Calvin Cheng
Singapore
“But having said that, as I have mentioned earlier, we do want to try and bring a slightly different balance going forward. If Members look at all the grants funding that we give, including to the so-called smaller companies, the situation will not be as stark.”
“Regardless, we already have foreign-born sports people here. Reasoning to the people by pointing out our dearth of local sporting talent may not convince. Even the very act of winning a medal itself may not work. Rather, let us appeal to the feelings and emotions of citizens by telling the stories of our foreign-born sports people.”
“This will explain the "deer in the headlights" syndrome that many businesses have at the moment – they are in shock, stunned and they do not know how to react except to call for reduction in the foreign worker levy. Sir, it is all well and good that the Government has put aside a large fund to help productivity increases.”
“It is a tax that is not only narrow-based, but will most likely be borne by ordinary Singaporeans around us. Even a broad-base increase in our progressive tax system may be more directly efficient in re-distributing income and helping low-wage earners.”
“After all, they are the ones who "sell" the opportunity of work to the migrant workers, convincing them to come to Singapore and making money in the process. In monitoring these agencies, MOM needs to make sure that these agencies do not misrepresent job opportunities to migrant workers, or force them to take up jobs they do not want.”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for his comprehensive reply and I do take his point regarding teething problems. But I would like to point out that we see the Integrated Resorts having teething problems with their hotel rooms, conference facilities, roller coasters but, funnily enough, not their casinos.”
The complete record
Every one of 109 lines we hold for Calvin Cheng, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 3.
“It is my opinion that in order for the NMP scheme to work better, two things need to be made clear. Firstly, NMPs cannot be seen to be Opposition MPs, or indeed a shadow Opposition. This is very important. Many members of the public seem to misconstrue that NMPs are here to oppose the ruling party and to play the role of an alternative Opposition. This cannot be. We are not opposition politicians. In fact, we are not politicians at all! How can we be when we have not participated in an election, never campaigned nor voted into Parliament on the back of a political party? It has to be made very clear that NMPs are in Parliament to give alternative views, not opposing views. If this was the case, there will be no need for NMPs, as Opposition politicians and political parties occupy this space in the political process, and if the electorate wanted these opposing views in Parliament, they would have voted them in. NMPs cannot be seen to be alternative opposition politicians because we are not. What these alternative views are lead me to my second point, that in order for NMPs to function effectively, the meaning of non-partisan needs to be clearly defined. It is important to clarify what it means when NMPs offer alternative, non-partisan views. In my view, NMPs can and are needed to play an important role in representing views and issues are not represented or not well-represented by any major political parties. It will also justify the existence of NMPs and why they should be appointed, or rather than elected. Let me explain.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak on this Bill. I declare my interest as a Nominated Member of Parliament and I rise in support of the proposal to make NMPs a permanent feature of Parliament. I do feel an extra burden now that Ms Irene Ng has questioned our very existence. The then Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Goh Chok Tong, in his Second Reading speech to amend the Constitution to provide for NMPs, gave three reasons why the NMP scheme was proposed. These were: (i) to build consensus; (ii) to encourage political participation and contribution, and to get those who can contribute to good government to serve, and (iii) to accommodate constructive dissent and alternative views. Sir, I think that the NMP scheme has worked well, but in order for it to work even better, the reasons for NMPs and the role they play need to be more clearly defined. This is even more important and urgent now that the NMP scheme is going to be made a permanent feature of Parliament. Sir, it is difficult to be an NMP; I speak from experience. We come into Parliament without any political party machinery to back us up, to hold our hands, and more importantly, we are criticised for representing nobody – we are Nobody’s MP. Nobody tells us what our roles are, nor are we told what our out-of-bounds markers are. We are told we are meant to be non-partisan without being told exactly what this means. We are meant to be neutral, but only the banal and those who do not stand for anything are truly neutral. It is all good and well to want NMPs to contribute, to be constructive but without a platform, without a clearly defined mandate and without clearly defined roles, NMPs can end up just representing themselves in Parliament and be not very useful at all.”
“Separately, we also have an amount of money that the independent production houses and MediaCorp compete directly for, programmes that we think are going to be beneficial, programmes that will be aired by MediaCorp on our local TV. So this is part of what we do to try and grow the ecosystem here and, indeed, some of these companies are now reaching a stage where they are able, I think, to stand on their feet and to compete globally. On culture, part of what we want to do with the traditional arts plan is actually to draw deeper into the wellspring and the reservoir of rich materials that we have here. I am not sure I know what exactly is in the sense the national culture agenda that the Member has suggested. I will be happy to discuss this further with him. But we recognise that going forward what we need to do more of is actually distinctive content coming out from Singapore and, in this regard, I think we are of the same mind. We want to use the history, the heritage, the multi-culture that we have in Singapore to be able to produce this reservoir of works that we can identify with and be proud of.”
“Sir, I have two clarifications. First, concerning media competition. Would MICA be willing to investigate whether MediaCorp's upstream monopoly allows it to unfairly benefit its downstream subsidiaries? I fail to see how MediaCorp's channels will not prefer to use their own internal production studios given that they share the same profit and loss statements. The second clarification is regarding culture. I do not doubt our ability to build world-class infrastructure, high-speed broadband networks, etc, but I feel the problem is with cultural software. Would MICA be willing to set a national cultural agenda for media; our arts, our fashion, our entertainment, etc, to draw from and appreciate it from our very own rich heritage instead of always looking at outside, be it western or otherwise, for inspiration? RAdm [NS] Lui Tuck Yew: On media competition, as I have mentioned earlier, we find no evidence, and we have investigated this before, that MediaCorp is anti-competitive. We will like to hear what evidence there may be in this regard before we relook at this issue again. As I said, what we are trying to do is make sure that we give enough opportunities to gradually grow the independent production houses and to make sure that they reach a sufficient level of sophistication that they not only can do works that are commissioned by Singapore, whether directly from MDA or through MediaCorp, but also to work increasingly with countries and companies outside of Singapore. For our PSB programme, as I have mentioned earlier, close to 40% local PSB hours funded by MDA already goes to the independent production houses and that is channelled through MediaCorp.”
