Gautam Banerjee
Singapore
“Sir, I thank the Minister for the explanations. Given the complexity of the process, the inherent risk of the assumptions that have been used in this expected long-term rate of return and, obviously, the interest by everyone in making sure that the process is robust and transparent, would the Minister consider, at some stage, giving a lit…”
“Active citizenry cannot be forced but we should continue to actively encourage our youth in the State's affairs. We should make them feel safe to voice their views. In this regard, all of us in this House must be willing to keep an open mind on the ideas brought up by our youth and continue to actively engage them.”
“As we bring in new locally-trained doctors as well as foreign doctors, nurses and other hospital staff, I would like the Ministry to pay more attention to their career development.”
“If we have what it takes to weather the storm, we should ensure that the strong winds do not tear down the arts and cultural scene that we have painstakingly built in recent years.”
“In conclusion Sir, I hope that we will take a long-term view and continue to make foreign talent welcome and feel at home in Singapore because they will not only help us survive the downturn but, in the light of tough competition ahead, will help us emerge from the downturn stronger and more resilient. New Citizens”
“We will need "off budget" measures to supplement, modify and tweak policies, both existing and those introduced in this Budget, and we need to do this swiftly and decisively throughout the coming months.”
The complete record
Every one of 139 lines we hold for Gautam Banerjee, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 3.
“Mr Speaker Sir, I would like to conclude with the observation that governments throughout the world are now preoccupied with addressing the current recession, and rightly so. However, with so much focus on the current crisis, it would be easy to dwell on the past and the present but forget that at some point in time we will emerge from this recession. A good and strong government is one which acts as a runway for future growth, navigating their economy through the current troubled waters while charting the way ahead. I am, therefore, pleased to note that the Government has already started planning for the future and this will put us in a good position to seize the opportunities that emerge when the economy rebounds. As the President has very aptly put it, “this adversity is another opportunity” for us to emerge stronger as a nation and “shine as a country”. To emerge stronger, should the need arise, we must be bold enough to introduce off-budget measures even if it means tapping on our past reserves again. To shine as a country, we must actively campaign for free trade in the regional and international arenas and resist the tendency towards human capital nationalism. On this note, I would like to thank the President for his timely address and reminder to both focus on the present and plan for the future.”
“Hence, as long as fostering economic growth is an integral part of our mission, we will have to regard our foreign talent as key stakeholders of Singapore Inc. In times of crisis, if we continue to take care of them, they will notice the difference. Some may even decide to take up permanent residence and citizenship in Singapore. I would like to remind this House that during the current economic crisis, not all companies have stopped hiring. Crisis times provide great opportunities for rich picking of good talents at more affordable compensation levels. Hence, some companies have hired key talent from overseas and from distressed entities. Like these companies, Singapore needs to continue to attract foreign talent. Getting rid of foreign talent may be an immediate way to improve your bottomline. But it will be disastrous in the long-run, especially if it is done indiscriminately. Sir, I would like to urge my distinguished colleagues in this House and all employers in Singapore to resist the mindset of “Singapore jobs for Singapore workers”. I do not see this as a problem today but the temptation to adopt a nationalistic mindset will become stronger as the retrenchment numbers increase as they are likely to over the next few months. Some may find it more palatable to retrench foreign workers first rather than Singaporeans, regardless of the merit of the individual. It will not be easy to explain to members of your constituency who have just lost their jobs on why we still need foreign talent. Hence, it is a test of the character for the members of this House to remain steadfast on our position on attracting and retaining foreign talent.”
“” In his address, the President has also set the tight right tone when he expressed his hope that “Singaporeans will appreciate how we benefit from the contributions of non-citizens and new citizens, and welcome them into our midst”. But the issue of keeping jobs for locals at the expense of foreign talent is not always clear to the ordinary man in the street. It is a highly emotive issue, especially when people perceive that their livelihood is threatened by the continued presence of expatriates. According to the Department of Statistics, almost a quarter of Singapore’s population was estimated to be non-resident foreigners last year. This is not surprising as there are many jobs that Singaporeans alone cannot fill, especially in the high-tech and high value-add industries where foreign talent are needed. By engaging foreign talent, companies in Singapore are able to increase their competitiveness. Unlike the lower skill based foreign workers, these foreign talent will help to generate or retain jobs within Singapore. Hence, conversely, the discrimination against foreign talent will erode the competitive edge of companies in Singapore. In the long-run, if companies in Singapore are not competitive, chances are that they will relocate and we will then run the risk of losing more jobs. Our resource-scarce economy needs foreign talent to help us compete in the global premier league, generate more growth and create more jobs. I can understand and accept a “Singapore jobs for Singaporeans” policy if our role is merely to manage the current downturn. But we are also called to plan for the future and position ourselves to seize the opportunities when the economy rebounds.”
“In contrast, one of the lowest rates of concern about key skills (25%) occurs in China and Hong Kong, where CEOs top the global table (43%) in believing their domestic governments are effectively creating a skilled labour force. Still, this means the majority of CEOs in every economy do not agree that governments are effective in creating a skilled workforce. Sir, I see an opportunity here for Singapore. I am delighted that the President in his address has made it clear that Education is our best investment in Singapore’s future. The announcement that we will have two new universities and that our aim is to have 30% of our students admitted to State supported universities will give us a competitive edge as we continue to build our knowledge intensive economy. It will enhance Singapore’s competitiveness as an investment destination because apart from good infrastructure, a stable political and regulatory environment, the availability of an adequate pool of talented and skilled workers is important to attract global investors. Our emphasis on science and technology, engineering and the life sciences and our collaboration with world class institutions will give our educational institutions the depth and branding which are so important in today’s competitive world. In Singapore, we have the additional challenge of a declining birth rate which means that we are not even replacing our population, so the President reminded us that “we must also bring new people with diverse skills and experience into Singapore, to contribute to our economy and society and help grow our population over the long term.”
“The World Trade Organisation, World Bank manage government-to-government disputes, thus enabling international political and economic tensions to be resolved on a “rules based’ approach, rather than which country has the greatest economic or political power. Here again, Singapore should work with other like minded countries to empower multilateral institutions such as the UN, the World Trade Organisation, World Bank and the IMF to act more and more as real global bodies rather than a collection of national interests. In today’s extreme conditions, which are beyond the control of any one organisation, the only way to mitigate risk and realise opportunity is through collaboration with many different stakeholder groups and sharing better information about critical business drivers. Governments need to adjust to this downside of globalisation and provide global leadership, supported by a more effective system of global governance than ever before. I believe Singapore has an opportunity in “punching above its weight” in formulating and participating this new global order. Sir, the long-term supply of key talent depends more on education systems than on business cycles, and a recent global survey of over a thousand CEOs has revealed that many global CEOs do not believe governments are doing enough to create a skilled labour force. For example, despite rising unemployment in the US and the UK, the percentage of global CEOs who remain concerned or very concerned about the availability of key skills is 43% and 40% respectively, not far below the global average. Only 17% of US CEOs and 18% of UK CEOs agree that the government has been effective in creating a skilled labour force.”
