Geh Min
Singapore
“Environmental R&D is one of the three growth areas identified by the Prime Minister in the National Research Foundation. Does this include energy efficient and alternative fuel technologies? With regard to the people sector, what is the Government doing to raise public awareness and change mindsets?”
“The Minister Mentor's vision of a clean and green Singapore as good for business, good for people and good for the environment pre-empted the triple-bottom line of an economically profitable, socially responsible and environmentally sustainable practice.”
“In my opinion, it would be easier to revive Singapore from a reputation as backwater than to rescue a tarnished down market tourist reputation.”
“Yes. Thank you for that reply. But I think this illustrates what I was trying to say that we need a more integrated approach. If the Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources is responsible for the erosion but the Ministry of National Development is responsible for the planning, then I think there is a lack of integration there whic…”
“In summary, therefore, I would like to say that I hope that the National Research Foundation will focus on these two areas as part of our environmental and water research, and our biomedical technology research; developing clean development mechanisms as part of our environmental research and looking at translational research between our…”
“Sir, although the Ministry cannot dictate that green cars are provided, perhaps the Government should recognise that, at this point in time, many responsible world leaders and other members of a meeting, such as IMF, would prefer green cars.”
The complete record
Every one of 176 lines we hold for Geh Min, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 4.
“My question is this: some agencies are better than others. Some Government agencies are better. Of course, the Ministry of the Environment is at the top there, but it is quite evident that some agencies, even Government agencies, are not as good in their energy efficient and green practices. So, what is MEWR doing to raise their level? Assoc. Prof. Koo Tsai Kee: First of all, thank you very much for Dr Geh Min's compliments. I think the process takes some time. We need to proceed slowly. What are we doing? First of all, we are trying to persuade the different Ministries to be as green as the Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources. So we set the example and then whisper in the ears and lobby the Ministers and the Prime Minister. There is no explicit green procurement policy. There is an implicit one because the Government has agreed to energy labelling for appliances. In that sense, all the agencies must buy energy-labelled refrigerators and air-conditioners. So that is the green procurement policy in kind. I think, slowly over the next few years, you will find that more agencies will buy more green products and also when more of these products are available in the market. But, again, in saying so, we would like to emphasise that the public sector procurement policy is one that is based on value-for-money for goods and services purchased. So, the green procurement policy must not be on top of that. It must be below that.”
“Thank you. Two points of clarification. First, may I congratulate the Minister on the very effective work on the waterways. Just a point of clarification here. It says in the first photograph on Sungei Api Api, "Instead of lining the river with concrete, mangrove plants were used to soften the look". Obviously, I think this was formulated by the Ministry of the Environment, and not NParks. I know that the Government believes in substance but not style and I would just like to clarify here that mangrove plants do more than soften the look. They are ecologically-friendly, reduce pollution, reduce erosion and they reduce greenhouse gases. So I think that would be a more fitting subtitle. The second point of clarification is for the Senior Parliamentary Secretary. I would like to thank him very much for his comprehensive reply on the green procurement policy for the public sector. He has stated that he thinks that it is effective as a voluntary process and he cited some good examples of Ministries or Government agencies. The Chairman: Dr Geh Min, please ask your question or clarification.”
“The Minister Mentor's vision of a clean and green Singapore as good for business, good for people and good for the environment pre-empted the triple-bottom line of an economically profitable, socially responsible and environmentally sustainable practice. But while visions are timeless, their interpretation and implementation need to be reviewed regularly to remain relevant to the changing global environment and to new challenges. In today's context of global warming, limited supply of fossil fuels, and rising costs of energy, "clean and green" requires new mindsets, policies and practices. I believe that the introduction of a Green Procurement Policy in the public sector is an obvious one - low-hanging fruit that is in our garden. Singapore may be clean and green, but there are some "black holes" in our green image, and one of these is our lack of a green procurement policy in the public sector. Public Health and Dead Birds”
“Sir, I am delighted to hear the Minister's announcement that we will be acceding to the Kyoto Protocol this year. I know that the Government does not regard this as an empty gesture, but a commitment backed by firm action. Many countries have a governing legislation that includes the procurement of environmentally sound technology and products based on their proven track records and endorsements, so that the public sector is required to request for products under an Eco Label category within its tender requirements. Many of these products and technologies are affiliated to Singapore's Green Labelling Scheme, and a number of foreign companies based in Singapore have also already committed to integrating such practices into their businesses here, eg, Fuji and Xerox. But there is still no official policy in the public sector yet for promoting the procurement and use of environmentally sound products and technologies. Why? Commitment and support from the Government would promote green procurement practices in the private and people sector. It would lead to the increase of imports and local development of more eco-friendly products and technology. It could propel the expansion of the range and quality of such products locally and promote the export of eco-friendly products to external markets. It will also give greater substance and an additional dimension to Singapore's clean and green image by going one significant step further. By taking the lead for sound eco-friendly practices, the Government agencies will enhance their credibility and Singapore's reputation, both locally and abroad.”
“Environmental R&D is one of the three growth areas identified by the Prime Minister in the National Research Foundation. Does this include energy efficient and alternative fuel technologies? With regard to the people sector, what is the Government doing to raise public awareness and change mindsets? Will Government walk the talk in this area? I quote Sir David King, the chief scientific adviser to the UK government: "We must initiate a massive mindset change that is supported by governments in the forms of policy change and fiscal incentives." Finally, are different Government agencies approaching this challenge in an integrated way? Are we studying Clean Development Offices and other government regulatory mechanisms and policies around the world so that we can determine the most appropriate and effective climate change policy for Singapore? If Singapore aspires to be a global city, we must face global challenges, and climate change is the greatest of these challenges. 12.30 pm”
“Sir, climate change is a key challenge on the global agenda. Since the Kyoto Protocol came into effect a year ago, there has been a significant shift in scientific, political and public opinion, galvanised by events such as hurricanes Katrina and Rita and escalating oil prices. The question now is no longer "Is climate change happening?", but "What are we doing about it?" Even countries which have not ratified the Kyoto Protocol are coming up with strategies to prove they are doing something. An effective energy policy must include climate change issues - and the possibility of a carbon tax or carbon trading - on its agenda. I would like to ask the Minister how is Singapore playing its part in this global challenge. What are our present and future strategies for improving energy efficiency and reducing greenhouse gases? How does the Government see its role in the local, regional and global arena in meeting this challenge? Will Singapore be a leader, a follower or a slacker? With regard to the private sector, does the Government intend to lead or is it waiting for the private sector to take the initiative? In fact, several Singapore companies have already leveraged on the huge potential in the carbon services sector, cutting-edge technology and alternative fuels. I believe that they have already taken the initiative. But are Government organisations working in partnership with the private sector, both MNCs and SMEs, to support them in tapping into this growth market? Are we looking at areas of significant knowledge gaps, eg, environmental management and environmental law as well as environmental R&D where the potential for jobs is increasing rapidly? Will we build expertise in these areas? How much of our R&D funds will be invested in clean development mechanisms?”
