Inderjit Singh
Singapore
“You do not want our monetary policy easing to offset some of these as it will result in an inefficient allocation of resources. I think our SMEs will also be similarly affected by higher import costs.”
“Thus, SPRING can become something like a Municipal Service Office (MSO) for SMEs. SPRING has already set up an outreach mechanism through the SME Centres. This structure should stay to be the outreach arm.”
“I want to thank the Minister of State for agreeing to the suggestion of the first- and one-stop agency. We have higher expectations, so, I hope we can make it work. But my question on REITs was not answered.”
“She worried about the eroded sense of belonging that she and her friends felt and their view that Page: 24 the Government was more interested in luring foreigners than bringing Singaporeans home. She said that friends and relatives asked if she planned to stay in Australia after her graduation. In 2013, she was unsure of her answer.”
“I recently read that, in Malaysia, the EPF holders are paid 6% for their savings for a number of years, and this is much higher than the return we are paying to our CPF holders.”
“I believe Minister of State Mr Teo Ser Luck mentioned just now the company formation rate of about 14,000. I would like to ask are we monitoring the rate of companies folding up. I have heard recently that the rate has also increased, especially in some sectors that are very dependent on rental.”
The complete record
Every one of 977 lines we hold for Inderjit Singh, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 12 of 20.
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, back to the issue of water. From all the facts that the Minister has presented to us, obviously, we know that the Malaysians are insincere. They are not sincere in resolving this issue. When the Minister talked about "shifting of goal-posts", I think there are no longer goal-posts now in this whole game. The Malaysians have also, unilaterally, from time to time, changed their positions, eg, taking the water issue out of the package of issues. Do we not think that we have wasted enough time with the Malaysians? Maybe it is about time the Minister took the position that water is an issue that we are no longer interested in discussing with them and focus on building our own sources of water, rather than to waste the Malaysians' time and our time, and also to bring us all back on a Saturday to discuss issues like this. I think it is about time that we just put our foot down and said that the water issue is no longer for discussion. We have an agreement. If they want to sue us, go ahead and we will settle it in a court of law.”
“Sir, since the Malaysians have made the unilateral decision to drop the package approach and we are also quite comfortable that we do not need the renewal of the 2011 supply, why do we not make a unilateral decision down here not to talk about water anymore with Malaysia? Because we are leading them on by making them think that there is room for price increase when actually that is not in our agreement. So we might as well end it down here and say that we will talk about other things but not water. Would the Minister consider that?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, my question is: what is the measure of successful graduates or students out of the Singapore system? Yes, they are very successful when they make it into universities because they score very well in examinations. But whether they are better off in their working life, I have my doubts.”
“Sir, I would like to ask the Minister of State to clarify his measure of success. From what I have been hearing in his speech and also from the questions that he had answered, his measure of success is entry into top universities around the world. But my question is: does the Ministry measure success by the performance of Singaporean graduates, whether they study in Singapore or overseas, in the workplace and how do we compare our graduates with those from the rest of the world? Do we have examples of very successful Singaporeans outside Singapore?”
“It is almost described as a "bullying tactic" by a number of people I spoke to, and this was brought up in some of the Feedback sessions that I chaired. As I studied this issue, I learned of two examples which should be role models for Temasek to follow, and for the Government too. The first, I realise, there existed a directive from the Prime Minister's office in Malaysia, instructing all its agencies to be fair to local companies and to pay promptly, and should local companies feel that they have been unfairly treated, the Prime Minister's office will investigate into the matter. The second practice, which is more widely known, is the practice of the oil giant, Shell, which has a special audit committee which ensures that all its suppliers are paid on time and fairly treated. I was told that in Shell, business units find it so tough dealing with this audit committee that they rather spend their time treating their suppliers fairly than to face the brunt of this committee. Sir, I am not suggesting that the "bullying phenomenon" is rampant in Singapore and is being widely practised by the Government agencies, but it would be prudent to set up a similar committee in Government and one in Temasek, so that we send a strong signal that the interests of private companies are well taken care of. Sir, in conclusion, I would like to urge the Government to give a concrete response to the EISC recommendations and to address the missing gaps which I have mentioned. I feel that if we are indeed serious about making the transformation from a corporate to an entrepreneurial economy, the Government should immediately resolve all the issues which have been raised, and to operationalise the many recommendations the EISC has made.”
