amount of additional GST revenues collected from July to December 2007, resulting from the increase in GST rate from 5% to 7% from 1st July 2007; and (b) what was the total amount of GST credits paid out in 2007.

The Minister for Finance (Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam): Mr Speaker, Sir, the amount of additional GST revenue collected from July to December 2007 resulting from the increase in GST rate from 5% to 7% was about $990 million, of which roughly $540 million can be attributed to expenditure by local consumers. The remainder was attributable to spending by foreigners. The additional GST revenue was higher than expected, as consumer spending itself exceeded expectations.

The Government paid out about $630 million to Singaporeans in GST credits over the same period, including the bonus credits that were given to senior citizens.

These figures do not include the various other components of the GST offset package. Overall, besides the overall GST credits, the Government has budgeted to hand out $1.17 billion in total over FY2007 to assist Singaporeans in adjusting to the GST increase.

Mr Siew Kum Hong (Nominated Member): Sir, I have two supplementary questions. It seems that over 97% of Singaporeans living in one- to three-room HDB flats received GST credits or Senior Citizens' Bonus. I would like to ask the Minister what were the reasons for 2% to 3% of these Singaporeans not receiving these credits and what more could have been done to help them to sign up for them. My second question, Sir, is what will happen to the budgeted GST credits that were not paid out? Will they be applied towards other purposes to mitigate the impact of the GST increase?

Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam: Mr Siew Kum Hong is quite right that about 3% or so of Singaporeans living in one- to three-room flats did not sign up for their credits. Just to put it in perspective in terms of the total number of people who did not sign up for their credits, which is about almost 80,000 Singaporeans, over half of them were Singaporeans living in private properties. Of those who were not living in private property, we also notice that the non-sign up rate is higher amongst those who are of higher incomes. But there was a certain number in the one to three-room flats who did not sign up. Have we tried hard to reach out to them? Yes, we have. From day one, all the way till December, we had repeated publicity as well as outreach efforts on the ground to reach out to these individuals. This has meant not just the publicity through the media, but posters on lift lobbies, customised flyers that go out to each and every household customised to that household, given their housing type and the profile of people whom we think are in the household, repeated flyers that went out in November last year and, finally, grassroots leaders walking the ground going to each and every house where there was a sense they were not signing up. Grassroots leaders tried to reach out to 30,000 individuals in the latter months of last year. So not just the regular mechanisms through the media, websites, etc, but customised posters and, finally, human outreach. We spared no efforts in reaching out to Singaporeans to encourage them to sign up. Some were not contactable, not living at the place where their address is officially recorded. But we tried out best.

On the Member's second question, these are revenues that come back into the Government Budget and are spent on everything else we are spending on, including the very substantial amount of monies being spent on Workfare, on increased healthcare needs and the other areas which Minister Vivian Balakrishnan has just talked about, other areas of targeted assistance for the poor.

WPQ 23 October 2007: Net Investment Income

This PQ was filed in response to news coverage on how the Government had spent an average of S$2.8 billion a year over the past 5 years from our Net Investment Income, to help Singaporeans. I wanted to see if there was any pattern in the expenditures to suggest that the timing of expenditure was linked to elections, but I didn't see anything there.

WPQ

NET INVESTMENT INCOME
(Figures)

1. Mr Siew Kum Hong: To ask the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance of the average of $2.8 billion a year from the Net Investment Income spent by the Government over the past five years, how much was actually spent in each year and what were the items of expenditure on which that amount was spent.

Mr Lee Hsien Loong: Over the past five years, an average of $2.8 billion a year in Net Investment Income Contribution (NIIC) was taken into the budget to fund our primary deficits averaging $1.5b per year. The actual amounts ranged from $3.7b to $1.9b and are made public in the Budget Highlights.

	FY02	FY03	FY04	FY05	FY06 (Revised)	Average
NIIC ($m)	3,675	1,900	3,043	2,777	2,845	2,848
Primary Surplus/(Deficit) ($m)	(1,683)	(3,184)	(1,487)	(463)	(549)	(1,473)
Overall Budget Surplus/(Deficit) ($m)	191	(1,887)	(105)	1,486	(1,284)	(320)

Like other sources of revenue, the revenue from NIIC is not hypothecated to particular types of expenditure but is pooled to fund government expenditure as a whole.

Over the last 5 years, expenditures in the social and security sectors make up the bulk (average of 83%) of total government expenditures. These serve to provide a stable environment for growth, enhance the employability and potential of every Singaporean and build up their assets. Without the NIIC, we would not have been able to fund these expenditures while maintaining a regime of low direct taxes.

