Chew Heng Ching
Singapore
“Sir, in terms of sports facilities, we, as a nation, are certainly very well-endowed. We have many stadiums, swimming complexes, sports halls, multi-purpose fields, tennis courts, school fields and many, many more.”
“These jobs need not necessarily be limited to menial jobs like cleaners, sweepers and lift attendants, but could be extended to include the services of older professionals such as engineers, accountants, managers, and clerical officers.”
“For this reason, Sir, I am a bit disappointed with the Budget in that we could have done more for our SMEs, many of which have also made sacrifices in the past and are still struggling and not able to reap the benefits of economic recovery.”
“In so doing, we may have addressed the form of the issue at high cost to our charities, deterred some good people from coming forward to serve and to volunteer, but may miss out on the substance, which is the bigger picture, ie, what is the best means with reasonable level of disclosure and accountability to help meet the needs of the nee…”
“May I, therefore, suggest that the Government look into the plight of these wet market stall owners. Many wanted to give up their stalls but, with outstanding loans from the banks, they could not. Some wanted to sell their stalls but there were no buyers. And their children are not willing to take over the stalls.”
“May I therefore propose that the Ministry, in the light of this massive LUP project announced by the PM, review the adequacy and the use of town council sinking funds.”
The complete record
Every one of 653 lines we hold for Chew Heng Ching, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 14.
“Whilst the studies on the influence of TV and film and cartoon violence in US and Japan have not been conclusive, there are parallels that can be drawn between the horrific violent crimes in Japan and the United States and the ambivalence of its youth to it. Even the subject of violence did not escape the eyes of the MITA Programme Advisory Committee on TV and radio programmes. In its recent report, it has highlighted that programmes with strong violent themes, like WWF, should be avoided during family viewing time. Sir, I think it is timely to review our censorship policy on violence in general in our various media. May I therefore propose that MITA initiate a review of our censorship policy on violence with a view to minimise its bad influence on our young.”
“Sir, I will be less emotional. I make this cut to express my concern over the increasing proliferation of violence in our various mass media. For example, in a widely accessible TV programming, Sportscity shows the World Wrestling Federation (WWF) at 10.30 pm on Fridays, 6.00 pm on Saturdays and 5.00 pm on Sundays, and these are all prime hours. The recent WWF programme shows that wrestling can also be a bloody experience. A programme that glorifies violence has now been telecast as wholesome family entertainment. It has been reported that children in schools, who are not properly supervised, try to mimic the acts of these wrestlers. I am not alone here. In recent times, letters that appear in the Forum Page of the Straits Times have also expressed the same concern. Even the SCV cartoon channel has deteriorated to include scenes of gratuitous violence. One particular culprit is the "cow and the chicken" cartoon series which is screened almost at all times of the day. I am concerned that it does not just stop there. This is but a couple of examples on society that is now flushed with violent images and programmes. Whilst we have been focusing on sex on the big screen, and R(A) ratings are routinely given for films and productions which have a sexual content that is beyond a certain level, the level of general violence in non R(A)-rated films may have gone unnoticed. Glorification in the press for movies like Hannibal, for example, and the print media focus on photographs, like what the earlier speakers have said, depicting violence on the front pages to catch attentions of readers, is also disturbing.”
“We cannot afford to have this role negated completely for commercial interest as, once we start on that slippery slope downhill, it will be difficult to crawl back to higher standards of journalistic integrity, which our media should aspire to. I would, therefore, like to propose to the Minister that the Publication Advisory Committee (PAC) of MITA step up efforts and take on a more pro-active role in reviewing journalism and editorial standards of our newspapers. Like the other two more active programme advisory committees overseeing programming and development in the other two media - the broadcast and Internet - I propose that the PAC should report to the Minister regularly as a check against any drop in standards of reporting by our local newspapers.”
“Sir, there has already been some debate on this subject of media liberalisation recently. However, I would like to reinforce the concern that media liberalisation, which has thus far involved the proliferation of a great number of newspapers generally reporting the same news, may lead, if we are not careful, to a deterioration in quality standards of newspapers, in order to attract attention and ensure circulation volume. The public now has a wide variety of newspapers to choose from. These include our traditional Straits Times and the mass circulation New Paper, Streats, Today, Project Eyeball. In order to compete for readership and, hence, advertising revenue, our press has occasionally resorted to sensationalisation at the expense of providing pertinent and reliable information. Sir, it is not just Project Eyeball or Streats which displays centrespreads of a scantily-clad Jennifer Lopez, for example. Even the venerable Straits Times has not been spared the need to highlight sex and violence occasionally. Take the Sunday Times of 25th February 2001, for example, where the story about a couple making love on board a British Airways flight, covered a significant part of the front page of that paper. News on ministerial walkabouts or national policy news - which certainly cannot compete as juicy news - do not always steal a front page story. Sir, the local print media is still protected by legislation from foreign competition. It has therefore an obligation to continue to support the national interest, which is to raise the awareness of domestic and other issues which are critical to nation-building.”
“Of late, a number of productions by artistes, both local and foreign, have been staged in Singapore to public audience which have included rather controversial and sensitive topics. Take the case of Talaq which covers one Indian-Muslim story of marital violence and rape. Then there is Rent, a rock 'n' roll musical that included positive treatments of homosexuality and drug abuse. And there are others like Asian Boys Vol. 1, the S and M Musical "Chameleon", and so on. Sir, I am not averse to letting artistes expressing themselves. However, left to their own decisions, I am concerned that art for arts' sake can include just about anything that may not be in the interest of our community. It is therefore necessary to ensure that state funding for the arts, whether through the NAC or other agencies, should be a lot more selective with some definable criteria. Whilst we would like to support creativity and develop our own critical mass of local artistes, we may have to be careful when public funds are poured into productions that have themes that are anathema to the wider interest of our society. Lines have to be drawn to maintain certain standards. Sir, I would like to propose that MITA has clearly defined rules setting out criteria in granting funding or sponsorship of the arts so that the artistes are more aware of what the playing field is. In addition, perhaps, MITA could come out with a code of practice binding corporate sponsors for the arts as well.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head R of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100. Sir, we have come a long way in the promotion and development of the arts in Singapore. We are no longer the cultural desert that we were in the 70s and 80s. The Government has done much to facilitate and assist in the development of the arts. Funding for the arts has increased manifold in the last ten years. Busking is now legal. There is also an increased outreach programme in schools, parks and communities. Funding for the arts education has also increased in recent years. Some arts groups are now housed in permanent locations and are partially funded by the Government. Then there is also the Annual Arts Festival and Singaporeans today are able to enjoy the benefits of numerous international shows in a year. The Government is also building the $600 million arts centre called The Esplanade - Theatre at the Bay which will be ready in the second half of next year. Sir, credit must go to the National Arts Council and the various agencies under MITA for promoting and developing the arts successfully. Perhaps, it is time to take stock of what had been achieved in the past decade of the development of the arts. I would therefore like to ask the Minister if he would update the House on his Ministry's mission to develop Singapore as a Renaissance City and where do we proceed from here. Sir, on the same cut, I have a specific question to ask and that pertains to the criteria for state fundings of the arts. I am concerned that, in our haste to promote the arts in Singapore, we may have inadvertently forgotten the fact that we live in a multi-racial, multi-religious society with strong moral and ethical standards.”
