Heng Chee How
Singapore
“And in the case of overseas training, then there will be specific link-ups into the systems of our overseas partners, for example, if there is a need to further send the injured NSman to the local hospitals for more specialised treatment, that, too, was all planned in as well in terms of the protocols.”
“In addition to conducting regular exchanges with their professional counterparts, SAF personnel in our overseas training detachments participate actively in local community life and contribute back to the local communities, thus contributing to the strengthening of bilateral ties.”
“Mr Chairman, I thank Mr Giam for his question. The NS allowance, the nature of it, it is in a form of honorarium and for that, CPF is not payable. However, I just wanted to emphasise two points. One, within the NS journey, they are actually eligible for NS HOME Awards, which are paid out in the course of the NSmen's journey.”
“Mr Chairman, as we look forward, MINDEF/SAF’s commitment to NS and to our NSmen remains steadfast. We will continue to enhance the NS experience, maximise the contributions of our NSmen, and strengthen recognition for their service.”
“Mr Speaker, we have shown care for our older workers as a Government, as tripartite partners, not only in words but in deeds. As a result, we have made very substantial progress for our older workers, often bucking global trends. The environment we must deal with will be increasingly challenging.”
“Ultimately, fighting age discrimination is not only a legal matter nor is it just a moral imperative. It is also an economic necessity that will help sustain long-term prosperity for all.”
The complete record
Every one of 862 lines we hold for Heng Chee How, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 15 of 18.
“I would like to make the following clarifications. If we were to do the HDB-LUP formula, then obviously it is a HDB-LUP. The TC-LUP is a different arrangement for the Town Councils who wish to do so in order to bring that benefit, if they feel that they want to, to their residents over and above whatever the HDB-LUP might be currently doing. If they want to split it up themselves, then it is something that they can choose to do. So this arrangement is to facilitate that. Even so, as he correctly pointed out, part of the sinking fund is contributed by the Government through grants. So it is not true to say that the Government had not co-paid a certain amount even in the TC-LUP exercise. I think just now, he also mentioned that last year, the Government allowed for sinking fund contributions to be reduced from 35% to 30% and that actually already reduced the inflow into the sinking fund. But just to be correct, again, that was an option that was given to individual Town Councils to choose. And in fact, I do know for a fact that some Town Councils have chosen to keep it at 35% contribution into the sinking fund. So I just want to clarify that when we enable Town Councils to mount these exercises, it is to give an option to Town Councils that wish to do so within clear rules. It does not say that they must do it. If Mr Chiam's Town Council wants to do it and Mr Low's Town Council does not want to do it, then it is their call and it is a choice for their respective towns. Just like many of the other provisions, like erecting on common property, repairing and maintaining those things, it is really to say that if you choose to do something, then take care of it along the way, do not just build and disappear. So it is actually giving more leeway and more options.”
“So it is not something that is put in there in order that the Minister can go and dispute with him. That is not the intention of this amendment. Mr Low Thia Khiang spoke about the cost-sharing arrangement for HDB-LUP where the HDB pays for most of it and the remainder is co-shared between the Town Council co-paying with the household. His point is: why not ask the Government to then give the money to the TC so that the TC can mount this TC-LUP exercise by assisting the HDB? Did I understand you correctly?”
“We are doing this in response actually to certain Town Councils which have looked at the entire town and said that, within this town, there are certain areas that they would like to do more and they would like to erect certain things on non-common property. But under the current provisions, they would not be allowed to do that. We are actually giving this leeway, and it does not mean that you have to do it. So I just want to clarify with Dr Teo Ho Pin that this is not something where, as a result of such an amendment, the other agencies can stop doing their work or they just erect things on non-common property and then require the Town Council to maintain for them. That is not the case. What it says is that it gives you the opportunity, if you so choose, to erect on non-common property structures but, at the same time, not erect and disappear. Structures which you erect, you also repair and maintain. So this is actually to make it complete. That is the purpose of that particular section. Mr Chiam talked about section 24B where he asked what if the Minister disagrees with the Town Council's Chairman on which precinct to gazette. If I may read section 24B, it says here, "The Minister may, after consulting the Board [and in this case, it means HDB] and the Town Council concerned, from time to time by order published in the Gazette, declare any housing estate or any part thereof within that Town Council's Town to be a precinct for the purposes of lift upgrading works in buildings therein". This gazetting is for the purposes of clarity, just as section 24B(4) that comes after that which enables the Minister of State to assist in the approval of this. So these are actually administrative measures to make clear and expedite the exercise.”
“So, this is two sides of the issue and this provision would enable us from the Government side, to signal very clearly where the lines are drawn. It is not meant to penalise, and certainly not meant to trap anybody politically, as Dr Lily Neo has correctly pointed out. The number of PAP Town Councils outnumbers the number of Opposition Town Councils by a multiple. And the same rule applies to all. So it is really to signal that with this relaxation, you have the flexibility as a Town Council to mount these exercises, but be careful. Because these moneys, as Prof. Ong Soh Khim has pointed out, were collected and they were put aside for cyclical works. Therefore, we want to make sure that people do not go overboard and intentionally breach these rules. Why? So that the Town Councils' work can be sustainable, viable and properly done. That is good governance. We just wanted to draw the line clearly. Everybody knows where it is and there is no misunderstanding so that these penalties, in fact, do not need to be used. We just hope that this signal is very clearly registered. On non-common property, I would like to provide this clarification, and that is Town Councils can erect things on common property and then they repair and maintain them. Currently, Town Councils cannot erect things on non-common property but can maintain them, if they agreed. This relaxation or amendment would therefore give Town Councils, if they so wish, the option to erect and then repair and maintain structures on non-common property subject to the Minister's agreement and subject to the land owner's agreement. Why are we doing this? It is certainly not to trap anybody into planting trees and then trap you under one of the other provisions. It is quite the opposite.”
“That is why I think all of us will agree that in every case, wherever possible, there will be discussions to see how to help them stretch the repayment of their arrears, eg, new instalment plans and restructuring of their plans. There are so many different ways before you would even try to do anything to seize and sell their movable property, not to mention their flat. So, if you look at the track records of how Town Councils have been so-called making use of these existing provisions in respect of S&C charges which, in many cases, would amount to much more than any of these TC-LUP charges can go up to, then you will know that these provisions are there but, on the ground, Town Councils would interact in a very positive way with the residents. It is something that the Ministry would really like the Town Councils to continue to make available different payment schemes, and continue to work with the residents for the betterment of the town and the quality of life there. There are comments from various Members on the penalty clauses, eg, holding the Town Council Chairman and Secretary accountable if sinking funds are not used in the prescribed manner. For example, if you breach the cost cap in an intentional way, then that will constitute an offence. So, what is this all about? Before we have this amendment passed, Town Councils simply cannot use sinking funds to independently mount lift upgrading exercise. You can co-pay in an HDB lift upgrading exercise, but you cannot independently mount one. So this represents a relaxation of the Act to enable Town Councils to use their sinking funds to do that. I think Mr Chiam would also agree with me that with greater flexibility and authority, we should have greater responsibility and accountability.”
