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 3 of 4.
“Yet, the two of them realise very clearly that they share one heart. They share one life. If Singapore Economy cannot survive, then Singapore Society likewise will not be able to survive. But if Singapore Society cannot survive in the long term, then Singapore Economy will also die. They are Siamese twins, they share the same heart and the same life. When we were having the SARS epidemic, the Singapore Economy suffered a serious illness. He was so sick that he could hardly stand up. But because our Singapore Society was strong, with our strong cohesiveness, she supported the other part of the twins. And they survived. After the Singapore Economy has recovered, the Singapore Society caught the flu. Singapore Economy then come up with some money to set up the ComCare Fund. Singapore Economy and Singapore Society helped each other and they grew up together. They grew up healthy and happy. As they look forward to the future, Singapore Economy said this to his twin sister, "Younger sister, if we go on like this, I may have some problems." Singapore Society asked, "What is the problem with you? Like what Mr Low has said, you are not going to drop dead tomorrow." Singapore Economy replied, "Every day, I exercise. Every day, I try to reform our economy to improve our competitiveness. But this competition is getting more and more intense. I worry that maybe in five or 10 years, I will not be able to keep up. I do not have enough stamina. If I go on running, I may not be able to take it. What am I going to do about it? The other day, I saw a doctor. The doctor said, "Singapore Economy, I can give you some tonic but this tonic is not a cure for all.”
“I wish he would candidly give our people a good account of what his thinking is. Yesterday, he said something which was very thought provoking. In deciding whether or not to build the integrated resorts, he used an analogy of whether or not we should have operated on the Nepalese Siamese twins. He said that this is the same type of risk that we are facing. If we did not operate, then the two sisters would have passed away very soon. Then he said that as we have not come to the end of the road, why should we separate the twins? Mr Low visualises the separation of two Siamese twins when he looked at the proposal to develop integrated resorts. But I look at it from a different angle. I see these Siamese twins as symbolising our country. Forty years ago, on 9th August 1965, when we were born, we were born a pair of Siamese twins. It was a male and a female. On the right hand side is a male and his name is Economy. So his full name is Singapore Economy. On the left hand side is a female and her name is Society. So her full name is Singapore Society. Singapore Economy and Singapore Society were born on the same day. They were twins. Their heads, shoulders, hands and legs were separated, but their hearts were joined together. The Singapore Economy's mind kept thinking of how to enhance our economic competitiveness. But Singapore Society's mind was thinking of how to enhance Singapore's social cohesiveness. When Singapore Economy moved his limbs, he was trying to fight for a bigger space for economic development. Singapore Society, the lady, was different. When she moved her limbs, she was not trying to fight or compete with others. She was trying to extend a helping hand. Whenever she sees Singaporeans in difficulties, she will go and help them.”
“He also said if it is a matter of "... we must have it or else we will have problems economically or in the future we might lose out, then I think we have no choice. But if it is a matter of may or may not have economic benefits in the future, then why should we take the risks?" But yesterday, he took a totally different line. What has made him change his mind, between March and now? Why did he not discuss any of these issues yesterday, instead of just attacking the Government and condemning the project? Sir, this is not a party political issue between the PAP and the Opposition. It is much more important than that. It is an issue where each person will weigh the pluses and minuses, assess them against his personal values, and reach a judgment. Hence among PAP Ministers and MPs there are different views. We have encouraged PAP MPs to speak up, whether for or against, so the public can understand the trade offs and considerations. Unfortunately, Mr Low has not done this. Surely, WP members are not unanimous in rejecting the IRs. Why does Mr Low not tell us what views the WP considered, and why they decided to reject it? Sir, it is not my wish to criticise Mr Low today. Mr Low is a rather senior MP. I have been a Member of this house for only about seven to eight years, whereas Mr Low has been in Parliament for a much longer time. I can say honestly that I have a good impression of Mr Low. He has not only a sharp political sense, but also a sense of integrity and patriotism, unlike some other Opposition politicians. But on this important issue of the IRs, he has fallen short of his usual standards. I do not understand why Mr Low decided not to stick to his usual style. It is not too late for him to reconsider his position.”
“In other words, between pushing for the interests of the workers and canvassing for more votes for the party, Mr Low and his WP choose votes over workers. How can he do that? Why does he choose to do that? Sir, Mr Low wants the WP to be a major party offering alternative visions for Singapore and strategies to Singaporeans. Yet on this important issue with long term implications, Mr Low has no constructive ideas to offer. After a long silence, he now decides to oppose for the sake of opposing - not on principle or in the best interests of Singaporeans, but out of political interest of the WP; not as opinion leader, but as opinion follower. His party motto should be - "follow me, because I am right behind you". Sir, Mr Low also accuses the Government of proceeding with the development of IR for its own benefits, leaving the people to suffer the consequences. I do not see the logic in its argument. If the Government were interested in short-term political advantage, we would not have raised this difficult subject now. Then we would avoid upsetting Singaporeans who oppose casinos. After all, the consequences of not having IRs would not befall us for another five or 10 years. But five or 10 years from now, we would have fallen far behind, and it would be too late to catch up. It is precisely because we feel a deep sense of responsibility for the long-term interests of Singapore and Singaporeans that we are dealing with this issue now. In contrast, Mr Low's position is merely a politically expedient one. In March during the COS, Low Thia Khiang took a more honest position. He said, "... the casino issue is not an easy issue, because of diversity of views. Also, we have to consider it from a pragmatic point of view rather from the emotional position ... ".”
“NTUC Secretary-General Lim Boon Heng has strong reservations about gambling, but he cannot get himself to say no to the proposal to develop IR. Why? Because as the labour chief, he could not afford to say no to 35,000 jobs. Contrast that with Mr Low, who as the leader of the Workers' Party, spoke with utter cynicism and a show of simulated righteousness. Did he wrestle with the issue? Did he try to balance the competing considerations? No. He brushed them all aside, and simplistically opposed the development of IRs because he feels that the Singapore economy "will not collapse if we do not have IRs". Sir, Mr Low and WP do not seem to care at all about the 35,000 jobs the IRs could create directly and indirectly, for the benefit of our people. Mr Low also was not interested in the economic benefits IRs could bring to ordinary working Singaporeans, taxi-drivers and many others as a result of increases in tourist flow and job supply. Question is, why? Is it because Mr Low and the WP are not aware of the difficulties faced by our retrenched workers in searching for new jobs? Or is it because Mr Low is serious about waiting till the economy collapses, and our workers suffering enough pain of unemployment before the WP will support job creation initiatives? I doubt so. I believe that for the WP, the real reason for its position on IRs is very much a political one. He was waiting to see how Singaporeans responded to the IR proposal. He saw that some Singaporeans opposed the IR strongly. He thought that general elections were coming soon. So he has decided that the WP had better try to cash in by scoring political points with this group, and ignore the interests of the workers.”