“Sir, I would like to end by quoting a saying from the late John F. Kennedy, "if a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich". This Budget has sent the message to our citizens that the Government has a heart for its people.”
“Finally, Sir, I would like to reiterate and elaborate on the feelings on the ground and on the part of many of my constituents. Whilst MTI and the Government have been optimistic of Singapore's continued growth this year, following the rapid recovery in our economy in the last two financial years, there is considerable concern amongst many citizens that the benefits of recovery have not been fully felt across the board. Many small businesses, like retailers, HDB shopkeepers, market stallholders, etc, have not seen a discernible increase in business activity and whilst we have not suffered the fate of Hong Kong and the UK in the early 1990s, where many households actually suffered from negative equity in their household mortgages, there has certainly been some contraction in our asset prices. Whilst many of these developments are symptomatic of the underlying changes in the structure of the economy, part and parcel of market adjustment and globalisation, they all contribute to the lack of confidence, and perception of uncertainty in the times ahead. I would therefore like to commend the Minister for addressing some of these concerns in this Budget which has certainly underlined the commitment of the Government to bridge the gap and to give more support to the have-nots and the less well-off in the form of incentives to help them to do better and, at the same time, encourage the able to do more. Sir, many of the measures that the Minister has presented in this Budget will certainly go to help those segments of our society that most require it, ie, the lower and the middle wage incomes, the small businesses and the fledging technopreneur sector. With more disposable income, hopefully, it would stimulate spending and business activities and perhaps enhance job creation.”
“Could the Minister therefore elaborate on what the plans are for GST, and if and when should Singaporeans expect further increases in GST, and will it be met by equally significant reductions in personal income taxes in future? The third question concerns the allocation of the "share outs" from the budget surplus. It has been widely publicised that escalating health care cost is one of the greatest pressing concerns of working adults, and especially for senior citizens without a stable income. The $10 rise in Singapore Allowance for pensioners, for example, will not go very far to help meet many co-payment schemes by health care providers. Would it therefore not be more appropriate to consider allocating the CPF top-up, not to the Ordinary account, but to the Medisave account and to re-balance the planned contribution from the surplus to the Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund and the Medical Endowment Fund in order to address the pressing need for the aged in meeting their medical expenses in the future? Fourthly, on a more specific matter, in view of the recognition of the need for Singaporeans to be part of the KBE and to embark on lifelong learning, would it not be more appropriate to review the current cap on tax relief for education course fees, currently set at $2,500 per year? Sir, I believe this level has not caught pace with the rapid rise in costs of tertiary and professional education in recent years and is incongruous to the emphasis that the Government has placed to encourage Singaporeans to upgrade their skills and education. I therefore urge the Minister to consider revising upwards this quantum, to encourage Singaporeans to upgrade their skills and education in order to keep pace with global economic demands.”
“For instance, the best economists and analysts were all caught off guard in December 2000 when the US economy started to cool and it was only recently that institutions like the G7 and IMF have started revising downwards the world economic growth with the potential for more shocks to come. There is perhaps a need for Singaporeans to understand and be assured that the Government stands ready should the 5-7 % GDP growth targets that MTI has set for this year not materialise. After all, it was only 2-3 weeks ago that the Turkish Lira was devalued, and ominously, just like Thailand in 1997, the consensus expectation is that there will be no contagion effect, even though Eastern Europe has started to feel the chill already. A lower tax burden, as the Minister has rightly pointed out, will help businesses and individuals to some degree. However, it does not go very far if revenues are falling or jobs are lost. Potentially, a revisit of the global crisis in 1998 could arise, except that this time, the US, which has almost single-handedly consumed the world out from the recession then, takes the lead downwards. I would therefore like to ask the Minister if the Government does stand ready to do more for the economy if indeed the US and the global economy slips into recession this year. Has the Government a contingency plan or supplementary budget ready? Sir, the second question that I have concerns GST. We understand that when the GST policy was introduced some years ago, the longer term stated goal of the Government is to strike a balance between direct and indirect taxes. There is a concern now that with the reduction in direct personal and corporate taxes, the Government may increase indirect taxes through GST.”
“The welfare methods that were a hallmark of many European societies of the past and the fiscal drain on big governments by many state-run programmes clearly drained resources and dis-incentivised the able to produce more, is certainly not the route for us. Hence, the reduction of personal and corporate taxes is significant in that it sends the right signal to Singaporeans and foreigners alike who may be further encouraged to make Singapore their home. Ultimately, it is not increases in Government spending per se that should be the support for any economy, rather the creation of the right long term regimes to align incentives for individuals and companies to take greater risks and produce more. Sir, whilst I applaud the Minister for delivering a good Budget, I have a few questions to raise. The first question reflects the concerns many Singaporeans have over the worsening state of the world economy today. In the short term, it does look like the flu that the US economy seems to be suffering from has already affected some of our global companies, particularly those in the electronics industry. Singapore has managed to accumulate surpluses in years of plenty, running budget surpluses even whilst the Government had embarked on an expansionary fiscal policy to stimulate the economy in the last two financial years. However, now that we are reducing direct tax rates, will this limit the ability or desire of the Government to provide more off-budget measures to stimulate the economy in the future? Should the flu that the US economy has caught become prolonged, spreading rapidly here, we may have to do more.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the FY 2001 Budget. I would like, firstly, to commend the Minister for what has been described by many as the "best ever" Budget. Indeed, whilst providing something for all Singaporeans, businesses, SMEs, individuals and families, this Budget has struck a fine balance. It sets the fiscal tone for the future economic development of Singapore, as well as addresses some pressing concerns in our current economic environment. First and foremost, I am greatly encouraged by the emphasis that the Minister has placed on the smaller members of society. The tax cuts for individuals, for instance, are not the flat-rate type cuts that provide the biggest windfalls to the rich, but were structured to benefit the lower and middle-income taxpayers most; whilst, the corporate tax relief is structured to benefit, in greater proportion, small businesses which have felt the heat from globalisation and greater competition most. I am particularly heartened by the fact that non-taxpayers also share in the surplus built up by the Government last year. For example, the $333 million rebates on HDB service and conservancy charges, as well as savings in rentals and utilities in addition to CPF top-ups, are not only timely, but crucial to maintain the social fabric that keeps and binds our nation together. Sir, I would also like to stress that it is equally important that the right incentive structures are in place in Singapore to enable the right environment for creativity, risk taking and entrepreneurship, without creating a dependency effect for the less successful members of society on the better-off.”