WPQs 18 September 2007: Permanent residency

Back in August, I had filed a couple of WPQs on permanent residency figures. I was more than a little disappointed at the response, to say the least. Still, I proceeded with the other two WPQs to complete the line of questioning I had adopted. I'm figuring out how to, at the very least, get some sort of explanation on why these figures are not forthcoming -- that will probably take place during the upcoming Budget debates.

WPQs

PERMANENT RESIDENCY

(Figures on Nationals from the People’s Republic of China)

1. Mr Siew Kum Hong: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs of the 26,125 nationals from other Asian countries who were granted permanent residency in 2006, how many of these were from the People's Republic of China.

PERMANENT RESIDENCY

(Figures on Indian Nationals)

2. Mr Siew Kum Hong: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs of the 26,125 nationals from other Asian countries who were granted permanent residency in 2006, how many of these were Indian nationals.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: We are unable to provide the specific data requested.

WPQs 27 August 2007: Permanent residency

It's late, so this won't be long. Anyway, I don't really have much to say about these two WPQs, I don't think it's necessary. Readers can draw their own conclusions. I will only refer readers to two previous posts on questions on this subject, this one in May and this one in July.

I had two more similar WPQs filed for the next day (I had thought this week's sitting would stretch over two days, but in the end it lasted only one day), for Indian and PRC nationals. I'm going to leave them in for September, even though I know what the answer will be.

WPQs

PERMANENT RESIDENCY

(Figures on Malaysian Nationals)

3. Mr Siew Kum Hong: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs of the 27,543 nationals from Southeast Asian countries who were granted permanent residency in 2006, how many of these were Malaysian nationals.

PERMANENT RESIDENCY

(Figures on Indonesian Nationals)

4. Mr Siew Kum Hong: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs of the 27,543 nationals from South East Asian countries who were granted permanent residency in 2006, how many of these were Indonesian nationals.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: We are unable to provide the specific data requested.

WPQs 16 July 2007: Permanent Residency in Singapore and Singapore Citizenship

I've previously posted about being fobbed off when asking for statistics on PRs and citizens. So in July, I tried again. As is evident from the following, I was fobbed off again. It really bothered me, because I very strongly feel that the executive has to be accountable to Parliament, especially in a system like ours that is so strongly dominated by one party. I won't go into just how upset I was, suffice to say I spent a lot of time in a bit of a funk questioning why I bothered doing this. (Which is why the positive comments left in response to some posts during that period meant so much to me.)

But that passed, I got my energy back, and I'm trying again this month. And if I fail this time, that's OK. I've still got 2 years to go.

WPQ #1

PERMANENT RESIDENCY IN SINGAPORE
(Figures)

Mr Siew Kum Hong: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs in 2006, how many Malaysian, Indonesian, People’s Republic of China and Indian nationals were granted permanent residency in Singapore.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: In 2006, about 57,000 persons were granted permanent residency status in Singapore. These new permanent residents (PRs) came predominantly from Asian and South-East Asian countries. We also get immigrants from diverse places such as the Americas, Oceania and Europe (please see table below).

Table: PR granted by region in 2006

Nationality	Granted PR in 2006	Percentage
South East Asian Countries	27,543	48.1%
Other Asian Countries	26,125	45.6%
Others	3,642	6.3%
Total	57,310	100.0%

WPQ #2

SINGAPORE CITIZENSHIP
(Figures)

Mr Siew Kum Hong: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs in 2006 (a) how many of the foreign nationals who became Singapore citizens were then Malaysian, Indonesian, People’s Republic of China or Indian nationals; and (b) of these persons, how many were then Singapore permanent residents.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: In 2006, about 13,000 persons were granted Singapore Citizenship (SC). These new SCs came predominantly from Asian and South-East Asian countries (please see table below). Out of these new citizens, about 73% were PRs when they were granted citizenship. The rest of the new citizens were minors who do not need to obtain PR status first in order to be eligible for citizenship under the Constitution.

Table: SC granted by region in 2006

Nationality	Granted SC	PR when granted SC	Percentage of new citizens who were then PRs
South East Asian Countries	5,372	3,812	71.0%
Other Asian Countries	6,622	5,567	84.1%
Others	1,215	255	21.0%
Total	13,209	9,634	72.9%

WPQ 22 May 2007: Marriages between Singaporeans and foreigners

Parliament sits again on 27 August, and so I thought I'd better clear my backlog of PQs that I've not yet posted on this blog. I've recently started a new job, and this new job is a bit busier than the previous one, so I haven't been able to pay as much attention to this blog as I'd have liked to. Hopefully I can rectify that from here on out.

