Davinder Singh
Singapore
“As a result not many Singaporeans plan for the future. It is very important that the Government lay out the facts so that Singaporeans understand what is in store for them when they retire.”
“Resolved, That the following Address in reply to the Speech of the President be agreed to:- "We, the Parliament of the Republic of Singapore, express our thanks to the President for the Speech which he delivered on behalf of the Government at the Opening of the Second Session of this Parliament."”
“In October last year, the Minister informed the House that the Law Reform Committee and the Law Society would be putting up a proposal to the Attorney-General's Chambers and the Ministry of Law on the question of corporatisation of the legal profession.”
“Therefore, I think it is crucial that the Ministry consider extending the time during which students have to engage in community service. I would also ask the Minister to consider not paying too much emphasis on work with the RCs or peer tutoring.”
“Because then, you are deploying all your forces all over the place. It is like in defence of a locality. You do not spread them all over the place. You target them in places of vulnerability and that is the current approach. I think the approach is right.”
“Those applications sometimes make things quite cumbersome. We want to promote ourselves as an attractive place to do business from. We should rationalise all these incentive schemes to make matters simple for the investors.”
The complete record
Every one of 243 lines we hold for Davinder Singh, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 5.
“The question is: what compelling reasons are there for us not to have an automatic increased penalty where certain types of crimes are committed against the elderly? We read in the papers regularly about robberies, snatch thefts or scams against the elderly. They are completely vulnerable and continue to be exposed to this kind of crimes. Laws not only regulate behaviour between individuals, they actually reflect a society's social and cultural norms. If I take up the point that the Minister for Home Affairs made last year, which is that there are other vulnerable groups as well, so if we protect the elderly, we should do the same for the other groups. But the guiding principle is not only vulnerability. It is moral obligation. Do we or do we not have a moral obligation to do everything in our power to look after those who have looked after us? And if the question is yes, then why are we not imposing deterrent sentences mandatorily in cases of certain crimes against the elderly? These crimes continue. We all accept that they are beyond the bail. Really, they are too important an issue to be left to the discretion of one prosecutor. If we can do this for domestic workers, surely it merits protection and same treatment for our parents. I would invite the Minister to review this issue. 5.15 pm”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, last year, one Member suggested that this House should prescribe tougher penalties for certain crimes against the elderly. That proposal, Members may remember, was inspired by an amendment that was made to the Penal Code where this House legislated that for certain crimes against domestic maids, the normal sentencing would be increased automatically by 1.5 times. The Minister for Home Affairs who addressed that proposal at that time felt it was not necessary to do that for the elderly. He gave two main reasons. The first was that the elderly is not the only vulnerable group. There are children and the handicapped and that if we did that for the elderly, then we should also do that for the other groups. And where do we stop? The other reason advanced was that there is, in any event, effective protection because the prosecution has a discretion when it prosecutes to ask the court to impose a deterrent sentence because of aggravating circumstances. It is difficult to argue with the logic of that argument if this issue is only one of law enforcement. But it is not. The question of deterrent penalties for crimes against elderly raises a wider question of our whole philosophy to the issue of how we treat our elderly. What concrete steps are we prepared to take to repay our debt of gratitude to that generation? We have spent a great deal of time exhorting Singaporeans to practise the virtue of filial piety. I think the message is getting through. Many things are being done on the ground to make sure that the elderly are looked after. But there is something that they cannot do, which is, they cannot make laws. We can.”
“Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to raise a point by way of clarification. Mr Low Thia Khiang and Mr Chiam See Tong have both misunderstood the point I made. I did not say, as Mr Low claims, that I do not want to represent the residents of Toa Payoh and I did not say, as Mr Chiam claims, that we are not here because we were not elected by the residents of our constituencies. My point is a different one. My point is that when you stand up and make a speech in this House, you are accountable not only to your constituents, but you are accountable to every single Singaporean. You are accountable to yourself, to your family and to every single Singaporean. So the proposition that you are only accountable to your constituents and therefore only elected Members should sit in this House is a fiction. Accountability is to everybody. And in the way that Mr Low and Mr Chiam spoke about this motion, Mr Chiam and Mr Low did not speak on behalf of the residents of Hougang and Potong Pasir in rejecting this motion. They spoke, I believe, in what they considered to be in the best interest of all Singaporeans when they speak against that motion, not your residents only. Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I cannot resist taking up a point by Mr Chiam just now when he said he was going to wait for the next NMP - if I heard him telling correctly - to introduce a Bill to repeal the Maintenance of Parents Act.”
“We are brought into this House by the electoral process, many of us unopposed. My experience, four times. I do not speak for my residents in Toa Payoh. When I make a speech, I make a speech which I consider will benefit Singaporeans at large. So this argument that we are speaking on behalf of our own constituents is a fiction, and must be recognised as a fiction. And the moment we recognise it, we move away from the fallacious argument that we are only here for our constituents. We stand here, after thinking about our speech, because we know that at the end of the day there is a chance that the speech will be reproduced in the media and that every Singaporean, whether he lives in your constituency or not, is going to read you and assess you, and that he is going to take a view about your arguments. So this is not a forum for espousing views peculiar to your constituents; it is about Singapore. And if a few additional brains can come into this House to add breadth to the debate, why not? Let me end by turning to a point which I think Mr Leong and Dr Tan made. The strongest argument they have for doing away with the NMP scheme is the quality of the new MPs in this House. I accept that. Their quality is impeccable. Why do we need NMPs when we have what Mr Leong has called, "the magnificent 7"? Let me ask Members this. Assume that despite the best efforts of the political leadership, none of the seven agrees to join politics and come to this House. We have seen the quality of what they can say. We have seen them speak, we have heard them speak, we know their quality. Assume that they refused to enter the political game and did not stand for elections. Would we be better off if they came in as NMPs, or would we be better off without them in this House?”
“And that is the operative word - form. Having heard the arguments that Dr Tan and Mr Leong have very eloquently put across, it seems to me that they would have no quarrel with this notion. We will have a separate body, we would not call it Parliament. The NMPs - we can call them something else - will sit there with our Ministers in the Frontbench, make their speeches, get responses and have the media cover them. But so long as they are not in this House, so long as they are not in this elected Chamber, that is fine. But because this is an elected Chamber, they should not be sitting in these seats and they should not be joining us in this House in the debate. But they can do it in another forum. We are past form. We were past form a long time ago, when we brought in the NCMP. He is not elected by any stretch of the imagination. So we can either go for form or we can go for substance. And, at the end of the day, has it been substance the last 12 to 13 years, or has it been form? Mr Leong himself says that there have been very good performances from Prof. Woon, Ms Claire Chiang and the others whom he has named, and that is credit given where it is due. It has not been pure eloquence; it has been substance. It has forced the rest of us to sit up to do a bit better. It has added a dimension to this House which none of us were able to give and had the time to give. How have we lost out by that process? I have difficulty understanding how all these points aggregate to create an argument to throw out a scheme that has done well for us and for Singapore. Then the argument is made that these NMPs do not speak for their electorate, in other words, I assume, their constituents. None of us speak for our constituents. None of us do.”
