Chay Wai Chuen
Singapore
“As a result, some enterprising businesses and grassroots people have even come up with better ideas on equipment and machines designed to suit our HDB estates, HDB rubbish chutes and our older workers, to make the equipment easier for them to handle. 3.00 pm I give this as an example.”
“Since there are so many anomalies administered by the two agencies up to now, and because so many retailers will be affected, I urge the Ministry to freeze this scheme and review the procedures and policies entirely and put up the designated land for tender to be administered by one agency.”
“Sir, I would like to ask the Minister to give more choices, in terms of compensation or alternatives and flat type allocation for those people who are affected by the Selective En-bloc Redevelopment Scheme. Children should be, as best as possible, allowed to help pay for their parents in some of these choices that they have to choose.”
“Sir, the MUP Programme has been in place for some time and it applies to units which are 17 years and above. I would like to ask the Minister why are 40-year old flats still not upgraded.”
“Mr Chairman, there is an increase in the operating expenditure of $648 million this year for the Ministry of Defence. I would like to know what is the rationale for this increase.”
“Sir, the SAF has been involved in peacekeeping missions on several occasions, in East Timor and the Middle East, typically in the area of logistics and medical services. I wonder whether the Minister can enlighten me on what kind of role the SAF can play in this area of peacekeeping missions.”
The complete record
Every one of 526 lines we hold for Chay Wai Chuen, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 11.
“8% of our GDP at constant dollars, has been showing negative labour productivity growth since 1995. Also, both the financial services sector and the business services sector which contribute about $31 billion out of a constant dollar GDP of $140 billion, ie, about 22% of the economy, are also experiencing negative growth in productivity. Therefore, almost 30% of the economy is languishing in declining productivity compared to the previous year. This is something of note while we congratulate the Minister for his Budget and economic growth. These may perhaps explain the often time gasp, "where is this growth coming from?" I urge the Minister not to let up on fiscal measures to give incentives and penalties for the errant construction sector to buck up and improve the construction sector's productivity. Unfortunately, we put half of our domestic capital formation in this basket. The lagging financial services and business services sectors also should be given some doses of incentives for responsiveness, as they have also been in negative labour productivity growth in these few years. They somehow have not quite recovered from the financial crisis since 1997. Apart from the productivity figures, however, an important feature is that a significant number of 100,000 jobs were created, more than our annual addition to the working population by the natural cohort of 50,000. It also shows that there is considerable success in re-channelling our workers who have been dislocated in one job to seek other employment by training and retraining programmes. I believe we are on the right track with the Ministry of Manpower's redoubtable Manpower 21 programme and the NTUC's Skill Retraining effort. The second area I wish to express concern is that somehow the growth of 9.”
“This $2 billion tax break is almost universally welcome by people from all walks of life. A freer tax burden, including lower fees and statutory costs, can lead to a more dynamic, entrepreneurial economy with lesser debt burden. Despite this high growth budget surplus result, many people are asking: where is the growth coming from? They do not feel the growth in their sector, especially among the SMEs, the construction sector, which almost absorbs half of the capital formation and the financial services sector. More than 100,000 new jobs were created last year and the total external trade hit a record with exports growing by 22% last year. There are three areas in the economic data profile which I would like to express some concern for clarification by the Minister. The first is that overall productivity figures did not show comparable achievement, being at just over 5.2%, which was lower than the previous year's 6.2%. Sectoral productivity in the financial services, business services and construction services sectors declined. Overall and sectoral labour productivity figures can vary from year to year, because of many data reasons, but the sectoral productivity figures give me cause for concern, as a large proportion of the economy is languishing. Some of these sectors are undergoing re-engineering. So I would expect some adjustment in their output and input figures. Others are already making significant growth and development, especially in manufacturing, wholesale/retail trade and transport and communications. Our worst performing industrial sector continues to be construction where we have almost 50% of our gross capital formation - more than $23 billion out of $46 billion. The construction sector, which has contributed to about 6.”
“Sir, I wish to speak in support of this motion. If I have to describe the characteristic and impact of this Budget, in the history of Budgets presented in Singapore, I would say this is the big one. [Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair] 4.27 pm Firstly, it turned out a budget surplus of $3.54 billion, after providing for 50% of the Net Investment Income contribution to the reserve without entering the budget's operating revenue stream (this amount is $1.55 billion) then providing for $1.84 billion in special transfers to the various top-ups to CPF, Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund, ElderCare Fund, MediShield Scheme for the Elderly, Senior Pensioners Grant Scheme, etc. This out-turn of $3.54 billion is arrived at after transferring almost $2 billion to the telcos in the course of the year's decision to accelerate telecommunication sector liberalisation. Even if we were to add back these figures, the figure is a staggering $8.9 billion. Out of a total budget of $28 billion in 2000, the surplus is almost one-third of the total expenditure budgeted. In the same breath, the economy turned in a 9.9% growth. The explanation for all these phenomena is not as discussed just now, to be found in the year for the general election, but I believe to be found in nowhere except in Chinese mythology. It is called the Year of the Dragon. The Minister is quick this year to give a $2 billion tax cut across almost all sectors in reduced personal and corporate tax. This is naturally welcome and needed. It is also necessary, I think. I am not against budget surplus, but excessive budget surplus out-turns at one-third of the projected expenditure for the year can mean unnecessary deflationary pull on the private sector economy through taxes and statutory costs and fees.”
“Shall I say that, unless you also strengthen the workers' rights, you are not going to help them improve their positions, and so try and lessen the gap. It is only when they have rights that they can do something to improve their position. If you keep them as serfs and tell them they have got to go on bended knees to the employers, then they cannot improve themselves and so lessen the inequalities. As I have said, I have not only these measures to improve the workers' life, I have a number of other social benefits that should be granted. Why can we not grant them? Why can we not recognise that this 30% of our people need these benefits - provide free medical care, provide free education for their children. That means, their parents will not have to pay one cent. Not keep saying, "Oh, no school fees.", but the parents pay $15 a month for other things that are provided in the school. Why can we not have an old-age pension? Have you given answer for that? What is wrong with it when other countries have all got an old-age pension? The CPF is not the answer. Do all families have enough in the CPF to meet their needs when they grow old? Many of them will have nothing, practically nothing. So what do they do? And what do we do about the unemployment problem? It is growing. So what do we do about them? Just throw them on the dust heap. It is globalisation, it is globalisation. So we cannot do anything for you. It is just bad luck! I do not want to continue. I really cannot understand what I have heard this afternoon. It comes as no surprise, but to say the least, it is amazing that in a society like ours we should hear these views in the 21st century.”