This is the last PQ from the May sittings that I haven't posted here. I posed this question largely out of curiosity about this issue. It's interesting that while the number of Singaporean men marrying foreign brides has gone up over the yearsa, it has consistently been much more than that of Singaporean women marrying foreign men. In fact, the latter number has fairly consistently hovered around the 1000 mark.

I don't have that many insights into why, except that maybe there are more Singaporean men marrying foreigners because of the well-known stereotypical reasons oft-cited by men for marrying China or Vietnamese brides. It may also be that there are more benefits for a foreigner wife than a foreigner husband. But that doesn't explain why the number of Singaporean women marrying foreigners hasn't really budged over the years. If I can dig up an explanation, I'll post it here.

WPQ

MARRIAGES BETWEEN SINGAPOREANS AND FOREIGNERS

(Figures and Nationalities)

Mr Siew Kum Hong: To ask the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports for each of the last ten years (a) how many marriages between Singaporeans and foreigners were registered in Singapore; (b) how many of these marriages were between Singaporean men and foreign women; and (c) what were the 20 most common nationalities of (i) foreign men who married Singaporean women and (ii) foreign women who married Singaporean men.

Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: From 1997 to 2006, an annual average of 5,200 marriages between Singaporeans and foreigners were registered in Singapore. The annual figures for the period are at Table 1.

Table 1: Number of Marriages Registered in Singapore between Singapore Citizens and Foreigners, 1997-2006

Year	Number of Marriages
1997	4445
1998	5102
1999	5172
2000	4823
2001	5058
2002	4929
2003	4566
2004	5411
2005	6777
2006	6359

For the same period, an annual average of 4,200 marriages between Singaporean men and foreign women were registered in Singapore. The annual figures for the period are at Table 2.

Table 2: Number of Marriages Registered in Singapore between Singapore Citizen Males and Foreign Females, 1997-2006

Year	Number of Marriages
1997	3592
1998	4143
1999	4129
2000	3834
2001	4117
2002	3988
2003	3647
2004	4358
2005	5611
2006	5202

The most common origins among foreign spouses who married Singaporeans from 2004 to 2006 are listed at Table 3. We only have a breakdown by origins from 2004.

Table 3: 20 Most Common Origins of Foreign Spouses, 2004 - 2006

Alphabetical order

Foreign Males	Foreign Females
Australia	Australia
Bangladesh	Brunei
Canada	Cambodia
France	Canada
Germany	Hong Kong
Hong Kong	India
India	Indonesia
Indonesia	Japan
Italy	Korea
Japan	Mainland China
Mainland China	Malaysia
Malaysia	Philippines
Netherlands	Russia
New Zealand	Sri Lanka
Pakistan	Taiwan
Philippines	Thailand
Sweden	Turkey
Taiwan	United Kingdom
United Kingdom	United States of America
United States of America	Vietnam

Questions for Written Answer #2 and #3: 21 May 2007

Here are 2 more WPQs filed for the sitting on 21 May 2007. The first WPQ is about stray cats, and is a follow-up to an earlier OPQ in March 2007, where I had asked about repeat complainants and the MOS did not have the information handy. Unfortunately the information is ultimately not as interesting or helpful as it could be, since the number of repeat complainants is not tracked (I think that's what the response meant).

The second WPQ is, like the one I posted earlier about figures on PRs and citizens, an attempt to get more information on a topic close to the heart of many Singaporeans, on which precious little detailed official data has been available.

It is by now accepted, and probably ingrained in many if not most of us, that Singapore needs to remain open to foreign talent/workers, to enable our economy to continue growing. What we have never seen are official statistics on the types of foreign talent/workers coming into Singapore (although Leong Sze Hian has posted some statistics, albeit without attribution as to source -- see this article, in point F8).

Unfortunately, again I was fobbed off. I basically did not receive a reply to (a) or (b) at all. I'm OK with not getting an answer for (c), if the data is not tracked. But what took the cake was how the response was able to disclose the "published foreign employment level" of 756,000, and yet claim that "a breakdown is not available" with a straight face. It's tough to understand how we can publish a total number without having a breakdown. Another to try again in July.

WPQ

STRAY CATS

(Figures on Complaints)

Mr Siew Kum Hong: To ask the Minister for National Development, of the approximately 10,000 complaints about stray cats received by the Agri-Food Veterinary Authority (AVA), HDB and the Town Councils (a) how many were repeat complaints; (b) how many persons are these repeat complaints attributable to; and (c) how many of these repeat complaints were directed to AVA, HDB and the Town Councils respectively.

Mr Mah Bow Tan: Of the 10,000 complaints on stray cats received per year, half were lodged with the Town Councils. The remainder were lodged with AVA and HDB.

