http://kentridgecommon.com/?p=5484
17 Oct 2009
Upfront with NCMP Miss Sylvia Lim
Miss Sylvia Lim (SL) obtained her Bachelors of Law with Honors from the
National University of Singapore. She went on to earn her Masters of
Law degree from the University of London in 1989. She was subsequently
called to the Singapore Bar in 1991. During the course of her
undergraduate and postgraduate studies, she did volunteer work with the
Spastic Children’s Association, Salvation Army Home for the Aged and
the University College Hospital (London). Later on, she did editorial
work in a voluntary basis for the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme of the Law
Society . She joined the Singapore Police Force as a Police Inspector
in 1991 where she served for three years. She was subsequently
appointed staff officer to the Director of the Criminal Investigation
Department. She returned to practise law in the private sector, with
M/s Lim & Lim from 1994 to 1998, handling both civil and criminal
cases in the High Court, Subordinate Courts and Juvenile Court. She
joined Temasek Polytechnic in 1998 as a lecturer with its Diploma in
Law and Management. She was also appointed Manager of Continuing
Education and Training at the polytechnic’s Business School. Her
teaching and research areas are in civil and criminal procedure,
criminal justice and private security.
KRC:What are the kinds of measures that can help Singaporeans tide through the current economic downturn?
SL:Raising the skill level of the
workforce is necessary, and the government has been focusing on this.
That’s important to prepare for Singaporeans to snag the higher value
jobs especially when recovery comes. In the interim, coping measures
are important.
How do we respond to unemployment and under-employment?
Workfare was a step in the right direction for under-employment,
and such schemes will need to be constantly audited to see if the
supplement amounts are reasonable and whether eligible persons are
helped to get on board.
As for unemployment, my view is that more attention needs to be
paid to this. Even outside of the current downturn, economists have
said that globalization will mean that full employment in developed
countries will be a thing of the past. We will have unemployed who are not lazy but are just unable to keep up. Social safety nets will need enhancement to cater for joblessness. The
government should study the effectiveness and costs of running the
current case-by-case help at the CDCs etc and whether this is
sustainable. Other options of a more straightforward form of help / an
unemployment insurance scheme may need to be considered.
KRC: You gave an interesting suggestion during the Budget Speech
2009 – Jobseekers’ Allowance. Do you think now would be a good time to
implement such a suggestion?
SL:I think it is still a relevant suggestion in the current situation when, though the economy may be bottoming out, the job situation may still worsen (as a lag indicator).
It was proposed as a temporary measure (6 months)
due to the meltdown of the global economy. The method suggested by me
was straightforward – it is temporary assistance, if the person can
show that he is actively looking for work and has not unreasonably
turned down job offers. The allowance was limited to half his last
drawn pay or a maximum of $500 per month. Some basic investigation will
be needed to weed out those who have significant assets or family
income.
For the unemployed person, this suggestion is better than the
current help schemes as there will be clarity as to how much he will
receive and for how long. Looking for work, going for interviews etc, costs money. It is also not a very expensive scheme, estimated at not even 10% of the amount set aside for Jobs Credit scheme.
The jury is still out on how
far the Jobs Credit scheme actually achieved its primary purpose of
saving jobs, and how much money was wasted or abused under the Scheme.
The government often seems tight-fisted with social assistance but
generous with supporting businesses. I agree we must support businesses
which can generate growth for Singapore, but we also have to support
our people in their time of need.
KRC: What is your opinion of the current management of our
national budget with respect to its allocation to various sectors such
as defense, education, healthcare, etc?
SL:I think that the general stance of the government to
stick to fiscal discipline is correct. We do not want a situation of a
country with so much debt that the future generations are shortchanged.
However, there is legitimate debate over whether the government should
be more generous in social spending. Though defense and homeland
security are critical, we must also increase resources for local
policing which have been depleted for counter-terrorism efforts. Areas
which will also need more emphasis than before are healthcare spending
and social services. Due to the ageing population and Singapore’s
population soon breaching 5 million, we must ensure that the social
services can support the needs of the new demographics. Otherwise, the
quality of life will deteriorate and anti-immigration feelings will be
exacerbated.
