Fang Ai Lian
Singapore
“The law can only provide for provisions and guidelines as to how everybody can live and work happily toge ther and therefore efforts made to make the laws much more flexible as well as to get people more fully involved in the management of their own affairs are clearly welcome.”
“So, I would like to ask both agencies, the MCDS as well as MOE, to think of more creative ways to cater for the needs of our special people, not only the kids but also adults. And it is really the adults perhaps. We could also think of new ways of approaching the issue because there is certainly a bigger gap there too. Assoc. Prof.”
“I do not think we can tackle all problems at the same time. Some have to be put in the parking lot. The main thing is that there must be a recognition that we have a problematic situation here and there is a need to change, and new solutions got to be found. The original objectives of the CPF cannot be fully met by the old model.”
“But, as with all things in Singapore, it would need to be spearheaded, championed and sponsored. Perhaps, to incentivise the private sector or, in fact, the VWOs, we need to put some real incentives in it. One of the main prohibitive areas is land cost again. That is why I have directed the issue to MND.”
“My comment here is that we are now very experienced in knowing what sort of measures we should have to achieve a smoother traffic flow, because we really do have a very good road system. We do not have road congestion and all these promote Singapore as a business centre. But I think we need to consolidate.”
“We have got an enormous task at hand. I do not envy the Ministry of Education. But by just recognising the nature of the task, I think we have taken major steps towards tackling it. There can never be a perfect and all-encompassing solution.”
The complete record
Every one of 75 lines we hold for Fang Ai Lian, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 2.
“Because when an individual decides to take an overly suspicious stance with his Muslim neighbour, we can probably stop at that. But this is not one man with tremendous irrational fears. But when employers and corporates behave that way or have that sort of feeling, then the consequences, indeed, can be magnified many times over, and it would then not be unreasonable for the Muslim community to think that they have been disenfranchised and marginalised, and for them to feel discouraged and depressed. Therefore, as an employer, I would like to call on fellow employers to make that special effort to ensure, and to be seen to be ensuring, a level playing field in terms of employment and treatment of our Muslim counterparts. When the JI paper was first presented, a number of employer organisations indeed came out to affirm the importance of abiding by the principles of meritocracy to ensure that job applicants are judged solely based on qualifications, experience and also on other objective measures. This is very important. Not only must we be doing this, we must also be seen to be doing this. So our employment processes and our business dealings with our Muslim counterparts must be utterly transparent. And this is even more important, given the fact that we have a somewhat high unemployment situation where we get hundreds of applicants per job, and it is so easy to cry foul and allege discrimination against a particular grouping. On a practical note, as employers, it would be very difficult for us to sniff out potential terrorists. From the profiles of the arrested JI members, it would appear that they are very ordinary folks. So, it would take no less than the ISD to identify them and to round them up.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for accommodating me. I, too, would like to support the motion. Indeed, it is very disturbing to read the contents of the White Paper and how it would affect Singapore. So, I fully agree with the comments made by the Government to respond in a robust manner, and that we should indeed respond to a threat which will really threaten our national security. Much has been said by many speakers about how Singaporeans ought to respond to this threat by groups such as the JI. I do not wish to cover the same grounds because, by and large, I agree with all of the comments made. But I would like to make a few comments from just one single aspect, and that is from my perspective as an employer and as a corporate citizen. From all the speeches made, we can see that it is important to respond to the threat from two somewhat opposing ways. One is that we have to be extra-vigilant. We cannot allow potential threats to be diminished or left unchecked. But, on the other hand, we cannot allow ourselves to become overly cautious or overly suspicious about Muslims in general. Because this would then result in a great divide in our society, and our society is just not about Singapore alone. It is also about our Muslim neighbours. So, if we do not approach the issue in a way that it should be sensibly approached, we can provide a very fertile soil for extremists to exploit the situation and to make political capital out of a very sensitive situation just by simply alleging discrimination against a particular racial or religious group. As employers, we face these concerns. We are in a much more precarious situation compared to the man-in-the-street.”
“We have got an enormous task at hand. I do not envy the Ministry of Education. But by just recognising the nature of the task, I think we have taken major steps towards tackling it. There can never be a perfect and all-encompassing solution. We cannot cure all the problems at the same time, and we must not postpone improvements today, taking one step at a time. On that note, Sir, I commend the Report. I support the motion.”
