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 2 of 4.
“Corporatised universities are expected to raise a much greater proportion of their own revenue, enter into business enterprises, acquire and hold investment portfolios, encourage partnerships with private business firms, compete with other universities in the production and marketing of courses to students who are now seen as customers, and generally engage with the market for higher education. The corporate university has the predominating characteristics of being an institution that pursues technical excellence and as one that would follow a supplier-and-customer model of the basic educational relationship. Ina corporatised university, students are seen as customers or clients, a concept which follows logically from the visualisation of a university as a business producing and marketing knowledge in the form of vocationally-oriented courses. While not intrinsically a non-academic procedure, critics of the system have noted that over-use of student evaluations undermines academic standards by creating a need to please and to give ever-higher grades. In addition, there is the consequence that they can be used to undermine the integrity and even existence of disciplines to the extent that there is a threat to the traditional subject of university education. Point 2: Education becomes a commodity Second, Sir, with the corporatisation of the universities, and students are now being seen as customers or clients,the university education will become a commodity. Sir, are we running the risk of commercialising the education process, and making university education a privilege of the rich? Sir, this is the question on the minds of many Singaporeans, especially those in the middle-income level and below.”
“I remember, as a university student, one of the best bits was when we went over - at that time the medical campus was separate -and had some interaction with the arts and humanities students. That, I felt, was a great education. Sir, in conclusion, may I say that, as Minister said, the universities are our key strategic investment for the future. But the most important stakeholder is not the Government but future generations of Singaporeans.I believe that the best way that this University Corporatisation Bill can add value to this investment is to give the universities autonomy where they need it. Assoc. Prof. Ong Soh Khim (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak on this Bill. I would first like to declare my interest. I am presently an associate professor at the National University of Singaporeand I am also an elected member of theUniversity Senate Delegacy. Sir, I welcome and support this Bill on NUS corporatisation. The corporatisation of NUS will allow it to compete effectively and to excel in this fast-changing and uncertain landscape. I would, however, like this House to consider certain points. And, unfortunately, being the last speaker on this Bill, a few points have already been raised earlier byhonourable Members, but I would still reiterate them. Point 1: Integrity of university education First,on the standard and integrity of university education. Sir, in simple terms, corporatisation means that universities are assumed to be very similar to large business organisations and, therefore, capable of being run as businesses.”
“You could ask universities to make their manpower projections,give them the necessary data and information to enable them to do so, and,importantly, you could fund them for manpower studies in areas decided either by them or Government, or jointly, but I do not think the funding should be dependent on Government's projections of manpower outputs, especially such short-term ones. I believe that this is going to be done on an annual basis. So where is the long-term vision in this? On a broader sense, I would echo again what Dr Lily Neo said,I am concerned here again with these manpower projections and with autonomy too on the neglect of the humanities. To quote a well-respected former civil servant, Mr Ngiam Tong Dow, "Many Singaporeans lack cultural DNA due to educational neglect to teach history and literature." I presume that Mr Ngiam was not just referring to university education but to schools as well. But I think universities do set a standard there and there is a trickle-down effect. If you do not emphasise or value itatthe university level,how do you expect schools to value the humanities? The question here is: where will our future leaders come from? If we want to have universities of excellence locally, I hope that one of the aims is to produce future leaders of Singapore. Surely they should not come from just the top universities abroad. Also, what disciplines should they come from? Surely they should not just come from business, science and technology-oriented disciplines. I would like some leaders who come from the humanities. But, as I have said, it is not just discipline-specific but the fact that every student should be exposed to as broad a number of disciplines as possible.”
“I think the best thing that we can do is to go for diversity and quality, and universities, of course, you have to be discipline-specific, but the purpose- as I mentionedabout the X factor -should be teaching students how to learn and how to think, rather than how to perform within a particular discipline and nothing else. In a knowledge-based economy,I think it is highly dangerous if we are too discipline-specific, especially at the undergraduate level. Therefore, I would like to say that this Proposed Graduate Output Funding Model, which is described in the UAGF Steering Committee's review, sounds to me a very, very obsolete way of doing things. I quote paragraph6.20 on page 59: "We propose that MOE fund theuniversities based on graduate output numbers rather than enrolment." This, I believe, is a new development. Conceptually, in such an output-based funding model, the universities can be viewed as suppliers of graduate manpower. The Government, as a buyer, then funds theuniversities to produce a predetermined number of graduates in the different disciplines. I am not an economist, but this does not seem to make economic sense to me although it seems to have a narrow economic target. It also detracts obviously from the universities' autonomy because, if you cannot determine the product, where is the autonomy?And I believe that, most important of all, it works both against our national interests and our global aspirations. Perhaps a more workable compromise would be to involve universities more closely in the manpower process, but not to pay them based on outputs which are discipline-specific.”
“We should not be obliged to choose between one side and theother side. It is understandable that governments regard universities as an investment. Of course, the Minister has said as much- an investment of our resources, both monetary and human, for the future of our nation. But I feel that this talk of investment sometimes leads to misinterpretation or misrepresentation by some people. It should be realised that there are serious limitations in applying an economic model to the university, both in the way it is run and the desired outcomes that cannot be measured in economic terms alone. First of all, people and knowledge cannot be regarded or treated like dollars and cents. And, therefore, universities cannot be run like business corporations, or a good university should not be. A global university should not be seen as a multinational corporation. Secondly, I believe that too much dependence on numerical and mechanistic criteria, such as rankings, awards or numerical KPIs - key performance indices, the number of publications in top journals -all these,they are worth something, but I do not think over-emphasis on them would be productive in assessing the value of the university. Finally, I believe that this investment is far too long-term. It may not be200 yearsbut, definitely, I think, it is 25, 50 years or more.Therefore, it is far too long-term for any reliable forecasts to be made by policy makers, industry players, economists or even academics themselves.”
