Amy Khor Lean Suan
Singapore
“Sir, NEA does conduct inspections of these premises from time to time. For this particular premises, they actually did six inspections since 2021.”
“The Land Transport Authority (LTA) conducts enforcement actions against drivers who are found to have provided illegal car-pooling services. An individual who provides an illegal car-pooling service may face a fine of up to $3,000, up to six months' imprisonment, or both.”
“We will also provide the first 500 private heavy vehicle chargers co-funding of up to 50% of the charger installation cost, capped at $30,000 per charger. These measures will narrow the lifecycle cost gap between an electric and internal combustion engine heavy vehicle and spur adoption of electric heavy vehicles.”
“With regard to the extension of the lower speed limit to school zones for full day, we will work with the relevant agencies on the enhanced enforcements.”
“They will provide a certain amount of protection to the pedestrians because, as I have said, the bollards will absorb the impact of the collision from the vehicles. So, there is a protection. But ultimately, of course, road safety really depends on a multitude of factors, including road user behaviour.”
“The bollards installed at pedestrian crossings by the Land Transport Authority (LTA) are not of the K4, K8 or K12 standards stated by the Member. Bollards of these standards are typically security bollards. They are installed to protect critical infrastructure or at high security areas, such as Changi Airport, to be unyielding.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,285 lines we hold for Amy Khor Lean Suan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 45 of 46.
“This is more than twice the size of the entire civil service, which is currently reported on the website as about 60,000 strong. Furthermore, the top 22 GLCs are reported to account for 13% of the country's gross domestic product in 1998. GLCs are thus indeed very significant and play an important role in Singapore's economy. Madam, I submit that times have changed. GLCs will need multi-industry knowledge, technology assessment capabilities, and financial expertise well in excess of what it now has. Recall the lessons of the conglomerate and its demise. Recognising that the private sector provides the best seedbed for enterprise and innovation, it will need all the space it can get - physical, financial and economic. In this regard, the business of government is ultimately not government in business, but government for business - planting, watering, pruning, nurturing - to grow and nurture the future heroes of capitalism that will spearhead the next stage of Singapore's economic development and, in the process, we could convince more would-be quitters to be stayers. Madam, I therefore support the Motion. 7.05 pm”
“Further, subject to suitable safeguards, the divestment audit could be tabled in Parliament for debate. This is another way of putting in place what the EISC has itself recommended - mandatory periodic housekeeping. In the divestment programme, Temasek should also not be averse to the dismantling of its companies. Size, though useful, is not always a competitive advantage. Specifically, there should be a proper cost-benefit analysis to determine if the break-up value from the different logical parts of the business exceeds the value of the entity as a unified whole. In saying this, I must state that I am not against size for its own sake. I also recognise that the competition law that the EISC speaks of, operates only to break up the abuse of monopoly power, not monopoly itself. But quite apart from what the future competition authorities can and will do, Temasek itself, as arm of the Singapore Government, should proactively ensure that the actions of its subsidiaries do not stifle private enterprise through the sheer weight of its size and market power. Another model I support is the management buy-out which has been proposed in the recent case of NatSteel. There is a need for Temasek to act more decisively in its divestment programme, lest the Charter be construed as mere talk without action. In conclusion, I would like to applaud the efforts of the relevant parties in preparing both the EISC documents and the Temasek Charter. Since Temasek was formed in 1974 as the Government's investment holding arm, it has grown to include more than 60 major companies, with subsidiaries and associate companies in almost every economic sector, with a workforce of some 150,000.”
“Scholars carefully groomed by the system and attuned to the culture of the public sector, parachuting into key positions in GLCs, may have a propensity to carry with them a Government mindset that does not sit well with the workings of the private sector. I submit that there should be a greater degree of intermingling of public and private sector talents in GLCs. It must never be construed as a zero sum game when a public servant is lost to the private sector, and vice versa. Indeed, the intermingling will serve to enrich both. The fourth and final D refers to Divestment. While supporting the spirit of divestment where appropriate, the Temasek Charter does not spell out any definite divestment timetable, as some of my parliamentary colleagues have alluded to earlier. Instead, Temasek notes that it has been progressively divesting its stake in non-strategic companies and listing some companies to broaden their ownership base. It also states that it will continue to rationalise and consolidate its shareholdings where it is opportune to do so. The argument for the lack of a definite divestment programme is the need to achieve the best price for the unit being divested. If market conditions are not right, it makes no commercial sense to do so. Mdm Deputy Speaker, whilst I agree that this is largely a reasonable path to take, and I am certainly not advocating a great GLC sale, we have to be mindful that the cost for not divesting soon enough could be even higher, and that is the killing off of private enterprise. As a compromise, I suggest Temasek perform an annual divestment audit, taking into account other than the usual factors, like capital market conditions, strategic relevance and likely price, the impact on the private sector of divestment or otherwise.”
“IE Singapore, whose role is to grow our external wing, should make every attempt to link these GLCs up with suitable local private sector firms willing and capable of expanding overseas in the chosen markets. This way, definite benefits will accrue to both parties, private and public sectors. The third D refers to Detachment. The Temasek Charter has emphasised the commitment of GLCs to be run as commercial entities, detaching ownership by Government from commercial-minded management. Furthermore, they are to strive to be truly international businesses, with clear strategies on how to get there. Similarly, the EISC's recommendations also favour a commercial approach for GLCs. Indeed, Temasek's choice of the term "TLCs" to describe its large and formidable stable of companies seems to reinforce its desire to de-link itself from the Government. But the question is: "Can it really do so?" As the EISC notes, Temasek should make a conscious effort to cast a wide net to attract world-class managerial talent into GLCs, foreign or otherwise. Indeed, Temasek could bring more private sector directors on the boards of its companies and management to ensure a good mix of people, able to give different perspectives and ensure that the companies are run on sound commercial principles - delivering commercial returns. To allow a good mix, Temasek should avoid appointing too many Government and SAF scholars - undoubtedly highly intelligent, driven and capable people - to the ranks of senior management of these companies. Undeniably, many of them have subsequently carved out sterling careers in the private sector. However, even though these people are placed in the private sector, they may not necessarily be of the private sector.”
“Additionally, many non-Group A category GLCs are already loosely defined in category (3) and referred to as Group B businesses. Let me now deal a bit more with the internationalisation aspect, or what I call, the second D, and that is, Diaspora. I submit that, with some exceptions - notably firms, like the Millennium and Copthorne Group - private enterprise will probably not attempt to enter, much less, conquer, lucrative overseas markets without some nudging from the Government and GLCs leading the way. Hence, Group B GLCs will undoubtedly play a key role in the internationalisation of Singapore's private firms. However, a word of caution is in order here. GLCs must be constantly reminded that they should not internationalise for internationalisation's sake. Based on Singapore Inc's track record till date, Singapore companies that have succeeded in international markets have been rare, and profitable international expansion has even been rarer. But the value of the Singapore brand is undoubtedly high, as experience in rapidly developing countries, like China, demonstrates. There are thus wonderful opportunities for a Singapore Diaspora. GLCs must be mindful that the promotion of the external economy is only justifiable if it generates higher returns than the potential growth rate of Singapore without the external economy. The burden must be on the GLCs to deliver superior returns on the external economy to justify their course of action. Expanding aggressively but blindly into international markets could, instead of improving our economic bottom line, do it more harm. In my view, the quest for a more diversified earnings base by overseas expansion is a necessary but insufficient condition for category B GLCs to internationalise.”