“I also wonder whether our new commitment can also be endorsed to the highest level, in terms of State scholarships, whether the President's scholarships can be offered for the music, the arts, the drama and film-making. It is all very well that we develop our best and our talented in particular fields. At the end of the day, I agree that one of the primary goals of education must be to meet the needs of our economy and to provide jobs and gainful employment for our young when they leave school. The Minister of State has very positively confirmed that the Ministry of Education has done and will always do more for the greater masses, and this is important. Because the true test of the success of our schools must be the preparation and motivation of the greater majority. And it will be wonderful if the greater majority, especially the less academically inclined, the late bloomers, can be motivated to excel and to contribute effectively to our society. More importantly, and this is noted in the Report, education for all must be a lifelong process, a process which extends from infancy to the end of one's life. So we must create a learning society which will help us to progress and prosper in a world where creativity and knowledge clearly rule. So the primary goals of education must be, firstly, to provide our young preparation for lifelong learning; secondly, to launch them into careers where their aptitude, ambition and the skills match; and thirdly, to continuously develop their potential throughout their adult years. This is not an easy subject. And indeed, it must extend beyond the educational reforms in order to draw the true potential of the next generation. We have got to look at the total picture - the family, the social and the political framework.”
“Over the decades, we have also evolved as a nation of small families, one or two siblings or no siblings at all, both parents working, the womenfolk getting better educated, they will pursue their aspirations and you will have more of family members working in the future. What we get is latchkey kids, we get kids subject to maid culture, we get lonely kids, and we also get ambitious and guilt ridden parents. So more and more the traditional discipline and support system of the family will get eroded and we have got to face the consequences of this reality squarely. So what I would like to suggest, and I wonder whether it would be possible, is whether it would be reasonable for some of these family responsibilities to be undertaken by the State. Whether we could have, on a much bigger scale, across national level, after-school care for our children so that they can be minded, so that the value system and life skills can be better developed, better honed. Because when our children get better cared, they become better adjusted individuals and they will do better, not only in terms of academic, but in terms of pursuit of other interests, in terms of music and arts, it will create teamwork, it will create enjoyment. Talking about music and arts, again, it is great that the Report is recommending academies for music, the arts, the drama, and so on. But it can only flourish if our society places value on such areas. Sportsmen cannot just wait to win gold medals at ASEAN, the Olympics, the Commonwealth Games before they get rewarded. Even just being good, and not world-class, they must earn a living. So we have to create real economic opportunities for these people.”
“Because we can be a high achieving nation, but if we are completely stressed out, we become ineffective and it becomes a case of diminishing returns. It is also good that the Report therefore is also recommending that we alleviate the pressure on our students by allowing them to seek and to fulfil their own interest and their own inclination. Because when they pursue their interest, they excel through enjoyment. Frequently, students are channelled into programmes where they have no aptitude or motivation for. And this is because of peer pressure or family expectations. And it is a tragic waste of resources both on the point of view of the individual as well as for society. Yet, another side effect of this proposal, elitism, is of course labelling. We already have so many labels in the marketplace - Normal, Express, scholars, non-scholars and we have got elites versus non-elites. Again, I like to emphasise that I am not against elitism. But it is important to recognise it and the downside that it would produce a greater divide on society and will produce more of the so-called quitters in society. But I would also like to add that the elites themselves would also form a pool of potential quitters. As we raise the bar for our best and brightest, as we create more savvy, more creative people, more thinkers, more leaders, they would also tend to be brash, opinionated and self-centred. So it is also important as we teach them humility, we also have to alter our social, as well as political framework, in order to engage and accommodate a new breed of Singaporeans who might otherwise pack up and go, if they are not satisfied. So we need more social reform.”
“The Report did acknowledge that such changes would bring about some level of elitism. But it was felt that it was inevitable. And I must say I agree. I agree with streaming, I agree with segmentation, I agree with setting up new channels for our best and our brightest because these are the very people who will pull the rest of society forward. Sir, I am not against elitism because it is a fact of life. It is required given the constraints as a small country. But it is important to recognise the stress, and we ought to recognise and manage the resultant stress. I also agree that much of the stress is self-imposed - by society and by parents. All parents want the very best for their students to excel in everything from academic to arts, to music, everything is just not realistic, but yet we push ourselves. I read the New York Times article recently and it said the Singapore problem is experienced elsewhere and it emphasised that children must also lead a balanced life. To the Americans, they said they also need time to veg out. In our lingo, just switch off. So it is heart warming that the Report has sent out a very important signal where they recommended that the hours be reduced for each subject. Some Members have argued that they should be reduced even further. But what is important is that they have sent out a very important signal that the hours ought to be reduced and more hours be spent doing other things. Sir, I think parents ought to take cue to lessen the pressure on their children. But educational reforms can only do so much. At the end of the day, society, as a whole, must also change its mindset and seek a more balanced life.”