“Mr Chairman, I would like to thank the Minister for his very comprehensive reply and emphasis that it is not numbers alone that we are pursuing, but it is tourism receipts. I would like to just clarify. I understand from what he said that we cannot increase the receipts without a certain increase in volume and that is why we are aiming to double our tourist numbers in 10 years' time, because there is no way we can increase the receipts to the desired level if we do not do that. Is that correct? I would just like to follow that up and say that if we double our tourist numbers, at a conservative estimate, especially if we hope that they will stay a little bit longer and that they do not stay outside of Singapore, we will need 30,000-50,000 more hotel rooms, unless maybe we create "B and B" in HDB. This, to me, seems to be something that you cannot just create overnight. You have to put the land aside. Even if you involve the private sector, the private sector cannot act if URA does not give the land. I understand that, for example, Shangri-La only has about 800 rooms. So if we are creating 30,000-50,000 more rooms, this will be a big commitment in terms of land and resources. Of course, it will create jobs, yes, when we are developing, but do we want that many more hotel rooms? Is this not something that we have to plan in advance?”
“In my opinion, it would be easier to revive Singapore from a reputation as backwater than to rescue a tarnished down market tourist reputation. Therefore, I think Singapore should resist the lure of numbers and focus on value-added tourists like students, long-term or repeat visitors, people who come for a specific purpose - cultural and arts tourists, medical tourists, even eco-tourists. We should also focus on the silver tourist industry. These people will have brand loyalty and integrate with rather than compete with locals, and they will add value. They will create high-end rather than low-end jobs. In my opinion, a truly cosmopolitan global city is one where locals and foreigners can interact in a meaningful and mutually beneficial way, not pass like ships in the night. I therefore recommend a more comprehensive and sustainable long-term tourist policy that builds on our core strengths and that deepens our rootedness.”
“Sir, last year, Singapore had a bumper record of 8.9 million tourists and generated $10.8 billion in tourist receipts. But 10 years ago, in 1996, we made even more in tourism receipts, $11 billion, with fewer tourists, 7.3 million. This calculates to 1.6 million less tourists but $200 million more in tourist receipts, in my opinion, a better performance, in terms of cost-effectiveness. And yet, we are now targeting to double our tourist numbers in 10 years' time, in order to triple our tourist receipts. The advent of two IRs and the surge of tourists from China and India should enable us to ride this new wave of tourism growth and achieve these targets, but I would like to ask the Minister: is this the best and most sustainable way to grow our tourism industry? Or is it just the easiest way? Does it value add? The exponential growth of tourists and tourist infrastructure can exceed the limits of healthy growth and tilt us towards a malignant growth if we just continue crunching numbers. Are we creating new markets or are we just chasing old ones? Does Singapore have the land and resources to cope with this pressure? How many hotels will we need? And where is the land for them to come from? What types of jobs will be created? What percentage of these will be skilled jobs? Mass tourism is notoriously fickle and susceptible to fashion, economic downturns, currency changes, epidemics, terrorism or the fear of any of these. And not only does it put a heavy strain on a country's resources but it also negatively impacts on the residents by increasing petty crimes - we read about that recently - drug trafficking, prostitution, the risk of diseases and their quality of life in general. It also deters the more discerning and discriminating visitor.”
“Yes. Thank you for that reply. But I think this illustrates what I was trying to say that we need a more integrated approach. If the Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources is responsible for the erosion but the Ministry of National Development is responsible for the planning, then I think there is a lack of integration there which illustrates what I was trying to say that on the water and coastal areas, we could do with much better integration under one agency that would coordinate all the different stakeholders, both Government and non-Government.”
“I would like to thank the Minister of State for his lengthy and comprehensive reply. But I also raised the question of new challenges, such as global warming. I saw in the Straits Times today an article on land erosion off East Coast and Pasir Ris Park. If I may have Mr Speaker's permission to briefly read, "When the beaches were first reclaimed, the elevated breakwaters were intended to protect the shore immediately behind them. However, it now appears that in some parts of beaches, including East Coast Park, erosion may have occurred even behind breakwaters. This could be because the height and force of the waves have been greater than anticipated." There is a strong possibility that we will have even stronger waves even though we are immune from the tsunami, or if we think we are. With all these plans, including Marina Bay, what studies have we done as to the impact, maybe not now, maybe not 10 years, but 20, 30 or 40 years? I think any developments we have, surely we want them to last and not going to be re-remade every five years, even though we review them every five years. What plans have we got to protect Singapore - the coast, the marine areas and the land - from climate change. I would be grateful if the Minister of State would clarify that.”