“The proponents of free trade were outraged that the US stimulus package contained the wording "Buy American." But it leads to the root of the dilemma. If French or Australia or UK or US taxpayers are going into debt to pay for their nation’s recovery, it is easy to argue that those Euros or pounds or dollars create jobs for their fellow citizens. Protectionism will affect all countries but clearly, small, resource scarce and export dependant countries like Singapore have the most to lose in these trade wars. Our reliance on exports to access capital, to drive growth and provide employment for our people would be hardest hit should government move to restrict trade and limit foreign workers as a way of surviving the global crisis. It is with this in mind that I urge our government to actively promote free and open markets and at the same time resist the temptation for human capital nationalism. Our Government should make it a priority to weave into the agenda of key forums such as ASEAN, ASEAN Plus and APEC, joint statements or declarations to resist economic protectionism. Whilst this may not be a priority for some economies in this region, I urge the Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Trade and Industry to take pains to patiently and repeatedly remind their counterparts of the dangers of protectionism and the importance of the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) agreement. This economic crisis is a test for ASEAN solidarity and if ASEAN countries reneged on the AFTA principles, the future does not augur well for this region. While the world’s multilateral institutions are often described as dysfunctional, these institutions are indispensable because demands to shore up global governance will only increase.”
“" In November last year, at the first G20 summit in Washington, the leaders pledged that they would refrain from raising new barriers to trade in goods and services or imposing new export restrictions. Not only has this pledge turned out to be sheer rhetoric, but since that Summit in Washington, 17 of the G20 countries adopted a total of 47 measures restricting trade. True economic nationalists believe global commerce is not a win-win proposition but a contest in which there is clearly a victor and a loser. Above all, their mission is to protect capital and jobs in their own backyard. In other words, they have a two-fold mission: trade protectionism and human capital protectionism. As jobs and livelihoods disappear, workers -- in an increasing state of panic - are looking for help. The Mayor of the city of Lansing in Michigan -- one of America's countless manufacturing communities -- contends that free trade has sold out the American worker. As a local factory shut down and 300 jobs were eliminated, Mayor Bernero wrote: "The free traders need to ask themselves a fundamental question: how will Americans buy those goods when they don't even have a pay check that covers their mortgage?" In other countries, the response was more dramatic: British strikers, quoting the British Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s ill-chosen words back at him, are demanding that he provide “British jobs for British workers". If implemented, this will lead to a mass reverse migration of workers. On a January day this year in France, more than 1 million people stayed away from work and marched for jobs and wages; and in Greece police used tear gas to control farmers calling for even more subsidies.”
“What are the different scenarios that we are planning for and how can we all work together more collaboratively in tackling the challenges ahead? Secondly, I would like to urge the Government to actively promote free and open markets. In his address, the President highlighted the danger of economic protectionism that could emerge from the new world order. I cannot agree with him more. Industries in countries from Australia to Chile are demanding special assistance from their own governments. And why not? Economic nationalism, in a world of local politics, has numerous advantages over a free market. In Japan, economic nationalism takes the form of a special relationship between regulatory officials, automakers, and suppliers. Japan rarely refuses a request from its Big Three automakers. In China, the government provides "loans" to various corporate enterprises - loans that, some will argue, may never be repaid. In countries like Germany, nationalisation takes the form of advantageous national health care policies that allow local companies to compete favourably against foreign entities burdened with such costs. In Russia, economic nationalism takes the form of aggressive actions regarding areas the government sees as strategic, whatever that means. Most recently, in the US, the huge economic stimulus package limited certain projects to US-based suppliers. It is incredible to hear the US President announcing that the US Government wants its citizens to buy American cars first, ignoring the fact that Toyota, Diamler and many other manufacturers make many of their vehicles in the US. And it is most incredible to hear that President Obama has declared that Chrysler now has a competitive advantage because its warranties for cars are "backed by the US government.”
“Our own GDP growth forecast has been revised from the low range of -5% to -2% to the even lower range of -9% to -6%. At this stage, if the global economy worsens, we cannot discount the possibility that we may plunge into the unfamiliar negative double digit territory. Our Job Credits Scheme and SPUR programme have been successful. Notwithstanding this, as it stands, we still face the possibility of a second wave of retrenchment as many companies are still struggling to stay afloat due to plunging margins and empty pipelines in the horizon. Against this backdrop, I would like to seek the Government’s view on whether it would consider off-budget measures or stimulus packages and, if need be, tap on our past reserves again. At S$20.5 billion, the Resilient Package we adopted is no small amount. But then again, in today’s environment, a billion dollar no longer sounds as staggering as the pre-crisis days. I know that it was only three months ago that we last approved the Budget. But to many people in the business community, these have been the longest three months they have had to endure. With this in mind, I would like to ask if there are triggering points before off-budget measures are introduced? By triggering points, I refer to indicators such as sub 10% GDP growth or when the retrenchment number crosses a certain threshold. The reason that I am asking this is because many of us would like to understand the Government’s perception of how bad is “bad” and when can we expect more assistance. I am sure that our forward-looking Government has already considered this. May I request the Minister for Finance to share with us the Government’s view of this matter.”
“5 billion Resilience Package in his Budget Speech in early February this year. Since then, many countries around the world have announced fiscal packages to stimulate their economies or directly intervened to resuscitate ailing corporations and industries. I recall that during our Parliamentary debate on the 2009 Budget, the questions raised centred on whether the Budget was effective and whether it was of the right size to address the crisis. We also debated on whether it is correct to tap on past reserves to fund part of the Resilience Package. After many days of robust discussions, we agreed to endorse the Resilience Package. At that time, I spoke of the need for “off budget” measures to supplement, modify and tweak policies, both existing and those introduced in the Budget. I mentioned the need to do so swiftly and decisively throughout the coming months. I believed then, as I do now, that our ability to pay for the Budget initiatives out of our own resources will give us a first mover advantage and will stand us in good stead when the storm has passed over, as it inevitably will. In the past few months, the crisis has deepened considerably both globally and in Singapore. All over the world, governments have lowered their initial GDP growth forecasts. Unemployment rates have spiralled in many countries and there are lingering fears that a H1N1 pandemic may prolong the downturn. Yes, we hear of green shoots appearing but the rejuvenation of the ailing US economy will take years to achieve, not months. Yes, we hear of signs of recovery in some countries, but the general consensus is that the rebound in most economies is most likely to be a prolonged U-shape rather than a V-shape recovery.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for giving me an early opportunity to speak on this motion. Mr Speaker, Sir, the human race is a marvellous creation that is built to thrive and re-invent itself in times of crises. Many inventions and good practices have emerged from the history of human crises. History has shown that civilisations have made tremendous progress because they boldly tackled the challenges of the day, demonstrating not only courage but creativity and a determination to succeed. But the flip side is also true. Crises have been the bane of civilisations who chose to remain in their comfort zones. Throughout history, the darkest side of the human race has often emerged during a crisis. So, what good or bad will come out of this current crisis? As I reflect on the President’s Address, three key themes came to mind, and these relate to the Government’s role in: (a) fostering and stimulating economic growth; (b) promoting free and open markets; and (c) developing a skilled workforce to give us a competitive edge. All over the world, governments and business leaders were caught unprepared for the current global financial crisis. The crisis has prompted unprecedented levels of government intervention in businesses around the world. In an era where the role of the government has come under increasing scrutiny, the crisis has highlighted the importance of the role of the government in addressing global and systemic risks as well as fostering and stimulating economic growth. Because of the scale and extensiveness of the crisis, governments have been forced to intervene, some more promptly and boldly than others. I believe that our Government acted with speed and agility when the Finance Minister unveiled the S$20.”