“So I believe that, at this point in our history, everyone of us should resolve to take responsibility for ourselves and our actions to ensure that we preserve the values that we have and that we keep the country that we love unharmed. The Minister, Prime Minister's Office and Second Minister for National Development (Mr Lim Swee Say) (In Mandarin): Yesterday in this House, Members expressed their views on the proposal to develop IRs. Regardless of their positions - for or against, we take their views seriously because they spoke with conviction, and they spoke out of personal belief and principle. As they spoke, they put aside their personal and partisan interests. The only concern and consideration on their minds is whether the proposal to develop IRs is good for the development of Singapore and the future of Singaporeans. For that, they deserve our respect and full consideration. There was, however, one exception - Mr Low Thia Khiang. As I reflected on Mr Low's speech made in this House yesterday, I wondered what was his motivation in saying what he said yesterday. If he and the WP really felt so strongly about the IR, why did they remain totally silent and absent from the public debate for more than one year, and join in only a few weeks ago? Why only now? Why did he never raise the issue in Parliament, and have to wait till Mr Lim Hng Kiang cornered him, before saying anything here? Is that how he fulfils his duty to speak up for Singaporeans as an MP? Sir, I think the answer is clear. At a time when our nation and our people are concerned with what is best for Singapore and Singaporeans, Mr Low and his Workers' Party are more pre-occupied with what is best for the Workers' Party. We saw this clearly in this House yesterday.”
“So to get back to our other water, we will try apples, we will have some muddy water for fish but we will have clean water for drinking. But other countries may be having more and more fish, bigger and bigger fish. We may want to go that way, and we may have to muddy more and more of our water. But I presume that we will not be doing that at the expense of our drinking water. And of course, at a certain point where everyone has muddy water with more fish, our pure clean water, which is needed for drinking may be at a premium. So let us not throw out the baby with the bath water simply. Casinos are businesses which systematically and successfully exploit human weaknesses. And casino operators, despite investing billions of dollars in Singapore, will be prepared to relocate when they have made a healthy profit and if there are more attractive offers elsewhere. Tourists too have no long-term stay in Singapore, and we know how fickle they are. But we, who are Singaporeans and call Singapore home, do not feel the same way. The Minister Mentor asked us to look ahead 10, 20 years and decide what we would do now. I believe that if Singapore in 10 years' time is still a good place to live in and if we succeed in both, a good place to live in and a good place to visit for tourists, then the decision would have been a successful one. But if Singapore becomes more attractive for short-term visits than for long-term residents, then I think we have failed. The Prime Minister said that he would take full personal responsibility for the decision, a courageous and honourable stand that does not surprise any of us. But I believe that we Singaporeans can do no less if we want to make it different. We cannot leave everything to the Government.”
“Singapore may not have the glitz and buzz to entice short stay visitors, but we certainly have a lot in favour of long-term visitors to locate here for business, education and to work here because of our medical services, fabulous food and clean and green environment. It has all been mentioned. I think it is worth mentioning again. I should also like to point out that many cities which are attractive for short stay tourists are definitely not attractive for long stay. Who wants to live in Macau or Las Vegas in their right minds? At this point, the Government seems to think that we can have our cake and eat it. We can create buzz and glitz and attract short-term tourists and, at the same time, we would not impair our safe, stable and clean image. Hearing the debate in the House that I too am, if not convinced, fairly optimistic that we will be doing our best to have both, and that we are not in danger yet of falling into the trap of sacrificing our strength for transient lure. Our Prime Minister quoted this Chinese saying, "shui qing wu yu", ie, without muddying our water too much, we are also trying to attract fish. I presume we are going to have two watertight compartments, a smaller one for the fish and a larger one for our pure water so that we have enough drinking water. But as time goes on, we may have to have bigger and bigger fish. Can I just detour here and say that I am very disturbed by this account of introducing a whale, not a human, but a marine whale, into our integrated resort? May I please ask the Minister for Trade and Industry to reconsider this? Because I think it would create quite a furore among certain sectors of the community. Keeping a large animal in captivity is now considered generally politically incorrect.”
“" I could not complain because the first time I went to Paris, it was about 20 years ago, on the first day, I was robbed in Notterdam by a bunch of gypsy children. So that is one thing that I appreciate about Singapore. You do not have to be watching your possessions all the time fanatically. Then on the drive to the airport, it was a pretty fast drive because I was already late. We passed the Louvre, we passed Notre Dam, we passed the Seine, everything looked very beautiful. I was admiring the scenery. But as we got nearer the airport and we were on the highway, in fact, there were grass verges which were actually very beautiful because it was spring and the spring flowers were out, I noticed a lot of rubbish on the verges. And I was thinking, gosh, the city of Paris really did not clean itself up very well. Why were they throwing all this garbage on the way to the airport? I thought that the route to and from the airport is where you always put on a good front to impress visitors. I had not seen this on my way in because I went by Eurorail. I took a closer look at this rubbish because there was a lot of it. It looked like old blankets, old clothes and a lot of cardboards. Then I realised to my horror that it was not just rubbish but that was where all those, but not all, homeless people in Paris slept. We do not have this in Singapore. Even if we have not made it to the ranks of the great cities, I think this emphasises to me more than anything else that Singapore is a wonderful place for everyone to live in. And I realised that is why my friends in Paris regretted leaving Singapore.”
“We may not be a great city in all aspects, but I think we have the makings of a great city. In many aspects, we are already successful in that we have these core values that other cities want to emulate or copy. Maybe I could illustrate with an example. I was in Paris last month. Of course, I had a wonderful time. I enjoyed the museums, the art exhibitions, the food, the architecture. I also had the opportunity to have dinner on my last night with some old friends who had lived in Singapore before. They are Americans, international lawyers. They had lived in New York, Tokyo, Singapore and now they are relocated in Paris. So, among other things, of course, I asked them how they were enjoying Paris and how it compared to Singapore. Well, what they told me was that, of course, they love Paris too. They are great music lovers, they are art collectors, so Paris is wonderful. But they said they missed Singapore. In many ways, they would be happy to continue living in Singapore. I thought they were being polite. But on my last day, I changed my mind. Because as I was checking out of the hotel, I gave my credit card, which I had not used in the last few days when I was in Paris, and it was rejected by the machine. So I used my backup credit card and that was also rejected. I got quite worried at that time. Fortunately, the banks were open. I went out to use my cashcard, and that was also rejected. At that point, I was seriously worried because I had a plane to catch and I could not pay my hotel bills. Fortunately, I had the 24-hour hotline. So I called back to the bank and they said, "Sorry. Paris is a high risk city. Unless you give us advance warning, your cards are all automatically rejected.”
“It is being recognised that Singapore has few natural assets that attract tourists and we have to constantly reinvent and remake ourselves to remain competitive. And I think we have done very well on this front. But, unfortunately, these make-overs can be copied by other countries. They have been copied by other countries. And, of course, in many situations, the copier can improve on the original model. So I believe that integrated resorts can make us the flavour of the month, maybe the flavour of several seasons, I hope. But I very much doubt if IRs will catapult us to the league of great cities. The Prime Minister spoke about the difference between great cities and wannabes. In my opinion, the difference between a great city and a wannabe is that the former has a definite identity that it is confident and comfortable with. It may wish to refine itself. They often do, as cited. New York cleaned itself up; Paris had the Pyramid put in by I M Pei, a top architect. These do enhance it. But people would still go and visit them, whether they did these refinements or not. And sometimes, if they try to over-refine, like Paris with Euro-Disney, a lot of people think that it actually detracts from the essence of the city. So, a great city does not have to fundamentally change. It can do a few cosmetic adjustments. But it does not need to do any more. It should not do any more. On the other hand, wannabes are constantly making over themselves. They are changing themselves and copying themselves all the time because they have no core identity. They are always trying to follow someone else. They have no solid foundation. On this, I would say that I somewhat disagree with Mr Philip Ng. I do not think that Singapore is a wannabe.”