“A word on that contribution, because I think there was a little bit of confusion over two sections and what do they mean that the TC can decide it has got to be not lower than the HDB. Mr Chiam made mention of that. That refers to actually the percentage rates at which the different flat types, as appropriate, would have to contribute to the cost-sharing, because it has to be co-paid. If you look at HDB, they have a certain percentage of co-payment, depending on the flat types. So, that is the contribution by the different households. It is to ensure consistency when the TC-LUP does it the same. I just like to add also one remark, and that is a more general one pertaining to whether it is the provision for the sale of a flat or sale of a movable property within the flat and so on, when TC-LUP charges are owed and not settled within the notice period. First of all, these provisions are definitely not new. They actually, on the one hand, mirror the provisions in the Housing and Development Act. When the HDB does its HDB-LUP, these are the provisions. So, now that the LUP is going to be made available for Town Councils to mount, these provisions are then imported. At the same time, if you look at the Town Councils Act, these provisions are also already present there to enable them, as options, to collect their arrears on S&C charges. These are enabling provisions, they are not mandatory. It does not say that every TC must use these. Certainly, nobody says that they must use it as a preferred option or first resort. Indeed, if you were to look at the track records of all Town Councils, I think Town Councils are very sympathetic towards the needs of their residents and they understand their difficulties.”
“Therefore, when they are eligible for lift upgrading in this new exercise, then this is being offered to them anew and, again, they would have to indicate their decision. So, do not take the earlier vote one way or the other as binding on this one. Prof. Ong and some other Members, I think Dr Lily Neo also, expressed concern about low-income households and whether or not some of these provisions might inadvertently actually cause them hardship. Definitely, it is not the intention of the Government to cause hardship to our low-income families. In fact, the entire purpose of this amendment, the one pertaining to TC-LUP especially, is to accelerate the benefit to all households so that everyone can enjoy lift to every floor as soon as possible. First of all, the amount that individual households will need to co-pay under the TC-LUP will be affordable, bearing in mind the $5,000 per benefitting unit cost cap and there is also a range of contributions. So the larger flat type will contribute more and the lower flat type will contribute less. Generally speaking, our low-income families, especially those who are staying in lower-flat type, would therefore find that the construction of the scheme is such that it is actually meant for their well-being. Then there is this question: how do they actually pay - must it be a lump sum? That was the concern. No, it does not have to be a lump sum. If you look at how HDB goes around providing different options of payment for the HDB-LUP or MUP, there is a whole range of options. You can pay a lump sum, you can pay with your CPF, you can pay by instalments. So, all these options are also available for TCs to consider and adopt in order to help their low-income households.”
“It is precisely for this reason that, on the one hand, we want to allow Town Councils to have the option to mount these lift upgrading projects if they want but, on the other hand, having to tap the sinking funds, we want to make sure that when you do tap those sinking funds, it does not detract you from the primary purpose of the funds, which is to provide for all those cyclical works. That is why there is a per benefitting unit cap, so that you do not overspend per unit basis. There is also a percentage cap on how much of your sinking fund you can actually use for TC-LUP. So it is up to 10%. In other words, the message that Government wants to send is flexibility but within rules of prudence. Next, I would just like to address Dr Lily Neo's point about blocks that have already undergone MUP earlier but, at that time, technology did not allow the top floor of some of the blocks to get the lift. Now that it is technologically possible, they become, in principle, eligible. Again being eligible does not necessarily mean that they will be offered in the immediate first phase. So, again, this is something that the Town Councils, if that block is chosen, would have to prioritise it against their other blocks. But, in principle, voting and co-payment would be required. If it is a TC-LUP, if you look at the kind of blocks that would be eligible, then the amounts that would be co-paid again would be relatively lower, simply because of how you choose TC-LUP blocks as against those that you would leave it to HDB to do under HDB-LUP. The other consideration is, of course, earlier on, when they voted under the MUP project, it was voted as an overall package.”
“If the TCs are going to mount TC-LUP projects, then such consultation will also be part of the process, and HDB will work with the TCs in order to smoothen the process. But it is really not something that which block may be chosen for HDB-LUP or which block may be chosen for TC-LUP. It is not something that MND or HDB can unilaterally decide and then just tell the TCs, because there is a process every year where you are requested to nominate certain blocks for these upgrading projects. So you would not be able to do all of them, whether for HDB-LUP or for TC-LUP every year. It is also an iterative process where within the Town Council, and if it is a multi-ward Town Council, there has got to be also consultation within the Town Council in terms of its priorities. Dr Lily Neo made the point about whether or not Town Councils looking after older HDB estates might be disadvantaged in terms of the sinking fund provisions. And if you have less there, then whether or not you might be able to proceed with enough speed and vigour in terms of your TC-LUP projects. If you look at the accounts of the various TCs, actually it is not true that the TCs looking after the older towns necessarily have less money in their sinking funds as compared with others. That is something which is not going to materially hamper any TC from undertaking these projects. It is quite the opposite actually. Some other Members - I think Dr Teo Ho Pin and Assoc. Prof. Ong Soh Khim - asked: if you start allowing TCs to use their sinking funds, when these sinking funds are meant for cyclical works, would it not then detract from the ability to undertake their core mission with these sinking funds?”
“So it is a balance not only between the money that we have to do the lift upgrading but also in terms of the construction capabilities, and whether or not the sector will be able to take it all in. In the balance, we believe that 10 years is actually a challenging target but an achievable one. So, we are shooting for 10 years as of now. Obviously, in the time to come, as we gain experience and if technology further improves, if there are opportunities to further speed up, then we are certainly open to reviewing. Our objective remains the same, ie, to have this benefit enjoyed by as many of our residents as quickly as possible. Town Councils would indeed play an important part in implementing lift upgrading in HDB estates because with the sinking fund available, and based on that $5,000 per benefitting unit cost cap, we think that there should be somewhere between 300 and 400 blocks that would be able to benefit if the TCs were to step in with the LUP on their end. If that happens, then, obviously, it is material to the speed at which all blocks in Singapore can enjoy lift to every floor. Dr Teo Ho Pin, Dr Amy Khor and some other Members talked about how do we decide where to do these LUP works, which blocks belonging to the TCs that might be eligible and which blocks HDB will do. And if, in fact, the two are going to happen at around the same time, whether or not there could be a certain amount of consultation and coordination. Actually, as all Members will know, whenever there is, say, a MUP to be done and there are also re-roofing works that a TC might want to mount at that time, this consultation is something that is already happening on the ground.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank Members for contributing their views and perspectives. What I intend to do is to group some of the common topics and respond to them and then take up the individual comments by Members. First of all, a comment about the objective of the TC-LUP and the use of up to 10% of the sinking fund. In terms of the speed, originally, it was intended and it was hoped that we could complete the HDB lift upgrading programme in about 15 years. As it is now, there are some 3,000 blocks that remain eligible for lift upgrading, taking away those that have already been completed. We, like all Members, are keen to be able to speed it up. How do we intend to do that? I think some Members have also asked how do we intend to do that. There are a number of multi-pronged methods, eg, channelling more of the public housing budget towards LUP on the HDB side, enabling Town Councils if they so choose to mount Town Council-LUP projects; simplifying the finishes for lift works. Even for per project, you can simplify that and therefore the savings can then go towards initiating projects faster. And, overall, looking at lift technology, whether or not there might be scope to have different kinds of technology in future so that the cost of lift upgrading can be lowered over time by using these new methods. So through a combination of these methods, we, in MND, believe that it is possible to quicken the pace and bring it down from 15 years to 10 years. Some Members have asked: is 10 years too slow? Dr Amy Khor mentioned that many of her residents very much look forward to it being further speeded up. Whilst the Government would like it to be as quick as possible, we also want it to be something that is practical and realistic.”