“On the issue of foreign students and academics who have temporarily made Singapore their home, they have made a commitment- maybe a temporary one - but I think it is the responsibility of our community and our universities to make them feel as comfortable and to develop as strong a sense of belonging as possible. If we do not do so, they will use our universities as a stepping stone for greener pastures. But since they have made this temporary commitment, I think that we should give them the same ability and the same sense that they can participate, analyse and criticise national issues as well as issues within their discipline. Here again, I know we are in a grey area. Somepeople think that there is total freedom, but a lot of academics are still very dubious. There are certain areas that they feel they would rather not venture into because, as one academic said to me, it is a high-risk low-reward area. I thinkwith this new Bill, the Government perhaps should define clearer OB markers. Otherwise, we will lose out on many valuable perspectives that will help us build the big picture, and we will also lose out on talent, both local and foreign. What is our desired goal? I believe ownership and autonomy are just means for us to combine within the university framework our global aspirations and local needs in one. I do not see this as mutually exclusive but complementary. Although I agree that certain choices have to be made, I think excellence and affordability can be seen as two sides of the same coin. It is thesame with teaching and research or the balance between local and foreign students. I believe that each adds value to the other. And a coin should be seen in its whole entity as currency ofvalue.”
“I thought it dropped to 22. I do not think this is relevant. The actual position is relevant. It dropped because of the lack of peer review. This was the impression that I was given. So, the question here is: will this amendment Bill give the university autonomy in the areas that will really make it improve as a university - academic freedom? Or will it just transfer additional financial responsibilities on the universities without giving them the necessary freedom? Dr Lily Neo expressed some concerns about universities becoming over commercialised, becoming for-profit universities and private corporations using the universities for their ends. I think this will happen if the universities have the responsibility of raising their own funding without autonomy in the academic arena. As the Minister has also indicated, and in the UAGF too, the autonomy should not be just a transfer of power from top down- from Government to universities. It should permeate right down to faculties and students. I believe that it should also be a bottom up movement. Students should initiate moves which would move up to the top of the university hierarchy. And there should also be a lateral movement between universities and the larger community that they exist in. Faculty and students should therefore not be divorced from national issues whether big or small. I believe that for students especially, this is a critical time which determines many of their future affiliations to people, places, ideals, concepts, and how they develop and strengthen their bonds within the university and the larger community will impact on their sense of ownership and belonging in Singapore itself.”
“If the universities are going to go on to the next stage and have real autonomy, perhaps the Government might like to state what their OB markers are, where they would not interfere with university autonomy. One area I would like to specifically address here -and I say that I have no vested interest in this - is in relation to the retirement age of academics. Will universities be allowed to change this, now that they are corporations? I now refer to clause 6 on the appointment and removal of trustees by the Ministry of Education. I believe that this too will infringe on the university's autonomy and detract from its sense of ownership, particularly since the Minister mentioned that the trustees have an important role, including on theappointment ofthe President. The Ministry of Education appoints the trustees. The trustees appoint the President and make important decisions in the university, then it is still going to be a very, very top down approach.Instead, perhaps we could have an independent national agency, somewhere along the lines of the Australian University Quality Assurance (AUQA) agency. I quote: "This is an independent national agency to monitor, audit and report on quality assurance in Australian higher education... It operates independently of governments under the direction of an appropriately structured Board of Directors." If I may say so again, if Singapore universities are to become internationally recognised for excellence, it is the international academic community that should decide this. An endorsement by a government saying that the university possesses certain standards does not really hold much water in the academic community. I believeNUS was ranked 18th in the Time Education Supplement ranking, it later dropped four points.”
“" Now, too many conditions, restrictions and guidelines by MOE would tend, in my opinion, tocreate a perception of a lack of autonomy and a lack of trust between the university and the Government. I hope thatthis framework, which I acknowledge should exist, should be seen as a light, flexible and, hopefully, temporary scaffolding largely constructed by the universities themselves, and this should be seen as a framework to enable the universities to scale to greater heights and to create new edifices. It should not be regarded by the universities as a case that restricts their growth and constrains academic freedom. The same with the External Review Panel (ERP) and policies on Higher Education (HE). Our Minister has said, if I heard him correctly,that the External Review Panel will be appointed by the Ministry of Education. This seems to me rathera lack of trust, and also going contrary to allowing the universities to have more autonomy. Should not the Government consider taking a backseat on the ERP? And does the same apply to the Higher Education policies? The question here is: does the Government view the university as a trusted partner and equal? Also, perhaps more importantly, how do the universities view the Government? It has been said very often that universities alreadyhave a considerable amount of academic freedom and autonomy. But when one questions academics, you get a very varied spectrum of responses to this question, even in the press. This may not be a black box but I think it is a grey area where many academics andstudents have a perception of a lack of autonomy, and I think this should be addressed at this point.”