“And I think this was affirmed earlier by the Minister of State, Mr Raymond Lim. In the past, the private sector was underdeveloped and thus unable to provide a host of much needed and vital services. The private sector has now become much more sophisticated and reached a degree of maturity, as evidenced by the likes of Creative Technology and City Development. They have proven to be highly versatile at adapting to and exploiting evolving market trends and technologies. Statutory boards must religiously adopt the principle of not setting up an enterprise unless all avenues to involve private sector enterprises are exhausted. Even so, statutory boards could still seek to be involved with the private sector through joint ventures, or what is currently a global corporate favourite - outsourcing - instead of setting up an enterprise by itself. This would help to create more space and opportunities for the private sector. In light of the above principles enunciated by EISC, I fully endorse the three-fold rationale stated in the Temasek Charter for the Government to be in business. And these are to manage strategic, critical resources, such as water, power and gas; to pursue public policy objectives, such as healthcare, housing and education; and to enable Singapore to sprout a second wing - an external wing - so that we, as a nation, can compete beyond the narrow confines of Singapore's geography, or perhaps to quote some famous words from "Star Trek", "boldly go where no man has gone." Many large, as well as non-listed, GLCs fall into the first two categories - Group A which is what is referred to as Group A businesses - media, water, power, sea and airports.”
“Many of them have since unwound or are unwinding unrelated businesses to focus on what they do best, for instance, Delgro and NatSteel. Madam, I hope that GLCs will be ever mindful of this chapter of their history and not turn back the clock. The third rule of thumb refers to the well known "Yellow Pages" rule. Instead of endorsing the EISC's recommended Yellow Pages rule, the Temasek Charter has, instead, chosen the opposite route - seeking to build on the best attributes of Singapore's unique GLC's model. Rather than destroying the value of GLCs which first took shape more than three decades ago, Temasek has chosen what is probably a more pragmatic incrementalist approach and eschewed the idea of privatisation for privatisation's sake. Instead, GLCs are to be run as commercial entities. This is not unlike the EISC's recommendations that GLCs should not do national service and only people who can contribute to the businesses of GLCs should be appointed to the boards. The GLCs are to shape up and perform. Otherwise, they may have to be shipped out or, in the words of Temasek's Executive Director, Mdm Ho Ching, be prepared to be had for lunch. GLCs are to focus on core competencies, divest non-core businesses, but more importantly, they are to build significant international or regional business. Businesses that are no longer relevant or have no international growth potential are likely to be divested. I will talk a little bit more about the internationalisation aspect later. Nonetheless, the "Yellow Pages" rule proposed by the EISC would still be relevant in the case of statutory boards, who should adopt this rule to set up enterprises only if the private sector is not providing or is unable to provide a particular service.”
“The 70s and 80s were the era of the conglomerate. It became fashionable among businesses in the US to integrate vertically, horizontally, or even sideways, to cover the entire, or even out of the value chain. The result was a mish-mash of business units often unrelated to the original function. The holding company of the conglomerate, in effect, became a kind of internal stock market, allocating funds to its subsidiaries on the basis of financial performance. By the late 80s and early 90s, it became evident that this strategy created large unwieldy corporate creatures without the agility to compete against more nimble firms that chipped away at their respective businesses. Research in the US has shown that the decline of these conglomerates stems from the enormous difficulty of managing a diversity of unrelated operations. The reaction was to return to "core competencies" and a painful dismantling of these large business units. The semi-conductor business, for example, now organises itself around chip designers and foundries which are, in fact, sub-contractors to the former. There is a danger that GLCs and Government agencies may sometimes fall into the trap of acting in the manner of the now discredited corporate conglomerates. I speak from my personal experience. During the heydays of the property market boom in the mid-90s, not a few non-property GLCs were tempted by the astounding profits one could make from property investment. To be fair, GLCs were not the only firms to succumb to that temptation. On hindsight, property investment could indeed have delivered superior shareholder returns, but most firms did not exit quick enough. Thus many of these firms came to grief when the bubble burst, causing them to abandon their grand plans to turn into property players.”
“In this respect, if corporatisation is deemed necessary, the EISC mentions the use of the National HealthGroup model, which I wholeheartedly support. The second rule of thumb, as recommended by the EISC, is, "Temasek Holdings should compel GLCs to scale up their core competencies to build global businesses, as opposed to concentrating on the local market to build a diverse range of unrelated businesses." Some GLCs (such as SembCorp Industries and NOL) and corporatised enterprises of statutory boards (such as Ascendas) have already initiated this aggressively. Other GLCs and corporatised entities should also strive to do the same. Their reliance on the local market should be reduced and the temptation to invest in a diverse range of unrelated businesses to improve their bottomline or simply to justify their existence should be resisted. This would minimise the crowding out effect by GLCs which many SMEs complain they suffer from. Over the last three decades, GLCs have proliferated and taken on a life of their own. As noted in Business Times, 3rd June 2002, Singapore Technologies, for instance, has spawned so many subsidiaries that if its new Chief Executive, Peter Seah, were to visit one a day, it would reportedly take him up till 2005 to complete his rounds. Hence, any major attempt to divest or rationalise the GLCs could trigger a chain reaction, upsetting an entire apple cart of entrenched interests, institutional arrangements and corporate culture and agenda. Fortunately, as noted by the EISC, many GLCs are professionally run, profitable, listed on the bourse, and own reputable and thus valuable brand names that should not be destroyed purely to silence the large contingent of GLC critics and cynics. Nevertheless, history does contain some lessons for us.”