“The NMP scheme resulted, apart from anything else, in the passage of the Maintenance of Parents Act. How many people have been hurt by that and how many people have benefited? Would that Act have come through this House and ended up as legislation on our own steam? Could it? I have difficulty believing that because I remember, when Prof. Walter Woon stood up, many people in this House spoke up against it. Let us ask ourselves honestly: would that Act have been passed on our own initiative? And has that Act operated to benefit people in Singapore, people who do not have the resources to go to court, and people who need the help of the Government to recover from recalcitrant children? Do we throw the NMP scheme out because people have benefited? Let me ask Members another question. One of the concerns highlighted by Dr Tan in 1989 was that this scheme was going to open the door for racial and religious groups to be represented in this House and, therefore, we were asking for trouble. Has that happened? In 1992, I think, Mr Tang Liang Hong tried to make a move to come in under the NMP scheme, and the people who stood up, who wrote in to oppose it, were the elected MPs. As a result of that opposition, he failed to get into this House. Since then, no other person has tried, no matter how cleverly, to get into this House so that he can advance a sectarian cause. It is one thing to say that there is a "remote possibility" - I think Dr Tan used those words - of that happening; it is another to ask ourselves: has it happened? And, really, is there any chance, given the fact that we are now talking about it, that we will let that happen? Let us go to the next argument that is made, ie, that Parliament is an elected Chamber and, so, as purists, we should retain this form.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the speakers before me have been addressing the question as though the issue before Parliament is whether there is merit in the NMP scheme. But we have passed that, have we not? I thought the question now is whether, having regard to the experience we have had of the NMP scheme for more than 10-12 years, there is a reason to get rid of it. We have already decided, many of us still in this House, that there is merit in the scheme, that it serves the purpose and it improves the process. If this House is being asked to look at it afresh, it must be with a view to asking ourselves whether something has gone wrong with the NMP scheme for us to say that throwing it out is justified. Let us look at the record. What has happened to the NMP scheme which has degraded the parliamentary process? What have the NMPs, who have come to this House, session after session, done to diminish the standing of this House? Have they done anything which has adversely affected the interests of the people? Have they done anything which has made it more difficult for this Government to govern? Have they done anything to make it more difficult for the elected MPs to put their views across? If I hear an argument which suggests that, yes, they have done something contrary to our interests which, ultimately, affects the man-in-the-street, then we can begin a debate about casting away this scheme. But what we have is a rehash of the arguments that we went through in 1989. I looked at the Hansard and Dr Tan Cheng Bock had done a service to us by reminding us of his arguments that he made in 1989 and, to a large extent, so too has Mr Leong, although then I think he took a different position. Let us go through the arguments one by one.”
“That in turn will generate greater confidence in the accountability of our institutions. It is surely an objective worth striving for.”
“Today, the best and brightest are drawn into public service by the scholarship system. That means that the private sector is deprived of this valuable home-grown resource. Some do enter the private sector after serving out their bonds. But they emerge as different people, with an armoury of mindsets and instincts which may not necessarily equip them for the rigours of the marketplace. Our top students match and sometimes beat the best in the US and Japan. But they lose that shine in the real world. Has it anything to do with what we do to our top graduates? Other countries have the numbers, so there is always enough to go around. In Singapore, we do not have that luxury and are forced to allocate what is a scarce resource. The priority has always been to deploy our best in the public service, that policy has served us well. But now that our institutions are in place, and it has become imperative to energise the private sector, we should not continue to divert the flow of quality away from the market. The advantages of having foreigners as public servants are real and substantial. They can replace some of our best brains who can be released to add fizz to the private sector. The foreigners who step into their shoes will bring a different perspective to public policy issues. Not having been brought up in the system, they may not feel shackled by political correctness. Paradoxically, the fact that they will have less of a stake may work to our advantage. They will feel less inhibited about being frank and open in their discussions with policymakers, and candour cannot hurt policy formulation. Any misperception that our bureaucracy is a closed and cozy club will be eroded by an infusion of outsiders.”
“Take the case of the judiciary. It is, on any view, a vital public institution. In applying and fashioning the law, judges have to be acutely aware of and sensitive to, local customs and circumstances. The judiciary is constantly confronted with, and has to address, questions which affect our national interests. Instinctively, we are driven to the conclusion that therefore only Singaporeans should be judges. Yet, in 1981, the then Prime Minister told this House that if he was not able to get men of quality to be judges, he would, after consultation, advise the President to appoint non-Singaporeans to the High Court Bench. That statement effectively put paid to the notion that Singapore's interests can only be advanced by Singaporeans or that we will necessarily be prejudiced if foreigners hold sensitive posts. Fidelity is not the preserve of Singaporeans. In any case, the risks, if any, can be minimised by retaining key positions for our citizens. Ultimately, it is a balancing exercise. How heavily should these concerns weigh in the scale of relative merits? Should foreigners be enlisted to help run our country? The answer is that we really have little choice. Our private sector is already being sapped of some of its pep by emigration and overseas employment. Foreign talent is no longer available on tap. It is becoming increasingly difficult to fish in the resource rich international waters. Other countries have joined the game. They are offering all manner of incentives to retain and attract talent. The solution is two-pronged: Continue to encourage talented foreigners to spend some time in Singapore and, in the meantime, optimise the use of talent in the local pool. We are doing the first, but are we doing enough of the second?”
“There is force in the argument that only those who understand our vulnerabilities and have a vested stake in the country can effectively deal with and thwart threats, external and internal. But that argument cannot be made with the same degree of conviction for all branches of the public service. Why will there be a security risk if a foreigner is employed, say, as a Deputy Secretary in the Ministry of Education or the Ministry of Manpower? After all, foreigners occupy sensitive financial positions in the Hong Kong administration. To be sure, non-Singaporeans in Government will have access to highly confidential information, but the safeguard is implicit in the policy. The people we want operate in the international arena. Their marketability depends on their integrity. They of all people, understand that their standing would be irreparably harmed if they act dishonourably. In any event, the private sector faces the same risks. Confidential information is at a premium, particularly in the areas of technology and the life sciences. Leaks can make the difference between success and failure. In the international market where we compete, indiscretion can be highly inimical to the interests of Singapore Inc. But that has not stopped our GLCs and major private sector companies from engaging the services of foreigners. The fact of the matter is that these people, whose track records determine their fate in this global employment market, are the least likely to behave badly. If all else fails, there is the Official Secrets Act, no one who knows Singapore is under any illusion about this Government's resolve to use it to punish and to make a point. But what of the argument that issues which affect the country are best dealt with by those with a stake in it?”
“Sir, Singapore's only resource is its people. Their quantity and quality determine whether we can compete effectively. Both are under threat. We are not replacing ourselves, some of our best brains are being lured by the bright lights and greener pastures in other countries. The trend is not encouraging. As our resources are depleted, so our edge is dulled. We need skills across the spectrum, from construction workers to corporate leaders, from maids to managers. Some perform jobs which are shunned, others provide skills in short supply. The arguments for embracing foreign talent are compelling. Foreigners compensate for our numbers, quality and disinclination. They inject fresh perspectives at a time when we badly need to challenge and change tried and tested paradigms. They give us a profile which comforts investors. The Government is determined that its policy on foreign talent succeeds. It has introduced a slew of legal, fiscal and infrastructural measures to make the environment talent-friendly. The private sector is beginning to respond, but there is still work to be done to overcome insecurities. But this policy does not appear to have been targeted, certainly not with equal vigour, at the public sector. Is it our position that sensitive issues are best dealt with by those with a stake in the country, and that therefore, that justifies a special immunity for our public institutions? There are two dimensions to the issue of sensitivity. One, where the vital interests of the state are concerned and two, the protection of confidential information. But both can be addressed. Highly sensitive portfolios can continue to be manned by Singaporeans.”