“However, Changi is too critical a national asset for us to leave entirely to market forces. The current global economic crisis has shown that a free market without adequate oversight can have disastrous consequences. For example, we have seen the devastation that excessive debt can bring to otherwise healthy global corporations previously considered invincible. We need to take these lessons on board and factor them into our regulatory regime. Sir, I support this Bill because it will enable CAAS to operate on a level playing field with some of its key competitors and be agile, nimble and innovative as it navigates through turbulent times. However, we must guard against the ugly side of the free market economy, and here we can learn from the mistakes made in other countries, such as the UK, who took the plunge into privatised airports earlier. Unfortunately, for a number of these countries, the first mover advantage was withered away because of an inadequate regulatory framework and poor execution of policy. Our policy and regulatory track record in other sectors, such as financial services and telecommunications does instil confidence that we should achieve the delicate balance to make the corporatised CAAS a success.”
“All these are highly capital intensive and also increases the airport operating costs immediately upon the opening of new facilities. The initial overcapacity may result in substantial increase in aeronautical charges to avoid a drop in earnings or return on assets for the operator. A profit maximising operator will seek to push such investments back as much as possible, as we have seen in some UK airports. Would the Government consider some form of public-private partnership in such future expansion? For example, part of the asset base and operating costs relating to the initial excess capacity could be funded by the Government, and passed back to the operator only when normal capacity is attained. Commercially operated airports, like all infrastructural investments, are likely to be leveraged with debt in order to enjoy the tax benefits from interest expense, and to achieve the desired return on shareholders' equity. Changi has embarked on its overseas ventures. These investments may also be geared up for the same reasons. The current CAAS is not only debt free, but has a large cash kitty built up from years of surpluses. This war chest allows CAAS to invest confidently in its airport infrastructure and sail through the current economic storm unscathed. Other airports, like the privatised BAA in UK, are not so lucky, due to an unfortunate congruence of slowing air travel and increased debt burden. Would the Government consider adding provisions that limit the extent of debt or leverage that the corporatised Changi can take on? I am not usually a proponent of heavy-handed legislation interfering with commercial matters of corporations, especially if Changi were to be privatised in the future.”
“I would like the Minister to reassure the House that we have enough levers in this Act to ensure we achieve this fine balance both in good times as well as during a crisis. As a Statutory Board, CAAS has not had to grapple with conflicts, such as giving a consistently good return to shareholders each quarter on the one hand and, on the other hand, ensuring that Changi continues to have a long term strategic outlook on being a regional hub which will benefit a wider group of stakeholders and not just its shareholders. This mindset is particularly important when there is a crisis. For example, in response to the current economic downturn, the current CAAS had, in February this year, announced that it was giving out $200 million in 2009 to help airlines and airport partners. This included a $20 million Promotions Development Fund to support the retail, food and beverage and services concessionaires drive sales at the airport. The bulk of this $200 million will come from the Air Hub Development Fund and the Government's property tax rebate. However, it is reported that some $50 million will come from CAAS' own coffers. Post corporatisation, the regulator will set the price cap, and only for aeronautical charges. Should such a relief package be required in the future in unforeseen events like SARS, severe economic recessions or sharp rise in oil prices, would the regulator be able to direct Changi to lower its aeronautical and non-aeronautical charges? Or will any relief have to be shouldered entirely by the Government's Air Hub Development Fund? Airport master planning is critical, and capacity has to be built ahead of time and capacity requirements. There is the ongoing upgrading of Terminal 1 and the expansion of the Budget Terminal, and the possibility of a Terminal 4.”
“How our own regulations will be framed is not known yet, but judging from the experience in other countries, the non-aeronautical revenue is likely to be drawn upon to partly subsidise the aeronautical charges. For example, the UK uses a "single tilt" system, where all the non-aeronautical revenue is considered when setting the aeronautical price cap. Other countries use "double tilts", which is the other extreme – no non-aeronautical revenue is used to subsidise the aeronautical charges. A balance between these two is important so that there is incentive for the shareholders to be innovative in non-aeronautical business promotions, which makes the airport experience more exciting, and yet use this revenue to bring the aeronautical charges down. One of the concerns is that in the desire to maximise concession income, the airport may become too cluttered with stores, thus affecting the smooth and swift flow of passengers. Speed of passengers moving from one part of the airport to another is critical for an airport hub due to the large number of transit passengers. Yet the corporatisation of Changi is not without risks. Airports in small countries like Singapore are natural monopolies. With corporatisation, and more so in the event of a privatisation of Changi, which it would appear is not immediately on the cards, the concern is the conflict between profit motivation and the strategic, and socio- economic importance of Changi for the Singapore economy as a whole. In the Bill, the regulator is charged with the responsibility of keeping this balance, and ensuring competitive aeronautical charges, service excellence and timely investments in airport infrastructure.”
“A corporate structure will better allow it to do so and compete with airports in the region, several of which are already privatised. Just as importantly, a profit-motivated Changi will challenge its management to be more creative in its product innovation and capacity management, and more efficient in operations and use of capital. We have seen how the advent of REITs in Singapore has transformed and injected vibrancy and vitality into many local shopping malls, including old shopping malls, while improving yields for their shareholders. In the case of CAAS, if the improved efficiency and yield can translate into more competitive aeronautical charges for the airport, and a more exciting airport experience for our visitors, we would have taken a big step forward in consolidating our aviation hub position and putting some daylight between Changi and its competitors. I have deliberately used the example of REITs because a modern airport, apart from being a transportation and logistics centre, is also in some respects a specialty shopping mall with shops, restaurants, bars and leisure attractions such as spas. For Changi to be the premier transit airport in this region, it must not only be a operationally and economically efficient hub for airlines but must also offer a unique airport experience for passengers. A fine balance needs to be maintained between increasing the revenue from airport concessions and the shopping experience, while keeping the airport clutter-free so that passenger flow to departure gates is not affected. Income from concessions and rental from outlets are an important revenue upside for shareholders and also a means to keep aeronautical charges low via cross subsidy.”