“If you put in a lot of money and even if you had 200 years, if you do not have this X-factor, I do not think you would get the maximum benefit of the money and time. How do we create an environment that allows this X-factor to flourish? The University Autonomy Governance and Funding (UAGF) Report has quite correctly identified - and the Minister has touched on this - that the culture of ownership is very important. I quote: "For autonomy to succeed, we need to nurture a culture of ownership by stakeholders in the university. This requires a mindset change which will take time and will be difficult to achieve if there is no overt change in the status of the universities." I presume this is one of the justifications for autonomy. A culture of ownership, however, must have the following. It must have autonomy, it must have trust and it must have continuity. The autonomy should include freedom to make choices by the university, including mistakes, in order for them to develop a full sense of responsibility.The trust, presumably, is mutual trust between allstakeholders, which I think should be manifested by a free flow of information and opinions. And, of course, continuity allows for the time for all these to develop. I would now like to refer tothe National University of Singapore (Corporatisation) Bill. Clause 4(1) and (2) is on accountability and quality assurance framework that is described in the Bill.As itstates, this framework is an agreement in writing between the university company and the Minister. Clause 4(2) states, "... the performance of its activities in accordance with such quality assurance framework as the Minister may determine.”
“There was no interview system.So it waspurely on grades. Themajority of the students said that they went in because they thought that medicine gave them a degree which wouldprovide a respectable and secure job. In other words,they went in for thatpaper qualification. The second largest group said that they went in - and I am sorry to say that I belonged to that group - mainly because of parental or family pressure. But presumably, the parental and family pressure was for the same thing, the paper qualification, but we did not have the ability to think it out ourselves. And only a very small minority said that they went in out of love for medicine, either the ideal of practisingas a doctor or the pursuit of medical knowledge. I do not think there was any fine distinction because it was such a small group. This does not sound very good,not just for the medical profession, but for medicine in Singapore. I am glad that the Minister for Health is not here. But what happened to all of us? I think if a survey had been done in our final year, we would have responded differently, because the X-factor had, I believe, touched all of us, which is that we were exposed to teachers, professors, clinicians who were passionate about the way they practised medicine. They had an uncompromising pursuit of excellence, both in the practice of medicine and the pursuit of knowledge. Although not all of us - in fact, most of us did not turn out as perfect products - at least, I think, all of us were touched by this inspiration. So this is what I consider the X-factor that all universities must have and thisis why you have to have a person-to-person contact. This is why universities cannot just convert totally to IT. This is what makes a university great.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate. The Minister for Education posed the question onwhat makes a university great. I believe that John DRockfeller asked the same question of the President of Harvard, Charles Eliot,who answered "$50 million and 200 years".This answer was given approximately100 years ago. I assume that the figures have changed. I am sure everyone will agree with me that it takes a lot more money now to make a great university. Hopefully, it takes less time, perhaps we can telescope the time with globalisation and IT. But I think with the new university autonomy corporatisation Bill, this is a question that we all should be asking ourselves, and especially the universities.I am sure they are doing that. Since there have been some -in fact, no less thanthe Prime Minister himself - who havebrought up the issue of the X-factor with regard to Singapore becoming a great global city,I think it is relevant to ask what the X-factor is with regard to universities.Like all X-factors,when you see it, you recognise it,you know what it is. But it is very difficult to put in words. If you have not seen it, likea great work of art or agreat culinary dish, it is very difficult for someone else to transmit it to you second-hand. But I believe that all ofus must have experienced it in some way or another. If Imay be permitted, I would like to describe my own experience. When I was admitted into NUS as a medical undergraduate, I remember that in our first year, we did a survey - I thinkthiswas spontaneously initiated by the students -we did a survey of all the medical studentswho had gone in to find out what was the mainmotivating reason that we were doing medicine. At that time, of course, there was no careerguidance.”
“It seems to me that the medical profession is understandably somewhat market-driven. So we have a lot of specialists in obstetrics and gynaecology, in cardiology, in the more lucrative fields, I hate to say. May I ask the Minister if there is going to be any move to try and encourage more specialisation in epidemiology in infectious diseases, in clinical and laboratory diagnostic areas where I think we will be well advised to build up these areas.”
“I would like to ask a supplementary question, if I may.”
“It has been said that SARS is a very small thing compared to what we may face in future. So may I ask the Minister for assurance for an equally effective response?”
“Mr Speaker, may I ask the Minister: is Singapore positioning herself to be the regional centre for infectious diseases, if we are not already one? And if so, do we have the medical and paramedical capacity to do this? Secondly, may I ask the Minister: are we going to expand our R&D in infectious diseases? Are we going to spend more research funds on R&D in the development, for example, of vaccines? It seems to me that with our biotechnology industry, we are well positioned to do so instead of depending on other countries for anti-virals or vaccines. And, thirdly, may I ask the Minister what lessons have we learned from SARS on weak areas which we could improve on? May I take the opportunity here to compliment the Minister and the Government on handling SARS very effectively, inspiring confidence in the public while at the same time maintaining transparency. But it has been said that SARS -”
“Sir, I would like to seek a clarification following the Minister's reply to Prof. Ivan Png on hybrid cars. The Minister said that it is technology that is keeping up the prices of hybrid cars, as opposed to standard cars. But I think it is quite clear, for example, in the case of Prius, it is not technology that is inflating the prices. The Prius is very popular in other countries. China, I now hear, is building the largest factory for the manufacturing of Prius. It is our limited market, I understand, that is restricting dealers from bringing in these cars. I know that the Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources has been trying to promote the use of hybrid cars but, frankly, it needs the help of the Ministry of Trade and Industry and the Ministry of Finance as well. Can I ask the Minister how he will support the Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources in pushing the use of hybrid cars, particularly, in this climate of escalating petrol prices which I do not think anyone can optimistically expect would go down in the near future?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister has stated quite correctly that, in order to keep standards up and cost down, customer service must take a relatively lower priority. But I would like to point out that, when a patient goes to the Emergency Department, he does not know whether it is urgent or not and neither do his relatives. Could I ask the Minister whether there could be better coordination between the different hospitals and even the different hospitals in the different clusters? Perhaps, the Ministry could start a hotline, like we do for roads, so that a patient who thinks he or she has an emergency and needs to go to a hospital will be able to get quick information as to which hospital has a long waiting list or has no available beds, and better not go to that one? I think this sort of information should definitely be given to ambulance drivers, for example.”