“It essentially requires HDB to defer the sale of a flat with outstanding improvement payments from the lessee if the flat has movable properties of sufficient value which could be sold to offset the debt. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“This amendment was proposed by the Town Councils to address the administrative constraints they face today in the prosecution of offenders under the Act or their by-laws. Under current provisions, Town Councils are required to pay all the fines and moneys collected from the composition of offences into the Town Council fund, before drawing from the fund again to pay for their legal costs. Section 50 of the Act currently provides that the Minister may appoint any person to exercise or perform certain powers of a Town Council subject to certain timelines stipulated in the Act. This section has not been invoked. As section 50 is intended to address emergency situations, clause 11 amends this section to shorten the notice period the Minister must give to the Chairman of a Town Council before he invokes his power to appoint another person to take over the powers and duties of the Town Council from 21 to seven days. It will similarly shorten the time given to the Chairman to make representations to the Minister from 21 days to seven days. Finally, clause 13 seeks to make two related amendments to the Housing and Development Act. The first amendment seeks to extend the power to declare precincts for upgrading works, which is currently vested with the Minister for National Development, to the Minister of State for National Development. This is in anticipation of the larger number of precincts that will be declared for upgrading works, as we speed up lift upgrading. The second amendment is to bring the provisions under section 65H on the recovery of improvement contribution from the sale of flat in line with that under the new Part IVA of the Town Councils Act.”
“Clause 4 amends section 21(1) to clarify that Town Councils will be required to repair and maintain facilities erected outside common property upon the approval of the Minister and the consent of the landowner. This is to ensure that Town Councils are responsible for upkeeping those facilities outside common property which they have requested to build. Section 23 of the Act currently allows Town Councils, through their staff or agents, to enter a HDB flat to carry out works in the discharge of their duties and powers under sections 21 or 22 of the Act. However, it does not provide for Town Councils to carry out investigations before proceeding with the repair works. Clause 5 amends section 23 to enable Town Councils to carry out such investigations within the flats after giving sufficient notice to the owner. Clause 8 amends section 39(14) to include the Personal Representative of a deceased lessee as a party who will be liable for any outstanding S&CC due from the deceased lessee. This is to overcome the operational constraints faced by Town Councils today in recovering outstanding S&CC in cases where the lessees have passed away. Section 44 of the Act currently provides for the recovery of outstanding S&CC by creating a charge on the flat, prescribing the conditions under which a flat may be sold, and the order in which the proceeds are to be disbursed upon the sale of a flat. Clause 9 amends section 44 to alter the priority of payments to various parties in the event of a sale of flat to facilitate the recovery by Town Councils of unsecured payments under the TC-LUP. Clause 10 amends section 46 to enable Town Councils to offset their legal costs against the fines collected, before paying the balance amount into the Town Council fund.”
“Let me reiterate that the penal clauses proposed in the Bill are very specific. They are to safeguard the use of Town Council funds, ensuring that Town Councils do not use their funds in an unauthorised manner or exceed the TC-LUP cost cap. These penal clauses will not cover other infringements under the Act. Amendments to other sections Sir, I shall now go through the other proposed amendments in the Bill. Clause 2 amends section 3(2) of the Act to extend the timeframe for Town Councils to be constituted after the publication of the polling results of a Parliamentary election from the current eight days to 14 days. This will give MPs and the relevant Government agencies more time to work out the boundaries of the new towns, and to prepare and publish the required Orders. Section 19 of the Act prescribes the functions of Town Councils. Currently, Town Councils can make improvements to common areas in HDB estates, subject to HDB's consent. They can also use their funds to maintain facilities outside common property, with the approval of the Minister. Clause 3 amends section 19 to empower Town Councils to also erect, repair and maintain facilities outside common property upon the Minister's approval and with the appropriate landowner's agreement. Clause 7 amends section 33(7) to clarify that Town Councils may use their funds for these purposes, ie, to erect, repair and maintain facilities outside common property, again subject to the Minister's approval and the landowner's agreement. These provisions will give Town Councils more leeway to propose improvement works within their towns, which will benefit their residents.”
“Clause 7 of the Bill will allow Town Councils to use their sinking funds to implement the TC-LUP. It will also make the contravention of section 33(6)(a) and (b), which governs the use of the Town Council's operating and sinking funds, an offence under the Town Councils Act. The penalty for the offence will be a fine of up to $5,000. The principal officers in charge of running the Town Council, that is, the Town Council Chairman and its Secretary, will also be liable if the Town Council commits such an offence with their consent or due to their negligence. I earlier mentioned that Town Councils would be allowed to use up to 10% of their sinking funds to implement the TC-LUP. As a policy, we will only allow Town Councils to implement the TC-LUP for blocks where the cost per benefitting unit does not exceed $5,000 per benefitting unit. We need to set a reasonable limit so that, within the budget, the benefits of lift-upgrading are spread amongst many blocks as possible. In other words, Town Councils do not use a disproportionate amount of their TC-LUP budget on a small number of blocks where the lift upgrading works are very costly. Clause 6 of the Bill will empower the Minister to make rules relating to the TC-LUP. In making these rules, we will make it an offence if a Town Council exceeds its expenditure limit of $5,000 per benefitting unit under the TC-LUP. As with clause 7, the Town Council Chairman and the Town Council Secretary will also be liable if the Town Council commits such an offence with their consent or due to their negligence. However, the Rules will be crafted with sufficient flexibility so that Town Councils will not be unfairly penalised if the cost per benefitting unit exceeds $5,000 under extenuating circumstances.”
“Offences for the misuse of Town Council funds I shall now move on to the rationale for introducing offences under the Act if Town Councils were to use their funds in a manner not specifically authorised in the Act. Sir, the control and use of Town Council funds are set out under section 33 of the Town Councils Act. Section 33(6)(a) provides for the circumstances under which Town Councils can use their sinking fund monies, while section 33(6)(b) allows Town Councils to disburse monies from their operating funds to carry out the duties and functions of Town Councils under the Town Councils Act or any other written law. Town Councils have been in existence for 16 years. They have built up substantial amounts of sinking funds and accumulated surpluses. The sinking funds of Town Councils largely comprise S&CC contributions from residents. They are meant for the long-term cyclical maintenance of HDB estates. Works like the replacement of roofing systems, water tanks and electrical sub-systems, repainting, and major repairs and maintenance of common property, are necessary to ensure that our HDB estates are well maintained and provide a conducive and safe living environment for residents. The sinking funds need to be safeguarded so that they can finance these maintenance works when they are due. Currently, there are no provisions under the Town Councils Act to take to task Town Councils that misuse their funds. Although this is not a concern today, we need to strengthen the corporate governance of Town Councils going forward. This is the rationale for introducing provisions under the Town Councils Act that will make it an offence if a Town Council uses its funds in a manner not specifically authorised in the Act.”