“The EISC's recommendations regarding the Government's role in business cover not only Temasek Holdings but also individual Ministries and statutory boards. The EISC report is an excellent, well-thought-out and generally balanced report. There are a good number of wise and highly quotable statements from the document, three of which are particularly memorable to me and which provide good rules of thumb for delineating the boundary conditions of Government in business. These are, firstly, "We should not corporatise for corporatisation's sake." I strongly support the EISC's recommendation that statutory boards should as far as possible not corporatise regulatory functions because these are often monopoly functions and will lead to rent seeking behaviour by the enterprise. There would be a natural tendency for the public to perceive, rightly or wrongly, that the enterprise will resist simplifying rules and regulations as this could lead to a loss of revenue in fees and charges. Hence, the often heard refrain that the Government's fees and charges are high and should be cut. The IRAS, for instance, was previously criticised, in The Straits Times of 9th January 1997, for announcing its staff increments and bonuses took into account the amount of tax revenue collected. This led the public to infer that the IRAS staff had every incentive to maximise its tax collection! Like the EISC, I submit that it will be better to keep activities of statutory boards that are strategic to their missions as public functions, even if the activities can be organised to attract commercial returns. We should not corporatise for corporatisation's sake or just because everyone is jumping on the bandwagon.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, the Temasek Charter raises an issue which the Minister of State for Trade and Industry, Mr Raymond Lim's Entrepreneurship and Internationalisation Sub-Committee (EISC) dealt with in their recently released report. The main focus of the report is the role of the Government in business. Public discourse has, of late, focused almost exclusively on the issue of CPF after Senior Minister of State for Trade and Industry Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam's sub-committee released its report. However, I submit that the issue of the role of Government in business deserves equally intense scrutiny from Members of this House and the public. This is because it raises very fundamental questions about the Government's position with regard to the nurturing of local enterprises, the responsibility it places upon itself for shaping Singapore's economic landscape and hence, the nature of government and its relation with the body politic. In my view, the Temasek Charter cannot and should not be divorced from the broader context of what the EISC document discusses. This is also in line with the essence of the Motion before this House. Moreover, it is noted that parts of the Temasek Charter, especially the section on the raison d'etre of GLCs, are in fact similar to those in the EISC document. I therefore would like to deal with both the Temasek Charter and the EISC recommendations in my speech, under what I term as the four "Ds" of the Government in business. The first "D" refers to delineation. We need to delineate clearly the markers for Government in business. This would, among others, help reduce allegations from the private sector of encroachment and crowding out of their businesses by GLCs.”
“In particular, I agree with my colleagues before me that there is a need to mount a public education campaign of all these changes and their implications. Sir, with these, I support the Government's response to the ERC's recommendations.”
“My fellow MP and the Deputy Secretary-General of the NTUC, Mr Matthias Yao, hit the nail on the head when he said in Parliament yesterday, "The real issue is not the CPF, and the long-term solution is not in the CPF." Indeed, the mindsets of both employers and employees must change to mitigate the problem of structural unemployment. Conclusion Sir, I therefore applaud the ERC's well-thought out and carefully crafted set of recommendations which attempt to remodel the CPF system and shed the excesses and clutter it had accumulated over the years. The practical phased-in approach of the implementation which allows people and institutions time to appreciate, adapt and accept the change is welcomed. Beneath the specifics of the report and the Government's response, lie a gradual but deliberate shrinking of the social safety net. One ultimate intent appears to be that of creating a more entrepreneurial and self-dependent culture, necessary for survival in the new world order. This is indeed a worthwhile goal, but will no doubt engender anxiety and disorientation among many ordinary citizens already reeling from the shock of one of Singapore's worst recessions and painful adjustments in jobs and cost of living. In this regard, I would like to again urge the Government to be even-handed in the implementation of the proposed changes, as well as refine and modify some of the proposals to address the concerns raised. Public servants at the front desk of the various Government agencies, policy makers, my fellow MPs and I myself would need to exercise patience and balanced judgement to hear the ground and take time to carefully communicate these changes and their rationale.”
“The worry, to paraphrase the Minister of State, Dr Ng Eng Hen, is not that the elderly have lost all their value, but that their value is deemed diminished by such a move. This is despite repeated assurances from Ministers and the unions that the cut is not to be seen as a wage reduction, or that their value is diminished, but rather as a means to inject some labour market flexibility and is only one amongst many measures aimed at improving the employability of older workers. Sir, I support the bid to improve the overall employability of older workers in the face of persistent structural unemployment. In fact, after Minister Lim Boon Heng's eloquent explanation of the rationale for the CPF cut for this age group, I think it will be very difficult for me to argue otherwise. However, the concerns and arguments of this group are not without merit and should be addressed. To mitigate these concerns, suggestions have already been made to give older workers special treatment in the next wealth-sharing exercise, as well as paying deserving older workers special bonuses or introducing a monthly variable component in their wage package. Sir, I fervently support these proposals. In addition, I am also heartened to note that the civil service has taken the lead by introducing a Transitional CPF Top-up Component for this age group when the new rates are effective. I also join in the call for employers to move towards a more flexible wage system. And again, following the call of Minister Lim Boon Heng, I would like to urge the Government and the statutory boards to take the lead in this instance and introduce the base-up wage system wherever possible.”
“On the other hand, commercial banks are under no compulsion to provide such assistance, nor are they expected to. Whilst I agree with the broad principle that HDB should focus only on basic housing needs and there should be more personal responsibility of one's investment decision, it is important that this be properly communicated to the broad population and their anxieties allayed. The banks, for instance, could be asked to give assurance that for HDB purchasers, they would provide adequate moratorium periods and/or some deferred payment schemes for a period of time if the borrower were affected by an economic downturn and the property is their only home. Additionally, the HDB could further assure the public that the home ownership policy is not compromised by offering to step in, as the lessor, to work with the banks to assist affected homeowners in such cases. They could also set up a special relief fund to assist such homeowners. This could be for a transitionary period of, say, 3 years until HDB flat buyers are more astute with financial planning and discipline and able to do their sums and adapt to the change. Enhancing labour market flexibility The ERC's proposal to cut employer's and employee's CPF contribution rate to 16% each for the age group of 50-55 years has, as many of my colleagues before me noted, brought on the loudest chorus of anguished protests among workers. It is understandable, given that many feel, rightly or wrongly, that it is an indictment of their economic worth. Many are also skeptical about how effective the CPF cuts could be in helping to preserve jobs, as well as open new ones for this age group.”
“Over a period of five years, this will gradually reduce to 120%. The Committee has revealed that even at 120%, most home buyers should still be able to use their CPF funds without having to resort to cash top-up for some 19 years. Enough has already been said by the media and market watchers to lead me to conclude that this will have minimal impact on the property market in the short-term and that it will help to prevent over-investment in properties. Notwithstanding this, the Senior Minister of State for Trade and Industry has noted that this cap could be further reduced in the future. I would urge the Government to carefully assess the ramifications of any further future cuts before implementation in order not to unduly destabilise the market. Next, I would like to briefly comment on the Minister's announcement that from next year, HDB flat purchasers who are not eligible for HDB subsidised interest rate loans would have to obtain their financing from banks. Again, this seems to be a case of encouraging greater personal choice and accountability by pulling back some of the safety nets put in place earlier. However well meaning as these changes are intended to be, they would bring considerable anxiety to purchasers of HDB flats who are not eligible for subsidised loans. This is because they will fear that the commercial banks, who are bottom line driven, will not hesitate to foreclose on the flat, if they are delinquent in their debt servicing. For many, the HDB flat could be the only roof over their heads. As my colleagues have alluded to, HDB currently has a number of assistance schemes, such as deferred payment and temporary reduction of debt service to help HDB flat lessees affected by the economic downturn.”
