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 17 of 18.
“So therefore, given this nexus, I really suggest we rethink how we want to price industrial land. I support the concept of opportunity cost. And I do think that it can be used in this case to benchmark the price of industrial land for given kinds of industries against relevant competing locations. For instance, if having a hub port, an air hub, or a chemical industry, considered strategic to the interests of Singapore, then the pricing of land for such purposes should be determined with an eye on competing locations. The positive multiplier effects in employment and spending will, to some extent, compensate for any lower collection of land sales revenue upfront. Just to give an example. Arising out of the concern over terrorism, security at Jurong Island was stepped up and Police had to introduce a stricter security pass control system for that island. As against the initial estimate of about 10,000 passes that they have to issue for direct workers on the island, I am told that in the end, they issued close to 100,000 passes. So you can see that when you enable a hub like that to take place, the positive multiplier effects are significant. Therefore, we want to ask if we had charged condominium land prices for the land in Jurong Island, for example, then could we have had the benefit of the 10,000 direct jobs and the 100,000 indirect jobs created for Singaporeans? Sir, our willingness and readiness to change and make Singapore more attractive to investment, to business and to job creation will be the basis of a realistic hope for the future. Finally, Sir, the hopes of Singaporeans cannot rest just on what the Government does for us. We have to choose to ride the changes. This is an act of will.”
“The seniority-based wage system will, in an increasingly volatile operating environment, make our older workers more and more vulnerable. The lack of more timely adjustment mechanisms, such as the monthly variable component, will also harm companies and their workers in times of sudden poor demand. Other cost components that work against the employability of older workers, such as high medical and statutory costs, must also be tackled so as to minimise casualties. We must press on with reforms and provide more flexibility in practical and equitable ways, so that all stakeholders of the companies, including the workers, will be able to share in the success and growth of their companies. At the same time, when companies know that their manpower overheads are not locked into rigid structures, but pegged to productivity, performance and value, they will also be more willing to hire when demand picks up. On land cost, I just want to make a comment on industrial land pricing because I do believe that a different approach from that of the present will help to strengthen our attractiveness as an investment location. Currently, industrial land prices, I believe, generally reflect their opportunity cost in Singapore. That is to say, the valuation of a piece of industrial land is determined by the value of its alternative use. As the property market in Singapore has grown strongly for many years, that has nudged up the price of industrial land. Beyond a certain point, too high land costs cannot be offset by relative productivity factors, and some industries may be prematurely priced out of the Singapore economy. And with their departure goes jobs. Yet, in the long term, even property prices can only be sustained if the economy does well.”
“We have an aging workforce. And when an aging workforce meets with the end of lifelong employment, then it becomes obvious that many are going to be stuck financially if they fall ill in between jobs, or if their employers do not provide basic medical benefits. I am glad that, after many years of discussion, a specific tax incentive is now given to promote the implementation of portable medical benefits. However, I do feel that the pace of progress in this matter is too slow because there is not yet a proposal with defined terms and premiums for workers and employers to adopt. My worry is that the longer the delay in implementing this, the more older workers will be placed in jeopardy. So I urge the Government to consider an aggressive and specific timetable for the implementation of portable medical benefits. Another area that I feel the Government can do more is business costs. Cost levels directly impact the competitiveness of companies. Feedback received by unions indicates that a significant proportion of unionised companies that had relocated part or all of their operations to other countries in the past few years had cited high cost of business as one of the reasons for their decision. Therefore, it is an important item to pay attention to. If you look at the cost factors, wages and land are two main ones. On wages, I would say that, over the years, tripartite partners have worked closely to reform the wage structure in Singapore. When companies have to deal with increased volatility, the wage structure cannot be rigid. Otherwise, we will be forcing many more companies to prematurely lose money, downsize or close down and many more workers will lose their jobs. But much work remains to be done.”
“How then can we be hopeful of winning our share in this fierce competition? The short answer must be to reinforce our strengths and remedy our weaknesses. For example, on company and personal income taxes, the Finance Minister has introduced changes beginning last year that will see Singapore becoming progressively less demanding. Although no further corporate and personal tax reductions were made in this year's budget, the commitment to make further reductions by 2005 remains. At the same time, the exemption from tax of all foreign income in the form of dividends, branch profits and services income in this year's budget will encourage enterprise. In the area of capability building, the budget in financial year 2002 saw another $500 million transferred into the Lifelong Learning Fund. The Fund, which now stands at $1.5 billion, is expected to generate $60 million in income to pay for more worker retraining and skills upgrading. There are also additional tax incentives for those who, on their own, take up training and attend courses and seminars. And of course there is the setting up of a special agency to promote and coordinate Continuous Education and Training. The commitment of the Government to do everything possible on the supply side to give Singaporean workers the chance to compete for the new good paying jobs is very clear and unwavering. Turning to healthcare cost, which is another concern, especially among older Singaporeans and lower-paid workers, the Government has transferred another $100 million into the MediFund, bringing it to $900 million. And the interest income will help more poor Singaporeans deal with high medical expenses. But, to me, it is the spur given to the introduction of the portable medical benefits that deserve special mention.”
“We all know that this is now a key concern among working age Singaporeans, because of the restructuring, relocations and retrenchments. How do we show Singaporeans who want to adapt that they would be helped? Or put it in another way: how do we explain to adaptable Singaporeans that the Budget measures will bring more jobs to Singapore, and that they will have an equal chance to take these jobs? Let me start with job creation. Jobs do not appear out of the blue. Jobs are created when companies invest in Singapore and do business here. Unless Singapore is attractive to investors, they will not put their money here, and there will not be jobs. What does Singapore offer? Do we offer cheap land? No. Cheap wages? Not when compared to many developing countries. Do we have capabilities that companies need? Well, our workforce has been top-rated by BERI for many years, but our overall education profile, because of our history, trails those of developed countries in whose league we must fight if we want a better standard of living. Our infrastructure? Yes, we are rated well here and it gives us a certain edge. And then we have strengths in certain key intangible areas like political stability, low corruption, effective and proactive Government, hub status offering high connectivity in various areas, open trade links, industrial peace, and a pro-investment, pro-business tax environment. Given all these, one may ask: why would companies not want to invest in Singapore? And the answer is because every other country wants that same investment dollar, and will compete fiercely for it. So companies compare the packages that different countries offer before making their decisions. Even companies already here will do their sums to see whether they want to move or stay.”