“To implement TC-LUP, Town Councils will need to obtain HDB's prior approval and the support of at least 75% of residents in the block who will benefit from the lift upgrading works, the same as for HDB's upgrading programmes. HDB's prior approval is necessary, because as the lessor of HDB flats, it has an inherent responsibility to ensure that any improvement works that are carried out are carried out safely. Currently, Town Councils are similarly required to obtain HDB's permission as landowner prior to carrying out improvement works to the common property in HDB estates. Under the TC-LUP, residents will need to co-pay for the lift upgrading works, similar to HDB's LUP. This is to ensure that residents carefully consider their need for lift upgrading when voting for the TC-LUP. Clause 6 of the Bill will empower Town Councils to recover from residents benefitting from the lift upgrading works their share of the TC-LUP costs. The contribution that Town Councils recover from each resident household benefitting cannot be lower than what residents would have paid had HDB carried out the same lift upgrading works in the precinct. Clause 6 also prescribes how Town Councils can impose interest and a penalty for late payments; how they can recover unpaid payments, including the sale of the flat as a last resort; and also the order of charge in which the sale proceeds of a flat will be disbursed. As with HDB's upgrading programmes, residents who benefit from TC-LUP will be allowed to use their CPF balances to pay for their share of the TC-LUP costs. Clause 12 will make related amendments to the CPF Act to allow this. It will also create a charge on the HDB flat to secure the repayment to the CPF of the amount withdrawn for the TC-LUP works.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Objective Sir, the proposed amendments to the Town Councils Act will provide the legislative framework for Town Councils to carry out their own lift upgrading works using part of their sinking funds. This will help to speed up the lift upgrading programme and help us achieve our objective of providing direct lift access for all eligible HDB blocks within 10 years. This Bill will introduce a new section on 'Lift Upgrading Works' under Part IVA of the Town Councils Act. It also seeks to widen certain powers of Town Councils to facilitate their day-to-day operations. The Bill will also impose penalties on a Town Council and its respective Chairman and Secretary, if the Town Council were to utilise its operating and sinking funds for purposes not specifically authorised in the Act or its subsidiary legislation. Let me now explain the various key provisions. Town Councils' Lift Upgrading Programme The Bill will empower Town Councils to carry out their lift upgrading works under the Town Council Lift Upgrading Programme (or TC-LUP). We will allow Town Councils to use up to 10% of their residential sinking funds for the TC-LUP. Clause 6 will introduce a new Part IVA on lift upgrading works by Town Councils. The manner in which Town Councils can implement the TC-LUP largely mirrors sections 65A to 65L of the Housing and Development Act, which cover the upgrading works carried out by the HDB. Amongst other things, this means that precincts proposed for TC-LUP have to be gazetted before they can be upgraded, and Town Councils will have the power to recover improvement contributions from their residents who benefit.”
“Sir, just to take up Miss Low's point. We will take the comments into account in our review. But the main point is that we have to balance between protecting the consumer versus not overloading regulatory compliance cost on the businesses. It is how we always look at these two things and balance them.”
“We have a lot of surveys and studies done overseas but these may or may not apply locally. So, we are quite cautious in how to approach the matter. This is a matter of responsibility, being a political party. I have said at the interview, after the forum, that it has to be assessed in terms of cost-benefit analysis. 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? And the question is whether it is a manageable risk. Mr Chairman, Sir, I do not think it is a manageable risk in the future, and I have stated my position at the press conference that I am against it. Yes, the party has not made a decision, because we are still discussing it and, after the consultation process, the CEC will make a decision some time in April. What happens if the party were to make a decision which is contrary to my belief? Sir, if I fail to convince the party of my position not to go ahead, well, I will have to follow the party line. This is party discipline. The same goes with the PAP. I think even the Cabinet is also split. Now, let me move on to why I decided to say we should make it an election issue. Yes, the Minister has explained the PAP has the mandate. Yes, you have 75% of voters who voted for you at the last elections.”
“So, these are the things that we would need to study rather than rush into. As I mentioned earlier, the important point is really to educate our consumers for their protection, so that they know how to make full use of the provisions of the existing Act so that they can really protect themselves against these practices. Then, as we gain the experience of how things are working out, and at a suitable point, we will review all these, taking into account the points made by Mr Yeo. Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): Sir, I would like to thank Mr Gan Kim Yong for his interest on the Workers' Party, and the Minister soliciting views from me. In Mandarin, it is called shou cong rou jing. Sir, the fact is that, whether or not I had spoken in this House or have moved any cut on the casino issue, obviously, the view at the forum is heard. Unfortunately, I had an interview after the forum on Saturday, but I think it was not aired, so perhaps the Minister may not know my view on the casino. And why the PAP chooses to bring out this issue at this point is perhaps because I called for the casino issue to be made an election issue, which I think made the PAP sit up. Sir, the question is: why is it that the WP has not had any official position on the issue so far? I wish to clarify that we realise that 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 than from the emotional position, which is very difficult to deal with. Nevertheless, we have had quite intense discussions between ourselves, both at the party level and at the CEC level. We also receive a lot of feedback from the public. Currently, there is insufficient information or survey on what is the impact.”
“Sir, I will try to explain it this way. Under the current Act, although there is an explicit list of 20 unfair practices, there are also other ways of understanding what an unfair practice is under the definition, and there is a provision under the current Act where a body, such as CASE or STB, can take up the case on behalf of victims or consumers who have been dealt an unfair practice by a trader through the civil courts and, before that, to actually offer them an option of voluntarily ceasing such unfair practice. So, if you look at the provisions of the current Act, it allows you to already take action to protect the interests of these consumers, notwithstanding the fact that it might not be explicitly listed under the 20 practices. For the additional instances that Mr Yeo has given in his list, we have also got to be careful in terms of evaluation. For example, the one on opt-out, even Mr Yeo himself also realised that there are occasions - he mentioned, eg, the national medical opt-out schemes - where it probably is justifiable and there are occasions where it is not. So, to have something like a blanket ruling to outlaw it one way or the other, sometimes you might actually create unintended consequences. So, each of these things, even if you want to go into them, they have got to be very carefully evaluated. Other instances where the person is, for example, given a certain condition of purchase and the question is really whether or not that person already knew that there was such a condition before he entered into the purchase and, if he did, again you will have to evaluate whether or not in that circumstance it should be treated as a case of cheating or unfair practice, or is it that a person entered into it knowingly and then subsequently regrets.”
“For this scheme, there are clear quantitative criteria for evaluation and these will include annual turnover, direct employment created, total business spending on investment. The final approving authority for this scheme is MTI. So even though SPRING Singapore being the champion agency for local enterprises, it is the one that helps to process such applications by local companies and EDB helps with those by foreign companies. Ultimately, all these applications are channelled to a common place, namely MTI, for common assessment and decision. Therefore, I assure Mr Chay that all applications and proposals, regardless of their origin of the companies, that is, whether they are local or foreign, and regardless of which of these two agencies, whether it is SPRING or EDB, that help to process and move the applications forward, they are all assessed and evaluated in a consistent manner using the same set of evaluation criteria by MTI. We have a policy of ensuring that there is no preference treatment for any company and we definitely do not prefer foreign applications to local applications. So we evaluate them on common criteria.”
“Sir, moving on to the cut by Miss Penny Low, Minister Lim Hng Kiang, in his speech, highlighted that the Government will help enterprises, core capabilities and branding and tap overseas market opportunities. Earlier, I have also listed the initiatives that IE Singapore has embarked on to assist companies in their branding efforts. As Miss Penny Low rightly points out, the successful branding of Singapore products can enhance their identity in overseas markets and allow them to command a premium. I also agree with Miss Low that the use of internationally recognised trust marks can help improve the branding of our products. In particular, trust marks backed by a robust accreditation scheme can encourage our producers to meet high standards and, therefore, strengthen consumer confidence in our products. The Government is and will continue to be supportive of organisations, such as CASE, that issue robust trust marks and aim to widen international recognition of these marks. STB and EDB promote the adoption of CaseTrust by education service providers and tourism establishments. CASE is also welcomed to discuss with IE Singapore to see how we can work together to enhance the branding efforts of internationalising Singapore companies. Sir, finally, I move on to the comment by Mr Chay Wai Chuen. I thank him for the comment. The Warehouse Retail Scheme is aimed at encouraging companies to make a sizeable investment in Singapore by allowing greater flexibility on industrial land use so that companies can adopt an integrated business model for industrial and retail activities, and it is not limited to foreign companies. It is open to both local and foreign companies, as pointed out by Mr Chay.”