“Many of you will remember an athlete by the name of Richard Fosbury. Until 1968, for those who follow athletics, high jumpers moved from first to the fourth gear and then up they went over the bar. In 1968, Dick Fosbury came along and he did the unthinkable. He moved from first to third gear, and just before the bar, turned direction, engaged reverse gear, and soared over it. He won the gold medal but that is not as important as the fact that he changed the game. 4.15 pm What are the chances of our system preserving the spark of a local Dick Fosbury? Consider this. In Mathematics, our children are taught that getting the right answer is not enough. The method must be right or marks will be deducted. He is taught that he has to stay in his lane. I am sure there is a good reason for that, but do you think that we are shortening or lengthening our odds? We must move away from prescription and regurgitation in the schools. Children should be assessed not only on content, but also on the ability to think on their feet and around problems. The answer does not lie in giving them more projects. The sooner we realise it, the better because most of them will end up being done by the parents. It is not going to be easy to develop a pool of entrepreneurs and a creative workforce. We need to find ways to preserve the potential of the very small numbers that we have. It will be a terrible waste if the education system continues to transform the street-smart into the system-smart.”
“It stands to reason that their odds of producing thinkers and innovators are much shorter than us. We cannot seriously compete on numbers. So we have to concentrate on quality. The question is: does our education system preserve or lengthen our odds in this game? Let us examine our education system. It imposes standards and norms, whether of behaviour or achievement. This is not a criticism. It is a fact. From young, children are taught that there are prescribed methods of finding solutions. You are made to believe that your test and examination results reflect your ability and potential. That has served the country well. But are we hurting our chances in the new world? I was not surprised when I read that the report by the National Youth Council suggested that many young Singaporeans feel that scoring "As" is enough to ensure them a bright future. Can you take these same people, who for 12 years have been told that they should play by long established rules and that grades are everything, and suddenly transform them into hungry and curious participants of the new economy? Today's Straits Times carried a report that parents of pre-schoolers believe that discipline is more important than creativity. 80% of parents who were interviewed felt that pre-schoolers should have worksheets. This is not surprising. Singaporeans are very practical people. They have become system smart. It is going to be a mammoth task to change the mindset of administrators, principals, teachers, parents who have so skilfully adapted themselves to the system and are very comfortable with the existing norms. Unless we make the effort and overcome the resistance, we will continue to have scores of school leavers who will see no sensible reason to stick their necks out or go against the flow.”
“Sir, my question is how is our education system being reviewed to keep it in step with what is needed in the new economy? We have had a great deal of discussion both in and outside the House about how we should anticipate and meet the challenges of the knowledge-based economy. We have identified two goals, and I speak rather apologetically after Mr Iswaran has spoken. First, to transform our universities into what has been described as "incubators for inspiration". Second, to develop a pool of entrepreneurs willing to take risks and a large group of workers with a thirst for knowledge and a high degree of creativity. These are highly commendable objectives. They signal a determination to transform our economic culture from one which breeds conformity of thought and embraces prudence to one which celebrates intellectual dissonance and aims to remove the stigma of failure. We are on the right track. There is no question that the system will, in a few years, throw up more entrepreneurs and innovators that we now have. But that is not the point. The real issue is whether we will churn out a few more or many more. The answer, in my view, depends largely on our education system. I do not contend that the education system should be tweaked to teach entrepreneurship. I subscribe to the view that a person is either born with the stomach and inclination to go off the beaten track or he is not. Therefore, in my view, the true question is not whether the education system can nurture entrepreneurs. It is whether it can avoid dampening, or worse, extinguishing the potential of the few who have it in them to make a difference. We have to be realistic. We do not have the numbers which the United States or China or India enjoy. They have a far larger pool of school children.”
“As a result not many Singaporeans plan for the future. It is very important that the Government lay out the facts so that Singaporeans understand what is in store for them when they retire. It will be a sad irony if the CPF policy, which was designed to help us in our old age, is blamed for hurting us in our retirement because the policy led Singaporeans to make some false assumptions about their worth. We will do well to lay out the facts and the figures. It will be worth our time and money to give each account holder an idea of how long his savings are likely to last at different levels of expenditure, taking inflation into account. It will be a rough guide at best. But Singaporeans need to have some information and to act on it if we are to avoid a major problem.”
“You do not have to be a financial wizard to quickly work out that unless Singaporeans have substantial voluntary savings, we may be running into a serious problem. By the year 2030, Singapore will have nearly 800,000 people aged above 65. That is 19% of the population. How are they going to manage if they do not have sufficient cash? Their children have their own expectations and obligations. The reverse mortgage scheme will help but can it take care of all affected members without diluting the value of the underlying properties, and thereby affecting the amount of cash that will be ultimately available? How has this come about? The CPF scheme was implemented to help Singaporeans prepare for retirement. It is a prudent policy. But it has had a wholly unintended effect. It has led many Singaporeans to believe that their CPF reserves will be sufficient in their retirement to maintain their present standard of living. It has lulled Singaporeans into a false sense of complacency. The figures show that this confidence is misplaced. Singaporeans should be told that their CPF savings may not be enough, and in many cases will not be enough. Their CPF reserves are already being eaten into for other permitted uses, which are not as liquid as cash and which can depreciate in value. As for the cash, CPF balances do not earn the best interest rates. One economist has calculated that the CPF real rate of interest from 1987 to 1998 was zero, because of inflation. Add to that, the fact that many among the self-employed, who account for about 8% of the working population, do not contribute to CPF. To be fair, this misperception of the size of the CPF safety net is not the only cause of the problem. In Singapore, a culture of instant gratification is taking root.”
“Sir, the questions which I would like to raise are whether Singaporeans are financially prepared for retirement and, if not, what is the Ministry proposing to do about it. This issue has assumed significance because of a finding by an Inter-Ministerial Committee that unless they start planning now, Singaporeans may not have enough savings for their old age. This finding is supported by anecdotal evidence. Reports carried by the Straits Times suggest that Singaporeans may have seriously over-estimated their ability to meet their future needs. 1.15 pm What are the facts? In 1995, the median CPF balance at age 55 was $86,000, equivalent to only 32 months of the average salary then. That figure is inclusive of withdrawals for housing and other investments which means that the actual cash balance is much less. The 1998 CPF annual report disclosed that among those close to retirement, that is, people in the 50-55 age group, only half of some 80,000 active members have balances of more than $150,000. Again, that sum include sums withdrawn for housing and other investments. So the cash element is much less. Knowing what is available is only half the story. How much do Singaporeans require in retirement? Needs and expectations have increased by leaps and bounds. There are a number of reasons for this: first, greater longevity, second, better lifestyles today, and third, a desire to maintain that lifestyle into retirement. To have a shot at a decent lifestyle after retirement, you would need per month at least the equivalent of what $750 can purchase today, with no mortgage on your house, no hire purchase on your car, and no other debt. Not many people are going to have that kind of cash when they retire.”