“The UK government has got a national health service and had it for years now, providing medical care for those in need. Do we have it? They have an Unfair Dismissals Act. They have enough protection for the worker. Do we have them? So are they saying, "We can't do anything for the workers. It is all globalisation." Societies in those countries will not tolerate that answer. So instead of saying that there is something that we can do, the poor worker has to accept globalisation. Let us say that it is immoral that in a society like Singapore, with just 3 - 4 million people, very rich in its foreign reserves, for 30% of the people to be living at the poverty line. Let us have it openly, instead of indulging in all these words, words, words, which is what we have had from the Government and from its supporters. The Government must do this, the Government must do that. Let us have them. What are you going to do? In my view, this amendment adds nothing to what we already know and it does not say how the people who are left out are going to be helped. All it says is, it is a fact of life, accept the fact of life, let us return to the law of the jungle. Those who are able, those who are strong, can push ahead. Those who are weak, those who are disabled, can all just be left behind to die. That is the law of the jungle. Is that what we want in Singapore? Or do we want a caring, humane society which says that we have a duty, as a society, to look after our needy, those who are unable to do things for themselves. I hear several complaints from the disabled on how neglected they feel in Singapore. But it is not for them that this motion is moved, it is for our workers.”
“That is why I say that we have got to see that every child gets, what they say, the same opportunity. But how can you when the family is struggling to make its ends meet? Expect the family also to see that the children are properly educated when they have to pay school fees. One of them said that I was wrong in saying that there is no free education. I do not know whether he has got children. But does he not have paid something every month, because that is what every parent tells me? So it is a sham to say that there is free education in Singapore. It is no good just indulging in words - we must do something; we must do something; we must do something. Spell out your measures. That is what is needed now. Enough of rhetoric. And the amendment does not seek to spell out any measures. It says, "supports the Government's policies to equip all citizens to benefit from the new economy". What are the Government's policies? We have not heard anything about that. What are the Government's policies to uplift lower income Singaporeans? I still say that what was handed out at the National Day Rally, are lollipops as are those so much vaunted rebates on rent and conservancy charges. They do not address the problem of the difficulties faced by people who are only earning $400 or $500 a month, and they cannot afford the basic things in life. I have set out a number of things that the Government can do. I am not here advocating that everyone should be paid the same. That is not what I am advocating. What I am saying here is that we have got to see that in this globalisation, new economy, that a substantial portion of the population do not suffer as a result of that. Other developed countries have got proper safety nets.”
“The Prime Minister in his National Day Rally speech has just announced a $3 billion package to target social objectives, to foster greater community bonding among Singaporeans. Many programmes have been in place for some years, such as the asset enhancement scheme, CPF top-ups, rental rebates on service and conservancy charges, and Edusave rewards which are aimed precisely at levelling up the lower income classes. This levelling up approach is the correct approach. Otherwise, if the top income earners are constrained, our dynamic economy will suffer and more unemployment will result, when growth slows down. When that happens those with skills and knowledge will move elsewhere, reducing our potential for economic growth and employment generation, bringing us into a vicious trap of slow growth and low income. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support this amendment in the name of Mr Inderjit Singh and I wish that the NCMP would be better informed in future when he talks about the NTUC. Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, what I heard from the two speakers were not unexpected at all. This is what we have been hearing ad nauseam. What it boils down to is this. Mr Inderjit Singh says it cannot be helped at all, lah. It is globalisation, lah. So there is nothing to do. So sacrifice the worker at the altar of capitalism. The worker is to be completely thrown onto the rubbish heap, because he has no place in the society. Talking about improving skills, about 50% of our workers have less than secondary education. So how are you going to teach them to understand the intricacies of machines and other things that are needed? Can you explain that? Education, of course, is a very important thing.”
“My colleague, Mr Inderjit Singh, has very elaborately highlighted on this. Modern communication means they can employ their executives from anywhere so that relative scarcity of labour skill and talents is transparent. That means executives are also competing globally. Workers are also in a way competing globally, except that executives can move across borders whereas ordinary workers have to do so within the confines of borders. Modern technology and communication also means much flatter organization so that wider control can be executed giving productivity to the higher level executives, enabling them to be better rewarded. Skill biased technical progress also can substitute for unskilled labour. That means that as progress is introduced, more and more skill intensive jobs will be demanded. It is complementary to skilled labour, dislocating unskilled labour by demanding more skilled labour. In this process, wages are made more unequal. The driving force of technologies does not just cause income inequality across industries but also within industry differences. This is due to more skilled labour having to work with newer types of capital requiring more updated skills, leading to better wage rewards. With these driving forces of technology and change, our Government and the NTUC have prepared our workers for the new challenge ahead. I hope the NCMP has heard of ManPower 21, this new Manpower Development Plan for the new economy. He said we do not have any scheme. The NTUC raised funds for the Skills Redevelopment Programme, which is jointly funded by the Government. Today, I was told the demand for the Skills Redevelopment Programme has been very good. This will ensure that our workers will be continually upgraded in their skills.”
“This means many countries like the US and the OECD countries over the last 10 - 20 years, as pointed out by Mr Inderjit Singh just now, have also exhibited this tendency towards rising income inequality as their mature economies embark on more skill intensive technological growth. I would like to point out that this issue of economic growth and income distribution over time and across countries have been an issue of considerable interest study since the 50s. It is not a new subject. One of the first economists in this area of studies was the earlier Nobel Prize winner, Simon Kuznets, whose hypothesis was that economic growth would generate rising income and wealth inequality during the early industrialization period, and later a declining inequality during the mature industrialization period. This hypothesis has always been controversial but in the last 20 years, the experiences of the United States and the OECD countries do not conform to this hypothesis of declining income inequality at the mature stage, as rightly pointed out by Mr Inderjit Singh. This is because the experience of the OECD countries has been one of sharp rise in wage inequality since the early 70s to till today. Recent studies have also identified certain factors which have caused this tendency towards wage inequality in these advanced mature economies. The most important of these is skill biased technical change. Once an economy is engaged in the international trade, the impact of trade will reinforce the labour saving technologies and the skill intensity of jobs so that the wage inequality is further deepened. The impact of globalisation and the borderless world means that MNCs locate themselves all over the world such that they can produce at the lowest cost.”