“Sir, I thank Mr Yeo for his suggestions. The Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act is principally designed to accord better protection to consumers by allowing them to seek civil redress against traders engaging in unfair practices. The primary focus is on small consumers who may lack the expertise and the resources to fend for themselves against unfair practices. However, we recognise the importance of consumer protection, especially protecting the small consumers. We must be careful to do it in a way that does not load too much onto businesses, in terms of compliance cost. And indeed, in the entire exercise of enacting the legislation, this was a primary concern. How do we balance between safeguarding the interests of consumers and not imposing unnecessary and too high regulatory costs on businesses? And it is something that we would have to continue to reassess as we go along to strike a delicate balance. As this Act came into force only on 1st March 2004, MTI is monitoring market developments to see how well it is working. This will help us review whether and how it needs to be fine-tuned. And we will certainly take into account the points that Mr Yeo has raised. We plan to review the Act after three years of implementation experience. Meanwhile, our immediate focus is to continue to support and work with CASE and other agencies to reach out to consumers and businesses to raise awareness and understanding of the Act. Because there is a lot in the Act that the consumers can actually use to already advance their interest and this should be fully realised. I also commend CASE for its very proactive and effective role in educating consumers on ways to spot and avoid being shortchanged when they buy goods and services.”
“On the other conditions of A*STAR scholarships and trying to make sure our investments are not taken advantage of, by giving in-principle PR for non-Singaporeans so that they can take up citizenship, these are well-known. These are really very explicit conditions to make sure that we treat the use of taxpayers' money very seriously. So every intention of ours is aimed at putting the money to generate growth, with all the benefits accruing to Singapore as far as we can plan for. I did not anticipate the Member's question on how many scholars have migrated, but I can provide that information for her later.”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, I do not have with me the figures of the patents. I will revert to her with the information. She asked whether or not it is worthwhile to invest in our people and given the changes in the research climate, it might be wasted if the people, having learned something, find that, in the end, the tides move in a different way. I would say, first of all, as elaborated by the Minister, Singapore's research is not just to throw money everywhere. It is trying to see in this area that we are going to compete in, how do we place our investments in such a way that will build on our strengths and what are the areas that we have a competitive advantage in. In this way, although there are no guarantees, we try to minimise our risk. But that we cannot eliminate. And it is the same, whether you pursue a Ph.D or you take up a skill in the ITE or the polytechnic, there is no guarantee that, in future, there will always be a need for it. That is why we are saying, let us be prudent and focused on what we should invest in, be bold, and once we have decided, let us go forth. Because if you do not have that, how do you go and compete with the other countries, talking to these companies and so on, to set up business over here and make ourselves into a hub and build that virtuous circle? So we have to be able to provide that together with all the other things that the Member has talked about in terms of infrastructure, stable Government, and so on. That is the reason why I believe that, notwithstanding the fact that there cannot be guarantees in this area, since we know that the next lap for us cannot be doing commodity-type, like electronics, we have to go up. When we go up, then let us scope it up, and let us invest.”
“Bio*One also has an Innovate 'N' Create scheme which provides seed funding to nurture home-grown biomedical start-ups. For example, there is this new company called ProTherapeutics that was seeded under this scheme, jointly with Exploit, to commercialise the delivery of protein-based treatment drugs. The BMS group also supported the formation of BioSingapore, which is a trade association representing the interests of local BMS enterprises. BioSingapore will play an important role in helping local BMS companies engage the financial community. Assoc. Prof. Ong Soh Khim: Sir, I have three points of clarification. On the part of IP, the patent which was raised by Dr John Chen, I would like to know how many IPs have been registered. What is the percentage that has actually been commercialised? The second question I have is, just now, the MOS has stated that it is something that we have to do and not whether it is justifiable or not. I would like to know how many scholarships have been awarded in 2002 and 2003 in the biomedical-related area. How does A*STAR project the research trend? As a researcher myself, I know research is dynamic. It will not remain the same after eight years. Can A*STAR safely say that after eight years, the biomedical-related area will still be a hot area? My third point is on the foreign scholars who are obliged to take up Singapore citizenship upon graduation. Could I have the statistics on how many of these foreign scholars who have since migrated to elsewhere after taking up citizenship here?”
“Foreign-born scholars are given Approve-in-Principle (AIP) Permanent Residence status and are required to take up Singapore citizenship before the completion of their Ph.D programme. In this way, we again tie back the benefits to Singapore. The Biomedical Sciences (BMS) sector is a good example of how we have focused resources to build R&D capabilities and human capital to develop a new industry. Dr Tan Sze Wee asked about our BMS R&D expenditures and the sources of funding available to private biomedical companies. The Government provides support to both public and private R&D in the BMS sector via A*STAR and EDB. In FY 2003 and FY 2004, A*STAR spent $226 million and $287 million respectively on biomedical research. This is complemented by EDB's co-funding of private sector's R&D, through its Research Incentive Scheme for Companies (RISC) and Innovative Development Scheme (IDS). These two schemes provide funding support of up to 30% of project costs, and can be tapped by research-intensive BMS companies and start-ups, in addition to any SEEDS funding they may have qualified for. The Biomedical Services Group (BMS Group) in EDB also strives to promote Singapore ventures and the commercialisation of indigenous research. Last year, EDB's investment arm, Bio*One Capital committed a total of $95 million in investments in 16 projects. 90% of the investments were made in Singapore-based companies to help build and grow the companies, and in overseas projects with linkages and activities in Singapore. The BMS group started the Proof of Concept Scheme in 2003 to provide pre-seed funding to support the development of early ideas that are patentable, and which could lead to new start-ups or licensing deals.”
“While a framework to encourage technology transfers and start-ups is necessary, equally critical is the development of a deep reservoir of well-trained R&D manpower to receive and create economic value out of such intellectual capital. Hence, a very important part of A*STAR's mission is to build up a strong pipeline of top R&D talent for industry. Prof. Ong Soh Khim asked whether it is a worthwhile investment to send our young people to top universities overseas to get the training and exposure. I think the answer is yes. Singapore has reached where it is today because we have a deep and enduring commitment to investing in our people. We provide public scholarships so that our best and brightest have the best education possible, and in turn, when they return, they contribute back to society. It is the same for A*STAR's scholars. They will come back after their Ph.D and they will make up the pool of high calibre research talent that will underpin our economic transformation. The tangible and intangible benefits of investing in our young will benefit Singapore many times over and, ultimately, will determine our continued growth and prosperity. Like what Mr Lim Hng Kiang had also elaborated earlier, we are now competing in a different league and in a knowledge-based economy, we have to invest in this. It is not a question of whether it is something that is worth doing, it is something that we believe we cannot afford not to do. In addition to sending scholars to top overseas universities, A*STAR also has a Graduate Scholarship Programme with NUS and NTU to provide local Ph.D training for Singaporean undergraduates which could be followed by a one to two-year overseas post-doctorate fellowship. On the issue of nationality, over 80% of A*STAR scholars are Singaporeans.”
“In FY04, A*STAR spent $480 million on R&D at its research institutes, $70 million on extramural collaborations, and $149 million on broad-level capability development. 1.00 pm In response to Dr John Chen, we actively seek to commercialise technologies and intellectual property created by our public research institutions. This ensures that the new knowledge created will be used to spawn new economic activities and generate growth. A*STAR has a commercialisation arm called Exploit Technologies. Exploit Technologies actively markets the A*STAR's technologies and capabilities to the industry through trade shows and conferences, roundtables and company visits. Technology offers are also posted on Exploit Technologies' website. Over 80 cutting-edge A*STAR IP and technologies have been made available to companies. These have helped companies develop new products, move up the technology value chain and fuel business growth. Some SMEs have also leveraged on the licensed technologies to enter new markets and establish business opportunities with MNCs. Exploit Technologies adopts a flexible and pro-SME approach in licensing its IPs for companies. It is prepared to waive or defer upfront licensing fees; and in turn, the enterprises have to commit to investing in developing the IP, and use the IP to generate economic activity in Singapore. Exploit Technologies also facilitates the creation of spin-off companies with A*STAR technologies, and actively engages the local venture capital (VC) community to assist potential spin-offs in fund-raising. It has a small fund that provides financial support to its spin-offs in the early or seed stage.”
