Gan See Khem
Singapore
“Lastly, Sir, we need to develop more sources of funding research whereby our universities can compete for funds based on merit. Currently, only A*STAR offers research funding, but for the applied sciences.”
“But it is another issue when we do not take care of our locals when the time comes and they really need it. Would the Minister be able to give us an idea how the needs of those who do not qualify under the means test but are in need of subsidised care, going to be protected? The Government is now talking about introducing insurance.”
“Yes. Many of us are not familiar with buying complicated health insurance programmes with many deductibles and restrictions. Is the Government going to educate and guide us on how we can choose a health insurance plan that best fits our need and help us navigate this whole sea of unknowns? Healthcare”
“What I would like to propose is for the Government to review the definition of SME. In today's environment, the definition of SME, with less than $15 million of net assets and not hiring more than 200 employees, is outdated.”
“I would like to request that the Government review and re-appraise the Constitution which forces such extreme fiscal conservatism and promote a period of internal generated growth. I hope we are not the generation which is accused of selling the family jewels, as I talked about encouraging more aggressive fiscal policies.”
“Earlier, Mr Lim Boon Heng challenges the Singapore Business Federation and the other business chambers to go out and bring more business to Singapore.”
The complete record
Every one of 59 lines we hold for Gan See Khem, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 2.
“The Singapore Chinese Chamber was so pleasantly surprised when we received a letter from the Ministry of Education inviting us to send our representatives to the dialogue with Committee members on the White Paper on Chinese Language Curriculum and Pedagogy Review, and the letter was written in Chinese. Our members were overwhelmed. They were pleasantly surprised. They were encouraged and they really had a very good feeling. And this little fact is noted in this particular copy of Chinese Enterprise, our monthly magazine. So we hope other civil servants from other Ministries would emulate MOE's approach, where possible, to engage the community with the use of Chinese Language, create a more Chinese Language environment so that Singaporeans can actually see some practical use of Chinese. Additionally, we would like to see more focus on bilingualism in the Government website, signages for roads, MRT stations, airports, so that we can see English words written, we can also see Chinese words written. Mr Speaker Sir, I support the proposals set out in the Report of the Chinese Language Curriculum and Pedagogy Review Committee.”
“The Singapore Chinese Chamber also organises the hanyu shui ping kao shi, which is the Chinese equivalent of TOEFL. Every year, hundreds of Singapore students make an effort. Even though it is not required by MOE or their schools, they make an effort to go to the Singapore Chinese Chamber to take the hanyu shui ping kao shi, and they all score very well. The Singapore Chinese Chamber is involved with the Speak Mandarin Campaign and wishes to do more at a higher level. There are other community Chinese associations, eg, the Char Yong (Da Bu) Association. It has created the Hakka Culture Heritage Museum and organised many activities in Chinese. It has organised young Singaporeans to go to China on study tours. It has donated to schools and it has links to schools historically. The Gan Clan Association, that I am associated with, has organised the World Gan Clan Congress, a Chinese-speaking environment where Singapore Gan Clan members interact with members from other countries, all in Mandarin. And so does the Hokkien associations where they preserve the Chinese temples where they sponsor schools and they also organise children's cultural classes, and ethnic Chinese students happily join them and learn how to sing and dance in Chinese. The civil service uses English as the official language, but we hope that the civil service would also promote some correspondence in Chinese, so as to make the use and learning of Chinese more relevant to our lives. I want to relate one small incident.”
“I seriously took an effort to learn Chinese and I am quite happy that today I am competent to hold a dialogue and to read in Chinese, and I can hold my head high when I am in the Chinese-speaking community in Singapore. I believe that our Ministry's approach to let the children learn some Chinese when they are young sets the foundation. We cannot force them to want to learn a language if they do not feel that it relates to their lives. But that foundation, when I was between 6 and 12, has set for me in my subconscious level an ability to pick up the language when I really needed it and I am motivated to learn. So the creation of a learning environment at the primary school level is really very important. The second matter I would like to bring up in this House is that there are already many Chinese community associations in Singapore that continue to promote the Chinese language environment, chief amongst which is the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce. At the prompting of Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce organised the first world Chinese Entrepreneurial Convention in 1989, and this has become a bi-annual world event where the top notch in the Chinese business community gather to meet and to network, and Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce plays a very active role and our members are actively involved in the dialogues of business in Chinese. The Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce also trains adults in Chinese language and has been doing so successfully over the past 17 years. It has organised hundreds of Chinese language events, activities, tours, visits to China, visits from China of officials and business communities and many, many more. It is a very rich Chinese speaking and Chinese business speaking environment.”
“I like to propose that the learning of Chinese need not be confined to the period where the students are in school. In fact, the learning of Chinese and other languages continues throughout our lives. I would like a little opportunity to share my own experience. I had six years of Chinese as a language in a Chinese school, from primary one to six. At the secondary level, I switched to an English school and I had taken Malay as a second language, and I continued with English in 'A' levels, in my first degree, my Master, my PhD and the rest of my career. I have not had a chance to ever have to use Chinese. At the age of 44, I had my first brush with Chinese, after an absence of more than 32 years. When I joined the Singapore Gan Clan Association as a member, they elected me promptly as Vice President, and I really felt under privileged because I could not communicate with my clan people in Mandarin. The problem got even more serious when I was elected to the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce where all the meetings are held in Chinese and minutes are written in Chinese. At that stage, I made up my mind that I needed to learn Chinese. A tour to the Suzhou industrial park, before the Singapore party signed with China, made it even more serious an issue personally to learn Chinese because when I went there, the Chinese side designated a translator for me. When I was in China, they did not think that I could communicate or understand when they spoke in Chinese. All these gave me fuel to rethink my priorities. And in my late 40s, I decided to subscribe seriously and read the Lianhe Zaobao. In fact, I learnt more from the Chinese papers and through other Chinese magazines.”
“A point I want to note here is that if Chinese is seen now more as a learning language rather than an examination language with Singapore parents and students, will it mean that more of these students will give less priorities to the learning of Chinese and focus their time and resources more to the learning or the preparation for examinations for mathematics, science and other subjects in schools? Does it lead to the eventual decline in our ability to use our mother tongues? If we are to adopt the new pedagogy successfully, it may mean that some of our students may not make an effort to acquire the learning of Chinese. We have already experienced a generation where ethnic Chinese do not speak, some do not write or some do not read Chinese. In this transition stage, we need to be doubly concerned about the spurious effects of the learning outcomes if we forgo the examination approach towards the learning of the Chinese subject. What is the solution? There are many approaches towards enhancing the learning of Chinese. I would like to speak this afternoon, Sir, on creating a more Chinese environment where the usage and cultural context of the Chinese language can be appreciated. We need to engage our ethnic Chinese Singaporeans in using the language and we need to assure them that there are some relations of the language to our real life. A tour of China, to any ethnic Chinese, will make it very clear why they need to learn Chinese. The immense historical and the immense economic potential of learning and able to communicate in Chinese when they are in China, is a great impetus. We do not need to make Chinese an examination language in order to encourage ethnic Chinese to want to learn Chinese.”