“Mr Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister how the Police would respond to the possibility of a chemical or biological terrorist attack in the MRT. We know, for example, that in the attack on the Tokyo underground system, they were caught off guard because they were just checking luggage and they might not have cast a wide enough net to catch suspicious objects. Unless you monitor air quality, you might miss this until it is too late.”
“If it feels it needs a large budget and reserve to be effective in its mission, that is its prerogative and, sad to say, I think this is the increasing reality of the situation. But it should not be judged by its funds. It should be judged by the effectiveness of its delivery. The money is the means, not the end. And until it is put to effective use, I do not think we can say that an organisation that has more funds is therefore more effective than an organisation that has less. In fact, if another similar organisation manages to achieve the same mission as successfully with less funds, I think it deserves more credit for doing so. At this point, I would like to join some of the other hon. Membersto pay tribute to all the many charitable organisations that have been running on a shoe-string budget, perhaps as the Minister said, using cottage industry techniques for raising funds, but still deliver sterling service to society.Ultimately, service is not easily quantifiable. It is easier to look at a bank balance but we should not just value what we can easily quantify. We should, in fact, learn to value what is not easily quantifiable. May I conclude here by saying again that I concur with the other Members of the House by endorsing that transparency, accountability and integrity are of the utmost importance. To me, transparency and accountability is the free flow of information in both directions, ie,a two-way flow of information. This keeps both parties in touch with reality. It enables them to self-regulate and to fine-tune their practices and their responses. Without this, we are likely to lose touch with reality and come down to earth with a bump or even a crash landing.”
“Some staff may not be directly deployed to fund-raising but, as recounted by the hon. Member Dr Warren Lee, you could do a medical screening and at the end of the medical screening, the staff may ask the patient or potential donor for a donation. This is obviously not done by fund-raising staff but by clinical staff. Related to this is the issue of whether the fund-raising should be done by a separate and presumably, therefore,professional or department, or whether it should be integrated in the whole fabric of the organisation and every one is expected to chip in, from the CEO down. I think this has wide implications. It is not just VWOs and charitable organisations. We now know, as has been mentioned, that a lot of other institutions, including Government institutions and statutory boards, do have endowment funds. They do have to enter into fund-raising activities. Older universities now have endowment funds. NUHhas an endowment fund, so alsohas SGH. So, I think there should be clearer guidelines as to who does the fund-raising and how it is done. My third point, and this relates to values, is, ultimately, do we, as a society or even as a nation, value an institution for the excellence of its service, the service that it exists to do, or do we value it for the excellence of its fund-raising? Or, which is more likely, do we feel that the two issues are inseparable? Do we think that the net worth and the true worth of an organisation cannot be separated? In my personal opinion, an organisation or institution or individual should be judged primarily by how it or he performs its mission and not by how effectively it fund-raises or how impressive its reserves are.”
“But what I am raising is: from the other figures which were quoted by Dr Wang Kai Yuen yesterday, the staff-patient ratio and the total staff of NKF is extremely high. The ratio of staff to patient is approximately 1,000:2,000. Therefore, the question is: if NKF is so effective and economical in the deployment of its medical specialists, where are all the other staff deployed? Why is it not equally efficient and economical in the deployment ofits other staff? Like Dr Wang said yesterday,I would naturally wonder how many of the staff are deployed in other areas. For example, do they have a top-heavyadministration or are they even focused solely on fund-raising? I think these figures raise three issues that I would like to address today. Firstly, should a voluntary welfare organisation or charitable organisation remain faithful to its original vision, eg, in the case of NKF, providing dialysis? Or should they be permitted or even encouraged to be entrepreneurial and creative and branch out into other areas? If these other areas are closely related to its primary mission, I think one would not quarrel with this. But supposing these areas are very different from its primary mission, or if it chooses to be moved into a fund-raising machine, I think we should question this, because the IPC status was given in the first place, I presume, based on what its original mission was. And if it has changed that mission, should it re-apply for IPC status? The second point I would like to bring up is how many of its staff members and how much of their time should be occupied with fund-raising. I think the 30% cap on expenditure given to IPCs is not sufficient to address this issue, because this is not a water-tight thing.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, for allowing me to join in this debate. I think I can promise to be fairly short, as the other hon. Members have covered most of the points that I was going to bring up. But I would like to speak on the deployment of staff and, therefore, funds in charitable organisations. From the figures that we have of NKF, they have, to be accurate, 996 staff members treating 1,800 or perhaps 1,500-plus dialysis patients. Of course, the primary function of NKF is to prolong orsave thelives of kidney patients by providing dialysis. I am given figures on the number of renal specialists that NKF has. This varies from three to four. Two sources tell me they have three renal physicians, another source says four but that one is mainly concerned with administration, and another one says that the fourth is actually a surgeon. Whether it is three or four, this works out to a ratio of approximately one renal physician to 500 dialysis patients.I am told that the recommended ratio is one renal physician to 60-80 patients. These are figures given to me by a renal physician and they are based on recommendations from Japan, Korea, Taiwan and the US. So, in a rough estimate, NKF provides one renal physician to about 500 renal dialysis patients. Just as a further comparison, according to the figures given by NKF on the number of dialysis patients they have, this amounts to about 50% of all patients in Singapore requiring dialysis. The total number of renal physicians, I am told, in Singapore is 26. So, obviously, NKF has just a small fraction, ie, three out of 26. I am not giving these figures to question the quality of the medical care that is given to NKF dialysis patients. By the Minister's account and by all other accounts I have heard, it gives good medical care.”