“Yet, if we do that, we dull our senses and lull ourselves into wrongly believing that there is somehow an entitlement to a good life, and that would be counter-productive. Clearly, we must not set out to demoralise our people. But we must always call a spade a spade, so that by and by, Singaporeans at large will adjust to understanding that the world has changed in big and fundamental ways. Then, we will be much more ready and able to make the necessary adjustments and adaptations. Here, I am glad that the Finance Minister has been forthright in his analysis of the economic picture that we face, and also the fiscal position that we must expect, going forward. Specifically, he has pointed to volatile times ahead and tighter Government revenues. In other words, the days of what I would say cruise control life management - which is that you just put on a constant setting and the car just moves on its own - assuming that there will always be a job and that there will always be pay that goes up - those days are over as well as any expectations that, whether in Government or in our private life, we can spend freely without much thought. Those days are also over. The future is about staying nimble, making choices, taking chances and living with our own decisions and within our means, both as a nation and as individuals. And as these big changes in thinking and behaviour take place, we would have positioned Singapore and Singaporeans for a more hopeful future. Second, hope rests on the confidence that things will improve in the future. This confidence must have a proper basis, for otherwise it would be mere wishful thinking. Take the area of jobs, for example.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for giving me this opportunity to join in the debate. We are making a Budget in the middle of many developments. The economy is weak. Jobs are harder to find and to keep, both for retrenched workers and for new graduates. Crime was up last year. A war in Iraq looms, driving up oil prices and inflation worries. Cut-throat competition breathes down our neck both in the neighbourhood and further afield. And we can hear the sucking noises of the giant Chinese vacuum cleaner that draws away investments, factories and jobs. On top of all that, terrorism tries to paralyse societies by fear and by tearing up the social fabric. Not surprisingly, more Singaporeans are feeling anxious. The world seems to have turned very messy, very harsh. There are changes upon changes. Many wonder what is happening. How can Singaporeans find courage and strength to press on and face life's challenges, and see the ongoing struggles as an investment in their future? And what future would that be? Sir, in these circumstances, I feel that our Budget must strengthen hope. Realistic hope, to me, is central to our ability to deal decisively and effectively with the many challenges, and to emerge victorious. How do we strengthen hope? First, let us press on with all efforts to inform Singaporeans about the developments around us that affect us in the economic, social and political arena. It is a natural tendency for people to avoid pain. And one way to avoid pain is to try and block out unwelcome news and information. Some may think that it is perhaps more merciful and maybe easier to keep morale up, if we shield our people from having to face the increasingly harsh realities.”
“Sir, in the review that the Ministry of Finance is conducting for future ERS, I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether he would consider lowering the quantum from $50 to something less, eg, $10, for this particular exercise. The groups that have the highest disqualification rates are actually the lower income. After all, everybody who qualifies could actually draw out their $50 the day after receiving their ERS.”
“In other words, it shows to the world that it is safe to invest and do business in Singapore, and to employ Singaporeans. A safe, united and prosperous Singapore is our best rebuff to terrorism. And as our Muslim countrymen take action to cut out this cancer, I call on all non-Muslim Singaporeans to give them our fullest support. They are undertaking a critical and onerous task not only for the sake of the Muslim community, but for the benefit of every Singaporean. Let us stay united, encourage one another, work shoulder-to-shoulder with one another and with the Government, and rid our land of this threat of terrorism. Sir, I support the motion. 4.30 pm”
“It is in the collective interest of all Singaporeans, regardless of race and religion, to stand together and fight these terrorists and expose their lies. If we do not, we will end up like the eggs and nestling of the foster parent birds - pushed out of the nest to die - even though it was not their fault. Sir, no matter how we look at the issue, it boils down to one fact: terrorism in general, and the dangerous motives and actions of the JI in particular, have harmed the interests of Singapore and Singaporeans. Their actions and lies must be exposed. I applaud the efforts of the Muslim community and its leaders to resolutely and relentlessly safeguard the good name of their religion from the perverted beliefs and behaviour of the JI. This is absolutely critical for two reasons. First, it authoritatively clarifies in the minds of Muslim believers that the JI's claims to being Islamic in its theology and practice are false. This removes the psychological hook that the JI has been using to tap sympathy from Muslim believers. And it makes it easier for all to focus objectively on considering the threat of terrorism and its implications, and not be deceived or swayed by the JI's cunning. Second, through leadership by example, the Muslim community in Singapore is sending out a very strong signal that it has not been taken in by the wiles of the JI, and will stand united with all other Singaporeans to fight this common threat to national peace, security and interest. The community is showing that it will always be vigilant and will never allow itself to be made use of by terrorism. Such signals are important because it indicates that Singaporeans, regardless of race and religion, are rational, practical and united.”
“If we deal with these challenges wrongly, the strong trust, mutual respect and tolerance that the different races and religions have so painstakingly forged over many years will be undermined. Social cohesion will then suffer. If social cohesion suffers, who wins? Nobody wins, except those who see the destruction of our multi-racial, multi-religious and meritocratic society as serving their purposes. But who loses? Every peace-loving, fair-minded, level-headed, loyal Singaporean, regardless of race or religion. For, when social cohesion and trust are weakened, order is hard to maintain. Without order, there cannot be development. Without development, there will not be jobs. Without jobs, Singaporeans will suffer. The better life will become a pipe dream. Clearly, if you are a Muslim worker applying for a job, you will want fair consideration to be given to your application on the basis of merit, and not become a victim of possible stereotyping that might arise from the JI's claim that it is Muslim. And that is absolutely right, because what the JI did is not your fault. And the best way to achieve this is by actively denying groups like the JI the chance to misappropriate the good name of Islam. Equally clearly, if you are a non-Muslim Singaporean looking for work, you will hope that investors and businesses will base their operations here. You will hope that they expand their presence in Singapore and offer more jobs. You will not want your chances to find a job undercut by worries that businesses may have over security. You have nothing to do with the JI, so why should you allow them to harm your chances and your prospects? So, let us be practical.”
“At the same time, Sir, we must tell Singaporeans that although we have prevented a physical terrorist attack so far, there is already a cost economically and socially. And Singaporeans are paying for that with their jobs and with their future prospects. Economically, the plans and actions of the JI and their Al-Qaeda masters have added more uncertainty and gloom to doing business in Southeast Asia. Foreign direct investments and tourism revenues in the region are two clear and big victims of that. Perhaps when we talk about foreign direct investments and tourism revenues and the impact of terrorism on them, it may not be obvious to some Singaporeans that we are actually talking about the threat on jobs and livelihood of workers, their prospects and what they bring home to their families. Jobs have been lost, and many jobs made less secure because terrorism is scaring away investors, business and tourists from the region, and that includes Singapore. So, thanks to groups like the JI, Singaporeans will have an even harder time looking for jobs in an already difficult economic period. Just like the cuckoo nestling that pushes eggs out of the nest, the JI's actions have pushed jobs out of the economy - jobs that unemployed Singaporeans of all races and religions need and would treasure. Socially, the false claims by the JI that they are acting according to the precepts of Islam have tarred the image of the Muslim community. Those who are less aware may come away having the wrong impressions about Islam and about Muslims. Some others, whether they are companies or individuals, may start feeling uneasy, and become cagey in their interaction and dealings with Muslims.”