“Sir, I support the White Paper on changes to the Chinese Language curriculum and pedagogical approach. I applaud the Government's responsiveness to problems that had arisen over the years on the way Chinese as a language has been taught and received by our students in the schools. As a Chinese-speaking community member, I support the approach of making the learning of the Chinese Language a more fun approach and make it less onerous for our students. I like the new pedagogy where we do not teach the Chinese Language, but we teach the students how to learn the Chinese Language. I hope that the students will develop a more healthy attitude towards learning Chinese and set out for themselves a lifetime interest to acquire more ability with the language later on in their lives. Singapore is well-placed in Asia with our ability to conduct business and Government in English and this has enhanced our links to the global community. At the same time, our ethnic and cultural links to the great civilisations and economies in Asia will give us a competitive edge as a nation to capitalise on the political, socio-economic resurgence of Asia on the global stage. For these reasons, the Chinese community had wholeheartedly supported the Government's focus on English as the official language and also the learning of the mother tongue as a compulsory subject in schools. The learning of mother tongues has other values to Singaporeans as it transmits values and philosophies inherent in our Asian heritage and provides the moral fibre that enriches our family, community and national fabric. Hence, we have both the pragmatic and intrinsic reasons to continue to promote the dual language policies of the past.”
“Madam, the WDA has been formed and entrusted with the role of being a super agency to coordinate the retraining of our workforce and placing them into meaningful employment. WDA has worked this role well in the past years by working with industries that are still able to provide jobs to Singaporeans. These include precision engineering, hospitality, domestic cleaning, healthcare, wafer fabrication and the social service sector. The response from unemployed Singaporeans to these initiatives of both the place and train and, where necessary, train and place have been promising. However, as Singapore moves away from an economic recession and Singaporeans see that more job opportunities may come their way, will they still respond in the same way to these initiatives? Will Singaporeans become more choosy and how are we going to motivate Singaporeans to look at the long-term needs to upgrade their skills, so that they can fill the job vacancies that will arise as both foreign and Singapore companies start to invest again, given the better economic outlook? On the part of employers, are they willing to redesign jobs or even enlarge them so that these jobs become more appealing and challenging to Singaporeans? With the introduction of the S Pass, will companies find it more expedient to hire skilled foreign labor rather than invest time and effort to train and place Singaporeans? WDA is a new agency and its use should bring it more vibrancy and responsiveness to the changes in the socio-economic environment. Both labour and employers will be interested to hear from WDA and to further understand the new initiatives and strategies that this new agency has or will develop to further serve the needs for the upgrading of the Singapore workforce. Employment Assistance”
“Lastly, Sir, we need to develop more sources of funding research whereby our universities can compete for funds based on merit. Currently, only A*STAR offers research funding, but for the applied sciences. I wish to urge the Government to consider extending research funding to non-applied science, primarily to humanities, economics, business and social science research, as these provide us with the fields to commercialise our technologies and innovations.”
“There need to be bursaries, scholarships, grants, student loans that would be put in place to provide for these needy students. But my position is that parents and students must bear part of the cost of the expensive education. Next, endowments are a big factor in US education funding, particularly for top-rate universities. Even in the state universities, state funding covers only between 15% and 25% of the cost of operating the universities, and the rest are covered by fees and endowments. In Singapore, the development of philanthropic market for higher education is still in its infancy. There is intense competition for the philanthropic dollar. Local universities need to plan and implement programmes for fund raising. As a society, we need to provide more recognition for donations to university endowments. With the comparatively reduced role of the state in tertiary education funding in the future, we need to encourage our top corporate honchos to give to the development and promotion of tertiary education, to ensure Singapore's place in the league of academic excellence and nation building.”
“Sir, I declare my interest as a Member of the Board of Trustees of SMU. I agree with the stand taken by the Government regarding the need to spread the education dollar to benefit the most number of students, rather than focusing these resources on the tertiary education sector. Whilst agreeing with the budget allocation, it is also imperative as a nation that we find other means of funding the centres of academic excellence in Singapore that will excel in both teaching and research. We need to draw top talents who are involved not only in knowledge dissemination but, more importantly, in knowledge creation, towards Singapore. Top universities compete for talents on a global basis. If we are aiming to create world-class institutions, then our universities will have to pay top dollars to recruit these talents. Should our universities be out there in the international talent market and bid for these top talents? Most definitely. We need to provide both competitive salaries and world-class research funding facilities to gravitate them towards Singapore. Both are very expensive propositions. The question is: how do we fund these? The answer lies in our ability to balance the needs and contributions of the different stakeholders, so that we can move towards covering the costs of running top-grade universities where the research budget and staffing cost will surpass the existing capitation limits. The Singapore model of funding for universities follows the UK model, where the bulk of the costs of higher education is expected to be borne by the state. Is it conceivable that university fees can double or be more in the future? Most probably yes. Of course, in our society, no needy but qualified students should be denied a university place.”
“I urge the Government to consider giving incentives to encourage the private sector to do research, especially now that so many of Singapore's top medical brains are already in private practice. In the Singapore private healthcare model, as Members have said, we function very much like a medical mall where doctors are fiercely independent and they do not work as teams to go out and market our medical capabilities. And, hence, we have not been able to develop a formal referral base like what the renowned Houston Heart Centre had done in the past decades. In order for us to position as a medical hub, it has to be everyone's business, both the public and private sectors. And with the public sector having made heavy investments in healthcare infrastructure, research and talent, the public sector can set the stage and maintain Singapore's position as a pre-eminent place for healthcare excellence. It would be good to have the Minister's view on how we can more effectively promote Singapore's competitive edge in medical science through what we have already invested in research and innovation. Healthcare Public Education”
“Sir, I declare my interest in HMI, which is not involved in healthcare activities in Singapore, but is active in the Malaysian healthcare market through its operation and management of Mahkota Medical Centre. Singapore's private sector healthcare facilities for foreign patients offer superb outpatient services and subsequent after-care service. However, the development of a world-class centre for medical excellence will require not only the offering of better customer services in a better designed ambience but will include the continuous investment in research and development. I would like to propose that the making of Singapore as a medical hub should not be the prerogative of the private sector, but should be a collaboration between the public and private sectors. The recognition as a medical hub is dependent on the recognition that we achieve for clinical excellence, like the Cleveland Clinic or the Mayo Clinic, which took more than 50 years to evolve. In the US case, there had been a tremendous amount of research and development activities, both in the public and private sectors, over the past decades. In Singapore, traditionally, the bulk of research and innovative work is done in the public sector where Government funding is included as part of the budget approved in this House. Doctors in the public sector are given recognition for the work they have accomplished in research and development. There is no corresponding budget and recognition for doctors in the private sector. In the US model, research grants are given to both private and public sectors, and they compete for such grants so that they both can contribute to the developments and innovations in clinical practice.”
