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 4 of 4.
“Sir, my question is: do we have such a law here and, if not, could we consider adopting it? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, I believe there is a case law in this area. It has already been held that if a motorist hits a pedestrian, even though the motorist may have the right of way, he would still be liable - not fully liable but partly liable, because the pedestrian is vulnerable and, if the motorist takes a little bit more care, he would have noticed the pedestrian. So, it is a matter of degree of negligence which is at work.”
“Sir, I would like to say that I support the points made by Mr Charles Chong and Ms Irene Ng on their concerns about safety for cyclists and pedestrians. In some countries, if there is an accident involving a motorist, cyclist or pedestrian, the motorist is considered automatically at fault unless he or she can prove that he or she is innocent. I think this is a very good practice to promote greater safety for cyclists and pedestrians. May I add that these cities, I believe, are the ones that were mentioned by the Minister as being those with practices that we would like to emulate, eg, France, Germany, Canada, if I am not mistaken, and not the ones which have practices that we do not wish to emulate. Very often --- 3.15 pm”
“Okay. I stand corrected. AID FOR ACEH (Update) 5. Mdm Halimah Yacob asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs (a) if he will give an update, now that Aceh affected by the tsunami is entering into the reconstruction phase, on how the aid, which the Government had pledged to Aceh, will be channelled to it; and (b) whether it will be used for building of infrastructure or other specific projects.”
“Sir, just a point of clarification. When the Minister talked about Heritage Roads - he named a few, such as South Buona Vista and Mount Pleasant Road - are these the confirmed Heritage Roads? Will there be other Heritage Roads that were not mentioned? If members of the public have suggestions of other Heritage Roads, will these be considered?”
“In conclusion, I hope that the new Parks and Trees Bill will be protective and proactive rather than reactive. It should promote public consultation and participation rather than be perceived as merely restrictive and punitive. It should serve to protect whole ecosystems, see the whole picture, rather than just individual plants, animals and organisms. It should value our biodiversity and ecosystems not just as recreational or even heritage and education, important though they are, it should value them as economic and scientific assets. Finally, the Bill should serve to protect our country as one with valuable natural resources, not just as a garden city but as an island nation with rich marine and terrestrial biodiversity. Our larger vision of ourselves must encompass not only our economy and our people but our biodiversity and ecosystems. Last week, I have already mentioned the triple bottom-line. I believe that if we are to be sustainable in the long term as a nation, we must guard our natural reserves as assiduously as we guard our fiscal reserves.”
“Of course, Chek Jawa is one example. I believe that there have been some other areas amongst our Southern Islands which have recently been discovered, which have as rich a biodiversity as Chek Jawa. Secondly, public feedback and consultation, not just from experts but from general members of the public, can also influence policy making constructively by giving a better insight into what the public wants. Our Government agencies and policy makers may not be as close to the pulse of public opinion as they imagine. For example, not everyone would want to travel from point A to point B on a road as quickly as possible all the time. LTA may find that shaving a few minutes off travelling time may not be as important as a pleasant drive along a heritage road. Minister Lim Swee Say, I believe, in a previous speech in the House, spoke about introducing mirrors in lifts to make the journey more pleasant and a more economical alternative to replacing slow lifts with faster lifts. May I suggest that retaining trees on roads would have the same function. I should say that if LTA were to only focus on faster travelling time, we will have more and more roads and less and less worthwhile destinations to go to. The third advantage that public consultation could have on our nature areas, as Dr Amy Khor has also said, is that it would educate and raise public awareness. It would educate and raise public awareness not just on the value of nature areas but also some of the problems faced by Government in trying to juggle our scarce land. On the issue of volunteerism, I have already mentioned the Blue Volunteers. In areas such as implementation, monitoring and patrolling of our biodiversity, I believe that public participation is not just useful, it will be invaluable.”