“Lollipops to him, but not to many people who need them. By the way, these lollipops cost a few billion dollars. These schemes have been in place for several years. What have been the main driving forces in changing the face of our economy over the last 10 years that these will have a significant impact on our income inequality? Firstly, I would like to say that it is our increasing openness and dependence on the world economy in trade and also in resource factors. Secondly, it is the globalising force that is sweeping the world economy. Thirdly, it is the emphasis we have been putting in raising our productivity, by raising the skill content of our exports and manufactures in order to stay competitive. Otherwise, we will have less investments coming into Singapore. Fourthly, it is the emerging technological changes and knowledge-based system that will determine the new employment profile in the New Economy. These driving forces affect wages unevenly. Skilled labour gets to do better and better because they are paid better and better. Unskilled labour wage cannot rise as fast as the skilled ones. Often times, there will be dislocations and unemployment where jobs and incomes are lost. As a result of all this, there is income disparity. Given the high degree of our economic openness and the state of globalising forces impacting us and the technological progress that affects the growth in these economies, what can we draw from the studies of these countries' experience similar to ours? The good news is that our experience is not unique.”
“So there is no doubt that there is a widening income disparity in Singapore over the last decade, but we must also remember that the GDP in that period doubled, averaging at a compound rate of 7% per annum for a decade. Has the Government been taking action to lessen the disparity at the lower end by appropriate transfer of income and assistance schemes? The answer is yes. In fact, the Government has realized that some years ago and that this is likely to be an enduring feature of our open economy at this stage of our development where we are actually embarking on a growth path, not just catching up with the advanced countries, or what they call "catching-up growth" but in the literature they call it "endogenous growth", ie, growth that comes with technology. The Government has, over the last few years put in all kinds of assistance programmes such as rental and assistance scheme, SC&CC rebates and utilities rebates, RUAS scheme, public assistance and various personal tax rebates.”
“This issue arose from the Department of Statistics' paper on income disparity. Of course, arising from that there have been many reports on this widening of income gap and many proposals on why and how such gaps as reflected in the Gini coefficient should be closed. Economic growth and income distribution has always been an area of concern by economists, politicians and journalists. These issues attract popular interest because at best they reflect a genuine concern for the well-being of our fellow men. This amendment motion recognizes our economy's openness and the globalization forces that sweep the world economy, with so much technological and communication technology advances that are going on. These forces will have an impact on our society and will cause more advanced segments and less advanced segments within the society to develop. We have no choice, I believe, but to embrace this because we are a very open economy. The Government will have to continue to take steps to foster greater social cohesion and the Government has done so. I would like to put forward some positions from economic studies that we must see these widening inequalities in society in perspective. If we look at the Department of Statistics' paper of May 2000, "Is Income Disparity Increasing In Singapore", the Gini coefficient was shown to have increased from 0.446 in 1998 to 0.467 in 1999 which showed a positive increase of 0.021. From 1990 to 1999, the increase is 0.031. If we look at the ratio of the average income of the 9th decile to the 2nd decile, the figure rose from 5.5 in 1990 to 6.8 in 1999.”
“Yes, from the Statistics Department, but I say "phantom worker".”
“It spearheaded programmes to raise funds and got the Government to co-fund and today we have this SRP programme which is being run by the NTUC for the retraining of workers. So I find all these issues that he has brought up rather misleading, but it is important for us to lay clear before the public that these issues have actually been addressed before and some of the issues that he has brought up are really misleading. I want to talk in support of Mr Inderjit Singh's motion. He pointed out quite correctly that this inequality in income in the last 20 years in advanced countries like the US and OECD is quite an important fact. There has been this rising income inequality in these countries. This is attributed to several important factors which he has already highlighted. But I would like to develop on some of them later on. This whole issue of income inequality actually arose from this report some months ago on this phantom $133 worker that the Straits Times reported.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to speak in support of the amendment to the motion in the name of Mr Inderjit Singh. Listening to the NCMP just now, I found that it is as if we were all caught in a time trap together with Rip Van Winkle, going into the 60s, hearing all the stories of industrial strike actions and demonstrations on workers' rights. I think he has also forgotten that during this period, trade unions had also changed and trade unions had also modernised. He recounted about the experience of a Hong Kong gentleman who visited him and said, "Oh, now, they are all doing businesses." Trade unions have always been doing businesses right from the beginning - cooperatives. It is one of the features of European trade union movement that cooperative businesses were started right from the beginning of the trade union movement. And even today, if you visit countries like Sweden and Germany, cooperatives run by unions have always been there. But there may be a difference. Those in Singapore run by our NTUC are pretty successful. He talks about Cabinet Ministers being in the trade union movement. Perhaps he has forgotten our unique historical struggle. The PAP was founded by many leaders who have trade union connections. It is more than a gesture. It is more a pride that we have got Ministers who can also represent our workers' rights at very, very high level in the Cabinet so that workers' rights are taken care of, problems and issues discussed, weighed and even anticipated right before they arose. The NTUC in Singapore has been singular in promoting the trade union movement. It highlighted the problems of workers in training and retraining that are necessary for the new economy.”
“Sir, in the M21 plan, the National Skills Recognition System will incorporate modularity in the course content and the certification of skill competencies. This is a scheme that deserves to be supported. I feel, however, that there is a need for industry experts to be involved to map out the skills set for this NSRS. This must be people who have long experience in the industry or involved with the evolution of industry clusters locally as well as internationally. For example, the retail industry is mashed into logistics and supply chain. Hence, the skills set for the retail industry must be widened. Conversely, people from the freight delivery handling sector also converge into retailing and e-tailing. Such industry experts should also be aware of the strategic directions of the investments in our economy, as well as internationally. This is necessary because otherwise, we may come up with a very limited map or a map for yesterday's industry skills and this map should always be periodically reviewed. A map devised by human resource managers or even training managers is not necessarily the right map for the NSRS.”