“Yes. Many of us are not familiar with buying complicated health insurance programmes with many deductibles and restrictions. Is the Government going to educate and guide us on how we can choose a health insurance plan that best fits our need and help us navigate this whole sea of unknowns? Healthcare”
“But it is another issue when we do not take care of our locals when the time comes and they really need it. Would the Minister be able to give us an idea how the needs of those who do not qualify under the means test but are in need of subsidised care, going to be protected? The Government is now talking about introducing insurance. Healthcare insurance has failed in many countries, especially when access to care is unlimited. In the case of Singapore, people will support insurance if the Government really introduces means testing, because they all need the safety net. And what aboutthe insurance premium? Where will it come from? Will it come from the individual's pocket, or will we be able to claim it from our Medisave account or from MediShield or Medifund? What are the plans the Government has to work with insurance companies to provide payment schemes so that more Singaporeans can get access to these insurance schemes?”
“Madam, the Minister has announced that restructured hospitals will focus their attention on providing affordable care for Singaporeans. That is a call that many Singaporeans feel very comfortable with. The issue that some of my parliamentary colleagues brought upearlier is:canhealthcare cost really be controllable? Withincreasing drug cost, labour cost, etc,can the Ministry effectively bring healthcare cost down so that it isaffordable to many Singaporeans? Most Singaporeans look at subsidised care, ie, B2 and C classwards, as a safety net. For many years, low-income Singaporeans are guaranteed care through means testing, and this is something which we are all very supportive as a caring society. Middle-class Singaporeans look at the safety net, but many do not use these B2 and C class facilities if they do not need to. The announcement earlier on about the introduction of means testing for all Singaporeans has caused some concern for the middle andhigh income earners, because many of them will be denied access to subsidised care when financially they are in need of that type of care. Many older Singaporeans are widows. They live in private homes bought when they had high incomes. But as they get older, many of them are unemployed. If not,they are not retired and have no means of earning high income. So, the question is: why are we denying subsidised care to older Singaporeans, even for those who do not pass the means test? 93% of taxes were paid by the top few percent of Singaporeans, and should they not have the right to get access to subsidised care later on in life when they really need it? I think Singaporeans will be supportive of the test for eligibility, ie, we do not need to offer subsidised care to non-locals.”
“I will just end off here. I ask the Government to help redefine the SMEs as well as the eligibility criteria for the LETAS and LEFScheme. Financing Schemes”
“What I would like to propose is for the Government to review the definition of SME. In today's environment, the definition of SME, with less than $15 million of net assets and not hiring more than 200 employees, is outdated. Given the capital intensity needed in many industries, enterprises are continuously needing to raise funds to invest and improve operations. The price of land, buildings and even JTC properties are high. Many local enterprises need further injection of land and machinery, and it easily exceeds the $15 million cap. So, I would like to urge the Government to redefine SME in the Singapore context, so that more and more viable and growing local enterprises can qualify to benefit from the myriad of support schemes rendered by the Government. I would also like to propose for SPRING to relook at the criterion of using group basis to compute the eligibility criterion. In the case of this company, when an overseas company invests in a local company, they would invest once and not continuously, and local companies need to raise funds.”
“The paid-up capital of the company is $1 million and in its five years of operations, the company now manages to achieve $25 million in sales a year. The understanding with the Japanese company is that the local partners are responsible to raise capital to further grow the company, whether through bank loans or other Government grants or financing support. United Texmac's application for LEFS and LETAS funding was rejected. The grants that were rejected were the computerisation and implementation grant of $26,000, machinery loan of $25,000, strategic business plan of $36,000, consultancy for conversion of ISO 9000 1994 to ISO 2002 standard for $15,000 was also rejected. The reasons for the rejection were because they failed to meet the fixed asset criterion of not more than $15 million and the employment size of not more than 200 workers when computed on a group basis. This company's shareholding is made up of 74% local and 26% foreign. The foreign shareholder, Itochu, is a very large Japanese corporation who owns 26% of the local company. However, the criterion applied as if the holding company is the whole company and not a division of a large foreign holding company. I have another example, but in view of time constraint, I will not cite it. 5.45 pm”
“Sir, I am a Council Member of the Singapore Business Federation and I will be citing a case of a company who is also a member of the Singapore Business Federation. In line with the Government's continued effort to grow the local SMEs as an engine for growth, I would like to urge the Government to give further consideration to review and, if necessary, appraise the provision of financing support and grants to promote enterprises. The efforts made by the Government towards the provision of grants, eg, LETAS, and financial support, eg, LABS, are commendable. Just SPRING alone has more than 60 schemes to promote local enterprise. Given all that is available to the private sector, why are SMEs still calling for more Government support and understanding? In this very short 2½ minutes, I would like to give my take on it. Let me cite an example of a local company who was rejected by SPRING for the LETAS and LEF Scheme. The company in question is United Texmac. This is a company which is a joint venture started five years ago between a Singapore entrepreneur and a big Japanese firm Itochu. The company manufactures textile machinery and has exported successfully these products to India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, China and other countries. In these markets, equipment financing is not readily available to the purchasers, and United Texmac sometimes provides credit to buyers in order to clinch the sales. The locals hold 76% of the shares and four out of the five local Singaporean investors also work in the company to grow the company. Itochu holds 24% of the shares and its primary role is to share the technology, as well as the market knowledge and management systems.”
“I would like to request that the Government review and re-appraise the Constitution which forces such extreme fiscal conservatism and promote a period of internal generated growth. I hope we are not the generation which is accused of selling the family jewels, as I talked about encouraging more aggressive fiscal policies. But in an era where there is intense competition for talent, new enterprises and innovation, I think the need for a change in institutional mindset needs to prevail.”
“Would the Government consider giving tax deductions for investments and not failure as an incentive for a less risk-averse investment climate? For example, in the United Kingdom, individuals get tax exemptions upfront, even if companies fail. If Singapore were to have enough angel investors to fund new and exciting business enterprises, could we allow angel investors to claim for tax losses for the full amount of investment losses? A more supporting tax regime will be required to create a more vibrant new business investment climate in an entrepreneurial Singapore. With these tax changes, we can hope to attract high net worth individuals to reside and invest in Singapore. The creation of a vibrant and enterprising Singapore will require mindset changes as well as physical policy changes. We need to highlight a more consumption model in our economic planning and encourage more private sector initiative into how we manage our enormous national savings which are now channelled primarily through overseas investments through GIC and Temasek and other Government-linked companies. There also needs to be more institutional shift to encourage entrepreneurialism. We note that the Finance Minister has proposed a deficit budget this year, and the business sector hopes that he will continue to promote a deficit budget for years to come. Our Constitution promotes prudence and conservatism in our fiscal policy. This is really very useful for Singapore in the years where we have double-digit growth. When the economy slows down and when the economy is mature, we do not see an era where we have double-digit growth again.”