“Such residents could perhaps downgrade to studio apartments. To facilitate this avenue for elderly flat lessees to monetise their properties, HDB could consider building more studio apartments. Furthermore, the ERC report notes that only 3.6% of elderly living in HDB flats have downgraded to smaller flats and hence, downgrading by the elderly to unlock the value of their assets could require a significant behavourial change. Indeed, most elderly do value stability more than many other things. Familiarity with the ground, community ties painstakingly built up over the years are especially hard to break. My own experience with collective sales of older properties bears this out, with some elderly residents saying that they would rather die in their matrimonial home or from where they have lived most of their life, than to become a multi-millionaire. I also know of a colleague whose widowed mother is living all alone in a 5-room HDB flat and refuses to move out to a smaller flat despite repeated advice from her children. One way to mitigate this problem and make downgrading more attractive to elderly residents would perhaps be to build more studio apartments in areas where there are high concentrations of the elderly, so that they would at least be able to move to another flat in the same neighbourhood which they are familiar with. Home ownership The second point I wish to raise is the impact of the ERC Sub-Committee's recommendation on home ownership. There has been a chorus of concerns about the over-investment problem and fears that retirement adequacy will be compromised by it. One measure to curb this is the 150% valuation limit on the use of CPF funds for purchase of private properties and HDB flats with bank-originated loans.”
“Pricing those risks properly would imply a relatively high interest rate, but this means a double whammy - low valuation plus high cost of servicing the loan through lower annuity. This is probably the reason why reverse mortgage remains unpopular, with only NTUC Income offering the scheme for private properties and with few takers. Furthermore, current reverse mortgage proposals are for a fixed term of, say, 10 years. This means that the property owner faces the risk of losing his property if he is unable to pay the reverse mortgage loan with interest at the end of the term. This is a significant drawback of reverse mortgage today. Nonetheless, in view of the need to allow more ways for retirees to monetise their assets, the Ministry of National Development could and should explore various reverse mortgage schemes together with the financial institutions for the benefit of HDB lessees. Downgrading Elderly HDB flat lessees could also monetise the value of their HDB flat by downgrading either to a rental or to a smaller flat. However, there are currently several impediments for them to do so. Firstly, current HDB rules only allow low-income families with a household income of $800 or less per month to rent HDB flats. This rule for rental HDB flats would have to be relaxed to accommodate a wider population of elderly lessees to rent a flat, instead of purchasing a smaller flat. Renting is pure consumption and for the elderly, this should not be a cause of concern for policy makers. The ERC report notes that presently, every two out of three elderly households live in 3-room or smaller flats and have no smaller accommodation to downgrade to. This would limit the number of elderly HDB flat lessees who can sell their existing flat and downgrade to a smaller flat.”
“Given that the current retirement age is 60 years, as well as the fact that more may be forced to retire early due to structural unemployment, we should consider lowering the minimum age requirement from 65 years to, say, 60 or 55 years old. Furthermore, subletting of the entire flat should not be allowed only for elderly lessees of 3-room or smaller flats. Rather, it should be open to all retirees, whether they live in a 3-room or bigger flat. However, for a start, to prevent abuse, this could be liberalised to include both 3- and 4-room flats. As the scheme stabilises, it could be extended to bigger flat types. This would allow retirees greater and freer choice in monetising their assets for old age. As the objective is to allow retirees to augment their income by subletting their HDB flat, if they so wish, the restriction that they must have occupied the flat for at least 25 years and that they must have no outstanding mortgage loan are not only onerous but also appear superfluous. The rationale for these stringent conditions appears to be a concern that public funds to build subsidised flats for their owners are being used to help lessees generate income. Since subletting of a whole flat is, in this case, only allowed for retirees, the worry of such a public outcry is unfounded. Reverse mortgage Second, reverse mortgage. In concept, reverse mortgage is a useful device. However, there are risks to the financial institutions offering it. Properties with an ageing lease will be hard to dispose of in the event of default, especially given that CPF itself currently does not allow withdrawals for properties with leases shorter than 60 years.”
“It is true, however, that current CPF rules have exacerbated the problem, and the recommendations of the Sub-Committee and the Government's response will go some way to reverse the problem. Sir, the report points out - correctly in my view - the need to have more flexibility to be able to convert the property asset into cash during a person's twilight years. Like the authors of the report, I would like to urge the Government to explore more exhaustively ways and means to monetise a person's housing assets, to enable that person to enjoy as reasonably comfortable a retirement as possible. At least three possibilities have been mentioned in the report, which I wish to comment on briefly. The basic point I wish to make is that, presently, various obstacles hinder monetisation through these possibilities, and several HDB rules will have to be re-evaluated and changed for the possibilities highlighted to be workable. Subletting Sir, currently, subletting of the entire HDB flat by elderly lessees to augment their retirement savings is subject to various criteria, which are that: 1) the lessees must be aged 65 years and above; 2) they must be living in a 3-room or smaller flat; 3) they must have occupied their flat for at least 25 years; and 4) they must have no outstanding mortgage loans. Sir, I feel these restrictions are stringent and seriously inhibit the ability of elderly lessees to sublet their entire flat for additional retirement income. Based on the current set of restrictions, only a handful of retirees will be able to make use of this avenue to augment their retirement income.”
“Furthermore, Sir, whilst I support the spirit and essence of taking the CPF back to basics, I urge the Government to apply a gentle hand and move gradually in implementing the changes to the system. I note that this is indeed the tone of the Government's response to the report. Let me now turn to three areas of the ERC report and the Minister's response which I wish to comment on. Retirement adequacy I support raising of the Minimum Sum, higher contributions to the Special Account, Medisave Account, and the need to take a long-term view of CPF, instead of relying on it as a counter-cyclical macro economic stabilisation tool. In so far as property investment is concerned, I am pleased to note that the report offers a very balanced and circumspect view. While pointing out the dangers of over-consumption, it does not vilify property investment per se. I quote: "It is rational and sensible for Singaporeans to invest in property. Not only does this provide their families a roof over their heads, it also gives them a substantial asset that offers added financial security in retirement." Sir, this statement rightly puts in perspective the fact that property investment per se is not the villain it is made out to be for our current woes, as is fashionable to allude to nowadays. On the positive side, many economists have recently pointed out that rising house prices in the US and Europe are helping to keep their economies afloat after the battering their stock markets have received. In the final analysis, it is really our greed, our oftentimes misplaced optimism, "irrational exuberance", that property prices will keep heading north that have caused many to over-invest in property. Indeed, the stock market is more famously irrationally exuberant than property.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in my opinion, the title of the just-released report by the ERC Sub-Committee on CPF and Wages is most apt. "Refocusing the CPF system" is a bold call for the system to return to its basics. It was originally conceived as a compulsory retirement savings scheme. Requiring both employers and employees to participate helps the workers accelerate the accumulation of retirement resources, and make the employer an indispensable part of the workers' retirement plans. The CPF system has served the nation well. However, over the years, the system has grown considerably in complexity, as its role crept outwards to include housing, healthcare, and even as a macro economic management tool. It is time for the CPF to strip clean of the clutter accumulated over the years and re-focus on its core objectives. In some ways, for the average workers, the CPF system is also a deferred social safety net. The stated goals of the refocusing exercise are: ensuring adequate retirement resources, reducing excessive consumption, and promoting labour market flexibility. The unstated goals, as some observers have pointed out, seem to be that of encouraging greater personal choice. An increasingly capitalistic approach is being taken. The safety nets are being slowly removed. Sir, I support the principle of personal choice and accountability, but would urge that this principle be tempered by special consideration of the lowest 10th or, indeed, perhaps even the lowest 20th income percentile of the population who are more vulnerable and who are less able to make the best choices for themselves. We need capitalism, doused with a great deal of compassion for the less able.”
