Ho Geok Choo
Singapore
“I thank the Minister of State for the comprehensive response. Just one question: the public had indeed been expressing reservations about eating seafood and I think we are also seeing Singaporeans shunning Japanese restaurants for fear of contaminated seafood. How safe is seafood imported from elsewhere and in Singapore now?”
“Thank you, Senior Minister of State. I have two supplementary questions. First question: short of sounding ageist, would the Ministry consider introducing an age quotient into the qualification criteria of this grant as such a move would encourage young couples to own a home and start a family of their own?”
“Sir, I would like to ask the Minister for his comments on how the political crisis in the Middle East and the nuclear crisis in Japan will have an impact on our energy needs. In view of these developments, what are Singapore's plans to go nuclear and what are our alternative sources of energy?”
“This is an example of mismatch. First, it highlights the need for course counselling for the individual to ensure that the training to be pursued is relevant. Second, it shows that employers in certain sectors are not ready or willing to accept PMETs who have formal management training.”
“Chairman, Singapore serves as a global and regional hub for several international companies. In the borderless global economy, accounting practices are being outsourced.”
“Mr Chairman, Singapore's 1961 Water Agreement with Malaysia expires on 31st August. As the date fast approaches, can the Minister update on Singapore's water situation and plans for self sufficiency? Mr Chairman, I would also like to find out what other plans does the Ministry have to strengthen the habit of saving water.”
The complete record
Every one of 857 lines we hold for Ho Geok Choo, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 16 of 18.
“Sir, I would like to ask the Minister of State in what manner would this Code be practised. Is there a consideration to integrate it as part of the pledge-taking session, or are we going to have a separate session?”
“Sir, can the Senior Minister of State kindly enlighten how we can actually explain this whole concept and programme of the FTAs to the man-in-the-street because, according to the Prime Minister's statement a few days back, about 20,000 jobs can be created arising from the FTAs and especially so in the manufacturing and service sectors? There are many people who are finding hope in this announcement and if more could be done to communicate and make it more simple to the man-in-the-street, it will help a lot.”
“Sir, in view of the fact that the Singapore economy depends to a certain extent on tourism, I would like to ask the Minister whether the recent events in Bali have affected the number of tourist arrivals in Singapore.”
“I would like to ask the Minister whether he could clarify on the Water Agreement on the Linggiu Dam. Could he throw some light on it and whether this Water Agreement would have any impact on our future discussions?”
“At the home scene is the question of employment and the ability to be flexible, to be ready and prepared for new economic fronts that Singapore would be engaged in. There must be stress on teaching family values to the 3G for after all, society at large is made up of individual family units. In this, I urge the Government to initiate a yearly family value campaign on "My Heart Is Still At Home", reminding Singaporeans of their roots and the need to remain connected to the family, especially in the midst of the recent JI developments. This can be carried under the banner of the Public Education for Family Committee. At the same time, Parent Groups can be trained and equipped with the necessary skills to deliver programmes on family values. Such a subject complements the National Education programme in school. Sir, in conclusion, I stress that we want Singaporeans and our 3G to be boosters for Singapore. To engage the young, the game will no longer be solely direct control through policies. Rather we have to win the hearts and minds of our young. Our young 3G appreciates a story quite different from the well-worn hard sell. Is there a tune around which our 3G can be engaged in a romantic song and dance with the Government? In addition to the frequent economic rhetoric, the 3G must be engaged from the heart. I would like to end with a phrase that has stood the test of time. A phrase, which upon reflection, makes me recall the many instances of how the old guard truly reached out with hearts convicted by a desire to bring about a better life for all: "People do not care about what you know until they know you care." In this, the family structure and the Government have never failed us. Perhaps, now, it is the 3G to also show that they care.”
“Sir, this is an interesting case study of why a quitter who is a professional wishes to return home and how accommodating Government agency makes it possible for him and his family. Sir, he has remained connected to his family in Singapore. This is where I would like to advocate for a one-stop Check and Chat Centre to be set up, to help those in crisis, to counsel those who wish to quit to remain connected to the family and, in this instance, Singapore, and to learn more from those who have decided to return to Singapore. This supports what hon. MP Gan Kim Yong had talked about when he mentioned helping those in crisis by having more connected Singaporeans. Sir, we have one-stop centres of all sorts to assist with economic and commercial matters. It is just as necessary that we provide such support intervention centres to assist before these potential quitters call it quits. The soft aspect of dealing with human capital must be quickly put in place. Sir, if we wish for our 3G to stay on, we must not spare helping the many retrenched middle-aged Singaporeans return to the workforce. Many of their children who constitute the 3G would take cue from their parents' employability and fortunes to decide whether there is hope for them to stay or they should quit. Today, the WSTP has been well responded to but funds are drying up and I understand that there is a long queue for enrolment. Lest this turn into a long march, I urge MOM to review the continual financing of this programme as the retrenched middle-aged group still needs that emotional support. Sir, I wish to reiterate that at this time, the real issues facing Singapore and the world at large are about our sovereignty and security in the wake of the JI arrests and the looming war in Iraq.”
“In January this year, the grassroots leaders and residents, comprising three generations of a multi-racial cast of 80 people of the Boon Lay Division of West Coast GRC, got together to produce a musical production for Boon Lay's National Day celebration on 10th August. The theme and title of this production was "My Heart is still @ Home: Boon Lay.com.sg" The message of this production was that as Singapore globalises, our children might leave our shores to seek opportunities elsewhere, but they would still come home because their roots are in Singapore and they want to return to their family and friends. This is where the emotional bond of the family and friends would play a crucial part. Sir, Boon Lay is a real heartlander constituency and, in its midst, is this awareness among the old and young that we want our children to sink roots in Singapore, ie, the branches will remain connected to the vine. How can the family partner Government's efforts to make this happen? Is the Government forthcoming in this? In this, I am happy to note and share with the Members of this House that the Government agency is beginning to support families in their efforts. There was a MPS case which I handled, where a quitter, who is a professional, gave up his citizenship to migrate to Australia some 12 years ago. He decided that he wanted to quit Australia in November last year and to return to Singapore where his family is. After at least seven times of meeting up with myself and appeals to MOM, he succeeded in returning on employment pass. Today, he works for a business venture that he has established in Singapore whilst he was in Australia.”