“Would DPM therefore be able to comment on any expected effects this exercise may have on slowing the initiative for greater enterprise in our economic model, which is essential to our survival in the new millennium? Sir, I support the proposal but would like DPM to address some of the concerns I have raised arising from this exercise.”
“I would like to ask him if this amount has been provided for in the current budget. If not, where would the expenditure be funded? If yes, could we have the assurance from him that this exercise would not lead to any consequential increases in rates and fees of Government charges. The timing of the exercise is also a source of concern for a large minority of our population who have yet to feel any tangible effects of the economic recovery. These include families whose members have suffered retrenchments or SMEs and small businesses that are still finding the environment difficult to successfully operate in. I would like to ask if the Government has done any studies into the potential impact on employment and wages, ie, its impact on our economic recovery arising from this exercise. If the consequence of benchmarking public sector wages leads to pressure on the private sector employers to follow suit to attract and retain their own talent by raising wages, this may stifle the nascent and segmented economic recovery that we have benefited so far. Will DPM comment on this concern? On a related note, rising wages increase the opportunity cost to relocate and discourage Singaporeans to take on more entrepreneurial roles by creating more "comfortable" employees in both the public and private sectors. This seems to go against the spirit of entrepreneurialship and enterprise that we have been trying to cultivate so aggressively in the last one year. Greater risk averseness and higher opportunity costs in the public and private sectors will reduce labour mobility. There may be less incentive as a result to exploit opportunities as fast as we should be.”
“Similarly with the rising prosperity of the world and enlarged opportunities for our limited talent pool, the opportunity costs to those who can deliver for the nation have risen. We can never compare and compensate like for like with the market as there is the noble duty of public service attached to the jobs in Government. However, we can certainly give due recognition and reward in as fair and effective a manner as possible. The recent PERC report as appeared in the Straits Times today ranked Singapore tops for its leadership. Our Ministers certainly deserve the recognition. They also deserve the adjustments proposed in this exercise. In particular, I applaud the measures to phase the adjustments for Ministers' salary over a 3-year period as well as the annual review to better reflect the fluctuations in the market. This is indeed a testament to the robust integrity of the way in which we scrutinise and refine our system continuously in the public interest. Sir, despite the logical and rational reasons that had been debated at length in the past and to-date that the Government faces in attracting and retaining talent, we still have to address some of the emotive and pertinent concerns of our citizens. I would therefore like to raise a few concerns and seek clarifications with DPM. Sir, Singaporeans are feeling the effects of the recent increase in fees and rates, in transportation, utilities and other basic charges in the economy. There is a fear that there could be further increase in fees, rates and other charges as a natural consequence of raising public sector wages. DPM has stated earlier today that the proposed increases in salary of public servants arising from this exercise will amount to some $400 million.”
“Sir, I rise to support the spirit and principles behind the proposals raised by DPM Lee today. Raising compensation levels of Ministers and senior public servants has always been an emotive issue for any country. Nevertheless, there is a need to reinforce and understand the fundamental reasons why it is required at this particular juncture. Singapore is not just an isolated nation in the rising sea of global trends facing all economies in the world. The effects of globalisation are being felt at the far corners of the world. There is now a world benchmark for talent, and not just a domestic one. Mobility of people and the growth of opportunities in the international arena have spawned a whole new level of the ball game in attracting and retaining talent. By many accounts, our Government and civil service have been very successful, transparent and progressive in transforming our country and citizens to the top tier in GNP per capita, in education matters, health and many other services. They have indeed delivered for the nation. A hallmark of our success has been the clear incentives in rewarding dedication, efficiency and results, with market benchmarks. This has ensured that some of our very best and brightest continue to serve our country for the benefit of all. Indeed, the Government and its bureaucracy have been ranked tops by many international benchmarks, not least the recent Economist survey on e-Governments for which it is stated that we have the largest potential in enabling the successful transition of the economy and the nation into the new e-millennium. We all recognise the lure of the dot.coms and its ability to reward richly.”
“Sir, on behalf of all those who spoke, I thank the Minister and his colleagues for their crisp replies. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $201,414,300 for Head R ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $177,618,500 for Head R ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head M -”
“Sir, I take the cue that we are behind time. I just like to ask the Minister on MITA's plan to promote good English.”
“Sir, the National Library Board embarked on a major project to open a library at the Ngee Ann City, Orchard Road, in October last year, and that Library targets young adults or the yuppy crowd. I understand that the Library there is very popular now and that the National Library Board will continue to try out new strategies to make our library services useful and accessible to all age groups. Sir, in the proposed Budget, some $86 million is allocated for current expenditure and another $101 million for development expenditure under the Library programme. Development expenditure shows a five-time increase over the estimated development expenditure for the current FY. Presumably, a large portion of this development expenditure is earmarked for the new National Library. We have heard about the recent debate and understood the decision to relocate the National Library to Victoria Street. I would like to ask the Minister if he could elaborate on the special features that the new National Library would have, the costs of the investment, and what the public can expect from what is to be the most technologically advanced facility in the region when this National Library is completed in year 2003. Further, could the Minister also comment on any IT initiatives to increase library utilisation as well as participation by Singaporeans? For example, are there plans to improve accessibility such as through the Singapore One network or through our educational institutions? 3.00 pm”
“Sir, in view of the greater liberalisation of the news media and its impact on our local print media, I have a few concerns. We are aware that our local print media, ie, our newspapers, are driven by commercial interests as they are owned by a publicly listed company. In view of the scarcity of resources in a small country like Singapore, it appears that, with increasing regionalisation and global competition, it is inevitable that our local print media will have to promote entertainment and more coverage of populist stories in its newspapers in order to sustain readership. Sir, my concern stems from the fact that as the industry consolidates and we open up to the world, our local media may be tempted to neglect its nation-building role. If they continue to play that role, will they succeed or be dwarfed by the major competition from the big boys? It is also true that if they are perceived to be mere mouthpieces channelling official press releases from the Government, they would suffer a credibility gap and our citizens would simply shift to more accessible Internet channels or other cable stations for their news. I would like to ask the Minister if there are indeed plans to ensure that our local print media, ie, our newspapers, will continue to remain relevant and to play an effective nation-building role. Or are there other viable alternatives should our local newspapers embark on pure commercialisation, in order to remain competitive in the future? Should we, for example, encourage the formation of a second newspaper company? Perhaps the Minister could enlighten the House on the Ministry's stand on this, since he has taken over as the Minister for Information and the Arts for some months now.”