“All of us got to be equipped with multi-faceted skills so that we can operate more effectively as leaders and managers in the global economy and global marketplace. As regards the concerns on JC and upper secondary education, my little concern has been answered by the Minister of State, and what further changes would be brought about by changes introduced at one level, the before and the after. Before, being at the primary and lower education, lower secondary education level to set the scene for the broad-based education to be experienced at the upper secondary education level, and the after, at the tertiary education so that students who had been brought up in a different and more challenging way will still continue to receive the same level of mental stimulation and challenges under the new system. I think this is nitty-gritty stuff that MOE would take care of. What I foresee is an education system which will get invariably more and more complex and I think it cannot be helped. Much has already been said about the educational reforms, about execution and about training teachers. So I would not dwell on them. I would like to add further comments on reforms beyond the educational reforms. When I first read the Report, I said, "Wow, as a parent, this is going to cause more stress for parents and students alike." I think probably more so for parents. As it is, our existing streaming system is causing much stress. So as we open new channels, a superior education for our best and our brightest, parents, I feel, would invariably get more pressured to ensure that the students make it to this category. They will get a crack at Primary 6 to make it to one of these Integrated Programmes, if not at Secondary 2, and for the late bright bloomers at Secondary 4.”
“And competition is clearly demanding that all of us have got to enhance our productivity in more ways than one to produce goods and services better, quicker and cheaper. And most of the solutions can be shaped by education because education is a powerful tool to reshape minds, reshape attitudes and reshape behaviours. So it is timely that we relook and re-challenge our educational system to take us forward. In the past, just like any investment, we look for the best yields. Happily, now, we can afford a lot more of the recommendations put forward by the Review Committee so that we can embark on broad-based education, we can do more for our students so that they can spend more time on non-academic projects, project work, as has been said, as well as on character building. As a professional accountant and one trained with specialist skills, I am a firm believer in broad-based education, general-based education, at all levels. Most of my colleagues trained in Europe, in US and UK are trained in that way. They first of all have to obtain a General Degree first and we would prefer them to have a discipline, other than accounting. We would prefer them to have a degree in philosophy, in engineering, before they embark on their professional qualifications. This has made much better multi-faceted professionals, not only effective in their own individual's sphere of profession, but also well-equipped in business as well as social settings. I think this should apply to all professionals, as well as technicians, that create people as well. Just as we have moved away from the idea that accountants should be locked up in backrooms, buried in ledgers, we should also move away from the idea that technicians should hide behind machines and work quietly with their hands.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I too would like to fully support the motion to adopt the recommendations of the Review Committee with regard to Junior College and Upper Secondary Education. Indeed the Report is a very excellent blueprint to take the JC and the Upper Secondary Education into the future. To me, the key is summarised in paragraph 26 of the report, which states that "The focus of education must shift from efficiency to diversity, from knowing to thinking, and from fitting people to specific jobs to equipping them for lifelong learning and creating their own opportunities." In fact this is a very powerful statement with intent to empower people. It also sums up where we have been and where we want to be. In the past, our strategy has been to focus on efficiency, on knowledge and on fitting people into specific jobs. Every strategy, indeed in business, cannot be perfect, but the bottom line counts. And, the bottom line is that it has produced the results we have today. It has served us well as a small and fast growing nation and has brought us clearly to where we are today. And I think all Members have also agreed that in going forward, we have got to change our educational focus because the world we live in is vastly different. We now have a global economy. Information explodes all around us, and changes the world and our chosen careers. It is just inevitable and we just have got to continue with life-long learning in order to stay relevant. And businesses too are focusing on people who are creative, people with unique ideas, problem solvers who are able to communicate the ideas as well as focusing on people, on their well-being.”