“Do you see them coming out and tell it as it is and, if so, how many of them? Does that make them a booster or quitter? I think if they have another chance, they probably would leave again. We may want to consider using good slogans and catchy words with good PR campaign on TV and newspaper to aggressively change the younger generation's mindset, which seems pretty negative judging from the number of people commenting on the issues and those silent observers as well who really do not want to say too much! As in the boy's letter, there will be 'fence-sitters' in our midst. Where Singapore is concerned, we must try to swing the 'fence-sitters' from being quitters and influence both the stayers and quitters to be boosters for Singapore. Deducing from the boy's views, a comforting point is that there is an indication of a sense of awareness amongst some of our 15-year olds of what is happening around us and an ability to discern, evaluate and form opinions. Most reassuringly is that there is care and concern for Singapore amongst some of the 3G 15-year olds. We would like our 3G Singaporeans to be articulating confidently and candidly, so that our leadership would be able to take cue from such expressions. I understand that, in reality, not all 15-year olds would have the opportunity to do that, but many of our schools can do more to encourage and nurture the awareness and interests of our 3G on events around them. For example, we could encourage the schools to allow their students space to express their views and grant them a say in policies affecting their performance and participation. We should extend the feedback mechanism to the students as well. Sir, the fact is that we do have caring and thinking Singaporeans in our midst.”
“It is more important to create the sort of vision or stake that Singaporeans can hold onto, not in the materialistic sense, but in the emotional and psychological spheres where permanent bonds to the country can be established. Thus, what stakes can we create for the 3G Singaporeans? Coming back to the 15-year old boy, if his views and sentiments may represent the up and coming 3Gs, then not all is lost where the 3Gs are concerned. The two generations ahead have not laboured in vain for Singapore and its people. We know that well connected branches to the vine and regular pruning of the fruits will ensure good offsprings. So parenting plays an important role, in nurturing loyalty. Our concern over quitters may just be transient and their sense of disenchantment may not necessarily trigger their mobility if they remain connected to their vine. Nonetheless, I agree that the quitters need managing and there still remain the expectations of people to be fulfilled. But alas, expectations vary and are relative. This begs the question of responsibility ownership. I would like to ask Mr Steve Chia whether it must always end up on the Government's lap. If we really look carefully into the profile of people who have come back to Singapore and are willing to speak about it, we would see one common denominator - they already have a job waiting for them, or are successful businessmen or professionals who can relocate their offices anytime or move back without difficulties or those who are financially very stable where being with or without a job would not make any difference to them. And there is, of course, the other group of Singaporeans who have quit on Singapore, but have come back as they cannot make it on the other side as well.”
“He wrote about terrorism as an act against our national security and terrorists as a common enemy of the world; about standing up for patriotism, being brave and putting our foot down instead of trying to appease others; about denial of one's country. To quote him, "I am unable to contemplate on what has driven some Singaporeans to actually plot with Al Qaeda." Today's print media and world of connectivity and relatedness have imprinted powerful images on the young minds. 3G Singaporeans have and will continue to have wider and deeper access to a wide array of information about the world, values and peoples. Together with technology innovations and a dearth of distance, 3G Singaporeans, with their increased mobility, will continue to live in a tighter and closely knitted world with all its inherent risks and opportunities. Therefore, it is important that 3G Singaporeans continue to develop their critical thinking and analytical skills and examine hard their stakes in Singapore, not just for themselves, but for their families and fellow Singaporeans. Whether "stayers" or "quitters", they must have their stakes in Singapore! Mr Speaker, Sir, there is no lack of suggestions to address the stayer/quitter comment from PM, but we need to move on. There was a time when we placed too much emphasis on the Singapore Dream of the 5Cs. The Asian financial crisis and the persisting recession have dissipated the Singapore Dream somewhat. While it is all right to have dreams, it is also a timely wake-up call for Singaporeans to examine how we should realise our dreams.”
“In a balanced response to the article, the boy described the terrorist act as a cruel attack on humanity and freedom, and disagreed with the author's view that we are "putting Americans on the pedestal". He reminded that we should remember "the victims of the international community, not just Americans". He then condemned the terrorist acts and chided "peoples' indifference," and asked, "Do we just sit on the fence and do nothing and just watch the events unfolding around us?" If this 15-year old can stand in front of a mirror, reflect and take on a stand for what he believes in, I think our 3G Singaporeans offer hope. They do care. What struck me more in the letter he sent to the Editor was his subtle realisation and a reminder of sorts about Singapore's vulnerability and obligations in its international relations. I quote him: 'Singapore is a small nation, and we have to contribute and play our part in order to survive. We have diplomatic ties with the US, and thus it would be right to offer our condolences and support from a political viewpoint. We cannot isolate ourselves and say we do not care about what is happening around us.' Perhaps this 15-year old, like many of his peers, has inherited that sense of urgency and survivality from his forefathers who had laboured and stayed on in this island state despite the early years of difficulties, because of their sense of rootedness and their wanting to carve out a stake for themselves in Singapore. How can we similarly cultivate "stayers" who are committed to Singapore, and will fight for Singapore's survival? In the article, I also detected several facets of a 3G Singaporean's value system and views.”
“Sir, two weeks ago, upon my return from the AIPO meeting, I had an interesting encounter with a 15-year old boy who told me that he was not pleased with an article entitled "The 911 overload" published in the Today newspaper of 12th September 2002. He had written on his own volition to the editor of Today to offer his views. At this juncture, I would like to seek the Speaker's permission to circulate a copy of the letter by this boy, that was published in the Forum page of Today newspaper, dated 16th September. I would also like to seek Mr Speaker's permission to circulate the original full text of the boy's letter to the Editor. [Copies of letters distributed to hon. Members.] It contains the full details of his thoughts. I have obtained the boy's permission for this. And I would like to declare at this point that this boy is my son. What I am recounting would give an interesting insight of what goes on in the mind of a 3G 15-year old on the 911 tragedy and deducing from his letter and his thoughts, I think there is hope in our 3Gs. There are thinking 3G individuals who would not hesitate to defend Singapore when it comes to issues of sovereignty and security. Reading the text of the letter, it would seem that when this boy's sense of right or wrong was put to a judgment call, when he felt that it was time to speak out, surely after some internal reflection of the tragic events which took away many innocent lives, he did not hesitate to join in the discussion. The article, "The 911 overload", was published at a time of mourning when the whole world was remembering the tragic loss of lives on 911, 2001 with the Americans.”