“We have been well known to punch above our weight economically. I am convinced we can also punch above our weight culturally. MICA needs to influence, not just regulate, project not just protect, and in order to do this more resources are needed. I find it highly ironic to call for this in what is termed as a "cut", but I call for more funds to MICA to take on, or rather re-take its role as our Ministry of Culture. Otherwise, to echo the words of Ms Denise Phua, we can be a prosperous nation, but never a great one. Promoting reading and writing”
“We can continue what I see as our current obsession with Western content, Western media, Western ideas and import more of these, or we can have a healthy blend of East and West that creates a uniquely Singaporean cultural identity. To do the former would be foolish and stunt our growth into a matured society. Only the latter route would offer Singapore and Singaporeans a chance to establish a permanent and unique role in the world. I believe that MICA has an important role to play in all of this. It may have lost its name as the Ministry of Culture, but it is in fact our de facto Ministry of Culture. Sir, it is my opinion that MICA's role nowadays is greater as a facilitator and a regulator. This is not enough. It needs to be an influencer. Regulating the hardware and technology is a necessary but insufficient condition for building up Singapore's soft power. It needs to step up, step forward and start setting an agenda on how Singapore's culture can be grown, how we can draw from the richness of our "rojak " culture, embrace it, be proud of it, so we can truly grow as a nation, and create a Singapore that we have an emotional connection to. For at the end of the day, the ties that bind a nation are not material, but emotional and spiritual, and what will make Singaporeans stand up and be counted, what will make Singaporeans pick up a rifle and sacrifice his life, is not to protect our bank accounts but because we have created a way of life, a culture and a nation we want to preserve and protect. And even if we are small, let us not forget the great city-state of Venice of the ninth century which existed for 300 years as a state not only at the nexus of trade and commerce but also as a cultural influencer in the region.”
“After speaking to some of my colleagues in the media and event industries, there is an assertion that the content-providers are catering to the tastes and mindsets of consumers who want to see Caucasian faces, given that they are seen to be more glamorous. I refuse to believe this, as believing this would mean that Singaporeans are still stuck with this puerile, colonial hang-up. Even if this were so, the vicious cycle needs to be broken, otherwise Singapore will never be a first-class global city, but only a second-rate "wannabe" Western city. What is happening in our fashion and media is, I think, a manifestation of something deeper in the Singaporean psyche. Maybe we think as a young nation, we do not have our own culture and we need to ape others. I think this is false. We may be a young nation but the constituent cultures of our nation are old. The Malay, Indian and Chinese cultures are hundreds if not thousands of years old. And for almost 200 years since 1819, these cultures have interacted, together with European culture, to form a unique "rojak" that one cannot find anywhere else in the world. It may be a "rojak" culture we have, but it is ours, let us embrace it, let us be proud of it, because it is our own. We do not always have to look outwards for inspiration in our media, arts or fashion, as I truly believe there is enough richness and substance in what we already have inside us. As we work towards being a global city, I think it is imperative that we create a first-class Asian and international city, and not a second-rate Western city, a pale imitation of the original.”
“I think this is ludicrous – we are an Asian city and there is absolutely no reason why in order to look international, the majority of models have to be Western. Again, I reiterate – international is not Western. Why would tourists want to come to Singapore to see a replica fashion show trying to imitate the runways of the West? Do they also not realise that for an Asian city, a fashion event that is primarily Asian yet international would be more representative of our country and would generate more interest? It is the same with our print media, especially our fashion and lifestyle magazines. Most of the models used on the covers and inside editorials are Caucasians; empirical observation would also reveal that Asians are used infrequently. Even our own home-grown fashion magazines, Her World and Female, use mainly Caucasian models on their covers and in their editorials. It is obvious that, again, our media labours under the false impression that Western is international. As we move on from the print industry to advertising, again, we see the same syndrome. I have here three print advertisements from two department stores, Robinsons and OG, and from a bank OCBC [indicating]. All were from yesterday's Straits Times. Here, we see the two local department stores using Western faces to push their fashion retail and a local bank using a variety of Caucasian models to urge Singaporeans to get a card they "must have". Sir, forgive my frustration, and I find it hard to mince my words. This is just puerile. It is like being stuck in a time warp from our colonial days.”
“Sir, MICA is the successor Ministry to the former Ministry of Culture, which was dissolved and re-named in 1985. Although the Ministry of Information, Communication and the Arts is a name that is technically detailed and accurate, it is nowhere as emotionally evocative as the Ministry of Culture. Sir, in order for our nation to be world class, it not only needs to have a high GDP, world-class infrastructure and be advanced technologically, it also needs to have a strong culture. Hard power makes for an economically developed country, but it is soft power that makes a nation truly great. Sir, I am concerned with the cultural identity that Singapore will assume as it seeks to be a global city. As Singapore aims to be a global city, it is imperative that Singapore and Singaporeans are aware of what this means, and the cultural identity it will adopt as it takes the world stage along cities such as London, New York and Tokyo. It is my opinion that, first and foremost, Singapore needs to recognise that being a global city does not mean being a Western city; globalisation also does not mean westernisation. Singapore must understand that no matter how globalised or modernised it may still be, it is still an Asian city. International recognition will not come from aping the West. Nowhere is this more apparent than in my industry. Media, arts, fashion, advertising are the windows through which a country projects its culture. First, fashion. Every year at every fashion week, we hear declarations of the objective of Singapore becoming a fashion capital and of being a Paris of the East. At every Fashion Festival, Fashion Week or, indeed, any fashion show, most if not all the models used are Caucasians.”