“Sir, my last question is: could we have a central coordinating body to protect the marine life and bio-diversity in the southern islands?”
“Sir, the Minister of State asked me for some recommendations as to how they can best approach it.”
“Yes, Sir. May I propose to the Ministry that there should be a proper mapping out of the southern islands, including all the bio-diversity, and which areas are particularly rich. I would like to point out here that Pulau Hantu, which is less than 100 metres south of Pulau Ular, is considered one of the richest areas in the southern islands. If we have a proper mapping out before designating which areas are to be used for what, it would give other Government Ministries a better idea of where to locate their developments. Can I also reiterate that it is important ---”
“Sir, I would like to thank the Minister of State for his offer. I have said this before, a more optimal way of approaching this problem is not to have MTI designate an area for industrial development and then have major reactions from various stakeholders - and I am not just talking about nature conservationists, I am talking about academics, scientists, other stakeholders, such as divers, fishermen ---”
“Sir, I would like to thank the Minister of State for his assurances. Could I ask whether the Ministry of Trade and Industry routinely, before designating an area for industrial development - in this case, in the southern islands - does an EIA and consults all stakeholders, or is this only done after it is designated for industrial use, as in the case of Pulau Ular? Perhaps, I could use an analogy here. There have been EIAs done. Some of them have been done late and they can, therefore, only suggest mitigating measures.”
“Sir, firstly, may I ask if the Environmental Impact Assessment can be made available to other stakeholders, in other words, the public who is interested and concerned about the marine life there? Can the Minister of State give me more information about the techniques used - whether suction dredges are used, what type of silt screens are going to be used, is it a dry type of reclamation, will the reclamation be conducted from the north or south side and, in particular, the islands in the south, Pulau Hantu, and the protection of these islands which are one of the richest for our coral life have been taken into account in the Environmental Impact Assessment?”
“Sir, may I ask the Minister of State, if two submissions are submitted, all else being equal, one is a glitzy energy gas-linked development and another is a green and eco-friendly energy efficient development, would not STB and the Ministry prefer the cleaner and greener development and, if so, would it not be fairer to put these guidelines at the beginning as an indication of what we would prefer as a nation for an icon?”
“Sir, can I ask the Minister of State, in view of the fact that the IRs are very, very high profile developments, not just any other development in Singapore, they are given iconic sites and they are a focus of attention not just locally but globally, would it not be appropriate to go beyond present URA regulations? By the time the IRs are completed in 2010, I believe Kyoto Protocol will be approaching the time 2012 and it will be entering the second phase, and many, many countries, all responsible countries, will be increasingly carbon conscious. Would it not be appropriate for such a high profile development in Singapore to legitimatise the triple bottomline that is not just economically productive but socially responsible and environmentally sustainable?”
“Sir, can I ask the Minister whether he will consider a sliding scale where female employees who have worked longer in the company would be entitled to, if they are retrenched or lose their jobs, get pregnancy benefits from day one? Whereas those who have been working in the company for only 180 days it is difficult for the employers to accept that they should get benefits from the moment that they are pregnant. Can a sliding scale be considered to facilitate this principle?”
“Sir, is there any framework within which these Ministries are working, and when is Singapore likely to accede to the Kyoto Protocol? Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: I will take Mr Khaw Boon Wan's answer yesterday, in due course. As to the hon. Member's second question, we are studying the timing. Regarding the hon. Member's first question, as I mentioned earlier, we are putting together a framework that will help not only MEWR but also the various agencies responsible. Let me just cite a very simple example. My Senior Parliamentary Secretary, Assoc. Prof. Koo Tsai Kee, chairs an inter-Ministerial committee that looks at energy efficiency for our buildings and other infrastructures in Singapore. So, certainly, there is a framework that is being put in place that will involve all the relevant agencies. HDB FLAT DWELLERS (Downgrading and restructuring of mortgage loans) 9. Mdm Ho Geok Choo asked the Minister for National Development if he will provide a status report for the last three years on the number of flat dwellers who have (i) downgraded or sold their flats for rental flats and (ii) asked for their mortgage loans to be restructured.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, it seems to me that climate change is wider than just a local environmental problem. Other countries have addressed it on a national level. The Prime Minister of Britain has again stated that it would be one of his priorities just after his re-election. May I ask the Minister if this issue is being dealt with on an inter-ministerial level or is it only just the Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources which is looking into it? It seems to me that Ministries like the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Trade and Industry would be very much involved in decisions on climate change. Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: Sir, again, the answer is, yes, this is an important piece of commitment by the Singapore Government, so it has to be taken at the Government level. We have been consulting other agencies, such as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Trade and Industry. I think Dr Geh Min is aware that the Ministry, of course, while taking the lead, has brought on board all the various agencies to discuss a climate change programme that we can adopt as a country in Singapore. So, it has to be a comprehensive effort. The Ministry has been responsible primarily because it has come under MEWR, but we have been working closely with the other Government agencies. When we decide to accede to KP, it is not MEWR's decision but it is the decision of the Singapore Government and, therefore, all the agencies responsible will have to play their part.”