“A lot of reasons have already been articulated by many hon. Members here, but I would like to dwell on three. Is it due to our inherent complaining nature, to start with? Or is it due to what the Prime Minister said, that we are a bo-chap, couldn't-care-less society? Or are we a kiasu society as well? All these attitudes are not desirable and, indeed, they should be reversed. They should be replaced by values which will make us a much happier society. So, instead of being kiasu, I think we too should have a good dose of optimism, because it is in optimism that we see solutions, and pessimism simply obscures solutions, even as they stare us in our faces. I think we should also stop complaining and become a much more self-reliant society. That way, we take greater pride in our work. That way, we become much more entrepreneurial as well. As for bo-chap, I think that is terrible. We must chap. We must care. That way, we will have a more caring and more gracious society, not only for ourselves but for everybody else as well, because democracy is not just about rights, it is also about respect and responsibility for others. On that note, I would like to conclude by saying that I do believe that as we remake Singapore, these values - of inclusiveness, loyalty, family, responsibility and optimism - get woven into our policies and programmes. 3.28 pm”
“He was talking about the difficulties he faced when he first became the Mayor of New York and how difficult it was for him to galvanise New Yorkers together. So he carried out a survey and was dismayed to find that 64% of New Yorkers would rather quit New York, if given the chance. That is a very high percentage. New York is one of the most successful cities in the world in one of the most successful countries in the world. Yet, they too have their fair share of potential quitters. So, we are not in this alone. Mr Guiliani changed that to a large extent. What he did was to establish the reasons as to why New Yorkers were unhappy. Not surprisingly, one of the main reasons is the high rate of crime in New York. Just imagine, there is an official list of tips on "How not to be a victim of crime" in New York! One of it is not to talk to strangers, and the other is not to have eye contact with anyone. This is much worse than our bo-chap policy; it is bo-chap policy with fear, ie, walk around with your eyes closed! What Mr Guiliani did after identifying the problems was really addressing the problems with great vigour. He developed a strategy, communicated the strategy, fought the battles with great focus and commitment and, as he said, with a great deal of optimism. That way, he succeeded in achieving what was thought to be impossible. I think we, too, can start by looking at the reasons why Singaporeans are unhappy, and much of it has already been articulated. I say it again: we are a country with a low rate of crime. We are a city which is clean, safe, efficient as well as affluent. We have great food. People are telling us that we are fun and an enjoyable place to live in, and yet Singaporeans are unhappy. Why is this so?”
“Indeed, the strength of a country, or creed, lives very much in the true sense of loyalty it can arouse in the hearts of its people. And, therefore, the value of the flag is so powerful in uniting a country and its people, making them believe in the country and what it stands for, I think we should develop a great sense of loyalty for our country. In that way, we promote that sense of belonging to our country as well. But this sense of loyalty or a sense of belonging must also be founded in the value of the family, and this has been articulated by a lot of hon. Members here because, however the world changes, the power of the family remains in shaping and nurturing the citizens of tomorrow. It is within this family relationship that values as diverse as love, responsibility, communication and respect for the authority gets forged. It is within the family that we learn about how to live to the fullest of our potential, how to do the right things and do things right as well. So we can spend more time and more efforts in developing the family and developing policies and programmes which are much more pro-family. Already, we have a number of factors against us - the smallness of our family unit, the growing number of singles and childless couples. So I think it is worth our while to continue to really put in all our efforts in making and developing pro-family policies. There are also quite a few lessons which can be learnt - or I learned it - from Rudy Guiliani, who is the ex-Mayor of New York City. He was the keynote speaker at a recent event which I attended, and he was talking about Managing a Crisis. And it was not just about the September 11 crisis.”
“And I would add that we should also include new members or foreign talent, because if they want to, are willing to and are able to improve our lives, why not? Why should we criticise them? We should welcome them because they are part of this global intellectual capital - this is 3G - which is so mobile, they go to where they are wanted, they stay where they are well treated and valued. This brings me to my recent visit to the US. I am reminded of how patriotic that country is. The Americans are so proud of themselves. They loudly proclaim they are Americans, whatever their country of origin might be. The minute they receive their green cards, they announce that they are Americans. Why is this so? We all know that America is a very rich and prosperous country. It is lauded as the land of opportunity. It is proclaimed as the champion of human rights as well as democracy. But so is Singapore. Singapore is a highly successful country, and there are a good number of reasons why we should also be proud and loudly proclaim ourselves as Singaporeans. But I think the Americans have a great symbol of their country which they can relate to, and this is their flag. Americans proudly display their flag on every occasion, not only on national occasions, not only during community gatherings, but also during family as well as business gatherings. Many Americans fly their flag throughout the year in their homes and their offices, not only on Independence Day. And they also wear their flag literally - on hats, clothes, T-shirts, mini-skirts, hot pants, mugs and so on. It is not disrespectful at all. In fact, the flag is a strong symbol of freedom, democracy, pride in their country, as well as loyalty to the country.”