“However, I do hope that in its next strategic review of competition in the media industry, MICA can take my views into consideration. Finally, I would like to turn to competition in the magazine market. I declare my interest as my company prints one title. Sir, I understand that there are over 5,000 magazines in Singapore, both indigenous as well as imported. However, I would like to ask whether MICA has ever conducted a study on the market to see if there are oligopolistic forces inherent in the market, given that there are two big players, SPH Magazines and MediaCorp Publishing. Sir, it is not the number of magazines that is relevant here but the circulation as well as the defined market. The magazine market is not one monolith, but segmented. If there are 5,000 magazines, and one company owns most of the biggest magazines by circulation in one market segment, say the women's magazine market, there may still be monopoly power. I thus hope that MICA could take a proactive role to ensure that the print media industry is also competitive. Sir, the media industry is one of the backbones on which a national and cultural identity is formed. It is necessary to ensure that it is competitive, as it is only then that Singapore can have a thriving media and arts scene to shake off the "boring" image that we have. SingPost”
“This would mean that all production companies, whether owned by MediaCorp or not, have a fair chance, perhaps through a pitch or tender, to put its programmes on MediaCorp channels. If a MediaCorp channel wants to commission the production of a programme, it will need to call for a tender from all production companies, including its own, and award the commission to the best tender. If MediaCorp Studios happens to win the tender, or is the production company, it has to cast artistes from all artiste management companies, as well as freelance artistes, and not only from its own salaried employees. MICA, as the regulatory body, will then have to ensure that there is behavioural compliance. Sir, the aim of our failed experiment at horizontal competition was to nurture a competitive, thriving media industry in Singapore. I would argue that the functional separation of MediaCorp will go even further and be easier to execute, in achieving this. Production houses are the lifeblood of a media industry and if they were allowed to compete on an equal footing with MediaCorp Studios to get their programmes distributed in Singapore, we would be more likely to nurture good production companies that create content for the international market. It would also be a more efficient use of PSB funding if all production companies can compete equally to produce PSB-funded programmes. We may also see a flourishing of actors and actresses, and even produce our own Michelle Yeoh or Zhang Ziyi, if talent comes to Singapore knowing that they have an equal chance of appearing on our local TV channels, without being signed up by MediaCorp artistes. I understand that what I am suggesting will take a fair bit of research and resources by MICA, and I do not expect this to happen any time soon.”
“Instead Sir, I would like to offer another suggestion, that of the functional separation of MediaCorp and for MICA to regulate this. Recently, an article was sent to me by British Telecommunications (BT) detailing the case of the functional separation of BT. BT was the first telecommunications firm to functionally separate and there may be lessons we can learn in terms of MediaCorp. What is functional separation? I quote from the article: " 'Functional Separation' is driven by the principles of competition, transparency and non- discrimination. It is a system where a business unit is separated within its parent company without becoming an autonomous company in its own right. It is a form of regulation that seeks to ensure that competitors can use an incumbent's network without fear of discrimination". In this case, MediaCorp's monopoly free-to-air TV channel network. It objectively shows that non-discrimination and transparency exist, giving the regulatory certainty needed to invest; it allows for downstream deregulation by concentrating on upstream enduring bottlenecks. Two principles stood out for me in terms of ensuring behavioural compliance: First, different parts of the businesses must follow strict rules when sharing customer and commercial information. Secondly, and this is very important. If a company has been functioning for a long time as a vertically integrated company, it is a Code of Practice for employees to ensure that cultural and behavioural changes take place to support the undertakings of functional separation. How would this apply to MediaCorp? It will entail MediaCorp functionally separating its broadcast network from its production network.”
“MediaCorp TV is now a vertically integrated entity that distributes through its TV stations, produces through its studios as well as provides the artistes for its own productions. Sir, although vertical integration can create lower internal transaction costs as well as reduce uncertainty in the supply chain, it can also be highly inefficient if there are upstream bottlenecks. In the case of MediaCorp, because it is the monopoly free-to-air distributor, there is one big bottleneck. In this case, MediaCorp has the ability to foreclose the downstream market by being vertically integrated as it is the case now. Although I understand that MICA has a certain quota of productions that it compels MediaCorp to farm out to external production companies, it is highly incentivised to retain the most profitable productions for itself. It is also highly incentivised, as a vertically integrated profit-making company, to use its own production houses as far as possible as it then internalises the profits rather than having to hire a third-party. This is the same further downstream where it makes sense to use actors and actresses it already has on its payroll, from its own artiste management division, rather than hire artistes from outside the company. In this way, the whole value chain is incentivised towards MediaCorp foreclosing the vertical market, not through conspiracy or malice, but because it makes sense to do so from a business perspective. Sir, I am not a radical and although after talking to people in the TV production industry, there has been some urging for me to call for the vertical breakup of MediaCorp, I am not about to do so. This would be extremely costly, difficult, and if it fails, we may not be able to put "Humpty Dumpty back together again".”
“Sir, the media industry has been undergoing a lot of changes in the recent years, especially where competition is concerned. Much has been said about whether competition is necessarily good in a small market like ours, but the Government has taken large steps in trying to increase the competition in Singapore's media industry. First, the broadcast industry. After the tragically failed experiment in introducing competition in the free-to-air market, the Government has taken important steps to encourage competition in the pay-TV market. Much has been said that the competition between SingTel's mio TV and StarHub Cable TV has so far been destructive and to the detriment of consumers and thus should not be encouraged. I disagree. What we are seeing now is a natural play-out of competitive forces in the short run and although consumers may feel disadvantaged in the short run, in the mid and long run, if mio TV is able to successfully compete with Starhub, consumers will benefit. Together with the MICA's effort to encourage the cross-carriage of channels, and the development of a common platform, I have no doubt that this will be achieved. It is however, in the free-to-air market that most of my concerns lie. MediaCorp remains a monopoly. I am not calling for another experiment in horizontal competition, by introducing another free-to-air broadcaster. We have had already one expensive failed attempt, and Singapore can hardly afford another one. Moreover, the future in horizontal competition lies in satellite, IP TV and cable networks because of the near-infinite bandwidths that these technology platforms offer. Instead, Sir, I would like to focus on vertical competition.”
“Sir, I would like to first thank the Minister and the Minister of State for referring me to the SDN and LoveByte website. I promise to look into it and spread the word to all my single friends. [Laughter. ] At the risk of adding fuel to fire, I would like to ask for two clarifications. Firstly, regarding HDB flats – I am not sure whether it is the right Ministry – I am wondering why singles cannot buy directly from HDB, after all HDB is meant to provide housing for all citizens, not only married citizens. In the resale market, as we know, the prices of flats are now very high. Secondly, in terms of caring for singles, I am very pleased to hear that the financial needs of singles are well looked after. But I am also concerned about the psychological needs of singles, especially as they grow older. As we know from other countries and statistics, single elderly men are especially most prone to suicide. As this group grows older, I hope MCYS can look into programmes that will actually look after the increasing isolated singles. When we grow older, all our friends get married, we are left alone and no one is there to talk to us.”