“Mr Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister has pointed out that we should not deteriorate into paranoia. I fully agree with him. He has also emphasised the importance of prevention, particularly integration of society. I would like to make a point here that I think that we could do better with integration between the different races in schools. I know that a lot of effort is put into this, but I get the impression that, because of the mother tongue policy, a lot of school children today are perhaps not as well integrated with other races as they could be. For instance, my daughter went to school where there were hardly any Malay or Indian children because it did not offer those mother tongue languages. So, can I say that we should look more into integration at the school level because I feel that, as has been seen, a lot of these terrorists are actually very young, and I am sure the seed of this would be planted at the educational level?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister mentioned that with high and rising oil prices, it is important that we adopt good energy efficient practices. May I ask the Minister what his Ministry is doing about promoting renewable energy and alternative sources of energy?”
“My point is: can the Government assure us that these integrated resort operators, although they have freedom of choice as to whether they have a whale, can they ensure that it is the workers who need the jobs who will get them, ie, Singaporeans who are structurally unemployed, the old and the less educated?”
“Point of clarification with the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports. Minister Lim Boon Heng addressed the issue of jobs, especially for the structurally unemployed. I think that is one of the most compelling, in fact the most compelling, reason for having integrated resorts. Dr Balakrishnan has also reiterated that point. My concern is this. To my knowledge, both integrated resorts and casinos tend to employ young people. I have not been to that many, but I have asked various people and they confirmed this impression. So, is the Government going to make sure that they employ the older, less educated workers? The Minister for Trade and Industry said earlier that the Government has no influence on the IR operators on whether they have a whale or not, and whether they serve foie gras or not. Let me clarify that at this point my concern is for workers, not the whales.”
“The Council can then start work, especially focusing on public education in its initial phases. We will also start equipping our FSCs and CDCs. And as I said earlier, the training programme begins tomorrow. As for building the specialist centres in the community and enacting legislation for the National Council on Gambling, these will take more time to refine. But we will certainly have to come to the House because it is legislation. So let me assure this House that we will keep up the momentum and we will do whatever it takes in good time to deal with the potential problems, which are already here or which may surface in the future. I am deeply heartened that all MPs, both Opposition and PAP, have agreed that we all need to work together to address the social ills of problem gambling. I give you this commitment that we will ensure that everyone who needs help can and will get help. We will put in place in typical Singapore fashion the best framework possible to combat problem gambling. And in this way, we will ensure that we always remain a good place to bring up our children, have strong families even as we pursue economic opportunities, and even when these opportunities come with some risks.”
“The objectives of this programme will be to help our staff understand how gambling addictions develop, to be aware of common signs and symptoms, how to screen for problem and pathological gamblers. For FSC staff, they will be trained to provide basic intervention. On Monday, I also said that we would be trying to identify one or two service centres which would serve as specialised counselling centres for problem gambling. As of today, four centres have already volunteered and we would work with them to enable them to provide this role. CAMP, MCYS and NCSS will come up with the full training programme for all our staff. And to show that we mean business, as Mayor Othman Haron Eusofe has recommended, we will not flinch from benchmarking our services against international standards. Another question: will we do more research? Yes. More research is necessary. We will repeat our baseline study at regular intervals, and we will monitor the trends, and we will share it with this House. We will also work with CAMP and specialist Family Service Centres to develop a better understanding of local problem gamblers. This will include in-depth studies on issues, such as help-seeking behaviour and the associated problems which they face, and the needs of these affected families. We need good local data. This will enable us to put the appropriate education and treatment regimes in place. What is our timeline for all this? On Monday, I said we will set up the National Council on Gambling in the second half of the year. Over the last few days, through the email I have already received, several people who are volunteering to serve on this. I will aim to set up the Council by July or August this year.”
“I have already said that the Government is committed to do whatever it takes in order to tackle problem gambling in our society with or without a casino and with or without an integrated resort. The Deputy Speaker, in his speech, recommended channelling 5% of the casino's gaming tax revenue to fund national programmes. I do not see the need to ring-fence revenue in this manner. Funding should be approved on a needs basis, and not dependent on revenue collected. Because if you opt for that model, then you are well and truly hooked onto the casinos' viability and dependent on the casinos supplying money to the authority that is trying to solve problems. At this moment, we estimate that we need $40 million annually. If we need more, I will ask the Minister for Finance for more. You will have my assurance on that. Further, Mr Arthur Fong reminded the House yesterday that every single dollar collected at the entry levy will go to the Tote Board and then it will be spent on charitable causes. We will not take any of those monies into the Consolidated Fund. But, beyond all this, it is worthwhile putting things in perspective, and let us also remind ourselves that gambling is not the only problem or the biggest social problem facing us. There are many other things that we need to fix, many other things that we need to spend money on as well. Next question: what is the role that the social sector will play in the national gambling framework? I announced on Monday that I hope the Family Service Centres and CDCs would play a critical role. We have not wasted any time. Tomorrow, the Community Addictions Management Programme (CAMP), IMH and my Ministry will run its first training programme for FSCs and CDCs, not next year.”