“There are some Singaporeans in the United States and elsewhere who have taken on jobs as research scientists, engineers and business people. These Singaporeans have "made it" in their adopted country. However, many of them still maintain ties with Singapore. These boosters have forged close economic and business ties between companies in the US and those operating out of Singapore. So, rather than harp on the fact that these Singaporeans have found life too disagreeable in Singapore to prompt them to move overseas, we could leverage upon the expertise, talents, connections and business potential of the booster population all over the world. Sir, the Singapore Overseas Networks (SONs) and the Singapore Contact are strategic bridges in linking the boosters to Singapore. What we must continue to do is to provide the boosters with an easy passage back to Singapore, even if it is just for a stint. Internet and globalisation have brought the world to our doorstep. Singapore may just be a transit hotel to many Singaporeans who are moving beyond the Singapore shores to seek employment and opportunities. So, there will arise new 3G boosters whom we will cultivate for contribution each time they transit in Singapore. The challenge is how can we lure them back for these intermittent contributions. It must surely be their family and their friends as well as the easy access. The motion is concerned with the mobility of the 3Gs. We are concerned that 3Gs are vulnerable to become quitters because of Government policies to date. I support the notion that we can put in place measures and programmes that will inculcate values and encourage our 3Gs to take ownership of their stake. These measures can perhaps commit them to stay in Singapore.”
“We started 10 years ago with the concept of self-help groups which saw the spawning of the CDAC, SINDA, Mendaki, Eurasian self-help groups. These groups have served their roles well. Going forward, in view of the potentially divisive factors that could arise from the JI developments, perhaps we should review the model of the self-help grouping and consider amalgamating them under an umbrella body without disrupting the individuality of the self-help groups. We can do more, for instance, within the resource sharing areas. Or is Singapore just merely a nation of opportunistic mercenaries, populated by people with a grab-and-go mentality? Some recent surveys published in the newspapers would seem to indicate that Singaporeans, especially the 3Gs, are especially prone to the notion of seeking better climes for themselves elsewhere. Our younger ones are able, educated, talented, and they have a good command of English. As such, opportunities abound for our people who want to carve out a niche for themselves elsewhere in the world. Mr Speaker, amid the rounds of speeches and reactions to the stayer-versus-quitter debate, I would like to bring a value added dimension for the stayers and quitters. Whether stayers or quitters, they all are boosters for Singapore. What do I mean? Well, boosters are Singaporeans who may be working or studying overseas. Some of them may even have migrated to another country and taken on citizenship elsewhere. However, boosters are people with a heart to do things that will benefit Singapore's society and economic well-being. For example - and this is to assure Mr Steve Chia - that we are still connected with our overseas so-called Singaporeans.”
“For instance, to educate our 3Gs on the realities of the commercial world and the issues in society, can we consider some form of apprenticeship in these fields? Such exposure would serve to mature them through the experience that they will face. There is no apology needed for Darwin's theory of the survival of the fittest. Since time immemorial, societies had always been made up of stayers and quitters. This is not a new phenomenon and not necessarily a bad thing to happen. This stock and flow process is healthy to a certain extent because it provides a mechanism that will calibrate an eco-system balance in the environment where those who remain or come in to join us do so because they can find their own comfort level and have found a reason for staying. In other words, a small percentage of attrition may not necessarily be bad. The challenge to us is how can we retain the different talents across the strata of society to hang on and play their part for Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, I think that the issue before us today centres around the angst that we all feel about the Singaporean identity, as articulated by various hon. MPs. Is there such a thing as a Singaporean identity? Is the Singaporean identity slowly taking shape as the nation becomes more rooted to its soil? Have we cultivated a strong enough and deeply-rooted enough sense of identity to provide ourselves with enough cultural ballast to withstand times of stress and tensions in our national fabric? Perhaps it is timely that we take every opportunity to reinforce our cohesiveness as a people, so that we feel, we talk and we act as Singaporeans in the midst of the multi-cultural and multi-religious setting that we are in.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, Prime Minister's National Day message was for the young Singaporeans to reflect and make a reality check for themselves. Sir, how should the 3G Singaporeans respond? To respond to this call, the 3Gs must be given opportunities to be involved and to understand issues at large. At the same time, the 3Gs should take an active role in activities and developments around them. More importantly, we need a mindset change, where people will provide alternative suggestions and viewpoints and engage in constructive criticism. This will add value and allow views to take place. Sir, the debate on this motion should not just revolve around Government policies and measures that will keep quitters from quitting. To answer our NCMP, Mr Steve Chia, we worry that our 3Gs lack a sense of crisis and resilience as they practically grew up in the era of prosperity, as mentioned earlier by the hon. Member, Mr Gan Kim Yong. Proceeding into the future, what is evolving around them will throw them directly into the global market place. Their competitors are no longer local and regional. Today, the global village is their competitor. That being the case, how tough can current local pressures be compared to what they would have to face with in the global village? Our challenge really is how can we facilitate them to develop the coping mechanisms to cushion the so-called crisis of life. If they could handle that, they would have developed this sense of crisis management. We should put in place measures that would enable and facilitate their adaptation. Is it possible to incorporate practical learning into the academic syllabus?”
“Do these spin-offs function to facilitate and enable the private operators in enhancing the cluster of related and supporting sectors? If their objectives are contrary to one of the key thrusts in transitioning into the innovation-driven economy, then we ought to hold the brakes and urge a review of their directions. This is to avoid the Government from being alluded in competing in an unfair manner when it enters certain sectors of the local market that should be best served by the private sector. Perhaps, a charter similar to the New Temasek Charter should be considered for statutory boards with spun-off commercial set-ups. This is to better scope their functions and ensure that if at all for any useful contribution, they serve to enhance the cluster and related supporting industries. Madam, on this note, I would like to support the recommendations of the EISC to promote private enterprise in Singapore.”