“These FTAs have enabled our local enterprises to be more competitive in tapping the global market. Specifically, FTAs led to an increase of 11.8% in Singapore's domestic exports to Japan and a 40.6% increase of exports to Australia in 2004. Over 200 local companies have benefited from lower tariffs resulting from these two FTAs alone. For example, this company called GN Packaging Industries, which exports 40% of its plastic packaging materials, now enjoys 5-10% tariff savings in the Japanese and Australian markets. We will continue to monitor the effectiveness of our FTAs. Moving ahead, we will proactively engage the private sector and the chambers to solicit inputs for upcoming FTAs and to review existing agreements. This is in order to realise the value in these FTAs. We will also be stepping up our efforts to increase the awareness of FTAs and how to take advantage of them through various channels. I now turn to R&D programmes under MTI. Public funding for research is strongly driven by economic considerations, with the end goal of enhancing Singapore's long-term economic competitiveness. To be effective, we must concentrate on developing our R&D capabilities, maximising the opportunities to commercialise intellectual property (IP), and building up the pipeline of high quality researchers who can adopt and adapt new technologies to generate further growth. Dr Tan Sze Wee asked about our R&D expenditure for FY03 and FY04. In FY03, A*STAR spent $395 million on R&D at its 12 public research institutes, and contributed $98 million to extramural research collaboration with external parties, such as our universities and hospitals. It spent a further $271 million on manpower development and broad-level programmes.”
“Dr John Chen asked about the Government's support for Singapore companies in trade expositions, especially for the cost of rental of exhibition space. The International Marketing Activities Programme (IMAP), administered by IE Singapore, contributes towards the participation fees, cost of space rental and stand construction. In 2004, IMAP supported 32 trade associations and chambers in over 95 activities, benefiting some 1,400 companies resulting in $260 million of overseas sales. Besides IE Singapore, STB has also been organising trade participation at key overseas travel shows, like the ASEAN Tourism Forum Travel Exchange. They have also been leading industry partners on trade missions and road-shows, especially for new markets and segments, like the Singapore Medicine road-show ongoing in the Middle East. For SMEs setting up offices overseas, Mr Lawrence Leow would be pleased to know that IE Singapore provides fixed interest loans through its Regionalisation Finance Scheme. Such loans are available for SMEs to acquire fixed assets on the condition that these projects generate economic spin-offs to Singapore. IE is also developing a programme to encourage the use of trade credit insurance, which is a point that Dr John Chen touched on. The aim is to enhance our companies' risk management capability and their access to financing. Let me now move on to Free Trade Agreements. Mr Inderjit Singh asked how successful our FTAs have been in helping local enterprises penetrate the global market. To date, we have concluded bilateral FTAs with the United States; European Free Trade Area, which consists of Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Norway, and Iceland; and New Zealand, Japan, Australia and Jordan. Many more are in the pipeline.”
“So, I suppose the question is: how do we further expand on such efforts? The second "C" is Competencies. This involves helping our companies develop capabilities in branding, design and international manpower development. Dr John Chen touched on the lack of branding expertise among local companies. Through the programme called "Branding for Internationalisation", IE Singapore assists internationalising companies to understand their branding needs, identify opportunities, and bridge the gap between brand awareness and investment. Support is given by co-funding consultancy costs for brand strategy development and by organising training workshops to build internal capabilities. Sin Hwa Dee FoodStuffs Industries is an example of a company that has forged ahead in its branding efforts with assistance from IE Singapore. Founded in the 1970s, the company has since come a long way. It embraces branding as a key strategy to differentiate its products from its competitors, and to create appeal in both local and overseas markets. Sin Hwa Dee has done well and has won several awards, including the Most Distinctive Brand Award in the Singapore Most Promising Brand Awards 2002 and Singapore's Superbrand. Today, the company continues to dedicate between 6-8% of its sales revenue to branding. Sin Hwa Dee has shown that a strong branding image is vital in both domestic and overseas markets. Therefore, on Miss Penny Low's point that there should perhaps be a "Buy Singapore" campaign, we believe that a more sustainable approach would be for our companies to strengthen the appeal of their products and services, and we will work together with them on those. The third "C" is Capital.”
“Last year, IE Singapore helped some 30,000 companies through its various services and activities. I will highlight some of the key initiatives under each of the three Cs. "Connections" involves connecting our businesses with overseas markets. In 2004, IE Singapore increased its outgoing business missions and trade fairs by over % to 248. Destinations included new markets like Brazil, Uruguay, Iran and the Eastern China provinces to enable Singapore companies to reap early-mover advantages. I am glad to say that SMEs with less than $50 million worth of turnover made up over 70% of the participating companies. IE Singapore also organised 13 "reverse missions" which benefited some 430 companies and brought about $4 billion worth of potential sales. A reverse mission is an innovative strategy which brings key buyers, like LG and Siemens, to Singapore-based companies. Given its success in 2004, IE Singapore will step up its reverse mission efforts this year. Through the iPartners programme, IE Singapore also assists Singapore-based companies with complementary businesses to form strategic alliances to venture overseas. In 2004, IE Singapore approved three iPartner alliances comprising 19 companies. An additional nine alliances involving 47 companies are in the pipeline. They are expected to generate close to $660 million worth in sales when fully realised. Mr Gan Kim Yong suggested that the more successful GLCs hand-hold SMEs through joint ventures when going abroad. This has taken place. For example, CET, a subsidiary of ST Electronics Limited, is spearheading a consortium of smaller companies, namely, RUSC Systems Engineering, iFocus, and Applied Systems (Singapore) to market and implement jointly developed train communication systems in China.”
“As the economy rebounded, the ratio was reverted to 50/50 from 1st January 2005, to ensure financial prudence on the part of the financial institutions in approving LEFS loans. Mr Leow has suggested a variable risk-sharing loan scheme for LEFS. My Ministry will look into this, together with the overall review on access to financing. Mr Inderjit Singh asked about Government support for private sector volunteer groups that help to promote entrepreneurship. Currently, we fund and provide secretariat support for ACE. ACE involves private-public sector partnership, and it is an effective umbrella body through which to engage other entrepreneurship interest groups. One of the areas that ACE will be looking into is how it can better engage and work more closely with other non-profit organisations to promote entrepreneurship. ACE supports the SCCCI's Entrepreneurship Education Programme and helps to invite entrepreneurs to be speakers. ACE is also a partner of the Spirit of Enterprise on the upcoming "StartUp" reality TV series, and that will showcase the entrepreneurship journey of eight start-ups. The series will be aired at the end of March. I suppose after "Singapore Idol", this will be our version of the "Singapore Apprentice". Apart from addressing financing issues of enterprises, another important thrust is to help Singapore-based companies access the global market. Since the formation of IE Singapore in 2002, we have made more concerted efforts to help such companies grow and to internationalise successfully. Dr John Chen asked about the type of Government support for Singapore companies venturing overseas. IE Singapore supports companies through a "3C" framework - Connections, Competencies and Capital.”