“So, really, our challenge is to develop policies and programmes which will accommodate this diverse range of expectations and aspirations, ranging from high rewards, philosophical expressions as well as just mere basic needs. We, therefore, need to create an environment and strive to create even a better environment which does not label people and which makes everybody feel needed and welcomed. That way, we avoid that feeling of alienation. That is of course the most ideal situation to achieve and, needless to say, we must always try to achieve it. Everyone counts and everyone matters, whatever their abilities and disabilities, whatever they have done or not have done. We must welcome, as done, all members of our family, because they belong to our family. We should also embrace those who, for whatever reasons, have left Singapore, and we must maintain good relationships and good ties with them because we are a small country. This way, we enlarge our virtual family. And, it is an asset. There are good reasons why Singaporeans choose sometimes to leave the country - because of personal reasons, opportunities or survival, like in the business world. Businesses may take flight to low-cost regimes in order to stay competitive. This way, we should applaud and encourage them, because they have moved on, seeking that proverbial cheese, so to speak. This is not to say that we shall quit and seek cheese elsewhere because we have got plenty of cheese in Singapore and we know that the Government is constantly trying to increase that cheese supply. What I am just trying to say is that we should embrace all Singaporeans who have left us temporarily or permanently, and include them in this family of ours.”
“On the contrary, a great number of people, as has been confirmed, had been involved in trying to think of ways and means to improve the quality of life in Singapore. So as we talk about how to review thoroughly our programmes and policies, I do believe that process is well underway. Perhaps, there should be some focus, and this has been greatly debated upon, on this, what you call, sense of belonging of Singaporeans to Singapore and how to create the bonds within this great family about us. Maybe we should start by looking at mindsets and attitudes, I think, not only of the Government but indeed of Singaporeans, ourselves. We should re-examine our own attitudes towards Government, towards our country, and maybe start by not complaining so much. I think both sides, for sure, have to come together. Both sides have got to be part of the solution together. A sense of belonging, or a lack of it, has two aspects - the push factors as well as the pull factors. And, invariably, these factors always come into play as one considers or exits from a relationship, be it one's job, family, friends, social networks or country. One of the most major push factors must be this feeling of alienation. There is no doubt about it that we are a hard-driving and yet a high-achieving nation. There is nothing wrong with it. The strategy that has helped to produce this state is correct and should be continued. But this strategy, this process, also produces on the one hand the high achievers whom we want because they are the drivers and, on the other hand, people or groups who might just feel marginalised, disenfranchised or disenchanted, as had been described.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, I rise to support the call for measures to strengthen Singaporeans' sense of belonging to Singapore. I do realise that I am the last speaker and it must be quite a relief for all. I am quite relieved to tell you frankly. I am not 3G for sure, and I have listened very carefully to the definition for "3G". Let me start by setting the issue in some perspectives. Firstly, on the one hand, it has been said and acknowledged that there is a problem. For whatever reasons, there are Singaporeans who have left, are leaving or, at least, are thinking of leaving Singapore, and this has caused concern and has caused the Prime Minister to make certain remarks during his National Day Rally speech. Indeed, his remarks have generated a great deal of debate and some strong responses from Singaporeans, especially those who are living overseas. Some of these remarks or responses can be considered quite emotional and whether or not they are justified in their reaction is beside the point. What is important is to understand why they feel that way. Secondly, on the other hand, these few weeks have really witnessed quite a revolution in our country. And almost on a daily basis, we read about some new recommendations made by the Economic Review Committee as well as the Remaking Singapore Committee. And they cover just about everything and anything ranging from our economy to education, to laws and regulations as well as sports, and so on. And some of these recommendations are quite radical, recognising that today's world cannot be remodelled based on yesterday's memories. So it would be fair to say that it is not as if the Government is not doing anything.”
“I think we too can develop a culture which embraces change and opportunity in a big way. We too can make entrepreneurship an accepted and highly respected career and we too can make failure an accepted learning experience. Along the way, we must have Government incentives and support. We must have laws and regulations lightened. We must have the GLCs now working more and more in collaboration and in support of local enterprise. More than that, we need a complete transformation of the entire nation's attitude towards entrepreneurship. It is a good start. It is a long haul but it is very encouraging. On that note, Mdm Deputy Speaker, I support the Motion.”