“Resolved, That the following Address in reply to the Speech of the President be agreed to:- "We, the Parliament of the Republic of Singapore, express our thanks to the President for the Speech which he delivered on behalf of the Government at the Opening of the Second Session of this Parliament."”
“When I opened the debate, I said that cliches and platitudes are not going to help the debate. I was naive. Despite the opportunity to make constructive suggestions about improving the system, there has been nothing but a torrent of wild propositions from the Opposition. We are told, for example, that the Government fears that the people will one day rise against it. Not only does it ring hollow, it is bizarre. Is that what people are talking about in the streets? Are Singaporeans who have come out best in this crisis clamouring for a change of Government? How do these absurd statements help in the debate? How are Singaporeans better off from this kind of contribution? We are also told that there is no democracy in Singapore. This, from a man who makes the point in a forum to which he is democratically elected, in a debate which is open to the public and the media. This, from a man who has spent his political life vilifying this Government and yet remains free to enjoy the freedom to do it again and again. Is that a helpful contribution to the debate? Are we any wiser about the kind of model that we should seek to construct? At the end of the day, the question we have to ask ourselves is: has this debate helped in the process of nation-building? Have we contributed to a constructive discussion which is good for the country? Members have made many thought provoking comments and suggestions. They deserve further consideration. For that, I thank Members. I also thank them for supporting the motion. Finally, I thank you, Sir, and Mr Speaker, Sir, for your patience. [Applause.] Question put, and agreed to.”
“Judges ensure that there is a level-playing field, that every Singaporean, rich or poor, is treated fairly and on the merits. A country is in big trouble when people lose trust in the legal and judicial system. I do not overstate the case. If a judicial system is corrupt, the rich get justice, the poor do not. The powerful get justice, the weak do not. Commercial disputes are settled not by the merits, but by the strength of a party's purchasing power. When the poor and the weak have no justice or believe that they have no chance in the system, that system will soon unravel, maybe not in a year or two, but in time. In Singapore, our rights are protected regardless of who we are. Our disputes are settled by a fair and proper application of the law. Our judges, like our civil servants and leaders, act on the principle that their credibility is everything. I am glad that we have a ringing consensus albeit by silence on that. Neither was there an issue on the integrity of our civil service. No amount of talk about policy changes or about political space and the right to participate will and can stop a people from deserting a country physically and in spirit, if people feel that the system is crooked and that they have no chance. There was no issue in this debate about our credibility and consistency. In Singapore, when we set the rules, we play by those rules, in good times and in bad. Foreign investors know and have come to respect that. Very few people understand the value of that asset. It accounts for our standing in the commercial world. It accounts for our standing in the political world. I now move to the third broad theme of this debate. I do it with some degree of sadness and disappointment.”
“If success is redefined to mean that endeavours in enterprise are matters of fashion as opposed to necessity, we will all pay an economic price, what the Americans call "a double whammy", with lower growth and the increased burden of supporting an aging society. It is easy to talk about letting up on the pressure, but it is very difficult to strike that balance of continuing to be at the forefront and relevant. The second theme which has marked this debate is the consensus in this House about what the Government has done right. Interestingly enough, that consensus is apparent more from what was not said in the debate than from what was. This debate has been significant for the non-issues as much as it has been for the issues. We have had three days of debate. There were more than 50 speakers. They spoke at length. There was ample time and opportunity to express dissatisfaction. Yet, not one Member had anything critical to say about the honesty, integrity and credibility of our institutions. As the criticism in this House of Government policies reflects the view of Singaporeans, so too the lack of criticism about our institutions. Let us look at a few examples which we tend to take for granted and which explain why they are not raised in the debate. First, the Singapore judiciary. It is respected here and around the world for its integrity and credibility. Not many people appreciate the importance of a credible judiciary to a country. A weak or pliant judiciary can have a devastating effect on people and their morale. Like the decisions of civil servants, the decisions of judges affect people more directly than the policies which we discuss in this House.”
“But the point is, that MPs are willing to speak up in a rational and moderate fashion if they and their constituents are unhappy, and more importantly, that the Government is willing to change and experiment to deal with these concerns. And this afternoon, we saw first-hand the impact of the pleas of some of the MPs and NMPs in relation to compulsory education. That effort has paid dividends with the Prime Minister saying that he is going to instruct the Ministry of Education to look at compulsory education. We have truly come a long way. We are now concerned about the definition of "success". But it is not an esoteric or philosophical discussion. It is important because it is an issue whose time has come. Parents are concerned about the pressure in schools. They grew up in a system where the bright lights shone only on those who excel academically. They are not sure if they want their children to go through the same grind. MPs have spoken about the need for more character, as opposed to content development in the schools. The Government is reacting to this shift in attitudes. At the end of the day, we must strike some practical balance between our determination to be number one in everything we do and easing out on the pressure. It is not going to be easy, all the more so when given our ageing society and the fact that we are not replacing ourselves. How do we continue to top the charts with an increasingly aging workforce and when the shrinking group of younger workers do not consider that drive is always a virtue?”
“A number of MPs made the very good point that there is nothing new in this emphasis on people. The Government has, ever since it has taken office, had people at the forefront of its policies. In return for being elected, the Government has looked after the needs of Singaporeans - housing, jobs, education, safety, healthcare, money in the pocket and in the bank. We have, in a manner of speaking, moved from black and white to colour. We have moved from basics in many instances to luxuries and in terms of material needs and dignity of life, we have very little to complain about. To many Singaporeans, these policies have had and will continue to have a far greater impact on them and their families than the issue of political space. It is because these fundamentals have been settled that we can afford to shift the emphasis to the next phase of development. Questions like, should we tinker with our model of democracy, how do we change the attitudes of Singaporeans to learning and life-long employability, how do we keep Singaporeans rooted, have been discussed in this House. In the nature of the issue, people development is very much tied to our education policy. That explains the huge interest in this debate in our education system. We clearly have a good system but changes need to be made. MPs have made useful suggestions. The Minister for Education has talked about his Ministry's efforts to enhance the talent of every student, make them world-ready while rooted to Singapore. These experiments will not address everyone's concerns. They will generate anxieties of their own.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank all Members who have joined in the debate. It was lively and interesting. Members spoke on a wide variety of issues. Their speeches reflect the views of Singaporeans. Some of their concerns have been addressed by the Prime Minister and the Ministers who joined in the debate. But many of the questions which have been raised are not capable of easy or ready answers. The dialogue on these issues between Singaporeans and the Government will continue for years to come. This debate has been characterised by three broad themes. First, the Government's people orientation. Second, the consensus in this House about what the Government has done right and, third, the sad and disappointing recurrence of cliches from Members of the Opposition. First, the policies for the people. The focus on people took centre stage. There was a useful exchange of views about civil society and active citizenship. Many MPs spoke about the need to give people more space, while recognising that it is a two-way deal. We are agreed on certain fundamental points. Firstly, that it will take us a long, long time to settle on a consensus. Secondly, that to a large extent, the initiative lies with the people because a top-down dictate on public participation in the affairs of the nation is a paradox. And thirdly, we must involve people of all backgrounds, different education, English, Chinese, different races, different religions to settle at an acceptable compromise. But we also have to understand that these concepts of civil society and active citizenship are not pegs on which to hang any argument because the moment we descend into argument for argument sake, we will not only lose but kill the momentum.”