“In fact, many entrepreneurs out there have asked whether the Government will review the three-year limit and, say, extend the tax holiday to seven years to make these tax incentives more meaningful to new enterprises. The business sector really applauds the Government's move to cover all set-ups under the Enterprise Investment Scheme which really gives opportunities to other budding entrepreneurs like BreadTalk. Before questioning if this is enough, can we also look at the Irish example because, in addition to the tax incentives, Ireland has put together many grants and other schemes to help start-ups and new enterprises? An important part of the Irish incentive package is the availability of grants towards initial start-up costs. Cash grants are given towards the cost of fixed assets, and these are available to companies to help defray the cost of setting up the operations. Fixed assets are eligible for assistance, including site purchase and development, buildings, new plants and equipment. Of special interest is the employment grant which is specifically geared towards companies which create employment but do not need to invest heavily on fixed assets. These grants are non-taxable. An amount will be approved for each job created. Ireland has given generous grants and made these available towards the cost of major training initiatives by companies, so that companies can substantially upgrade their skills base. What they also have is that grants are available for the development and expansion of an R&D facility. The cost available for the grant includes expenses for the acquisition of sites, premises, plant and equipment, wages and salaries, materials, services, consultancy fees, feasibility studies and technology acquisition.”
“In Hong Kong's case, there is no capital gains tax nor is there a tax on dividends or interests. Hong Kong has no sales or value added tax. In Ireland's case, the pro-business regime has brought enormous economic benefits of attracting new and creative entrepreneurial activity than any other countries to-date. Singapore's effective corporate tax collection is lower than the 20% that we announced, due to the tax holidays and pioneer status given to MNCs. In the early days of our economic development and our attempt to attract more MNCs to Singapore, the provision of pioneer status and tax incentives was a very important key tool to attract these enterprises to Singapore. But as we move towards a regime whereby we want to promote entrepreneurialism and we want to have a more entrepreneurial economy, then it is time that we reviewed the pioneer status and the tax incentives accorded only to MNCs. This system penalises other companies because we are all supporting pioneer companies. In order to create a more entrepreneurial Singapore, we need to have a simple and transparent low-tax regime that uniformly applies to all companies and not only to pioneer status given to selective MNCs. I believe a simple and a low-tax regime would do its part to encourage not only MNCs but also other entrepreneurs and SMEs to set up their base in Singapore. The pro-entrepreneur initiative articulated by the Finance Minister is a welcome change and is a good intention on the part of the Government. The question most of the start-up entrepreneurs that I have spoken to asked me is whether that is enough, or that is relevant. As most of us know, very few enterprises make money in the first three years and, if they do, there is no reason why we need to cap their tax incentives at $100,000.”
“The Budget does reflect positive changes for entrepreneurs, especially with the $100,000 exemption of chargeable income for a new company which applies to each of the three years falling within the Year of Assessment 2005 to 2009. The Budget proposal to exempt foreign source income for individuals is a good move to attract the large pool of resources currently residing out of Singapore to be remitted back home. This will have an enhancement effect on the local wealth management industry. Whilst these are encouraging moves by the Government to boost the local business activity, the question that needs to be addressed is whether the above pro-business changes are enough to create a vibrant business climate in Singapore and attract not only creative local but also foreign entrepreneurs to set up business here. Please allow me to identify a few areas where further enhancement may be needed. First, on corporate tax. The question I would like to ask the Government is whether the 20% tax cut is the end of the road. Is this the target the Government has set itself to achieve or the limit that it would accept? Would the Government consider a further cut to 17.5% corporate tax rate to be competitive with Hong Kong, or even to consider the 12.5% level to be in line with the corporate tax rate in Ireland? Hong Kong companies have the advantage of being the gateway to the enormous Chinese market. Despite its economic woes over the last few years, Hong Kong-based companies are now riding the wave of the spill-off of the economic expansion in China, and they also enjoy a favourable and simple tax regime. Personal income tax is at 15.5%, though it will be increased to 16% in the coming financial year.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for the opportunity to speak and to share my views on the Budget speech delivered so eloquently by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance. Economists generally predicted that the world economy is in the midst of synchronised recovery and all the major emerging economies in Asia are likely to be buoyant through much of 2004. The expectations are that China will remain the big industrial growth story, despite likely R&D revaluation. India will continue to grow in the software and service areas. Singapore and the rest of ASEAN will find growth niches. Taiwan and Korea will emerge as investors. It is heartening to note that we are looking towards a cyclical growth in the Singapore economy. But when I read the Budget Statement by the Minister for Finance, I note that the Government is still concerned that the structural problems in the economy remain. I support the Government's pro-business stand in this year's Budget. The business sector fully supports the Government's key pro-business initiative to cut the corporate tax rate by 2% to 20%. However, it is disappointing to note that there is no corresponding cut in personal tax when the top rate stays at 22% and any further reductions are mothballed till an economic recovery is more certain. The maintenance of the personal income tax regime signifies that there is not going to be an attempt to encourage spending and consumption, except for the cut in the price of car ownership. And as every entrepreneur will remind us, business prospects are important or may be even more important than tax cuts.”
“Hence, further penalties for board members may make an existing situation where companies are hard pressed to identify and persuade qualified people to assume directorships even more difficult. We need to be mindful that a prescriptive approach to corporate governance also risks encouraging firms to focus on avoiding penalties rather than pursuing good corporate governance. We need to be conscientiously aware that we do not exemplify the form over substance efforts to supercharge the directors with responsibilities that may deter the best amongst us to serve as directors, and hence denying our companies the oppportunity to attract and retain the best talent to serve as members of our boards. Rules and regulations may help shore up confidence in the market, but they will not magically produce good behaviour. At the end of the day, we must note that we cannot legislate goodness. The problem is you cannot always see it either. However, I note that the criminalisation of such offences goes in line with new disclosure policies that have been set up in place and are directed at preventing fraud and concealment of company's affairs as well as to seek accountability of directors who have misbehaved. In the wake of the Enron and the Asia Paper and Pulp incidents, these updates in the provisions of the Companies Act seem particularly urgent. In light of further developing the culture of good corporate governance as well as promoting the climate for further enterprise, I would like to express and reiterate my support for the proposed amendments to these sections of the Companies Act.”