“Today, Changi is ahead of the game because we have an equally successful Singapore Airlines, the foresight of our policy makers to pursue a liberal aviation regime that resulted in strong connectivity and attracted fast growing home-based Low Cost Carriers, five-star airport infrastructure and service and a very stable political and economic environment. The competitive landscape is dynamic, and Changi's competitors are not sitting still and accepting status quo. Many of our key success factors are not unique and can be replicated. Our competitors are poaching our limited aviation talent pool. Significant investments have also been poured into building and upgrading their own state-of-the-art airport infrastructure. Unlike in the era of traditional sea-based trade routes, our location near the equator does not give us any geographical advantage in tapping the growing East-West air traffic from the Asian economic powerhouses of China and India. We have to innovate and stay nimble in order to keep ahead. Like the bold decision taken in the 1970s to build a new airport in Changi, the current CAAS Bill, with its provisions to separate the regulator from the airport operator role and corporatise the operator, is a piece of legislation that will catapult Changi further ahead of its competition. Corporatisation will give Changi greater freedom to adapt its remuneration structure and human resource policies to attract and retain key talent necessary for its success. In order to compete internationally, Changi needs to attract the best and brightest, and tap into talent pools both locally and internationally. In this global war for talent, Changi has to be flexible and responsive to market forces in order to stay in the game.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I speak in support of this Bill. Singapore, as an island without natural resources, has historically survived and prospered by plugging into the global and regional economy, whether as the port of call for ships sailing between Europe and the Far East, or as entrepot for the region. In the modern era of air travel, the airport has become a critical node in our global connectivity and our economic lifeline. When the Singapore Government made the very bold and strategic billion-dollar bet in the mid 1970s to construct a brand new airport at Changi, it laid the foundation for much of our current economic success. A world-class airport has allowed Singapore to evolve into a regional financial centre, attracted multinational corporations to site their regional headquarters here, supported high value-adding manufacturing businesses, and provided Singapore with a platform to develop into a global city of the 21st century. Changi Airport is something every Singaporean has reason to be proud of. It is one of the three five-star airports in the world, ranked seventh globally in international passenger volume, and in 2008 alone, it garnered 29 awards. Besides these hard statistics, it always gives me a sense of pride whenever my overseas friends, colleagues and business associates sing praises of how efficient and hassle-free it is to arrive or transit through Changi. Yet this success story did not just happen. It is a result of shrewd policies, well executed. Changi faces many competitors in the region and beyond, jostling to be the preferred aviation hub. Hong Kong, Kuala Lumpur, Bangkok and Dubai compete with Changi in different market segments and air routes.”
“Sir, I thank the Minister for the explanations. Given the complexity of the process, the inherent risk of the assumptions that have been used in this expected long-term rate of return and, obviously, the interest by everyone in making sure that the process is robust and transparent, would the Minister consider, at some stage, giving a little bit more information and communicating on some of these details so that there is confidence and acceptance of the new procedures?”
“Active citizenry cannot be forced but we should continue to actively encourage our youth in the State's affairs. We should make them feel safe to voice their views. In this regard, all of us in this House must be willing to keep an open mind on the ideas brought up by our youth and continue to actively engage them. REACH - Information Flow”
“This is a healthy sign that they care about this little red dot we call home. The Government could encourage this by increasing accessibility of records from the policy-making process. For instance, video clips of parliamentary debates could be posted on the REACH website or Youtube after daily proceedings. The public, including young Singaporeans can be encouraged to view them and leave their comments. The rationale behind policy changes and reasons for rejections of common feedback can also be posted on a timely basis on REACH's website. I believe that with constant communication, the depth of youth engagement in Singapore could be significantly enhanced. Sir, our youths are our future. They have arguably the greatest stake in policy-making as the impact of many of the policies that we set today will be felt in their lifetimes. I urge the Government to show greater efforts to expand our outreach and set the tone for engagement so as to continue encouraging young Singaporeans to step forward for Singapore. Many young Singaporeans are now better educated, travelled and connected as compared to our generation. If they do not have a strong sense of attachment to Singapore when they are young, they may be prone towards migrating and foregoing their Singapore citizenship. They are mobile, they have been brought up in a different environment and their expectations are different. Until now, most of them have generally been insulated from the vagaries of life, political turmoil and economic downturns. If and when Singapore is faced with grave danger and hardship, will they stay? Will they stand up and be counted? That very much depends on their sense of attachment and rootedness developed in their youth.”
“This is evident in their expressions on the Internet, though sometimes, their views appear to be misinformed and misdirected. But the passion is genuine - they want to make Singapore a better place for you and me. The setting up of the REACH (Reaching Everyone for Active Citizenry@Home) website in October 2006 signifies the renewed commitment by the Government's Feedback Unit to develop and promote an active citizenry through citizen participation and involvement. REACH's expansion of its youth outreach efforts has been a positive move in this direction. However, many youths have still chosen to express their views on socio-political blogs and personal web pages in cyberspace. How do we explain this? I believe that a key reason is the perception that it is still unsafe to voice your views on Government channels and that the Government is still not serious in recognising and putting into action youth views. This misconception may be corrected by more visible and frequent recognition of good contributions from young Singaporeans, listing their age in the media and cyberspace. I would also like to see our Government leaders engaging our youth and participating in youth activities more often, including chats on the Internet. With our people becoming more Internet-savvy, in time to come, perhaps the meet-the-people sessions conducted by Members of Parliament will also include Internet Chat with the People sessions. Sir, to allow our youths to gain a better appreciation of the considerations, difficulties and rationale behind the policy-making process, there is a need to increase the visibility of this process for Singaporeans at large. Contrary to popular opinion, a growing number of youths in Singapore are politically aware.”
“The Parliament of Singapore's website can also provide simple narrations of our political system and visual tours of Parliament House settings to spark interest among the netizens. Sir, we also need to broaden the scope of our youth's engagement in policy-making. This requires active engagement and I applaud the Government's numerous steps forward on this front. The Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS) has taken the lead in engaging our youth in policy-making processes through programmes such as the National Youth Forum, YouthInk and Young ChangeMakers. Other Ministries, such as the Ministry of Finance, have also engaged our young in its recent 2009 Budget outreach exercise through mock parliamentary debates, essay and video competitions. To date, I understand the National Youth Forum has engaged approximately youths. Other programmes have also generally reached limited numbers relative to our youth population. Though a step in the right direction, I believe more can be done to reach out to larger groups. At the parliamentary level, the Government has done well to bring in a strong cohort of post-65 Members of Parliament. I hope that this trend will continue. By the next General Election, we need to have post-70 and possibly post-80 Members of Parliament who can connect with our youth and understand their concerns. The search for younger leaders to represent their peers' voices must continue as Singapore braces itself for the challenges facing a new generation. In the 2005 parliamentary session, MCYS stated that its youth consultation exercises have shown that many youths want an active stake in Singapore. They want to be heard, they want a chance to deliberate and debate national issues. This continues to be the sentiment amongst our youth today.”