“Sir, I want to ask the Minister some questions on the alternative arrangements in a knowledge-based economy. With this new development in work arrangement under a KBE including flexi-time working at home, stock option schemes, etc., which are used to facilitate the new knowledge workers, there is also a need to incorporate a new compensation and worker welfare scheme into our current system. For example, currently employees' medical coverage, work remuneration, savings in the CPF, leave, workers' compensation are all found under the Employment Act in the ambit of the employment relationship. When workers are engaged on contract schemes for intensive work and are paid in wages or stock options, and perhaps working most of the time outside the office, how does the Ministry ensure that these workers will also have sufficient savings for retirement and medical cost, savings for training, etc, when they reach old age so that they will not become dependent on the State, and that when these new economy workers reach old age they will be adequately protected? We can either devise a new system of contract service employment or we can pep up the existing Employment Act to meet these new requirements. I hope the Minister will elaborate.”
“I would like to highlight here that the NTUC has done quite a lot in training and retraining more than 20,000 of such workers to acquire this kind of skill. And the recent initiative announced by the Government to train our more senior workers in learning this new skill is laudable. It can be a delivery service. It can be a restaurant service, the cleaning service, the hospitality service, a childcare service or retail service. The Ministry should therefore identify this kind of service sectors where we can upgrade or professionalise the work with the right kind of equipment to work with, so as to enable our displaced workers to stay employed. Unfortunately, the present situation in Singapore is that there are many foreign workers working in these sectors. The wage in these sectors is also low. Hence, I urge the Minister to focus on this issue and accelerate the development of services associated with high-tech affluence, so that there will be available jobs for our displaced workers in order to let them stay employable.”
“Sir, much has been said about the impact of globalisation on our employment prospects for our workers, and the need for training and retraining our workers in order for them to stay employable. I applaud the Minister for his Ministry's M21 Report and the strategy to help meet the demand sectors in manpower resource. My concern here is trying to convert a significant portion of the workforce with a certain level and set of skills into a higher one. While this is laudable, it may be limited for many of our workers, because the pace of change of industries and the knowledge economy is taking place at such a fast pace that even well trained people from the polytechnics and the universities may find it hard to cope. Such workers, however, may learn another less onerous skill and seek employment in another sector. One of the interesting features of the new economy is to be found in the United States in the growth of employment in the traditional services sector in the face of employment decline in the traditional production sectors. Even in the new economy, people need to be served. They need to go to restaurants. They need to enjoy music, having things delivered to them, cleaning and maintenance work, etc. Our workers, young and old, need to be equipped with, for want of a better word, I would call, a skill multiplier, and that is to be able to use the computer and the Internet for communications. I am not even talking about information technology..This familiarity and skill will equip them well to bridge distances, to match the demand and needs for goods and services with the fulfillment of that need and to communicate with the customers.”
“Sir, I thank the Minister, the Minister of State and the Parliamentary Secretary for all the answers and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Sir, I would like to ask the Minister's view with regard to the privatisation of berth operations. There are several new ports emerging in the region threatening to take away business from the Singapore port. Of course, at present, the Port of Singapore is still ranked No. 1 and support services in Singapore are still superior compared to the regional ports. However, the prospect of major shipping companies moving over to privately operated berths in Tanjong Pelapas poses questions of whether the time is now ripe for some of our own berths in our ports to be leased out to private shipping companies to operate. There are certain advantages for berth operations to be privatised. Shipping companies can lease their berths for a period of time. Since they have to pay for this they will have to maximise efficiency down the supply chain to maximise value. They can also plan to maximise the use of berths and plan their turnaround time for mother and feeder vessels to and from the region. There is no doubt that the Port of Singapore is doing well. There is also the need to see beyond tomorrow,”
“Sir, the Port of Singapore is ranked as the busiest port in the world in terms of shipping tonnage as well as the top bunkering port. PSA Corporation made $1.1 billion of profit before tax out of a revenue of $2.3 billion in 1998/99. To me, this also means that there is plenty of room for competition for the regional ports to compete with Singapore. What is the Minister's view regarding the potential threats to these ports including Tanjong Pelapas and Port Klang?”
“Thank you, Sir, for letting me join in the debate. Since we made this recommendation in the VQS report, we have always been haunted by this issue. Actually, one of the terms of reference of the VQS study, I want to remind Members, is the stability in the quota prices. As a term of reference, that was one of the considerations. It was not a budgetary or fiscal revenue collection consideration. The figure, as rightly pointed out by the Minister of State, for Category A, below 1,000 cc, was actually very, very small. As the figure gets smaller and smaller, the tendency for fluctuation in value becomes very high. The Member for Ang Mo Kio asked about why do we not let the market decide. Precisely, there was this problem of great fluctuations in the prices of COE - we had an outcome of $50 and so on - and this was one of the issues that we wanted to address. I would just like to make this clarification that the stability in the COE prices was one of the considerations in the terms of reference. It was never a budgetary or revenue collection consideration. The second thing is on the open market value. Actually, if the consumer wants to, he can still buy a smaller car and the OMV would be small, even in the present situation. But then the question is, what is the COE price that he will have to bid? The principle on which the Committee went by was that every user of the road is occupying a certain space on the road and should be considered equally, not just because somebody says his is a smaller car, therefore, he should be charged at a lower rate. If we want to address equity reasons, then let us address it through differential rates of taxation, road tax for cars and so on.”
“Sir, the GPC made its report on COE review last year. One of the recommendations was to smoothen out the peaks in COE replacement over the next two-year period. Can the Minister give us some feedback on whether this step has given some stability to the COE bidding? And will the Minister also give us the new quota for COE for this quota year, bearing in mind the time is quite near for the May quota to be revealed? While the ERP system has been fully introduced and extended, will the Minister tell us whether in the main, the Government has collected more or less in revenue as compared to the previous system of CBD ticket system? I wish to urge the Minister to always provide more alternatives for public transport facilities, be they bus routes or by-passes, beyond just monitoring the traffic flow rate, before deciding on raising ERP charges to price congestion. A lot of members of the public are keen to know about this, because many of them are quite prepared to switch to alternative transport modes if they are available.”
“The next item I want to talk about and ask the Minister is on the licensing fee structure. In view of the liberalisation measures taken for the telecommunications sector, almost anyone can come and join in the fun. In order to attract interest, it is necessary to see that the existing structure of licensing fees for operators and service providers is appropriate under the liberalised regime. Also, we have to make the business competitive and the consumers get value for their money. Hence, I feel it is important that substantial revision in the licensing fees be done, so as not to negate the benefit of liberalisation. Will the Minister be able to give his views on this?”