“It is hard enough to be lonely as we grow older; we hope we are not also treated as a phantom class by the Government – not part of any family nor even a part of a community recognised by the State. Productivity and innovation”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, I fully support the Government's drive to encourage marriage as well as its pro-family policies. The family is the building block of our society, of our country and with an ageing population and plunging total fertility rates, it is important for us to encourage marriage and childbirth. However, the fact of the matter is the number of single people in Singapore is increasing. According to the latest figures, there were about 8% more single citizens aged 30 to 34 in 2008 than in 1998. Sir, tragically, I fall into this category and hereby declare my interest. Although much is made out of singles being choosy, it is my sincere belief that nobody would want to be a lonely heart if they can find a soul mate to spend the rest of their lives with. It is not about being choosy but being careful about a lifelong decision. Some of us may never find the person we can spend the rest of our lives with. I am concerned that most of the Government's policies towards caring for citizens are based around the family unit as defined as the traditional nuclear family – husband, wife, children, parents. For example, singles cannot claim spousal tax reliefs and cannot buy HDB flats directly from HDB. Sir, singles are also citizens and need to be cared for. Whilst we continue to encourage marriage, we also need to be prepared that we may have a population of ageing singles that have no families. We should not allow this demographic to fall into a black-hole where community care is concerned. I hope MCYS can also consider helping needy singles that have no family to rely on, both psychologically and financially. Can I also perhaps suggest that once a single person is orphaned, he could perhaps be considered to be a family unit with his siblings?”
“Some of these results may not be seen as fast as some people might want, but are vital to Singapore’s inexorable march to becoming an advanced, developed nation. It is a measure of the confidence of this nation that we can embark on planning for our future so quickly after we have come out from the worst recession we have ever experienced in our sovereign history. I have no doubt that we will succeed, and that every single Singaporean will reap and share in the harvest from the seeds we plant right now. With this Deputy Speaker Sir, I support the Budget. 6.28 pm”
“Training for the future is beyond a doubt of paramount importance, but right now, many are still jobless. Employers cannot re-design jobs they cannot yet offer. Workers cannot learn, upgrade or add value when they are still out of work. We need a transitional period of recovery, a period for the unprecedented damage that was done in the preceding 18 months to be undone, a period for the dust to settle. Surely we need to re-build, before we can build again. Sir, would the Government consider extending for another year, albeit in reduced form, some of the extremely useful measures for needy Singaporeans from Budget 2009, measures that Singaporeans are very grateful for? Some of these measures would include additional rental rebates for eligible households in public rental flats, income tax rebates and the income tax instalment payment plans. More important would be the measures in 2009 that targeted the most vulnerable groups of Singaporeans – the Public Transport Fund top-up, the Financial Assistance Schemes for Education, the Public Assistance Rate, and the Singapore Allowance for Pensioners. This group would have suffered the greatest from the financial crisis and would probably need the longest time to recover. Sir, the lowly skilled are often the first people to lose their jobs; they are also often the last to get them back. Can the Minister perhaps consider phasing out in stages these assistance schemes introduced in 2009? I also look forward to hearing in greater detail about the enhanced Workfare Income Supplement which would undoubtedly help the most disadvantaged Singaporeans and include them as we move towards being an advanced economy. Sir, the 2010 Budget is one that would have far-reaching long-term consequences for Singapore.”
“This would undoubtedly take more work and research from Government departments as they have to identify, classify and differentiate the various industries but it would hopefully result in a more nuance and more effective policy in phasing out our reliance on foreign labour. Industry-specific levies can thus draw on the strengths of both the arguments for industries' specific dependency ratios as well as an across-the-board foreign worker levy. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the 2010 Budget is one that looks into the future of Singapore, and which prepares Singapore for the long-run. John Maynard Keynes famously quipped that "in the long-run, we are all dead" and although in this case it may be hyperbolic, I wonder whether it may be too soon and asking too much of companies and the people of Singapore to run faster, when they are just catching their breath from 2009. Many companies are still reeling from the effects of the financial crisis and their short-run survival is still paramount. Although productivity increases are vital to Singapore’s long-term future, the introduction of foreign worker levies, even if phased in gradually, will add to short-term costs. Even if 2010 were to be a good year, many companies would still be nursing their wounds from the last two years, some nearly mortal. 2010 would be a year of recovery in the literal sense of the word, where the wounded lick their wounds. Might it be too soon to increase foreign worker levies this year, rather than next? Would the Minister consider giving companies more time to recover and catch their breath before urging them to sprint even faster? Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the same concerns go for the people of Singapore, the man on the street.”
“There is a very real concern that if the cost of labour rises by too much or if local labour is unable to plug the gaps caused by too low a cap on foreign workers, companies will uproot from Singapore and relocate to places where labour is cheap and abundant. The Singapore economy as a whole would then suffer, jobs will be lost, growth will be retarded, and nobody, including low-income Singaporean workers, will be better off. This argument is true but surely cannot be applied to all industries. Some businesses are just not "relocateable". Manufacturers and factory operators can perhaps choose to relocate to another country but construction companies will find it harder to do so. A condominium that needs to be built in Pasir Panjang will still need to be built there, whether foreign workers are available and at what price. A cleaning company who hires workers to clean up Newton Hawker Centre, cannot just uproot, at least not without difficulty, and start cleaning food centres in China. Newton Hawker Centre needs to be cleaned with or without foreign workers and regardless of price. Can I thus suggest that perhaps the foreign worker levy be varied according to industry, with industries less likely to relocate to other countries with higher levies, compelling them to increase productivity and thus use fewer foreign workers and hire more locals at a faster rate. Industries that are more internationally mobile such as manufacturing, could then be dealt with in a more gradual, gentler manner, giving them more time to adjust, upgrade their processes and increase productivity.”