“These perpetrators are particularly dangerous, because they abuse the power and authority of religion to deceive the faithful into sympathising with their criminal cause, and to do their bidding. This is spiritual manipulation of the most devious kind, and for the most heinous ends. Such a technique of exploitation reminds me of the behaviour of the cuckoo bird. The female cuckoo purposely seeks out the nest of another species of bird in which to lay her egg. The cuckoo's egg resembles closely the look of the egg of the victim's species. So, when the parent bird from the victim's species leaves its nest unattended, the female cuckoo flies in and removes one of the victim's eggs, lays one of its own, and flies off before the unsuspecting victim returns. The victim flies back to the nest - not knowing what has happened - and incubates the cuckoo egg, thinking that it was one of its own. That egg belonging to the cuckoo usually hatches before the victim's own eggs, and once that nestling hatches, it pushes out the other eggs from the nest, so that it can get all the food brought back by the foster parents. So, this young cuckoo is fed, cared for, and protected by the victim, and actually grows to be several times larger than the foster parents. All the while, the foster parents never suspected that they were exhausting themselves harbouring, feeding, protecting the very enemy that had killed all their young. In due course, that cuckoo grows up, flies off to find the next set of victims. Sir, I quoted this analogy because I want to point out the importance of exposing such spiritual hijacking. The Muslim community in Singapore must not let the JI or any other group masquerade as one of its own, to be sheltered and nurtured. They must not let this JI cuckoo succeed.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion standing in the name of the Minister for Home Affairs. Sir, the White Paper on the Jemaah Islamiyah arrests described very clearly the threat of terrorism to the security of Singapore. I want to highlight three priorities today. First, we must thoroughly expose their plot. Let us shine a bright light onto their dark methods and let Singaporeans see through their ploy, because when Singaporeans see through their ploy, it will be much harder for their schemes to work. Second, we must tell Singaporeans how terrorism costs them dearly, even if bombs have not gone off. This is to make sure that Singaporeans are not complacent about the threat or its impact, and are motivated to act against it. Third, we must give our strongest support to efforts by the Muslim leadership to fortify their community against spiritual hijacking by deviant groups and individuals. Prevention is much better than cure. Sir, the JI is part of a conspiracy to overthrow the governments of the region and to seize political control. JI members who are Singaporeans have forgotten their duty and obligation to their country. Instead, they connived with the Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups to harm Singapore and Singaporeans. They willingly operated as the fifth column for international terrorism, being the internal spies and operatives for these external groups. They planned to bomb places and kill innocent people. And we all know that they had plans to build those bombs, and they almost succeeded. How did they get people to join them? The JI deliberately scouted for and systematically indoctrinated unsuspecting Muslim believers into their ways of thinking.”
“Then, of course, there is community mediation, spearheaded by the Ministry of Law, since 1998, where community mediators have mediated more than 1,000 mediation sessions. Of these, 75% of disputes were successfully resolved. At the Supreme Court, during pre-trial conferences, the Registrar discusses with parties the various alternative dispute resolution processes and refers appropriate cases to mediation. Since the setting up of the Singapore Mediation Centre (SMC) in August 1997, it has handled 910 cases. Of these cases, about 770 cases were commenced in the courts but the parties subsequently turned to mediation. At the Subordinate Courts, mediation is an integral part of the justice system and is widely used to resolve disputes. Through its Multi-Door Courthouse, the Subordinate Courts provide information to parties to help them decide on the most appropriate dispute resolution forum for their case. And the Subordinate Courts indeed has introduced other innovative processes such as E@dr where disputing parties with email accounts can mutually turn to for mediation under the guidance of a court mediator, without filing a court action; or Court Dispute Resolution or CDR, where a Judge helps parties to arrive at a mutually satisfactory solution to their case by providing a neutral evaluation; and thirdly a pre-action protocols pilot scheme covering non-injury motor accident cases where parties are required to follow a procedure to disclose all relevant documents and negotiate to settle the case before filing a court action. 2.00 pm”
“Sir, the Legal Aid Bureau extended assistance to 16,248 persons between April 1999 and March 2002. Since the means test for legal aid was last revised in April 2001, there has been a substantial increase in the number of persons who have been granted legal aid. In FY 2001, 6,571 persons were granted legal aid, as compared to 4,968 persons in FY 2000 and 4,709 persons in FY 1999, in other words, an increase of 40% from 1991 to 2001. There was also a substantial increase in the percentage of applicants who successfully qualified for legal aid. In FY 1999, 66% of applicants qualified for legal aid. This increased to 70.7% in FY 2000 and 81.2% in FY 2001, in other words, less applicants were turned away. Given these improved statistics, it is too early to further revise the current income limit for legal aid, which was last revised only 21 months ago. But as Members are well aware, the Ministry of Law reviews the means test continually and will adjust, when necessary. Sir, on the final part of her question, ie, on mediation and other alternative dispute resolution processes, in other words, litigants who want to have their disputes settled have other viable means to settle these disputes and need not necessarily just turn to the court for litigation, because over the past few years, both the Ministry of Law and the courts have actively promoted mediation as an alternative to litigation as a means of settling commercial and relational disputes in the community. In addition, the Small Claims processes provide a speedy mechanism to settle a wide range of contractual claims of up to $10,000 in quantum, at very low cost, and indeed up to $20,000 if the parties agree.”
“Question No. 14, Sir. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, Mdm Halimah's question comes in different parts. As to her first part, whether the ability of low income Singaporeans to pursue claims in court will be affected by the recent court increases, let me assure her and the House that the ability of low income Singaporeans to pursue claims in court will not be affected by the recent increase in court hearing fees. The Chief Justice, in his recent speech when he opened the Legal Year, allayed the concerns of Singaporeans in this regard. This is because the majority of civil cases involving ordinary Singaporeans are cases involving actions for damages for death or personal injuries, family or matrimonial cases, cases involving adoption of children, guardianship of infants or the maintenance of parents. All these types of cases are not subject to court hearing fees. The Criminal Procedure Code does not impose hearing fees for criminal matters. Moreover, and this is an important point, the recent increase in court fees only affects litigants in the Supreme Court, which constitutes a very small percentage of all our court users. Only about 3.4% of writs filed in 2002 were filed in the High Court. The Subordinate Courts handled an overwhelming majority of 96.6% of civil cases in Singapore in 2002. Hence, a negligible proportion of the population is actually affected by the fee increases. In addition, about 70% of the litigants in the High Court are corporations. A further safeguard is that the Registrar has the power to waive or defer the payment of hearing fees in genuine cases of hardship. Mdm Halimah also asked, Sir, in part 2 and part 3 of her question, about legal aid, and how the legal aid impacts the Singaporeans, particularly lower income Singaporeans.”