“A minimum of two members of the Authority would then interview the complainant, respondent and other relevant persons. This Authority is not bound by the normal rules of evidence and will make a decision. This has worked well for them so far. We are thinking of a similar interview process in which we will have a panel which is appointed by the National Council on Gambling. It will listen to the complaint and make a decision. If there is an appeal, the appeal will go to the full National Council on Gambling and its decision will be final. Politicians and Members of Parliament will not be involved in this process. This will be peer review, wise men and women of society acting to advance the interest and protect the interest of families within society itself. We want our system to be simple, efficient and a low-cost one so that they will work. Let me also assure Members, however, in the spirit of consultation, that what I have just put on the table would be subject to further refinements as we consult the family, religious and community sectors in order to improve this further. Next, many Members have asked: will we relax our safeguards over time? Or conversely, should we increase them now in order to curb problem gambling? Sir, the social safeguards that we have proposed are already very strict, if not stricter than other jurisdictions. We will review them from time to time and adopt the best practices that have proven to be effective in minimising problem gambling. However, we must avoid over-regulation and unnecessarily undermining the viability of the integrated resort. So my position on this is clear. Next question: will we commit adequate resources to tackle problem gambling?”
“The National Council on Gambling will be given the authority, through legislation, to automatically exclude those who are in poor financial situation, bankrupts, poor credit records and those who are receiving financial assistance from the State. We will empower families, and we have defined them as spouses, children, parents and siblings. If your loved one has a problem, you go to the National Council on Gambling, inform that you want him to be excluded and the Council will look into this, and if the complaint is valid, then it will invoke its authority to exclude such a person from the casinos. I recognise that there will be many practical difficulties, and I also recognise that we need to make this process as simple as possible. Mr Sin Boon Ann said that it is very hard for family members to exclude his spouse or child, especially if he is grown up. It can cause family discordance. Some Members have even talked about family violence. He has asked that social workers and community leaders be given the authority instead. Let me put responsibility where it first belongs. First, is self responsibility. If you cannot do it, the next line of responsibility must be the family. Because, after all, it is the family that has the most to suffer if one member becomes an addict. Our intention is to emphasise the role of the family in solving problems and to provide a means for the family to signal for help, if the family needs help. Dr Geh Min suggested that we set up a Tribunal that will conduct hearings similar to a court. Let me describe to you the system in South Australia. They have a simple process whereby a complainant lodges an application with the Independent Gambling Authority.”
“Let me tell Members how we have arrived at $100, apart from the signalling effect. We basically did not want to create a situation where the IRs would mean that the casinos are more accessible to Singaporeans than today. Today, many Members have shared how to go to Batam or Genting. It would cost you less than $100 upfront. So by pitching it at that level, it allows me to honestly tell you that we are not making it more accessible. But let me also tell you that, very frankly, no amount of levy will deter a compulsive gambler. This is where the exclusion measures come in, and the exclusion measures are tripwires to identify those who are at risk or those who are already addicts, and then to keep them out of the casinos. Mr Sin Boon Ann also suggested restricting expenditures or even restricting the number of times a Singaporean could enter a casino. This is something we will study. But, quite frankly, if we have to micro manage a person to that extent, perhaps you might as well just exclude him in the first place. My working assumption behind all these safeguards has to be that the majority of Singaporeans can exercise personal responsibility and can manage their finances. But if you belong to that minority who cannot, either because you are addicted or because you just cannot be bothered, then you are at risk, we want to identify you and we want to keep you out of the casino. Many of you have also asked: how will the casino exclusion measures work? Like most jurisdictions, I said that we will have self-exclusion. But we also know that the self-exclusion system may not be enough because many addicts will not own up to their problems.”
“It forced the family discussion on what a casino is and how they should approach it and the dangers. That same family discussion which I now had to have with my children has to be replicated in the million households in Singapore. That is our duty as parents. That is not something the Government can do. That is not something MCYS can do. Why is it so important that parents do it? Because, ultimately, our children are going to face the casino, whether it is in Singapore or anywhere else in this world. This is not a pristine, perfect, cocoon world. Our children will have to face the world and they have to be prepared for it, and preparation is in parental teaching, the inculcation of values and education. And we should not wait three or four years down the road for an integrated resort to be put up before we start this. This is something which we will have to start, and start now. Dr Wang Kai Yuen also suggested raising the age limit from 21, I think he mentioned 26 or 27. Today, as it stands, the age limit for gambling in Singapore is 18. So by increasing it to 21, we are already setting it at a higher standard. Many MPs have asked whether the social safeguards will really deter gambling addicts. Mr Sin Boon Ann, Mr Tan Soo Khoon and Dr Ahmad Magad and in fact many Members said that $100 will not deter a compulsive gambler. Sir, that $100 levy, or $2,000 a year, is not designed to achieve that. The entry levy is a signal that gambling is an expense and not a way to make money. It is meant to deter casual gambling, the office workers in Marina who decide to nip down for lunch to feed the slot machines. That levy will deter such a person. If we set it at a higher level, we could. Some Members have suggested $200, $500 or $1,000.”