“With the advent of the information age, there is no doubt that the Singapore business community should move with the times and pursue aggressively the move towards electronic transmissions of their communication needs. Except for the need to hear some further clarification from the Minister with regard to the implementation strategy for electronic communication, I support the amendments to this section of the Act. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to raise some concerns, however, with regard to the further amendment to the Companies Act with regard to the criminalisation of offences by all directors of companies, whether they are independent or executive directors. Under the amendment proposed, directors now have to ensure that the profit and loss accounts are accurate, the profit and loss accounts are laid out at every AGM, the consolidated accounts are laid out at the AGM of a holding company, and the balance sheet and the profit and loss accounts at the AGM must be signed by two directors declaring that the figures are accurate and reflect a true and fair value of the state of affairs of the company. This introduction of additional penalties and tightening of existing regulations in the Companies Act serves only to make the duties of directors of listed companies even more onerous, I believe, without having real effect of assuring the reliability and accuracy of data relating to the profit and loss of the company. Sir, even the most conscientious director will only know what he or she is told. We have to remember that the boards do not produce the numbers. They got the numbers from someone else. Also, we need to be mindful that no rules or oversight can keep numbers straight if the company has a culture of bending them.”
“I would like to ask the Minister, for example, how he proposes that a company implements this agreement between the members and the company whenever the different purpose applies, and what constitutes "legible" in this context. Is it sufficient that a link be provided on the company's homepage directing the Internet users to the appropriate document? Or is it required of the company to paste the entire document on the homepage? It also seems rather strange that a person needs to be given notice of the notice of a meeting. How is this notification meant to take place and what is the rationale behind the need to give a notice of a notice? Our understanding is that over time, electronic communication is meant to give cost savings to companies so that they do not need to print hard copies of documents to be sent out to all members. In the American context, having documents in electronic form does result in substantial cost savings due to the large number of members the larger American companies have. However, in the Singapore context, the move to encourage electronic communication may lead to higher overall cost for listed small and medium-size enterprises as the cost to modernise their websites and to render their web documents with computer graphics may outweigh cost savings gained from having to print fewer hard copies. Furthermore, such electronic communication will disadvantage members who are not computer-savvy or have no ready access to the Internet. I would like to enquire on the nature of measures the Government seeks to undertake in order to address the technology disadvantaged, especially prevalent among the older Singaporeans, who may also be very avid investors.”
“In so far as public companies are concerned, the Government understands the need to further regulate and protect members of the public. However, it is a correct stand to allow private companies more freedom to develop themselves and form business relationships. Yet, accordingly, private individuals and companies who choose to do business with one-director private companies should recognise the dangers and safeguard themselves by conducting the necessary background checks. The need to move with the times has also led to the introduction of a major amendment to the Companies Act concerning electronic communication. Companies in the United States are already in the forefront in the utilisation of electronic communication to provide further efficiency in the conduct of their business affairs. The Government has also invested heavily over the years to provide the IT infrastructure for Singapore to compete effectively in the international arena. Arguably, this is the correct time for the proposed amendments to the Act so as to allow Singapore companies to effectively move into the information age. The new sections 387A and B allow notices of company meetings to be posted on company websites. Additionally, documents such as circulars, annual reports and announcements may similarly be posted on company websites. I would also note that notices of meetings or company accounts, balance sheets, reports and other documents may be published on a website as long as it is legible, and only subject to agreement between the individual and the company. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, while I support the move to move into the information age with electronic communication, it took me quite a while to figure out the specific steps and procedures that are drafted in the Bill.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I welcome the amendment in the Companies (Amendment) Bill that allows one person to set up, be the sole director and sole member of a company and also allows private companies to raise funds through public offers. This change is much needed in the drive for entrepreneurship and flexibility in the private sector. The abolishment of an unnecessary requirement is an encouraging move for the development of a vibrant marketplace. Provision for an easier facilitation of company resolutions and instructions is also provided for under the proposed amendment. This encourages more risk taking, as individuals who set up companies are protected by the corporate veil identity. This, in turn, should help encourage greater daring and entrepreneurialship coupled with a greater ability to react in a timely manner in times of crisis and change. At the same time, the new amendment helps to prevent too much abuse of the new amendments of one-director companies. As a sole director, he is not allowed to resign from his position. On the other hand, the amendments still do nothing to alleviate the danger of fraud being perpetrated by individuals who might use the corporate identity as a shield to guard against personal liability. In addition, because of the relaxation of the bankruptcy rules, it is now easier for an individual to default on his contractual obligations once he petitions for bankruptcy. However, by passing these amendments, greater risk taking and entrepreneurial behaviour will be encouraged. The old maxim of caveat emptor, or let buyers beware, should be applied at least as far as private companies are concerned. The Government cannot afford to safeguard every single individual who does business with Singapore companies.”
“Earlier, Mr Lim Boon Heng challenges the Singapore Business Federation and the other business chambers to go out and bring more business to Singapore. As a member of both the Singapore Business Federation and the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce, I would most definitely bring the views expressed by Mr Lim Boon Heng to the next meeting and I assure Mr Lim that the SBF and the business chambers will rise to his challenge. With this note, Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Government's move to retune the CPF.”
“As noted recently in the press and earlier by Mr Lim Boon Heng, the nation's overall productivity versus labour costs is amongst the lowest in the world. Productivity must improve before wages can again increase. Unions and employers must work together to address the fundamental issues of productivity. Other operating costs continue to be high in comparison to competitive markets. This is especially important for foreign firms evaluating their continued or new investments in Singapore. For example, office rentals, utilities and other operating costs need further evaluation as Singapore seeks to attract more innovation-driven companies to set up business in our shores. Mr Speaker, Sir, I was most moved by the vivid and simple language used by my Parliamentary colleague, Mr Nithiah Nandan, yesterday, when he voiced his, and the labour movement's, support for the need for wage reform. At the same time, he urged the business leaders to do their part in terms of better management of their businesses to ensure the competitiveness and viability of the Singapore enterprise. I fully agree that the Singapore business sector and their leaders should take up the challenge, both in terms of wage reform as well as improving the business competitiveness and performance of our companies. The message sent by the Government and the Prime Minister yesterday for the CPF reform sends a strong signal that both the Government and labour are willing to make significant sacrifices and changes to these statutory costs borne by the business sector. The labour movement recognises that without these changes the negative impact on the Singapore economy is likely to be much greater as the shift of company operations out of Singapore accelerates over the coming months.”