“I would like to suggest that we should grant them as much flexibility in their choice of programming as possible so that they can continue to be relevant to Singapore and to Singaporeans as a whole. They would then continue to be an effective medium for national interests as well. I therefore would like to ask the Minister if his Ministry agrees with the PAC's recommendations and what follow-up actions will the Ministry take as a result of the recommendations. 2.45 pm”
“Sir, the Programme Advisory Committee (PAC) has once again completed its review of our local TV programmes and released its report recently. I agree with most of its recommendations and I applaud the Committee for its efforts. In particular, I agree with its recommendations that our locally produced TV programmes should reflect more of our multi-racial representation and that imported TV programmes should not be biased towards American-produced programmes. Instead we should source more programmes from other countries, so that our citizens would not be unduly influenced by any one culture. Sir, I am, however, not entirely convinced by the PAC's recommendation that there appears too much violent content as well as the promotion of negative values on prime time TV. The report cited prime time programmes such as Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Charm amongst others. Many young people I spoke to disagree with the PAC. They enjoy programmes like Charm and Buffy the Vampire Slayer for their entertainment value. Frankly, I believe that Singaporeans today are more cosmopolitan and are more mature to handle and distinguish between entertainment and real life. Indeed, a quick channel check of Channel 8 shows that many programmes on Channel 8 as well involve horror, ghosts, gangsterism and violence, although they are so called Asian content programmes. They too have good entertainment values. Sir, TCS has a difficult task. It has to stay commercially viable, as well as relevant to our own citizens who have increasing access to alternative channels or mediums for entertainment including the Internet and cable TV. TCS also has a critical role to serve in national education and information.”
“This is in order that we can ensure that with all the best laid plans such as Channel NewsAsia's intention to go regional, we would be able to continually attract and retain the best talents to achieve this goal. Sir, for MediaCorp to succeed in the long term, it has to quickly address its manpower problem. Unless it is able to recruit, motivate and retain talents in the group, it will lose out. I would therefore like to ask the Minister what plans MediaCorp has to meet its challenges ahead, in particular, its HR policies to attract, motivate and retain talents in the group.”
“Sir, the new millennium saw our MediaCorp group restructuring its various TV Channels to achieve a new look, a new image and to meet the competition. This is a laudable move. TV12 has restructured its existing channels (Prime and Premiere) to a fully Malay Channel (Suria) and one niche channel concentrating on children and arts programmes as well as Indian programmes (Central). Sports programmes on Premiere have now moved to a new channel called SportsCity under TCS. Channel NewsAsia, which recently celebrated its first anniversary, is now expected to go regional before the end of this year. Sir, the increased segmentation and specialised focus of the various channels allow them to cater to different interest groups, reflecting our multi-racial society and the differing needs of different age groups. MediaCorp has no choice. Unless it constantly changes and moves with the times, it will lose out to SCV and other foreign TV channels. Sir, restructuring is one thing. Equally, if not more important, is the need to recruit, motivate and retain talents within the MediaCorp Group. On this aspect, I am concerned whether MediaCorp is ready to compete on an equal footing with the foreign broadcast media. In the last year, we have seen the departure of several big name broadcasters and artistes like Christine Tan, Darryl David, James Lye and the impending departure of Lynette Tye from Channel NewsAsia. And recently, we read about the resignation of TCS' former CEO, Lee Cheok Yew. Sir, in order to be effective, competitive and relevant, I would like to suggest that the current HR policies within the MediaCorp group be reviewed.”
“In addition, with the trends in new forms of work and employment, I would suggest that the Government encourage Singaporeans to take up private insurance. The tax deduction for life insurance premiums is currently limited for most individuals who have regular CPF contributions. To encourage greater self-dependency and personal responsibilities, the Government should consider lifting this cap and allow Singaporeans to use their CPF to buy health, education and other forms of life insurance. Finally, Sir, a critical aspect to the success of Singapore in the new globally competitive IT intensive future is to influence the culture and mindset of Singaporeans. We have to change our traditional expectations of what working life or what a job is like. We have to become less risk-averse, more entrepreneurial and more IT enabled. Some of these aspects are already enshrined in Singapore 21 goals, where we should leverage on the strengths of family and the community and not merely let loose unbridled individualism. I am glad that the Minister has continued to extend fiscal incentives that are supportive of the family. However, in conclusion, I urge the Minister to consider my suggestions to encourage greater contributions to CPF, and to use the channel of the CDCs and other community organisations to distribute some of our budget surpluses to enable Singaporeans and the community at large to benefit and to contribute to the successful KBE of Singapore. Sir, I support the motion. ADJOURNMENT OF DEBATE Resolved, "That the debate be now adjourned. " - [Mr Wong Kan Seng].”
“The upshot to this trend is that permanent work or full-time employment is on the decline and that self-employment and part-time work are on the increase. This increased incidence of flexi-work is consistent with a KBE and should be supported especially in the light of increasing deregulation of our services sector. However, there are implications that we have to cater for. We have to encourage individuals to be more self-reliant and responsible for their own well-being since the era of life-long employment is on the decline. I am glad that the Minister has announced the introduction of a Supplementary Retirement Scheme (SRS) which would allow Singaporeans to contribute voluntarily over and above their CPF savings which would be accorded tax deductions at the time of contribution. However, I would urge the Minister to consider extending the SRS in two areas. Firstly, the percentage cap for tax deductibility for employees' CPF contributions could be set at a higher level so that employees have greater flexibility to maximise their long-term interest via the CPF. Secondly, to encourage the greater use of CPF accounts and ancillary benefits, I suggest an equivalent scheme be extended to the self-employed and those who are employed on non-CPF schemes, particularly those part-timers and contract workers, to also contribute to the CPF in such like manner. In the KBE that Singapore is transforming itself into, there would be a greater number of self-employed, contract staff as well as home-based entrepreneurs and technopreneurs who would benefit from this measure. This would enable the Government to encourage more personal responsibilities and less reliance on the state as we move forward.”
“To really make the tax treatment for ESOP scheme more favourable than cash payments, perhaps an easy to administer scheme would be to charge all income derived from share options exercised and sold at a flat rate of 3%. This could be a spur to allow companies to incentivise their employees and partners in enterprise, and is also in line with our attempt to encourage basic wage flexibility as well as a more risk-taking culture. Similarly on fiscal policies, we note that many younger generation IT savvy potential entrepreneurs are lacking in funds to support their good ideas. While there are various schemes in place at the NSTB, we still have a large number of successful Singapore technopreneurs obtaining funding from angel investors in Singapore. May I further suggest that the Minister consider tax incentives for these angel investors, such as the ability to offset venture investment losses in such hi-tech start-ups against their personal income tax, as a catalyst to encourage more risk-taking by our people and to spur the private sector growth for angel investments. Sir, as part of the knowledge-based economy of the future, there are employment trends in the United States showing an increasing growth of part-time and contract jobs. These are created as a result of the outsourcing of many aspects of a traditional firm, from project work, supply chain management, IT to human resource management. Firms are becoming more lean and mean and efficient to compete effectively. This trend is not isolated and the model is applicable to the KBE of the future. Indeed, there are already signs in Singapore that our companies are adopting such methods to stay nimble and competitive.”