“For example, they would ask the PTC to make some fare adjustments so that their profits could be secured. This is a sure-win investment for the public transport companies. The risk is almost zero. In a risk-free investment, yet they are making profits of more than 20%. In my personal view, their profit is much too high. I hope that the Government could look squarely into this matter. Do not allow these public transport operators which are operating on a monopoly and with no risk any more protection to secure hefty profits. We should alleviate the burden of the commuters. This present round of price hike is wrong, in timing and in magnitude. I think the PTC should look seriously into this matter. They should not side the operators at the expense of our commuters. I think they should look after the interest of the commuters first, the ordinary citizens of Singapore.”
“It meant an average growth of 25% in the NTA every year. The same was also reflected in the annual net profit after tax from 1998, 1999 and 2000. The after-tax profit is more than 20% of its net assets. These public transport operators have earned more than 20% in profit from our commuters, and yet they feel that this was not enough. They want to increase another 24% in their profit through this fare increase. If they do this now, it is very insensitive and many people are already saying that these public transport companies are too greedy. The bus companies are earning more than 20% of profit. Is it reasonable? This is a very interesting question. As we all know, in all investments if the risk is greater, the return must be higher; otherwise, the investors would have lost everything if anything goes wrong. But for those investments with little or no risk, should the return on investment be as good as those with a high risk? This is something that the PTC should look into. As we all know, if we want to invest conservatively in a safe and secure environment, we can always put our money in fixed deposits or buy some securities or bonds. We can only earn about 5-6% in returns. But let us look at the public transport operators' investments. There are a few characteristics. First, in Singapore, there are two monopolised territories for these two companies to operate. Sir, the citizens have no choice. They have to take the bus services provided by these two operators. There is definitely no competition in the market and through TransitLink, Government had restructured all those unprofitable routes to cut loss and, of course, their profits would go up. For those bus routes which are not so profitable, they can use other means.”
“Low Seow Chay (Chua Chu Kang)(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Motion standing in the name of Mr Tan Soo Khoon. Our recession has not fully recovered. Many ordinary citizens are faced with the predicament of wage-cut or retrenchment and, all of a sudden, the Public Transport Council announced that it had agreed with the public transport operators' request to increase the bus and MRT fares. The reason given for the fare hike was that the profit was not enough for the operators. At this time of difficulty, increasing the fares of the bus and MRT is adding more problems to our citizens. On top of that, there were various increases, for example, refuse charges, electricity tariffs, etc. So, people cannot help but ask why has the Government not taken into consideration the problems in this time of recession. The Government should be more sensitive in dealing with all future price increases. With this recent increase in bus and MRT fares, on the surface, it is just an increase of three cents per trip. But, taking a conservative number of three million passenger-trips per day, there is an additional $24 million of profit after tax for the operators. What is the implication of this? Now, the public transport company's net profit is about $100 million. This three-cent adjustment would have generated an additional 24% increase in the after-tax profit for the public transport operators. As it is, the public transport operators are already making profits, the 24% increase would push the profits to an unbelievable high figure. Why do I say that? From the annual report of the SBS bus company, we could see the net tangible asset per share has increased by 10 cents every year, from 30 cents in 1997 to 60 cents in 2000.”
“Additionally, the PTC must list and explain in greater detail the factors it considers when deciding on such changes. In order for the decision to go down well with the public, it must be reasoned and reasonable. Surely, the public interest is served by doing so. Ultimately, because our system is a monopoly, the real answer must lie in the controlled introduction of a competitive element that acts as check and balance price increases and the degree to which the so-called service improvements are truly what the consumers desire. A watchdog can only do so much. It is noted that the Minister for Transport has already indicated that the Government is prepared to allow additional players to operate feeder services in HDB towns on a trial basis. Sir, I would like to urge the Government to implement this as soon as possible to inject more competition, provide commuters some choice and also establish additional pricing benchmarks. Sir, in conclusion, I would like to urge this Government to re-look at our public transport policy and make changes, such as to the mechanism for fare increases so that equity, as much as efficiency, will characterise our approach to the electorate. With regard to this current unfortunate increase in public transport fares, I appeal to the Government to prove the cynics wrong by taking concrete steps to show that it has listened to the people and taken heed of their concerns and frustrations. I would urge the Government, at the minimum, to look at ways to mitigate the impact of the recent fare hikes, particularly on Singaporeans who cannot afford the fare increases, such as the unemployed and the poor. Sir, I beg to support the motion. Assoc. Prof.”
“Given the formula, how does the PTC evaluate the case for fare hikes and how does it finally decide on the actual quantum of increases? What factors does it really consider? Is this in the interest of the shareholders or the interest of the commuting public? How does the PTC ensure that all relevant factors, including the state of the economy and the employment situation are adequately and appropriately taken into account? Furthermore, what is the nature of X? How does it account for service improvements? And by what measures are these service improvements determined? And whose measure is it, the transport companies or the commuting public? These are some questions that arise as one looks. Yet, another aspect is the composition of the PTC. An examination of the present composition reveals that the majority of the members comprise professionals, academics and Government officials, many of whom, it would be fair to say, do not take public transport. The composition could thus be changed or widened to include more union members and grassroots leaders who are more attuned to the needs of the public transport users and thus can give better feedback regarding public transport service, reliability and ground sentiments. All said, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think the Public Transport Council should be public enough for its deliberations and decisions to be made more transparent. After all, the PTC Act states that every member, officer and employee of the Council shall be deemed to be public servants. It would therefore not be too much to ask the PTC to solicit as much feedback as possible, especially from commuters and those that can appropriately represent them before any decision on fare hikes is made.”
“If so, what is the magnitude of increases they are forecasting? Thirdly, I would like to highlight the issue on the role of the PTC. Like many of my colleagues before me, we feel that central to this whole debate about the fare hikes is the role of the PTC, which has come under the spotlight. In the present scheme of things, the PTC is the watchdog to ensure that the increases in fares are not excessive. The recent episode, however, does raise some questions as to what exactly PTC does in discharging its duties as a final arbiter in the pricing of public transport fares. What exactly is the PTC's role? The Public Transport Council Act states that the PTC fulfills several functions, one of which is to review any application by public transport companies to revise fares. Section 24 of the Act specifically states that in carrying out this review role, the PTC must take into account two factors, namely, the need for the applicant to remain financially viable and the need for public interest to be safeguarded. The Act does not spell out in what manner these two somewhat conflicting objectives are to be balanced. Presumably, that becomes an administrative choice for the PTC to make, having regard to the circumstances. There is currently quite a widespread public perception that the scales have tilted in favour of the former, perhaps at the expense of the latter. Another aspect of the PTC's role, which has come under scrutiny, is the formula employed to cap any approved increases in transport fare, CPI + X%. We are told that they rely on the formula of CPI + x% as a capping for the fare hike in any one year. X, we are also told, takes into account service improvements and is pegged at 1.5% per annum from 2001 to 2005. How is this 1.5% determined?”