“So we need to weave into our education system creativity, entrepreneurial attributes like dare-to-dream and dare-to-fail. That way, we can develop and shape attitudes amongst our young. I would like to end by looking at which are the countries which are ranked well, and what are the lessons we can draw from them. The dark horses were Australia, New Zealand and Mexico. I call them dark horses because they do not really have exactly high-profile economies. But they were ranked very highly in terms of entrepreneurial activity. And this was attributed to the fact that there was a high level of government awareness in this area, promoting entrepreneurship and having an active engagement with entrepreneurial leaders as well. In the case of Mexico, its economy was very much dominated by large public and private monopolies, and yet entrepreneurship is very much alive and thriving. This is because these large public and private companies actually outsource their activities to the small independent businesses which are able to run in a much more agile manner. Hence, the point made on outsourcing many times over. Korea was also ranked very highly and this was due to the fact that it was able to address the problems surfacing from the 1997 Asian economic crisis very well. It was able to develop very specific measures, in particular to develop new businesses. As we remake Singapore, I think there are lessons to gain from the Korean experience. Lastly, the great entrepreneurial star - the United States of America. It has been a star for many, many years. This is because its culture embraces change and opportunity seeking. Entrepreneurship is very much regarded as an accepted and highly respected occupation and failure is regarded as an accepted learning experience.”
“But we won because of imported foreign talent. That is not so bad. And this is the same formula which has won us many goals for our economy. We won because of foreign direct investments, and this has helped us to achieve remarkable growth. But this is not quite the same. We could have continued this strategy, but the landscape has changed. So it is important that we grow more local entrepreneurs. But it has to be also noted that there is a direct correlation between foreign direct investment and entrepreneurial activity. The GEM report noted that, in the case of Belgium - only Belgium and Japan were ranked below Singapore - it was a country whose economy is very highly dependent on foreign direct investment and international trade, its entrepreneurial activity is abysmally low. So, critics said that this was due to the fact that foreign direct investments just make entrepreneurial activity less attractive. But the GEM report also noted that Belgium did not quite help itself in terms of entrepreneurial training to help shape attitudes and behaviour. So, entrepreneurial training was only present at the undergraduate and graduate level, but it was totally absent across the system relating to primary, secondary and pre-university level. Therefore, it just did not stimulate the attitudes which were so vital for an entrepreneurial mindset and environment. So, perhaps, we too can look at our own education system. Our schools now focus very much on academic results, and our vocational institutes, on technical skills. This orientation has obviously served us well for many years. We will continue to require brilliant academics, competent technicians but, at this stage, we need something more.”
“This is a good practical approach, because it is in the cutting-edge of technology and life sciences that we have the greatest chances of success. But even this approach has its pitfalls, as the Internet bubble has taught us a few painful lessons. But the point here is that by playing safe, focusing on a few technology companies, we are actually also going against the grain or the spirit of entrepreneurship, which is not being afraid to fail. Therefore, I would like to urge the Government to promote greater entrepreneurship. It is not just about high-tech; it should also be medium-tech, low-tech and no-tech, because the whole spirit of entrepreneurship is also about the spirit of self-reliance. If we look at the products and services we use everyday - the food we eat, the clothes we wear, the chairs we sit on - these are no-tech businesses. These are services and products provided by businesses with a few thousand dollars or millions of dollars of turnover. But one thing is common. They are started up by entrepreneurs, either out of necessity or out of a passion, ie, their ability to know that they can do something better than others. So, whatever their motivation, it is important that we encourage and support them, because it is out of a large pool of entrepreneurs that some superstars can emerge. We can use the analogy in football, I suppose. Brazil has won the World Cup a few times, and this is because an entire nation is just crazy about football. So, they have a lot of footballers to choose from. All young Brazilian boys play it on every piece of land that they can find. We also celebrated a trawl of four goals in the recent Commonwealth Games. We won in table tennis and badminton, games which are not entirely popular with Singaporeans.”
