Minister Chan Chun Sing

Our ministers seem to have problems answering simple questions in Parliament these days.

Last month at a parliamentary sitting, MP for Hougang Png Eng Huat posed a question to Education Minister Heng Swee Keat with regard to foreign students who defaulted on tuition grants. Mr Png asked:

From 2010 to 2013,

(a) What is the total amount of tuition grants given to international students in the polytechnics and publicly-funded universities who defaulted on their agreement to work in a Singapore-based company for three years upon graduation; and

(b) what actions are taken to recover the tuition grants.

Instead, Mr Heng chose to avoid answering Mr Png’s question (‘Heng avoids answering ‘defaulting FT students’ question‘). He replied that most of the foreign students who graduated between 2010 and 2013 complied with the agreement they signed. This was Mr Heng’s exact reply to Mr Png:

About 8 in 10 international students who received tuition grants in our polytechnics and autonomous universities had either started serving their tuition grant bonds promptly upon graduation and contribute immediately to Singapore’s economy, or have been granted approval by MOE to defer their service obligation to pursue further studies.

This does not mean that the remaining international students are in default. Some did not start work immediately upon graduation as they have gone overseas for further study but did not seek deferment approval from MOE, some are in the midst of seeking deferment approval, and some are still seeking employment.

Mr Heng then went on to give motherhood statements to assure Singaporeans that MOE has in place bond tracking and enforcement measures to track default cases. In any case, he was not answering the opposition MP’s question at all.

Now that the report on parliamentary sitting on 13 March is out [Link], we find that even the Social and Family Development Minister Chan Chun Sing has the same habit of avoiding answering questions in Parliament.

In the parliamentary sitting 2 weeks ago, MP Lily Neo wanted to find out the number of cases where retirees who are on subsistence living due to very low CPF pay-outs were rejected by CDCs or Chan’s ministry for the past few years.

She asked:

On my second clarification, the Minister earlier said that there will be assistance for retirees who are on subsistence living due to very low CPF pay-outs, and that now this group will be eligible for Public Assistance or ComCare. I would like to thank the Minister for that. May I ask the Minister whether he knows the number of such cases that had been rejected by CDCs or MSF for the past few years, as I had quite a few in my ward, and whether such cases now can be recalled to give them the due assistance?

These are the exact words of Mr Chan when he replied Dr Lily Neo:

Madam, the answer to Dr Lily Neo’s first question is yes, definitely, which is why we started the vulnerable families pilot, which is why we started the SSOs. As the Member has said, we want each case to be managed according to their needs. What the Member has also mentioned very importantly is this: it is not just the cash pay-out that is important. What is most important is to solve the underlying issues: is it one of holding down a job? Is it one of health issue? Housing issue? Education? And so forth.

This is the reason why the SSO has taken upon itself to do the case management for the community. This is the reason why we want to start the vulnerable families pilot with 500 families as the pilot in the first place to allow the different agencies including MND, MOE, Police and so forth to come together to look at the specific issues faced by the individual or family; to help them stabilise their situation, and then they move out from there. Our long-term goal is not to have more and more people on the ComCare scheme. Our long-term goal is to have ComCare act as a bridge for them to get to a better future.

On the second issue: that has already been on-going for a very long while. First and foremost, we see whether the person qualifies for public assistance. If the person qualifies for Public Assistance, and if the person has CPF, we will then just top up the difference. If the person does not qualify for Public Assistance, we will then look into why they did not qualify for Public Assistance. Is it because they have family support? Or is it that they have other sources of income?

We will look through the cases, but one of the very difficult challenges that we always face in such issues is that they do have what we call family support in the traditional sense. That is, they have children; they have people who are family members who are able to help them. But very often, there is a breakdown in the family relationship. Very often, before we can even do that handout, we have to mediate and try to get the family members to come and join us in this work. Very often, sadly, we are not always successful to get the family to come and play their part.

For some of these cases, we have no choice, but to come in to help. Our ultimate aim is not for these family members to outsource their responsibilities to someone else, but to help the family to reconcile, so that they can help take care of each other. I am sure many Members will know that this is very challenging work. Sometimes, we run a risk. Because we are helping and these very un-filial family members know that we are helping, they harden their hearts. It is a very difficult thing, but it requires a fine balance of judgement in how best to help these families in need.

Like Mr Heng’s case, TRE readers are encouraged to do their own analysis to decide if Mr Chan has answered the simple question posed by Dr Lily Neo.

In this regard, prominent blogger Leong Sze Hian commented in his blog [Link] that according to the Department of Statistics, the number on Public Assistance scheme was 3,164 in 2013. Mr Leong said this number has remained almost unchanged at around 3,000 for about a decade already.

Mr Leong asked, “Why has the number on Public Assistance remained almost the same for the past decade or so, when the population, and in particular the aging population has increased so much?”

Mr Leong also revealed that the last time a reply was given in Parliament and reported in the media, the rejection rate for Public Assistance applications was about 50%.

According to MSF’s website, it stated that [Link]:

“The Public Assistance scheme offers long-term assistance to needy Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents (PRs). PA recipients are unable to work due to old age, illness, disability or unfavourable family circumstances, and often have little or no means of income and family support.”

“Under the Primary tier of assistance, a monthly cash grant is provided to all PA households to support their daily living expenses. The Public Assistance rates will range from $450 for a single person household to $1,180 for a household of four persons.”

Note that PRs, who are essentially foreign passport holders, are also eligible for Public Assistance.

In any case, Mr Leong asked, “Can a household of four persons make ends meet on $1,180 a month?”