“It would have been within the technical and economic ability of LTA, during the construction of the BKE, to construct part of it underground, but this was not done. And to reconnect Bukit Timah Nature Reserve now to the central catchment area, to do a bypass operation, as it were, would be far more costly than if this had been built in the original plan. So this is an example of how an environmental impact assessment would not have impeded the construction of the BKE, but it would have given us a win-win situation. I understand that, in the past, speed and cost cutting were given priority. But, today, increasing scarcity of land and the escalating value of fast-disappearing natural ecosystems and biodiversity require a paradigm shift in our approach, and therefore in our laws. Insufficient consultation at the conceptual stage of planning will result in the pursuit of short-term narrow objectives to the detriment of long-term sustainability, and everyone will be the loser, not just our biodiversity. The third issue I would like to suggest to the Minister - here again, it has already been brought up by Dr Amy Khor although we were not in consultation - is the provision for more public consultation and participation in the Bill. Inter-agency consultation is essential but, in my view, not enough. The public too should be consulted, preferably at an early stage, even in the conceptual stage of any development that impacts on our nature areas. The underlying principle, again, being that we should gather as much information as possible beforehand in order to enable Government to make a fully informed choice. Early public consultation can have many benefits. First, experts and interested amateurs can contribute valuable information not previously known to policy makers.”
“While, of course, I do not contest the need for roads, housing, reservoirs, etc, I believe a legal framework for inter-agency consultation and coordination at the planning stage of the development, together with joint decision making and more detailed inter-agency alignments, after the collection of all necessary information, would allow for a far more comprehensive, less-competitive and less wasteful use of scarce land. The new Bill is certainly an improvement on the existing Act and I applaud the protection of designated heritage roads and heritage road buffers. I think that is a great step forward. The new Bill also does allow for some consultation between LTA and the National Parks Board pertaining to these roads but it does not actually mention how early this consultation should take place. There is also no mention of mandatory environmental impact assessments. Since an EIA requires a thorough assessment of all possible impacts of the proposed project on the environment, including the impacts on the biodiversity and the social and cultural impacts, it would, if properly conducted, be the fairest and most informed way to make difficult decisions on land use where different agencies are involved. For example, an environmental impact assessment, if it had been done in the past, would have prevented the dissection of Bukit Timah Nature Reserve from the central catchment area by the Bukit Timah Expressway (BKE). It is now recognised that the commonest cause of biodiversity loss after destruction is fragmentation. The smaller the nature area in the ecosystem, the more vulnerable it is. The Bukit Timah Nature Reserve is our only tract of primary rainforest on the island left, although more than 90% of our island was previously covered with rainforest.”
“We have already formed a volunteer group, but clearly the powers of the volunteer group could only go as far as trying to educate these people and to enlighten them, but we have no legal powers. I only have the courage to bring up this example because I think the new Bill does empower National Parks Board to at least protect these marine areas a little better than they did before. The new Bill has extended its protection to marine areas insofar as the interpretation of "fish" now includes "shellfish", "premises" include "any place under water", and in clause 7, it replaces "land" with "areas", which I presume could, therefore, include marine or inter-tidal areas. I applaud this extension of the Bill because this would certainly give marine areas like Chek Jawa more protection than it previously did. But, of course, the question arises: why not go further and gazette some marine nature reserves? The next area where I think the Bill could improve further has already been mentioned by Dr Amy Khor. It is better inter-agency coordination and consultation at the conceptual level. The intense pressure on competition of scarce land by multiple-Government agencies, the desire of each agency to focus on and achieve its narrow targets quickly and as economically as possible, the lack of mandatory environmental impact assess ments and the impossibility of identifying and mapping out all our biodiversity on our island quickly enough, all these converged in a tendency to sacrifice our natural ecosystem to short-term intra-agency objectives. Very often, we are unaware of what has been destroyed and, it is literally, a race between the discovery and extinction for our natural heritage.”