“In fact, any responsible pharmacist or distributor recognises that they are potentially more dangerous because they can be mistaken as sweets and, therefore, they should be treated with even greater care to prevent them harming the unwary, particularly young children in this case. Similarly, therefore, the non-gambling component of an IR, even if it comprises a bulk of the IR, does not neutralise the potential for harm of a gambling component. The Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports has described the comprehensive network of safeguards, including no advertising in the mass media for casinos. But I would like to raise the question here as to what about advertising for the integrated resorts. I presume you cannot ban advertising in Singapore for the integrated resorts. But extensive advertising of the integrated resort without warning of the dangers of a casino and casino gambling can be as insidious and harmful as marketing sugar-coated drugs and sweets. So, I would urge us all to clearly recognise that the IR does have a potential to do harm because it does have a casino in it and we should have stringent warnings and safeguards in place. I should like to conclude by asking, hypothetically, what an integrated resort can and cannot do for Singapore. After a protracted debate in the community, and in the House, and a difficult, even painful, decision, we are going ahead with IRs to revive our flagging tourist industry and to create jobs, particularly jobs for older and less well-trained workers. But I should like to ask: how long can we expect these beneficial effects to last? Is this a long-term solution?”
“And under what circumstances, what evidence do you have to show, how stringently will it be enforced? I can foresee some interesting ramifications, knowing what a kiasu society we are, where parents, perhaps the moment their children reach the age of 21, can put their children's names down for exclusion. Or people, maybe as a condition of getting married, could put their spouses' names down for exclusion. I think how we implement this and how we draw up the guidelines will be an important exercise. As has been expressed by some of the other Members, I think to give a name directly to the casino would not be the right way to go about it. This is where I think that an independent gambling tribunal would play a very crucial role, an impartial role, and a role that would implement this safety net in an effective and sensitive way as well as protecting families and individuals rather than disrupting them. I should now like to move on to the integrated resort concept and what I think of it. The Cabinet has explained why an integrated resort is considered the most economic and viable model for a casino in Singapore. I have no argument against that. But I see it as analogous to a drug company deciding that sugar-coated pills are the most marketable form of drugs. But sugar-coated pills, no matter how fake the sugar is, even if it is 95% or 98%, and the drug component is only 5% or 2%, they are still marketed as drugs by pharmacies. They are not marketed as sweets, and they have the necessary warnings and precautions of their potential risks.”
“This tribunal should have sufficient powers and resources to make policy decisions, enforce and review legislation and regulations on gambling, develop, monitor and enforce strategies and initiate and support services for the management of problem gambling. It should amongst its functions ensure optimum coordination between all agencies, both Government and non-Government agencies, that are involved in the regulation and control of gambling and prevention, mitigation and treatment of the effects of problem gambling. It should be able to handle formal complaints against both casinos and other gambling operators as well as Government agencies which are involved in the regulation of these industries, and it should allow appeals against its decisions of all the above. It should handle feedback from the public, from gambling addicts and their families. I think one important role that it would have is to ensure the effective implementation of the exclusion clause. Two MPs before me, Dr Warren Lee and Mr Sin Boon Ann, have talked about the exclusion clause. I too am very interested in this clause and how the Government is going to implement it. To my knowledge, we are the only country that is proposing that it be extended to family members. I applaud this. I think this is going to be one of the potentially most effective safeguards that we have in place. I think this is one of the areas where we can really make a difference, as we had before when we embarked on something new. But this is also an area which is potentially very controversial. I am not clear - I do not think anyone is yet - as to which of the family members will be allowed to exercise this. Is it just spouses, children, parents, grandparents, siblings?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in this debate. Singaporeans are divided on the issue of the casino - whether to have it or not. It is quite clear that the House, too, is divided on this issue. I think many of us are divided within ourselves. We are persuaded on some reasons and grounds and we are against it on other grounds. But, there is one aspect of this issue where we are all united. I think I can confidently say this both inside and outside the House and, that is, in deploring the effects of gambling on individuals, families and communities. We are, therefore, also united in wanting to minimise these effects. I am somewhat reassured by what was said by the Ministers for Home Affairs, Community Development, Youth and Sports, and Health on the precautions and safety nets that will be put in place. I think we all agree that we cannot have too many safety nets, the more the better. We also, I believe, need an independent body to check on these safety nets, whether they are placed where they should be, whether they are working effectively, and whether they are sufficient. I should therefore like to urge the Government to initiate an establishment of an independent gambling tribunal. It should have multi-agency representation, both from Government Ministries and departments and from the community, voluntary welfare organisations and religious organisations, and from the Judiciary. And I believe that this should be led by a well-respected leader of not just the community, but of the republic, perhaps the President of the republic himself.”
“Sir, I would like to keep to the debate on youth. It is so much more cheerful to talk about their ideals, aspirations, needs and achievements. But I must respectfully repeat my question to the Minister, which was to ask if reliable studies have been done on the social impact and costs of gambling, particularly gambling in Singapore. I ask this out of concern for the population in general, but I think a lot of people who are concerned about this issue are concerned about the impact on youths in particular. So, if we have such studies, what is the extent of this problem? Who are the groups which are vulnerable? And if we have not got a study, are we going to be commissioning a study?”
“MCYS will explore a structured way of institutionalising this youth engagement process, taking in the learning points from this exercise. For example, rather than MCYS identifying the issues to be explored, we can consider ways to facilitate youths to initiate work groups on specific projects identified by youths themselves. Sir, our hope is that future youth work groups will widen the spectrum of engagement initiatives, together with the other initiatives that my Minister has mentioned earlier. This is akin to sowing the seeds of opportunity, so that our youths and the nation can continue to bloom. 1.30 pm”
“Their ideas enrich the dialogue we share, and challenge and refresh our own thinking. Second, our young people themselves stand to benefit and grow from their involvement. The on-going work groups have helped our youths develop a deeper understanding of policy making, and the delicate balances involved. For example, Hamesh Mehta, one of the work group members, said to us, "I feel that I have grown as a citizen, more aware of the various perspectives that I had previously overlooked or ignored. I also began to understand how frustrating and arduous the task of policy making can be and, as a result, realise how important it is to maintain focus and decisiveness." A few of our youths have also emerged, through this process, as natural leaders in their own right, playing a significant part in driving their work groups. Take, for example, Samuel Chan, who took up the cause of the ex-offenders. The work group experience has motivated him further to pursue his passion. The experience and networks which he has gained, he told us, would help him to eventually form an organisation of youths to champion the cause. How do we move this work group process forward? Sir, we want our youths to develop a confident voice and be active citizens in community and national affairs. As we explore new and innovative ways to engage young Singaporeans and give them a meaningful stake in national affairs, we will build on this work group experience as one viable way to do so. This is, in fact, a recommendation of the Youth Connect work group. Dr Chong Weng Chiew had suggested that we do it every three years. I want to share with him that the work group wanted to do it every year. They want this process to be permanent, and possibly even involve a wider segment of Singaporeans.”