“This method of involving the CDCs and the community groups is also consistent with our aim of encouraging ownership and self-reliance, in keeping with the objectives of Singapore 21, and would go a significant step to reach out to our families and communities to influence their mindset and culture. This is especially applicable to the middle-aged and older generations, a vast number of whom still have an innate fear of technology and have felt left behind by the fast changing world. The second area of concern is the comparatively few firm initiatives to support the entrepreneurial or technopreneurial society that we envisage for the future. The Minister has emphasised that the review for the ESOP scheme would be completed in May this year. We recognise the importance of how stock options are essential to start-ups and mature corporations in this new environment to recruit, motivate and retain top talent. Indeed, equity ownership is the key to the development of a vibrant technopreneurial environment in Silicon Valley and other high-tech nodes elsewhere in the world. Sir, time is of the essence in respect of creating a technopreneurial society. Hence, I would urge the Minister to consider hastening the process as this tax review on the ESOP scheme has been on-going in Singapore for a number of years now, whilst other countries such as the United Kingdom and Japan have gone ahead and revised their policies. In addition, to improve on our modest first step which was to enhance the tax treatment of ESOP by deferring the tax payable by up to five years announced last year, I would like to suggest a bolder extension.”
“I wonder whether part of this surplus could be passed on to Singaporeans to get them to prepare for the knowledge-based economy. Sir, it may sound radical at this juncture but we may need to be courageous as we enter the brave new world ahead. The Communications and IT Ministry has recently announced a $25 million scheme to finance IT courses. This would, as a start, underline the commitment and the fundamental strategic direction that the Government has for Singapore to compete in the new environment. This programme would be a basic enabler to ensure that the vast majority of our workforce or every single family is IT equipped and can then start to embrace and take full advantage of the KBE. It is indeed a laudable move. However, I believe the $25 million, averaged over a workforce of 1.5 million Singaporeans works out to $16 per person, may not be enough. As a start, I would like to propose that perhaps a matching amount for the CPF top-up of $250 per person be channelled through the CDC to co-fund IT courses or even basic hardware purchases like PCs by families as part of the life-long learning initiatives. Furthermore, I would propose that the Minister consider a scheme whereby we devote some 10-15% of our annual budget surpluses to be ploughed back into the economy through the CDC to upgrade and to prepare our population for the KBE. This is more substantial than the mere $25 million earmarked by the Ministry of Communications and IT. This programme would help ensure that the vast majority of our workforce or even every single household is IT equipped and can then start to embrace and take full advantage of the global KBE.”
“In this regard, I would like to express my concerns whether the Budget caters enough to enable Singapore to embark on the genesis of this knowledge-based economy of the future. My concern transcends beyond the simple allocation of a budget for IT across the Ministries. It is essentially whether we have provided enough across the entire budgetary system and framework, to incentivise, to motivate and to support a strategy of the new knowledge economy. The Government has indeed tried to position Singapore for these new challenges. I note that there have been concerted efforts to roll out IT education programmes in our schools and to "wire" Singapore up. The NSTB is also in receipt of development expenditure for financing and administering R&D projects in addition to the various schemes already in place to co-support IT start-ups. Its recent launch of the portal for technopreneurs in Singapore to facilitate and support budding dot.com companies is also a step in the right direction. Fiscal incentives in the budget for innovation, as well as the estate duty exemption extended to support the Technopreneur Home Office Scheme, are all encouraging signs that the Government is positioning Singapore for the new age. However, this begs the question of whether more can be done in the shortest possible time as we quickly reposition ourselves to face the KBE. First, at the macro level, through belt tightening and the cost of restructuring, which was felt by many at the individual job loss level, Singapore has been able to run budget surpluses in the last two financial years, to the tune of $4.2 billion and the Government has rightly decided to pass a portion back to Singaporeans via a $250 CPF top-up.”
“Sir, like many other citizens, I am very pleased with Singapore's V-shaped economic recovery and proud of the way in which Singaporeans have banded together, accepted cuts in CPF and faced global competition by adjusting to increasing liberalisation of key sectors of our economy. We have taken the Asian economic crisis by its horns and rode the tidal waves in the last three years, coming up stronger, as the sterling economic results presented before us by the Minister have exemplified. I would like first to thank and commend the Minister and the Government for the skilful steering of our economy as we emerge from the wood of the crisis. Sir, as we enter into the new millennium, the Minister has rightly pointed out that the terms of reference for global economic competition have altered significantly. Globalisation and the onslaught of technological advancement have altered the way markets operate and the nature of doing business altogether. We do indeed need to innovate and advance with global trends or risk being rendered redundant. Traditional brick and mortar enterprises are being replaced daily by virtual dot.com businesses. Indeed, the first two months of the new millennium saw the Dow Jones falling 17% from its peak in a rather short period of time, while the technology heavy NASDAQ doubling since September 1999 and seems to rise irrespective of whether there is any intervention in the money markets via interest rates by the FED. What this boils down to in essence is that there is a clear diversion of capital to the new technologies, the new methods of doing business or the new era of competition that lies before us.”
“Sir, I feel that we, as Singaporean employers and Government, are not doing enough to give these individuals a chance to assimilate back into society and become responsible citizens who have the ability to fully contribute to our nation's progress. If we are indeed attempting to be a more compassionate and gracious society which is tolerant of failure, then we have to give such individuals a second chance in life. And this is in keeping with some of the objectives of Singapore 21, as we will provide a real avenue for all Singaporeans to be the best that they can be. Sir, the Government may have to go beyond providing education and skill training to help rehabilitate prisoners or inmates. I am not advocating something as radical as what is practised in some European countries where it is illegal for employers to ask if prospective job applicants have had previous criminal records. However, I would like to ask the Minister whether he could consider using some of our Government agencies as vehicles to enable the integration of these people into society, by providing an avenue for employment for a period of, say, 1-2 years, after their release from prison or rehabilitation centres so that these ex-prisoners have a chance to start life afresh. Also, I would like to urge the Minister to ask our Government agencies, in particular, the airport and the seaport police authorities, to review their policy to allow ex-prisoners and ex-inmates of rehabilitation centres to work in their premises, with the thrust of Singapore 21 in mind as we move towards becoming a more gracious, compassionate and forgiving society.”