“The strength of the CDC lies in its community network with voluntary welfare organisations, grassroots organisations, educational institutions, self-help groups, clan associations and businesses, etc. Through its extensive network, the CDC can play a part in building trust between our people. Through its community activities, the CDC can provide more opportunities for interaction and exchange between people of different races, languages, religions, ages, income and education levels. The more our people socialise, the stronger the mosaic of our national cohesion. The CDC can also run developmental programmes to help the less educated and the less successful improve their lives. Development opportunities offer hope for the future, for themselves and for their children. Only then, would they feel that they are still an integral member of our society. In short, the CDC provides another focal point for cooperation between the public, private and people sector organisations and individual citizens to work together to meet the needs of the community. It is through working together for a common good that a common destination is forged and we feel a sense of emotional rootedness to our country. The development of heartware is a work for generations, but on the foundations that we have developed thus far, let us build a world-class home for ourselves and our children. Sir, I support the motion.”
“The development of emotional anchors is particularly important for the younger generation who has only known stability, growth and prosperity. It will become even more important as Singapore becomes more international in the 21st century. Tangible asset enhancement ties a person to his country with a purse string. On its own, it is not sufficient to draw Singaporeans back to Singapore when better opportunities offer themselves elsewhere in the world. Intangible asset enhancement, on the other hand, bonds a person to his country with a heartstring. While physical assets can be easily liquidated and capital and talents will become increasingly mobile, it is less easy to erase emotions and feelings of attachment that have developed over the years. Sir, let me now turn to the role of Community Development Councils (CDCs). As Mayor of Tanjong Pagar CDC District, I would like to share my views with my colleagues on how I think the CDC can help develop the Singapore heartware. To strengthen the trust between the Government and the people, the CDC can provide an avenue for people to participate in the nation's affairs in a concrete and practical way at the community level. The CDCs are coming out with strategies to help prepare our residents for the challenges of the 21st century posed by a knowledge-based economy and ageing population. We welcome anyone who can contribute ideas and, more importantly, who can walk their talk. CDCs are not merely talk-shops. There is real work to be done and we need people, who will roll up their sleeves, to help their fellow Singaporeans meet the challenges of the future.”
“The third crucial component of the Singapore heartware is the affinity that individual Singaporeans feel towards Singapore. All citizens have helped to build Singapore through their hard work and commitment. All deserve to share in the country's success. Over the years, the Government has given all Singaporeans tangible shares in the country's success. These include HDB home ownership, HDB upgrading, the share ownership scheme, CPF and Medisave top-ups. Apart from these tangible asset enhancement schemes that give Singaporeans a stake in our success, we need to look into intangible asset enhancement by developing emotional anchors that will bond Singaporeans to their country. These anchors can be strengthened if Singaporeans are more involved as participants in nation building, feel a stronger attachment to their families, friends, neighbours and community, and share a common destiny and future in Singapore. My generation and older generations of Singaporeans went through the struggle for independence and the difficulties of nation building in the earlier years. Now, whenever we hear that Singapore has come up tops in some area or that a Singaporean has won some international award, there is a stirring of the heart. This is because we fully appreciate how extraordinary it is for Singapore, a small country with no natural hinterland, to survive, and not only survive, but also become a model of success for other countries. We take pride in our achievement as a nation. We cherish what we have built over the years, our beliefs and our way of life. We feel bonded to Singapore because we took what was given to us, our strengths and vulnerabilities, and worked together to build a better future for ourselves, our families and our country.”
“As we globalise, we will have some Singaporeans who will become more cosmopolitan and other Singaporeans who will become more heartlander. To prevent the formation of new divides, we need to build acceptance and trust early by providing more opportunities for interaction and understanding. As our population ages, we also need to maintain social cohesion between the young and the old. Our citizens must plan for old age, and make those plans early so that they can gradually ease into old age without a disruptive change in lifestyle. The family's role must be maintained and reinforced so that the family continues to provide the first line of care for its older members. Community organisations, such as the Community Development Council, can help by putting in place programmes to encourage senior citizens to remain physically healthy and mentally active, and by providing them with opportunities for lifelong engagement through employment and volunteerism. The community should work together to form an integrated community support network to ensure that senior citizens remain active and vibrant members of the community. In our meritocratic system, opportunities are open to everyone but outcomes and rewards depend on ability, enterprise and hard work. Not all will do equally well. We need to help those who are less successful in our community so that they do not feel marginalised or left behind. I believe that to the less successful, helping is not merely giving away welfare and relief funds to them. As a matter of fact, many poor people do not like to live on charity. Helping them to develop their children, building up their confidence and their sense of dignity and self-reliance so that they will have the means to support themselves is a better way to help these families.”
“We carry with us the heritage and history from our ancestors. It is not possible nor desirable just to discard these and say: "Let us start from scratch, let us all be Singaporeans and abandon our cultural roots as Chinese, Malays, Indians, or Eurasians". It will be tragic if we lose our cultural roots and values, as we will lose a stabiliser in the midst of rapid changes. National identity and cultural consciousness are not in conflict. Sir, we have enjoyed harmony over the past 35 years. Partly, this is because the Government has institutionalised various safeguards such as the Presidential Council for Minority Rights, the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, and the Group Representation Constituency (GRC). Partly, it is because many organisations and the majority of Singaporeans value this harmony and have made an effort to preserve it. I believe that today, for the heartlanders in the HDB estates, there is a greater level of tolerance and acceptance among the different races and religions. But race and religion are deeply rooted, emotive issues. It was not so long ago that we last had a race riot in Singapore. For many of my generation and older generations, the 1964 racial riots are still vivid in our minds. While we want to build 'a united nation of our people', we need to be cautious and realistic. It is one thing to accept and acknowledge one another. But to trust one another requires a higher level of confidence. This is not an easy task, and it cannot be achieved overnight. It takes time to build trust. Similarly, as we draw in more foreign talents to supplement our local talents, help us grow our economy and compete globally, we will see more foreign talents in our community.”
“The people need good government. But the Government cannot succeed without a cohesive and responsive people. The people must feel and believe that the Government has governed the country in their own long-term interest and for their own benefit. It was over time that the people saw the concrete results that the Government had delivered, and it was during a serious crisis and how we had overcome a crisis, that the Government established its authority and credibility, and the people developed its trust and confidence in the Government. The recent economic crisis once again demonstrated to us and to the rest of the world the strength of the Singapore heartware. Our economy is able to turn around more quickly than the other economies, because the people trusted the Government to provide the leadership and to make the right decisions, and the people cooperated with the Government to make the necessary sacrifices to get us out of the economic crisis. Together, we did it in 1987; we have done it again in 1999. Indeed, over the past 40 years, a strong unspoken social contract has developed between the Government and our people. As our society develops, as our population becomes more educated and sophisticated, and as our environment becomes increasingly complex, this social contract would have to evolve accordingly. Greater involvement of, and consultation with the people, would help deepen the trust between the Government and the people, and help strengthen the Singapore heartware. Second, another component of the Singapore heartware is the trust between the people of Singapore, despite their differences in race, language, religion, age, income or education. Singapore is a young nation. Our people trace their roots to the great civilisations and religions of the world.”