“Service companies, knowledge-based companies, and companies that develop intangible intellectual capital are by definition asset-light. They have no factories, no machines, no inventory to offer banks as collateral. One cannot offer patents and trademarks as collateral to banks, at least not yet. Brands cannot be mortgaged. These are companies that the Government purportedly want to grow, but are precisely the type of companies that will need Government-backed loans the most. The investments of knowledge-based, innovation-geared companies are not only riskier, but also have longer pay-back periods, and break-even points that need more time. And without collateral, they have little access to these loans from risk-averse banks. I thus urge the Government to consider making permanent the loan schemes it extended in 2009, especially in the case of asset-light, but intellectual capital-heavy companies. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I listened with whetted interest the debate between Mr Low Thia Khiang who argued for industry-specific dependency ratios and the Government MPs who support the use of a price mechanism. Sir, it is a perennial debate amongst economies, whether the price mechanisms or quotas is a better method to allocate resources. Most free market economies would support the price mechanism as a more sophisticated method than quotas for various reasons but chiefly because imperfect information prevents quota-setters from accurately allocating resources. The price mechanism is set to automatically match resources with needs by allowing businesses to expresses their preferences by a price. I am of this view. However, I do agree with Mr Low Thia Khiang on his point about industry specificity.”
“Secondly, the money that is brought back to Singapore is injected into the Singaporean economy, and this would have multiplier effects on investment and jobs in the domestic economy. This would have a far more beneficial effect to Singapore than if the same income were left to sit in offshore bank accounts, unable to be brought back into Singapore and into the Singapore economy, for fear of being taxed. For these reasons, we hope that the Minister can consider making the tax free remittance of all foreign-sourced income a permanent feature of Singapore’s tax regime. The second measure in 2009’s Budget that benefited many SMEs, and which is conspicuously absent in the 2010 Budget was the Government’s decision to introduce the 80% risk-sharing loan scheme. This included the increase of loan quantum to $5 million, and the loan tenure to four years. Although the Government has extended the scheme by another year, albeit at reduced terms, I hope the Government would consider the immense help that the 2009 measures have given to SMEs. Although it is true that the financial crisis gave rise to unprecedented liquidity crunches that the 2009 loan measures were meant to tackle, some credit problems that SMEs face are permanent. Firstly, the initial loan tenure of two years was perhaps a little unrealistic, given that many investment projects that SMEs embark on have a longer break-even period. Secondly, and more importantly, service companies which are asset-light find it hard to get a loan even in normal times, due to their inability to offer collateral. Sir, many of the types of companies Budget 2010 seeks to encourage fall into this category.”
“I bring this up also because some of the measures introduced in the 2009 Budget have not been extended this year, and the SME owners I have spoken to wonder whether it would have been useful if they were extended, maybe in a reduced form, to 2010. Two measures especially spring to mind and I speak again as a beneficiary of these measures in 2009. Firstly, the tax exemption on all foreign-sourced income in 2009 was very helpful in easing cash flow during the financial crisis. Companies could bring cash back from their overseas offices to help in overcoming a liquidity crunch, without being taxed for it. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, although the world shows signs of economic recovery, we wonder whether it would be useful to extend this moratorium, especially since firms are still reeling from the effects of 2009 and many are just starting to see recovering cash flows. Indeed, we hope the Minister could consider making the tax-free remittance of all foreign-sourced income a permanent policy. One of the biggest operational issues that SMEs deal with on a daily basis is cash-flow, and such a policy would be immeasurably valuable to a growing SME. More importantly, such a policy would have two major benefits to the Singaporean economy. Firstly, it will greatly encourage Singaporean businesses to grow a foreign wing, to internationalise, which is also one of the explicit aims of this year’s Budget. Allowing all foreign-sourced income to be remitted to Singapore tax free would be an added incentive for businesses to internationalise, because such a decision would again be dependent on the cash flow situation of a company.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Budget. It is indeed a visionary Budget with an eye to the future. If Singapore is to grow and out-compete our fast-developing regional competitors, we have to transform. This transformation has to be fundamental, and has to go beyond just a year-on-year drive to increase GDP. The kind of growth that Singapore saw in the preceding decades has been that of a developing nation's. In order for us to move truly into the ranks of developed nations, Singapore not only needs to achieve raw GDP growth, but also create economic fundamentals that allow us to sustain continued growth once diminished returns set in. This can only be achieved through becoming a high-productivity, knowledge-based economy that delivers a different kind of growth from the past, a growth that in many ways emphasises quality, and a growth that is sustainable in the long run. The 2010 Budget lays the foundation for all of this and will undoubtedly not only prepare Singapore for the years to come, but also make it more resilient against the kinds of crisis that hit the world in 2008 and 2009. 2009 has been a terrible year for many businesses. At this point, I would like to declare my interest as a director and shareholder of a service sector SME with overseas offices and foreign-sourced income. The Budget that the Government introduced in 2009 truly helped many businesses tide over the crisis. I am not saying this merely as a platitude, but as a beneficiary of the 2009 Budget and its emergency stimuli, I would like to express my heartfelt and sincere gratitude to the Government. Many other owners of SMEs whom I have spoken to also feel the same.”
“Thank you, Minister, for your comprehensive reply. One supplementary question. If push comes to shove, would the Ministry consider extradition procedures against Dr Ionescu?”
“Some of these mitigating factors may be strong; for example, it is not unheard of for people in debt to these loansharks to be forced into working for them. This is especially so, given the ruthlessness of these loansharks, if these people break the law in fear for their lives or the lives of their loved ones. Judges should be allowed to consider these factors when sentencing offenders and a mandatory jail sentence may be too harsh especially in cases where the perpetrators offend under threat or fear for their lives. Will the Minister consider raising the jail terms whilst not making it mandatory? In this way, the deterrent is still increased, without restricting judges when considering mitigating factors. Finally, the Bill does not distinguish between illegal moneylenders and those acting on behalf of them. In layman parlance, it does not distinguish between the loansharks, the leaders and their runners. I thank the Senior Minister of State for his clear explanation for the rational behind this and I do understand that within these organisations, it may sometimes be difficult to distinguish between the loansharks and their runners, especially with runners often being promoted to more senior positions in the organisation. In addition, these runners are the hands and legs of loansharks and by cutting them off, we reduce the ability of syndicates to operate. These are also the people who directly terrorise people. However, it is also true that these masterminds, who in the words of the hon. Mr Heng, spawn the evil beneath them. I hope that the Senior Minister of State can consider in future much stiffer punishment, especially lengthy jail terms for these leaders when they are caught. Other than these points, Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill. 4.51 pm”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak on this Bill. I rise in support of the amendments to this Bill. The media reports of the scourge of illegal loansharks increasingly plaguing innocent families is troubling . Like my hon. colleague Er Lee, I fear that with the imminent opening of the Integrated Resorts, this may worsen. It is indeed an appropriate time for Parliament to make the penalties harsher for unscrupulous illegal moneylenders. However, I have three concerns concerning this Bill. The first pertains to the distinction between body corporates and individuals that runs throughout the proposed amendments. Ostensibly, body corporates face a lighter punishment than individuals, in the sense that the maximum punishment they face is a fine, albeit higher than individuals, whereas individuals now face a mandatory jail term, and even caning. This poses the question whether more savvy illegal moneylenders will get away with less, by incorporating a company before they make their illegal loans, whereas the less sophisticated ones who lend as individuals get heavier punishment. In a business analogy, the sophisticated moneylenders who run private limited companies have their legal liabilities protected by their body-corporates, whilst the more ignorant chaps who run sole-proprietorships feel the full force of the law. In order to plug this loophole, may I suggest that the directors of these body corporates, their employees and associates are also punished as individuals under the Act. My second point concerns the mandatory jail terms that individuals face. Although a mandatory jail term serves as a much higher deterrent to possible offenders, it also ties the hands of judges during sentencing, especially when considering mitigating factors.”