“Listening to some speakers, one may get the impression that behind the phalanx of accusations lie local businesses scared of public-sector GLCs because they are big, angry with competition in the private sector because they are big, and then suspicious of one another, not quite wanting to work together, just in case the other one might grab the secret formula and become big. This will not do us any good. Singapore - if we look at our natural endowments - is indeed a SME among nations. And we have no one to complain to. But we got to where we are today not because the international stage is a model of fair play, not because the big boys imposed a moratorium on themselves to give us a leg up, but because we as a country took the hard decisions - and I would say some rather unconventional ones relative to the received wisdom of their time - and worked hard to build the necessary capabilities, capacities and attractiveness in order to compete well. If we look at the NTUC cooperatives, how did they get to do well? By following the advice of Dr Goh Keng Swee, ie, employ good professional managers. There is no reason why our SMEs cannot follow that same formula - pool resources and employ professional managers. That was very good advice that local SMEs pooling resources can note. Sir, I hope that this debate can help focus Singaporeans' attention on what is fundamental, namely, on how to help SMEs strengthen their leadership, vision, competitiveness and resourcefulness, rather than confuse the debate with red herring. Life is not about avoiding competition or defining away the competition. And to reinforce any such tendency would indeed be the ultimate disservice to our SMEs and to all Singaporeans.”
“The early cooperatives faced much more difficulties than SMEs today in finding capital. So, union leaders aggregated the funds the hard way - persuading workers, one worker at a time, who have very low incomes - to buy shares in these cooperatives. That was how NTUC Welcome, the predecessor of today's NTUC FairPrice, started. Today, FairPrice is a household name in Singapore, and perhaps it is the only local supermarket chain that can withstand and compete against foreign supermarket retailers. NTUC Income was started the same way, collecting a few dollars from each union member. So, too, NTUC Comfort, which is now divested and listed on the stock exchange as the Comfort Group. Some Members have called on NTUC cooperatives to help small businessmen. And they have. As Mdm Halimah Yacob explained, Denticare is indeed a cooperative of dentists. They share the revenues. NTUC Foodfare operates food courts, but the people who run the stalls are the hawkers themselves, who rent the space. NTUC Income uses its website to provide a matching service between handymen and homeowners, between tutors and school children. NTUC FairPrice, NTUC Healthcare, NTUC Childcare cooperatives operate franchise schemes in order to share opportunities with the business community. Sir, I believe that the crux of today's debate is about fair competition and how to better promote it. This is important. This must be our focus, and we should keep our focus.”
“In any case, if we say NTUC cooperatives are in different sectors, we must also note that it is not uncommon for business groups to have businesses in different sectors. For example, if we look at property developers again, they may also have subsidiaries that provide for finance, maybe even make drinks. The final possibility may be that there is a perception that NTUC cooperatives have special privileges that guarantee them choice of location or other perks. But the fact is that all NTUC cooperatives have to compete for all the business that they get and all the business locations that they do business in, just like all their competitors. And, just as they have been successful in some bids, they have also lost other bids. NTUC FairPrice, for example, lost the bid for store space at Changi Airport's Terminal 2 to a competitor during a recent re-tender exercise. It was outbid. The lessons are, firstly, that neither the Government - in this case, the CAAS - nor any private-sector property owner can be expected or will give any special consideration to NTUC cooperatives; and, secondly, that what replaces a NTUC FairPrice store is not going to be the mom-and-pop shop, but another retail chain, most possibly a foreign-owned one. So, let us face facts and not delude ourselves. All Members who spoke want to develop local enterprise. I share that same sentiment. But I must point out that NTUC cooperatives or - as some Members have called them - NLCs, they are local enterprises, and they are successful local enterprises. So, why do we not support them? Some Members have bemoaned the lack of capital for local enterprises. Perhaps, our local enterprises can look at the experience of the NTUC cooperatives and see how they have raised their capital. Let me give some examples.”
“We are seeing banks in free-market economies not wanting to provide services to the low income, or those living in small villages in developed countries. We see tens of millions not covered by medical insurance, when it is left to the private sector. In the drive to maximise shareholder value, millions of workers have been retrenched around the world. This has evoked a response, a backlash. Workers are disenchanted. Unions and NGOs campaign against globalisation. What should be our response? I believe we should adopt the free market and embrace globalisation. But we would have to instill a greater sense of social responsibility. How? By encouraging the small men to fight back and compete well. This they can do through cooperatives. And cooperatives can act as the counterweight against unbridled greed. This then is the big difference between our cooperatives and private-sector business. Private-sector companies are profit-driven, to return the highest value to their shareholders. This is their mission. Our cooperatives are driven by the goal of providing the best value for the customer. That is our mission. We do well in order to do good. Today, this role is growing in importance. In a recent survey, 74% of Singaporeans surveyed were very satisfied with the role that NTUC cooperatives play to moderate the cost of living for them. These Singaporeans and households will want to know the rationale behind any proposal that seeks to deny them these savings and the convenience that they enjoy. So, unless moderating prices and creating value for money for the common man is something objectionable, then I cannot understand what the problem is.”
“For example, our property sector is dominated by a small number of big players, TLC and private sector alike. So, what are we going to do to level that playing field for the smaller developers? But that discussion is for another time, because the Motion today is not about curtailing potential excesses by big business but on the role of GLCs in the Singapore economy. Or, perhaps, the misgiving about NTUC cooperatives is that they are present in a number of different sectors. We make no apology for this, because NTUC cooperatives are set up in areas where the common man needs value-for-money services for everyday living. And wherever NTUC cooperatives are present, they have the effect of moderating prices and improving quality through providing benchmarking. By our sincerity and hard work, we have earned the trust and patronage of our members and customers. Our cooperatives compete for the support and business of our customers every business day, against strong competition from both local and foreign players. Our members and customers know that NTUC and NTUC cooperatives care, that we do not take them for granted and that we are not some cold, opportunistic, profit-crazy outfit out to squeeze the last dollar out of them. As Mdm Halimah Yacob said yesterday, for several years now, we measure the performance of NTUC cooperatives by a set of social indicators. And the NTUC publishes this report card each year. Our cooperatives also publish their social indicators in their annual reports, and table them at their annual general meetings. Sir, we have seen the excesses of the free market, in the wake of globalisation. It is not just the Enrons or the barons of bankruptcy.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for giving me this opportunity to join in the debate. Sir, the key point of our debate is whether the Government should be involved in business, especially in areas of business where the private sector is already capable of providing those services. If that is the focus of our debate, then I am utterly puzzled why NTUC cooperatives were brought into the discussion. This is because NTUC cooperatives are not Government-linked companies. The NTUC cooperatives are not owned or managed by the Government. Perhaps, this erroneous perception may have arisen from the fact that some NTUC leaders are MPs of the ruling Party. But if we go on this basis, then we also have the ruling Party MPs in this House who work for large companies and business groups in various sectors. Surely, we will consider it absurd to call their companies Government-linked. Sir, I feel strongly that parliamentary debate must be based on correct facts. Only then can we have proper and useful debate. If we know that a particular view, even if it is one that is widely held in the public mind, is an erroneous one, then we must seek to correct it rather than to repeat it and to add to the misunderstanding. Leadership is not about running ahead of the mob. Given that NTUC cooperatives are not GLCs, then I would suppose that their inclusion for mention in this debate must be because of a perception that they can be big, or that there are NTUC cooperatives in different areas, or that NTUC cooperatives may have unfair means of edging out smaller competitors. Let me take each argument in turn. If we say that the problem with NTUC cooperatives is that some of them are big - as if bigness is itself a sin - then we have to broaden that to include all big players in all economic sectors.”