“The business sector would like to request the Government to further review the provision of more flexibility for employers to increase the take-home portion for the contract remuneration and to negotiate lower or no CPF contribution for part-time or casual employees. Similar flexibility will also be a necessity as the economy tries to attract more SMEs to focus on innovation and the creation of new businesses. These new firms will need to start with absolute minimum payroll cost and, instead, offer larger potential downstream payouts for successful business. The fixed-rate CPF system will be a significant disincentive to this necessary new business segment in the Singapore economy. For the younger well-endowed part of the Singapore workforce, such flexibility may be challenging, as the risks and rewards will spur the entrepreneurial spirit amongst them. CPF reform is only part of the equation to increase Singapore's business competitiveness. Other wage and cost reforms that were announced by the Government need further reinforcement. For example, the NWC outline to provide more flexibility in pay structures and to replace seniority-based systems with performance based systems are an absolutely necessary programme to restore competitiveness. This should be aggressively pursued by companies and supported by labour unions and the Government. The key to this reform is in implementing structures with compensation packages based on the relative value of the work being performed and that provides flexibility to adjust pay rates as economic and business performance fluctuates. Relative productivity of Singapore operations is also a critical part in establishing compensation levels.”
“The CPF should focus on the basic and essential levels of income security while employers and employees should be encouraged to develop individualised programmes to provide for more robust retirement savings subject to their individual financial needs and abilities. Thus, the CPF can allow the flexibility to require a minimum total contribution at, say, a range of 20-25% that could be established in the CPF account to assure that the basic housing, medical and retirement costs are covered. Additional contributions of a further rate of 10-16% can be indexed through relevant performance matrix or can be negotiated as part of the annual wage package to be set aside for subscription to a private retirement plan. In order to link compensation and employer cost to company and economic performance, contribution rates could be lower for fixed monthly salary components and higher for the variable components. It is conceivable that when the company performs well beyond expectations, such contributions would exceed the statutory requirements and vice versa for years of economic slowdown. This sharing of risk and reward between the company and its employees will bring added benefits of fostering the strong loyalty and bond between the two. As we move forward, Mr Speaker, Sir, a rising trend for the new economy is that companies in different sectors would increasingly rely heavily on part-time or casual workers who will work on a project on a part-time basis. Different industry sectors and new flexible work arrangements need flexibility in the handling of CPF contributions.”
“This contributed to the rapid rise in housing prices a few years ago, and has left CPF accounts significantly depleted as the more recent declines in property prices have stripped away values. Also, the increasing life expectancy of Singaporeans, the smaller family sizes and the ability to withdraw significant funds at age 55 have reduced CPF's value as a retirement fund. The business sector supports the plan that the CPF be restructured to focus on the retirement aspects of the plan in a way that assures long-term financial resources for the retired worker and also reduces overall cost to the employers. We endorse plans to lower the ceiling income levels for contribution and believe that the reduction of the contribution rate by employers will significantly reduce business cost while ensuring adequate retirement savings for the vast majority of the workers. This action, coupled with the further restrictions on early withdrawals, will enhance the long-term security of the CPF. An immediate reduction in employer contribution rate by 3% is necessary to send the appropriate message to companies and workers about the urgency of cost reforms, and to provide quick short-term savings to the employers. However, in the long term, the business sector's view is that monthly contribution level should be made more flexible and more new options should be considered. With the life expectancy increasing and the increasing cost of living and medical care, the current CPF Minimum Sum to be set aside for retirement may not be adequate to serve the needs of the retiree. A possible scenario is that a wider range of private retirement plan options should be encouraged.”
“However, we believe a full range of productivity improvements and cost reductions including CPF, overall wage packages, taxes, fees, utilities, vehicle operating costs and real estate are required in order to assure that our companies can continue to base their key high-value operations in Singapore at competitive cost. Even with these changes proposed in the CPF, we must recognise that existing local and multi-national companies will continue to shift their local operations out of Singapore just as they have been doing for many years. Therefore, it is also important that the Government accelerates its efforts to create the economic and social climate necessary to encourage the rapid development of more innovative driven industries in Singapore. Our highly educated, well trained and productive workforce offers significant advantages to innovative companies. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have some specific comments that I wish to make with regard to the CPF changes. The CPF is an integral part of the Singapore system. It forces employees to focus on the long term and drive them to pursue active employment and work in order to build retirement income, unlike the tax based social security systems in many other countries. The CPF scheme reduces the social burden on the State and enables companies and citizens to enjoy lower tax rates. The CPF scheme has provided citizens with good affordable housing, provided for adequate medical security and it is designed to support strong family responsibilities and is also tax efficient for the recipient. However, over recent years, citizens have moved substantial portions of their savings into housing.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Singapore business sector strongly supports the Government's proposal to begin this business cost reduction process by restructuring the CPF scheme. The business sector also appreciates the effort made by the leaders in the union movement in explaining the need for wage restructuring to their members, and the sector recognises the sacrifices required of the Singapore workforce in this changed process. Both the local enterprises and the multi-national business community in Singapore whom I have spoken to have expressed strong support for the Prime Minister's proposal for the changes in the CPF structure and contribution rates. Although the business sector had hoped for a straight 6% cut in the CPF contribution rate, it does however appreciate the fine balance that the Government needs to make to take into consideration both the economic need of the business sector to reduce costs and the social need of taking care of the financial commitment and livelihood of the Singaporean employee. For many of the multi-national companies operating in Singapore, they believe that Singapore is an excellent place for their businesses to operate in. They value the high quality of labour, the outstanding infrastructure, the excellent transportation services and the supportive Government and legal structure. However, the relative costs of running businesses in Singapore have become very high and for many of these companies, costs now outweigh these other advantages. Therefore, many of these companies are being forced to reduce the level of their operations in Singapore and shift them to other countries with more competitive cost levels. Singapore cannot and should not compete with these countries for the lower tiered production operations.”
“Earlier on, we have known that US firms and banks are sending out all the backroom operations in the banking industry to India. Cost centres have now been set up in India and the Philippines. The next wave would be the outsourcing of specific HR, finance and accounting functions. There are opportunities and we should look at the setting up of these manpower firms that will compete with Chinese and Indian counterparts to be the outsourcing centres for some of these functions. Singapore has a terrific brand name, our professionals are recognised worldwide for their competencies, and I can envisage that, if we try to develop these manpower firms, we can successfully compete for, for example, accountancy services. Yes, Singapore's cost will still be higher than those in India and China, but if we are able to produce superior customer service, companies in the US may be willing to pay a 15-20% premium to outsource the services to Singapore companies rather than the ones in India or China. SWDA has put together a very long list of things that it wants to do, and whilst I appreciate the ambition of SWDA to be a one-stop shop to satisfy the training, job matching and employment-seeking activities in today's difficult environment, I would like to urge SWDA to focus on policy issues and on looking for new niches and opportunities, and to work with the private sector in fulfilling some of these needs. With that, Mdm Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.”