“In total, 75 companies have been granted either EII or TII status. ACE is also facilitating the setting-up of an Over-The-Counter (OTC) private-equity exchange. The OTC market will create a platform where shares of unlisted SMEs can be traded, thus allowing SMEs more access to equity financing. Some private sector companies have come up with specific proposals and, we understand, are in the final stages of consultations with the MAS. Moving on now to the second category of assistance which is debt financing. Much has been done on this front. For example, the Local Enterprise Financing Scheme (LEFS) and the Micro Loan Scheme have provided more than $3 billion worth of loans to 10,000 SMEs since 2000. We have also in recent times introduced the Loan Insurance Scheme, the Variable Interest Loan Scheme (V-Loan), and the Loan Securitisation Scheme. These are other avenues of loan financing for SMEs. At the backend, they are structured differently, with a common purpose to increase the amount of loan financing in the market. ACE has been very proactive in offering proposals to address gaps in the financing landscape, and we will continue to work very closely with ACE to look into these and other suggestions. Mr Lawrence Leow suggested that LEFS adopt a flexible risk-sharing ratio between the Government and the financial institutions, with corresponding sharing of loan budget and interest earnings. As Mr Leow mentioned, the 80/20 risk-sharing ratio was part of a temporary enhancement to LEFS made during the economic downturn from 2001 to 2004, to encourage the financial institutions to continue lending to SMEs.”
“Entertainment, which rents out movie DVDs through automated dispensers that are equipped with biometric fingerprint authentication for member registration and identification. Dr Tan raised the concern that SEEDS is inadequate for many bio-technology companies. So far, seven bio-technology companies have obtained more than $1.8 million worth of SEEDS equity funding. Admittedly, this amounts to a small portion of funds that bio-tech companies may need. SEEDS is a broad-based scheme to support innovative start-ups in general, and is not meant for the development of specific industry clusters. For bio-tech companies, they may also tap on other grant or financing schemes, and I will talk a little bit more about that later on in my speech. Mr Inderjit Singh suggested reviving the Business Angel Fund (BAF) or equivalent in order to encourage and enlarge angel investments. The BAF programme was discontinued at the end of 2001, shortly after the SEEDS programme was implemented, and the reason for that was that the feedback from the third-party business angel investors and entrepreneurs at that point was that they found SEEDS to be more attractive. Notwithstanding that, in the overall area of trying to improve access to financing and the role of angel investors, if not under the precise conditions of the BAF, I think we would still encourage discussions. Besides co-investing directly into companies, we also seek to encourage investments in start-ups and SMEs through tax incentives and facilitation. The Enterprise Investment Incentive Scheme (EII) allows investors to offset their investment loss against their taxable income. The scheme, which was formerly known as the Technopreneur Investment Incentive (TII), was renamed and extended to non-technology companies in 2004.”
“We have members, like Mr Inderjit Singh and Dr Loo Choon Yong, amongst others in this movement. One key area that ACE has been focusing on is to improve the access of startups and SMEs to financing. This is an issue that Dr Tan Boon Wan and others have raised. Over the past few years, the Government has worked with ACE and the private sector to enhance existing schemes and to launch the new ones to make funding more accessible. I agree with Mr Inderjit Singh that it is timely to review and simplify the schemes to make it easier for local enterprises. We will support ACE in the exercise to redesign and simplify the schemes for SMEs. 12.45 pm Basically, the various schemes fall into two broad categories, namely, equity financing and debt financing. In the area of equity financing, the Government has two schemes to co-invest with third-party investors. The Start-Up Enterprise Development Scheme (SEEDS) was introduced for innovative technology start-ups in 2001 and was extended to non-technology companies last year. The Growth Financing Programme was started in October 2003 as a follow-up investment scheme after SEEDS. It provides equity financing for the development of products, processes and applications. Dr Tan Sze Wee asked about the performance of SEEDS. Since its inception, SEEDS has supported 124 technology start-ups. To date, 13 of these start-ups indicated that they have posted profits, and 12 start-ups managed to secure a second round of private sector funding. SEEDS was extended to non-technology companies last year. It has already helped two innovative start-ups. One of them is this company called Fuzzy Billies, which is an F&B outlet specialising in bread-based products that come in different shapes, flavours and colours. The other is Play!”
“With the change in consumer demographics and emergence of suburban malls, such retailers cannot continue to operate the business as they have done in the past and they need to look for new ways to improve. For example, Tampines Street 11 is one HDB neighbourhood where the Hawkers and Merchants' Association has decided to collectively do something to address their common problems. With the help of SPRING and the grassroots organisations there, they will be forming a management company that will oversee the overall marketing strategies for their neighbourhood. They aim to improve the trade mix, boost traffic flow into the neighbourhood and upgrade the latest retail skills of their members. These include training of financial management and selection of products that appeal to customers. These activities are 50% co-funded by SPRING under the Domestic Sector Productivity Fund Scheme. And I welcome fellow Members to encourage and help the Merchants' Association in your respective constituencies to participate in this programme, and you may apply to SPRING for assistance. Most of the initiatives under the SME21 Plan, such as the Singapore Quality Class, or SQC, programme and the Technology Incubator Programme, or TIP, have been implemented. Other programmes have since evolved. In particular, we have stepped up efforts to promote entrepreneurship through the Action Community for Entrepreneurship (ACE). We have also intensified efforts to help our companies internationalise through the formation of IE Singapore. Let me now move on to another aspect of entrepreneurship, namely, access to financing. Here, I would like to mention the role of ACE. ACE is a private-public sector partnership to champion entrepreneurship in Singapore.”
“Sir, I would like to thank Members for their comments. Minister Lim Hng Kiang has earlier talked about the broad strategies behind enterprise development. I will now share more details. Miss Penny Low asked for an update on the SME21 Plan launched in the year 2000. The vision of SME21 was to create vibrant and resilient SMEs that would enhance Singapore's competitiveness and economic growth. Three goals were set for the year 2010. First, we wanted to treble the number of SMEs with sales turnover exceeding $10 million from a figure of 2,000 to 6,000 by the year 2010. According to the plan, we should have 4,000 such SMEs exceeding the $10 million sales mark by the year 2005. I am pleased to report that we have achieved that amount in early 2004 with more than 4,200 SMEs generating turnover in excess of $10 million. Second, we wanted to quadruple the number of local SMEs with e-commerce transactions from 8,000 to 32,000 by the year 2010. This target was surpassed by 10th March 2002 with 33,000 SMEs having done so. Third, we wanted to double the productivity of the retail sector from $28,000 to $56,000 by the year 2010. In 2002, the value-added per worker in the retail sector was $30,600. Preliminary figures for 2003 had indicated only slight improvement, due to SARS and other reasons. We will continue to address the key challenges of the retail scene and monitor the progress. Dr Tan Boon Wan asked about Government's assistance to HDB retail shops. Both the Prime Minister as well as the Minister for National Development have addressed the situation in this sector of the HDB retailers, particularly those in older estates, and the challenges that they face.”
“There are so many needs and possibilities in our community, short term and long term, that an energised citizenry (both individual and corporate) can address. In this area too, we cannot simply assume that intention will result in achievement. To turn this opportunity into strength and advantage, we must now step up our efforts and investments to spur active citizenship and the closely-related area of volunteerism. For example, better coordination between those who identify needs and those who manage volunteer networks will reduce attrition and improve outcomes. More focus on working with the school system to unleash the true potential of the Community Involvement Programme for students and teachers. Improving the skills of volunteer managers so that they effectively develop, empower and entrust volunteers with challenging missions that will lead to greater satisfaction and motivation. Helping volunteers form groups to exchange ideas, discuss problems and encourage one another will keep the fires burning. For companies, more recognition of their contributions to society will improve their reputation, and help them stay on as good corporate citizens. Hopefully, other companies will also emulate them. These ideas are not new or glamorous, but fundamentals are like that. And when these fundamentals are taken seriously, they will yield good returns to society. In the light of developments and events that have taken place, now is the best time to put our foot to the accelerator and unleash the potential in our people. As we do so, our society will become more dynamic, resilient, passionate and compassionate. And it will be a society that is both willing and able to cheer and support its members as they boldly pursue their dreams in a land of opportunity.”