“One example is the Blue Plan proposed by the Environmental Feedback Group of the Feedback Unit, and also in the Singapore Green Plan 1992 and recommendations/feedback on the revised Green Plan 2012. Because of the lack of legal protection of our marine biodiversity, the National Parks Board has limited powers in this area. This problem is compounded by the multi-agency approach. There is no central coordinating body. Let me give an example. Water quality and monitoring are under Maritime Port Authority. The pollution and oil-spill are under the Ministry of the Environment. Coral collecting is under Singapore Land Authority, which is under the Ministry of Law. Aquaculture is under AVA. Coastal development and land reclamation are under URA, and nature conservation is under NParks. But, as I have said, NParks could do only a limited amount because there is no gazetted marine nature reserve. Let me, at this point, cite a recent experience in Labrador Nature Reserve. This is in relation to the illegal collection of corals. As I mentioned, NParks rangers, because of their limited powers even in an area which is a nature reserve, in this case, in the marine part of the Park, could only accost those culprits when they come to land with their sacks of booty, corals that they have broken off from the reefs shelf and other marine organisms. Of course, it was too late then, as the damage had been done. As I mentioned, coral collecting is under Singapore Land Authority, but Singapore Land Authority does not police these areas. The Navy and Marine Police are clearly not interested. The situation has got so bad that nature lovers have, in fact, formed a volunteer group, as was suggested by Dr Amy Khor in her speech.”
“Singapore sees itself as a city state, and through the vision of Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, a clean and green city, a garden city and, now, a city in the garden, as Minister Lim Swee Say mentioned. But, we still see ourselves as a city. Our laws were designed to protect our greenery within the limits of this image of ourselves. And whilst this vision was sufficient and forward-looking 30 years ago, this is no longer the case today. I urge the Government to think of Singapore not as a city, but as a country with a hinterland. Our seas, offshore islands, coral reefs and nature areas are not just space for our city to expand into. They are repository of our valuable biodiversity and should be treated as such. And our laws should protect them as our natural reserves in the same way as we protect our fiscal reserves. I applaud the improvements in the new Parks and Trees Bill that serve to protect our natural ecosystem. But, may I say, Mr Deputy Speaker, that there are certain areas where I feel we could do much better. The first is in the protection of our marine biodiversity. I quote from Chapter 17, Agenda 21 of the Rio Summit: "The marine environment is an essential component of the global life support system." Further down it also said: "Each coastal state should consider establishing or strengthening appropriate coordinating mechanisms for integrated management and sustainable development of coastal and marine areas and their resources." But despite the fact that Singapore is a signatory of the Convention on Biological Diversity, we do not yet have any marine nature reserve. Many local experts, both professionals and amateurs, from the scientific and environmental communities have repeatedly called for better legal protection of our seas and marine biodiversity.”
“In fact, it is so rapidly growing that biopiracy is also on the rise. One often quoted bioprospecting venture was conducted by the National Cancer Institute of the United States. They discovered, on one of their forays, that a sample taken from a small tree in Sarawak had, and I quote, "100% protection against the cytopathic effects of HIV1 infection, having essentially halted HIV1 replication." In other words, it could prevent the development of a full-blown AIDS infection once an individual has been tested HIV positive. Unfortunately, a larger sample was needed to isolate and identify the chemical. But, when the collectors went back to Sarawak, to where they got the original sample, which was, of course, a few years later, because it took time, they found that the trees had been cut down. So, a frantic worldwide search was instituted because clearly this is a potentially very valuable chemical. It led to a lot of false leads, but finally, the magic chemical was found, not in the same specie, but in a very closely related specie in the small area of primary forest that we have left in the Singapore Botanic Gardens. And this enabled the molecule to be identified and replicated and it is now undergoing further testing for clinical use. So our nature areas, having long been neglected, have now come to be valued for their recreational, heritage and even educational functions. But I believe that their potential scientific and economic values are still not probably recognised. And clearly in almost all these cases, this is not because they do not have that intrinsic value but because we have not found the way to make use of it.”
“But I have since learned that if one is talking to hard-headed policy makers, one has to try and give some hard facts and figures. So let me try. The first example I should like to cite is ecosystem services. This is a very widely quoted example which, I am sure, some of you have already heard. In 1997, an international team of economists and environmental scientists put a dollar amount on all the ecosystem services provided free of charge to humanity by the living natural environment. Drawing from multiple databases, they estimated that the contribution was $33 trillion or more a year. This amount is doubled the gross world product, which is the total sum of all the gross national products of all the different countries in that same year. Ecosystem services could be defined as the flow of material, energy and information from the biosphere, the natural world, that supports human existence and it includes all the things we take for granted - regulation of the atmosphere and climate, purification and retention of water, formation and enrichment of soil, etc. To put it in an even more cogent manner, if humanity were to try to replace these free services of the natural economy by substituting services with its own manufacture, the annual gross world product would have to be tripled. But, of course, this is purely hypothetical and abstract because it would not be economically and technologically possible to do so. The second example I should like to quote to demonstrate the economic and scientific value of our biodiversity is an example in bioprospecting. Bioprospecting is the exploration of biodiversity for useful resources, pharmaceuticals, new food sources, petroleum substitutes and so on. And it is now recognised as a rapidly growing industry.”