“But in today's competitive world, it is not enough to be just efficient. I would hope that the team at WDA will not be happy by asking themselves: are we doing things right? Because in this day and age, doing things right, you can still go very wrong. What the team should be looking at is asking themselves: are we doing the right thing? Because the business environment changes tremendously and fast these days. The WDA team, we hope, would develop a much more conceptual and strategic thinking mindset and always asking not only about efficiency, but what other values that we can bring to enhance the value of our human capital in Singapore. Because we need to look at employability, not only for the current industries, current jobs, but also for newer challenges and future jobs. We hope that the team would scan the environment regionally and internationally to find new niches and to study these new market opportunities and study their feasibilities. We have read, and my colleagues have mentioned earlier, that in the US nowadays, white-collar jobs are moving offshore. They are moving to India and China. Whilst our wages may not be as competitive or as low as in China and India, I think Singapore and the Singapore brand of professionals do carry a premium value. So, I would urge SWDA to consider a study into the possibility of forming large manpower firms. If jobs are not coming to Singapore, we have to go out and find the jobs for Singaporeans. Can we form these big manpower firms, go to the US and compete for the outsourcing of certain business functions that the US firms now want to contract out because the cost of conducting these services in the US is too expensive?”
“Every time a new movie is being contemplated, a cast is put together and that cast works together for 10 months, 24 months, it needs to make the movie, the cast disbands and moves on. I think the opportunity for the white collar of the future is very much going to be project-based. The other issue is that whilst we are talking about enhancing the employability of our local talent, we also must be mindful that, whilst the Government and the EDB are trying to bring jobs to Singapore by encouraging investment in Singapore, this is not going to be the easiest route. So I hope WDA would also look into training our Singapore talent for the regional and international markets. Singaporeans must feel that they have that distinct competency, the skills, the knowledge set that they can go out of Singapore to find jobs, develop even more skills and experiences and come back to Singapore, thereby enriching our Singapore talent pool with more depth and breadth. So that would be a challenge our local talent needs to develop. And for those of our local professionals and white collar who are still employed, they must continue to enrich themselves and think about re-engineering themselves and adding value to the workplace. Very few companies would retrench a staff who can continuously bring new value, ideas and new markets to the company. And one of the best ways of avoiding retrenchment is to make sure that you are not obsolete. The role of WDA, I have no doubt, would be much more efficient than what we have now, which is multiple agencies working in collaboration for the same outcome. The problem-solving abilities of the management team that WDA has put together, I have no doubt that it would be a very capable team.”
“The first wave of unemployment that has hit the US was the loss of jobs for the blue collar, which is what we have faced in Singapore. The next wave of job losses in the US is the loss of jobs for the white collar and something which is on the horizon for the Singapore workforce. So I would like to spend a few minutes talking about the mindset changes that we need to make for the local talent. We saw in the papers recently that many young graduates are still not employed. Many graduates and professionals are finding it difficult to get jobs, and I have seen over a hundred Bachelor of Business Administration and MBA programmes in the market. People are being upgraded and they are getting educated, but they still cannot find jobs. How do we address this issue? A major part of the change in the mindset of the graduates and the professional workforce is that they must realise that jobs now do not move on a vertical path, meaning that you do not get a job because you have a certain degree or qualification and you expect to progressively move up the organisational structure. The professional workforce must realise that they have to develop distinct competencies other than the degrees and being able to work in project groups because the careers of the future actually move along a horizontal bend where the professionals group together looking for projects, they succeed in the projects, make themselves more marketable, and they can get on to bigger and better projects, thereby enhancing their employability. This is a scenario of the future, very much like in the movie-making business. Nobody employs all the movie stars, all the technicians, all the crew members all the time. The studios cannot afford to do that.”
“Madam, when I first read the name of the new Agency, which is the Singapore Workforce Development Agency, I thought it smacks a little bit of the 1960s. But after deliberations in this House earlier and when the Acting Minister for Manpower ensured the House that this Agency will be devoted to the mission of developing Singapore's human capital and add value to our workforce, I am much heartened, and I fully support this Bill with no change of name because I think a rose with any name is just as sweet. Human capital, without doubt, is the most valuable human resource we have in Singapore and WDA is entrusted with the role of enhancing the value of our national wealth. We very much support that from the private sector. There are discussions from yesterday and the whole of today where many of us lament on the loss of jobs in Singapore. This is a mega trend affecting not only Singapore but in the US and there is little that we can do as a nation and we have to look at the positive side on how to increase the employability of our workforce. What we really do not want to see, after the formation of WDA, is a society in Singapore where we are chasing papers. We could get more training, we could get more certificates, but it would be very dampening if it does not result in the outcome which we want, which is continual employability. In order to do what WDA sets out to do, which is to enhance our human capital and get them employed, I think we need to change not only the mindset on the part of the WDA, in terms of its mission, but also on the part of our local talent. My colleagues have earlier spoken widely about the training and retraining of women, the blue collar as well as the elderly. I would just want to spend a few minutes talking about the white collar.”
“Sir, I follow up with what Mr Arthur Fong has said. Pro-business schemes are many, from SPRING Singapore, IE Singapore and EDB. Now we also have the EDB very actively helping SMEs. But, often times, as what we have heard in the House today, most of these schemes are crafted by civil servants with a lot of inputs from the different sectors, including the private sector. However, the schemes to assist SMEs are much more difficult to craft than schemes to attract MNCs to Singapore. Because SMEs come in all shapes, sizes, colours and are in different stages in the organisation's life cycle and from different industry sectors, it is very difficult to just have one solution for all. What we would like to propose is a lot more customisation of these schemes to help SMEs. One of the issues that I would like to raise, which I thought was a bit arbitrary, is the $15 million cut-off point. Where SMEs whose fixed assets are beyond that amount, they are not allowed to be on the different loan assistance schemes. And where did the $15 million come from? It has been there for a long time. I think it is also time this cut-off point is reviewed. In order to be able to customise schemes for SMEs, what I would like to propose is that the relevant agencies undertake a much more in-depth research and data gathering about SMEs, ie, the structures of SMEs in Singapore and the industries they are in. We need a database in order to do much more analysis and diagnosis, so that we would be able to customise the schemes to the needs of SMEs, as well as to review some of the old schemes which really do not apply any more.”
“Yes. In Singapore, I think from the views of SMEs, the mandarins and the scholars are at the highest peak of the social structure, whereas the merchants and the businessmen are at the bottom rank. And one of the issues that I would like to bring up in this House is whether we would, over time, promote the social ranking and role of SMEs.”