“Perhaps, Temasek should release, as Mr Leong mentioned, an annual "state of the GLC" report for Singaporeans to understand what goes on in Temasek. The real question is, while Temasek audits its companies, who audits Temasek? Is it good enough to leave it to a few people in Government to audit itself? And I think this traditional practice is no longer convincing to people. Divestment - Form and Timing Sir, the second thing that was not adequately covered in Temasek Charter was its policy on divestment - the form and timing of it. While Temasek has mentioned its desire to divest businesses which are non-core and which are non-strategic, it has not spelt out how it plans to do it and what the timetable is. I recall, when the EISC released its report suggesting a divestment strategy for GLCs, the first reaction from the members of the press was - so, what is new, and they were referring to a report, which Mr Leong also mentioned, which they called the Michael Fam report about divestment of GLCs. Their point was that there have been no significant divestments, some but not fast enough and, on the contrary, as Mr Leong pointed out, there are many more GLCs that have been created after that. I therefore would like to see a clearer statement from Temasek and the Government on its divestment plans, including divesting by non-traditional ways like MBOs and JVs. The NatSteel way was one example of such a non-traditional approach. Being fair to SMEs Sir, the third issue is one of being fair to SMEs. One complaint which has been brought up to my attention is the business practice of bigger companies, in particular the GLCs. The issue, among others, includes one of payment terms and paying on time.”
“The Government could move in and play a role of a risk capital provider, either directly or indirectly through the GLCs. Instead of just focusing on creating companies, the Government and its agencies, including Temasek, should make more risk capital available to the private sector and focus on facilitating the development of new private sector companies. Temasek's Response and its Charter Sir, the final topic I would like to cover is my response to the Temasek Charter and on areas which I feel are not adequately addressed. The first one is that there is no statement of greater transparency in Temasek Charter. I was a little disappointed that nothing has been said about how Temasek will be much more transparent than it has been all this time. If the public is to have confidence that Temasek will be professional in running its companies and if we want everyone to feel comfortable that once Temasek is in charge of any Government created businesses, decisions will be made on commercially acceptable terms, then we must take the necessary steps to build the trust first. I therefore hope that the Minister for Finance will put in place sufficient mechanics to ensure that Temasek will remain as transparent as possible. If Temasek is indeed doing the right things, then there is no reason to fear and resist greater transparency. While I have the confidence in many of the people in Temasek, I also feel that it is a little too reckless for us to just depend on a few people for things which have a tremendous impact on the Singapore economy. I therefore again ask for more transparency and, along with it, greater accountability from the people in charge. Similarly, we must have greater transparency from GIC and other Government agencies managing public funds.”
“From a national perspective, effort put in to groom local companies has the same value as in trying to groom GLCs. With this mindset change, many more things can be done and these are the things that we have recommended in the report of the EISC under the chairmanship of Mr Raymond Lim. Secondly, instead of considering each other as competitors all the time, we should build a culture of trust and partnership among GLCs and local private companies. Until today, there has been too much of suspicion and distrust. If we could change this culture to one of partnership and cooperation, then together head towards global market as a team, our chances of success will be greatly enhanced. All companies, big and small, should focus on how they can leverage on each other's strengths as competitive threat to foreign companies in a global market. The Government could play a very useful role in facilitating this. Third, the Government should be focusing more on playing a developmental role rather than a direct role in business. In creating a conducive environment and allowing private companies to test-bed their products and services, it will go a long way in helping to create stronger local companies. Similarly, instead of taking the easy way out of creating a new division under a GLC, or to form new companies within the statutory boards, the Government should encourage the outsourcing of products and services as much as possible as is being done in many countries, including US and the UK. The current practice of GLCs creating subsidiaries after subsidiaries is no longer acceptable. Fourth, there is a great lack of risk capital available for private companies. The many VC funds we have in Singapore are focused on later stage financing.”
“In this way, instead of GLCs using their time and resources to find ways to do more business locally and therefore getting into businesses like the roast ducks and the Delifrances, they should see how they can more effectively go global with the same resources. We know that, because of the sheer size and their resources, GLCs can beat many local companies in the same area they compete in, but is this really a useful exercise for the country because, at the end of the day, we are all playing for the same result? And how long can the GLCs continue to milk the domestic markets? New Role for Government in Business Sir, I have listed many issues which are a result of the Government's direct role in business. As I have stated earlier in my speech, we need to define a new role for the Government if we want to successfully restructure our economy. I am not saying that we should destroy the role or destroy GLCs, but acknowledge that GLCs do still have a role to play in the future. To be fair, therefore, we should not ask the Government to completely exit, nor destroy value which has been created over many years. Sir, instead of going into the specifics of the recommendations which are in the Report that was published, I would like to talk about some statements on how the Government should be positioning itself. The first and the most important commitment we need from the Government is that it is willing to change its mindset and to get out of the way where private enterprises can do an equal or better job and if they can do a job not better than GLCs, then help the private companies improve, rather than to continue to let GLCs grow. As I mentioned, the Government cannot be half hearted about this. A clear statement needs to be made.”