“What is much more important is the development of the entrepreneurial spirit. This is not an easy task, but steps are being taken. They are pushing this goal, but we have to recognise that it is going to be a long haul because we are starting fairly right from the bottom. At this juncture, I would like to share with the House a report published by Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM), which is an international body which tracks entrepreneurial activity worldwide. In its 2001 report, it compared some 29 countries. We fared not so well. We were ranked 27th out of 29. In its 2000 report, we were 19th out of 21. So we are quite far away from the Number 1 position which we would like to occupy and boast about. Why is this so? Critics of GLCs would probably jump at this and say, "I told you so! GLCs are crowding off local private enterprises." But the real reasons are quite complex. The GEM report recognises that Singapore has a rather unique challenge and handicap. This is because, as Mdm Deputy Speaker has said, we have a rather small domestic economy. This means that, by necessity, businesses must venture overseas in order to acquire a size that matters. Businesses may argue that if they have had the entire domestic economy to itself, small as it may be, it will give them that start-up advantage. But we have to remember that we operate an open economy. If we do not compete against GLCs, then we will have to contend with MNCs. So, in a way, the GLCs provide a check against MNCs. But, whatever the reason might be, there must be a recognition that because of the smallness of our economy, businesses must, by nature, strike out and acquire a size that matters. The GEM report also noted that the Government has already promoted entrepreneurial activity in the technology area.”
“Of course, a lot more can be done and a lot needs to be done. Whether private enterprise would have flourished without GLCs is a moot point. But it is clear that GLCs were formed at a time when private enterprise was either unwilling or unable to get into businesses which GLCs went into. Of course, there are many instances where GLCs slipped their fingers into one pie too many. But most of that is the past, and I think they are also embarrassed. So, let us not harp on it. Let us move on and find the proper solutions. The recommendations of the EISC as well as the New Temasek Charter recently unveiled are all steps in the right direction. There is a recognition that Singapore today is not quite the same as it was many years back and, in the new situation, the role of Government in business needs to change. This role, however, need not be changed so quickly and so drastically. Some of us may think that the remaking of Singapore is all about turning Singapore upside down and inside out, but life is not quite so simple as that. Some things can be done, some things cannot be done, short of shooting your own foot. GLCs, because of the magnitude of their presence in the marketplace, it would be imprudent to have a sudden divestment of businesses worth billions of dollars, involving hundreds and thousands of jobs. This will surely destroy shareholders' values, and shareholders are Singaporeans. It will destroy shareholders' values and it will destroy jobs. This will not be good for us and clearly, it will not be the right step to take. So, we need a much more well-managed and organised approach towards divestment, and I am glad that the EISC as well as Temasek Holdings are taking the positive and right steps in this direction.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion to implement the recommendations of the Entrepreneurship and Internationalisation Sub-Committee (EISC). I fully support the recommendation to redefine the role of Government in business and to call on the Government to support local private enterprise. I particularly like the idea that Government-linked companies should work in collaboration and partnership with small and medium enterprises to complement their business rather than to compete with them. Much has already been said in Parliament as well as outside as to how GLCs stifle and crowd out private enterprise. However, I would like to say that it is equally important that we do not over exaggerate the negative side of GLCs because, by and large, they have not done too badly. They have done quite a good job. They are run professionally, efficiently and also profitably. They provide a lot of jobs for our people and they also contribute to a significant part of our GDP, some 13%. A handful of them - I am glad that bouquets have also been thrown at GLCs - have helped Singapore establish its international brand name. And it is because of the good reputation caused by GLCs, a lot of local enterprises have been helped in their marketing efforts overseas. Because of the hue and cry and criticisms levelled at GLCs, some of them have already begun the process of collaborating with local enterprises. The logistics arm of SembCorp Industries teamed up with Goodpack to make use of their specially developed metal containers to international bulk carriers. We also have CapitaLand with Kinderkids World providing childcare services at their properties abroad. All these are positive developments and ought to be acknowledged.”
“Sir, with so many women speaking, I feel compelled to join the crowd so that all of us can speak. I fully agree with the Minister that the solution to bridge the gap is through education. But you find that, in the future, when women get more educated, it will be a waste if we lose this very valuable resource when family kicks in. Sir, I wonder whether you can help change the rules. I think it is all very well to say that discrimination is not there. But it is true that, when the family kicks in, the woman takes a back seat and she will lose her skills if she does not actively try to get back into the workforce. So I wonder whether you could help change the mindset and start much more earlier in the day in the education process to tell the women that life is about various stages and to think ahead for the future. We should change women's mindset on how they can get back into the workforce, how to help change processes, helping them to work from home, how to actively change work processes within the workplace so that women can continue to retain a level of skills and to get connected to the workplace so that, when their children are growing, they can get back actively into the workforce.”