“In the telecommunications services sector, this seems to work in the favour of Hong Kong in the perception of business investors who have the capital or those owners of proprietary technologies intending to make their presence in Asia or the region. Can the Minister give us some benchmark indicators of how we stack against Hong Kong especially in terms of infrastructures, pricing, inter-connectivity and the range and quality of our services? This will also put in perspective to the public how and where we stand in order for us to mount the next step forward. And have we really done enough to market ourselves and to the right audience? May I take the third topic, Sir?”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head I of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100. Sir, the recent announcement by the Ministry on the accelerated pace of liberalisation of the telecommunications sector by April 2000, and the lifting of foreign equity limit in this sector immediately, are policies to be applauded. It will facilitate the build-up of our city state into an info-communication hub. However, this means that the Government has to make compensation to the two operators, SingTel and StarHub, for the loss of the so-called duopoly status. It is of interest to the public and to the investors how the Government intends to compensate them. Do the compensation criteria for the two need to be the same, and on what basis of real sunk investments? I hope that whatever the basis of compensation, it must also reflect the state of dynamic change in this sector of business, with the attendant risk being a factor which has to be discounted. Otherwise, public funds may not be put to good use. Will the Minister tell the House what has been the interest by foreign investors since the liberalisation? Is there still a national strategic role for a major national telecommunication player in Singapore in view of the fact that ready and appropriate access to telecommunications technology is of critical importance to Singapore? Sir, we have also heard recently of the telecommunications services development in Singapore and Hong Kong. In many surveys and reports done internationally, Singapore usually comes across as a more regulated economy and Hong Kong a more laissez-faire one.”
“To levy taxes on the shares under the stock option scheme will be contradictory to the aim of the scheme in promoting entrepreneurship. I hope the authorities will take note of this. I personally do not agree to the levying of tax on the stocks under this scheme. Like the Budget last year, the Budget benefits many Singaporeans, especially those who are in the lower income group. In this tax package, those who are above 21 years old will be given $250 CPF top-up. This is a very good measure to make them feel that the people of Singapore have a stake in our economic prosperity. Through various tax rebates, for example, in the case of 4-roomers, they will get a minimum of $683 as rebates and top-up. For those earning higher income they would be getting as much as $1,138 in the form of rebates and top up. Many Singaporeans benefit from this Budget. I support the motion.”
“The Budget encourages young people and foster the spirit of entrepreneurship. The measures such as the reduction in estate duties and tax exemption for royalty for intellectual properties are positive measures for encouraging entrepreneurship. However, on the other hand, there is this scheme called the employee stock option scheme. The tax levied on this scheme, I think, is not very appropriate. We should understand that the capital gain from the acquisition of shares is not taxable. Generally, a stock option scheme is aimed at retaining employees so that they have a stake in the company in order to motivate them to work better and longer hours for the company. After they have opted for the shares, there is an appreciation in the share values. Why should they be taxed on the gains of the shares which they are allocated? These shares allocated to the employees will have certain conditions attached. For example, the value of the shares will be based on the market value at the time of announcement. And there is a limit in the period before they can take out the shares. If the gains from these shares are taxable, they will have to sell their shares to pay for their income tax. This will defeat the purpose of the employee stock option scheme, and the employees will suffer certain losses because it may not be the right time to sell their shares. Many young entrepreneurs have many ways to make money but they are short of funds. Therefore, through this stock option scheme, the young entrepreneurs could acquire a substantial portion of the share in the company where his idea is implemented. The benefits accrued are the same as those shareholders who founded the company.”
“To withdraw the property tax exemption for the property under development will have negative impact on the construction industry. We should make use of these measures to stimulate the property sector so that they can be restored to their former prosperity. The reduction of corporate tax from 26% to 25.5% would imply that there will be some adjustments in personal income tax in future. Right now the 5% rebate in income tax is more preferred. However, I feel that there should be an adjustment in the personal income tax rate so that there should not be too big a difference between corporate tax rate and personal income tax rate. There are many things which merit our support. In the allocation of funds for MCD, there is an increase of 38% which shows that the Government is concerned about the building up of social cohesiveness as proposed in the President's Address. The proposed Supplementary Retirement Scheme is a good suggestion. The increase in the tax reduction for the aged parents and the top-up for the parents' CPF show that the Government has taken note of the problems of an ageing population in our society. I think families are the best places to look after the aged parents. And the big increase in other social and community funding also shows that the Government pays attention to the personal relationship between the people and the harmonious relationship between the different communities. This will also strengthen other social amenities like homes for the aged, childcare centres and other measures. This will alleviate the problems of working mothers and the problems of aged parents who need people to look after them. Therefore, the increased funding for MCD will help to raise the quality of life and the cohesiveness of the society.”
“Although we have our CPF scheme for many years, the truth is that many Singaporeans will not be fully prepared for their retirement. The tax relief the Minister offers now will pay off in lessening the burden of a large number of such aged who are inadequately funded for retirement. A positive step now will add to building a cohesive bond between the Government and the family. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the motion. Assoc. Prof. Low Seow Chay (Chua Chu Kang)(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, many people told me that the Budget this year is not exciting at all. It is not surprising because this Budget was pronounced after the series of supplementary measures announced last year. It is now the time to adjust to new conditions. Some measures which were necessary last year would not be necessary this year. So there should be a period of adjustment. The measures abolished were not many. The 10% corporate tax rebate has been replaced by 0.5% reduction in corporate tax. The exemption of property tax for properties under development was withdrawn. These two big measures show that the Government is quite optimistic about the recovery of our economy. The Minister also mentioned that the construction industry is still in the doldrums. However, I feel that the reduction of the tax rebate on developments from 55% to 25% happened too soon. The construction industry has a share of 10% in our GDP. The long term negative growth of this industry would affect quite a lot of people. Many people in this industry are facing bankruptcy and becoming insolvent. If the Government does not do anything to help the construction industry, this industry will take a much longer time to revive.”