“I am confident that this will give the public a glimpse of the effort, enthusiasm and imagination that I have witnessed over the past few months. The Ministries will study their proposals closely. MCYS will track the status of the recommendations and communicate this regularly to the work group members. For other recommendations that MCYS or relevant agencies can implement, we will explore how the work group members and other interested Singaporeans can be further involved in the implementation phase. Of course, not all recommendations that require Government action will be implemented immediately. Some may be before their time; other ideas may not be feasible in the long-term. So I urge our youths not to be disheartened. For proposals that need a longer gestation period, I encourage them to view their effort as contributing to the case for change. The Government will explain why certain proposals need further study or are not feasible at this time. Over time, this approach will promote the evolution of a more informed culture of citizen participation. Sir, the specifics of the final recommendations aside, I think that the process of the exercise has been most valuable to both Government and the youth involved. Let me explain why. First, by facilitating youths in evaluating, developing and implementing their ideas, the process helps to move public consultation beyond feedback towards collaborative action. Several work group chairpersons have remarked that the work group approach is a workable and enriching people-Government partnership. I agree with them. This approach deepens the youth's engagement with the causes they want to pursue and, in the process, enhances the quality of feedback.”
“Ahmad Nizam, President of Mendaki Club and one of our work group co-chairmen, told me, "To the youths, it was not just a project, but a cause to them. They really believe in it. They went all out . . Most of the time, we were trying to keep up with them." The second thing that impressed me was their broad outlook. Many of their proposals are aimed at benefiting not only young people, but the wider community. For example, some of them are tackling big and complex issues such as improving the education and employment prospects and quality of life of people with disabilities. Lastly, I am happy that the youths have a sense of ownership over their ideas, and are keen to follow through on some of them. Sure, many of their proposals are recommendations for the Government to consider and act on. But there are also ideas that youths themselves want to champion and pursue, with some support if necessary. The Youth Action work group had suggested the idea of a festival for young Singaporeans to celebrate and showcase their talent, energy and contribution. This is to offer opportunities for all youths, youth organisations and community groups to initiate ground-up activities in a variety of areas that capture our youth's imagination, including arts, sports and adventure, community involvement, entrepreneurship and so on. Youth Action has asked for MCYS' support, and offered to organise some of these activities. We have agreed, and will be working with them to organise this festival, which will take place in the middle of this year. Similarly, I understand that some members in the Youth Biz work group are exploring the idea of forming an association for social enterprise with other partners. Indeed, our youths are walking the talk! The work groups will release their reports soon.”
“A third group - "Youth Reloaded" - is developing proposals to support, empower and include youths who face greater challenges, such as youths at-risk and the disabled youth. The final group, "Youth Biz", wants to nurture entrepreneurship among youth. We facilitated their work by providing them access to civil servants who act as resource persons. This allows the youths to appreciate policy making processes, as for the civil servants to appreciate the aspirations of the young. I have had the opportunity to interact with them and to preview their work. As my Minister had said earlier, some of their inputs have shaped the Ministry's upcoming initiatives. Let me share with Members my impressions of these work groups. First, I am struck by their conviction. The youth involved are a diverse bunch, hailing from different backgrounds and life stages - from students, to working youths, to youths with disabilities. Some had specific ideas to champion. Others wanted to change policies at the national level. What they share however is a belief that Singapore can be a better place, and that they can contribute towards shaping this. It would have been hard for them to get the work groups going if they did not have this conviction. Unlike many Government-initiated committees, the discussions, the idea generation and the report writing in the work groups are all led and done by the youths themselves, with guidance from the youth organisations who act as co-leaders. MCYS deliberately took a backseat, acting only as resource persons. I guess this is a fresh change for the civil servants. Many of the youths sacrificed late nights and weekends to volunteer their time. I know of two groups that meet regularly on Saturdays or Sundays.”
“One example, which my Minister had earlier mentioned, was how the weekly YouthInk section in the Straits Times had come about. Another group, comprising skateboarders, rollerbladers, mountain bikers who took part in the consultation exercise, decided to act on their own suggestion to raise awareness of extreme sports which have been gaining popularity amongst the young. So we facilitated that interest. They have planned two instalments of an event called soul to soul - the interesting name that they came out with - to help promote the sports and discover home-grown talent. The first was held in January this year as a warm-up exercise to gear them towards the larger scale event later this year. These and other examples convinced us that our young people are really not all NATO - "no action talk only" people. Beyond giving feedback, many, given the opportunity, will take action and channel their energy into causes that they believe in. It emboldened us to take the consultation exercise one step further by asking more of them to develop their ideas in greater depth. Sir, a few issues had cropped up repeatedly during the consultation. We decided to ask for volunteers among them to develop specific action plans and projects in these areas. This, in essence, is really the bottoms-up approach that Miss Penny Low talked about. 120 of them stepped forward and formed four work groups. One work group - called "Youth Action" - has been looking at enhancing opportunities for youth to volunteer and connect to community causes. Another group - they call themselves "Youth Connect" - seeks to expand avenues to deepen youth engagement to the nation.”
“Ultimately, it is this combination of opportunities, hope, commitment and cohesion that are our best guarantee of survival and the ability to thrive in the future. So I hope Members will join my Ministry and indeed all the other Ministries and who have participated in the Budget debate and in the COS, as we all tried our bit to make this a reality and to give Singaporeans hope, optimism and confidence in the future. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Acting Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (Dr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman): Sir, in his swearing-in speech last year, Prime Minister Lee had called on young Singaporeans to "step forward to make a difference to yourselves, to your fellow citizens and to Singapore". The "Youth: Creating Our Future" consultation exercise that MCYS launched in August last year was one major avenue through which we invited young Singaporeans to share their views, galvanise around causes they believe in, and influence the national agenda. Miss Penny Low and Dr Chong Weng Chiew asked for an update of the consultation exercise. I am pleased to share with Members the progress that MCYS has made so far. MCYS had launched the exercise to hear first-hand our youth's hopes, concerns and ideas so that we can enhance our policies and programmes for our youths. Over six weeks, we reached out to more than 2,000 youths from diverse backgrounds through multiple channels like SMS, focus groups and email. My Ministry and other relevant Government agencies have been studying the wide-ranging inputs. We plan to publish our responses next month. Some of the youths did not stop at giving feedback. They decided to turn their ideas into reality.”
“We will also work with more sports partners and the SSC would build on the successful Sports Partners Promotion programme, which subsidises private sports programme providers. For example, there is a successful recreational soccer league, the ESPZEN, involving more than 40 teams, playing regularly throughout the year, supported by MCYS and the SSC. SSC will further promote participation in sports through its comprehensive network of public sports facilities. Currently, we have some 18 stadiums, 22 swimming complexes, 14 sports halls, 14 multi-purpose fields and 52 tennis courts. With these, and as I said earlier, if we add the 50 school fields, add 150 pieces of State land, and many more to come in the future, I think Members of this House should rest assured that there will be a wide range of facilities - ranging from those you have to pay all the way to those which are free. 1.15 pm Sir, many people have asked me whether Singapore will be successful in the next 40 years of our journey. None of us in this House can predict or give an absolute assurance on it, but I think we can all be clear that in this journey forward, we need to bring all Singaporeans along with us. We are a nation; we are a community; we cannot afford to retrench Singapore citizens from the benefits of citizenship. So there will be a place for every Singaporean as we make this journey and aim for higher heights. There will and must be opportunities for all and perhaps just as important, there must be hope for every Singaporean. We will also need to strengthen the relationships that bind us together as families, as communities and as a nation.”