“In other words, in so far as it pertains to the encouragement of entrepreneurship and competition among Singapore companies, it is truly commendable. I can envisage potential instances where MNCs or even subsidiaries within MNCs collude to keep price high or merge among themselves to corner a large segment of the international market. Do we seriously want to keep them out of Singapore because they indulge in such practices? What if Singapore companies collude among themselves to corner a slice of the foreign market? Indeed, the proposed law can prevent such instances from occurring. Madam, another dimension which has been mentioned by my colleagues is the role of statutory boards and their effects on competition in Singapore. To reiterate, if the function of statutory boards in Singapore is to help provide an institutional environment where private businesses can compete on a transparent and level-playing field, then it stands to reason that these boards ought not to be involved in the competition themselves or else they will lose their standing as impartial guarantors of a free and fair regime in the various sectors they are supposed to be responsible for. Many today are questioning the commercial aspirations of spin-offs of statutory boards. Two better known ones in the manpower industry are the Civil Service College and the PSB Corp. Consultants and training providers are asking why these two entities are vying for the same commercial pie. They are providing similar management training and consultancy programmes to a near saturated market. Madam, this runs against the original function of the statutory boards, thereby detracting from what they are supposed to do.”
“In this connection, the rule for the disclosure of any take-over bids by powerful investors and fund-managers should remain, and not be diluted further by a further reduction in the need for the disclosure of any take-over attempt. Alternatively, we can consider selling off these holdings to the management of these firms if they are able to raise sufficient funds to buy the shares on offer. This will help increase the sense of ownership among these managers, and it will also help to retain critical managerial know-how in these firms and give our managers a chance at injecting the entrepreneurial spirit in these firms. The Ang Kong Hua-led proposal to buy NatSteel is a case in point. As far as the GLCs are concerned, the Government's policy of divesting them to the private sector when they no longer serve a useful strategic thrust to the economy is a correct one. And, should the Government continue to play a lead role in identifying strategic sectors for Singapore? There are two fundamental forces at work here. One is that the Government should devolve itself from running state enterprises. The other is that the Government should take the lead in identifying key sectors that will do well in the future. Which of these two do we want? Are we sure that the Government can always be spot-on to identify areas of growth in so prescient a fashion as was the case in the past? The proposal to consider other ways of involving the private sector is a good one provided that we involve the private sector in a continual process of sectoral growth-identification. Madam, the Report's recommendation on having a generic law on anti-competition is good. It is to prevent collusion, anti-competition and the like.”
“The recent announcement of the PSA Corporation model of opening up berths to foreign and private operators to manage on their own shows a savvy customer service response. The open invitation by PSA Corporation to shipping companies to participate in port management and operations is a clear signal of its open and flexible approach in striking up new alliances. Let us examine some of our assumptions underlying the intention to divest before proceeding to do so. To what extent must Government sell off its holdings before investors are sufficiently assuaged that these enterprises are really bottom-line concerns? Another related issue that ought to be raised is that the manner in which privatisation is carried out is just as important as the rationale for divestment. Firstly, if we decide on privatising some of our non-core, non-strategic assets, we should do so gradually, and not go for a quick sell-off, especially in times like ours when the market is still soft. To do a quick sell-off under today's market condition is unwise for obvious reasons. If we decide to let go of some of these assets, we should do so in a staggered manner, selling off tranches at those points in time when the market is on the upturn. Studies in other countries show that by gradually releasing its holdings over time, the long-run revenue resulting from the sale of these shares will be maximised. This is because, as investors gain confidence in the privatisation programme, the value of these shares will tend to rise. This, in turn, will benefit all Singaporeans. Secondly, I feel that instead of selling large chunks of these holdings to foreign investors, we should sell them to large groups of small, dispersed investors. SIA and SingTel are good cases in point.”
“While our GLCs should be competitive and profitable world-class players, it is also a legitimate objective to ensure that profit maximisation is not at the expense of national interest. GLCs should not only generate financial gains for their shareholders, but they should also serve our national interests in contributing to the peace, prosperity and security of Singapore. Moreover, our GLCs are subject to the same rules that apply to others in the international free marketplace. Instead of being defensive about Government involvement, our GLCs should robustly rebut unfounded criticism from vested interests and stake their claims strongly as legitimate participants in today's increasingly globalised marketplace. Madam, PSA Corporation and SIA have become world-class companies in their own right, consistently outperforming many privately-controlled and managed ports and airlines of international stature. The Government need not be apologetic about their achievements and contributions to Singapore. All businesses, without exception, are subject to the fluctuations of business cycles and world economic upturns and downturns. So, for example, if SIA is not making a profit for the first time after decades of sterling performance, this should not be the reason for it, or a sizeable chunk of its equity, to be handed over on a silver platter to some seemingly savvy international fund manager. What assurance can we have that they can perform better than SIA? By all means divest ourselves of all long-standing non-performing GLCs or even close them down. But for those that perform or are strategic to our national interests, such as in defence, it makes little sense for us to throw out the baby with the bath water.”
“We can enlarge our domestic talent pool by making Singapore a global metropolis attractive enough for foreigners to want to live and contribute to Singapore's prosperity. Giving up ownership and control of our key home-grown industries that are strategic to our prosperity and survival as a nation is like cutting off a healthy limb from a healthy body. Is it then necessary or wise for the Government to privatise substantially or completely all its GLCs? Proponents for the divestment of our GLCs argue that GLCs present unfair competition for both local and international players, given the Singapore Government's backing in these companies. For this reason and the perceived sensitivity that this may pose to the national security of other countries, it is argued that the GLCs will not be welcomed in the international market place. Similarly, because the profit objective of our GLCs may be compromised by Government's social and political imperatives, they will be shunned by international funds and investors. Last but not least, there is also a perception that because they are GLCs per se, there is a lack of will on the part of the Government to ensure that the best possible management is in place. But the catch here is that those arguments are mostly propagated by our competitors and by pundits who make a living from espousing trendy and esoteric management theories. How, for example, could any of our GLCs be seriously considered to be competing at an unfair advantage in terms of financial muscle in the international marketplace merely because the Government has the controlling interest, when not even one of our GLCs can be found on the Fortune 500 Global List?”