“This group of people at that time did not have this opportunity, because we were under a colonial administration, as he had aptly put it. And because of this, their earning capacity and income stream all through their life were quite low. So even if we had a CPF scheme during the period when they were working for the last 20 to 30 years, the amount saved is quite small for these workers. A SRS Scheme for aged parents, with an appropriate tax offset, ought to be incorporated. The Minister may reply that there is already in existence an allowance for aged parents supported by a taxpaying son or daughter. But this tax relief is only limited to one taxpaying son or daughter. He may also say that there is now already a Minimum Sum top-up to the CPF. First, I support my colleague, Dr Wang Kai Yuen's suggestion to raise this Minimum Sum top-up to $60,000 for all. But I am more concerned also with extending this SRS scheme to aged parents as well. I believe this is quite an urgent task. The sooner we do this the better because it takes time for some reasonable accumulation of savings to be effectively useful. It makes possible a kind of inter-generational transfer of income with some tax incentive by the Government. I hope we do not have to wait for another five or 10 years to discover that the Minimum Sum top-up is not enough. I hope the Minister will seriously look into the widening of the SRS scheme now to allow taxpayers with income to transfer some savings to their aged parents through such a scheme. They should get full tax offset on this, up to some generous cap, and I mean generous, bearing in mind the longer lifespan of people in the next 10 to 20 years. We need to do this now as soon as possible.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, for allowing me to speak. I would like to speak in support of the motion in the name of the Minister for Finance. After a long day where my parliamentary colleagues have given so much of the bird's eye and fish eye view of things in this budget, I would just like to focus on one particular topic, ie, the Supplementary Retirement Scheme (SRS). The Minister intends to initiate some tax changes in order to encourage Singaporeans to save more prudently for their needs after retirement, and to encourage greater family cohesiveness, particularly in view of the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Ageing Population Report. This "complementary private sector system" is to encourage individuals to contribute to a private fund such as under the "Supplementary Retirement Scheme". It is proposed that the SRS will be accorded tax deductions at the time of contribution, but the tax being payable only when the savings are withdrawn. The Minister said that the percentage cap based on the salary will be determined. In view of this prospective ageing population, and the higher dependency ratio that we are going to face in the next 10 years, I urge the Minister to consider immediately giving some leeway to taxpayers who would also like to save under the SRS for their aged parents who may be either working or retired. Many Singaporeans retired on very small retirement savings because our country was quite poor in its initial stages of our economic development, and the country went through a very dramatic growth era, from ground zero within one generation. Just now, my parliamentary colleague Mr Ong Ah Heng from the NTUC has just given an example of how we have a huge group, 40% of our labour force, of 800,000 workers without Secondary Four education.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I also clarify with the Minister: of these 54,000 warrants of arrest, how many of such errant drivers are actually owning their vehicles. Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung: Just two points of clarification. First, the Minister mentioned very limited resources in relation to the execution of warrants. How limited are they vis-a-vis the 54,000 outstanding warrants? And the second point is that he mentioned that there are some who are more recalcitrant than others in terms of the warrants of arrest. Does he have the breakdown of how many of these persons who are subjected to warrants of arrest are first-timers, and how many are really those who are habitually disobeying the summonses?”
“This may deprive the person affected of one of his most substantial assets besides his flat. I should like to ask the Minister to clarify whether the difference in the notice procedure is intended and why the notice procedure is not as elaborate as that stated in the Parking Places (Amendment) Bill. Sir, with these few points that I hope the Minister can clarify, I support the Bill.”
“It also follows that in bringing the offenders to justice, we are not seen to take what may be viewed by the public as excessive means, especially when the perception of the public, as the Minister conceded just now, may be that traffic offences, other than the moving offences, may not be regarded as serious offences. Moving next to the provision concerning the giving of notice to a person about the immobilising or removal or detention of vehicle, it is interesting to note the contrast between the means of giving notice through this Bill and the Parking Places (Amendment) Bill that will be considered later. In the Parking Places (Amendment) Bill, the persons affected may be informed through four means: delivering the notice or document to him, another adult member or employee of his family, leaving it at his last known business address, sending him a registered letter to his business address or any address furnished by him, and if any of the above cannot be done, through notification in the Gazette. Under the present Bill, in the case where a vehicle has been detained, the service of notice is only through the post sent to him at his usual or last known place of residence or business in Singapore. It is difficult to see why the notice requirements in the Road Traffic Act, which covers more serious offences, should be less than those in the Parking Places Act. If anything, there should be a higher standard of notification, as more serious offences are involved. This requires further thought given the consequences of the seizure. It is provided, for example, that after three months if the person had not been arrested or surrendered himself, the vehicle may be disposed of by auction or in such manner as the Deputy Commissioner of Police or the authority thinks fit.”
“In the case of those who disobey the law frequently, I have no doubt that the use of this law would be appropriate. Where a person is intentionally avoiding arrest, one can understand the need for stern action. But not infrequently, there are occasions when, due to some circumstance, such as a change of address or failure to effect proper delivery of the notice of summons, a warrant of arrest may be issued. Members of this House, I am sure, have come across cases where the person against whom the warrant is served does not understand the terms of the warrant at all. The notice is usually worded in legalese, that is to say, in English legal language, which is, to a layman and sometimes even to a lawyer, quite incomprehensible even if he knew English. In such cases, perhaps the Minister can clarify whether there will be an opportunity given to defaulters to answer the warrants before such overt actions are taken against him. I should like to know whether there was any consideration given to a more graduated enforcement of such sanctions. What I mean is whether the Ministry has considered the need to distinguish between those who have been habitually ignoring warrants of arrests and those who are subjected to the process for the first time. Is there a possibility that the legislation could be improved by specifying that these sanctions should only be applied, for instance, to cases where there is habitual disobedience to notices of summons? Sir, the proper treatment of offenders in a just society requires the principle that the punishment must fit the crime.”
“The new section 95A confers wide powers to police officers, auxiliary police officers and employees of LTA to immobilise, seize or detain any vehicle of a registered person subject to a warrant of arrest. This power can be exercised against a vehicle found parked anywhere, even on private premises. In the case of such premises, only police officers can exercise the power and then only if he cannot effect an arrest after making a reasonable attempt. The Minister tells us that the default rate for summonses in road traffic cases is high and that provision has to be made in legislation to control the problem. I agree that when the default rate is high, measures may have to be taken to improve the situation. But I think this new provision may unsettle many. The immobilisation or removal of cars can be done even though they are properly parked. 54,000 immbobilised vehicles in Singapore in car parks can give rise to a totally new dimension of what Singapore means by a "fine" city. It also could be done in the person's own driveway and garage. Is such a far-reaching power necessary? One need not have to have a vivid imagination to picture what will happen when a car is immobilised, for example, in a HDB car park or in one's own driveway. Neighbours would be quick to notice that something is wrong. The stock answer may be that if someone is under a warrant of arrest and he does not surrender he must face the consequences, such as social embarrassment. But should all subject to such warrants deserve the same treatment? I certainly hope that such a power be used only in extreme situations and not as the first recourse in a situation where a person against whom a warrant has been issued cannot be found.”