“Quite apart from school fields, we all know that there are patches of State land scattered throughout our island. I am very glad that the Singapore Land Authority (SLA) last year started changing the signs. Instead of saying "No Trespassing", they say, "Enter at your own risk", which is, I suppose, as much as you can hope from a legal perspective to say, "Come and use it if you like to." Even as we open these pieces of land and we encourage informal play and free play on these pieces of land, I am sure there will be occasions when perhaps the grassroots organisations would look at this field and say, "Maybe we can improve it. Fill in the potholes, so that you do not trip and break your ankle as you play football there." What my Ministry will do is that we will set aside $2 million in a fund which grassroots organisations can apply for on a matching basis. I want a matching basis so that there is commitment. So you identify a piece of land which you want to improve, you raise some funds, we will match your fund and you can then improve that piece of land to make it more playable, more attractive, so that your residents can use it. And, of course, as I have said earlier, I want the use of this sort of informal facilities to be free. I believe there is still a place for free facilities in Singapore, and this will help encourage the sporting culture, the mass participation that I spoke about. In addition to that, we will also continue to promote sports by focusing on the different demographic groups. One of the key things is to focus on our young, because if you can get into a sporting habit early enough, then in effect you become addicted to exercise and it becomes a lifelong habit.”
“So, I hope Members of this House will be assured that we are putting serious money aside to develop sports, sports infrastructure and a sporting culture in Singapore. Speaking of sporting culture, we cannot have a sporting culture unless the ordinary Singaporean, young and old, has an opportunity to pursue sports. If you look at football, superpowers like Brazil, I am sure Brazilians are talented and probably have football running in their blood, but I think part of the reason for their success is that the Brazilian young children will kick a ball anywhere there is a field, in fact, sometimes there is no grass even. As long as there is a surface on which a ball can be kicked, they will do that. In Singapore, our land resources are much more limited. But we have tried, and are trying, to work around these constraints. So there are two things which I want to announce today. First, from next month, MCYS and MOE will open up a total of 50 school fields for public use. We are going to call this the Dual-Use Scheme. Under this scheme, the schools will still have first right over the use of their fields, certainly during weekdays and on Saturday mornings. But outside curriculum hours and on weekends, members of the public can book these fields for a small fee. You can make your booking through the SSC website, and you can use these fields for any sports or recreational facilities. The only thing I would appeal for is, please do not destroy the fields, do not damage the infrastructure. Otherwise, you will set us back. Assuming we get this implemented successfully, and 50 is only the tip of the iceberg, our intent is to expand this scheme to as many school fields as possible.”
“All of us there were struck by this sense of collective purpose, the emotional unity that sports brings for all of us. I also want to thank Mr Wee Siew Kim for his suggestion to work with STB to bring marquee sports events to Singapore. The good news is that we already have a fair number of such events. The one which I remember most obviously would be having the Singapore Marathon which was held in December last year. Mr Ong Kian Min completed the full marathon. I did 10 kilometres. I am not sure whether this is going to be an occupational hazard or a bonus, but I suppose future Sports Ministers would have to run at least 10 kilometres. But these marquee events really bring in more than just tourist dollars. They do more than just put us on the map. In the case of the marathon, we had about 15,000-16,000 people running. The atmosphere was electric, that sense of oneness, that sense of conquering the challenge set out before you, and of achieving something for yourself and for your team, was incredible. That is why we must continue to attract such sporting events and really push for greater participation. Mr Wee also asked about funding for sports. In 2001, the Government, together with Singapore Pools, committed $500 million over a five-year period to a Sporting Singapore Fund. In fact, this was brought about during Mr Speaker's tenure in the Ministry. Part of this $500 million was used for infrastructure like the Sports School. To build on this momentum, I am glad to announce that the Sporting Singapore Fund will receive an additional $300 million. This $300 million would be utilised from 2006 to 2010, but the funding for the Sports Hub, which is going to cost an estimated sum of probably another $600-$650 million, will be separately funded.”
“So our youths will have now a piece of land they can call their own, truly a space of their own. Miss Penny Low asked for multiple such parks, saying, "Let us start with this one. Make this succeed and it will be a showcase of what we can do for you, by working with you, and tapping the ideas and the passion of youth." I want to move on now to helping vulnerable youth. Some Members may be aware of our STEP-UP programme and our Out-of-School Youth Development Schemes. These have been showing progress and we intend to expand them so that more of our youths can complete their education, fulfil their potential and contribute to our society, even if this process of completing their education involves detours and taking those steps repeatedly. But, so long as, ultimately, all young Singaporeans can find something that they are good at, interested in and a way to make a decent living, with self-respect, then these programmes would have achieved their objectives. Let me now move on to sports as brought up by Mr Alex Chan. Sir, we want Singaporeans from all races, cultures and backgrounds to interact, play, celebrate and bond together, and sports is one key modality to achieve that. Participation in sports also develops a healthy mind and body, quite apart from its impact on social interaction. Supporting our national athletes and celebrating our sporting achievements have brought us closer together as a nation. On 16th January, our young Lions took on the Indonesian national soccer team in the Tiger Cup final. I was there. In fact, many Members of the House were there and I think we can all gladly report that the Kallang Roar was back, and is back with a vengeance.”
“But, in that process of competing, they will learn about social issues and, hopefully, they will then be motivated to do something about it. The next thing I want to talk about is Orchard Road. I have been fortunate to be in both MND and MTI and now in MCYS, and I have also chaired a committee which has spent the last one year cracking our minds as to how we are going to rejuvenate Orchard Road. Over the last few days you have heard various Ministries made certain announcements with respect to Orchard Road. Well, we have an "Orchard Road Announcement" for the youths. We are going to set aside 1.2 hectares of land that is beside the Orchard CineLeisure. Right now there is a small scape park. We are going to relocate that scape park to the land above Somerset MRT. And, you would also be aware of the road closure that the LTA announced yesterday. That allows us now to amalgamate 1.2 hectares of land right in the heart of the city, right in the heart of Orchard Road, in an area which has already been identified by the young as a place they want to hang out. Now, it is not just going to be a hang-out place because we want this to be an iconic youth development, one in which not only our youths will come, but youths from all over the world and indeed tourists will say it is a must-see sight in Singapore. How will we develop this? The first thing is that we will get the views from young people. What do they want to see there? What activities do they want conducted there? Then we will have to bring in architects, designers and the businesses as well to ensure that this place is commercially viable, exciting and interesting and, ultimately, contributes to the overall attractions that Orchard Road will have.”
“Basically, what we are going to do in this is to put some money aside, seed money for youth projects, but we would put young Singaporeans in charge of making the decisions as to which projects should be supported, which projects should not be supported. This is peer review in action. It will send several messages. First, it will signal to young Singaporeans that we trust them. We trust them to act responsibly when they are given resources to do so. Secondly, for those who are coming up with ideas, they will now know they better come up with a good idea which passes muster and which convinces their peers and if the answer is no, do not just blame the people making the decision. Usually, it is the Government having to say no to them and the usual excuse is to say, "Oh, the Government is being unsupportive, unhelpful, being obstructionist." Now, they have to work with and convince their own peers. There would, therefore, be a competition of ideas for these projects. I also realise, as I said earlier, as we move towards the future in which young Singaporeans choose what they want to do, and not because they are forced to do it. We still need to make sure that at the younger ages we try to inculcate the right attitudes of volunteerism and we promote a better consciousness of social issues. This is something which we will have to do in our schools and, indeed, in our work with younger Singaporeans. NCSS will be launching a competition called 'Youths Embrace Social Service'. The objective of this competition is to promote better understanding of social service issues amongst school-going youths. Again, by making it a competition, it is voluntary.”