“SIA has consistently been one of the most profitable airlines in the world. PSA Corporation is likewise one of the most profitable port operators in the world and has sustained Singapore as the second largest port worldwide in terms of shipping tonnage. We should endeavour to create more PSA Corps and SIAs out of the more promising GLCs, instead of contemplating to hand over control of these companies to foreign interests or appoint foreign proxies to run them for us. Because we are small and vulnerable, human capital is our most precious asset, and we must continue to build up our own core of national talent to be in ultimate charge of our key resources and institutions. We cannot depend on nor expect foreign managers and investors to take ultimate control of our key economic institutions and expect them to make a living for us. That will be the end of Singapore as a sovereign nation. Still yet another reason why some countries join the privatisation mania is because they are faced with balance-of-payments or fiscal crises that compel their governments to sell off state-owned enterprises in order to raise money to cover shortfalls in other areas. Surely, this is not the case in Singapore, as we all know how prudent our Government has been in the stewardship of our nation's reserves. This is not to say that we should not open up our market and companies to foreign investors and expertise. To remain competitive, we must continue to attract the best management and business talents to Singapore to supplement our national talent and, if possible, absorb them into our citizenry to enlarge our core national talent pool.”
“Fortunately for Singapore, our GLCs are run on an arms-length principle, in that the Government does not directly interfere with the daily operations of these companies. In actual fact, they are run on purely commercial lines. There are instances where the Government may have invested money into these GLCs for long-term strategic reasons without seeing an immediate prospect of making quick returns. However, this does not mean that Government ownership of these GLCs is not commercially-sound. It just means that there are instances where the market fails to identify long-term opportunities which Singapore is well placed to exploit. Another reason why privatisation has been the order of the day in many countries is because these enterprises have not been competitive enough to take on world-class competitors in an era of trade and investment liberalisation. Is this situation symptomatic of Singapore's GLCs? Some GLCs may need to be partially or even completely privatised so that they can attract foreign technology transfers, managerial expertise, and capital. The latter will also help boost our efforts to enlarge the capital base of our stock exchange and the increase of foreign portfolio investment in Singapore. However, there are GLCs with substantial Government ownership which are doing quite well already on their own. Brand names like SIA, DBS and PSA Corporation spring quickly to mind in this regard. To further divest Government's holdings in these companies may not necessarily improve the competitive advantage of these enterprises. If the Government were to relinquish more control of these enterprises, what compelling rationale is there to guarantee that they will be a better run outfit than what is already the case?”
“Madam, we have built the Singapore economy into what it is today, largely through local talents and by constantly growing and strengthening our key economic institutions such as the GLCs. GLCs and the assiduous cultivation of our local talents for public service and, in recent years for the private sector, have been the cornerstones of our economic growth. We should not be too hasty in wanting to do away with what has worked well for us and to adopt some other strategies which may sound fashionable but have not stood the test of time. According to the World Bank, more than US$700 billion in assets have been privatised around the world in the last decade, most of which occurred in what economists call "emerging economies". There is a definite trend around the world towards privatisation of government-linked companies or what, in some circles, is called state-owned enterprises. The rationale for the privatisation of these enterprises are many and varied. Some of them may be relevant to the GLC situation in Singapore, others not. Before we join in the rush to divest some of our prized-assets, it is important for us to understand some of those reasons that lead some countries to undertake privatisation of their GLCs. This will avoid a doctrinaire approach to this issue of privatisation. One of those reasons has to do with agency theory. This says that because GLCs belong to society as a whole, it is an agent without a real principal. As a result, the performance of these GLCs is sub-optimal because they have rather vague goals, as opposed to the profit-maximising goals of privately-run outfits, like the MNCs.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, the EISC Report and the New Temasek Charter are fundamentally sound. The recommendations in the Report and the express intention to wean off companies by Temasek Holdings augur well for our nation's transition from an investment-driven phase to an innovation-driven phase in our economic development. The call by many is that this is the time when the Government is to take a back seat and allow companies to take an active role in shaping the business environment and lead development through innovation and creativity. The Government will lead the way in divesting non-core businesses, partner SMEs, form alliances, merge with or acquire stakes in both local and international interests. All these are happening in a difficult global market environment. An array of different strategies and conditions must now prevail in order that Singaporean companies could rise to the new challenge. For example, local demand and a challenging marketplace must develop as a source of new ideas for product and service innovations. Other imperatives include companies rethinking their traditional assumptions, management techniques, business leaders redefining their roles and their initiative in moving into new territories. Madam, Singapore boasts an excellent track record in rising to challenges. The Government has already taken several measures to equip Singapore in this transition. The issues are how soon and are our companies ready? To what extent is our infrastructure ready or accessible to the SMEs in terms of loans, funds and network? Are GLCs totally irrelevant in this new economic era? Why should we still be holding on to some of them? What flexible model can we initiate as strategies that will continue to anchor our flagships?”
“Sir, does MAS have any scheme to protect the deposits of large depositors and what do these other countries do for their large depositors?”
“Sir, in the estimation of the Finance Minister, how much does he envisage that these small depositors need to pay as premium to be covered under such a scheme? What is the prevailing market rate in other countries?”
“Therefore, we should have an amendment that executives cannot serve on the decision-making body of the union. With reference to the proposed repeal of section 25, the rationale given is that this section has outlived its usefulness and, therefore, it is appropriate for it to be repealed. This rationale is questionable for the following reasons. In the New Economy and global business era, Singapore will be attracting a new breed of investors. With the repeal of section 25, these investors may perceive themselves to be at a disadvantage, if the unions chose to invoke more favourable benefits than what the Employment Act provides. In the initial years of a new investment, no investor or his management would want to be engaged in unnecessary discussion or negotiation for enhancement of terms if the management could simply benchmark its terms to an existing piece of document, ie, the Employment Act. In other words, I do not see the main existing terms in section 25 making things worse off. So, if it ain't broke, why fix it? If the management feels that it could afford to give more, then let them do it on their own accord. What is important is to ensure that the minimum terms are specified. In the light of this argument, section 25 should not be repealed for the reason given, ie, "outlived its usefulness". The purpose and intent of section 25 is still relevant. It is important to assure our investors that the amendment to the Industrial Relations Act serves to enhance the employment relations climate and promote Singapore's economic competitiveness. On this note, I support the Bill.”