“Let me give a few examples. We have more species of trees and plants in Bukit Timah Nature Reserve than on the whole of the North American continent. This example has been cited many times. I do not think there is any harm saying it again. This is, of course, due to the fact that tropical rainforests are the richest terrestrial biodiversity in the world. But only less than 3% of our forests remain today. Our coral reefs, the marine equivalent of tropical rainforests, have a far greater biodiversity of marine lives than, for example, the Great Barrier Reef. The Great Barrier Reef is large, but is not as diverse as our seas. Even in Singapore waters alone - I am not passing out figures, but pictures - certainly this is the case. These are photographs of our marine biodiversity that had been taken only in Singapore waters and only in the last few years. In Singapore waters alone, we have more than 8,000 species of marine plants and fishes, and more are being discovered all the time, many of them are likely to be new species. This is despite the fact that more than 60% of our coral reefs have already been destroyed. Our mangroves have more than 2,000 species of recorded plants and animals, but we only have 1% of our mangroves left. I think, in the recent tsunami disaster you heard one of the functions of mangroves, but mangroves are also the breeding grounds for all the seafood that we eat - fish, prawns, shellfish - and they also serve to prevent land erosion. You may be asking what is the value of these figures that I have been giving and the pictures that I have been passing around. In the past, I would have said that it would be difficult to give a figure to it, not because our biodiversity is not valuable, but because it is difficult to quantify.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do not know whether I have to declare my interest as President of the Nature Society, but I would do so anyway. I was particularly moved last week in the House by the number of MPs, both old and young, who spoke out for that sector of Singaporeans who do not or cannot speak for themselves - the elderly, the disabled and the less educated. Today, I should also like to speak for another sector of the population of Singapore who are unable to speak for themselves, although Dr Amy Khor has, to a large extent, already spoken for them. But first, I would like to correct a grave misconception which I have heard repeatedly in the past, both in the House and out, and this is the statement that Singapore has no or few natural resources. I beg to differ. In fact, I should like to state that I believe that Singapore is rich in natural resources. Firstly, our geographical capital. Our strategic location, our clement natural environment, without extremes in climate, our freedom from natural disasters and our deep seawater port, to me, these are all bounties of nature and if geography is destiny, I believe that ours is a very fortunate one. Our second natural resource is, of course, our human capital, which has been mentioned many times in the past and now given the recognition that it deserves. Wise Government has value-added to it and is continuing to do so. So I would not dwell on this aspect. The third is our natural capital which, to me, is the most overlooked, unacknowledged and under-valued of all our natural resources. I am referring, of course, to our biodiversity, both our terrestrial and marine biodiversity, which is amongst the richest in the world. Not only do we fail to value-add, but we have been value-subtracting from it.”
“I believe that only by feeling valued, trusted and challenged could we nurture and strengthen the sense of ownership and belonging in the younger generation and, in fact, in all Singaporeans. Fourthly, creating a buzz. As our Prime Minister noted, bungee jumping and bar-top dancing are only surface forms of buzz. Even the buzz of economic activity could not match the real buzz which I consider to be the buzz of ideas, knowledge and creativity. If we wish to become an education, science and research, IT or arts centre, we must accelerate the exchange of information to generate this buzz of "talent, energy and vitality". Finally, facing future challenges. I, again, quote our Prime Minister who said that, "To understand our challenges fully and vigorously, we need to draw on the expertise and resources of all our people." To have an open and inclusive society, I believe we need better channels of communication and sharing of information. Mr Speaker, Sir, in the past, Government was proactive; Singaporeans were reactive and, often, inactive. In the past, Government saw the big picture; Singaporeans only saw a small piece of it. In the past, Singaporeans trusted their Government. It was considered irrelevant whether the Government trusted Singaporeans. Today, I believe it is important that both Government and citizens are proactive, could see the big picture, and trust each other equally.”