“Sir, I support the Bill and would like to raise a matter of concern that has arisen over the years in my dialogues with residents, and this relates to employment opportunities for ex-prisoners and ex-inmates of rehabilitation centres. Our Government is well-known to be tough on crimes and other forms of deviant behaviour. This is an admirable stand and has served us well in making Singapore a country safe for visitors and residents. However, there is a segment of our population, albeit a small one, who had previously served some time in prison or in various rehabilitation centres for errors made in their youth who require help. And there is also quite a high incidence of repeat offenders who have not been granted the opportunities of reintegration into society at large. We have schemes in prison and rehabilitation centres and now homes to equip some of these individuals with skills and values so that they adjust back to society. However, it is often difficult for such individuals to find gainful employment once they are tarnished with a criminal record. We run the risk of developing by default an underclass who is not given a second chance. Sir, our Singapore society is not a very forgiving one. We are very tough on failure, whether it is financial failure in the form of bankruptcy or social failure in the form of poor judgment and influence resulting in criminal activities. Ex-prisoners and ex-inmates of rehabilitation centres are often labelled and are not given opportunities that normal individuals have despite having served out their punishment. It is no wonder that often they fall back into bad company.”
“In conclusion, I thank the President for setting the stage for Singaporeans to rise to the challenge, and I am sure we all will, to build our common future together.”
“We should encourage participation but avoid the pitfalls of single issue lobby groups which, in some developed countries, have held society's larger interest to ransom for myopic reasons, such as the gun lobby in the United States. Sir, one of the greatest levellers of society today is the arts and culture. As the GPC Chairman of MITA, I am heartened by the commitment and resources that the Government is putting into developing Singapore as a vibrant city for the arts, and using arts as a catalyst to develop Singapore into the Renaissance City of the future and yet maintaining our Singapore identity and multi-cultural heritage. Sir, we are seeing Singaporeans who are more cosmopolitan-inclined participating in our arts festival. I urge MITA to step up efforts to bring our arts activities to our HDB heartland to reach out to our heartlanders. It is through these soft issues that a uniquely Singaporean heartbeat would develop. This Singaporean heartbeat and identity will transcend both the heartlanders, the cosmopolitans and the large number of Singaporeans who will be living and working overseas in the new millennium. I further suggest that organisations like the Singapore International Foundation study and develop a brand that is clearly identifiable as Singaporeans, that can gel all Singaporeans from afar and at home together. Sir, every extra helping hand counts. Singaporeans, whatever their background, have diverse interests. We will realise our full potential by contributing actively to civic and community organisations. When the next crisis hits Singapore, we would have developed a firm platform where the roots of trust and a shared vision for all Singaporeans will bind us together to weather the storm.”
“One way to do this is to encourage more cosmopolitans to participate in grassroots activities. Through this way, they could interact more with the heartlanders who, I believe form the majority of our grassroots leaders. Perhaps the PA or the CDCs could actively reach out and design programmes to cater for more interactions. Indeed, last Friday's Straits Times' interview with the PA's new chief, Mr Ong Keng Yong, is indicative of the potential role that PA could play by energizing the organisation, broadening its ambit, and encouraging greater interaction between the cosmopolitans and the heartlanders. I also urge our Government-assisted organisations to plan more activities to encourage foreign talents to assimilate into our society. We understand the policy behind the need to remain open and to attract the best human capital to Singapore in our quest to succeed in the next millennium. However, it is only through integration and personal contact that would allow bonds of trust and understanding to develop between Singaporeans and these new additions to our community. It would provide opportunity as well for these foreign talents to establish roots and make Singapore their choice home. Civic institutions such as the voluntary welfare organisations, the arts groups and even the religious organisations, should also attempt to broaden their membership base so that the breadth of ideas and thinking would be crystallised with the interest of all Singaporeans at heart instead of just voicing specific interests which may be inimical to society's interest as a whole.”
“The success of Singapore is as material to both these constituents as it is dependent on both. As Singaporeans, the relationship is symbiotic. There has to be trust between all Singaporeans in order to refine and develop the social cohesion that we have currently. There has to be recognition of the differences between the desires, ambitions and needs of different Singaporeans so that we can identify them, cater to them and move ahead as a nation. Globalization and the knowledge-based economy have the potential to widen the gap between these two, those who sprint on the technology and those who struggle with it. We cannot run the risk of allowing this gap to widen. Singapore is unique in that we have had a meritocratic system without the worst effects of inequality developing. There has been concerted effort to enable those who require assistance the opportunity to move forward through a host of community, Government as well as civic programmes. Our heartlanders must also seize the opportunities presented to them in the form of Government-assisted and community-assisted skills upgrading programmes. The trust we have developed is forged on the basic belief that the best and successful in our society lend a helping hand to those who require assistance. This has to continue when we consider the heartlander and cosmopolitan distinction. I would like to suggest that we develop avenues for heartlanders and cosmopolitans amongst us to interact so that they better understand the issues and concerns that affect Singaporeans. Mutual understanding and trust can be forged so that whilst we may march to different drums, we are both on the same plane and moving in the same direction as one nation.”
“What we need to do now, Sir, in going forward is to ensure that the trust developed between the 3 Ps - the public, the private and the people sectors - continues to grow. As the President has pointed out, in the next century we can only expect fiercer competition. We have no choice but to constantly renew and maintain what we have. Sir, the President has outlined a number of initiatives to continue the efforts to build up the heartware of Singaporeans. The proposals in the Singapore 21 Report are slowly but surely taking root among our civic and public institutions. I believe the trust that we have built will enable us to succeed in the knowledge based economy as we continue to energize Singaporeans to be active citizens and participate fully in nation building. Sir, one of the main challenges before us today is the distinction between the heartlanders and the cosmospolitans in Singapore, first raised during the Prime Minister's National Day Rally this year. Some people have objected to this labelling of Singaporeans, raising genuine concerns that this could appear to be a divisive issue. I beg to differ. I believe we are not trying to typecast or create a dichotomy to segregate Singaporeans or classify them. Although we are all Singaporeans, some of us inevitably are more cosmopolitan in our outlook because of the nature of our training and work exposure. Technology, the Internet, the various print and news media by association plug us into the global economy, the global culture and society. We have different needs, desires and benchmarks. Others have different exposures in their daily lives and they may sing a slightly different tune. Broadly classified as heartlanders, they are as Singaporean as the cosmopolitans are, and both are as important to our country.”