“As statistics show, union membership, as a percentage of the working population, is low, at about 16% and is declining. So, there will still be large numbers of professionals, executives and managerial staff who will be unprotected, ie, the more senior levels, as well as those lower level executives who are in companies where there are no unions. For these unprotected professionals, executives and managerial staff, going to court is not the solution when the outcomes are never certain, and the fear of exorbitant legal costs looms large over their heads. What is the solution then? MOM today actively encourages "best" HR practices among employers. I would like to propose that MOM take the lead to establish a self-regulatory body to monitor and deal with cases which do not come within the ambit of the Bill. This will cover executives of all levels in a non-unionised environment, as well as senior executives in a unionised environment. Perhaps the Employment Act should also incorporate a proviso that addresses salary claims. The last recession has borne out many cases of senior executives who were not paid for work carried out, and yet had no recourse except through the costly and protracted legal route. Other avenues that could be considered could be the Small Claims Tribunal for claims up to a certain amount. Such additional avenues would complement and supplement existing mechanisms to cater to the needs of executives who fall outside the ambit of the Bill. Related amendments to the Trade Unions Act must also be considered. The amendments leave open for executives to be elected to the union's decision-making body, ie, the executive committee. Once there, they can bring influence to bear on the unions.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, the changing landscape of the operating environment impacts us on many fronts. To be able to maintain an effective and value-add employment relations climate, it is important for both employers and employees to evolve a new engagement deal. Increasingly, employers are having to deal with a more sophisticated and educated workforce. Singapore's unique tripartite formula and the increasingly professional and pragmatic HR practices have been instrumental in providing a congenial work environment and nurturing a productive and competitive workforce. These have contributed to attracting foreign investments into Singapore. The purpose of the Bill is to address the outcry from the many executives, managers and professional staff. The last two recessions had seen many executives being unfairly treated by their employers, some of whom had even faulted on payments. These professionals, executives and managerial staff were and are without recourse to any institution other than the courts. The Bill is supposed to give the executives, professionals and managerial staff an avenue of recourse at MOM, as well as the Industrial Arbitration Court, but via the trade union only. While the intention may be clear, the Bill, in fact, will still exclude many professionals, executives and managers. Representation is only by a "recognised trade union". But by defining the term to mean a union that "has been accorded recognition by an employed ...", an aggrieved professional, executive or manager still does not have a recourse, if there is no union at his or her workplace. The effect of this amendment Bill is that it caters for only the junior executives who are in companies where there are unions that are already accorded recognition.”
“Yes, I agree that we want to nurture a resilient group of people capable of looking after themselves but, at the same time, while weaning off from mum's milk, we must also make available and accessible cow's milk. For example, employers must be encouraged to mount more financial planning programmes for their employees reaching 50 years of age, and more awareness must be created in financial planning for this group of people. In this, perhaps the Government could also facilitate by subsidising and supporting such financial planning programmes for the affected people. Sir, on this note, I support the Ministerial Statement. ADJOURNMENT OF DEBATE Resolved, "That the Debate be now adjourned." - [Mr Mah Bow Tan].”
“Employer groups must be conscious that they do not end up giving lip service and, on their own, to walk the talk. In all NWC deliberations and recommendations, the tripartite parties must continue to urge employers, who could well afford, to make up to the deserving ones in the above-50 age group for the difference in their CPF contributions. The proposal has advocated wage flexibility as a reason for the reduction in CPF but, in the same breath, it has also mentioned that CPF should not be tinkered further. I support the philosophy of having wage flexibility for a more viable business operation but, where in the longer term it is necessary for us to review the CPF rates for reinstatement for this category of people, we must not close the door there. As rightly pointed out, we are concerned that Singaporeans may not have enough savings for their retirement, explaining the need to reverse the contribution to 40% for those below 50. Not too long from now, the majority of our working population would be in the above-50 age category. With the bulk of the working population in the above-50 age group, it begs the question whether they would be financially sufficient for their retirement needs and, therefore, a review of the CPF may make sense. Instead of using age as a factor for CPF rate, company financial performance could be used to determine the CPF rate payable. Further, if it makes sense to do so, the Government could facilitate these organisations by way of tax incentives in proportion to the number of employees in the age group of 50-55 who have been retained in service or are being employed from among the unemployed. Such incentives would address the so-called wage costs of the 50-55, without disrupting the CPF.”
“In raising the CPF wage bands from $200-363 to $500-750, we increase the take-home pay for the low-wage and part-time workers, helping them to meet their current needs and encouraging more to enter the workforce. The downside of the recommendation is the concern that this category of employees will have very little in their CPF. It would be very difficult to build up sufficiently for their retirement, housing and health care, ie, for their future needs. The cap on the maximum use of CPF for housing is a prudent recommendation, and the announcement of a pension scheme to enhance the investment value of our CPF savings gives a ray of hope for better yields. It would be good for public education to be mounted, so that CPF members are instructed and informed on how the scheme would work. This calls for a fundamental shift in the mindset of our decision-makers and people. The challenges include managing the mindset, timing and readiness of implementation of the recommendations of the Sub-Committee. The revamp of the CPF is one of the many items in the remaking of Singapore. We must not lose our perspective when we experience change. This is where we must seek a balance in handling differences and coping with change. Very often, we know that we are besieged with both rational and emotive feelings that swing like pendulums in this whole exercise of remaking Singapore into a globally competitive nation of resilient and entrepreneurial people. If the Government should accept the recommendations, it is urgent for us to demonstrate our actions to assist those affected, through giving them a channel for dialogue. I would like to urge the Government to constantly reinforce and encourage employer groups to share their gains from the cost savings.”
“Some of the other crucial factors could include the need for retraining and upgrading the knowledge base of these employees, the need to prevent age discrimination in the work place, and the need to move towards a purely performance-based salary system, one that is free from prejudices. Sir, on a related matter, the Sub-Committee has also recommended a reduction in the CPF Ordinary Account rate from the present 22% for those aged 50-55 years to 14%. This will mean that many people in this age category may have difficulty servicing their housing loans, as less money would be available for investments in housing. This could also substantially affect those in their 40s. In view of this, what other measures would the Government take - assuming that the Sub-Committee's proposals are accepted - to ensure that this group of home-owners would not find themselves in a situation where they would have to default on their loans, or find it difficult to cough up sufficient cash amounts to ensure their own serviceability? Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on the impact of the lowering of the CPF contribution ceiling from $6,000 to $5,000, many find themselves in a double-bind. Not only will they see the employers' contribution to their CPF accounts capped at the current 16% for the first $5,000 they earn when every other age group see theirs going up, they will also be subject to zero contribution from the employers for anything they earn above $5,000. If the recommendations are accepted in its entirety, they are requesting that the Government also look into their needs and not blithely assume that they can take care of themselves.”