Approximately 18% of the total complaints received by the Town Councils were repeat complaints. AVA and HDB do not track the number of repeat complaints.

WPQ

EMPLOYMENT PASSES

(Figures and Nationalities)

Mr Siew Kum Hong: To ask the Minister for Manpower for each of the last ten years (a) how many P1, P2, Q, R and S passes were issued; (b) what were the 20 most common nationalities of each class of work pass holders; and (c) what was the average period of validity for each class of work pass.

Dr Ng Eng Hen: Chart 1 shows the employment changes from 1998. The published foreign employment level is 756,000 and a breakdown is not available.

In recent years, our foreign employment has grown in tandem with robust economic growth and job creation. The number of work passes has also risen across the different pass types.

Foreigners of all nationalities can apply for P, Q and S passes. Depending on the industry sector, R pass holders may be from Malaysia, North Asian Sources such as Hong Kong, Macau, South Korea and Taiwan, or Non-Traditional Sources including Bangladesh, China, India, Myanmar, Pakistan, Philippines, Sri Lanka and Thailand.

The length of stay, and hence period of work pass validity, for P, Q and S pass holders is largely determined by their employers. There is no stipulated maximum employment period. In contrast, there is a cap on the period that R pass holders can work in Singapore. MOM recently extended the maximum period to help employers retain their experienced R-pass holders. Please refer to Table 1.

Chart 1: Cumulative Employment Change, Jan 1998 - Dec 2006

[chart showing the "cumulative employment change" -- meaning the cumulative change in employment since January 1998 -- with one line for the total change, a second for the total change for local residents, and the third for the total change for foreigners. What this has to do with my question eludes me.]

Table 1: Maximum employment periods for R-pass Holders

Skills Level of R-pass Holders	Previous Maximum Employment Period	Current Maximum Employment Period (as at 1 April 2007)
Skilled (R1 pass)	15 years	18 years
Unskilled (R2 pass)	4 years	6 years

Question for Written Answer #1: 21 May 2007

In the May sittings, I filed mostly WPQs. In fact, I allowed the single OPQ I filed to be converted into a WPQ. It was too far down the schedule to be answered on the first day of sittings, and I had a full slate of 5 WPQs on the second day of sittings (there were only 2 days of sittings in May) which I wanted answers for.

The bulk of the WPQs were aimed at gathering information on the proposed Penal Code amendments, which some have said would be tabled for debate in July or August this year. As the amendment bill was not tabled for the first reading in May, the earliest this debate can now take place is in August. That gives me a second bite at the cherry for a couple of those WPQs. I will be posting all of these questions over this week.

This first WPQ was filed to request for figures on PRs and citizens. The New Paper reported on the figures on 8 June, and the piece mentioned why I requested for these figures. I phrased the question in a certain way, intended to extract very specific data.

As would be immediately apparent, the response does not even come remotely close to providing much of the information requested in my question, which is something I found extremely disappointing. I fully intend to ask even more point-blank follow-up questions in July.

WPQ

PERMANENT RESIDENTS

(Figures)

Mr Siew Kum Hong: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs, for each of the last ten years (a) how many persons were granted permanent residency in Singapore; (b) what were the 20 most common nationalities of such persons granted permanent residency; and (c) how many Singapore Permanent Residents became Singapore citizens.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Over the last ten years i.e. from 1997 to 2006, an average of about 36,000 persons were granted permanent residence (PR) in Singapore annually. They came predominantly from South-East, South and East Asia and some were from diverse places such as the Americas, Oceania and Europe (see table 1 below).

Table 1: Average number of PR granted annually for 1997-2006

Nationality	Average number of PR granted annually for 1997-2006	Percentage
South East Asian Countries	17,522	48.4%
Other Asian Countries	16,183	44.7%
Others	2,487	6.9%
Total	36,192	100%

The total PR granted has generally been on an upward trend. Since 2001, the number of PR granted was consistently more than 30,000. For the years 2005 and 2006, the number of PR granted was above 50,000.

Over the last ten years, an average of about 8,500 Singapore Permanent Residents became Singapore Citizens annually.

Questions for Oral Answer: 1 March 2007

These are 2 questions I filed, that were answered on 1 March 2007. One is about stray cats, which is really a much more complex issue than you'd think, and the other is about who is getting all these new jobs in Singapore.

Firstly, stray cats. I've been pigeonholed as "championing" animal welfare -- I think thanks almost entirely to TODAY, who, in their news report on the appointment of the NMPs, singled out the low-income and animal welfare as the two issues I stood for, based on my essay.