“SMEs are mainly Singaporeans. Until the day we see Germans and Japanese coming here to set up SMEs, we see most of the SMEs are Singaporeans. I just came this morning from the inauguration of the 52nd Council of the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry and there are 4,000 members. We have 120 association members with about 20,000 members of their own. So we are talking about 25,000 membership within the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry. And these are Singaporean companies. When the going gets tough, these Singaporean entrepreneurs would not stay. As the saying goes, when the going gets tough, the tough gets going. And we still intend to make Singapore the headquarters of our business operations. So what I would like to propose in this House is that we need to review and promote the image and the role of SMEs. We do not need a revolution. Suddenly overnight, we say, "It is really cool to be an entrepreneur." We do not need to do it overnight. But what we need to do is to make the image of an entrepreneur to be much more acceptable and higher in the Singapore scheme of things. We come from a society --- The Chairman: Dr Gan, can you sum up now?”
“Sir, I remember being involved in 1986 in the Economic Review Committee where a lot of emphasis was made on the role of SMEs, because we were hit with a recession. So, workshops and committees were set up to promote SMEs and a lot of emphasis was made on the role of the SMEs in the Singapore economy. But what I also remember is that after the economy recovered, issues about helping SMEs became less prominent. Basically, amongst the SMEs, we felt that when the economy recovered, the emphasis on the role of SMEs was forgotten, or less important. Today, in the last week of our Budget debate and every day, we are talking about issues regarding SMEs, the ERC Report and many of our parliamentary colleagues have made very good suggestions about how to promote SMEs. 4.45 pm We understand that SMEs now employ over 50% of our workforce. They contribute 35% to our GDP. MNCs contribute 45% to our GDP; and GLCs, 16%. I believe this formula had worked very well for Singapore in the past. But what I would like to ask is: is there a review of these ratios and targets, in terms of the long-term strategic development of SMEs in Singapore? GLCs take a very commendable role in investing in high tech, knowledge industries and taking us a leap into the future. MNCs' role cannot be underrated. We all congratulate EDB on a job well done. And we should continue to attract big MNCs to come to Singapore. But what I would like to ask is: is there a long-term plan to review the role of SMEs in Singapore, in terms of, for example, its GDP component? Are we going to allow or encourage our local enterprises to grow larger, whereby these SMEs or local enterprises will have the capabilities, financial resources and size, in order to compete effectively in the regional and global markets?”
“And this is why earlier I said we have got to groom our local SMEs to be financially strong, to have a significant market share, to develop human resource and accumulate financial resources in order for them to compete well in the region. So my experience has indicated that there are terrific market opportunities for healthcare service out of Singapore, but as a local SME how do I go there? Local banks do not lend to SMEs who go regional. They lend to SMEs not on your projects outside of Singapore, but on your capability to borrow in Singapore, which again boils down to your financial resources within Singapore. What is there that you can collaterise? What is there that the banks will find it worthwhile to lend you in your Singapore operations? Not what opportunities you have and the future stream of income you can bring back to your headquarters in Singapore because of your wise and good investments into opportunities out of Singapore. Therein lie the problems that SMEs face and SMEs are still confronted with. Many SMEs, whilst waiting for pro-business measures to come from the Government, have been weakened and will continue to weaken if some of these measures do not come fast enough. When these measures and policies come, if the civil service, the administration arm, does not implement these measures fast enough, we will see many, many more SMEs failing, falling on the wayside, before things get better.”
“We need the Nursing Board's approval before we can get the NTUC and the Skills Development Fund to approve the courses for training and subsidy. So all these approval processes took six months, nine months, and we are still working on it today - many, many months after we had started. I spoke to our colleague, Dr Ng Eng Hen, earlier and he said to bring it up in the House. I said yes, I will. I threw away my prepared script and speak from my heart and from my experience because I am not the only example in Singapore. I speak from my experience with my colleagues in the Chinese Chamber and the other business sectors. Whilst we want to encourage local enterprise, we want to encourage creation of new jobs, new businesses, new opportunities, I think the Government needs to look not only at reducing business cost. I hate to be ungrateful when I said that, because the business community has been urging the Government to reduce business cost, and now that they have done it, we say that is not enough. It is a very important gesture to reduce business cost but also to look into all the other circumstances that create a very difficult operating environment for our SMEs and for the SMEs to transform, to grow into strong enterprises so that we can move regionally. Again, using my own examples, I take the Government's directions with very serious belief, conviction and consideration. The Government said the market here is small, go regional. So as an enterprise we went regional, not very far, just 300-400 km north of Singapore, we went into another country to operate a hospital. All is well, except that local SMEs find it immensely difficult to raise funds in Singapore to invest outside of Singapore.”
“So we have a situation facing an SME where you have identified a new business sector where the demand is clear, meaning people who are trained for the healthcare sector actually do get employed. The employability rate is very high. We are talking about 75-95% employability after training for a healthcare career. So what problems did we face as a private sector? The problem we face was that though the Government has been very encouraging in its efforts to provide training and upgrading opportunities for the unemployed and retrenched into service areas where they can find jobs - I think the general support has always been there from day one - what was difficult was the different agencies that were involved with this approval process, for example, my experience with the approval process for one course, the "Enrolled Nurse Training". Singapore has used a lot of foreign workers to staff the lower levels of the workforce in terms of patient care. So many of us, when we go into restructured hospitals or private hospitals, feel that we could be anywhere, in the Philippines or China, due to the sheer number of these foreign workers in our hospitals in Singapore. So if we were to train our locals, what do we do? We went to the Ministry of Health. We went to the Singapore Nursing Board and said that we have this idea and this is the curriculum. We want to train enrolled nurses because there is a huge demand for them amongst our local hospitals and, as we see it, many Singaporeans who are retrenched and unemployed would like to come and train for a career that has potential for further development as well as stability and fairly good income. The approval process from the Singapore Nursing Board took more than six months. And, as we waited, there were many changes to the structure.”
“Whilst I applaud many in the civil service have been trying very hard not to bend the rules but to help SMEs get along with the approval processes, this has been time-consuming. If we are running a big enterprise, if we are running a big organisation, with lots of resources, whether it is manpower or financial, I think the process of waiting for approval to happen would be okay. But if you are running a SME with very little human resource, very small human resource capability, and with very thin financial capability, you find that the process of approval takes so long and it is a very expensive process, and SMEs would find it most difficult to be able to finance the waiting process of all these regulatory approvals. Let me cite some recent experiences. When the hard times hit HMI, we decided to transform our business from a health services provider to a trainer of healthcare workers. The logic is very simple. When you cannot do the business in one sector you quickly transform into a sector where there is more demand. We have transformed out of the services sector because of the competition that we have from the restructured hospitals and the shrinking foreign and local patients to the private sector. I think that is fine. In businesses we have to switch our course fast. But when we hit on the idea for training, and we still believe that it is a good concept because the healthcare sector has a huge demand for healthcare workers, so we thought that would be something that is worthwhile doing. And because of the recession, many of the people who would normally not enter the health service workforce have come forward and apply for opportunities to be trained as healthcare workers.”