“We have no marine reserves, we have high biodiversity, and they are exposed to high risks. This lack of adequate laws is particularly surprising when we consider that Singapore is exceptional and, I believe, even unique. We have a rich biodiversity. We have the capability to develop it, both the infrastructure and expertise in life science research, unlike most biodiverse countries. And we have them concentrated in a very small area. It takes less than an hour to go from the field to the laboratory. Which other country has this? We have a "3-in-1" in a highly concentrated form. Moreover, our geographical location in Southeast Asia near the epicentre of global biodiversity provides us with regional opportunities to develop our shared biodiversity. I, therefore, urge the Government to: (1) recognise our biodiversity as a valuable economic and scientific resource; (2) give it the legal protection it deserves and desperately needs; and (3) leverage on our unique position, both locally and regionally, to develop the use of it in a sustainable manner. If we fail to recognise and respond to this window of opportunity, we will end up as a nation with no natural resources. It will then be a small consolation to realise that this description is not a result of a lack of natural endowments or a lack of ability and opportunity to use them, but a lack of foresight. Greening of Singapore”
“I believe the statement is only accurate in a very narrow sense and timeframe which is now outdated, ie, a natural resource is something that is immediately translatable into hard cash in a manufacturing-based economy. In this era of a knowledge-based economy with large investments in the life sciences, I believe it is high time we made the long overdue connection with nature, and value our biodiversity as a precious natural resource. For example, 62% of all cancer drugs are said to be created from bioprospecting discoveries, and the patenting of bioprospecting discoveries has exploded from less than a dozen in 2000 to over 100 in 2005. But experts tell me that it is actually in the realm of biomimetics, where the gains are enormous and the potential is endless. Bioprospecting, not just for molecules but for ideas and solutions from nature which can be replicated or redesigned in the laboratory by reverse engineering, is where the real value is. But this requires close collaboration between the biologist, engineer and, of course, nature, and we have all three. The richer our endowment of biodiversity, the larger our capital for investments and spin-offs. Many countries which are rich in biodiversity, eg, India, the Philippines, Malaysia, now have strict laws protecting them from commercial exploitation by other countries, and they also have multilateral agreements. But Singapore still lacks laws that are designed to protect our biodiversity. Yes, we have laws that protect our nature reserves, but these cover only a very small fraction of the island, ie, less than 3%, and our primary forest, less than 1%. Biodiversity in other parts of our island is not protected. In particular, marine biodiversity is at risk.”
“30 pm Their potential for research and advancement of our life science industry is enormous, as well as the ecological, education and recreation services they provide. This is a new growth area and Singapore does need new growth areas. I believe the fact that our corals and marine life have managed to survive, despite our port, land reclamation, petrochemical and other activities, is testimony to their hardiness, and we should seek to protect them as best as we can with a comprehensive Blue Plan and Development Guide Plans, as we do for land. We are likely to have to face the impact of global warming and possible sea rises, and this will have serious implications not just on the environment but social and economic impacts as well. Surely, this requires a proactive multi-agency approach in an integrated manner. Many countries already have done comprehensive studies on this issue. Has Singapore done research on this and, if so, can we know the results or the findings? How will our land reclamation be affected? How will projects like Marina Bay be affected? Will erosion be a problem? I believe it is better to know what we have and what we can expect and plan accordingly, rather than not know or ignore it just to make planning easier. I, therefore, call for a Master Plan and a Blue Plan for Singapore's waters and off-shore islands. Biodiversity Protection Sir, Singapore has some of the richest biodiversity in the world, both terrestrial and marine, and new species are constantly being discovered. Yet, we still describe ourselves as a country with no natural resources.”
“I think it is fair to say that a generation ago, a larger proportion of Singaporeans used to live and play in our seas and offshore islands than they do now today. This is not due to a lack of interest on the part of Singaporeans. For example, East Coast Parkway is always packed, especially on weekends; trips to Chek Jawa are snapped up and even oversubscribed the moment they are announced; we have 100,000 certified divers, 3,000 amateur boaters and sailors and about 250,000 fishermen, and Singaporeans are estimated to spend about $32 million per annum on overseas dive trips. But increasingly, Singaporeans have had to look overseas or within our restricted inland waters to pursue water sports and hobbies, because our marine areas are out of bounds, difficult to access or degraded. For example, divers in Pulau Hantu and the southern islands tell me it is perpetual haze down there. And this compromises their safety as well as their enjoyment. Yet, Pulau Hantu was and still can be ideal for beginners who want to learn to dive; if we work for a creative co-existence. Yes, we have ambitious tourist and leisure developments. We have just heard some of them. But these need to be supported by a rich menu of choices, both for tourists and locals. I believe that most successful tourist destinations and activities exist in symbiosis with local patronage. Another area of neglect is the scientific and educational area. When I wrote to the Forum page, asking for Chek Jawa to be saved, URA replied initially that they did not think the area merited it as there were no coral reefs. We have 73 patch reefs and 35 fringing reefs in the southern islands but still no marine conservation area. 12.”
“Sir, I heard from the Minister that Singapore is land scarce, so we have optimised what little we have through a comprehensive Master Plan, and the result has been very impressive. I agree. But Singapore is far more than a garden city or even "a city in a garden". We are actually 64 tropical islands set in Singapore waters. And our seas are as much an integral part of Singapore as our land; but while we have done very well on land, I believe that our marine and coastal areas have suffered from the lack of more integrated planning and protection. I therefore propose that we develop a Master Plan for all coastal and marine areas, not just Marina Bay. In this Master Plan, we incorporate a detailed and comprehensive Blue Plan for marine conservation that is based on regular surveys of our seas. This should be under an agency with overall authority and responsibility which will work with other agencies and stakeholders to coordinate and integrate the planning, implementation and regular review of the Master Plan, like the URA does, but of course not dominated by urban planners. This agency should also coordinate project and research future challenges and threats, such as climate change. Yes, we must have our port, petrochemical industry, land reclamation, but I believe a Master Plan will improve on our present rather patchy approach, which has resulted in the negative impact or neglect of certain aspects of our marine resources and environment. In addition, we are going to face new challenges to our marine and coastal areas and their management and protection as a result of climate change. One of the areas that I feel, despite what the Minister said about Marina Bay, that has suffered neglect is leisure and recreational facilities.”
“In summary, therefore, I would like to say that I hope that the National Research Foundation will focus on these two areas as part of our environmental and water research, and our biomedical technology research; developing clean development mechanisms as part of our environmental research and looking at translational research between our biomedical industry and our rich biodiversity. This, I believe, will add a new dimension and greater value to our clean and green image and therefore our future sustainability. With that, I support the motion. 6.22 pm”
“I think Members must have read of the Belgian scientist who discovered 150 new species of long-legged flies in Singapore. These are not just flies that can be found anywhere in our neighbouring countries. Apparently, some of them, I am told, which are found in the mangroves are only found in extreme climatic conditions like mountain tops somewhere way up in the north. These provide some very rich sources of genetic material and research potential. A local example is pyrogene which is found in horseshoe crabs' blood and has now created a market of hundreds of millions of dollars, and I gather it is one of the biggest earners for NUS at present. It has been shown that products from genetic resources and their derivatives often command far higher a price than standard indicators of value such as gold, for example. Taxol, which is an anti- cancer drug developed from the yew bark, has a retail price that is 1,200 times that of gold by weight. What is more, products which are developed from genetic resources also have a far higher price than the basic raw material. For example, take Taxol again, if you take yew clippings from which Taxol is developed, it is priced at US 75 cents per kilogramme, but Taxol itself is US$12 million per kilogramme. This works out to 16 million times higher in value. And the ballpark estimate of annual market for products developed derived from genetic resources, not just pharmaceuticals and healthcare products but other areas of biotechnology as well, ranges from a conservative US$500 billion to a high of US$800 billion. So I believe that this is one area of R&D under our biomedical sciences that we should definitely be looking at.”