“I believe strongly that soon, with programmes such as that outlined in the President's Address, and with the commitment by all sectors - the public, private and the people sectors - Singapore too will be regarded by all as the Promised Land. Let us try not to be negative and all work together to make it so. The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Dr Ow Chin Hock): Mr Speaker, Sir, while we celebrate our achievements over the last four decades, we should not forget how just 34 years ago, a small country with no natural resources was suddenly cut off from its natural hinterland and made to struggle for survival. Neither should we forget what a divisive society we used to have, with the communist insurgence and communalist riots of the 1950s and 1960s. Reflecting on the past 34 years of nation building, I conclude that our current success is built on careful management of our strengths and vulnerabilities and on our ability to adapt and adjust to changes. Our vulnerabilities have not disappeared, and it is to our own peril if we choose to ignore them because of our current success. While history offers useful lessons, we have to recognise that what has gone before cannot be simply extrapolated into the future. The 21st century will bring more changes and new challenges, both internally and externally. As we move into the new millennium, we need to understand our fundamental fault lines and vulnerabilities. We need to respond to constant changes and, at the same time, come out with creative strategies to further strengthen the Singapore heartware, which the President in his Address said, was "what really makes Singapore tick". I ask a question: What constitutes the Singapore heartware?" First, it is the trust between the Government and the people.”
“One can plan one's vocation together with an avocation, and one should start early. For example, if one were in business, one could diversify and cultivate an interest in the arts or the media. It would be a fulfilling experience, and one can be seen to contribute to the advancement of the arts in Singapore. There are many other ways and many other volunteer groups that one could join in pursuing such avocations. On the other side of the coin would be the responsibility of the Government. The Straits Times reported that there is a perceived lack of trust between people and Government, as well as Singaporeans' over-reliance on the state. I actually find these views to be inconsistent - if Singaporeans do not trust the Government, then it is unlikely that they would want to rely on it, let alone "over-rely". The inference must be that some may feel that the Government does not trust them, and therefore they should avoid getting involved in civil society. This is a misperception that should be immediately corrected and thrown aside by those in authority. Many volunteers we know in the civil organisations now do not belong to any political party, and they contribute substantially to the success of these organisations. Sir, I end on a personal note. I came to Singapore in the mid-70s, recruited by the University. To me and my wife, Singapore was the preferred choice, and still is. Then, as it is now, an island of opportunity, a place where we could raise a family and have good careers. We have not been wrong. Some friends pointed to America - the United States still remains the Promised Land for many, including some Singaporeans.”
“" It concludes by saying that "It is ultimately up to the state structures to incorporate a place for civil society, and hence the people, within the system of governance." Mr Singh has already touched on several of the fundamental issues that refer to the role of government versus the civil society, which I shall not speak on. Sir, what is so heartening about the President's Address is that the Government has committed itself precisely to the purpose of incorporating a place for civil society - indeed, it hopes to expand and strengthen it, so that Government can be more responsive, so that people can participate in the governance of their communities. The importance of this approach cannot be overstated. I hope that every Singaporean will realise its significance. Everyone should embrace it. Everyone should want to make it work. How quickly a strong civil society can be achieved depends on the receptiveness of the people to this approach. If the "silent majority" remain silent, or worse, take the attitude (as reported in Saturday's Straits Times) that they will just rely on the Government to do everything, then all the good intentions will come to nought. Frankly, I was disappointed to read in Saturday's Straits Times several negative views from those interviewed. One believed that the approach would not last, because the Government would soon decide, according to him, not to have the hassle and go back to the old ways. Yet another felt that there is not sufficient empathy for others in need, and that few Singaporeans will step forward. One mentioned that the perception is that volunteering is a "side preoccupation". Sir, I hope that in time to come, Singaporeans will regard volunteer work not as a "side preoccupation", but rather as an avocation, that is, a calling.”
“The more vulnerable groups will also be specially targeted for more care and assistance. Sir, both the message and the vision are clear - this is the Age of the Active Citizen. It brings with it the signal that the Government is intent on strengthening civil society. Civil society occupies the space between the community and the state. Politics is not the only way to become involved in public life. Active citizens can contribute to public life, and still remain, if they so wish, outside politics. Sir, the UN recently did an excellent study on the prospects for social development in Asia and the Pacific into the 21st century. With your permission, I wish to quote from the part on "Strengthening civil society". I quote: "Civil society, being the range of non-government associations in which people . come together to fulfil certain needs, pursue certain goals and participate actively in the affairs of the state is an essential component of social development. To take but a few examples of its role: civil society mediates the people's concerns to the state, so that government in its work can reflect the realities of people's situations and their concerns; . civil society reflects and upholds the cultural values on which the functioning of society depends; and . civil society is the stage on which the different ethnic, religious and cultural groups that make up a society learn to understand and live in harmony with each other." Speaking of the role of government towards civil society, the Report continues that civil society will only play a crucial role "if it is enabled by the State to play a central and constructive role in society.”
“Our institutions must be sufficiently tolerant and flexible to accommodate a wide range of different and sometimes, extraordinary, views. A knee-jerk rejection of these views would be disastrous. All the good work will come to nought. It will trigger the very migration of talent that our policies are designed to prevent. I will not be surprised if, over the next 10 to 15 years, young adults begin to insist on having their own OB markers; "space" where the Government cannot intrude. Is the Government prepared for this? These are some of the issues which we must confront squarely and honestly if we are to have a meaningful debate. I have not touched on the other aspects of the President's Speech. I am sure Members will do so. I look forward to an interesting debate. Question proposed. Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for the opportunity to speak in this debate. I rise to support the motion standing in the name of Mr Davinder Singh. Together with him and other Members of this House, let me also add my congratulations to our new President, and to thank him for his Address to this House. The President's Address fills me and, I believe, many Singaporeans with a sense of pride and anticipation. Pride, in that as we approach the dawn of the new century, we in Singapore could enjoy a sound economy, which is admired by so many. Besides being a prosperous place, it is also a place of calm, of safety and security in a stormy sea of political and social turmoil. Anticipation, in that the Government is going to focus on the people, on providing the means to help every Singaporean to develop according to his or her ability. In terms of strengthening civil society, the people sector will take centre stage.”
“Is the Government prepared for the change? The third issue we have to consider is whether the Government is prepared for the changes that will come with its policies. The recent debate about whether we are ready to have the equivalent of a Hyde Park has sent mixed signals. That is interesting because it tells us that at the very top level, we are still grappling for some form of consensus about the desirable pace of change. It is encouraging because it reflects an active discussion and a deep interest in the issue. But other forces are at work which will soon test the Government's resolve to embrace change. The President's Speech reiterates the need to encourage individual creative work. That is an admirable objective. It will have the support of all Singaporeans. But it will take time. We need to change the mindset of a whole generation of parents, teachers and children. But in time, we will see a large group of highly creative people in our country, and that will be positive for our economy. But it will also mean a new generation of Singaporeans with expectations and aspirations very different from ours. One cannot encourage creativity and then compartmentalise it. Creativity will dramatically affect an individual's worldview. A person who is trained to think for himself and to think out of the box may well have little tolerance for rigid structures, whether political or social. He may have no sympathy for a government which tries to think for him. He is likely to reject the concept of OB markers. This new generation will want a say in everything that concerns or interests them. The Government must be prepared for their quirks and aspirations.”