“Sir, in this connected and digital age, we need to step up our communication and engagement with Singaporeans, particularly younger Singaporeans. Government policies and how our political system operates are often not fully understood by the population at large and this can sometimes give rise to negative sentiments and unhealthy coffeeshop talk. Let me give an example. During our August 2008 sitting, there was a lively debate about the Singaporean brand of representative democracy in the context of whether we should have a by-election. In that debate, the Prime Minister reiterated our unique brand of democracy adapted to suit our situation as a small city-state. It was an enlightening lesson about Singapore's political journey but it also struck me then that few Singaporeans, young or old, truly understand the intricacies of our political system. This should not be the case. Singaporeans require that fundamental understanding to embrace our heritage and what we stand for. Sir, we need to increase Singaporeans' awareness of our political system. Our students are exposed to our parliamentary process through "Learning Journeys" to Parliament House. The curriculum of this Learning Journey should be reviewed to ensure that sufficient context is provided and that our young have a balanced view of why we have adopted this system. This Learning Journey should also be made compulsory so that all Singapore youths will have the opportunity for a first-hand glimpse of Singapore's political framework. Apart from the Learning Journeys, which are generally restricted to students, Parliament House could consider similar guided tours for older Singaporeans and new Singaporeans.”
“Whilst confidentiality needs to be maintained, it is important that the positions maintained by the revenue are transparent and made available to a wider population. Whole of Government Approach”
“I would suggest that we need a regular review and monitoring process to ensure that tax incentives remain relevant and that we consider the interaction of other taxes to ensure that a new tax incentive does not cannibalise a previous incentive. The enhanced loss carryback relief potentially gives rise to this problem, as explained in my Budget speech. We are also perhaps not as effective as we could be in attracting R&D investment from abroad or in encouraging indigenous R&D activity. If we wish to achieve our stated objective of winning more global knowledge-based businesses, then a re-think on tax incentives is a must. Enhancements in this area should focus on a widening of the definition of R&D and the incentives offered. It does not always happen in a laboratory and it is therefore difficult to encompass all R&D activities that could bring benefit to Singapore. It is important that we continue to encourage more IP exploitation in Singapore, for example, taking incentives further down the value chain from the current regime, which is more focused on the creation or acquisition of IP in Singapore. We should consider more incentives for revenue generated from IP management and liberalising our foreign tax credit regime, which is not particularly user-friendly for those seeking to use Singapore as a base to generate royalties from overseas. 2.00 pm Finally, a prerequisite to effective tax policy is the need for an open and transparent tax administration. The revenue has made great strides in their approach to consultation with industry and professional bodies. However, it is hoped that the revenue could find some way to publish a ruling, so as to explain clearly their interpretation of a particular position based on facts.”
“Over the past 10 years, the tax system in Singapore has undergone a comprehensive overhaul. A key motivation has been to improve the tax system, as a means of implementing tax policy, by making it more responsive to changes in the global economy. These changes are reflected in a shift from direct taxation to indirect taxation together with a simplification of the basis of personal and corporate taxation. To complement these changes, much has also been done to simplify the administration process such as enabling online filings and ease of payment. As a result, Singapore is ranked as one of the top locations in the world for the ease of doing business in a World Bank survey. We cannot afford to rest on our laurels. To maintain this position, it is critical to continue on the path of implementing tax policy changes but just as importantly, we must ensure that the policy changes are implemented in a simple, fair and effective manner. Our economy is constantly evolving and our tax incentives must do likewise. We must stay a step ahead to ensure Singapore remains a competitive location from which to do business. This is particularly so as our corporate tax rates are reduced, we need to ensure we preserve the attractiveness of incentives for those areas we consider are critical to Singapore's future growth. With the reduction in tax rates by 1%, we must at the same time take care not to erode the impact of the tax incentives. Furthermore, it is important to ensure that other taxes, such as GST, do not deny potential investors from taking the full benefit of our incentives as was the case of the application of GST eroding the attractiveness of using the Singapore Resident Fund incentive.”
“As we bring in new locally-trained doctors as well as foreign doctors, nurses and other hospital staff, I would like the Ministry to pay more attention to their career development. Due to the growing and pressing needs in our hospitals, I am concerned that our young doctors and foreign medical talents may be thrown too quickly into the thick of action and get burnt out. How are their progress and conditions being monitored? Do we have mentoring and coaching programmes? Are pay and conditions competitive not only locally but with other aspiring medical hubs overseas? Madam, I would like to seek an assurance from the Minister that we are doing enough to attract, develop and retain our human capital in the healthcare industry. Employability and Job Availability”
“Madam, I would like to compliment the Ministry of Health for maintaining a very high standard of healthcare and medical services in Singapore. In some countries, patients have to endure long delays before they can see a specialist. In other countries, one needs to travel abroad when he is down with certain illnesses, because specialist healthcare services are simply not available at home. In Singapore, we can take pride in an efficient and readily accessible healthcare system. Here, affordable healthcare and medical services are generally available to all. Our hospitals are well-equipped with the necessary technology, equipment and specialists to deal with various diseases. But in view of our greying population and the increasingly high level of stress that Singaporeans face, we have to continue to invest in healthcare. I am therefore pleased to note that the Budget has made provisions for additional medical infrastructure in the form of new hospitals. However, as we build new hospitals, we also need to give sufficient attention to the software in our hospitals. In the quest to build more hospitals, provide more medical services and better serve patients, our health sector will be in need of more human capital. We can train and groom some of these resources locally, but this is unlikely to be enough. We will also need to bring in foreign doctors and nurses not just to meet basic needs but foreign specialists and consultants who can add value to the healthcare standards in Singapore. We should also have a programme to contact Singaporean doctors working overseas and woo them back. We must be wary of leakage of our home-grown talent in an increasingly connected and competitive world.”
“If we have what it takes to weather the storm, we should ensure that the strong winds do not tear down the arts and cultural scene that we have painstakingly built in recent years. Should we neglect our arts and cultural development at this stage, we run the risk of having to take a few more years to re-establish ourselves to where we are right now.”