“A complaints panel with a majority of non-medical practitioners, consisting of people with vast experience in procedural fact-finding, investigation and adjudication, as well as a process transparent to the public, will go a long way to ensure that members of the public will have full faith in all our doctors. With that, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the amendments to the Bill.”
“I therefore urge the Minister to consider allowing non-medical practitioners, especially those with vast experience in disciplinary investigation and procedures, to form the majority of the complaints panel. My second point is related to the first. I note that in section 50 (12), in the event of an equality of votes in the Disciplinary Tribunal, where the Chairman is a registered medical practitioner, the Chairman shall have a casting vote; or where the Chairman is not a registered medical practitioner, the question shall be determined by a majority of votes of the members of the Disciplinary Tribunal who are registered medical practitioners. If there is no such majority of votes, the question shall be resolved in favour of the registered medical practitioner under inquiry. For the same reasons I stated above, I wonder why this requirement is needed especially since I feel this will increase the chance that the public may perceive that medical practitioners are protecting their own. I would like to reiterate that although this may well not be reality, perception is important in the maintenance of public confidence, and unless there are overriding legal and technical reasons for doctors to maintain their casting vote in the Disciplinary Tribunal, and I think there are not for the reasons I spelled out above, I urge the Minister to re-consider this subsection. Finally, again in the interests of increasing public confidence, like my hon. colleague Mdm Halimah, I urge the Minister to consider making all proceedings and judgments fully transparent to the public. Closed-door adjudications may lead to less not more public confidence. Given the importance of the medical profession in society, it is my opinion that strengthening public confidence is of paramount importance.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak on this Bill. I rise in support of the amendments to this Bill. I have three points to make regarding these amendments. Firstly, the new section 38 – although the number of lay persons has been increased, the majority of the complaints panel will still be medical practitioners. Although I see the relevance of medical experience in assisting investigation and fact-finding in alleged offences by doctors, I question the need for doctors to retain a majority on the complaints panel. Although peer regulation remains an important tenet amongst professions, the credibility of the medical watchdog body may be increased if medical doctors do not form the majority of the complaints panel. I am not questioning the ability or integrity of medical practitioners to self-regulate; however I note that one of the aims of these amendments is to increase the public confidence in the medical profession. For better or for worse, public confidence is often based on perception and it is my opinion that the perception of the neutrality and objectivity of the complaints panel would be increased if the majority of the medical complaints panel are not doctors. Moreover, the skills needed for investigation, fact-finding, adjudication and disciplinary judgment are quite separate from medical skills; a substantial number of years of medical experience may help in giving investigators background information of the alleged offences or in giving expert opinion, but are not directly applicable to legal fact-finding, adjudication and judgment which calls on a totally different set of skills and experience.”
“Thank you, Minister, I have a supplementary question. Given that male immigrants have not done and do not have to do National Service, how do we assure Singapore citizens who have this vital contribution is recognised, so that there is less resentment on the ground?”
“In light of increased competition from new street circuits in Abu Dhabi, and with Malaysia upping its ante by introducing its own team, and with the novelty of the night race wearing off, what is the Ministry doing to ensure that our night race would continue to be internationally competitive?”
“But, ultimately, I think as MDA looks at this and considers what are some of the possible measures that we can introduce to improve the situation, I want to reiterate the point that consumers will have to send their own signals to service providers as to whether they want to continue with the arrangement that we have today.”
“So, it is quite an unequal market and over the coming years, how that will shape up, we really do not know and so, therefore, they compete intensively on packaging of content, bundling of channels, in order, they believe, to provide the best package for consumers. The MDA is looking at this carefully. But, as I mentioned in the example of the UK, they have been looking at this over the past three and a half years and have yet to arrive at a decision. Obviously, because the issues involved are actually very, very complicated. But where we have some concerns, is actually, because we have seen the number of exclusive contract arrangements increased over the years – in the early days when only SCV was the provider – there were about 64 channels that were locked in, what I called ECAs and as of October this year, these have increased to 131 channels, to the best of my knowledge. And what it means, I think, is that, with such an arrangement, you actually introduce new barriers of entry to potential service providers and which is something that we hope to see, particularly so, given the next generation nationwide broadband network that we want retail service providers to be able to come in and participate in the market. And too many ECAs may result in barriers to entry that would impede such new companies from being formed and from participating in offering innovative services to consumers. The other problem, of course is, as we have seen in this case for soccer, that there is some penalty, if I may use that term, to consumers.”
“Thank you, Minister, for showing us that competition in the long run would be beneficial to consumers but our experience with MediaCorp and MediaWorks have shown that it is actually in the short run, that competition can be the most destructive, especially during the initial market-entry phases. So, what stop-gap regulatory measures does the Ministry have to ensure that these sort of destructive competitive measures are not prevalent in the short-run and what timeframe does the Ministry think these regulatory stop-gap measures can be implemented? RAdm [NS] Lui Tuck Yew: In the case of SPH and MediaCorp, as I have mentioned in the reply, that was in the free-to-air market. We understand, of course, over the years, that the landscape for free-to-air versus pay TV had also been evolving with more eyeballs shifting to pay TV, in part because of the variety as well as the quality of content that has come up over the years. And so, the commercial operators, on their own, after a period of time when they were competing intensively, decided that the pay TV market, because of the shrinking viewership, was probably not the most ideal landscape for them to go head-to-head over an extended period of time and they made the commercial decision to consolidate their operations. For pay TV, I think, we have not arrived at such a situation yet. It is, in my mind, still an evolving landscape and as to whether and when it achieves a certain degree of stability and in what form that will take, it is yet to be seen. Today, you have SCV having a subscriber base of over half a million; you have SingTel having a subscriber base of over a hundred thousand.”