“Thus, I appeal to the Government to take this into account in future asset-sharing exercises, such as CPF Top-ups, and to give more to these workers who are missing out during this transition period as CPF is progressively restored. At the same time, Sir, it is important for all of us to maintain our focus on the big picture. The aim of good government must be to secure a better life for its citizens. The outside world is changing fast. The inside world is ageing rapidly. The risks of dislocation are rising. Adjustments must be made, and adjustments will be inconvenient and, sometimes, painful in the short run. Yet, this House must have the fibre to do what is right by our countrymen, in order to lead them safely through the raging storms. We owe this to them. I support the proposal.”
“And Sir, it is not just about this particular recommendation alone. It is not only about dollars and cents either. It is about how the Government can let the workers know that it is firmly on their side. Sir, the intent of the Sub-Committee and the Government clearly indeed is not to reduce the pay of any older worker. What I see is a Government trying its best to help by improving the cost competitiveness of older workers, so that more among the older workers might have more years of working and earning. This intent must therefore not be misunderstood. In this regard, Sir, I am happy to hear DPM Lee's announcement earlier in this House that the Government will do more for older workers through the Skills Redevelopment Programme and the People-for-Jobs Traineeship Programme, and that the Government, as an employer, will take the lead to top-up the salaries of deserving civil service workers affected by the freeze. Let this be a clear signal to the private sector that the labour movement expects fair play for workers in the private sector and that we call on private sector employers to emulate the Government's action for civil servants. I would like to suggest that the Government inform all employers specifically, for example, through the CPF Board, about its call for them to treat deserving workers fairly in this CPF restructuring exercise and also point out that the Government has set the example. In this way, we would ensure that all employers get the message and that no employer can misrepresent, or present incomplete pictures to their less-informed employees. May I further urge the Government to consider the fact that, notwithstanding any improved employability to be enjoyed by this group of older workers, they do not enjoy further CPF restoration.”
“It is because those recommendations are intuitive. You need more money in the old age, so you must save more now. House prices may go up or they may go down, so you had better not put too much of your old-age savings into property play. So it makes sense to workers because these are obvious logic. But for this recommendation to freeze the employers' CPF contribution for the 50-55 year olds, it seems what is obvious to many of the workers is that they see other people going to get their restoration, but they would not get their restoration. So their natural reaction is: why are you targeting me? Do I not need the money just like everyone else? And so some may even question the Government's intent, and wonder whether it is done primarily to give employers some cost savings. And for good measure, they also question whether such a move would, in any case, be effective. Sir, I feel that it is extremely important for the Government to explain clearly, and may I say repeatedly, through all available channels to our workers its sincere intent in this set of proposals. Older workers want to know that the Government has their interests at heart, that the Government cares for them. They want to know what the Government will do to make sure that their interests are indeed well looked after on an on-going and holistic basis. Older workers want the Government to do more to guide employers into positive behaviour concerning them so that they will have fair treatment. The specific suggestions on fair rewards, job redesign, pointed out by Mr Yeo Guat Kwang earlier, are pertinent. They want the Government to signal clearly that they are as precious to this country as any other Singaporeans. Sir, this is a frightened group.”
“Second, they remember that the Government has endorsed the view that the CPF should not be seen as a convenient tool for managing swings in business conditions. It was for this reason that the tripartite National Wages Council proposed the Monthly Variable Component for the wage system. The Sub-Committee has reinforced support for this stand. The need to safeguard the CPF from new cuts is all the more necessary as the CPF will henceforth be refocused to provide the basic in those three key needs. Workers do not want to live in constant fear that their nest egg may be targeted repeatedly because of economic turbulence. Workers expect the Government and employers to take this seriously and live up to this commitment. Third, many workers who are in the 50-55 years band dislike the recommendation to freeze the employers' CPF contribution rate for them at the present 16%. Why is that so? In my view, this results from a combination of anxiety and skepticism. There are workers who have ongoing commitment to service, and who have had to face increased financial burdens when the employers' CPF rates were cut in 1998. And they, like everyone else, were looking forward to progressive restoration of the cuts to ease their burdens. When they hear that their hopes of further restoration have disappeared, they feel that loss. But, Sir, in my assessment of the feedback, I think skepticism is far stronger than anxiety. Skeptical about what? I think it is about two things in particular; one, it is about the purpose, perhaps the intent of Government's action; secondly, it is about the measures' likely effectiveness. Sir, I said earlier that workers almost immediately understood the rationale for most of the recommendations. And they had little difficulty in accepting those. Why?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for this opportunity to join in the debate. The ERC Sub-Committee has recommended many changes to the CPF system. The ground sees most of the changes as reasonable and necessary. This is because workers understand that it is important to have enough money set aside for old age, medical expenses and housing. For this reason, the proposal to increase the percentage contributions to Medisave and the Special Account as CPF is progressively restored did not raise any eyebrows. Workers know that this is done for their sake. As for the tightening of the limits on the use of CPF funds for mortgage payments, workers have seen for themselves, in recent years, how the property market has sagged. They know now that pouring more and more money into property purchases, whether it is CPF or cash, is not a sure-win strategy. So they understand why it is good to be prudent about the use of CPF funds to pay mortgage interest. Most of all, they were reassured to learn that all HDB subsidised loans and current non-HDB mortgages will not be affected. The recommendation to increase the take-home pay of lower-income workers by moving the contribution floor band from between $200-$363 currently to between $500-$750 was also accepted as well meaning and helpful. Sir, as we all know, the most touchy subjects are those affecting people's wallets. So the most intense feedback and interest is naturally in this area. First, workers remember the Government's reassurance that the cut in the employers' CPF contribution will be restored as quickly as possible in line with what the economy can bear. They see this stand echoed in the Sub-Committee's proposals, and they welcome that. And today, we hear DPM Lee has once again given this reassurance.”
“Sir, I particularly want to mention this because, whilst we are all very much caught up in the discussions about proposed changes to our CPF system, I think we should also remember some of the other systemic adjustments that have earlier been proposed and are in the course of being implemented and we should not be distracted from putting in place the necessary structures in order to safeguard the long-term cost effectiveness and prospects for our workers.”