“Madam, let me declare my interest as a Member of the National Heritage Board and a Director of School of the Arts. As the economic crisis deepens, people are becoming more conscious of how they spend their money and the need to set priorities on where to put their money. In a belt tightening situation, it is often what they perceive to be the less essential or even non-essential items that will be sacrificed. What are these less essential or non-essential items? At this stage of our development, most Singa- poreans would include the participation and contribution to arts and cultural activities as non-essential items. Whilst this may be how individuals spend their money under tight budget constraint, should the Government's spending on the arts and culture reflect a similar pattern? Madam, I hope not. I believe that the Government should take a strategic view for the development of arts and culture in Singapore. While this economic crisis is likely to be severe and prolonged, we should not treat the development of arts and culture in Singapore as a non-essential item that should be sacrificed when times are bad. Whilst the current economic crisis is of immediate concern, we should not forget our long-term vision to build Singapore into a global city. To be a global city, we need to have both the hardware and the software which require years of continued investment. If our long-term goal is to build up a creative and vibrant arts and cultural setting in Singapore, we need to continue to invest in the development of the arts and culture even during the current economic downturn. Madam, we must believe that Singapore has strong fundamentals and that we can weather the current financial tsunami.”
“In conclusion Sir, I hope that we will take a long-term view and continue to make foreign talent welcome and feel at home in Singapore because they will not only help us survive the downturn but, in the light of tough competition ahead, will help us emerge from the downturn stronger and more resilient. New Citizens”
“But to preserve jobs for Singaporeans at the expense of eroding our competitiveness or the development of our increasingly sophisticated and knowledge-based economy would be very short-sighted and, ultimately, could lead to more job losses for Singaporeans. In fact, many of the new jobs created in the financial services sector, in biotechnology, in the petrochemical hub of Jurong Island cannot be filled by Singaporeans because we just do not have enough Singaporeans with the requisite skills and experience. We also hope that multinational companies (MNCs) will continue to take advantage of our excellent infrastructure and attractive tax incentives to locate their regional headquarters (HQs) and perhaps some of their global business unit HQs in Singapore. While this will create jobs for Singaporeans, it will also mean that more foreigners from head office will have to relocate to Singapore. So we have to continue with our liberal policies to allow foreigners to fill these critical jobs, which will ultimately benefit Singapore and Singaporeans. However, given the economic downturn, this will require political will and conviction because in a scenario where the unemployment rate for Singaporeans increases in the short term, the man-in-the-street will not understand why there are so many foreigners continuing to be employed here while Singaporeans are losing their jobs. This could become an emotive issue and we need to pre-empt such feelings by engaging our citizens in proactive and sensitive ways.”
“For example, we are now regularly contacting Singaporeans living in different parts of the world and hopefully, wooing some of them back home. We are also now taking proactive steps to reach out to targeted foreigners with a view to attracting them to study, work and live here. We only have to look around the Central Business District, residential estates in the East Coast and around River Valley Road and the entertainment spots of Clarke Quay, Dempsey Road and Holland Village to know that we have been very successful in implementing policy. This has helped to fill the many new jobs created in financial services, media, information technology, manufacturing, logistics, and so on. But alas, how the world has changed in a few months through no fault of our own in Singapore. We are now in the midst of a global economic crisis of unprecedented proportions. Singapore is feeling its impact with the sceptre of job losses looming large. There are already blunt and insensitive calls from certain quarters, including some hon. Members in this House, that when it comes to downsizing the workforce, we must get rid of foreigners first regardless of who is best suited for the job. This is a dangerous political rhetoric. It only serves to give mixed and contradictory messages to two of our important stakeholders – foreign companies and foreign talent, unsettles a key segment of our workforce and undermines the good work of Government agencies in attracting and developing talent. Of course, we must try and find every Singaporean a job, retrain and reskill our citizens for the "new economy".”
“Sir, we live in a highly globalised economy where financial, commercial and social interests flow together in a confluence of markets, travel and communications, cross-border investments and trade. A vital city is a locus of activity in its region. In cities like New York, London, Paris and Tokyo, that region is the world. In the last few years, Singapore has also embarked on a journey to become a global city. We are already a hub of finance, commerce and communications. Our global schoolhouse initiative is helping to expand our intellectual capital, which is the foundation of a knowledge-based world. We recognise that technology and innovation have helped the world expand at an exceptionally fast rate, creating unprecedented opportunities and challenges. We are investing heavily in both infrastructure and human capital to become a centre for biotechnology where we can successfully and repeatedly transfer knowledge creation to early stage commercialisation. Sir, our strategy to develop Singapore into a global city of opportunity is a sound one and many of the Government's policy initiatives and actions are already bearing fruit. But there is one key ingredient that is required if we are to succeed and sustain our ambition – that is retaining our local talent and continuing to supplement local talent with foreign talent. Our small population, declining birth rate and the mobility of Singaporeans mean that we have to follow a twin strategy to retain as much of our local talent while attracting additional brainpower with the requisite skills and experience from overseas. This is recognised by the Government, which has launched many initiatives, programmes and campaigns to do just that.”
“We will need "off budget" measures to supplement, modify and tweak policies, both existing and those introduced in this Budget, and we need to do this swiftly and decisively throughout the coming months. Singapore’s ability to pay for initiatives out of its own pocket certainly gives it a first mover advantage and will stand us in good stead when the storm has passed over, as it inevitably will. Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to participate in the debate on the Budget speech.”
“Increasing the limit of aggregate qualifying deductions carried back from $100,000 to $200,000 (effectively giving a maximum refund of $40,000 when applying the Year of Assessment (YA) 2006 corporate tax rate of 20 %). While businesses will be glad that the losses can be carried back for a longer period, one wonders if the limit should not have been increased even further. The maximum possible relief now is $40,000 compared to $18,000 previously. For a few years now, a certain amount of a company’s chargeable income is exempted from tax. Under the current scheme, the loss carryback would have to be set off before the exemption amount. If the enhancement of the loss carryback is to help businesses which are making losses in this recession with their cash flow, the set off should be after the exemption amount. Otherwise, we will have one incentive cannibalising another. Hopefully, the IRAS will look into this matter and change the current practice. Sir, in conclusion, one cannot argue with the main thrust of this Budget, which was aimed at short-term survival for businesses and jobs while also trying to build for the future. There were certain areas that could have been given more attention, most notably the outpouring of our much needed foreign talent who probably felt quite hard done by. However, in a crisis of this magnitude, it is accepted that it is not possible to solve all problems at once. We shall see over the next few months the extent to which the measures announced have been successful. In particular, a very close watch needs to be kept on whether the tight credit situation is easing for businesses; otherwise, more radical steps, including the proposals that I have set out, need to be taken soon rather than later. One thing in my mind is for sure.”
“However, under the new Enhanced Tier Scheme, the previous limits of 30% or 50% (in some cases) Singapore investor limit will be lifted. The minimum fund size to qualify for the Enhanced Tier is small, at $50 million (which is really subsistence level for a manager), although further qualifying conditions have yet to be announced. There is no doubt that the growth of the fund management industry is high up in the list of the Government’s agenda. The measures so far have not only met with a high degree of success but they also show the Government’s ability to listen to market feedback and act on it quickly and decisively. It is this sort of agility and speed to market of new ideas, that will allow Singapore to leap ahead of its rivals in this area, and it is something to be roundly applauded. In the run-up to the Budget Speech, there had been calls on the Finance Minister to enhance the loss carryback relief scheme to allow businesses to monetise current year tax losses and get back some of the tax paid in earlier (profitable) years. The current scheme allowing carryback of $100,000 of qualifying deductions which translated (at most) to $18,000 in tax terms would hardly be sufficient to sustain ailing businesses. The following enhancements have been proposed: Allowing carryback to three years of assessment immediately preceding the year of assessment in which the capital allowances or trade losses were incurred. The losses carried back are to be set off, firstly, against the third year of assessment, followed by the second year of assessment, and then the year of assessment immediately preceding the year of assessment in which the capital allowances were granted or the trade losses were incurred.”