“I thank the Minister for his reply and I ask for his patience as I do not fully understand his clarification regarding the dependants of undischarged bankrupts. If an undischarged bankrupt is financially vulnerable and the person is fully dependent on him, then logically speaking, this person will also be financially vulnerable. If this person has his own means of finances, then this person would not actually be dependent. So can I ask the Minister to clarify, please?”
“These people may not be on Public Assistance or bankrupt themselves, but because they are dependants – the wife or children, for example – they are indirectly also beneficiaries of Public Assistance, or in the case of undischarged bankrupts, dependent on the finances of the bankrupt person. If these people are also not automatically excluded, the whole idea of excluding undischarged bankrupts and people on Public Assistance may be undermined. Other than these points, Sir, I support the amendment Bill.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. I only have two comments, specifically on section 165(A) "Persons to be excluded from Casino". I applaud the move to automatically exclude certain categories of persons from casinos, persons manifestly unsuited from going near any gambling place. I hope that the Minister can consider another category of such persons, namely, persons who have committed offences under the Common Gaming Houses Act, the Betting Act, and the Private Lotteries Act. The reason why I think these people should also be automatically excluded is that they have committed crimes related to gambling and a casino is a place for that very specific purpose. Some of these people may have retained links to gambling syndicates, and may be more likely to offend, if given access to casinos and the many gamblers in these casinos. For example, a recalcitrant illegal bookmaker may find a casino fertile recruiting ground for gamblers interested in his illegal activities. Some may think this suggestion to exclude such a category of persons too harsh. May I also suggest the following: that the automatic exclusion stands for a period of time after their conviction, for first time offenders convicted under the above acts, after which the exclusion is lifted. Repeat offenders under the same abovementioned acts could be excluded for longer periods of time, with recalcitrant offenders excluded permanently, subject to periodic reviews. [Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Matthias Yao Chih) in the Chair] 4.15 pm The second comment I have is to ask whether dependants of those on Public Assistance, and of undischarged bankrupts, will also be automatically excluded.”
“Thank you, Minister, for your comprehensive answer. I have two supplementary questions. First, is there a target that MICA and MDA would be working towards in regard to the percentage of local PSB-funded productions? Secondly, bearing in mind the difficulties of MediaCorp making profits in a very small market, would MICA consider subsidising MediaCorp to enquire better quality foreign productions?”
“I would like to thank the Senior Minister of State for his clarifications. I am not so much worried about local students in Singapore because I think they are savvy enough to go on their own to do due diligence and at the end of the day, they actually live in Singapore. I am particularly worried about foreign students. When translated into foreign languages, they cannot catch the nuances and the distinctions between registration and EduTrust and the regulatory framework. Can the CPE perhaps consider making sure that all information is available in the languages of countries that foreign students would come from? And also perhaps play the role of the British Council, in educating foreign students who may want to come to Singapore to study and to provide information in those countries for those students wanting to come to Singapore to study.”
“In fact, registration in China is arguably also accreditation; it is thus my opinion that there is a good chance that foreign students will not be able to tell the difference. I would go so far to even argue that for all practical purposes, for private education providers, registration by the Council of Private Education is accreditation enough. By this I mean that if I were to be the owner of a private education institution, being registered by the Singapore's Council of Private Education is enough for me to market it to students. Such is the power of Singapore's brand. I would personally find it superfluous to get separate accreditation, especially if I have to spend time and resources – costs to a business – to explain to my potential customers, especially in foreign countries, what accreditation is and how it is different from registration. We should thus make the barriers to being registered by the Council as high as possible, and to make the requirements as stringent as possible. The "registered by the Singapore Council of Private Education" stamp will thus be the only accreditation that an institution will want and need. Separately, instead of an accreditation scheme, the Council could implement an Awards or Commendation scheme that institutions can voluntary participate in, that would commend and award institutions that provide quality education consistently. This would thus very clearly differentiate the two – registration, which I have argued is for all practicable purposes and savvy businessmen accreditation enough, and commendation, for registered/accredited institutions who meet certain standards consistently. Other than these points, Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill. 4.28 pm”
“I sincerely hope that the Ministry of Education can ensure that these schools do not exploit any possible loopholes or fall in-between any regulatory gaps that may exist. Finally, I would like to address the issue of the establishment of a voluntary accreditation scheme. I am worried that the existence of a separate voluntary accreditation scheme, on top of registration by the Council, may be confusing to potential students. Already in the English language, some explanation is needed and admirably demonstrated by the Senior Minister of State to differentiate an institution registered with the Council, and accredited by the Council or EduTrust; what more when translated to a foreign language such as Mandarin? I fear that even if websites and information are clearly laid out to explain the difference, this may be too subtle in practice for the foreign student looking for a school in Singapore. A foreign student looking for a school in Singapore may be sufficiently satisfied by a school stating that it has been registered with the Council of Private Education of Singapore, to be much bothered about whether it is also accredited by a scheme set-up by the Council. It may also be too complicated to explain the difference, especially to a foreign student from a foreign country where such schemes do not exist. For example, in China, where many foreign students in Singapore come from, educational establishments have to either be registered with the Ministry of Education for academic and language courses, or the Ministry of Labour for vocational training. To my knowledge, no separate accreditation scheme exists.”