“Singapore, I believe, is almost unique in having both. We have both our natural resources and we have the capability to develop it. Not only that, because of our small size, it takes about half-an-hour to get from field to laboratory. How many countries have this? Those countries which are biodiverse-rich, like Brazil and the Philippines, even if they do have the laboratories, they have to travel long distances. In some countries, eg, Malaysia, there are strict laws between states so that those states which are biodiverse rich, like Sarawak, have trouble bringing materials into areas where they have the capability, say, in Kuala Lumpur, to research into it. Singapore, therefore, is unique in having all these concentrated in our small island - a small powerhouse - of biodiversity technology. Dr Tony Tan, former Deputy Prime Minister, had said about our biomedical sciences initiative and the lessons that we have learnt from it, ie, "to make a significant impact on the world as well as the economic benefits for Singapore, we have no choice but to specialise." In a sense, to try and identify areas in which Singapore has got some competitive advantage and, I believe, this is one of the areas. Singapore should leverage on this competitive advantage to link our biomedical sciences to our rich biodiversity. Unfortunately, many of our present researchers in the life sciences are imported. This means that they have not grown up in Singapore and they do not have a concept of how rich our biodiversity is. They see Singapore largely as a city. But, concurrently, we also have many naturalists, both locals and foreigners, who are still studying and discovering new species in Singapore.”
“I think we have to congratulate the Government for this. But, at present, most, if not all, of this biomedical research is done in the laboratory. And yet, if you ask any scientist or doctor, they will agree that mother nature is a better scientist and healer than man. As one would expect, she had a headstart of a few million years. So, I think that nature cannot only be studied in the laboratory. Biomedical sciences cannot only be studied in the laboratory. You have to go to the field. You have to look at ecosystems. You have to study direct from nature rather than remove her in isolated in vitro specimens. The Minister for Trade and Industry has emphasised the importance of translational research in order to tighten the link between basic research and clinical applications in the biomedical sciences. I think this is an excellent initiative. May I suggest that this translational research be extended to the area of translation between different disciplines and between different areas of one discipline? We are getting so sub-specialised that everything is being divided instead of being integrated, and this is something that should be reversed. We should also look at translational research between the laboratory-based and field-based research, and between man and nature. Singapore, Sir, as you have heard from me many times, has a very rich biodiversity. Although we regard it as a rich heritage, we have still yet to develop it in the way that it deserves, as a scientific research area. Most countries which have biodiversity are less developed and they have less infrastructure or knowledge to convert it into commercially-viable products or technologies. On the other hand, most developed countries do not have a rich biodiversity. They have lost it.”
“As a water-challenged country, we have done very well indeed in facing up to the problem and converting it to a growth industry that will benefit not just our economy or our environment but our national sustainability. I believe that we should do the same for energy. Singapore has no oil, gas; we do not even have coal, and, as I mentioned, oil prices are escalating. So energy efficiency, alternative fuels and clean development mechanisms must be one of our key target areas for R&D and the global market for this is enormous and will continue to grow. While we must do our best to mitigate climate change, we also have to look into mitigating the possible effects of climate change such as greater and more frequent swings in climatic streams, rising sea levels, more potential outbreaks of disease as a result of these climatic disruptions. There has already been a theory that the rising dengue has been because of the increased rainfall we had last year. So will these areas be targeted in our R&D under the areas of environment and water? Perhaps we should look to nature for more ideas and inspiration. I had already mentioned, but I will bring it up again, that mangroves have been shown to be some of the best ways of preventing land erosion and silt. Perhaps we should get some inspiration from that as to how to protect our coastlines in the event of a rise in sea level and more rough seas even though we have been told we will be resistant to tsunamis. Of course, mangroves also act as a natural sequester for carbon dioxide. The other area of R&D that I should like to address is that of our biomedical sciences. Our venture into this area five years ago, practically from scratch, has now grown into a S$10 billion industry and contributes 6% of our GDP.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to join in the debate. I rise in support of the motion. The Budget this year tries and, I think, generally succeeds to be humane and progressive, to be both focused and holistic, far-seeing and far-reaching in both its concepts and its consequences. I would, therefore, just limit myself to one area, the knowledge based economy and, in particular, the National Research Foundation. Minister Mentor had a vision soon after Singapore's independence on a clean and green Singapore. This has turned out to be a blue-chip legacy for all of us. Every Singaporean has benefited from this vision and we still continue to benefit from it. But, as beneficiaries, should we just sit back and reap the dividends or should we value add? Obviously, the latter. I believe that in order for his vision of clean and green to stay relevant in today's and tomorrow's changing environment, R&D is an important aspect. Sir, first of all, I should like to talk about the R&D in relation to climate change. Climate change was not an issue 40, 30 or even 10 years ago, otherwise, I am sure our past leaders would have addressed the issue. Now, today, no country can ignore this, not only because of the potentially devastating long-term effects but because of the rise in oil prices which is likely to continue. So climate change is something that has to be in every political agenda and in every energy policy of any country, whether it has or has not ratified the Kyoto Protocol. One of the three key areas identified in the National Research Foundation is that of the environment and water.”
“Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his comprehensive reply. But may I clarify a few points? One of them is with regard to casino taxation. I did ask the question yesterday. It was said that the casino tax of 15% and 5% respectively would not be increased for the next 15 years. I asked the Minister whether it means that it could be decreased, or is the intention that it will be unchanged. I would be grateful if the Minister would clarify whether it is the intention of the Bill to allow for a decrease within the next 15 years. Secondly, I would like to go back to the question of the annual membership. I understand, from what the Minister has said, that this is just a legislative framework and you cannot macro-manage it. And as the Minister has also said, we cannot enshrine all the functions of the Council into the Bill. My question is: why are we enshrining this $2,000 annual membership into the Bill when it seems to me that it contradicts the $100 levy? To me, I just do not see how this can expand the functions of the $100 levy because, as I have mentioned, the moment you have put down $2,000, you would be tempted to gamble more rather than to gamble less. So it seems to me like the sort of incentives that the casino operator would be tempted to put in or request to be put in, rather than an extension of what the $100 levy is. It seems, to me, to neutralise the $100 levy, rather than to reinforce it.”