“Perhaps this is due to the unfortunate turn which the argument takes sometimes. Attempts to push at the limits have been met by vigorous and robust reactions. This has resulted in different signals being sent to different people. But at the end of the day, we are no wiser about what the Government and the people should aim to construct. Unless we identify what we want and what we are prepared for, we cannot sensibly advance these discussions. Third, we have to ask ourselves whether we are prepared and ready for an increased transfer of responsibility. Today, we rely on the Government for almost everything. For example, the Government decides what we can and cannot watch or read in Singapore. Many people find it convenient to abdicate these difficult decisions to the State. But empowerment is not only about having more rights. It is also about greater responsibility. Are Singaporeans prepared to take more responsibility for their lives and the lives of their children? The Internet is a good example. How many parents are prepared to tell the Government to stop censorship of the Internet because they will decide what their children can and cannot access at home, I suspect that you will find that many Singaporeans are happy with the status quo. It is neither easy nor popular to be a watchdog. Fourth, and perhaps the most important question is, can we take the heat? Friction will be generated by "constructive disagreement". Debate means give and take. If we want to criticise, we must accept that the Government has a corresponding right to rebut. We know this Government. It is not known for the subtlety of its replies. The moment we say we want more participation but not the embarrassment of having our arguments torn apart, then the debate about this debate ends.”
“An ambiguous policy can be counter productive. Perceived retreats from the pledges in the President's Speech will be magnified many times over, as will the disillusionment with the Government. What do Singaporeans want? The second issue which we need to address is what do Singaporeans want. There are a number of dimensions to this question. First, it is not always easy to gauge public opinion. It is particularly difficult when the concept of "political space" is being discussed. There is a significant section of loyal Singaporeans which will welcome a relaxation of the norms. But there is a large and equally committed group of conservatives in this country which is very comfortable with the status quo. Their interests and aspirations cannot be ignored. These conservatives cross racial and religious boundaries. They come from different backgrounds and strata of society. They have grown up in and are accustomed to a system where in return for their contribution to the community they receive the benefits of a safe environment, steady jobs, good health care, good education. They may not want change. Too often the debate between those who do not want change and those who do is reduced to whether the East or the West has the better model. But that is unhelpful. It distracts us from the issue of what is right for us. We should design our own formula. In doing that, we must take account of the views of all Singaporeans, not only those who are vocal. It is bad governance to cater only to those who want more without regard for the anxieties and the comfort levels of those who do not. The second dimension to this question is this. There has been very little debate about what we want, even among those who want change.”
“The result is stability. We do not defame without basis. The result is that reputations which are painstakingly built up over years are protected. The model that we seek to construct cannot ignore these basic values. There is no point in demanding a larger voice if we are not prepared to maintain the fundamentals that have made this place work. The sooner we recognise this, the better. But as in all bargains, the Government too has an obligation. It has a duty to spell out its vision as clearly as it can. While I accept that by its nature, the issue of empowerment is difficult to define. It is nonetheless incumbent on the Government, as part of the quid pro quo, to be as clear as it can about what it has in mind. That is not only fair, it is wise. Fair because people are entitled to know what they can legitimately expect if they take up the challenge of active citizenship. Wise because it is a dangerous business to hold out the promise of greater participation in public life without a clear explanation of what that involves. If people do not know what the Government has in mind, they will have all sorts of expectations. They will feel let down if their expectations are not met. That, from the Government's standpoint, will defeat the entire purpose of this exercise. This is very different from a programme to upgrade the infrastructure or grow the economy. Those tangibles can be measured. But an undertaking to give people a greater role in the affairs of the nation is an intangible one. People must believe that it is not an empty promise. Singaporeans must, in due course, be told in clear terms what active citizenship entails in terms of rights and responsibilities. Singaporeans must have a road map with clear pointers and markers.”
“The Government has said that it wants to promote active citizenship, independent creative thought and constructive disagreement. They are noble aims. But first, we have to settle some basic questions. There are, in my view, three threshold issues. First, what are the basic terms on which empowerment can take place? Second, do Singaporeans know what they want? Third, is the Government prepared for the changes which liberalisation will bring in its train? The terms of empowerment The first issue turns on the meaning of active citizenship. A close reading of the President's Speech suggests that, true to form, the Government has no intention of giving handouts. Active citizenship is not about the transfer of rights and power to the people. Active citizenship encapsulates a bargain. It is premised on the simple principle that there cannot be greater rights without greater responsibility. Put simply, Singaporeans cannot expect to sit back and ask for more "space" or the right to engage in "constructive disagreement" without contributing to the system which can accommodate those rights. The Government has always said that contribution to the community is an integral part of active citizenship. This idea is reinforced in the President's Speech which balances the development of the individual with the abiding need to maintain social cohesion. What then are the ingredients of our cohesiveness? Singapore's success is due to certain basic strengths: teamwork, religious and racial harmony and a strong sense of family and community. But these have come at a price. Singaporeans have had to sacrifice some of their individual rights for the larger interests of the community. For example, we do not make disparaging remarks about race or religion, language or culture.”
“Singaporeans are experiencing first hand the positive effects of the close relationship between Government, employers and workers. Perhaps, the most significant result of this crisis is that while other Asian countries are channelling their resources to restructuring their economies, we have moved on. We are already talking about developing our people, about strengthening our "heartware". That is a luxury which today other Asian countries can only dream about. They have too many political, social and economic problems on their plate. The President's Speech is aptly entitled "Building Our Future Together". It is about the responsibility that we have to share to shape the future of this country. The centrepiece of the Government's programme is the people. It signals a gradual shift in emphasis from infrastructure development to people development. The hardware which makes Singapore work is already in place. It is now time to make Singapore special. The President's Speech is an invitation to all Singaporeans to consider how we can achieve that goal. This is an opportunity for us to construct a new model. By its nature, the model must be flexible so that it can evolve in changing circumstances. It must also be realistic. There must be serious debate. There is no place in the debate of such an issue for cliches and platitudes. In this respect, I refer to the NCMP's proposed amendment to the motion which, in my view, is a perfect example of a cliche. He laments the absence of measures in the President's Speech. But he knows that the President's Address is, by convention, a mission statement. Details are left to the Addenda and to this debate. Unless he is constructive, he will contribute very little or nothing to the debate. What are the Government's aims?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the following Address in reply to the Speech of the President be agreed to:- "We, the Parliament of the Republic of Singapore, express our thanks to the President for the Speech which he delivered on behalf of the Government at the Opening of the Second Session of this Parliament." The President's Speech neatly captures the vulnerability of our economy. Just two years ago, when the Ninth Parliament opened, Singapore was prospering. We are now barely emerging from an economic crisis, which has left the region badly scarred. We have been able to overcome our difficulties because of the strength and integrity of our political and social institutions. More importantly, because of the rational way with which we deal with our problems. This, coupled with the unwavering support from employers and workers, has helped us score top marks with investors. Singapore has earned nothing but praise for its resilience. In the good times, some Singaporeans had the benefit of sharing in the prosperity while being critical of the very Government whose policies made for that prosperity. They felt that growth was in the natural order of things and that this Government was undeservedly immodest about what it had achieved for the country. But the regional crisis has forced them to reassess their cynicism. It is painfully apparent that different countries suffered differently in the crisis and there is a good reason. The greatest pain was suffered by those with the weakest systems. Now very few people harbour doubts about the wisdom of the Government's policies. Very few people believe that there will always be good times, whether or not we have a good Government.”