“I think there may be a need to really look at whether these are appropriate measures. The errant drivers of vehicles who have committed offences need not necessarily be the owners of the vehicles. So, in a case like that, there again you have this problem of trying to adjudicate who is really responsible for the offences, and whether the punishment that is meted out on the owner of a car is really fair. The second point I want to ask is on the introduction of this automated vehicle entry permit and smartcard for drivers of foreign vehicles. I am not clear exactly what the implications are, but I would like to ask how will the foreign drivers, with this smartcard that is issued to them, top it up with cash in Singapore? Is it through the ATMs? Do they have necessary accounts for this? And how will the authority at the Checkpoint verify and pinpoint the smartcard to a car or a driver? I suppose from the explanation given by the Minister of State, the identification is really from a card to a car. Then again, the issue is really not errant cars but only errant drivers. How then do we pinpoint the fault? An errant foreign driver, for example, committing an offence can conveniently leave the payment of the fines or tolls to another driver who drives out to the gate at the exit point. What happens if there are offences where demerit points may be accumulated? Who then is responsible? Perhaps the Minister can clarify. Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of the Bill. However, there are a couple of clarifications and concerns that I have regarding these amendments.”
“Sir, I would like to speak in support of the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill. In principle, I have no objection to the proposed changes of empowering officials to take further action and steeper fines against people with outstanding warrants of arrest. Illegal parking is, of course, causing a lot of inconvenience to many other law abiding drivers. Whatever reasons many of these errant drivers may give, especially when they go and see their MPs, they should be aware of the danger and the inconvenience they are causing to other law abiding citizens. However, I am quite puzzled by the Minister of State's figure just now, when he mentioned that there are 54,000 of such outstanding warrants of arrests. This figure implies that there are such number of people, who have committed traffic offences walking around and violating the orders of the court to attend to such cases, in which case I am wondering whether these measures that we are proposing in this amendment Bill will actually address the issue. If we have 54,000 people with outstanding warrants of arrests, certainly, I think it is a very serious situation for the Home Affairs Ministry to look into. But there again, for such cases, will these measures address the issue? Why is it so difficult to arrest these 54,000 people? I think there are special issues and nature of the offences involved. Therefore, maybe the solution to address the issue of such warrants of arrest may have to be refined and dealt with at further length. If we just look at seizing the vehicles of the offenders at such places including their homes, then my question is: why is it so difficult to find the vehicles of these offenders in their homes and not able to arrest the person but rather to take away the car?”
“And it does indeed say much of our move into the IT age that we do have laws preventing private communications from unwittingly becoming non-private.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to just clarify one point which the Minister touched on just now. In talking about the issue of interconnection access and the free rider problem, I said just now that we might end up giving up a lot but getting very little. What I meant was actually when people, particularly international companies, come into Singapore and operating as licensees, riding on the interconnection access which is built up internally here, there is an issue here. How does one price it? Of course, you can say that by opening up the market, naturally prices are becoming cheaper and cheaper. But if you just look at this kind of benchmark, international prices of operator, it might not mean a thing. The value of the business is resided in the asset value of the company. So the value is actually there - in the control of the operations, in the headquarter company, in the stockholding company which is overseas. So the danger is really there. If you just use the normal standard day-to-day routine measure and say, "Bottomline. That's it. So many cents per call, or whatever." I hope the Minister can dwell into what I mean when I said "giving up a lot for very little". Assoc. Prof. Toh See Kiat: Sir, I wish to ask the Minister to clarify. Does he not see the anomaly that arises when he says that clause 41 is not intended to cover electronic snooping? If you get a person who taps into a telephone line, that is illegal but if he taps into an aired message through a mobile phone system, then it is not illegal. I do agree that there are encryption systems. But as a matter of practice, most mobile phone messages will remain unencrypted for a long term and also perhaps because it is more expensive.”
“Certainly, if you were to use current technology to intercept mobile phone messages, it would really not be touching, tampering, damaging or removing any installation or plant under the Telecommunications Bill. Consequently, it could be read as a lacuna in the law because we prohibit people from intercepting messages only if it touches the line or the plant or the installation of the Telecommunication Authority but not if they are clever enough to avoid all these. Sir, I would like the Minister to clarify on this point. Other than that, Sir, I support the Bill.”
“The clause, as it stands, would seem to require operators of e-commerce businesses which would happen to be riding on an ISP, a licensed ISP at that, to be licensed too. And I hope this would not happen because otherwise, as could be possible, portals like Yahoo and e-mails like Yahoo.com or hotmail.com, or the chat rooms that are set up under e-commerce shopping malls, or perhaps on-line stock trading services - these may all come within the licensing provisions of the Bill. If there is no licence, then it would be illegal, and this would hamper a lot of e-commerce. Further, I do believe that we need to clarify whether technologies used by companies like MediaRing and Net2 Phone would be similarly telecommunication systems that need to be licensed, because they breach the monopoly privilege of the licensee. So we do hope that the Minister would clarify this and, if necessary, this could be done in the regulations under the Bill. Moving on to clause 35 again, I have a clarification. Clause 35 is an offence clause which penalises those who operate a radio communication system or service, and if you do not have a licence, it could well give you penalties under this clause. My question is: would an Internet radio service, which could eventually also be wireless, be covered under this clause? If so, then it should be excluded. Next, my point is on clause 41 and perhaps the clauses after that, clauses 42 to 48 which deal with the interception of telecommunication services and such offences. Looking specifically at clause 41, I regret that this is perhaps not wide enough to cover and protect against electronic snooping which does not touch, tamper, remove or damage any installation or plant under this clause.”