“Mr Speaker, my question is whether the organisers could look into providing an option of having some green cars.”
“Sir, although the Ministry cannot dictate that green cars are provided, perhaps the Government should recognise that, at this point in time, many responsible world leaders and other members of a meeting, such as IMF, would prefer green cars. So, while I am not suggesting that all the cars provided should be green cars, should we not try and ensure that at least a certain percentage of green cars are available? There are many now on the market, and I believe we have quite a fleet of CNG Mercedes cabs as well. So, it should not be a problem to encourage or indicate that it would be a good idea to have some green cars.”
“Like other Members before me, I am very disturbed to see that most of it, if not all, deal with the family exclusion order and there is really nothing in this Bill that seems to provide for an overall integrated strategy to deal with the problem of pathological gambling. The Minister has said that the National Council has done research and has already started on public education. This is very commendable, but it would be good if we knew that they would sustain this, that the Bill provides for this, and that there is an organisation which will research, track, prevent and, if possible, remedy problem gambling. Above all, we need an integrated approach to the social problem. In conclusion, may I say that I know that having casinos here in Singapore is a new development. We are learning as we go along. While this Bill serves many purposes, I think the priority should be given to minimise social harm rather than be tilted towards making sure that the casino operators get maximum profits from their investment. If there is any doubt, I believe that we should err on the side of caution, and emphasise the protection aspect rather than the profitability aspect. 5.30 pm”
“" To me, "increase" means it could be unchanged or decreased, but I gather from what the Minister said that it will be unchanged. He did not say anything about decrease. Can I therefore suggest that "unchanged" should be substituted with "shall be unchanged for a period of 15 years", if that is what is intended. Finally, still on the casino tax, clause 146(6), the formula for taxation, ie, "gaming revenue", is A minus B minus C. B is defined as the amount paid out as winnings on all games by the casino operator. I am told that casino operators can have a very creative definition for the amount paid out as winnings. They could include commitments, rebates or other incentives. Could this be spelt out more clearly? I cannot find a definition of it in the Bill. I should like to move on to the casino tax and use of the levy to benefit society. Let me commend the Bill here for stating that the levy will go to the Singapore Totalisator Board. However, it does not mention anything about where the casino tax will go or, at least, whether a portion of the casino tax will be used for social and charitable causes. I think that we should have a percentage of the casino tax, with perhaps a specified minimum sum, that also goes to benefit society directly. While the levy may go to the Singapore Totalisator Board, I believe that on the principle of "polluter pays", a section of the levy, or the casino tax or both, should fund problem gambling, and the expenses of the National Council on Problem Gambling and the Casino Regulatory Authority. These have been touched on by other Members, so I will not go into details on these except to support them in this proposal. I should also, in conclusion, like to talk on the National Council on Problem Gambling.”
“If I were on the judging panel, I think I would be hard-pressed to make a distinction because Singaporeans are tourists too. They will be visitors to the casino. This is something new for those who have not gone abroad to a casino. And anything that is attractive enough to bring tourists here will certainly be attractive enough to attract Singaporeans who do not have, for example, to pay the additional airfare. Even if you have more hotels in the Integrated Resorts - where existing hotels in Singapore have already been giving special packages - a lot of their clientele are Singaporeans, particularly in the F&B outlets. So although I applaud this 40% weightage in the tenders, I do not think this will succeed in making the Integrated Resorts attract more tourists than Singaporeans. The best way to do that is to have a tax differential. Of course, you may argue that it seems discriminatory and why should we treat our visitors so badly. The answer to that is that Singaporeans, because they live here, are "sitting ducks", whereas tourists, who come for a short period, will be moving targets. Therefore, unless there is a tax differential, I, as a casino operator, will be tempted to target a "sitting duck", ie, a Singaporean. It is easier to get Singaporeans to the casino. However, I share the concerns of the Member - Mr Ong Kian Min - who spoke before me about foreign students and other long-term visitors. May I say that they - anyone who comes to Singapore for some other reason, particularly students - should be in the category that is not a tourist category. I would like to move on to clause 146(3). It says here that, "The rates of tax specified in subsection (2) shall not be increased for a period of 15 years.”
“The distinction between premium players and other players is quite clearly stated in the Bill, but the distinction in real life is not so clear. Not everyone who can have a deposit of $100,000 can necessarily afford to lose that sum of money. I think there is a grey scale. And if we give such a big tax differential, might we not be giving an incentive to casino operators to create more premium players than actually exist? This would, of course, lead them down the slippery slope to problem gambling because, as we know, problem gamblers start off small. They not only start frequenting the casinos more often, but they also start putting larger and larger sums of money. And if the casino has a tax incentive to push them into putting larger sums of money, this is potentially a very dangerous practice that might result in this tax differential. So I would therefore urge that there should be no distinction. The tax should be 15% for both premium and other players. If for some reason or other, a tax differential is required, can I suggest that we should consider one between Singaporeans and non-Singaporeans? This would give the necessary incentives for casino operators to encourage tourists rather than locals and, therefore, boost the tourist sector which is, after all, what was cited as one of the main reasons for having Integrated Resorts with casinos in Singapore. This seems to me, therefore, to be a far more logical way of having a tax differential. I know that the tender documents have stated that the main weightage (40%) of the selection process would be based on whether an Integrated Resort can attract tourists. But how can you design an Integrated Resort that will attract tourists rather than locals? How can you make the distinction?”