“Indeed, in the Presidential Address, we have recognised that the sturdiness and resilience of our society, our political structure and our economic soundness had stood us well during this crisis. Post crisis, we are now truly in a stronger position, but where has the strengthening come from? I believe the financial crisis has embedded the trust between the 3 Ps - the public, the private and the people sectors. We have renewed the social contract between these three sectors and have shown tremendous resilience during this period. We have used our community bonds and the basic building block of our society, ie, the family, to hold together the fragile social fabric of a society. We have worked closely together through the tested tripartite structure of the Government, the employers and the unions to respond efficiently and cohesively to the economic challenges. We have not taken the easy and painless solutions, but instead pushed ahead with restructuring, reform, tightening of our belts and taking painful steps to regain our competitiveness. We have also sought ways to widen the feedback channels and encourage development of the civil society. More importantly, these last two years have brought together the post-independence generation and forged many elements of bonds and trust across the board. Sir, it is not often that societies have had to undergo large externally driven changes and come out better for it. By taking the bitter medicine, and not shunning from difficult decisions, we have built consensus and developed bonds of trust throughout our society. We have indeed strengthened the foundation for the next century. This is the real success story of the last two years.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to join my colleagues in thanking the President for his Address which charts out the initiatives we have undertaken, and the challenges we have to rise to, in order to enable Singapore to succeed in the next millennium. Sir, Mr Chiam has commented that the President's 20-minute Speech lacked substance or was too general. I think we have to be reminded by Mr Davinder Singh again that it is merely a mission statement, at best, a statement of an end, what we want to achieve. We have to be reminded that the Presidential Speech is supported by the Addenda to the Speech, and these are the means to an end, ie, the various Ministries' programmes. And we are here to debate not just the end, but the means to an end, the various Ministries' programmes. Sir, I am greatly encouraged that there is a clear emphasis on the importance of recognising and developing our people, as well as continuing our open door policy to talented people from abroad who can also contribute to Singapore's development. The last two years, when Asia had been engulfed in a financial crisis, have been a testing time for Singaporeans. Members of this House would have personal experience during their regular meet-the-people sessions of increased incidence of residents with financial hardship and domestic difficulties, as a direct consequence of this crisis. Our newspapers have reported retrenchments on a scale not seen since 1985. And we know personally of friends and colleagues who, one way or another, have been negatively impacted by the turmoil around us. Sir, there are lessons that we can draw from these last two years.”
“All these are achievable by anyone, unlike fame, wealth or material success. It also emphasises the point that the pursuit of happiness is a social concept - that we need to have participated in the social order to achieve happiness. The happiness of every Singaporean can be realised, if we take these values seriously - the Government, the people, everyone. Sir, for those reasons, I strongly support the motion.”
“Overseas Merits Scholars can be sent to various famous institutions of music or art to develop their undoubted talents. At home, regional centres of arts and drama should be set up to bring such talents closer to the people in the various estates. As many of the Members in this House have observed, nothing brings more pride to a parent than to see his or her child performing on stage. It is at the time when they choose their career that they make objections. Sir, I understand that the S21 Committee is not setting any deadlines, or providing any detailed plans or targets. That is a matter for the Government, and for the Members in this House to note. In the weeks and years ahead, we can expect that there will be opportunities in this House to debate these issues further. Sir, the Committee deliberated for over a year, held many meetings, obtained feedback from over 6,000 interested individuals, active citizens. I believe this House and the people of Singapore owe a great debt to the Committee members and everyone who were involved in the exercise. The Committee has identified the values that would make the pursuit of happiness for each and every Singaporean a reality. Reading the report, I am reminded of an intriguing question once posed by a political scientist. He asked, "How can we construct a society so that anyone, no matter what his gifts, can reach seventy, look back at his or her life, and be able to say that it has been a happy life, filled with deep and justified satisfaction?". I believe the five values point that way. How? Because by pursuing these values, it is possible for anyone to say: 1) I was a good parent to my children, and they are good to me; 2) I was a good neighbour, an active citizen; 3) I always did my best, according to my gifts and abilities.”
“They wanted to appeal. Every time I asked the daughter why she wanted to read law, the father interrupted, and gave many reasons. It got to such a stage that I asked the father for permission to speak to the daughter alone. Without her father present, the daughter spoke eloquently - on why we should not offer her a place - she was more interested in Art and Design. But her father thought that there should be a lawyer in the family, having had a hard time with lawyers in the course of his business dealings. I then told the father that, unfortunately, the appeal was not successful. I recounted this incident to show that the task of changing the mindset is likely to be an onerous one. And that much of it may lie with parents' aspirations of what they want their children to be. So it is likely to be a major exercise, probably taking a couple of generations for Singaporeans to adjust to this new idea. The Committee rightly points out that the lead to be taken by the Government is critical. The curriculum, the scholarship schemes, the resources to cater to the unusual and extraordinary talents that may otherwise lie hidden. These require major resources and commitment. To take a simple example, the move away from simply transferring information to one where each and every child must be brought to give of his or her best requires a much smaller staff/student ratio. It requires experienced teachers - teachers who can recognise the talents in each and every child. Yet, this is the way that we must necessarily go. Several other examples can be mentioned to re-adjust the mindset. The Gifted Programme should also be used to take in those who have talents in music, or art, or poetry. President's Scholars can be selected for arts or music courses.”
“It is said to be a compass, not a blueprint, and yet, it does not look like a simple compass, pointing in all directions. It points in a certain direction - that of a Great Singapore Society. This social compass contains five values that we should support, values that have already been elaborated on by the Minister. These values are in addition to the ones we already have, ie, meritocracy, strong and clean government, racial and religious harmony. Sir, the idea that "Every Singaporean matters" together with the idea of the "active citizen" are likely to be much discussed - for they require a change to the current mindset of the people, including those in the public sector. For example, one suggestion is to look at "success" more broadly from the one based on academic and material achievements. According to the view of the Committee, "there is no job too low that excellence cannot dignify". Embracing this idea would lower stress, increase self-worth and presumably, make for a happier individual. The dilemma between a less stressful life and retaining the drive is partly resolved by this means. You should drive only as far as your abilities can take you. Failure, it is suggested, is an option - and an opportunity must be given for trying again. Not only must second chances be provided for the new generation of technopreneurs, we must also provide second chances to workers - to retrain, to be put into new jobs. This message is particularly important. But it is not easy to deliver. Not only must the people be convinced for themselves, it must also extend to their aspirations for their children. Several years ago, a concerned parent came to see me bringing in tow his daughter who, despite her excellent grades, was not offered a place in the Law Faculty.”
“Ultimately, we need an army of volunteers and responsible businessmen who will gladly give some of their time and resources to help make sure that the thriving market economy we have does not slide unwittingly into an exploitative and lubricious one, where the wolves and the heinous are always lurking to sell you useless gadgets or ostrich eggs (or perhaps buy shares off you) at a ridiculous discount because they play on your vulnerabilities. I call on my fellow Singaporeans to answer the call to come forward to make their lives count. At the end of life, it is not how much you have earned that counts, but how many lives you have impacted. With that note, Sir, I support the motion. Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of the motion standing in the name of the Minister for Education. As first impressions go, one of the very first must be the attractive cover - showing four young children. We can deduce from this that it must be a long-term plan. We do not see pictures of skyscrappers, MRT trains and ultra high-tech factories - we can deduce from this that the Committee was not looking into the economic well-being of Singapore. It presupposes it. As we look at the title "Together, we make the difference", the two bigger words are "We Make" - suggesting that the future is in our hands; it is up to us to put in the effort. As we turn to the inside covers, we find hundreds of names - every Singaporean contributor matters, and deserves acknowledgement. No contributor too unimportant, no idea too insignificant, no stone too small to leave unturned. It is a heartening first impression. Sir, as reports go, it is a slim volume, yet it says a lot.”