“Sir, when Singapore met with a recession in 1985, an important lesson was learnt, and that was that business cost, including wage cost, cannot be too rigid. Otherwise, companies will not be able to adjust to changing conditions and may go bust prematurely. And when that happens, workers lose their jobs. Arising from that, the first component of flexibility in our wage system, namely, the idea of having mid-year or year-end bonuses, as an adjustable quantity, was encouraged. Thus, when a company does better, it must reward its workers with better bonuses, and vice versa. That flexibility was adequate in a fairly stable environment. But as product cycle shortened and the pace of change increased, then the more refined instrument of flexibility is needed and, by "refined", I mean that it should not be an across-the-board national move, like a national CPF cut, or an annual move that you can only do so with, say, a year-end bonus. Something more timely and company-based was needed. And it was exactly for this reason that the National Wages Council recommended the monthly variable component (MVC) since its deliberation in 1999. Sir, I would just like to ask the Minister for an update on the progress of the implementation of MVC and what additional measures the Government is taking to promote its adoption so as to minimise the need for retrenchments and also to minimise the need for any future across-the-board CPF cuts.”
“And the experience, in the last three years since the Fund's inception, has shown that workers are indeed very keen to do so. Last year, for example, more than 40,000 training places were supported under the scheme. Sir, in view of the changed operating environment, I would like to ask the Minister what additional measures will the Government be taking to assist individuals who take the initiative and make the effort to upgrade, to do so. Some other countries, such as Britain and Sweden, have already taken the step of setting up individual training or learning accounts for their workers. The question is: will our Government also consider the setting up of such accounts for our workers?”
“Sir, almost all our current training schemes that are significant are employer-based. This means that these schemes subsidise employers who send their workers for training. Employer-based training incentive schemes remain relevant and important, but I believe that they are no longer sufficient. Sir, as our economy restructures, the employment structure will also change very fundamentally. So instead of a lifetime employment with a single employer, workers are more likely to have to work in several different jobs during their life. And with shorter expected stints of employment with each employer, the incentive for any given employer to train their workers may be further weakened. Yet, in this new setting, as so many of our colleagues have already mentioned, updated skills are so important for lifelong employability. So what this means is that the existing policy of funding training, mainly through employers, is likely to miss out on an increasing number of workers who are caught in the churn. Sir, traditionally, I understand that the concern about funding, the employee-initiated or individual-initiated training, is a fear about wasteful expenditure, a fear that perhaps both trainees and training providers may pursue irrelevant and unproductive learning and training. Sir, I agree that steps must indeed be taken to minimise such risks and waste. But, given the changed situation, we must not let such fears deter us from doing what is necessary to help workers remain employable in this changed setting. The Government has taken the first step in this direction by supporting the NTUC Education and Training Fund, which allows individual union members initiate training under an approved course list, and then claim for subsidy from this Fund.”
“Sir, I would like to ask the Minister what measures is his Ministry taking, in the light of the changed economic landscape, to further help these offenders with skills upgrading and job placement, both while they are serving their sentences as well as after that. I would also like to ask the Minister whether his Ministry could consider extending the use of non-custodial punishment options to a wider range of less serious offences. 1.30 pm”
“Sir, persons convicted of crimes, and especially those who were sent to jail, face strong social stigma and sometimes the stigma stays with them for life. As a result, many of them find it very difficult to find work, try as they might. And the situation that Prof. Chin Tet Yung has just described is one example, and that is of a person who has not gone to jail. In our meet-the-people sessions, we come across cases of those who have gone to jail and their difficulties are even greater. This inability to find work easily, in comparison with others, hampers their ability to reintegrate into society. Sir, as we survey the economic landscape, we know that it is going to be more turbulent going forward. This means that even persons, who have never had brushes with the law, would find it more difficult to find work and to hold on to work, because of the changes in technology, skills requirements, and so on. For persons who have to endure and face social stigma associated with their having been convicted of crimes, and especially having been sent to jail, would actually find it extremely difficult to compete for a job and to earn a living. The strain is not only faced by them, it is also faced by their families and society at large directly or indirectly. For the families, their inability to find work would directly reduce family income, leading to increased hardship. In the case of society, we would then have to live with perhaps a higher level of long-term unemployment for this group and also a higher rate of recidivism. Therefore, it is in the interest of our society and nation that we seek new and additional ways to lower the barriers for re-entry of such persons back into society.”
“Madam, I had intended to ask the question of how the Home Team intends to involve the community more directly in exercises in connection, especially with the preparation to tackle the threats of terrorism. I want to say that the Senior Minister of State, in reply to an Oral Question raised in an earlier session, had addressed some of those concerns. I would just like to echo the questions raised by my colleagues earlier on this subject, and I look forward to more details being provided.”
“I recall that after the Prime Minister told us that some of the escaped JI terrorists had wanted to hijack an aircraft and crash it into Changi Airport, a television station went to interview some people at the airport, and those interviewed were Singaporeans who work at the airport or were going to travel through the airport. The general response was that they did not think that such a thing would happen to Singapore, because Singapore is such a safe place. Another person said that perhaps people would be more careful for the first few weeks but, after that, it would be forgotten. Madam, I am not advocating paranoia. But this shows that much more needs to be done on a sustained basis to prepare our population to understand the new setting that we are in and to know what we can do as individuals, communities and nation, to strengthen our resilience towards this threat. I would like to ask the Minister if his Ministry would be taking additional steps in this area.”
“Madam, post-September 11, the threat of global terrorism has been keenly felt throughout the world. The JI arrests in Singapore showed very clearly that Singapore is very vulnerable to such threats and we came so close to being a real victim of attack. We know that the Government has set up various coordinating structures between relevant Ministries and has also enhanced protection for key installations. I am sure that necessary policies and steps are also being put in place to anticipate and neutralise, or otherwise deal with, such threats. Madam, what I am more concerned about is the preparation of our population in the light of this changed setting. I firmly believe that, more and more, the effectiveness of our total defence strategy will lie in how well we strengthen the non-military defence areas, even as we continue to strengthen our military defences. Let me explain. The greatest harm that terrorism can inflict on the people is not the immediate deaths and damage that those terrorist acts exact. It is the loss of morale, the lingering uncertainty and fear associated with tackling an enemy that is in the shadows. For this reason, the psychological resilience of the people is key to a nation's response to terrorism, and psychological resilience is not something that can be left to the armed forces or security forces alone. It must involve different ways of informing, sensitising and preparing the people for certain scenarios, without frightening them and causing undue anxiety that backfires on public morale.”