“In a knowledge-based economy, disclosure of information and transparency are prerequisites in remaining competitive. There are already some suggestions and signs that we may be lagging behind some of our global competitors, or would be, if we do not improve on these areas. Secondly, global citizenship. The President in his speech has emphasised that Singapore should be a bigger global player, not just in the economic arena, but as global citizens. While we should not forgo Asian values, we should be sensitive and aware of the values of the global community and one of these is freedom of access to information. We should, as global citizens, look at global as well as Asian values. Thirdly, a greater sense of ownership and national identity. As has been mentioned many times in this House, the Government recognises that younger Singaporeans have higher expectations than their parents and Singapore has given them wings and they could not wait to take flight. Mr Gan in his speech mentioned kites. I prefer the analogy of birds. We want them to soar, to be global citizens, but we also hope that they would see their country not just as a jumping board or take-off point, but that they would regard Singapore as a home and come back to roost. Why I prefer the analogy of birds to kites is that birds do not need to be tethered by a string. They could fly freely, but they do return. Migratory birds may fly thousands of miles, but they come back to where they were born, their homeland, by choice. As global citizens, char kuay teow and childhood memories alone could not bring them back and, sad to say, sometimes, even family and friends could not tilt the balance.”
“As we read from reports, mangroves could have buffered some of the damages. Warnings from meteorological officers about a potential earthquake and tsunami also were not heeded. Because most of these countries, in fact, all these countries, were focused on economic progress. So they missed the window of opportunity and, sad to say, it was tourism, the economy and, most of all, the people, the communities, who suffered. As a doctor and a nature-lover, I could appreciate how difficult it is to put information into the public domain, or even to share it with other agencies. We, doctors and nature-lovers, are traditionally protective, even highly possessive, of our hard-gained, hard-earned knowledge. Giving access to information entails taking risks, but we have to acknowledge the public's right to this information, whether we like it or not. And that sharing of knowledge, while it may expose us to greater risks, would also give the whole society greater long-term benefits. Chek Jawa, for instance, would never have been saved if nature-lovers had not revealed its treasure to the public. I would venture to say that if Government and citizens had not reached such a level of mutual trust that we had, by the time Chek Jawa came up, we might not have revealed it to Government, because we would not have seen the benefit of revealing. We would just have appreciated it quietly, just a few people, and then it would have gone. It would have become extinct without anyone else being the wiser or benefiting from the knowledge of the place. Let me, therefore, in summary list some of the reasons why I believe that a greater pool of shared information and mutual trust are essential to our country. Firstly, global competitiveness.”
“But while they are good at collecting information, it is still a bit slow in giving it out. Traffic is only free flowing in one direction most of the times, I am afraid. While the President's Address and the Addenda effectively cover our future hopes and challenges, and spelt out some of the ways that we should meet them, I was disappointed at the insufficient emphasis on an integrated inter-agency approach. True, this approach is mentioned by the President in relation to security and the terrorist threats, but not, for instance, in relation to sustainable development. The economy, society and the environment - and I am not talking about the economic environment here, I am talking about the natural environment - have been separately addressed by the Economic Restructuring Committee, the Remaking Singapore Committee and the Singapore Green Plan 2012 respectively and by the relevant Ministries. But there has been insufficient attention paid to the integration of these three initiatives. For example, the Remaking Singapore Committee talks about active citizens but it never mentioned anything about active citizens contributing to the environment, recycling, for example, which you could not achieve successfully without the contribution of citizens. The triple bottom line of sustainable developments requires that these three initiatives - the economy, society and environment - not be addressed as three separate pictures, but as one integrated picture. And secondly, that the picture be constructed simultaneously, not sequentially, otherwise the window of opportunity may have closed by the time one decides to address it. I am afraid here I have to mention the tsunami as an example, but I would mention the aspect which I think no one has addressed yet in the House.”