“" The Government continued to show its interest in fostering the fund management industry by targeting most of the significant changes in the financial services arena on enhancing existing fund management incentives. There were really three changes. Two gave rise to sighs of relief, and one to sighs of disbelief. The relief came primarily from the new measures announced for dealing with Goods and Services Tax (GST) as it applied to approved onshore funds. Although the onshore fund scheme was an excellent initiative, it was hamstrung by the fact that the fund’s local service providers were compelled to charge it GST, which funds were, for various reasons, finding it difficult or impossible to recover. An onshore fund was therefore not operating on a level playing field with its offshore counterparts who did not face a GST charge in the first place. This is being remedied by the announcement that a substantial portion of the GST charged on prescribed services could be recovered automatically. It remains to be seen what "substantial" may mean, but it is hoped that it will be in excess of 90%. The other good change was to now see limited partnerships as collective investment vehicles in their own right. This will significantly tidy up the information retrieval exercise for determining whether funds or their investors qualify for incentives. It also recognises the existence of one of the most commonly used forms of fund vehicle. The real surprise was the move to allow almost free access for Singapore investors to the incentive scheme. Hitherto, the scheme had been very much aimed at bringing in foreign funds and ensuring that no (or restricted amounts of) Singapore money found its way in.”
“The CCFOB can be "this honest broker with clout" that individuals and companies can turn to when they are frustrated in their attempts to obtain financing from banks and other financial institutions. In today’s environment, we have to change our mindset that if a company has a credit problem, then there is something wrong with the company. Today, companies are facing credit problems, by and large, because there is something wrong with the financial system and we need to fix the financial system and fix it fast. Hence the need for an organisation like the CCFOB. While my proposal stops short of the Government taking the loan-granting process in-house, commercial lending decisions and the related infrastructure still remain with banks, it institutionalises some of the proactive steps required to stimulate lending within a dedicated unit – the CCFOB. The CCFOB should have full-time resources, some seconded from Government agencies while others would be recruited from the ready pool of ex-bankers and financial advisers. The job opportunities it will create, I am sure, will be welcome. How long should the CCFOB be around for? I would say initially a two-year period. Whether it should continue beyond two years will depend on its effectiveness and market conditions. For those who say that this is "over the top", I would quote the Nobel prize winning economist Paul Krugman. And I quote, "for now the important thing is to loosen up credit by any means at hand without getting tied up in ideological knots. Nothing could be worse than failing to do what’s necessary out of fear that acting to save the financial system is somewhat 'socialist'.”
“For example, there are nearly a hundred Chinese companies listed on our local exchanges. However, we face intense competition from other regional capital markets, such as Hong Kong and Shanghai, and have to constantly re-invent ourselves. This crisis gives us an opportunity to gain competitive advantage over rival capital markets by leveraging Singapore‘s strong fiscal position. The global credit crisis has meant that all capital markets have come to a grinding halt with hardly any IPO activity. This is not because there is a dearth of companies with good business models and growth prospects but the totally irrational and negative sentiment towards acceptance of any form of risk and reluctance of banks and financial institutions to provide capital and underwrite share and bond issues. This is where the CCFOB can play an important role by becoming an underwriter of last resort for IPOs that meet all the listing criteria for our capital markets but are being held back because of the credit crisis. This will generate life in our local capital markets and will help to attract good quality businesses from around the region to Singapore. It will also differentiate us from other capital markets. Thirdly, play the role of an "honest broker" with influence and clout. We need an "honest broker" with influence and clout who can work with banks and financial institutions on the one hand and businesses, both small and large, local and foreign, on the other. I believe this is the vital missing link because presently there is no one organisation which is independent and of standing with a clear mandate to help businesses with their liquidity problems.”
“It is in this spirit that I would like to put forward a proposal for the Government’s consideration. I believe the situation is serious enough for the Government to set up a Credit and Capital Funding and Oversight Board (CCFOB) with its own full-time employees. The CCFOB’s charter will be three-fold. Firstly, it will ensure that the various schemes and initiatives that have been put in place including SRI announced during the Budget Statement, actually work and credit starts flowing back again. The CCFOB will be a dedicated "one stop" organisation that will carry out many of the pro-active steps which Minister Lim Hng Kiang referred to in his recent media briefing session on the SRI. For example, the CCFOB will look at business loan applications that are rejected by banks and if the grounds for rejection are not valid, it will revive the loan application on behalf of the applicant. With the added weight of the CCFOB, hopefully, one of the participating banks will provide the credit. Secondly, take pro-active measures to breathe life into our capital markets which have all but dried up primarily because of the lack of credit as well as negative sentiment and poor risk appetite. I believe every crisis presents opportunities and I believe one such opportunity during this global crisis is for Singapore to develop its capital markets even further by using its deep fiscal pocket in a smart and innovative way. Let me elaborate. For some years now, we have been developing Singapore as a capital market not only for local businesses but also for companies from around the region. We have been quite successful in attracting foreign companies to raise capital in Singapore through initial public offerings, bond issues, etc.”
“The Government initiatives to help companies have been targeted at smaller businesses, which in itself is no bad thing but larger businesses, including MNC subsidiaries operating in Singapore, are also facing acute problems with refinancing, arranging letters of credit and working capital financing. These companies have a deep impact on our economy and their continued presence is vital to Singapore because they provide direct employment to many Singaporeans, support our manufacturing and services sector and are big contributors to our GDP. Take, for example, the many companies in the marine sector such as the large oil rig owners and operators. These companies were attracted to Singapore not only because of our excellent business headquarter infrastructure, access to capital, general ease of doing business but also because Singapore is the leading centre for the construction of offshore oil rigs and other marine equipment. These companies place large and lucrative contracts to our local shipyards which obviously need to be financed. Credit must continue to flow to these companies which are vital to our economy. Many of these businesses are encountering obstacles and difficulties because of this unprecedented crisis and the hardened attitude towards lending and risk appetite being adopted by the banks. The Government needs to give a lending hand to these companies as well. Governments around the world are trying to solve the credit crisis in different ways depending on their resources, political will and the environment in which they operate. What is clear is that it is not business as usual and radical steps are required. Given our agility and nimbleness, we could show real leadership to come up with solutions that work.”