But those of you who have read it will know that I wrote about much more than that. And it's been alternately galling and amusing, when people asked me about animal welfare. It's not that it's not important to me -- it is, thanks to my absolutely adorable pets (all adopted strays) -- but given limited time and opportunities, there are other issues that assume higher priority on my list.

Still, the marathon Budget sessions meant that eventually my question on stray cats was aired in Parliament, even though it was not reported in the media. I would thank the Minister of State for hearing me out and her balanced response, even though I disagree with the position taken and the Ministry's view on the effectiveness of sterilisation as opposed to culling. Also, she did not seem familiar with the Guernsey example (search the archives for stores on "stray cats" in 2004), and I was a little surprised that she did not address a research study by the Singapore Veterinary Association in Bukit Merah. I have asked for the figures on repeat complainants that she offered, but am still waiting for her response.

I must thank the Cat Welfare Society and the SPCA for helping me with background information on this issue, and I am sure that I will raise animal welfare issues again.

The second question was about the 170,000-odd new jobs created in Singapore. One of the interesting nuances in the media coverage on this was that the reports always talked about "locals" getting XXX number of the new jobs and "foreigners" getting YYY number.

And this was really because the data released by the Ministry was on those terms. There was no breakdown in how many of the "locals" who got these new jobs were Singapore citizens and how many were PRs (and I knew that citizens + PRs = locals).

So I decided to ask.

I think the Minister basically dodged the question, in particular the follow-up portions about extrapolating the numbers from income tax and CPF data. I believe that the MOM doesn't have those figures, and I suspect it is because they are not set up to collate the numbers that way.

It is easy to do a local-vs-foreigner split, simply because the foreigners need employment passes, S-passes and work permits. But from the MOM's perspective, there is no differentiation between citizens and PRs, and no way for them to collect data.

It's different for CPF and income tax though. It would be possible to correlate that (although for income tax, the figures would be 2 years old). But I think it would require a massive undertaking, and I am honestly not sure if the cost is justified. So I didn't push the Minister on it. Plus I see the merit in his response, even though I think it does fail to address the very important issue of the quality of jobs going to locals.

OPQ #1

STRAY CATS

(Complaints)

Mr Siew Kum Hong asked the Minister for National Development (a) for each year from 2002 to 2006 (i) what was the stray cat population in Singapore; (ii) how many complaints concerning stray cats were received by Government agencies and town councils in total; and (b) whether there is any statistically-valid empirical evidence that culling has been an effective long-term solution in managing the stray cat population in Singapore.

The Minister of State for National Development (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien) (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, sir, the AVA estimates that there are 60,000 stray cats in Singapore. The total number of complaints concerning stray cats received by AVA, HDB and the town councils averaged at 10,000 per year for the period from 2002 to 2006.

Cats can breed two to three times a year, producing litters of two to five kittens each time. Stray cats here breed prolifically due to the conducive living environment, such as plentiful supply of easily available food. The presence of a large uncontrolled population of stray cats can pose public health and environmental problems, and gives rise to public complaints of nuisances.

AVA is not aware of any empirical evidence that culling is an effective long-term solution in managing the stray cat population in Singapore. AVA adopts a pragmatic multi-pronged approach to address the problem of strays here. A balanced approach is needed to take into account the good intentions of cat lovers, as well as the genuine interest of people who are affected by the nuisance caused by stray cats.

Culling, sterilisation and public education are three necessary parts of a balanced control and management strategy on stray cats. Culling is an acceptable and necessary means of reducing the stray cat population, as sterilisation alone will not effectively control the number of stray cats.

Public education is also an important part of AVA’s strategy for controlling the number of strays because selfish and irresponsible people who abandon unwanted pets, allow them to breed freely and indiscriminately feeding strays also contribute to adding more strays to the environment.

Mr Siew Kum Hong (Nominated Member): Sir, three supplementary questions. First, I would like to ask the Minister of State whether the HDB, Town Councils and AVA keep records on whether the complainants make repeat complaints.

Second, is with reference to the Minister of State's statement that stray cats breed prolifically, and she has also mentioned culling in her answer. Is the Minister of State aware that there is empirical evidence that sterilisation in the form of the trap, neuter and release strategy is effective in controlling the stray cat population? The example being the island of Guernsey which has managed to control its stray cat population so effectively that it had to import stray cats from other areas so as to allow cat lovers to adopt them.

Sir, my third supplementary question is with respect to the balanced approach that the Minister of State has described. Does the AVA advocate such a balanced approach to the Town Councils which I understand to be primarily responsible for controlling the stray cat problem? Because my understanding is that some Town Councils adopt a purely culling-based approach.

Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Sir, on the first question whether AVA, HDB and Town Councils track the number of repeat complaints, at this moment, I do not have the information. I believe that they do keep a record of the people who complain but, in compiling statistics, I do not think they eliminate repeat complaints. I will check on this and, if necessary, provide an answer to the Member.

As to the empirical evidence of sterilisation, some years back, in 1998, we embarked on a programme of sterilisation and release. I believe this is what the NMP is referring to. In 2003, ie, five years later, we did a review of that programme. Actually, the Town Councils found that the programme had not been effective in controlling the stray cat population. The complaints on food remains and cat waste continued and, surprisingly in some cases, they actually reported an increase in the number of complaints despite the programme to sterilise. It is for this reason that AVA thinks that it is not just an enforcement issue but also a public participation issue. Therefore, AVA is quite happy to work with the community to control the number of strays in their area.

As regards Town Councils' action, I believe that the Town Councils take a very pragmatic approach. They will act on complaints. We have actually been discussing with the Town Councils of taking a balanced approach. Of course, while they would act only on complaints and when there is a complaint, they would have to show that they act on it as well. Town Councils do have a responsibility towards its residents to ensure that the place is kept clean and the environment conducive.

Mr Siew Kum Hong: Sir, the Minister of State mentioned that the relevant agencies do not keep statistics on repeat complainants. My understanding is that, very often, it is the few people who just absolutely hate cats for some reason who keep complaining. I would tie this in with the Minister of State's reply to my third supplementary question about how AVA works with the Town Councils and how the Town Councils react in response to complaints. That being the case, I would like to ask the Minister of State what kind of programmes does the AVA have to ensure that Town Councils do not adopt only an immediate response and instead have a long-term holistic approach.

Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Sir, I think I have answered earlier that between the three agencies - AVA, HDB and Town Councils - they receive an average of 10,000 complaints per year, which is actually 30 complaints per day. Granted, there could be people who feel passionate about this issue and probably complain more than once, I think 30 a day is probably more than what a few people could do, unless they do it on a full-time basis.

As regards to programmes, as I said, we have the interest of the animals at heart. AVA does quite a few programmes on public education. We will look into specific issues if the NMP feels that Town Councils have taken action that is perhaps too harsh for the cat lover.

OPQ #2

STATISTICS ON JOBS CREATED

Mr Siew Kum Hong asked the Minister for Manpower (a) how many of the jobs created in 2006 were taken up by Singapore citizens, permanent residents and foreigners respectively; (b) what is the Government estimates of these statistics if it does not track them for Singapore citizens and permanent residents; and (c) whether it can derive such statistics using income tax and CPF contribution data and, if so, what are these statistics.

The Minister for Manpower (Dr Ng Eng Hen): Mr Speaker, Sir, our employment data is based on the resident or local population which captures Singapore citizens and permanent residents as a single group. In other words, our system enters it as one component. We do not separate them as at this moment.

If we wanted a sense amongst the local population - what proportion of Singapore citizens vis-a-vis PRs - as a snapshot, we do have the breakdown of proportions within the general population – we take the census or when we do our surveys - for example, in June 2005, out of a total population of 4.34 million, the Department of Statistics said that 72% were citizens, 10% were permanent residents and 18% were non-residents. So if it is 10% PRs out of a population of 4.34 million, we have 430,000 PRs, and we assume that some of them are children and housewives, and assume that a number are working and then try to minus the number of what you get from our labour data, you could come up with a guesstimate, but it is just a guess work. It would be difficult to extrapolate this to derive accurate employment data for the various groups, because we must also take into account the change in employment numbers. The employment numbers fluctuate and we are not sure which group is changing at that point of time - foreign workers and PRs moving in and out of Singapore as well as the fact that PRs change their status and become citizens across periods.

What we can say is that for locals, 2006 was a record year for employment creation. Another way of looking at it and addressing the NMP's point is whether there were adequate jobs created for Singaporeans. Out of a total of 173,300 jobs, which was a record year, we know that more than half were for locals - 88,200. But our average shows that each year, we only add about 33,000 locals for the past. In other words, for the last two years, especially for last year, we have exceeded that to about two or three times what the average number of jobs created for locals.

I think a better way of measuring this would be to move towards employment data. I will speak a little bit more about this during the Committee of Supply. That will give us a better sense of all available citizens within an age band how many are working. That number is quite determinate and that is where most countries are moving towards to give accurate employment data.

Revisiting the Questions for Written Answers: 12 February 2007

In an earlier post, I set out my Questions for Written Answers filed for 12 February 2007. This post explains why I filed them, and my thoughts about the results.