“Secondly, I am concerned that the definition of private education in the First Schedule does not cover several types of private education providers in Singapore. Firstly, the definition seems to only cover full-time education, with the exception of education leading to an award or a degree or a diploma, which presumably can also be pursued part-time. However, this does not take into consideration private education providers who primarily provide part-time education, many to working adults who pursue weekend or night classes. I also wonder whether language schools are covered under the definition in the First Schedule. Language schools sometimes offer courses that lead to an award of a certificate, such as the TOEFL certificate, but often do not. Instead, they may issue their own certificates of completion to their students, who may take these courses as part of self-improvement, or as pre-requisite for attending other courses that may lead to an award of a certificate, diploma or degree. These courses can also be pursued part-time, and neither can they accurately be considered secondary or post-secondary education – I thus wonder which category these schools may belong to. Of particular concern to me are English Language schools, which are popular with foreign students. As I already mentioned, although some may offer courses that lead to an internationally recognised certificate such as the TOEFL, many merely offer proficiency classes in English. In my experience, these schools are particularly subject to abuse by foreign nationals who want a foreign student visa in order to stay and illegally work in Singapore.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. Firstly, I would like to applaud the measures taken in the Private Education Bill to regulate the private education industry in Singapore. This Bill is extremely timely given the spate of unfortunate incidents involving private schools in recent months. Singapore has spent a long time building a reputation of reliability in general, and a place where sterling education can be obtained in particular. It takes a long time to build a good reputation, and a moment just to destroy it and we should guard and protect this reputation zealously. It is important that we do not let a few bad apples tarnish the excellent image that Singapore has as a hub of quality education. I have, however, a few minor concerns about the Bill. Firstly, with regard to the measures that the Council may impose on errant private education providers, I fear that the financial penalty is too low. As it stands, the Council may, I quote, "impose a financial penalty of such amount, not exceeding $5,000". Given that the course fees per student can in many instances already exceed this amount, and the annual turnover of these private institutions can be in the hundreds of thousands if not more, a financial penalty of such a low quantum can hardly be a deterrent. Although the Council is also empowered to censure or subject the errant institution to more stringent terms to retain its registration and also has the power to de-register the institution, it is my opinion that a more deterrent financial penalty would be also useful. I would like to suggest that a penalty based on a percentage of the errant institution’s turnover would be appropriate, as it would subject the right amount of deterrent punishment on institutions of different sizes.”
“Thank you, Minister, for the comprehensive answer. I am just wondering whether there will be a target minimum in terms of the number of days of road closures which the Ministry hopes to achieve.”
“However, at the end of it all, when all the dust has settled and when all the debates have been concluded, when partisan lines have been drawn, elections called, elections won and elections lost, we must return to the start of the Pledge – the first line, the most uncontroversial line, and arguably the most important line – we, the citizens of Singapore, pledge ourselves as one united people. With that, Sir, I support the motion.”
“And finally – "happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation". Mr Viswa has already touched on this in detail, and how happiness, as measured by GDP per capita, may not be the most accurate measure. But without a doubt, it remains the most practical, and the way most nations measure their prosperity and progress. We must not abandon it. Yet, dignity, quality of life, and having a meaningful life are all undoubtedly also important, if unmeasurable indicators of well-being. That they are unmeasurable does not mean they should not be pursued, and each Singaporean should be encouraged to find his own meaning of happiness. It is only if Singaporeans truly believe the happiness for our nation is a happiness worth pursuing, that prosperity and progress can come. Our National Pledge, though simple, is thus arguably also extremely complex. This is the beauty of it. We can all hold our hands to our hearts and say it with conviction, even if we agree to disagree what we each believe to be democracy, and what equality and justice mean to us. In order to mature as a polity, I hope Singaporeans can be aware that the tenets enshrined in our National Pledge can have many significantly different meanings that can lead to significantly different political beliefs, that will underpin vastly different national policies. These differences need to be vigorously debated and discussed, because regardless of our political convictions, it is still our National Pledge. There thus needs to be space and opportunity for Singaporeans, especially young Singaporeans, to discuss and understand these political concepts, in order for us to mature as a politically aware electorate, less susceptible to demagogy and more able to make informed political choices.”
“If, on the other hand, Singaporeans believe that as long as our society is meritocratic and we all have an equal opportunity to succeed, that this sort of equality is enough to build a just society, then the national and economic policies they support will be vastly different – perhaps a regime very much like the one we have now, lower income taxes, less redistributive economic policies and an ethos that focuses more on people having an equal start to life, rather than an equal end to it. [Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Matthias Yao Chih) in the Chair] 4.59 pm Let me end this segment of my speech with another sporting analogy. In a race, there are several runners. Everyone starts the race at the same time, and nobody gets an unfair head-start. Some people, the fitter ones, are running faster. The less able ones are slower and halfway through the race, one of the runners stumbles and falls. Imagine these runners are all citizens of Singapore – us. We now have to decide, do the faster runners stop and try to help their fellow citizen who has stumbled, catch him, haul him up and help him along? If they do, it will mean that they will run slower themselves and finish the race in a slower time. Or should they continue running and try to finish the race as fast as they can, and let the stumbler lament his bad luck? This is the question we have to ask as Singaporeans. Helping our needier Singaporeans by diverting some resources away may mean that we run a little bit slower as a nation as a whole, but if we believe this is equal and just, this is what we must do. If we do not, and believe that our nation is best served by letting our fastest runners run as fast as they can, not stopping for any reason, then what can we do for those of us that stumble and fall?”
“If we believe that it is unjust for some people to be very rich whilst others hover on the edges of poverty, regardless of whether they had an equal opportunity to succeed, then one of the most powerful ways to address this inequality is to redistribute income. But by redistributing income, by taking away some from the rich and giving it to the poor, through taxation for example, we are actually telling the winners this: that though your rewards may have been justly won, through you taking your opportunity, through your hard work, your industry, we are nevertheless taking some of these rewards away from you, and giving them to those who have lost out, so we have a more equal outcome. To some of these winners, this may seem not only unequal, but outright unfair and unjust – they succeeded fairly and squarely, and yet do not get to enjoy the full fruits of their labour. Perhaps this is the reason why advocates of low income tax are convinced that higher taxes will discourage industry and impede meritocracy. On the practical level, the policy level, a belief in equality of opportunity is thus not wholly compatible with a desire to see more equal outcomes. In his speech, my colleague Mr Viswa talked about spending more money on public assistance to the poor and the needy. This is necessarily also redistributive in nature, and focuses on creating a more equal outcome, or at least reducing inequalities. Yet, this is what must be done if Singaporeans are convinced that the equality that they believe in, the equality that they pledge to, is not merely an equal opportunity to succeed, but also a more equal society on the whole.”