“The first point that I raised earlier on in the debate on the Info-communications Development Authority of Singapore Bill, and now under this Bill, is that in clause 2, there is a definition of "TAS". Here, my argument is even stronger than earlier. It says, ""TAS" means the Telecommunication Authority of Singapore reconstituted by the repealed Act;" My question earlier on and my question now is: how can an Authority be reconstituted under a repealed Act? I believe the words should have been better put as, ""TAS" means the Telecommunication Authority of Singapore formerly reconstituted under the repealed Act." My other more substantial point relates to clause 4. Under clause 4, the monopoly given to the licensee is excepted in that if "a person runs a telecommunication service solely for his own use or solely for the purposes of his business . on a single set of premises in single occupation;" Those are the words in the Bill. This would mean that the exception to the monopoly privilege will not cover, it seems to me, a world-wide or even a nation-wide corporate intranet. It is within one company, but it seems to fall outside this and therefore there is an infringement. The other possibility is that if we have a private network in an intelligent building, it could be one premise, if you see it that way, but there are many occupiers and therefore even though they should not be regulated by the Act, it appears that they will be. I wonder if this is intended. Sir, moving on to clause 33 of the Bill, this is the beginning of the offences and penalties (Part VI), and I believe clause 33 can be read too widely.”
“The danger is always there. Because of our local market limitations we may end up giving up a lot for very little. How does the Telecommunication Authority, or IDA subsequently, make out fair compensation to such infrastructural cost and rewards for risk involved? If such compensating criteria are not well defined in advance or certain businesses are unduly or unfairly penalised by unwitting extraction of its business advantages to some other licensees, there may be reduced incentive for strategic investments and for long-term dynamic growth and development of the industry, which may therefore be affected. I hope the Minister can clarify. The requirement in clauses 53 and 54 stipulating Government's overriding international rights is also important and very reassuring. Singapore has made its stand to fulfil its role as a responsible member of the international community, its intention to override all licensees' conduct of business at variance with such international responsibilities to which the Government is a signatory. The intention to stipulate better telecommunication cable detection work by contractors is also most welcome in clauses 29 to 32. We all know that any damage to telecommunication cabling network costs a lot of money for the businesses affected. And the latest regulatory role of the Bill allows for this detection work by contractors and penalty fines for them are the least we can do to continue protecting our cable network. Assoc. Prof. Toh See Kiat: Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support this Bill. The first thing I would like to say is that the Bill is timely and we have debated on the Info-communications Development Authority of Singapore Bill, and we realise why we have to do this.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill covers a wide area, as has been mentioned by the Minister, in telecommunication services and setting out the rules and regulations for the provision of such services, the codes of practice, the offences and penalties, enforcement powers as well as the international obligations and areas of strategic interest. It vests the Authority with the exclusive privilege of operations and the provision of telecommunication systems and services in Singapore, including the power to grant licences for operations in specific areas of services. This power to license also includes the power to require licensees to share systems or inter-connection access to systems with other licensees. The spirit of transparency and global competitiveness is quite definitive in this field of telecommunications. I wonder how will the licensees, who have certain competing strengths built up over years of market expertise, human skills or strategic investments in anticipating the market or building synergies in their own businesses, view the directions from the Telecommunication Authority, or IDA subsequently, to share their resources or competencies with other licensees on this sacred altar of transparency and inter-connection access. Also, there is a question of national strategic interest, either in having some critical or important telecommunication systems or features reside in or belong to Singapore. It is a typical free-rider problem that one encounters often in businesses and organisations. The infrastructure is built up by the pioneer. The newcomers come to ride on the infrastructure support built up. How does one price it? By fixing benchmark market cost in equivalent features globally, or in a market asset price of the stockholding company?”
“I would say that, prior to this, it is indeed heartening also to see that the Authority would be given the power to encourage, facilitate and promote the greatest practicable use of industry self-regulation by the information and communications industry in Singapore. I would like to know if the Minister would, in a policy statement perhaps, soon announce how this would be done and whether there will be any budget to do this. It is important for industry to self-regulate but it is also important to give them the right incentives so that they will do it. With that, Sir, I support the Bill.”
“Then, again, in this case, it will be across the board dealing with content not only on radio, TV, computers and Internet, but print media too. So I would indeed urge the Government to continue considering that. Now, moving on to the technicalities, I look at clause 2 which states the definition of "TAS". I believe there is a little inelegance of drafting here. We are told that in clause 2, TAS is defined as "the Telecommunication Authority of Singapore reconstituted under the Telecommunication Authority of Singapore Act". This Act, we will know today, will be repealed. It is strange to me to see words telling me that an Authority would be reconstituted under an Act which will be repealed. I do believe that perhaps what the drafters intended to do was to mention that this new Authority, IDA, is an authority that will replace TAS which was formerly reconstituted under the TAS Act, which is now repealed. Perhaps some additional words would make that clear. Moving on to clause 6(1)(e), there are certain powers mentioned which are given to the new IDA, ie, new powers, new functions and new roles. I am very supportive of those roles. Perhaps clause 6(1)(e) could be further expanded, not just to deal with the IDA representing Singapore in international fora, but also to be given the powers to separately and independently, if necessary, to forge this convergence of laws. Because as IT and telecommunications converge, the laws of the world will need to converge and harmonise. I hope that the power will be given to the IDA to work with international bodies, whether Government or non-government, whether public or private, in efforts to harmonise ICT law and policy and to create transnational and, if necessary, supranational solutions. I move on to clause 6(1)(j), Sir.”
“I followed up on 12th March 1998 with a question in the Committee of Supply which was reported in of Hansard dated 12th March 1998. The then Second Minister for Trade and Industry replied in , and again the answer was no, that it was unrealistic to have such a Ministry. I followed up again, 12th March 1999, reported in , asking for this again. And I am very heartened, Sir, that today we see the culmination of efforts like that. We have now not only an IDA (Info-communications Development Authority of Singapore) but also a new Ministry of Communications and Information Technology. It does show that if we do try, in small persistent pushes, it can indeed, perhaps with faith too, move mountains. Sir, I am very happy that we have this new Ministry and this new authority to better manage the convergence of IT. It is, you might say, the new "darling" of Singapore, and we hope that it would be able to live up to the high expectations. The convergence of broadcast technology, computer technology and telecommunications technology, in fact, should lead us to that further consideration of merging even the SBA, as the Minister has mentioned in his speech, with perhaps IDA. The Minister's answer is that content regulation should be separate and it is still all right that traditional broadcasting can be regulated that way, and that the technical side of broadcasting will be brought under IDA. Half a loaf is better than nothing, Sir. But I would still say that we should actively consider merging even SBA with IDA because out in the industry, it is rather confusing for a broadcaster to say where this goes to - SBA or IDA. If we are concerned about separately regulating content, we can indeed have a separate agency to regulate content.”