“For local businesses, it is the worst possible time to start new banking relationships and for our local banks, who have already got to deal with their existing customers current and additional funding needs, taking on new customers with whom they have no relationship or track record is perhaps too much to ask. But this is precisely the problem we need to fix and fix quickly because liquidity is all about timing; if businesses are unable to gain access to cash to pay their short-term expenses, they can go under almost overnight. The Government has recognised this problem for some time now and has introduced co-sharing initiatives such as the Bridging Loan Programme under which the Government shared up to 50% of the loan with a bank. The loan limit then was S$500,000 which clearly showed that the aim was the smaller end of the business scale. However, in recognition of the pervasive and persistent nature of the problem, the stakes have been raised in the Budget through the Special Risk Sharing Incentive (SRI) which increases the Government's risk share to 80% and the loan limit to $5 million. The SRI has also been extended to trade financing, which will be much appreciated by businesses. But will these initiatives be enough to get credit flowing again to the arteries and veins of all businesses, not just SMEs, that operate in and from Singapore and are so critical to our economy? I have some reservations. Firstly, the amount and reach of the SRI is limited and is aimed at smaller businesses. Even if the $5.8 billion is fully utilised, it will not meet the requirements of businesses, particularly if we are to replace the credit being withdrawn by the branches of foreign banks.”
“With the Jobs Credit Scheme, the Government has put its money where its mouth is and thrown down the gauntlet to employers and employees alike to play their part in preserving jobs in Singapore. Because the Scheme is new, untested and expensive, we have to monitor its effectiveness and impact on saving jobs while being realistic of what it can and cannot achieve. I would request the Ministries of Finance and Manpower to provide periodic updates on what impact the Scheme is having on preserving jobs, given the quantum of funds being used out of our reserves to fund this Scheme. These updates would be helpful to assess whether the Scheme is achieving its objectives and whether it should be continued beyond the initial year. The credit crisis is a global phenomenon and Singapore has not been spared its dire consequences of stifling and choking businesses, both large and small. In fact, because we are an international financial centre with the presence of many foreign banks, the impact of the global credit crisis has hit our local businesses quicker and deeper than many other countries. Local branches of some foreign banks whose head office balance sheets have been savaged by toxic assets have not only stopped additional lending to their most loyal and sound business partners but, in some cases, have cut credit facilities under head office instructions to prop up their balance sheets back home. This has put additional pressure on our local businesses and our local banks.”
“Singapore is therefore in an ideal position to rebound quicker than most, and take advantage of the distressed state of the other slower moving, less agile economies of the world. I turn now to my thoughts on some of the more detailed aspects of the Budget proposals. The Jobs Credit Scheme represents innovative, bold and "out of the box" thinking by the Government in the wake of an unprecedented economic crisis. It also shows how concerned the Government is about job losses and that it is prepared to take radical, expensive and untested measures to keep Singaporeans employed during this period of uncertainty. The Scheme will certainly provide temporary cash flow relief to all companies, particularly those companies that employ large numbers of lower paid staff. But the Scheme is not without its critics, as we have heard today in this House. It was pointed out that because it is across the board and is a blunt and expensive tool, the number of jobs saved will be disproportionate to the cost of the Scheme. In my opinion, this is a negative and overly critical way of looking at the Scheme. Because we are in a crisis of extraordinary proportions, we need measures which are extraordinary. We must also be prepared to take some calculated risks. By devising this Scheme which is simple, transparent, easy to implement and provides a measure of relief to every employer, the Government now has every right to expect all employers to behave responsibly and in a caring manner when dealing with their employees during this crisis. The three-way partnership between the Government, employers and employees is critical during this crisis.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Budget. This year's Budget was delivered early in response to the parlous state of the world economy and the need for the Government to spring into action and batten down the hatches of Singapore's own economy. I think there had been a suggestion that it would be an expansionary Budget. However, "expansion" in the current situation is the word of an irrepressible optimist. Keeping the economy afloat was really as much as any realist could have hoped for. And I believe, by and large, the measures that were announced will go a long way in doing just that. The Budget focus, therefore, quite correctly, was on preserving jobs. There is no use talking about stimulating an economy plagued by rising unemployment. But a secondary and no less important focus, was on freeing up the credit log-jam and getting banks to start lending again. Only in this way can the economy stand a chance of early recovery and getting back on its feet. But the prospect of a rosier future also was not ignored. Attention was also paid to ensuring that the economy not only weathered the storm, but also emerged from it stronger than it went in. In other words, the Budget kept its eye on "building for the future". In this context, there is no doubt that Singapore has a significant advantage over most of the developed nations in that the Budget measures will all be funded out of the Government's own. We will not, like many, have to resort to increased borrowing, or even worse, printing money as some countries have had to resort to. A degree in rocket science will not be needed for one to realise how this sort of behaviour can end up in a stagflationary spiral.”
“My question was not so much about the competition. It was about whether in a strategic area like power generation, all the players could be owned by foreign shareholders. The UK experience is rather sad in this area. Because, as Members know, the UK nuclear power plants were owned by foreign companies and they found that the development of the industry had been compromised. If we have shareholders in China, India, UK or Japan owning our power companies, they are not likely to look at the interests of Singapore as the first thing but look at the interests on a global basis. Will the Ministry feel that it is strategic enough and that we should at least have some control over the power generation companies in the long term?”
“Before I conclude, I would like a clarification from the Minister. Given that the expected rate of return includes both realised and unrealised investments, how is the Government proposing to fund the amount available for current use if the long-term expected rate of return exceeds the realised dividend/interest and capital gains each year? Sir, put in another way, how do we manage the liquidity issue because the expected long-term rate of return is based on assumptions and expected outcomes, not actual cash that has been earned? Sir, thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak on this Bill. 5.32 pm”
“In the long run, the historical cap will be automatically revised upwards if the actual returns consistently turn out to be higher. (2) Both the "expected long-term real rate of return" used in the computation and the "actual historical long-term real rate of return" should be published. (3) The basis of computing "expected long-term real rate of return", including assumptions to be made, should be set out and consistently applied from year to year. (4) As part of his annual concurrence with the "expected long-term real rate of return", the President should have powers to review the assumptions and expectations adopted, the application and any change in the basis used, and the computation. This review should be carried out independently of the Government. A process for this review, including the resources and expertise that will be required to support the President should be clearly set out, discussed and debated in this House. Given the very significant changes and their implications for the future, it is worth spending time satisfying ourselves in this House that we not only have a robust system of checks and balances, but there is also good communication and transparency. Sir, at the end of the day, we can have all the checks and balances in place but as the financial crisis that we are embroiled in has clearly demonstrated, that unless the people in charge are competent, honest and have the interests of all Singaporeans at heart, the system will fail. By amending the Constitution with this Bill, we are raising the stakes and the demands on the Government of the day. So the clear message to all Singaporeans is that we should continue to have the best, brightest and honest amongst us to be in charge of the Government and the finances of the nation.”