“Accepting the fact that listed companies need to show a reasonable rate of return and profit figures, it is conceivable that, like all business entities, these profit figures and, thus, the rate of return, would fluctuate over time. In fact, many private companies are losing money or just breaking even, under current adverse economic conditions. Hence, in such times, it is only reasonable that transport operators should not expect their desired rate of return or the level of profit to be maintained. Therein lies the public's alarm over the justification that has been given - that public transport operators need to make a reasonable rate of return, as if maintaining their rate of return or level of profit is a birthright. It can, of course, be argued that public interest is not safeguarded if listed transport companies operate at a loss, since service standards will plummet and these companies, to protect their shareholders, will cut corners. While this may be true in the long term, it is hard to accept this in the short term when the transport companies are still showing healthy profits and when the rest of Singapore Inc. are reeling from the effects of recession. Sir, I would like to ask the Minister if the public transport companies have proven to the PTC that they will be in the red in the next six to 12 months, if fares are not increased? If so, what are the compelling reasons and information that had been offered in support of their claim? Even accepting the rationale that small regular hikes are better than big jumps, have the transport operators shown the PTC that if the hikes were deferred for, say, a year, there would be a need for increases that would be so astronomical as to be clearly unpalatable to commuters?”
“The PTC was reported as saying that annual reviews of fare proposals are the norm so that there should be no surprises from now on, implying that the public should be prepared for annual fare increases, thus giving ex ante justification to future hikes, even before they happen. Coming at a time when the Government is earnestly re-looking at every nook and cranny on how to reduce costs, this is an especially difficult pill to swallow. Furthermore, the rationale cited for the increase is that the higher fares are meant to cover public transport service improvements and wage increases. The public, and I myself, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, confess that we have great difficulty coming to grips with this line of reasoning at a time when many Ministers are urging wage restraint and belt tightening. It has also been said that the bus and public transport companies need to earn a reasonable rate of return for their shareholders. What is a "reasonable" rate of return that is acceptable for public transport companies? It must be noted that the transport operators are much like monopolies for the routes they cover and, as one of the PTC's term of reference is to review applications for fare hikes taking into account the need for operators to remain financially viable, it would appear that the financial viability of the operators is virtually guaranteed. This being the case, the risk to the operators is low and, thus, the expected rate of return to the operators should also correspondingly reflect this low risk. Minister Yeo cited the practically default risk-free Government bond rate, and concluded that the 6% return that SMRT was expected to earn after the fare hike was "reasonable".”
“For instance, as quoted by my colleague, Mr Tan Soo Khoon, the 25th June issue of Streats quoted the Chairman of the Singapore School Transport Association as saying, "The economy is so bad, how to increase fares? If parents cannot afford it, they might decide to send their children to school by other methods, and that will make it worse for us. Even if an increase is necessary, it would be better to wait until next year." Indeed, following this, the 2nd July issue of Streats further reported that the school bus fees will be raised by between $10-$40 per month, but probably from next year, when the economic storm would have most likely passed over. This begs the question: why can the public transport operators not do likewise? Granted there is, of course, never a good or right time to raise fares but, surely, the transport operators and PTC could not have picked a worse time. Indeed, many would agree that there could definitely be a better time to do so. [Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Chew Heng Ching) in the Chair] 6.10 pm Secondly, on communication of the fare hikes. Sir, I am also somewhat concerned about the manner in which the PTC's decision on the fare hikes has been communicated, or perhaps not communicated to the commuting public. This, in my view, has exacerbated the problem and deepened the bitterness of the citizens. As one Singaporean wrote to me, it is not so much the issue of affordability that has got the normally passive "boh chap" public infuriated, but rather that it was uncompassionate and weakly justified. It went against the spirit of "he qing he li".”
“Without unjustly elevating the importance of this issue, I would venture to say that, in effect, there is a real danger that all the recent rhetoric of a more open, consultative and responsive government will fall on deaf ears, if we do not take heed of the emotional undertones surrounding this issue and squarely address them. Sir, although my colleagues before me have already eloquently highlighted and debated on the many reasons for the public disquiet over the recent fare hikes, I feel that as this matter affects the purse strings of some seven out of 10 Singaporeans and tugs at the emotional heartstrings and logical reasoning of even non-commuters, I am duty bound to give my take on this matter, based on feedback I have received from my residents as well as other Singaporeans who have written or spoken to me. I would like to particularly reiterate three nagging issues which, I hope, the Minister can address in order to allay public consternation over these hikes. Firstly, the timing of the fare hikes. Quite apart from any reasoned, logical argument, the fare hikes, although small, should not have been approved in such times, when economic conditions remain harsh, the unemployment rate is growing and there is, to quote DPM Lee himself, "breakneck disquieting change". A deflationary environment generally gives rise to price falls, and so the combination of higher parking charges, higher electricity tariffs, higher GST and higher public transport fares is particularly hard to swallow. Furthermore, rising costs in many industries do not naturally translate into higher prices. Ultimately, in a competitive environment, prices are set in the user market by the forces of demand and supply.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, let me state at the outset that, like many of my colleagues before me, I believe, on the whole, Singapore operates a fairly efficient and effective transport system. In general, despite occasional hitches and some desired service improvements, such as in the case of the LRT, buses and the mass rapid transit are comfortable, on time and carry commuters to their destinations without much fuss. But the widespread unhappiness over the fare hikes - grudgingly accepted by many commuters from 1st July onwards, for lack of other options - cannot be dismissed as simply the grumblings of a complaining and self-serving electorate. The outcry has taken place amidst a very difficult and uncertain economic situation, a slew of pronouncements on fee increases and fears - repeatedly acknowledged by the Government - of mounting job losses. Even analysts, who are normally guided by hard numbers and cold rationale, were puzzled over the fare hikes, as both SBS and SMRT have registered decent profits for last year when the economy was in recession. Ironically, this has also come at a time when civil servants are reminded by their chief of the need to formulate policies that are reasoned, ie, appealing to the mind and reasonable, ie, appealing to the heart. Or, to quote a Chinese phrase, he qing he li which, loosely translated, means "in accordance with emotional sensibility and logical reason". It is interesting to note that in the Chinese phrase "emotional sensibility" actually precedes "logical reasoning".”
“Sir, as most of the important programmes are broadcast in English, like the Prime Minister's National Day Rally speech, would it be all right to provide sub-titling in English? That is the feedback I have got from the hearing-impaired community. In addition, I would also like him to comment on what he said in Parliament yesterday that images and pictures on the television screen conjure very powerful messages. Together with the sub-titling, the hearing-impaired would have the full impact and implication of the speeches made. Mr David Lim: Sir, I am very gratified that somebody listened to me yesterday. We said that we would consider. I would take up her suggestion.”