“Furthermore, would not such a recommendation reinforce stereotypes among employers that older employees are less productive than younger ones? How can we ensure that such a perception does not get ingrained into our system? Secondly, there is also the assumption that companies are driven to retrench these older workers by virtue of the increase in business costs, as represented by the employer's CPF contributions. However, there have been some voices emanating from respectable members of the business community that the 4-percentage point reduction, by itself, is probably not sufficient enough to make a major impact. In other words, there is no compelling reason for us to assume that, by swallowing this bitter pill, older workers will automatically face better job prospects than before. As we all know, since 1999, employer's CPF contribution rate for all workers was cut to 16% from the previous 20%. Has this 4-percentage point reduction substantially contributed to increased prospects of employability for older workers? The Sub-Committee also cites the figure that out of the 110,000 workers in the 50-55 age bracket, 11% are now out of a job. There might be other explanatory factors that account for such a figure. For example, many of those in this age category might have taken early retirement. Furthermore, many in this age category might not possess enough skills, knowledge and education necessary for the new economy. In other words, the Sub-Committee's assumption, that cost is the main factor determining the employment prospects of these employees, may be a dubious one. While I believe that cost is one reason that affects the employment prospects of older employees, it is one among many.”
“The Sub-Committee's recommendations to keep employers' contribution to 16%, while also reducing the employee's contribution to 16%, is meant to ensure the employability of this group of employees in a more competitive environment. Yet, many in this age bracket are faced with the prospect of ever-increasing costs of living expenses over the longer term. They may get to enjoy a higher take-home pay in the shorter term, but over the course of their retirement years, with employer's contribution capped at 16%, they may actually not have enough in their accounts to see them through to the end of their lives. It has been advocated that reduction would make it more appealing for employers to retain the services of those in the 50-55 age group. Employers will not have to retrench them in view of their higher costs. However, such a view has certain embedded assumptions. Firstly, the Sub-Committee is correct to assume that most companies in Singapore are paying their staff on the basis of a rigidified seniority-based grade system. But there are also companies in Singapore that have already shifted to a performance-based system or a competency-based one, according to which, age does not matter in the determination of one's salary. We should be encouraging more companies to shift to performance-based compensation. With the proposed reduction in the employer's contribution rate to 16% - when younger age groups see theirs going up to 20% - would it signal to the business sector that it is all right to discriminate against older workers simply on the basis of their age? If performance is what really matters, why should age be the basis on which some people get less for doing the same, if not more, work than those of the other age categories?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is clear to us that the main objective of the Sub-Committee's recommendations is to strike a balance between the social objective of ensuring adequate funds in the CPF for retirees and the economic objective of maintaining the cost competitiveness of our workforce. Both objectives are noble and enlightened ones and there must be a flexible balance between them. In previous years, this balance could be shifted one way or the other without extracting an onerous price on the part of the employees. For example, in the 1986-87 recession, CPF rates, then standing at a hefty 50% were slashed by more than half, to get us out of that recession quickly and decisively. However, those were the days when the cost of living was not as high as they are now. A reduction in the employer's contribution to the employee's CPF then could and did materially reduce business costs, while still enabling workers to sustain themselves after retirement. As I see it, Sir, we are now caught in a conundrum, not mainly of this country's own making, but for which lower-income employees have to bear the brunt of this latest revision. I say that this conundrum is not of our own making because I fully understand the imperative of keeping ourselves globally competitive in an age when less developing countries are aggressively challenging us for precious investment dollars. Wage cost is, of course, one part of the total business costs that investors look into before making investment decisions. However, the feedback of many is that, in re-juggling our CPF system to achieve wage competitiveness in our labour force, one group of workers may be suffering the main burden of such an adjustment, that is, those between 50-55 years old.”
“The Minister has cited the lagging salary between the male and female as one of the reasons for the gap. Has his Ministry found that the lagging salary between the male and female constitutes one of the reasons for our difficulties in luring the better educated women back to work? And if that were so, what is his Ministry doing to address this issue?”
“Sir, one of the reasons cited for the wage gap of females compared to their counterparts is that they have withdrawn from the workforce to mind their children. I would like to ask the Minister whether there is a possibility for a scheme to be examined which is similar to the National Service scheme for NSmen to make up for the loss of their 21/2 years' national service training. Normally, they are given increments. For women who withdraw from the workforce to do their "national service" in looking after their children, if they should re-enter the workforce, is there a chance for them to be given some kind of recognition for the "national service" that they have performed, so that we minimise the wage gap between male and female workers?”
“I would like to check with the Minister whether there will be any excavation work done to lay these pipes.”
“Sir, since one of the three methods was assessed to be sufficient to process the water, as in the US case, to what extent would the incremental value be in having all three processes done for Singapore's case? The second question is: would the additional two or three processes not be adding to the cost of processing the water and who would then be bearing this additional cost?”
“Sir, in the US where water reclamation has been carried out for more than 20 years, only one or two of the three methods that Singapore is using had been used. Why is there a need for us to go through the three processes in Singapore's case?”
“Instead of walking out of this House with drooping shoulders and hanging down heads after two days of intense debate, the MPs would be able to walk out of this House with their shoulders thrown backwards and heads held high and straight. I would urge that the PTC take heed of the proposed amendment for a more relevant set of criteria to be put in place. The MPs and the Government, on our part, will take the role of clarifying and explaining to the ground to get their buy-in through better communication. On this note, I support the amendments to the Motion. EXEMPTED BUSINESS (Motion) Resolved, That the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1. - [Mr Mah Bow Tan]. PUBLIC TRANSPORT FARES Debate resumed.”
“Sir, the truth is that everyone has his own set of ideas with which to evaluate a situation, and our ideas do not always match those of others. For some reason, most of us struggle against this inevitable fact. We get angry, hurt, or otherwise frustrated, when people reject our ideas, tell us no or give us other forms of disapproval. Personally, I find myself yo-yo-ing between praise and blame. One of my children is happy with my action, the other struggles against it. Someone says I am a nice MP because I understand business and strategic considerations in this fare hike incident. Someone else thinks I am not, because I have not been effective in reversing the hike. This back and forth, approval and disapproval, happens all the time. In truth, we would always prefer approval over disapproval because it is easier to deal with. Where do we go from here as responsible Members of Parliament? How do we deal with the challenge of the unhappy lot? We have to find a balanced approach and take a longer term perspective towards resolving a national issue that understandably embraces a bigger agenda. Sounds like a pie in the sky because, in reality, we have to face the daily grumblings and woes of those affected who will unceasingly question the timing of such an action and the high handed approach of the PTC. All said, I am encouraged by the amended Motion that will, at least, demonstrate to the ordinary folks that Parliament is a responsible and caring one, and will not hesitate to temper pains with necessary actions. The amended Motion will signify to the public that, indeed, Parliament is not hearing impaired. That much more credibility this amended Motion would give to the MPs in the eyes of the ordinary folks.”