“Consequently, the debate in this House of the last four days has focused to a very large extent on the social safeguards that we can and will implement to address the potential social problems. One question which has recurred is: will our safeguards prevent problem gambling? That is prevention. Dr Ahmad Magad is absolutely right when he said that "prevention is better than cure". Dr Ong Seh Hong echoed that. The key preventive measure is education and the inculcation of values. Let me talk about education first. My Ministry will set aside $1 million to fund public education and prevention programmes to be run by the voluntary welfare organisations and the community groups which will be targeting specific groups, whether they are the young, especially the young, the elderly, the lower-income groups and other vulnerable segments of our society. We will set up the National Council on Gambling and it is this National Council that will advise MCYS on how to allocate these funds to the groups performing its public educational role. Dr Wang Kai Yuen and Mr Gan Kim Yong stressed the importance of inculcating values and moral education in our young, in building upon what their parents teach at home. And I echo this. The National Council on Gambling will work through the MCYS' School Family Education programme and other school-based programmes to reach out to students. MCYS will also work with the Council to use TV and other media to make sure the message is heard. But, ultimately, let me tell you, it depends on us as parents, what we say and how we act in front of our children. Just this week on Monday, when I got back, my children discovered that we have now allowed an IR with a casino.”
“So I think it is very important that as each of us struggles with our conscience, our values, the lessons taught by our parents, that we put this debate in its proper perspective. The Government has decided to proceed. It has decided to proceed on the basis of a practical and pragmatic approach. In this approach, one key question, setting aside morality, is whether the casinos will undermine our foundational values as a society. You know we believe in fairness, meritocracy, integrity and especially hard work. Singapore is what it is today because of hard work and perseverance. And we say that hard work will be rewarded, and we do not want this to change. This is a social, political perspective - nothing to do with morality and ethics. And the truth is I do not think anyone of us here wants this to change. Let me also tell you that when we estimate that there will be 35,000 jobs generated directly and indirectly by this project, these 35,000 jobs are honest, decent jobs - jobs that will ensure that our people continue to make an honest living in the midst of stiff international competition, jobs that many of us, especially those who are older or less skilled, can take and pursue even as we restructure our economy. So, really, as far as the social ethic or hard work and an honest day's living are concerned, we are not changing and we are not compromising that. And I think it is important that we take that on board. Even as we say we do not want to change our core foundational values, the majority of us have acknowledged that we need to upgrade and change our image, and we also need to enhance our ability to pursue opportunities, even if those opportunities come at a price of a higher risk. These two IRs represent opportunities, but they also represent higher risks.”
“Sir, I would like to clarify my analogy to the Minister. I would like to thank the Minister for his reply first. When I used the analogy of a sugar-coated pill, I was not using the analogy as a choice for individual Singaporeans. I was using it as an analogy for the whole of Singapore. Singapore has to accept both parts - the integrated resort with the casino. So this is different from Ms Irene Ng's analogy where she talks about every Singaporean visiting the casino and being faced with a buffet. My analogy is that Singapore has to take, or so we have been told, the sugar-coated pill. The Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports and Second Minister for Trade and Industry (Dr Vivian Balakrishnan): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I listened with profound respect and sympathy to the speech by my colleague, Mr Loh Meng See. His is a view shared by many Members in this House as well as many people outside in our society. In this view, gambling is an absolute vice. Some people even go so far as to say this is a source of all evil and it is not something you can even dabble with or, as Mr Chiam says, you risk going down the slippery slope. This is an absolute view which has the beauty and attraction of simplicity. But it is not a view which I think any of you can say is universally accepted by all members of our society. There are many members of our society in which gambling addiction or gambling gone too far - that is the problem - rather than gambling itself. And the truth is 40 years down the road, Singapore has never had an absolutist, prohibitionist approach to gambling, to alcohol, or even to prostitution.”
“Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): Sir, can I have your permission to clarify?”
“It can only give you some impetus so that you will be able to enrich yourself, strengthen your competitiveness in the next three to five years." The sister said, "Very good. You do not have to think twice. Just take this medicine. Take this pill." But Singapore Economy said, "I am worried about you because from what I understand, this medicine may have some side effects. What happens if I take it? Because our hearts are joined together, our blood vessels are joined, it may affect you. You may feel some pain and difficulty. I am worried about you. That is why I am hesistant. I do not know whether I should take this medicine." Eventually, they discussed and came to a conclusion. "If you cannot survive in the long run, one day, if you have lost your competitiveness, you are finished; I am also finished. So why don't we just do it together. You go ahead. You take your medicine. I will try to take my preventive medicine. We hope that the medicine will come into effect and give the Singapore Economy a big push while causing only minimum adverse effect on Singapore Society." Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am telling you this long story because I feel we have to look very seriously into this issue. We should not place our own interest or our Party's interest before the interest of our people. As one community, if we can work together regardless of our race, religion and political party affiliation, we can turn the integrated resorts into the most successful IRs in the world while minimizing the adverse effects on our society. Both will benefit. If we can succeed, then Singapore Economy, the brother and Singapore Society, the sister, with the same heart and the same life, can carry on living happily together. [Applause].”