Upfront With NCMP Sylvia Lim

Yxxxone SG

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

.

Atobe SG

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.

Firdaussaid SG

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.

frakfrakfrak SG

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.

googoomuck SG

Is Singapore's minority marginalized?

Do the Singaporean Indians feel that they have been marginalized like the Indian community in Malaysia feel?

webben SG

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.