There is also an interesting point about net investment income,
which the government can tap on to help fund annual budgets, up to 50%
thereof. This income is derived from investments particularly those
made by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and the Government of
Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC). The Constitution was amended in
2008 to broaden the definition of “net investment income” to include
realized capital gains, which Workers’ Party supports. However, there
is still some lack of transparency about how the figures are derived,
since the Minister for Finance certifies figures to the President,
which process is not publicly available.
KRC: You raised an issue of using gross pay of the household
as a criteria in the current implementation of means testing for Step
Down Care (nursing home care) during Budget 2009. How can the current
means testing system be improved for Step Down Care?
SL:Step-down care comprises a range of options, from
residential options such as Community Hospitals and nursing homes, to
non-residential options.
The Ministry of Health recently revised
their means-testing for subsidies for community hospitals, to increase
the number of tiers to 10% intervals i.e. there are 9 tiers of
subsidies, ranging from 75% subsidy to 0% subsidy. The cut-off income
for subsidies for community hospitals is now at $5,600 per household of
4.
For the nursing homes, the tiers remain at only 4 – either 75%
subsidy, 50%, 25% or 0%, with the cut-off income per household of 4 now
set at $5,200. The problem here is that while CPF (Medisave) can be
withdrawn to pay for community hospitals, it cannot be used to pay for
nursing homes. When we assess affordability, I think it makes sense for
us to calculate exactly how much disposable income the family has left
after paying the nursing home bills; therefore using gross pay (i.e.
20% more than the take-home pay) is not correct. The Minister for
Health responded during the debate to say that gross pay was used
because their policy parameter is based on helping those at certain
income levels. I realized then that we were talking at cross-purposes.
Nursing home stays also tend to be much longer than stays at
community hospitals. If the fear is the depletion of CPF savings (CPF
is probably an overworked horse anyway), then we need to see if the
subsidy level is adequate. Having more tiers is one way to make the
means-test less harsh. The income cut-off levels should also be set
bearing in mind the size of the bills and the disposable income of the
family.
The phenomenon of some
families placing their loved ones in Johor Bahru nursing homes is not
something that I feel we should be pleased about.
I note that there is currently a government review
on how to have the 3 Es – Eldersave, Eldershield (enhancing it) and
Elderfund. This is a clear recognition that funding framework needs to
be strengthened.
Ensuring access to affordable healthcare is something the Workers’ Party believes is fundamental to a government’s role.
KRC: Do you have any issues specific to the current state of tertiary
education in Singapore that you would like address now or in future?
SL:Having been a Polytechnic lecturer for 11 years, I have
learned a lot about tertiary education from that perspective. Students
in the public sector educational institutions are fortunate as they are
on the whole well-resourced and have competent staff.
I have raised the issue of rising tertiary fees vis-à-vis the universities, during the Committee of Supply debates. While the government will announce loan schemes at no-interest, the situation is not that straightforward, as I
have seen poor students who were instructed by their parents not to
take loans for fear of further encumbering themselves while in dire
straits. Also, under the
current MOE policy, university students’ fees must also include paying
towards development expenditure and can go up by 10% per year. The
possible inflation, and risk of reduced access to education, is
worrying.
Also, I believe that we should nurture a culture where students
take on social and political causes and express contrary views. At
their critical age when vibrancy should be at its height, we should be
happy to see students protest fee hikes, unjust wars etc. This will
naturally result in a more active citizenry, more ownership and greater
rootedness to Singapore.
KRC: You were critical of the GRC system, and have
advocated a return to a contest for single member seats. If you are
given a choice to decide, would you prefer to anchor a GRC team in the
next elections or will you be targeting a Single Member Constituency
instead? Why?
SL:Even though WP is
against the GRCs, we have to contest within the system foisted upon us.