“There we have lessons to be drawn from our very efficient and capable network of grassroots organisations. How did we build this up so quickly and so well? More generous Government funding is a key factor. More recognition for the workers is another and this recognition does not have to take the form of material benefits. The Consumers' Association of Singapore, which I head, is a case in point. Every year, the Government gives us a grant capped at 13 cents per head of population. And in practice, this comes up to less than $500,000 a year. Three quarters of this go into salaries. There is very little left to do the actual work of cost monitoring and consumer protection, even though we have very strong support from the NTUC, the unions and co-operatives on this matter. I have asked for more from the Government. I have a formula based on consumer spending index and I hope that this can be done. Of course, the Prime Minister has been very generous in offering CASE a Government grant of one to one match. But in the two years since that generous offer, we have hardly raised more than half a million dollars. In a good year, it is already hard enough for heart-tugging charities to raise money. But in the two years or so, we have raised little partly because of the economic crisis. It will take forever at this rate to raise the $5 million we need to match the $10 million endowment fund that we have planned for. That leads me to my last point and with that I will end. Fund raising is an important activity for many civic organisations. We cannot depend solely on the Government to fund these activities of course, or to ask the Government to help these plans work.”
“With more free time, our people can relax and improve the quality of their family lives and families will be stronger. There will be healthier workers and less money spent on sickness and disease. With more free time, there will be more active citizens. Volunteers will be more forthcoming to help out in the charitable, grassroots, community and civic organisations that we have. In developing the people sector, more civic involvement and greater participation of the citizenry (and that includes corporate citizens) - we need to realise that time and energies are limited. On the other hand, we need to pass the message that everyone can contribute, however little he thinks his talents or resources are. We also need to expand the definition of what is a worthy cause. Many people do not find it difficult to volunteer time and effort or donate money to charitable causes like the National Kidney Foundation or the Singapore Cancer Society because these are what I call "natural charities" which tug at the heart. But for society to function, there are other causes which require workers and monetary support too. There are the Residents' Committees which work to build bonds and friendship amongst neighbours; and the community centre workers who labour to provide inexpensive leisure and cultural programmes for the populace. Indeed, there are also the people who are our watchdogs to ensure that we vigilantly upkeep the quality of our environment and nature reserves, the safety of our food and consumer items, the protection of consumers from manipulative marketeers and investment con-men. What can Government do to promote the people sector and encourage these meaningful civil groups?”
“Nobody who gets paid the same irrespective of what he knows and does is ever going to be encouraged to build up his knowledge and improve himself. [Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair] 4.34 pm As a developing nation, we need to strive to do excellently in everything we do - whether it be waiting at tables, turning taps, teaching, nursing or governing. We need to constantly remind ourselves not to slacken when we work or others will take our places. Our workforce has been ranked number one in the world for 19 years consecutively not without reason. Yet, we know that work is not the be-all and end-all of human existence. Our workers are not simply cogs in a well-lubricated economic wheel. Man does not live by bread alone. We have seen to the building of recreational facilities, theatres, sports stadiums and entertainment centres for the worker to use in his leisure hours. These are not enough if he has no time for leisure either because he works too long since he has to earn enough to keep the family going, or because the work week is unduly long. These are not enough too if the costs of the facilities and the pleasure spots are too high. There is a need for us to build more and better facilities for our residents and to constantly upgrade and improve them instead of letting these facilities run down to obsolescence. Of course, we cannot have our population go soft and interested only in working less and playing all the time. A proper balance between working hard and playing hard is needed. And here, I support Mr Chew's earlier call that it is time to review the 51/2-day work week and the 11-day only national holidays - policies we adopted when we were fighting to establish ourselves in the world.”
“The plumber is a knowledge worker if he not only looks at the dripping tap but is able to give the householder some tips on what she can do in future to prevent a recurrence of her problem. In many developed countries, such knowledge worker plumbers can earn as much as university professors and no one could quibble about their fees. The S21 message must be therefore that these plumbers and anybody like that are as highly valued as the scholar and the PhD. Next, the waiter. In our society, tradition and social history have always put the waiter down at the bottom of the hierarchy of workers. The waiter holds a low image of himself and quickly hops away to another job, even if it is a lower paying job, when he can. It does not help that the restaurant owner who employs him uses him as an excuse to make more money. How so? I refer to the often questioned but never objected to practice of putting peanuts and pickles in front of you even though you did not ask for it and to charge you exorbitant prices thereafter. I refer too to the practice of the so-called "service charge", a compulsory 10% charge on your bill irrespective of whether any real service has been rendered. And all these charges are supposed to go to the waiter, but seldom end up in his pocket. A knowledge worker waiter deserves good pay. The ordinary waiter who waits listlessly should be paid a minimum. The knowledge worker, however, who helps his customer to choose dishes which suit his pocket and taste, who is able to tell what ingredients are in the dishes he serves, who can indicate what sauce goes with what meat and what tea or wine with what meal - that waiter should be handsomely paid. For that to happen, we must do away with the service charge and hidden charges like the peanut and pickle payments.”
“The city inhabitant is a faceless, anonymous digit in the crowd. He lives only for himself and ensures that whatever he does is to guarantee the survival of his family and his kin and himself. In such an environment, kindness and graciousness do not grow. In such an environment, the buffet tables get swiped clean two minutes after they are laid out but mountains of wasted food are left to be cleared later. Queues are for jumping, free textbooks are for grabbing and waiters and maids are for venting out the frustrations. It is a heartless and compassionless society and nothing to be proud of. In the nick of time comes this report, this vision - before our community becomes too much like the ugly, urban society I have just described. A knowledge-based economy is one which values everyone and gives everyone a role and a place, a name and a face, kindness and grace. In a knowledge-based economy, there is no job that is despised. Even the humble cleaning worker, the waiter, the plumber and the taxi driver are knowledge workers, not just the IT men. Prime Minister Goh in his May Day Rally speech three days ago has already mentioned the cleaner and the taxi driver. Today, let me mention the plumber and the waiter. First, the plumber. He is a mere plumber if all he can do is to tighten a faucet. That we all can do. Hence, we get very incensed when we call the plumber into our homes for what we think is an emergency and he charges us $100 for tightening the tap. The plumber is a knowledge worker, however, if he is able to ascertain the whole cause of the so-called emergency on the telephone and give good advice without home visit to the householder who really has only to tighten the tap.”