“The timing of the hike reinforces the public perception that the Government is upping cost of basic items now, before the new GST is due. Some believe that PTC should only decide on fare changes after the ez-link card system completely replaces the magnetic fare card. By then, it would be able to ascertain if the new and fairer system, where cheating is eliminated, has any real impact on the bottom line of operators. The fare hike would be an easier sell to the commuting public then. After all, they are the paying customers. Sir, these comments carry the sentiments from the ground. The ordinary folks whose means of commuting is by public transportation will face the brunt of the hike. As Advisers to the GROs and MPs of our respective communities, we will explain the rationale for the hike, but we must also be able to represent the views of the ordinary folks on policies impacting their finances with a view to influence and shape improvement in future policy making. The dilemma that this House is faced with today on the transportation hike, provides one of the most unavoidable lessons of having to deal with disapproval of others and, in this instance, whether we are for or against the Motion. That praise and blame are all the same; it reminds us of an old cliche, that we will never be able to please all the people all the time. Even in a landslide election victory in which a candidate wins 70% of the vote, he or she is left with 30% of the population that wishes someone else were the winner. Indeed a humbling truth! The truth shows up all the warts and wrinkles on our face. How do we respond? Pretend we do not see them, or accept them, and still stand head and shoulders above others.”
“Last year, the SMRT made a profit of $56.8 million and, this year, the company is expected to ring in higher profits. A profit is still a profit, regardless of the margin. Operators may not enjoy healthier bottom line without the hike, but under the current economic conditions, companies who manage to turn in profits should count themselves very fortunate indeed. The criterion for fare adjustment is too narrowly focused on the bottom line of operators; other pertinent factors, like prevailing economic conditions and unemployment, should be given more weight in this equation. Secondly, PTC is better advised to put in place mechanisms for soliciting public views and feedback before implementing any fare adjustments in the future. Instead of being forced to make frequent clarifications and justifications after the fact, they could introduce the public earlier into the decision-making process. This would also give commuters ample notice of the impending change. The timing of the fare adjustments raises some concerns as well. In the face of unemployment, high retrenchment rate and a slow economy, the timing could not be more ill planned. Lower-income households have seen their disposable income shrinking on the one hand, and the cost of living increasing on the other. A double "whammy" you could say. The hike is coming six months before the GST increase by 2-percentage point, another burden for the lower income. The quick succession of cost increments is overwhelming for the lower-income group. The pockets of the poor, especially the retrenched, will be hit hard by these incremental increases. To some, these amounts are trivial; to many others, they add up. Nonetheless, the full impact should not be blamed on the transport hike alone.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the fare hike has been hotly debated as it touches a raw nerve among the more than 62% of Singapore's commuting public that relies on public transport. What was found most unpalatable was the manner in which the fare adjustment was decided upon and its timing. Although the Public Transport Council (PTC) rejected the applications for an across-the-board increase in fares last year, it has approved some of the fare adjustments proposed by the operators this year. Fare increases of between three cents and 10 cents would bring the operators extra revenue of 2.2% to 2.5%. This figure is lower than what the PTC formula would have allowed for. Annual fare revisions are subjected to a cap based on the formula of change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) + X. The X has been set at 1.5% for five years from 2001 to 2005. If fares had been raised every year, based on the formula, the quantum of fare revenue increase would be approximately 13%. The PTC has exercised its role well in the past and must be complimented for that. These fare adjustments, implemented recently, will help to defray what operators said were higher running costs, including manpower costs. Understandably, there will be costs involved in providing and maintaining an efficient transport system and fee adjustments may be inevitable, as so humorously explained and illustrated by my colleague, Mr Ong Ah Heng. However, it may be time for us to re-evaluate PTC's formula for approving fare hikes, as proposed in the amendment to consider factors like viability of public transport operators and affordability of commuters. According to analysts' estimates, the increased fare revenue for the operators could add up to $11 million. Even without the fare hike, the companies are still making profits.”
“I propose an amendment to clause 28 as follows: After sub-clause (c), perhaps we could add a new sub-clause (d) as follows: "(d) any property seized, restrained or controlled in accordance with sub-sections (a) to (c), which may bear interest shall be held in an interest bearing account; and the interest accruing on the property shall be added to it on its release or forfeiture." Mr Speaker, Sir, the basic objectives of the proposed Bill are admirable and deserving of our support. However, we must not in our enthusiasm to deal with terrorism fail to guard against any provisions which impinge on the protection for the common folks. In other words, we ought to ensure that the provisions in the Bill must also give adequate protection to the common man. On this note, I support the Bill.”
“The proviso in clause 21 authorises the Attorney-General to apply to a Judge to forfeit any property owned or controlled by or on behalf of a terrorist or a terrorist organisation, or any property that has been or will be used to facilitate or carry out a terrorist act. The concern here is that the Judge orders the property to be forfeited to the Government if he is satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that the property falls within clause 21(a) or 21(b). One would have thought that a higher standard of proof of beyond reasonable doubt would be adopted. There is an intervening period from the moment a property is seized, pursuant to clause 11(1), till it is forfeited, pursuant to clause 24(1). During the intervening period, a Judge, at the request of the Attorney-General, may appoint a person to take control of, manage or deal with the forfeited property accordingly. It is disturbing to note that the person so appointed has the power to destroy property which has little or no value. Whilst we can appreciate the need to sell property that is perishable, I am of the opinion that no one should have the power to destroy property of little or no value unless it is ordered by the Judge to do so. Clause 16(5) empowers a Judge to order the destruction of any property if he is satisfied that the property has little or no financial or other value. I beg to ask what constitutes the extent of satisfaction. Also, what constitutes a balance of probabilities and, for that matter, what is meant by "beyond reasonable doubt"?”