“A vibrant society and a land of opportunity and opportunity-seizing require more than stability. There must be robustness and vigour, alertness and agility, a spirit of enterprise, adaptability and a maturity in thought and behaviour. This comes about only when the people and groups in society make it happen. The more we can foster this process, the better it will be for us, because our society will gain more "bounce". Ongoing development and recent events make me feel that Singaporeans and companies in Singapore are now more ready to become such active citizens and active corporate citizens. The tremendous response from Singaporeans and organisations in helping those hit by the recent earthquake and tsunami is a good illustration. The donations were generous but, more importantly, the spontaneity was outstanding. Individuals and groups, formal and informal, took the initiative and volunteered, organised, mobilised and rallied for a common worthy cause. The tremendous response of Singaporeans in turning out to support the team at the finals of the Tiger Cup is another example of social solidarity and suppport. But beyond these big and visible events, there are many Singaporeans who have contributed their time, money, effort and expertise to causes and passions that they believe in. In the process, they have made this country a better place for all. Singaporeans have seen what they are capable of, individually and in partnership, when they want to. What is important is that we do not let these opportunities become just a blip on the radar screen. We must build on the momentum and try to achieve sustained impact and improvement, lock in the gains and move society up a notch. The opportunities are without limit.”
“The more we can synergise these efforts and improve coordination between Government, grassroots and VWO networks, the more we will be able to customise and target help properly, thus alleviating suffering in the present generation and fostering real recovery and hope for the future. This way of community care is dynamic and goes beyond mere assessment of eligibility for ad hoc financial hand-outs and pain-relief. I see a particular opportunity at this point in time. The overall economy is improving. Unemployment has dropped from closer to 5% to 3.4%, with fair prospects of coming down further. What is happening is that those who have been cyclically unemployed, ie, who got the sack because of poor business and not poor skills, are progressively finding jobs as the economy picks up and demand returns. This means that we can focus more attention on those less employable but who want to help themselves, as the total number of unemployed moderates. This focus and intensive care is also essential, because the gaps and problems that we have to help this group of workers overcome are much more than those for the average cyclically unemployed. With a more buoyant economy, I believe the Government is also in a better financial position to consider more help for such groups. In an age of turbulence, such action will be increasingly crucial in leaving no one behind in this generation and the next, and in keeping the social fabric strong and intact. This movement from "Relief to Recovery to Rebuilding" will require more and ongoing investment, coordination and much leg work, and I urge that more resources be so directed. I move on to the second enabling condition, that which enhances robustness in society. To me, that enabler is an active citizenry.”
“From experience, many of these persons needing help have a whole host of issues and problems. Becoming unemployed is one of the problems. They are often also in serious arrears with their rents, utilities, conservancy and other necessary payments. Their financial situation affects the mood at home, demoralises the children in their studies, and so on. Efforts to help them from any one angle, such as job placement, is often undermined by urgent and entrenched problems in the other areas. A family-centric focus gives the best chance of assessing the real attitude of the help-seeker, his will to improve and the best chance of stabilising the environment as that family works at improving their lot. The expertise needed to counsel, tutor and correct, does not lie solely within the public sector organisations. This is recognised. Hence, there is ongoing tie-up between the CDCs, grassroots bodies and VWOs for counselling follow-up. CDCs also check with employers, in some cases, whether such workers are staying on in their newly-acquired jobs. In many cases, the link is sequential, meaning that the person is referred after he is helped financially or with job placement. And, even when it is concurrent, it may not be as integrated as it could be. This partnership approach could be further strengthened to rally around the family, forming a ring of encouragement within which that family would make the effort. Such an approach is by nature resource-intensive, as with all forms of intensive care. This also requires much closer coordination between partners, so that they mutually reinforce. This will also help counter sob-story-assistance-shopping behaviour by some.”
“First, when some groups feel left behind despite their best efforts, especially economically. Next, when some groups are influenced ideologically to do irrational things. I wish to confine my comments today to the first type. When we listen to the heartbeat of our economy, we know that the less-skilled and the older workers face particular threat of displacement. There is also a certain correlation between the two groups. When we look at our demographic trends, we see a rapidly ageing population. What this means is that more such individuals and their families may face difficulties unless more could be done to help them move over to higher ground faster. In the aftermath of the tsunami disaster, the saying "Time and tide wait for no man" has taken on a whole new sense of urgency. That disaster showed that those who escaped had the initiative to run for their lives, while those who perished were caught unaware, or had stood transfixed by the change, or who could not get out in time. These are also important lessons for all who have to deal and live with the great forces of economic and technological restructuring. In this connection, even as the Government and the NTUC continue with many efforts to help workers prolong their working lives and improve their employability, I think more must be done. The Community Development Councils already run schemes that help families in financial straits and those seeking employment. They also work with and support initiatives of the grassroots organisations and voluntary welfare organisations in addressing the needs of the poor in the local communities. In helping, we should continue to concentrate on a family-focus, family-centric and 3P approach - the 3Ps being public, private and people sectors.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate. We want Singapore to be a land of opportunity and, for today, I would focus my comments on one area of this great endeavour, namely, the area of community development. I have a habit of analysing things in terms of supply and demand. In general, many of the actions of Government Ministries in the Addenda that they released would help promote new investments, anchor existing ones, lower barriers to activity and participation of various kinds and strengthen defence against predictable threats. In doing so, they help increase the likelihood and supply of opportunities. Achievement comes from Singaporeans taking full advantage of the growing supply of opportunities. In other words, fostering a strong demand for opportunities is equally important. I think there is an innate ability among people to see opportunity, especially when the word gets around. There would be the more well-informed, the ambitious and the entrepreneurial who would be quick to seize the first-mover advantage. Then there would be the broad body of the population who would also get in the act when they sense the benefits and are clearer about how to extract those gains. They would form that demand for opportunity. I asked myself whether there are conditions in the overall social environment that would help maximise this demand. And, if so, what could we do to nurture these conditions? I think there are two such conditions. There could be more, but I would speak on the two. One affects stability, and the other, robustness. An unstable society risks breaking apart and a divided society would not be an attractive place to live, work, play or to bring up the next generation. What are the key risks to our stability?”
“I would also like to ask the Minister what steps his Ministry would be taking to work with the Ministry of Health to dovetail PMBS requirements into the national health insurance system that is now being planned. Retirement Age”
“Sir, the discussion over portable medical benefits has been going on for many years now. Competitive pressure and technology change lead to constant restructuring in the economy and churn in the labour market. A worker must be prepared to move through several jobs with different employers in the course of his working life. While his first employer may provide some medical cover for him, the same may not be the case for subsequent employers. The provision and extent of medical cover by employers vary widely. So, what happens to a worker should he fall ill in between jobs or when he works for an employer who does not provide medical cover? Then there is the related concern over the expected rise in healthcare costs due to an ageing population and workforce. Put another way, expected higher medical costs will be yet another reason why employers may put off employing an older worker. If we cannot sort this problem out, then the re-employment prospects for older workers will get worse over time. For this reason, the labour movement has been pushing hard on this subject over these years. Unfortunately, progress has not been as quick as we had hoped for. With time ticking away, the challenges will only get bigger. I was, therefore, delighted when the Minister for Health said in this House that his Ministry is now seriously studying how to put in place a national health insurance system that goes beyond coverage for catastrophic illnesses, and I think this system will be portable. I believe that this new development will finally provide the much-needed platform and breakthrough for implementing the portable medical benefits system for the workforce. I would like to ask the Minister for his assessment of the status of implementation of the PMBS so far.”