“I do not think we should be lowering it, but we should have a provision to be able to increase it, if necessary, within 10 years. I should now like to move on to the casino tax under Part IX, clause 146. My question here is: why is there a tax differential between premium players and other players and why is the tax differential so high? Although I have not travelled around the world and studied casinos, I gathered that most casino operators would prefer premium players if they can get them because they are better value for their investment. Therefore, it seems to me that it would be a rational practice for a casino operator to target premium players. So why do we have to offer a tax incentive and such a large differential - a 10% differential - to get them to do what they might or would do under ordinary business practices? In addition, we have other measures in place, like the $100 levy and the restriction on casino floor space. These would again reinforce the preference for premium players. We are also giving these two IRs, prime or premier locations, which would therefore attract premium players. I understand that some other countries do give tax incentives to premium players, but only tax incentives to premium players coming from Asian countries. We are part of Asia, so we are geographically already advantaged. I do not think, like the US or Australia, we have to give a tax incentive to get premium players to come here. My concern again for this differential between premium players and other players is that not only might this be unnecessary, but it might even be a subsidy to the casino operators for something that they would do under normal business practices. So it might actually be a dangerous thing to have this tax differential.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, my first point is on the entry levy. We have heard from the Minister that this has excited a lot of comments and public feedback and we have also heard a lot from other Members of the House. Although I agree with Members and the members of the public who feel that it is difficult to finetune the sum of the levy, I support the purpose of the levy, which is to discourage Singaporeans from gambling and to emphasise the fact that gambling is an expense and not an easy way to get rich. But I would like to query clause 116(1)(b). If the purpose of the levy is really to deter Singaporeans from gambling, how does the $2,000 for a valid annual membership work? Does that give 20 times the protection that a $100 levy gives, or does it protect you for the whole year? I would argue that, in fact, that is the opposite. It is equivalent to a "jumble discount package". In fact, anyone who does simple sums will find that if you have already put down $2,000 downpayment, to make your money worthwhile, you have to gamble at least 20 times, or at least 20 days. And if you do more than that, you get a bargain. It is like these club or hotel memberships for a year where you pay a membership fee and you get discounts at all the hotel and F&B outlets. So you have a captive clientele. I would therefore ask the Minister to delete this $2,000 annual membership because it is working in contradiction to the whole purpose of the levy, as stated by the Minister. I should also like to comment on clause 116(4). As has been recognised, the levy and the sum that have been fixed are an experiment. To maintain it for 10 years without any possibility of varying it is, I believe, an unnecessarily inflexible mechanism. I think we could finetune it.”
“Although the prevalence rate may have come down slightly or at least remained fairly stable, I am told by endocrinologists that the prevalence of Type II Diabetes in younger people has gone up. Could he confirm this? I am also told that although, as we know, diabetes is a multi-factorial disease and that it is related to lifestyle, a lot of this Type II Diabetes in younger people is due to obesity. Although I realise that tackling the problem in an upstream way is harder than in, say, cigarette smoking, I would like to put to the Minister that it should still be done because, especially if people get it at a younger age, they have a longer life expectancy in which to develop complications like renal failure, and they will be a great burden to themselves and to society.”
“I am just expanding on my question. For example, what about advertising? Perhaps, we should treat diabetes, because of its risk, like we treat cigarette-smoking. Advertisers should be required, if they are advertising sweets or sugar drinks or food, to put a warning on diabetes in it.”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. Although the figures showed that we seem to be keeping the incidence and prevalence of diabetes under control - at least it has not been increasing in the last few years - this is still a very big problem for Singapore and the region. And we have all the risk factors - urbanisation, affluence and the fact that we are in Asia. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State if we can do even more in the prevention by having a more upstream approach, perhaps, a bigger budget for research, education and public awareness as opposed to dealing with the problem mainly downstream, and whether we could have a more integrated and coordinated approach between, say, the Government and voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs). For instance, it seems to be that a lot of the voluntary welfare organisations may be better equipped to deal with the problem upstream in terms of community education, rather than provide facilities like NKF has been doing for patients who have become end-stage diabetic cases.”
“This sort of switch that the virus makes is something that we cannot always prevent, although WHO suggests that we have to spend at least $1 billion on Avian Flu to try and prevent it. Otherwise, we will lose many times that quantum. But where there is low hanging fruit, like closing the loopholes on the illegal wildlife trade, we should do it and we can do it. I applaud the Government for the new Bill on endangered species. With this, I support the Bill. 3.35 pm”
“So a handful of AVA officers with the expertise can never implement this effectively. I would ask for better education of other enforcement agencies working with AVA to implement this. Finally, I would like to also call for better public education. A lot of the illegal wildlife that is brought into Singapore is done so with the unwitting participation of an ignorant community or members of the public. And I think a lot could be done, together with this new Bill, to alert members of the public, not just on the dangers to the illegal wildlife but the dangers to the community if illegal wildlife comes to Singapore. Because illegal wildlife, as we have heard, comes through in a sizable volume. A lot of these animals are kept in highly unsanitary, crowded places. A lot of them die in transit. And this, as we all know, is one of the best ways to spread disease. It is impossible to track them, either the source or the movements, because it is illegal. And, finally, they are released into the community. Once they are released into the community, we cannot track them at all. A lot of them would be released into homes, but some of them are released into our national parks and reserves. Because, after people buy them, they may decide that they do not want them any more and the wildlife are put into the reservoirs of our drinking water. They are put into the national parks, and then it is too late. May I just mention here that in the case of SARS, the crucial scientific link when the virus mutated and became dangerous to humans has still not been found and experts say it will probably never be found now.”
“Professor Li Wendong, in an article on SARS, when he did his research on SARS, mentioned this in relation to a market in Guangzhou where there was a lot of illegal wildlife trading. Singapore does not have the conditions that China has but, however, as has been noted, we do have an illegal wildlife trade. I fully support the attempt by this Bill to eradicate this trade. However, I would like to address the issue of implementation which I am sure the Government fully intends to implement as effectively as possible. It has been brought to my attention, and this has already been mentioned by the hon. Member, Dr Amy Khor, that at present, AVA does not have enough manpower to effectively implement the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act. Despite the hopeful deterrent that higher penalties will have, this must be matched by the training of more AVA officers. NGO groups have done their part and, in fact, I have heard from ACRES that they not only alert AVA officers after doing their own recces, they have to go and pick up the AVA officers and drive them to the locations because apparently, there is not enough transport provided. I do not know how many vans AVA has for their officers, but they are not enough. The other area for better implementation that I would like to suggest is that AVA officers work more closely with other Government agencies, customs and immigration offices and the Police Force. A large part of this Bill is made up of a list of endangered species. I must confess that despite being President of the Nature Society, on reading through this list, I do not recognise half of them. It is all in Latin, of course, among other things. Obviously, we cannot expect the ordinary man-in-the-street, the police and the immigration officers to know.”
“Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate. I would like to applaud the Government for the new Bill on endangered species. I could not help noticing that the debate yesterday has dealt on many issues pertaining to national security. Of course, the National Service was the highlight. But there were other issues like security of the Causeway, terrorism and even the possible risk of Singapore being exposed to tsunami and Avian flu. These are all issues of national security. I applaud this Endangered Species (Import and Export) Bill because I think this deals with an area which also pertains to national security. May I say here that I would like to clarify that I am not talking about protecting animals against people. Dr Amy Khor has actually covered that ground very well. I am glad that she did. I am going to concentrate on protecting people from wildlife. It has been well-recognised that there has been a sharp rise in the incidence of zoonosis or diseases transmitted by animals. Why? It is certainly not because of an increase in wildlife in the world, but the experts say it is because of changing conditions that bring wildlife into closer contact with humans. There are certain conditions or causes which we cannot do anything about - increased globalism, increased international trade, increased international tourism, increased urbanisation. But there are causes which we can do something about, and which we should do something about and the illegal wildlife trade is definitely one of them. It has been shown by experts that one of the most dangerous cocktails you could have to generate new pathogens like SARS, for example, is close unnatural and unnecessary proximity between wildlife, domestic animals and humans.”
“Sir, there are many marine areas in the south especially which have richer biodiversity than the Sisters Islands. Are any of these likely to receive some recognition, if not protection, in the future? In view of increasing evidence that it is not balance but integration between economic and environmental areas, which is what a country should do if you want to maximise, will the Ministry consider environmental impact assessments in the marine areas that we are talking about even if they have to be used for other functions?”
“So I am very happy that National Servicemen now feel that this is such an entrenched practice and that there is a high level of commitment now. But this level of commitment has taken 40 years of independence to develop. It was not there then and Melvyn Tan and many other people in his shoes would probably, I feel, have behaved differently in present circumstances. Whatever the pros and cons may be, let me conclude by saying that in Singapore now, we consider National Service a practice which is an act of commitment and from what has been said by the Minister and some of the Members in the House, it is not considered a chore but it is considered an honour by most Singaporeans. So let us continue this happy state and increase it by combining the penalties with increased flexibility.”
“I think that, in this globalised knowledge-based economy, where a basic degree is really just the beginning, many more people will be going for postgraduate studies, they will not be able to take time off or, at least, if they take time off in between the undergraduate and the postgraduate degrees, it would be at great personal sacrifice, and I believe also great sacrifice to the nation. I am not asking for special treatment for any particularly talented or privileged individuals. This is a principle that should apply to all. But I think if Singapore wants to be more globalised, we want to enter into a knowledge-based economy, we have to recognise that a postgraduate degree is considered by many as something that is sine qua non of their education. Therefore, I do not think that we should put the individuals, if we can, in a position where they have to choose between personal development and National Service. Where possible, we should try and create a win-win situation where they can have both. As has been pointed out by other Members of the House, I think you will get more commitment to the nation if you do this rather than less. I consider that so far, the Melvyn Tan's case, although the court has decided already, has been a no-win situation because he has not felt that he is welcomed back to Singapore. I would like to make a special plea for Melvyn Tan, not because of his talent which is of course considerable, but because of his age. I belong to that same generation and I would like to ask those who feel outraged by what they see as a privileged treatment to put themselves in his shoes and take a historical perspective. When Melvyn Tan left, Singapore was a fledgling nation and, in fact, National Service had not been started.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to join in the debate. The Minister has stated very clearly that the purpose of National Service is to fulfil the critical need to provide us with national security. He has also stated that this has been implemented fairly, not to be implemented fairly but to be seen to be implemented fairly, because of the significant sacrifice that it entails on the individuals, on their families and on the nation. I fully endorse all this. I am also very, very encouraged to hear him say that, beyond the importance of this, it is the commitment of the individual National Serviceman that is important and that MINDEF has recognised this by doing a census which he (if I remember the figure correctly, 92%) said that they will risk their lives for the country. I feel that we could raise this to 100%. I do not think this is going to be raised by increasing fines and penalties. While I do not contest the need for increasing fines and penalties, I think that this must be matched with increasing flexibility as to how the law is implemented. I agree that you cannot be too creative that playing a piano is not going to count as a form of National Service. But I would like to suggest that it is not so much how we implement it, but when it is implemented. I would plead for more flexibility, as some of the other Members have, on when an individual serves his National Service. There must be an element of trust between the State and the individual. When a young man asks for deferment, even repeated deferments, it should not be assumed that he is intended to default.”
“Most of the NEWater today is supplied to industries and commercial buildings for non-potable use, for which WCT is not levied. With advances in technology and improved energy efficiency, the cost of desalination may come down in the future. Sir, we will continue to monitor this, and review water prices accordingly.”
“Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, in light of the four National Taps having been effectively set up and potable water no longer a limited and scarce resource, will the Government consider removing, or at least reducing, the water conservation and tariff tax on the household utilities bill. Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: Sir, for Singapore, water will always be a strategic resource. We have diversified our sources of water through the four National Taps strategy to ensure the long-term reliability and sustainability of our water supply. But even so, we cannot assume that water has now become an inexhaustible gift of nature. Water remains for us a limited and scarce resource, which we must economise and use wisely. This is why in addition to having the four National Taps, we also encourage Singaporeans to conserve water. One of the mechanisms to do this is the Water Conservation Tax (WCT). The WCT and the water tariff are put in place, firstly, to enable PUB to recover the full cost of production and distribution, and secondly, to ensure that the total price to consumers reflects the marginal cost of the next available source of drinking water, which is desalinated water. On this basis, we have set the WCT and tariff such that most households today pay a total price of $1.52 per cubic metre. This is approximately the cost of producing and delivering desalinated water to households. The price of potable water is benchmarked against the cost of desalinated water, and not NEWater. This is because NEWater is not supplied directly to homes - only a small amount is pumped into the reservoirs for indirect potable use.”