Winning a GRC is a critical step for alternative parties to beat back
this beast and raise the level of democratic participation nation-wide. As such, I personally prefer to be part of that effort. However, when
the election comes, the party will assess which combination of
candidates is best based on the (revised) constituency boundaries.
KRC: Now is the third year of your term as Non-constituency Member
of the Parliament (NCMP). What is the highest point and lowest point of
your term so far?
SL: Sometimes after a
Parliamentary debate is reported, I receive feedback from the public
thanking me for raising certain matters (like workload among the Home
Team officers and the nursing home issue) where people feel their
burden is great. That is very satisfying.
One of the low points would be during the debate on CPF reforms in
2007. After working through the details of the CPF changes, the other
challenge was trying to find something refreshing to say as many MPs
had spoken before me. I recall sitting with Mr Low Thia Khiang (who had
already spoken) in the Parliament Library running through possible new
points, but at that moment, each point I was considering had problems.
In the end, I had no choice but to deliver a safe and somewhat boring
speech.
I suppose one has to have the big picture and long haul in mind. A
recruiter once told me that he did not look for top performance, but
consistent performance. I find that a good and practical principle to
adopt.
The Kent Ridge Common wishes to thank Miss Sylvia Lim for her consent
to our interview. We would like to wish Sylvia all the best in her
future endeavors.
==============
For news on Singapore from non-local mainstream media, visit http://singaporenewsalternative.blogspot.com
.
To those who claim that there is no credible political alternative, it is obvious that their familiar cynicism has become so deep seated after all these years in the political dryness, that when they see an oasis, it will be seen as a mirage.
It is time for the cynics to take a second look at their own relevance in the current political equation in Singapore, and what each is prepared to do for their own political future in Singapore.
If the opposition has more personalities of Sylvia Lim's and Low Thia Kang's calibre then at least there would be more hope for stronger voices clamouring for alternative views in parliament.
I am particularly curious about her suggestion about including a jobseeker's allowance. If we give her the benefit of the doubt and assume that the estimated costs are indeed only a tenth of the Jobs Credit scheme, then I hope at the very least the government conducts a feasibility study. While undoubtedly benefitting the disadvantaged, there is a potential for a welfare-seeking-mentality to sink in as there will no doubt be lazy bums who would abuse the system. It would be extremely hard to set criteria and determine which cases are truly worth the proposed allowance of $500 and this will probably have quite an impact on operating costs. We cannot "suka-suka anyhow" give people money. It would also not be in the public interest to sustain a scheme over periods of good growth unless the gini co-efficient really goes out of control.
I feel that unless the economy goes into a prolonged W-shaped or U-shaped recovery, her suggestion has been left a little too late to consider seriously in the current economic crisis. Again though, I hope that the government conducts a serious feasibility study and see whether it's a worthwhile solution to be kept away and stored for use in future recessionary periods.
If they ever do adopt it, for God's sake, please acknowledge Ms. Sylvia Lim and Co. for the idea.
P.S. The best way to beat the PAP on the GRC issue would be for a opposition party to groom a minority-race election candidate and make him stand for election in an SMC and WIN. This looks to be a ten-year project at least and I wonder if the opposition should have at least focused on this aspect of the battle when the GRC system was announced many years ago. One of the first life lessons I learnt from my teachers in school is that never try to beat the system. Play by the system and change it from within! Jiayou WP.
You are deluded if you think that minorities have a say in determining which party rules Singapore. The project to engineer the demography in Singapore is exactly targeted so that this does not happen. At the very best, minorities can only hope for high level ministerial appointments to serve as safeguards against foreign takeover. Even then their positions will always be tenuous.
Minorities are better off lending their support to National institutions so that minority stake in the Nation-state is perpetuated. Everything else is just daydreams.
Is Singapore's minority marginalized?
Do the Singaporean Indians feel that they have been marginalized like the Indian community in Malaysia feel?
Originally posted by Firdaussaid:This looks to be a ten-year project
That would be ten years thrown away in a moment of gerrymandering.
I almost finished reading the interview before I realised the interviewee was from the opposition. Talk about a diluted and gutless political stance.