“The National Youth Council also initiated the National Youth Forum last year, a platform for young Singaporeans to learn about policy making, to meet policy makers, and to discuss policy issues. I am glad that there was some controversy last year and there were, in fact, some strong criticisms of the views that were expressed by young Singaporeans taking part in the National Youth Forum. I think it was a good learning experience for the young Singaporeans to realise that what they say does matter and not everyone is going to he happy, and not everyone is going to agree with what they say. The decision making and policy formulation is a complex exercise, one in which they need to keep their ears open. Ultimately, however, they have to take a position, make a decision and it does not mean everyone will always be happy. I think it has been a very instructive lesson for all the young Singaporeans who had been involved in the forum. Next, we also wanted to tell them that, "Look, do not just confine yourself to writing, debating or discussing. Go beyond words. Translate your causes and your beliefs into action." Again, in order to give young people a chance to translate things into action, we set up a Youth Portal. This is a first-stop databank. It is a databank and advisory service so that youths who wish to participate, whether their interest is in sports or environment or any cause that they want, would be able to see what organisations are out there, what needs are out there, what resources are available, how can they match that with their interest. Another initiative we will launch is a project called "Young Change Makers".”
“I hope the thousands of young Singaporeans who have spent the last few months working day and night, furiously flashing out ideas, would now look at these plans and realise that they own these plans. Let me just quickly give you a flavour of what is contained in that handout. First, the youth voice. Many young Singaporeans have said that they want their voices to be heard. I agree with them. Fortunately for us, we were able to link some budding young writers with some enthusiastic editors in the Straits Times who were also quite coincidentally keen on starting a youth section, written by young people for young people. Three months after the consultation exercise, we launched YouthInk, a weekly section in the Straits Times. 1.00 pm I have met some of these young student writers. They are a very diverse batch - some doing NS and some are students in universities, polytechnics and ITEs. If you have been reading their articles - and I hope Members of this House have been reading the articles that they have come up with - these are thinking, well-thought and considered opinions and perspectives that they are reflecting in those pages. I hope this will continue as a permanent feature of our newspapers. Consultation and feedback - many youths said they want to be heard, they want a chance to deliberate and debate national issues. The Feedback Unit will expand its youth outreach efforts. In fact, we are going to put youths in charge of the electronic portal, the website, of the Feedback Unit. Again, it will ensure that the technology and presentations that we use would be such that it attracts and engages youths who want to participate in these discussions.”
“Some may be disabled or from less fortunate back grounds or be at risk because they are out of school or facing difficult social circumstances. They will need our help in order for them to realise their potential. But we must focus beyond their problems and be able to look instead at the potential for each young Singaporean. Therefore, we must focus on giving them opportunities. It does not matter whether a person has failed academically or has taken an unconventional route. Always look at what opportunities lie in front of that person and our job is to give them a chance - to give them a second, third, fourth or fifth chance. Finally, we must ensure that even as we exhort young Singaporeans to contribute to society, we must also make sure they benefit from it. I am quite glad that the Ministry of Education has done away with CCA points for JC students and even removed the need for a mandatory six hours of CIP for JC students. Because now, they will do what they truly feel motivated to do. Similarly, the voluntary organisations which use the services of these young Singaporeans will now understand that there must be mutual benefit. The young Singaporean must learn something from his engagement and participation in your enterprise. I have asked for a handout to be distributed to Members. That is because many of you asked me what are our upcoming initiatives. First of all, I want to say that I am really not embarrassed to say, if you look at the handout, there are about 10 different categories. The majority of the ideas in there were harvested from our youth consultation exercise. It shows you our sincerity. It also shows you that we are going to give credit when credit is due.”
“" In that process of translating it into action, young people will discover what can or cannot work, whether it makes sense or does not make sense. In that process of discovery, they will learn the real lessons of life and, ultimately, make a difference to our society. It is also possible that in this journey of discovery, they will discover some decisions which we had assumed were correct in the past, perhaps no longer apply today. And the young people may genuinely come up with better solutions than we have had in the past. We are going to be guided by four principles in our engagement with young Singaporeans. First, we want to empower our young Singaporeans. That means, I am not going to prescribe to them, I am not going to dictate to them, I am not going to tell them what to do nor am I going to hold their hands throughout this journey of discovery. We will play a facilitative and a nurturing role. We will provide opportunities and support but it is up to the young Singaporeans to direct their talents and energy in the directions that they wish to go, whatever those directions are. Second, we will embrace the diversity that young Singaporeans bring to the table. Young Singaporeans are a very heterogeneous lot with very different interests. Some have a very good heart, and they want to help the less fortunate. Others are interested in preserving the environment, while others in arts, sports, culture, in mentoring others, and so on. We need to recognise and celebrate this diversity and let them decide, for each young Singaporean, what he or she wants to do. Third, we must be inclusive. Our youths come from varied backgrounds and have different needs.”
“We are now in a world in which ownership can no longer be just defined by owning a piece of concrete, a flat or even a home. I think young Singaporeans nowadays define ownership in terms of the intangible dimension. That intangible dimension is the opportunity to contribute and to make a difference. Some people have said and falsely accused young Singaporeans of being apathetic. Last year, we launched a nation-wide consultation exercise. The first order of the day in my Ministry was to launch this exercise and say, "Look, if we are going to address and engage our youth, the first thing we better do is to listen to them." My Parliamentary Secretary, Dr Maliki, Miss Penny Low and Dr Chong Weng Chiew were intimately involved in leading this consultation exercise. Dr Maliki will give Members a few more details later. But what did we learn from this exercise? First, young Singaporeans are not apathetic. Second, there is a large reservoir of goodwill, enthusiasm, passion and energy out there, waiting to be tapped and unleashed so that they can make a difference to this home that we call Singapore. Because young people do not know what can go wrong or they do not know the limits, that very ignorance gives young people the liberation to have no limits to their imagination. I think older Singaporeans need to give space to these unbridled enthusiasm and imagination of young people. Consequently, our challenge is not to tell young people that their idea cannot be done, it does not work or we have tried it before and it had failed. Our challenge is to say, "If you got an idea, now take it on to the next step. Translate it into action. Make it come to reality.”
“Yes, it is led by the Red Cross which, after all, raised about $81 million. But it has representatives from a wide spectrum of VWOs who were involved and engaged in the efforts to assist these victims. The Committee embodies the premise that we can do so much more by working with each other. And it is also noteworthy that if you look at the actual organisations that were on the ground, we saw organisations, which may have started on, which were religious. But coming together, we had Muslim, Buddhist and Christian organisations being able to come together, worked together and very often, even have a common front. In that way, they actually carried the Singapore flag very high for all of us. We could all celebrate and be happy that we were able to show that in Singapore, when we say, regardless of race, language and religion, we have actually taken this one step further. We are able to work together to achieve so much more. This, I believe is another reason for us to celebrate. Let me turn to the issues on youth. Last year, my Ministry was renamed the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports. As some of you have said, this cannot just be a name change. It demonstrates the Government's commitment to engage youth of Singapore in our efforts to shape our common future. My hope is that every young Singaporean will be able to proudly say, at some point in time in the future, that he has made a difference to some corner, some community, some people or to some cause in Singapore. Because he or she will be able to say, "I had a role to play and I made it, and I helped shape it in that way." Then, that sense of ownership, pride, belonging and engagement will be entrenched and enhanced.”