“Sir, the Minister has said that the risk of a tsunami affecting Singapore is low but, despite that, we are taking precautions as the Singapore Government has a reputation of doing. It has been shown in the recent tsunami that countries or areas who had retained mangroves and coral reefs were to a large extent protected and conversely, those countries which had destroyed their ecosystems were most severely affected. Is anything being done in Singapore to preserve our mangroves and coral ecosystems, not just against tsunamis but against other natural disasters, for example, land erosion? In those areas which they have been destroyed, how about regrowing them? I know that Semakau is a very good example of good environmental practices but there are other areas in Singapore which are not such good examples. Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: Sir, as I have mentioned in my reply, because the probability of being hit by a tsunami is very low, we are actually not doing anything about it. We are part of the Indian Ocean warning system and we are beefing up our local capability to play that role. On the Member's suggestion of whether we want to do something with mangroves because it is proven to be a natural barrier, I think she is aware that we work together with the Nature Society and other NGOs to preserve as much as possible what we have as natural habitats within Singapore and she has cited the good example of Semakau. As and when we see the need to do so, we will continue to do so. Column No : 1968 WATER CONSERVATION TAX AND TARIFF (Reduction) 8.”
“This very first session was attended mostly by the support staff with teaching staff forming only a very small percentage. When the Provost opened the session for Question and Answer, the very first question came from a supporting staff and the question was, "Will there be more outsourcing after the university corporatisation?" Other questions from the supporting staff are whether the more senior or mature staff will be retrenched after the corporatisation when it becomes more cost-conscious. Sir, one main concern of the supporting staff is the likelihood of being retrenched in a cost-conscious corporatised university. Many of the support staff are concerned that the style of management in a corporatised university would differ significantly from that of the traditional universities and move towards a more robust or even cut-throat style, known as managerialism, suchthat senior staff after 30 or 40 years of service to the university, would be retrenched after the corporatisation. The other main concern of the support staff is the emphasis of a corporatised university on short-term employment leading to a possible increasein outsourcing, where more temporary staffare being hired and used when necessary. Sir, with more temporary staff, it would be difficult to enhance a sense of ownership of these staff which are a stakeholder of the university towards the university. With an increase in outsourcing, this may lead to a drop in the service quality of the university. So I hope that MOE will work with the university to address these concerns of the supporting staff in the university. Sir, in conclusion, I support this Bill. 5.50 pm”
“If the fee increase is significant and the frequency ofincrease is high, I would urge the Ministry to consider scaling down the percentage of the fee hike allowed and stating that students once admitted into a programme in the university will not be seriously affected by a fee hike during their course of studies and stipulate this clearly in the Policy and Performance Agreement with the universities for avoiding the freedom of fee hike and increased burden on the undergraduates. Point 6: Review criteria for financial assistance There are currently a number of scholarships,bonds, loans,bursaries, financial assistance schemes as well as "study while you work" opportunities, to ensure that no qualified students will be denied entrance due to financial constraints. However, many students do not qualify for the bursaries and study loans and have ended up taking commercial loans, such that many of them are actually debt-ridden upon graduation. Currently, eligibility of bursaries and study loans depends on the combined income of a household. However, the combined income does not represent the true affordability as the older siblings in a family could all be paying back their study loans. As a result, many students could be denied of their financial assistance. Sir, the keywords here are "usable income". Sir, I hopeMOE and the universities will review the current criteria for eligibility for bursaries and study loans. Point 7: Concerns of supporting staff in the universities Lastly, I would like to highlight the general concerns of the supporting staff towards the university corporatisation. Sir, I recall that I attended the very first dialogue session that the university corporatisation committee held with the university staff.”
“Fifth, on university fees, Sir, I have spoken on this topic during the COS debate this year and I would like to bring it up again. After corporatisation, NUS would have the freedom in deciding its own fee structure.In January this year, SMU, a corporatised university, announced that their undergraduate tuition fees will be increased by 15% this August. After the corporatisation of NUS, the most concerned question on the minds of most students is whether the university is going to raise its fees. Sir, I spoke to a number of students and asked them what is their view of corporatisation with respect to how it affect them, and the most common answer that I received was: "As long as the fees do not increase during my course of study in NUS and the lecturers who teach us are good in their teaching so that we understand the materials being taught, corporatisation does not really matter a lot to us as we are only with the university for at most three to four years." Sir, MOE mentioned that after the corporatisation of the universities, they would have the liberty to increase their fees yearly, but capped at 10% over the previous year's fees. I hope that MOE could share with this House on what are the kinds of percentage increases in university fees and the frequency with which the fees will be increased that students can expect after the corporatisation of the university.”
“The removal of disciplines from university curricula follows automatically from the conception that a university produces a 'product' that can be 'consumed' and, if this particular productive unit has no buyers for its product, then logically it should not continue to exist. But, Sir, the process of allowing the market to determine academic priorities does bring with it problems of the credibility of standards. So we need to neutralise or minimise these harmful aspects of the corporatisation process by rejecting the idea that a university should follow market trends and reaffirm its special role as an institution dedicated to the pursuit of significant knowledge and lasting values. Fourth, Sir, national and social responsibility. We only have four universities in Singapore, unlike in USA where there are both state-run and private universities. Our universities are responsible to our Government and Singapore, and they should be training first-class human resources for the country. With the corporatisation of the universities, it means that the universities have now cut off their apron strings from MOE andthe Government and can now shake off their social responsibility towards Singapore. Sir, does it mean that the corporatised universities can now decide on their own ratio of intake of foreign students to local students? In this respect, can MOE share with this House on what will be the ratio of foreign students to local students intake after the corporatisation, and what are the measures that will be put in place to ensure that any change in this ratio of foreign students to local students intake by the universities will not be at the expense of local students?”
“Many are worrying that they will no longer be able to provide their children with a university education. With the corporatisation of these universities, I hope the MOE can share with this House on how it plans to work with the universities to ensure and enhance the quality of education and to prevent university education from being commoditised, to ensure that university education remains accessible and affordable. Third, technical excellence. As mentioned earlier, the corporate university has the predominating characteristics of being an institution that pursues technical excellence and as one that would follow a customer-and-supplier model of the basic educational relationship. Technical excellence would appear to be a suitable criterion for the purposes of a university, but the problem that arises is that the use of 'excellence' as an absolute standard has the effect of placing techniques above ends or values. The result of this predominance of techniques over values is the decline of classical disciplines, which Dr Lily Neo has earlier mentioned, which can be seen occurring on a global scale. In the American context, this process has been recounted by many observers and has been repeated in many other universities. In the countries where universities have been corporatised, many classics departments have been eliminated but this has not been restricted to the humanities alone as it is also occurring in the classical science disciplines of chemistry, physics and mathematics, where, again, the pure is giving way to the applied.”