“Sir, it is not my intention to belabour the point about Singapore-Malaysia relationship. But I just like to bring up one subject matter, and that is on Pedra Branca. Sir, Singapore's claim to Pedra Branca, which is the land on which the Horsburgh Lighthouse stands, has been challenged by Malaysia some years ago. I recall that, in the end, both sides agreed to refer the dispute to the International Court for arbitration. In our relationship with Malaysia, we have often lamented that there is not enough progress because details cannot be pinned down or agreed to by both sides. But in the case of this particular dispute over Pedra Branca, this agreement to refer the matter to third party arbitration seems to have placed us further along this road towards the determination of outcome. Recently, I read reports that some politicians in Malaysia have said that they are pushing for the matter before the International Court to be expedited. Sir, I am certain that Singapore's claim to Pedra Branca has full and firm basis and we are surely just as keen to see a decision on this matter. I would just like to ask the Minister for an update on the status of the matter and what steps are being taken to have this arbitrated upon as soon as possible.”
“Secondly, would Singapore be better off in terms of geo-political strategy in charting its own course, eg, negotiating our bilateral FTAs rather than waiting for ASEAN initiative to take place, which as we have seen do take an inordinate amount of time for such agreements to be initiated, although I am very pleased to hear, I must say, that there is every possibility that there will be an ASEAN-China FTA by the end of the year. Thirdly, if we are committed to ASEAN, how can we improve internal strength, the internal unity of ASEAN? Now, I understand that among the officials and among the governments, there is actually a very great sense of common purpose. However, this does not translate to very much in terms of the other sectors, particularly the business and the people sector. If you look at ASEAN, actually one of the greatest strengths in ASEAN is the diversity of its people, the diversity of cultures. And I think it is very important that if we have any long term interest in ASEAN we should expand the scope of our engagement with ASEAN nations and I hope that the various Ministries, with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs taking the primary role, encourage the expansion of programmes, especially in relation to cultural activities, because I think that is one of the greatest strengths of ASEAN. It has been ignored, but it is a strength and if we can pull the 500 million people together, then notwithstanding what my colleague, Mr Sin Boon Ann, has said about us not having a great GDP significance in the world, we nevertheless can still remain a powerful regional force. 500 million people cannot always be wrong.”
“45 pm As Singapore will be a beneficiary of a strong ASEAN, I would like to ask the Minister, what specific steps could Singapore take to help strengthen ASEAN as an economic alliance so that it will not lose its relevance and attractiveness. Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung (Sembawang): ASEAN-10 is now a thousand pound gorilla. It was half the size when it was first born. With its 30 years of growth, somewhat unevenly, have come new problems. Its vision now appears to be a bit diffused. Its organs are not exactly working well together. Its left paw sometimes does not like what its right paw is doing. And it is currently fed mainly by the various governments. In other words, its environment is mainly government-based. It does not engage very much the other sectors of ASEAN, meaning the business sector, and, most importantly, the people sector. I find that the main problem with ASEAN now is that we are facing a problem of internal unity, of internal cohesion, in ASEAN, which did not exist when it was originally started. Then the vision was clear - it was to provide for the security of the region, and perhaps the programmes were not as extensive as they are now. So to this end, I think, at this time, we must ask, whether as a founding member of ASEAN how should we see ASEAN, given the problems that it is facing now, and in that respect, I have three issues which I hope the Minister will pay some attention to. First of all, has the growth of ASEAN to ten provided more problems for the organisation and resulted in it being much weaker rather than stronger as a regional force? Can we really expect ASEAN to attain its original unity, to retain its original force as an international organisation?”
“Sir, Singapore is a founding member of ASEAN. In joining hands with the other founding nations to form ASEAN, Singapore must have hoped that this economic grouping of Southeast Asian countries will help provide the critical mass to attract and generate investment and trade both into and within the region, and with more investment in trade that life will get better for all people living within this region. Sir, as a small open economy that is so reliant on free trade and investment flows, Singapore knows that our fortunes will always be, to a given extent, influenced by, for better or for worse, the standing and actions of ASEAN. Hence, our participation in ASEAN is not something that is philosophical or abstract. It has direct bearing on our well-being and prosperity. Sir, in more recent years, and especially after the dream of the Pacific Rim Century evaporated after the Asian financial crisis, the different members of ASEAN have had to deal with their own combination of social, economic as well as political challenges. The strength and cohesiveness of ASEAN now seem greatly weakened. At the same time, with the opening up of China, we know that a growing proportion of investment inflows into Asia is heading to the North East instead of to the South East. Sir, these trends are not insignificant. If they persist, the region may lose its relevance to international investors. When that happens, the risk of countries resorting to enlarging their share of a shrinking economic pie would increase, thereby compounding regional problems and difficulties. 2.”
“Sir, I would like to support my colleague, Mr Ravindran, in calling for a more pro-active use, at least temporary use, of vacant State land for community purposes. There are pockets of vacant State land in most constituencies in Singapore and some of these pockets may be actually left vacant for fairly extended periods. Therefore, I would like to join the call for the SLA to consider a policy of more actively and easily allowing community use of such lands.”
“Sir, Singapore is a small country and our people live and work close to one another. With better education, our citizens are becoming more conscious of their individual rights. At the same time, with increased competition and volatility in the economic landscape, stress in society grows. This sets the stage for an increased likelihood of friction in many different areas. For example, at our meet-the-people sessions, it is not uncommon for us to come across some long-drawn disputes between parties. These disputes, though not very complex, tend to drag on and they drag in other bodies, such as various Government agencies, and then they go round and round. There is great effort expended on the part of all sides, but not always for commensurate benefit. For Singaporean society not to become overly litigious in this new setting, mediation seems to be a good alternative to be used. I would like to ask the Minister whether the Government or his Ministry will be taking additional measures to increase the use of mediation in dispute resolution at the community level, and will the Government consider making mediation mandatory, at least for certain types of disputes between individuals on the recommendation of certain authorised persons and, if so, what steps will the Government be taking to develop the manpower needed to staff such mediation infrastructure?”
“Conditions can be set and safeguards made to ensure that training is not frivolous or wasteful. Countries such as Sweden and even England are ahead of us in this. Let us move quickly on this. Sir, the challenges before us are big and serious. Our only hope lies in strengthening our unity, organisation and capabilities. This Budget is strong on prevention and preparation, to give Singaporeans hope for a better future. Sir, I support the Budget.”