“Our present and past PMs both have recognised and addressed this problem many times and called for change of mindset in the civil service and a more open and inclusive style of Government. I should now like to talk about the label "narrow interest group". May I say that naturally, when we advocate or petition for something, we have to be focused on the issue under discussion. But the narrowness of the issue does not mean that we have tunnel vision. For example, a nature lover is also a family member, a child, a parent, a spouse, he or she is also a breadwinner, worker, taxpayer, home-owner, consumer, commuter and even golfer, believe it or not, and above all, a Singaporean. So, when we speak, we are speaking from all these perspectives combined. No nature lover is going to push for conservation of a nature area if he or she thinks that it is going to endanger the future of his or her child. I might add at this point that sometimes, when we speak to civil servants, we get a distinct impression, whether correctly or not, that they seem to be speaking only as civil servants representing their particular Ministry. The challenges we face today make it important and even imperative that as many people as possible see the big picture and not just see it but contribute to it. I may add that the picture is not a static one but something that is constantly evolving and changing. We need both an enlightened Government and an enlightened public and to achieve this, we need to have more green lanes for the two-way flow of information. Government, I would admit, is now very assiduous in collecting feedback. The Feedback Unit has done a very impressive job in this and so have various Ministries.”
“I would admit, as others have, that their tendency to press the "door open" button is a lot more frequent now than it used to be and even if they press the "door close" button, they are more courteous about doing it. And sometimes, they give you explanations before they do it. And I would also say that there are many enlightened exceptions to this rule, including a couple of the Ministers who are here today and some senior civil servants, who have gone out of their way to press the "door open" button. If everyone was like them, I would not be making the speech here. But, unfortunately, they are still the exception rather than the rule. And the average citizen asking for information still feels that he or she is a practitioner, requesting for favours, taking up their time, rather than someone with equal rights to information. The standards put down that we have all heard, whether in direct communication or in a reply from one of the Ministries in the Forum pages, is, "You represent an individual or a narrow interest group. Therefore, you cannot see the big picture (implication being of course that only Government can see the big picture)." I do not deny that our policy makers see a much bigger picture than we can or do. But we would like to see the big picture too. Most of us would like to see a big picture if we could. However, as individuals or even groups such as NGOs, SMEs and VWOs, we lack the resources and the access to information to see the big picture. May I add that no government can see the whole picture. Even a Government like us, endowed with remarkable vision, will only see it from one perspective or miss certain details.”
“I am not suggesting at this point that we adopt this. I do not think Singaporeans either desire or feel the need to bring their Government to court in order to get information. But I believe strongly that there is a connection between this acknowledgement of a citizen's right to information that bestows on him or her a sense of equality, a sense of pride, a sense of responsibility, which then engenders the desire to contribute to make a difference. The Remaking Singapore Committee had many good recommendations. One of them, I thought, was a Code of Consultation and I quote, "a public document providing guidelines and minimum standards of public consultation." It then went on to recommend that certain areas and topics should be defined and also what information could be divulged. I should like to suggest, at this point, that we push the limits of this Code further by adopting a green lane rather than a red lane approach to access of information. Unless information is deemed potentially sensitive or likely to compromise security or religious or ethnic harmony or personal rights to privacy, it should go through the green lane. By the way, I know everyone is expecting me to talk about green issues. I think this is the only time I am going to mention "green" in my speech. Singaporeans, I believe, are mature and responsible enough to handle this access to information. Any active citizen who had tried to have a constructive engagement with the public sector will sooner or later have encountered their tendency to press the "door close" rather than the "door open" button. This is addressed by other Members of the House.”
“They admitted to shortcomings and mistakes and they admitted to not knowing the answer at times. This, rather than eroding confidence in the Government, to me, inspired confidence amongst Singaporeans that our Government was honest, open, trustworthy, and in contrast to the many other countries where, I am sorry to say, there was a gap in credibility and sometimes even a breach of trust between Government and people. I would not mention the tsunami disaster as a milestone because many people have already done so. But clearly, it is another one which has brought us to an even further height of mutual trust. So through joint efforts of Government and citizens, we have reached a further level of public engagement. This is certainly, I consider, a reason for congratulation but it is not an end-point. It is a step to even greater heights. The Prime Minister, in a speech he made to the Harvard Club in January last year, said, "Looking ahead, one important task of the Government will be to promote further civic participation and to progressively widen the limits of openness." Since giving this speech, he has already done much to widen the limits of openness. I would say, at this point, it appears to me that the logical next step to greater openness is greater access to information. The Prime Minister also mentioned in the same speech that, and I quote, "The US has a very active citizenry, always ready to organise themselves and solve their own problems, without waiting for the Government." In short, a proactive citizenry. I should like to point out at this point that the US also has a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) which was created to allow citizens greater access to Government documents. Over 50 developed countries have a similar Act.”