“If we look at the figures, from 1998 to 2003, donations to IPCs have doubled, and the figure is now more than $500 million a year. If you look at volunteerism rates, that has also increased from 9.3% in 2000 to 15.2% last year. This is an increase, and I am sure we can do more and we certainly want to encourage Singaporeans to volunteer even more. 12.45 pm But if we needed any further proof that Singaporeans have a big heart, we only need to look at the spontaneous and tremendous outpouring of compassion, help and donations that were manifested by Singaporeans during the recent tsunami disaster. We need no longer have any doubts in our mind that Singapore and Singaporeans are generous and compassionate people with a very big heart. We will continue to expand capabilities in the people sector. Voluntary welfare organisations, although you say "voluntary", they do need to be professional as well. We need to enhance the professionalism of both the volunteers as well as the paid staff of these organisations. That is why the NCSS has been working with VWOs to enhance training for social service personnel and also to help them take advantage, for instance, of the capabilities with increased use of info-communications technology (ICT) for these VWOs. We want VWOs to also move up and make use of all the training and facilities which are available in the modern world. But there is another aspect, which again was illustrated by our response to the tsunami disaster. That was the fact that VWOs could do so much more by collaborating with each other and by pursuing mutual synergy. That is why I was very heartened that one of the key committees that arose was this Tsunami Reconstruction Facilitation Committee.”
“Many Singaporeans derive a great sense of fulfilment when they are able to look beyond themselves and to do something for the community. They make a real difference to the lives of the people they come into contact with, and we need to encourage and nurture this spontaneous willingness, this expression of their heart to do more and to make a difference. That is why we have adopted this many-helping-hands approach, in which we will work with individuals, companies and voluntary welfare organisations to promote volunteerism and charity work and to encourage all of them to come forward. I want to say at this point in response to Dr Chong Weng Chiew that I am agnostic as to whether a voluntary welfare organisation is religious or secular as far as its primary motivations are concerned. But what we do insist on is that they express this willingness to serve in a manner which does not discriminate on the basis of race, language or religion. That is why Members of the House will be aware that, in order to get an Institution of Public Character (IPC) status which then enables the donors to claim double tax relief, the work that that organisation performs must be delivered in a race, language and religion-neutral fashion. So, I think with that framework in place, we can afford to be flexible and, frankly, to encourage all organisations, regardless of whether they are secular or religious, to carry on performing their social services. Indeed, I want to encourage them to do a lot more. This general approach of supporting organisations, and of supporting and encouraging Singaporeans to contribute their time, energy and efforts has actually paid off in a very real and significant way.”
“Of course, the worst is to let them balloon out of all proportion. I am sure the Government does not intend to do that. Therefore, we should have reliable data of the social cost of gambling, particularly casino gambling, which I believe is more addictive. In Singapore, in order to help us decide whether we should have a casino, what form it should take, what social safeguards to have, and where they can be most effectively placed, may I say here I do not agree that they should just be placed at the casino itself. They should be placed on the community level and, most importantly, how we can best manage the social costs that arise. Most of these costs and impacts will be borne by the family and community. We should therefore be given an idea of what they are likely to be, how we can manage them, how we can contain them and, best of all, how we can minimise their impact. The Acting Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (Dr Vivian Balakrishnan): Sir, yesterday I focused on the first priority of our Ministry, which was to ensure that all Singaporeans have opportunities to maximise his or her potential and that no one would be left behind. Let me now focus on the second area, which is to nurture the relationships that make life in Singapore meaningful and worthwhile. That is what binds us together as family members, as members of our community, as fellow citizens, and it is the nature of these relationships that make Singapore our home. That is why we are interested in issues like the family, that is why we are concerned with volunteerism, philanthropy, the state of racial harmony, sports and many other things that Members have brought up in the last hour.”
“Sir, I would like to ask if reliable studies have been done on the social impact and cost of gambling, especially casino gambling, in and on Singapore. In order to see the big picture, we cannot just look at the bright side - tourist dollars, increased revenue - but the dark side, as depicted by the tragedy of Simon Lee and his family. Studies done abroad show great variation from country to country and even community to community. And this makes it imperative that we do our own studies rather than rely on others. What is the estimated size of the problem? What are the groups at risk? We cannot assume that just because people have gambling in their blood that they are automatically immune to the side effects. I know that reliable data is not easy to collect or quantify and that much of the social impact of problem gambling is indirect, insidious and long term. Even if it is identified, the costs are likely to be under-estimated. For example, how do you quantify the loss of work ethic or family dysfunction until it reaches breaking point? These, to me, are all reasons for doing systematic studies of the social impacts of problem gambling as soon as accurately and as exhaustively as possible. For instance, can the recent rise in child abuse, divorce and bankruptcies that we have read about be related to an increase in pathological gambling? The Prime Minister has stated quite correctly, and I agree with him, that the role of Government is to risk-manage, not to risk-eliminate; to provide a safety net, but not a security blanket. But may I say that where the safety net is positioned is crucial. And the best way to risk-manage is to anticipate problems and prevent them, if possible. If not, at least treat them at source.”
“Sir, a point of clarification. I am glad the Minister made it quite clear and I agree with him that most Singaporeans take their family duty seriously and fulfil them conscientiously. But one of the examples he cited, I believe, is the 91% joint ownership in HDB flats. From what I understand, if a couple splits up, their assets in the HDB flat are not split equally but according to what each contributed. In other words, the message is still - what you put in, you get; what I put in, I get. It is "I first" culture. Yes, I understand from the Minister's reply that CPF is, as he said, first, an individual pension fund. I understand that self-sufficiency is an important message, but there is a fine dividing line between self-sufficiency and selfishness. What I was asking the Minister was: could the CPF be adjusted slightly to regard the family unit as the integral unit rather than the individual? While I understand that MOM's primary function is to look after the workers, I think you cannot disregard the homemakers.”
“What is more disturbing is that between 1980 and the year 2000, there was an increasing gender disparity in CPF, in actual figures between men and women. In our society, the man is considered the head of the household, but I believe that women exercise a greater say in the size of their families. Therefore, these modifications to the CPF should: (a) promote better and more effective long-term planning by and for families; (b) they should give fair recognition to the contributions made by a homemaker from both the spouse and from society at large; and (c) they should encourage couples and women especially to feel more secure about starting or enlarging their family without excessively compromising their own ability to provide for their old age.”
“Firstly, we should allow that a portion of the CPF of the salaried spouse be channelled into the CPF account of the homemaker or worker without CPF at any time, not just after 55. Of course, this should be by choice and not compulsion. But why are there so many restrictions? After 55, the CPF account holder has to have more than double the Minimum Sum. To my understanding, the CPF is not meant just as a personal pension fund or a life jacket for one. It is meant to be more family friendly, to be a survival kit for the whole family. So I do not feel that the present conditions are sufficiently family friendly or promote any form of family bonding. Secondly, could we consider additional incentives or tax reliefs be given to spouses who contribute to the CPF accounts of their spouses whose CPF balances are below the Minimum Sum, by perhaps topping up or a matching scheme? Thirdly, we could give families the choice to treat the husband and wife's CPF as a joint family CPF rather than an individual CPF owned solely by the income owner. Of course, the rights for withdrawal and investment would then have to be jointly exercised. I believe that this would promote for greater self-sufficiency, not just for the individual, but for the family as a unit. Young women today - thanks to wise policies, better education and greater job opportunities - have far more options than their grandmothers or even their mothers had. They would not choose to be in the same position as the majority of older women today, as the Tsao Aware report which was published recently showed that the majority of older women have the prospect of an insecure old age with an inadequate CPF and savings and are dependent on their children or welfare rather than on themselves.”