“It is not a "remainder sector" that picks up the pieces that neither the public nor the private sector wishes to deal with. By its vision, focus and capabilities, it encourages and amplifies the efforts of Government and enterprise toward social cohesion. Encouraging philanthropy is a good example of an action that links the three parts together for the benefit of the less fortunate in society. Strengthening the relationship between the Government, labour and employers is another example. The potential of the people sector is immense. In an increasingly uncertain and stress-filled world, many of the services provided by the people sector, such as social work, counselling and mediation will become critical. An ageing population will also create new demands that the people sector will be well placed to meet. These enhanced capabilities and capacities will require additional attention and resource support to develop. Sir, I move now to my final point, which is to increase the development and support of individual self-help and initiative. This I see as a key success factor in a more turbulent operating environment. Central direction is too slow and inadequate in many instances. All said and done, the individual is the one who ultimately faces the consequences. As someone once remarked, "The unemployment rate may be 5%, but to any unemployed worker, the unemployment rate is 100%." Individuals who insist on not responding to the changed reality have made themselves unemployable. But those who understand the situation and want to keep themselves relevant and employable should be helped. Here, I return to my call for the Government to move on supplementing employer-based training with more support for individual-initiated training.”
“On the other hand, it may not be wise for Government services to match the volatility of cycles like the private sector business would try to do. Some services, such as those in social development, may arguably have funding needs that are counter-cyclical. Hence, Ministries and departments, just like businesses and individuals, must examine the implications of the new economic landscape and adjust their work accordingly. Clearly, in such an environment, more must be done to be frugal in expenditure and to maximise savings from improved productivity. The Government must also continue to invest in long-term infrastructure and capability building to strengthen Singapore's place as an investment location and hub. How are Ministries and statutory agencies being measured for investments and outcomes in these areas? My concern simply is that "what gets measured gets done." In the private sector, unbridled pursuit of shareholder value and return on investment, asset and cost of capital have accentuated the already short-term orientation. Chief Executives may not always be interested in the long-term good of their companies, because they do not expect to be there in the long term to inherit either the rewards or the mess. In an environment of reduced surpluses and more uncertainty over tax revenues, there may, at times, be similar temptation for the public sector to let up on longer-term commitments in favour of projects that yield more immediate returns, or to inadvertently drive up costs of services and assets in order to show a return. So we must ensure that our performance indicators for the public sector continue to let a long term view to be taken. The people sector is an equal partner in this tripartite relationship.”
“Sir, in a time when circumstances were much more stable, it may be viable or desirable for the State to decide industrial policy and for businesses to simply toe the line. In the complexity of today's environment, much more visioning, strategizing and path finding must come from the businesses themselves. Enabling businesses to strengthen themselves in these areas is key to our future. For this reason, enterprise development must continue to be given heavy weightage. The public sector has great clout in Singapore. Through its policies and commitment of resources, it signals to the rest of the society the direction that the country will head. For example, when 45 % of the Government Budget is proposed to be allocated to Social Development, with Education, Health and Community Development and Sports getting substantial increases, it signals the Government's emphasis on human and social capital. Similarly, when the Government says that it "will not stint in its support for workers to upgrade themselves", we know that the employability of workers is topmost on the mind of the Government. But the role of Government is more than just using its annual Budget allocations to signal its priorities. It also has the critical role of setting up and managing a conducive environment and infrastructure, so that the overall goals of society could be achieved. Here, I would like to highlight two specific points. If tax revenues and Budget surpluses are most likely going to be reduced and become more volatile, then how should Government agencies plan their services? Clearly, they cannot go on the basis of "straight line projections from the past, or business as usual".”
“The Government on its part must consider how best to coordinate the flow of information from the labour market to the student and working populations on a sustained basis. Improved knowledge of supply and demand conditions, and the ways that work is structured are key to helping both students and workers set and adjust to realistic expectations. To get the message out on a strong, sustained basis cannot just be the work of the Government. It is not only a question of information and resources to mount communication campaigns. It is also about the strength and credibility of networks and how these can be tapped to speed up dissemination, acceptance and response. This leads me to my second point, which is the need to rally the public, private and people sectors to work more closely together to achieve national progress and development. We must recognize that it is only through such a partnership approach that the different strengths of the three sectors will reinforce each other. The private sector is the engine of economic growth and wealth creation. It must identify opportunities for investment and break barriers through innovation, resourcefulness and sheer grit to make a success of enterprise. How far have our businesses come to terms with the changed landscape? What are their strategies to overcome the challenges posed by a saw-tooth economic growth path? Do they expect to win by out-competing their rivals to capture market share and revenue growth? Or do they just hope to survive through more cost savings and rebates? And indeed, how are employers fulfilling their role as responsible corporate citizens to help prepare workers for the changed environment?”
“The Finance Minister in his Budget Statement said, "We are entering a very different world. Conditions are uncertain and volatile, competition is intense, change is faster than ever. Our ability to adapt nimbly and quickly will give us a valuable edge. In our personal lives too, we must expect change and disruption." Sir, these are the iceberg warnings to us. They define the setting around which this Budget must be built. The central purpose of this Budget is therefore not a mere routine or ritual. It is our opportunity to redesign our ship, Singapore, so that it can sail the stormy seas and bring us to our destination safely. We must be careful not to become Titanic II. How then should we structure our policies to maximise our hopes? Sir, I would like to suggest three areas for consideration. First, to increase awareness of the fundamentally changed circumstances among the population. For without widespread understanding and acceptance of the new situation, old patterns of behaviour will continue to be entrenched. Sir, my concern is that despite the many jobs that have been lost, and the many pronouncements of change and need for fundamental adjustments, I think the message is still just scratching the surface of our collective awareness. If we ask ourselves what proportion of our population have become keenly aware of these wrenching changes that are altering the way work and employment are structured in our economy, what would be our estimate? If we ask of those who are aware, what proportion among them is responding proactively, what would be our estimate? If we do not know the answers to these questions, or if we think the proportions are still low, then we must consider how to redouble our efforts in this area.”
“Maybe the captain and crew did not act on the signs because they were complacent about what they thought were the "unsinkable" design of their ship, and saw no need to prepare the passengers for what was happening. Maybe they dismissed too readily what seemed to be little pieces of floating ice until the hit revealed the rest of the icy mountain that lurked beneath the surface. Whatever their thoughts were, when the accident happened, there was utter chaos and confusion, as the population on board plunged totally unprepared into the sea. In the aftermath of the disaster, fingers were pointed in many places and at many faces. Why did the captain and crew not take the ice warning signals seriously? Then there was another ship nearby which could have helped but did not. Why? There were not enough lifeboats relative to the number of passengers. Why? Some men were rushing to get onto the lifeboats, denying places for women and children. Why? Whatever the reasons, one thing is for sure. No answer, however comprehensive and wise, could bring back one lost life. It simply was too late. Sir, the often-told story of the Titanic is one of tragedy, drama and heroism at the point of disaster. The seldom mentioned story, and that which, to me, is of immeasurably greater value, is the prevention and preparation that could have gone into avoiding the disaster. But alas, prevention and preparation are never as glamorous as high drama, and so are often overlooked. What has the Titanic story to do with our Budget debate? Everything, in my view. Sir, when the President addressed this House in March this year, he reminded us that "the world has changed". And it was in the context of that changed setting that he laid out the future direction of the Government.”