“I am sorry. I would like to inform the Minister that it was unfortunate that there was no sub-titling in the programme, "Changing Lives" that was shown on Channel NewsAsia in April 2002, which featured Ms Erica Levi. She is a well-known role model for the hearing-impaired community. The hearing-impaired could actually not get the full flow of the programme because there was not even subtitling for that programme.”
“Sir, knowing the difficulties of providing signing for important programmes for the hearing-impaired, has the Ministry asked the broadcasters for the cost of providing at least sub-titling, if not close captioning for such important programmes? I would also like to ask the Minister to comment on the fact that as the Government does provide funds for public service broadcasts - in the case of MediaCorp, to the tune of some $80 million a year - is it not possible for the broadcasters to provide at least sub-titling for some programmes? The Ministry could consider providing some funds to the broadcasters to provide such services for important programmes like daily news, documentaries and educational programmes. Many of the hearing-impaired have equal intellectual capacity as their hearing peers, and they would be able to understand the full extent of the programmes, and watch such programmes with their families. Mr Speaker: Dr Amy Khor, no speeches. Ask your questions, please.”
“Thank you, Madam. Just one clarification. That refers to integration of schools into mainstream schools. My understanding is, currently, it is only for designated secondary schools. What about primary schools? Are there designated primary schools for integration?”
“Other children in the school can also benefit enormously by interacting with the special-needs children and learn that they have a responsibility towards these less fortunate kids. Madam, in this respect, I am pleased to note that the Ministry currently has six designated mainstream secondary schools that admit the hearing-impaired and visually-handicapped children. I would like to urge the Minister to consider extending this programme to mainstream primary schools. Designated primary schools in each region of Singapore could be equipped to cater to children with special needs who have been assessed to be capable of integrating into mainstream schools. This could take place, say, at the upper primary level, from Primary 4. I understand that the Canossian School for the Hearing Impaired already offers such opportunities. However, there is a need for more of such schools, to allow as many children as possible who are capable of integrating into the mainstream to enrol and benefit from the system. Early intervention has been found by experts to be of great importance in the successful rehabilitation of children with special needs. Hence, we should provide such facilities at primary schools that can maximise the chance of successful rehabilitation of these children. Madam, I feel that it is now time for us to work harder on building our social capital and accord every child, including those with special needs, a chance to develop their potential to the fullest. I, therefore, urge the Minister to consider the issues I have raised to further improve our special education system.”
“Madam Chairman, the Ministry's continued effort to provide education for children with special disabilities, together with the VWOs, and NCSS is indeed commendable. Despite these improvements made and resources committed to special education, there remain some areas of concern, especially to parents of children with special needs. I would like to highlight two of these concerns. 5.30 pm My first concern refers to the high staff turnover and low morale of special school teachers. I understand that special schools are plagued by high staff turnover and often low morale among the teachers due to less attractive terms and conditions of employment and poorer career advancement prospects compared to teachers in the mainstream school. This is an anomaly because it is, without doubt, more difficult and challenging to teach children with special needs than it is to teach mainstream pupils. It requires special training, a different set of skills, and a love that transcends physical handicap. Those who continue in this calling despite such odds, exhibit a spirit of noble self-sacrifice, and their life should not be made harder by poor rewards and lack of recognition. They should not be made to feel that teaching in special education schools belong to the realm of social welfare and it is not a legitimate profession and, therefore, can be paid a lower salary. My second concern refers to integration into mainstream schools. Madam, children with special needs should be integrated into mainstream schools where possible, as this would help in the intellectual and social development of high-functioning special-needs children.”
“On a point of clarification, Sir. In my speech, when I was referring to people, I was referring to those who deserve a second chance at being admitted to university, those from the polytechnics, for instance, who have been admitted to overseas universities and who have done well.”
“Yes. So these applicants are required not only to have good academic results in the polytechnic but also at "O" level and it clearly does not give late bloomers a second chance. I therefore strongly urge the Ministry to study the merits of establishing a fourth university to meet Singaporeans' increasing demand for university education and to give that second chance in life that they are searching for in the new social compact.”
“The fourth university with its own mission, structure and niche will inject diversity into our university education landscape and more competition amongst the universities. 4.00 pm A fourth university with the specific mission to focus on practice-oriented programmes and caters to the continuing professional development needs of working adults up to degree level would help fill the gap that currently exists in our university system, ie, giving a second chance to those who do not make it to the local university system the first time round. I feel that a fourth university that is given such a clear mandate would be better able to tailor its programme and admission criteria to meet the needs of this group than an NUS that tries to be all things to all men with a diverse range of objectives and goals that may be incongruent with each other. Additionally, I feel that a fourth university will be unencumbered by any baggage which the existing university may carry. For instance, currently, only the top polytechnic graduates in each cohort are able to gain admission into NUS, or NTU, in view of the keen competition for a limited number of places.”
“Sir, I would like to ask the Minister in the context of the NUS' plans to go multi-campus, if there has been a change of heart regarding the establishment of a fourth university and, if so, the rationale for the change. Sir, I fully support the Government's aim to increase Singaporeans' access to university education so that one in four Singaporeans in each year's cohort, instead of the current one in five, will have the opportunity to attend university in Singapore by 2010. This is timely and indeed crucial in view of the demands for a better educated workforce. It is also in line with our rallying cry to allow every Singaporean a chance to maximise his potential. With both NUS' multi-campus plan and the establishment of a fourth university, both would also help to achieve the Government's objective of increasing the university cohort participation rate. But I feel that the fourth university route would contribute more definitively to the development of a vibrant university sector. The proposed fourth university, as recommended by the Committee to Review Upgrading Opportunities at Degree Level, is to have a practical bent with industry links. It is to be a major provider of continuing education and training and is to cater to both part-time and full-time learning as well as adult education. The Committee had felt then that with a fourth university, the higher education sector would be more equipped to cater to the varying needs of both industry and individuals. Sir, I fully concur with these observations. I feel that the introduction of a fourth university would better enrich our university education ecosystem.”
“Sir, the idea of a fourth university was first mooted by the International Academic Advisory Panel in January 2001. The IAP had felt then that there was room for greater diversity in university education, with a number of institutions each having its own niche and areas of specialisation. The Panel thus supported the establishment of a fourth university which will be built upon the role of the polytechnics. Many Singaporeans, including polytechnic graduates, will then have a shot at university education. Currently, a significant seven out of 10 polytechnic graduates go on to pursue degrees, many of them overseas. This is a leakage that the local universities can plug. In February 2002, Deputy Prime Minister Tony Tan had noted in his speech at the Graduation Ceremony of the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business that the Committee to Review Upgrading Opportunities at Degree Level had submitted a report to MOE recommending the establishment of a fourth university. DPM Tony Tan had then said that a fundamental review of the structure of the University had to be undertaken before a decision on the proposed structure could be finalised. More recently, like many of my parliamentary colleagues alluded to, it was reported in the press (Straits Times, 30th April 2002) that NUS will be setting up two new campuses by 2010, in response to the growing demand for university education in Singapore. One of the two new campuses would take 3,000 undergraduates into practice-based engineering programmes. It was reported that the potential target students for this campus were polytechnic graduates who now go overseas to upgrade their qualifications.”