“They also said that a spacious living environment did not just mean more square metres to their flat because how many more square metres could they have: A more spacious living environment could be the sensation of space that you would get when you look out of your window and see green and parks. So to me, this URA exercise showed to me and I believe, to other people, that Singaporeans are not apathetic, that they can think of the common good rather than just their own immediate interest and that they can think out of the box. About one-sixth of the people who responded also said: why can we not have both? Why can they not have more spacious living areas as well as green and parks? So I felt that they did very well. Obviously, this is a planned consultation exercise and you might say that the respondents were self-selected and therefore not representative. Sir, I come to my second milestone, which is SARS. The SARS crisis obviously took every one by surprise, Government and people. No one had planned for it and this was a life-threatening crisis. I would not go into details because many Members had already spoken about how both Singaporeans and Government came out very well with an enhanced mutual trust and respect for each other. But I would like to say that for me, one of the key factors why I consider this a milestone in Government-citizen relationships is that Government was transparent and communicative and open throughout the crisis. The then Minister for Health and the present Minister for Health and the PM and DPM, despite the stress and pressure that they were under during this crisis, gave daily press interviews. And in these interviews, they did not just tell people that everything was all right.”
“They may not have galvanised the population into action straightaway, but I think the effect was, shall we say, more evolutionary rather than electrifying, and I believe that they made a big difference and are still making a big difference. So, the Government certainly deserves our trust. Their long and outstanding, even awesome, record is very hard to match. But I think Singaporeans have come a long way as well. May I cite two examples. The first is the URA's public consultation on land use which was conducted in December 2000 as part of their Concept Plan review. This is now recognised as a significant milestone in public consultation, both in the number of participants and agencies involved, and the openness of the process. One of the five questions that URA posed to the public was: "Would you prefer a larger living area or more parks and green areas?" When I saw this question, I felt it was unfair. I still feel it is unfair, because you are asking people to choose between a material, measurable by personal benefit or gain against more parks and green spaces, which is a less quantifiable and common benefit. Surely human nature would, not just in Singapore but anywhere in the world, choose the first option. However, I was very pleasantly surprised when I looked at the answers because a significant majority of Singaporeans chose the second, i.e., they chose more parks and green spaces over a more spacious living area. Many of them gave reasons. They said that in a land scarce country, it seemed fairer, more democratic, to share out the limited space rather than having their own individual living areas.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank you for the opportunity to support the motion to thank the President for his Address. In his Address, the President said that a key ingredient of our success has been our faith in Singapore. I support this wholeheartedly. May I also add that I believe that this is not a blind faith that he was talking about, but a faith that is based on mutual trust between an enlightened Government and enlightened citizens. When I read sometime in October last year that Singapore had been ranked top in a survey conducted by the World Economic Forum on whether citizens trusted their governments, I naturally felt very proud and privileged to be a Singaporean, and I still do. But certain thoughts came to my mind. Firstly, is it good for Singaporeans to have such near perfect trust in the Government? Only 3% of Singaporeans said that they did not fully trust the Government, as opposed to most countries where more than 50% of their citizens said they did not trust their governments. For surgeons, 97% is as perfect as you can get. Secondly, it also occurred to me that though Singaporeans trust their Government, does the Government reciprocate this trust equally? Clearly, an imbalance of trust can engender increasing apathy in its citizens. If the Government is so trusted, what is there for Singaporeans to contribute? To be fair to our Government, they have had the foresight to recognise the need for a more active citizenry, and organisations, such as the Feedback Unit, and committees, such as Singapore 21 and the Remaking of Singapore Committee, have addressed this issue. Unlike the Member for Ang Mo Kio GRC, Mr Inderjit Singh, I have faith in what these initiatives achieve. He said that they fizzled out. I do not think they fizzled out.”