“Sir, one of the greatest fears that we all share, as had been aired in the House many times, is a dependent and decrepit old age if our lives should outlast our savings and our health. The Government has recognised this and made provisions in the latest Budget to try to allay these fears. Government also recognises that many young Singaporeans are concerned about the financial responsibilities of starting a family, and it has also done much to create an attractive baby bonus package. But what I feel is lacking, to a certain extent, is more policies or provisions that address the link between these two concerns - the concerns for old age and starting a family. True, these two problems do not arise at the same time. They arise at different ends of our adult life, but the concerns will overlap. Because choices we make when we are young determine what options are open to us when we are old. For example, a young woman of child-bearing age can choose to concentrate on family at the expense of her career or could do the reverse, or she could try and have it all and juggle both to the best of her ability. Some people manage to succeed than others. But whatever choices we make, they involve trade offs, and I think it is fair to say that in the existing system for a woman, one of the trade-offs is that if she concentrates on career, she will have greater self-sufficiency and financial independence. If she concentrates on family, this will result in greater financial dependency on her husband and subsequently her children. Therefore, if Government wishes to encourage Singaporeans to plan in advance both for their own old age and also to give young Singaporeans more incentives to have children, I think we should seriously consider certain modifications to the CPF.”
“Sir, first, on the issue of smoking in public places. I heard the Minister say that, ultimately, the Government will be working towards limiting smoking to private premises and wide open spaces. Is that correct? If so, I am rather concerned about smoking in wide open spaces. I would like to ask how many of the bush fires that we had recently, the spate of bush fires, was due to smoking in wide open spaces. And I would also like to ask the Minister if these wide open spaces include green areas and natural reserves and that proper provisions and deterrents be introduced to protect them from bush fires. Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: Sir, the reason why wide open spaces would be allowed is because of the explanation I gave in my reply on the effects of second-hand smoke. When you have a large open space, the smoke can be blown away. For the recent bush fires, I think MHA would be in a better position to explain some of the reasons. We have been told that, in some cases, there were people who did camping overnight and left the ember and, because of the hot climate, it caught fire. But I would like to assure the Member that we will work together with our other partners, the NParks Board, to make sure that our green spaces are well maintained. Generally, when people go to our green spaces, they do not go there to smoke, they go there to jog and have a nice time. So I can assure the Member that this is something that we will look into.”
“This is borne out by people I know who have test-driven it. As the success of the Prius in the US shows, people will buy hybrids, even in the gas-guzzling culture like the US, if the price is affordable. The beauty of the Prius electric hybrids is that they do not require any changes in driving behaviour or the fuel delivery infrastructure, like, for example, hydrogen fuels in our cars. So why are we waiting? Let me state here that I do not have any vested interest in Toyota or any other car companies, but I do have a vested interest in maintaining our environment, in keeping it healthy and sustainable. And I would also like to see Singapore reduce our carbon dioxide emissions. I know we have been improving on our performance, but our carbon dioxide emissions are still amongst the highest per capita in the world. I know that Singapore does not just want to be average or slightly better than average. We want to be really outstanding, and I think we can be. So if we are genuine in our desire to be clean and green, we must seriously consider the option of affordable energy-efficient vehicles. The Prime Minister, in his Budget Statement, spoke of support for projects which protect or improve our environment. Tax incentives for energy-efficient vehicles would definitely fulfil this criterion. Diesel Engine Cars”
“I would therefore like to ask the Government to reduce the price difference to a realistic level by providing tax incentives, more realistic tax rebates, or even creating a special COE category for green vehicles which meet the minimum criteria of energy efficiency. This, of course, does not mean a tax subsidy, but just a lower rate of taxation to give the use of energy-efficient vehicles that kick-start that it needs at the beginning. Of course, this could subsequently be moderated as more green cars take to the road and prices naturally equalise. I believe the same formula was used to promote unleaded petrol, and that worked very well. 3.45 pm Let me now quote from the latest Technology Quarterly of the Economist: "The success of the Prius has taken Toyota by surprise. The average rate at the American dealership is currently six months. [Some people in the US tell me that it is much longer than that.] Even though the company increased its sale target for North America from its initial estimate of 36,000 units to 47,000 units last year [ie, an increase of 30%] to meet demand, Toyota had to announce a further increase, saying it would push monthly global production up this year by 50% and double its allotment." This success is not surprising when one considers that by choosing to drive a hybrid like Prius, buyers can demonstrate how green they are without paying any penalty other than a slightly higher purchase price. Compared with the New American car of the same size, the Prius consumes roughly half as much petrol and, therefore, emits half as much climate changing carbon dioxide. Moreover, its emission of smog/fog pollutants are 90% lower than conventional vehicles. Yet, it still manages to deliver the comfort and performance of a conventional car.”
“Sir, I agree with the Minister that our environmental achievements are very impressive. But I also agree with Prof. Low that, despite our clean and green image, Singapore has been lagging behind in the introduction of energy-efficient vehicles. I do not have the same historical perspective in the House like he has but I feel that this anomaly should be corrected as soon as possible. Energy-efficient vehicles, such as petro-electric hybrids which produce less pollution and consume less fuel than conventional vehicles, are ideal for urban driving conditions like Singapore. They also have a better fuel economy rating for urban driving than for expressway driving - the opposite of a conventional vehicle. Unfortunately, as has been pointed out, the present costs are substantially more than conventional vehicles of the same engine capacity, and the current rebates are just not enough to make them cost-effective. So, this results in a chicken-and-egg situation. We have prohibitive prices that result in insufficient demand to make them cost-effective, and this insufficient demand then compounds the problem and keeps the prices high. Because of our relatively small domestic market and our taxation on cars, only Government can break this deadlock. Since the high vehicular tax is designed to provide us with an efficient world-class transport system and is also designed to keep our air quality good - at least this is how I perceive it, and I am sure it is not there just to increase our tax revenue - it appears paradoxical to me that this tax should be preventing, rather than promoting, the increased use of green vehicles in Singapore.”
“I would like to ask the Minister what MICA can do to address this problem. I understand that we have to create a fine balance between an international hub with international block busters and supporting the local arts scene. But, perhaps, this balance could be adjusted to give better support to Singapore artists and arts groups.”
“Sir, I have a point of clarification for the Minister. I am afraid this is rather a silver one. First, let me say that MICA has done a wonderful job to create a very vibrant arts scene in Singapore. But I wonder if the Minister is aware that despite this, arts groups and artists in Singapore still struggle for a living. They live from hand to mouth. And I am not talking about budding artists or arts groups. I am talking about the established ones, including some of those that the Minister mentioned. For example, there was something in the press recently that Han Sai Por, one of our award winning artists internationally known abroad, may have to close down her studio because of high rentals. And Ivan Heng of Wild Rice has recently written an article in one of the arts magazines bemoaning the fact that the pie for local arts groups is shrinking rapidly. They are in the position of SMEs competing with multinationals. So, they are competing for venues, sponsorships and audience.”