The first WPQ was about the median and mean monthly household per capita income figures from 2001 to 2005 (the Minister kindly provided the figures for 2001 to 2006), for all resident households in Singapore and also for each quintile (20% divisions) of resident households broken down by income.

There were 3 tables in the answer. Unfortunately, I simply can't get the tables to display properly on this blog. So I'll simply state the relevant figures. If anyone wants to have the tables themselves, drop me an e-mail and I will send the complete answers to you.

I've always been curious about these figures, because up to 12 February 2007, the Department of Statistics had only ever published mean figures for household incomes, without a per capita breakdown. In the lead-up to the Budget, there was some talk about help for the "sandwiched class", and one of the criteria mentioned by commentators (including myself) for assessing eligibility was household per capita income. I for one saw this as a useful metric, because it indirectly measured the number of dependents (and hence the costs that a given income must bear) as well, which a flat household income figure does not.

But there was just a lot of guesswork involved here, because of the lack of official figures. So I filed the question, to get them out once and for all.

The numbers published raised a couple of interesting facts. Firstly, the gap between the mean household per capita income for the 61st-80th and 81st-100th quintiles was substantial -- the figure for the 61st-80th quintile was 42.92% in 2001, steadily dipping to 40.28% by 2006. Secondly, while the mean and median figures for the bottom 4 quintiles were relatively close, the median for the top quintile in 2006 was $3,940, compared to a mean of $5,090. In percentage terms, the median was 79.81% of the mean in 2001, dropping to 77.41% by 2006.

Taken together, these two facts suggest that there is a relatively broad and flat middle class in Singapore going all the way up to around the 80th percentile (or maybe even higher). But after that, the income seems to spike significantly after the 90th percentile. In fact, within the top quintile, there seems to be a widening income gap as well.

And that is backed by the DOS occasional paper released on the same day. In table 5 at page 6 of the occasional paper, the DOS breaks down per capita household income by decile (10% divisions). In 2006, the 81st-90th decile had a mean per capita household income of $3,120, compared to $6,880 for the 91st-100th decile.

Let me repeat this in a different way: the mean for the 81st-90th decile was 45.35% (less than half!) of the mean for the 91st-100th decile. The corresponding percentage for 1997 was 49.24%. So not only is there a widening income gap between the rich and the poor, the rich are also getting increasingly richer than the well-off and the upper-middle class.

That's one headline that the newspapers certainly didn't see fit to publish.

And since I'm on the DOS paper, another headline that you didn't see in the media was that not only are the rich getting richer faster than everybody else, they also seem to be experiencing slower price increases than the rest of the population.

If you look at Tables A1 and A2 at pages 10 and 11 of the DOS paper, you will see that the real income figures for the top quintile for 2006 were higher than the nominal figures, suggesting that their purchasing power had actually increased since 2000 (since the real figures were based on 2000 dollars). This should be contrasted with everyone else in 2006, whose nominal figures were higher than the real figures. This difference arose because the DOS does compile different CPIs for the lowest 20%, middle 60% and top 20% of households, and these different CPI figures were used to calculate the real income figures in these tables.

The DOS' Monthly Digest of Statistics for January 2007 is consistent with this conclusion, at least with respect to 2005 and 2006. Using 2004 as the baseline year, by June 2006, prices for the top 20% had risen only 0.2% since 2004, versus 2.5% for the bottom 20% and 1.3% for the middle 60%. That would explain why the complaints about the rising costs of living have appeared to come predominantly from the lower-income.

The second WPQ was about the mean and median monthly amounts of CPF funds used for mortgage payments. I filed this question because I was concerned about people using the increased CPF contributions they were going to get for mortgage payments, on the theory that people may maximise the use of CPF contributions for mortgage payments so as to increase the amount of cash available. If the Government then reduces the CPF contribution rate in a downturn a few years down the road, they would then be caught out.

The answer was that, as at the end of December 2006, 690,067 CPF members were making mortgage payments using CPF contributions, with the mean and median monthly payments being $662 and $500 respectively.

In retrospect, I probably constructed the question erroneously, because it did not tie in the amounts contributed by persons to CPF. But extrapolating from the DOS occasional paper on household income trends, a household at the 40th percentile would have two income earners making a total of around $3,800 per month (based on a mean per capita household income of $1,000 and a household size of 3.8). (I selected the 40th percentile on the rough assumption that the top quintile would be living in private property, hence the 40th percentile represents the approximate median of the HDB-buying population.)

Their CPF contributions to the Ordinary Account (which is what can be used for housing) would be around $836 if the income earner(s) are below 35, and $760 if they are below 35-45 (and lower for older workers). But the mean and median figures of $662 and $500 are for individual CPF members, whereas the figures of $836 and $760 are for two income earners combined.