“In October last year, the Minister informed the House that the Law Reform Committee and the Law Society would be putting up a proposal to the Attorney-General's Chambers and the Ministry of Law on the question of corporatisation of the legal profession. Has the proposal been submitted to the Ministry and, if so, what is the Minister's position?”
“Previously, the response of the public service would have been that since you do not have all the details in the prospectus, you cannot have it registered. And if you cannot have it registered, you cannot have it distributed. But the Registrar of Companies has recently waived the requirement, because he or she understands the need for this document to be circulated. That is a tremendous advance. But my point really is that if discretion is being exercised in this manner, which is consistent with commercial good sense, why not publish it to the world at large? The financial community should know that these decisions are being made and if they know about it, they will come to realise that not only do they have in Singapore a Government which adjusts and is flexible, but a legislature and a public service which are equally responsive. Two more points, Sir. First, on the question of the supply of lawyers. In November 1993, the Minister for Law moved an amendment to the Legal Profession Act to implement the recommendations of the Committee for the Supply of Lawyers. One of the major recommendations which was accepted was the redefinition of the term "qualified persons". In essence, what that means was to control the flow of graduates into the legal profession from the United Kingdom. A list of 15 universities was settled on and put in a schedule to the relevant rules. The Minister then said that the list would be reviewed from time to time. And my question is: have steps been taken to review the performance and standards of these universities and is it the intention to revise the list? [Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair] 4.25 pm Lastly, the issue of corporatisation in respect of which I declare my interest.”
“But I do not think that solves the problem, because these are English Acts which we are applying so many years after independence and there is really no reason why we cannot apply our own minds to decide whether these Acts or parts of these Acts should be borrowed and modified for our purposes. One example is the Criminal Procedure Code. It has been with us for almost a hundred years and that Code continues to maintain a lifeline to English law to fill gaps in the Code. We have to demonstrate to the world that we have the self-confidence to decide, once and for all, what the criminal procedure in Singapore is, and that we really do not need the English fall-back anymore. I would like to ask the Minister what steps are being taken to keep pace with the changes in the financial arena and whether the Ministry is reviewing our legislation, including the Criminal Procedure Code. Another thing we need to do is to show the world that our public officials are commercially savvy and can and do respond to the needs of the situation. Often times, the laws we enact in this House vest a great deal of discretion in our public servants. And depending on how they act, they can make or break the perception of nimbleness and flexibility. Some of our officials have done well, but not many people know that. I will give Members an example. These days, before an Initial Public Offering is done, it often happens that the issuing company prepares what is called a "red herring prospectus", without full details of the size of the issue or the details of the pricing. The purpose of the red herring prospectus is really to distribute it to institutional investors so as to gauge the depth of the demand.”
“It is therefore crucial that we take advantage of this rare ability to make ourselves more competitive. We must demonstrate that we can quickly settle the laws that we need to draft, enact and implement to complement the changes in the financial world. The faster we update our laws, the greater the confidence we inspire. Investors need to know that there are people in the Ministry of Law and the Attorney-General's Chambers whose sole pre-occupation is to keep updated on and to monitor changes in the financial arena, so as to give them legislative backing. One example was highlighted in the press recently relating to the need to review our banking secrecy laws in the light of the changes to the practice of asset securitisation, which involves the sale by a bank of loans to a special purpose vehicle. That sale cannot take place unless the buyer knows the details of the customers whose loans are on sale, and the buyers cannot know the details of the customers because of our banking secrecy laws. That immediately calls for a need to review the laws to see whether we can amend them to make them consistent with these new financial practices, without, on the other hand, compromising the integrity of the secrecy of the accounts. In addition, we also need to quickly demonstrate that we have developed the self-confidence to decide on what our own laws should be. That after 33 years of independence, we no longer need to have an umbilical cord to English legislation. Remarkably, we still look to the United Kingdom to fill gaps in local legislation. For many years, there was a debate about what English laws apply in Singapore, and that debate has been partly resolved by the enactment of the Application of English Laws Act.”
“Sir, we have all read reports in the media about the competition between Singapore and Hong Kong. And Hong Kong officials, we have read, have been criticised for not being sufficiently proactive in improving the economic competitiveness of Hong Kong. The Hong Kong official who recently said that we have been able to easily adjust to make ourselves more competitive was right about one thing: that one of the advantages we enjoy in Singapore is the Government's control of Parliament. The Singapore Government rebutted the official's allegations to put him right. But, in my view, that official was not misinformed or inaccurate about our legislature. There is no need to be defensive about it. The Government is in control here not by sleight of hand or deceit, it is in control because this is what the people want, election after election. Our consistent message to Singaporeans has been that investors will take fright if they sense that the Government is losing its grip over the legislative process. The Hong Kong official has now confirmed what we have been saying all along. He has effectively conceded that our ability to control the passage of legislation has given us a decisive edge. Any government can make promises or offer incentives to investors. But not many can quickly craft and construct the legislative framework within which these incentives are to operate, without being distracted or delayed by politics or lobbying. We enjoy one substantial advantage over other countries, ie, our ability to legislate quickly and with minimum fuss. Given the mind-boggling speed with which new financial instruments are created, it is a distinct advantage for us to be able to tell the investors that we can immediately enact laws and reshape our regulations to keep pace with the changes.”
“Therefore, I think it is crucial that the Ministry consider extending the time during which students have to engage in community service. I would also ask the Minister to consider not paying too much emphasis on work with the RCs or peer tutoring. That really does not drive the message home as much as working in the homes or the orphanages.”
“Sir, I welcome the Ministry's decision to make community service compulsory for secondary school students. The question I pose to this House and to the Minister in particular is whether the scheme that has been drawn up, ie, a minimum of six hours of community work together with work with the RCs or peer tutoring, is enough. Really, the issue is, what are we trying to achieve by this scheme? If the object of the exercise is, in due course, to create a caring society, then we should ask ourselves whether the scheme, as it is presently formulated, is enough to achieve that objective. We can examine that by looking at what is happening at home and looking at what is happening in the schools. At home, you either have families who do not spend time with the children and therefore are unable to transmit values, or families who do spend time with the children, but nonetheless, the result is, as we all know and have acknowledged, that Singapore cannot boast of a caring society. Therefore, what needs to be done has to be done in the school. Because obviously nothing much more can be done at home without significant Government interference which will not be welcomed to change that situation. The attempt at mandating community service in schools is a good step but six hours in a year, is that going to achieve anything? Unless secondary school students who are going to be the pioneers in the scheme are able to spend a significant amount of time in the homes or the orphanages to understand that not everything is fine or rosy in that there are people in Singapore who are unfortunate and who live under very gloomy circumstances, they are not going to appreciate that the world does not revolve around them.”