“This is especially critical when we are committed to maximising the potential of every Singaporean and trying to nurture an entrepreneurial spirit in our young. We should not disillusion them by labelling them as no-hope cases at such a young age. As noted by the Prime Minister, "Morale is a very important thing. If we feel demoralised, then we are not in the mood to fight competitively." Sir, I would like to ask the Minister if there are plans to review and modify the current system to mitigate some of these concerns. For a start, may I suggest that the Ministry assure parents that as much attention, if not more, is focused on these "laggard" children to develop their potential as for the other cohorts. The successes of these children should be celebrated as much, if not more than the others, so that parents' concerns are mitigated and children assured that there are many roads to success. Sir, like my parliamentary colleagues before me, I would like to urge the Ministry to heed the call to send all cows to the vets, for surely this cow needs a thorough check-up and medication, if not a worse fate.”
“I believe many in this House have school-going children, or have interacted with other parents, and therefore will understand where the stress point lies. At a recent feedback session on Education, the subject that occupied the most time and electrified the atmosphere was, as Members will have guessed it, streaming. One participant even objected to the term "gifted children". She asked what does that imply about the other children. Does this mean that they are not gifted? Parents say streaming is bad for the following reasons: streaming, particularly at the young age of 10 years - Primary 4 - prematurely labels a child as slow, a no-hope case and affects his self-esteem. It demoralises the child and may make it difficult for him to return to mainstream education later on in Express or Normal (Academic) stream. It disadvantages late bloomers, causing him to lose opportunities and also causing the system to lose what may have turned out to be a brilliant scientist or entrepreneur. Einstein, it has been frequently pointed out, was not exactly a top student in school. Nonetheless, MOE is strongly convinced that streaming is good for the following reasons: streaming allows our children to learn at their own pace, and not suffer unnecessary performance-related stress. The alternative to streaming, to quote the Minister for Education from the Budget 2001 Committee of Supply debate, is that many children will fail and they will drop out of school. No doubt, MOE will again furnish more and updated statistics this time to show the benefits of streaming. Sir, I am persuaded that there are merits to both sets of arguments. However, I strongly feel that it is time to refine the system, to close this gap between parents and MOE.”
“Sir, as I have anticipated, what I wish to say in this House has already been the subject of much passionate debate. But the subject of streaming continues to be a cause of so much anguish that I feel it would be morally irresponsible for me not to speak up, at the risk of repeating what my colleagues have said. Let me state, at the outset, that I think, overall, we do have a good education system, one that is efficient and focused. And it has succeeded in producing many generations of skilled workers to support our economic thrusts. It has placed Singapore on the world map as a leader in Mathematics and Science education and the application of IT to learning. It has grounded generations of school children in the realities and the joys of multi-racialism and harmonious communal living. Since 2000, the direction has been towards an ability-driven education to develop and harness the talents of our students. But while a differentiated curriculum for students to suit differing aptitudes is administratively efficient, the question arises whether the gains to the nation from such efficiency is outweighed by the psychological cost this has inflicted on Primary 4 10-year olds and their long suffering parents. But we must first give credit where it is due. I know of a Singaporean mother who has just come back from Germany for her son's education because she feels that the system in Germany is the other extreme - too relaxed, no home work, everything at one's pace, but usually pegged at the speed of the slowest child. Sir, I submit this is not the outcome I welcome, as soon, we, as a nation, may lose our drive and competitive spirit and that is the sure road to perdition. But, Sir, there is a yawning gap between parents and the MOE for all its good and noble intentions.”
“Some, especially those living on the top floors, say that they are thinking of moving out. In fact, during my block visits, I noticed that some flats have been vacated, and I was informed by residents that the flats have been empty for some time. Sir, I am worried that, over time, these blocks of flats may become urban slums when the residents move to other flats with lifts stopping on every floor. Sir, within the Bukit Batok division of my Hong Kah North constituency alone, I have a total of 30 blocks of 4-storey walk-up flats with 603 units. Many older estates would have such blocks of walk-up flats interspersed with high-rise blocks, and would suffer the same fate with regard to the lift upgrading programme. Sir, I would like to ask the Minister to seriously look into and resolve this issue with a definitive plan soonest. Although it may be costly to provide such lifts to such blocks, the Ministry could look at providing, say, only one set of lifts and using a cheaper lift system for such blocks. Sir, I also submit that since these residents have been paying the same conservancy charges as similar sized flats in high-rise blocks all these years, they should also be entitled to the same upgraded facilities. Alternatively, the Ministry could look into selective en-bloc redevelopment for these blocks as clearly, over time, such flats will become increasingly unattractive. Additionally, Sir, I would also like to request that the Minister consider giving the lift upgrading programme priority over the general interim upgrading programme, as having accessibility and mobility with lifts stopping on every floor appears to rank highest on the wish list of HDB residents in the older estates.”
“Sir, like my colleagues before me, I am raising an issue on the lift upgrading programme. The lift upgrading programme, which was launched last year, is indeed a laudable project. I suspect that it may have overtaken covered linkways as the single most coveted upgrading item by residents. Every time I visit my residents, the question of when there will be lifts at every floor inevitably crops up. A resident who has a wheelchair-bound father asked if we can speed up this programme, so that it will be more convenient to bring his stroke stricken father out. Many other elderly residents also appealed for the lifts to be upgraded, so that they stop at every floor. Arthritis and rheumatism have made it increasingly difficult for them to climb stairs. Sir, indeed, we have a fast-ageing population, and facilities which enhance mobility and accessibility, such as lifts stopping at every floor, are not only welcomed but indispensable. Such facilities are also much needed by the handicapped whose interest sometimes we tend to overlook. Sir, one of my precincts in Hong Kah North was fortunate to have been selected last year for the lift upgrading programme. All the residents in this precinct are eagerly awaiting their new lift system, except those in the four blocks of 4-storey walk-up flats. My first question to the Minister relates to the 4-storey blocks of walk-up flats which have been excluded from this programme because, I am told, they are very costly and too few residents benefit from this, compared to the high-rise blocks. My question to the Minister is: what medium and long-term plans does the Ministry have for these flats? This is because residents living in such blocks have expressed their concern regarding the lack of lifts.”
“The 99-year standard housing term, while giving security of tenure, encourages the treatment of housing as an investment more than as a consumption good. The introduction of shorter tenure homes will provide more housing choice at different price levels to suit different income households. There are already precedents. For instance, like I mentioned earlier, HDB's granny flats have a 15-year old tenure, renewable for another 15 years. Elsewhere in Hong Kong and China, 50 or 70-year leases for housing are common. Hence, shorter tenure, especially for public housing, should be considered as an option to increase the housing choice and help to decouple the investment and consumption function of housing.”