This does suggest that people are in fact maxing out the use of their CPF contributions to pay for mortgages. That is worrisome, because the Government has shown a historical willingness to use CPF contribution rates as a counter-cyclical economical tool. So in a downturn, precisely at the time when people (and really, the economy) needs their cash the most, many could well be forced to use their cash to service their mortgages because of a shortfall in CPF.

Written Answers To Questions For Oral Answer Not Answered By 3.00 PM: 15 February 2007

I mentioned earlier that if a MP files an OPQ for a sitting and it is not answered by the end of Question Time for that sitting, the MP can choose to postpone the OPQ to the next available sitting for oral answer. However, if the MP decides not to do so, the Minister's prepared written answer to the OPQ will be released and the OPQ will be deemed answered.

I had 3 OPQs for today, but they were too far down the order to make it. So I decided to postpone 2 and proceed with the written answer to the 3rd, for 3 reasons.

Firstly, the OPQ was drafted in the form of queries for information, although I had intended to follow-up with supplemental questions.

Secondly, another MP had filed a very similar OPQ asking for very similar information, so I figured that I could simply ask supplemental questions when his OPQ came up for answer.

Thirdly, I have already filed 2 further OPQs, which were not fixed for answer (since I already had 3 OPQs fixed). So not postponing this OPQ would have allowed one of those 2 further OPQs to enter the queue.

But I must say I was quite disappointed when I saw the answer. I had asked 3 questions (a), (b), and (c), but question (c) was further divided into (i), (ii) and (iii). Unfortunately, the written answer did not address (c)(ii) or (c)(iii) -- it simply ignored them completely. Certainly the HDB would have the information to reply to (c)(iii), if not (c)(ii), although I would be very, very surprised if it did not have the information for (c)(ii).

I fully intend to follow-up when the other MP's OPQ comes up.

OPQ

HDB FLAT MORTGAGES

(Foreclosure by banks)

Mr Siew Kum Hong: To ask the Minister for National Development, for each year from 2003 to 2006 (a) how many new and resale HDB flats were purchased using bank loans; (b) how many HDB mortgages were foreclosed by banks; and (c) of these cases of foreclosure, (i) what was the average period for which the debtors were in default before foreclosure; (ii) what was the average quantum of the outstanding loan at the time of foreclosure; and (iii) what was the average original purchase price of the flat.

Mr Mah Bow Tan: From 2003 to 2006, there were about 89,000[1] HDB flats financed with bank loans.

As at 31 Dec 06, the banks completed the mortgagee sale for 895 cases. This works out to about 1% of the 89,000 HDB flats financed with bank loans.

We do not have information on the average period of default by borrowers before the banks foreclose on the loans. However, we understand that banks normally monitor closely Non-Performing Loans where no payment has been made for more than 90 days. They would offer to reschedule repayments or other assistance measures when borrowers are facing difficulty servicing their loan instalments.

[1] 78,000 new and resale flats were purchased with bank loans while the remaining 11,000 were ex-HDB loans refinanced with bank loans.

Clarifications on DOS Occasional Paper on "Key Household Income Trends, 2006"

O had 2 questions regarding the Occasional Paper on "Key Household Income Trends, 2006" released by the Department of Statistics on 12 February 2007. I posed them to the DOS (albeit rephrased), and the DOS' responses (verbatim, without edits) are below.

O's question #1:

From the paper posted on the SingStat website, the definition of "employeed househould" is "households with at least one working person". This is somewhat ambiguous. If one member of a household has occasional or seasonal work that is less than a full year, then are they counted? If not, then the lowest quintile is likely overstated.

DOS response:

Data in DOS's Occasional Paper are obtained from household-based surveys conducted around the middle of the year. In the surveys, a person is classified as "working" if he/she worked for pay or profit during the reference week (ie the last seven days prior to the day of enumeration). Persons who had a job or business to return to but were temporarily absent because of illness, injury, breakdown of machinary at the workplace, labour management dispute or other reasons would also be classified as working. The statistical definition of "working persons" used in the surveys is in accordance with international statistical standards.

For persons who have only occasional or seasonal work that is less than a full year, and reported that they worked for pay or profit during the reference week during the household survey, they would be classified as" working".

O's question #2:

Are annual bonuses included on a pro rata basis in the monthly income? If not, the highest quintile is likely understated and the Gini coefficient is less sensitive than it should be to the economic cycle.

DOS response:

Monthly household income from work refers to the sum of monthly income received by all members of the household (excluding servants) from employment and business, inclusive of one-twelfth of the annual bonuses received in the last 12 months.