“The issue of the GLCs crowding out the private sector and stifling entrepreneurship and the private enterprise among Singaporeans is a big and real issue and should be addressed quickly. That is why Prof. Michael Porter's exact words were, and I quote, "we have to get the Government out of the way". Before the Government tries to convince Singaporeans that it is interested in promoting an entrepreneurial economy as opposed to a corporate economy driven by GLCs and MNCs alone, it must first settle the issue of whether it is willing to leave the battle field. My reading is that the Government has a half-hearted view on this and when key people in Temasek say that they will get even stronger and not weaker in the domestic market, it confirms my view of the half-heartedness. If this is so, we have almost lost the battle of promoting entrepreneurship. Even if we accept the argument that, in the past, the Government had to move into certain industries due to market failure and play a developmental role, is it not about time for them to be exiting these industries, especially when there are enough private sector companies which can do a better job? How many can really play effectively in our small market? How many are indeed thinking of going global? Who are the best to lead the globalisation challenge? Obviously, the GLCs are the ones as they have the muscles in place. In my opinion, if Temasek, or any one of the companies, wants to start a new business, the onus should be on Temasek to articulate and convince the public why it is in line with Temasek Charter and why there are no private sector companies capable of doing the same job.”
“Why should they risk it, when their career path is being ultimately planned by the Government and its agencies? I feel that it is this culture and the lack of the entrepreneurial management I mentioned earlier which caused PSA to lose its business to a much more entrepreneurial Tanjung Pelepas and which caused SingTel some years ago to lose its deal on Cable and Wireless to Pacific Century of Hong Kong. Both took too long to react to the changing markets because of the strong mindset of a state driven culture. I feel that, along with the goal of making GLCs look more like private companies, Temasek and the Government should also make the changes in the way management and board members are selected for GLCs, and Mr Leong talked about this. Sir, in the last few months, we are starting to see many changes at the board and the top management level of GLCs as a result of the board level changes in Temasek. I welcome this move, but would like to question Temasek why it took them so long to do this. Obviously, we have lived with the problems for so many years and along with it, perhaps left the management weaknesses and inefficiency in place for too long. Can we afford to let Temasek do such housekeeping only once in 10-20 years? Surely, the answer is no, as Temasek should constantly be reviewing these things. It is critical that Temasek has a proper process in place to ensure it selects the right people to run its companies and has a good system to audit and review leadership in its companies. Crowding Out Effect Sir, the fifth issue is one of the crowding out effect that Mr Leong also talked about.”
“Currently, all such companies are flying, what I call, below the "radar detectors" and there is very little visibility and a lack of transparency and this is not a healthy thing. The Government should go one step further to disallow any statutory board from forming companies and if it becomes totally unavoidable but to set up a company under the statutory board, it should include a timetable for an exit, or a timetable for moving the company to Temasek for ongoing management at the point of time they decide to set up the company. This approach will inject some discipline into statutory boards when they try to set up their companies. People Running GLCs and Organisational Culture in GLCs Sir, the third issue is one of people running GLCs and the organisational culture in GLCs. This issue, while a sensitive one, needs to be discussed. I asked the question of whether we have an entrepreneurial management and a culture of innovation and risk taking among the people in the boards and management of GLCs earlier. The answer probably is that we have some who have the entrepreneurial approach and take the necessary risks as entrepreneurs would and these are people who have managed to change and make the switch from a civil service mentality to one of a private sector manager. It is difficult to believe that a majority of those running GLCs have the necessary mindset and skills to run companies, like private sector players, simply because for them, the GLC role is just another job posting for their career. Many have been handed the jobs on a silver platter and with all the necessary muscles to help them manage the business. There is very little incentive for them to make tough decisions and to take the necessary risks as entrepreneurs would.”
“Sir, this issue needs to be resolved by the Government and it is about time that we got a good explanation as to why many such relationships exist today and find a way to inject fairer practice. Statutory Boards Owning Companies Sir, the third issue is one of statutory boards owning companies, and this has been building up over the years. There are many examples of such companies under statutory boards, like JTC, IE Singapore, Spring Singapore, HDB, and a few more. And then there are also all the NTUC owned companies, which Mr Leong talked about. The issue is how is the accountability of such companies handled. No one gets a look at the practices, corporate governance issues and performances of such companies, except for the parent Government agencies. While we can accept that Temasek is trying to practise high standards of corporate governance and will insist on high standards for all its companies, how can the Government assure us that there is also a standard practice for all the companies owned by its agencies? For example, Temasek is now very closely watched by everyone, inside and outside the Government, and Temasek has also revealed its latest Charter and, in doing so, has promised a certain standard of performance. But what about all the other companies not reporting to Temasek? None of the statutory boards has issued a similar charter. The Government should be very concerned about this and get serious about either closing such companies under statutory boards, or to immediately transfer all existing companies to Temasek, so that Temasek can inject a higher standard of corporate governance into such companies.”
“Sir, the second issue is one of incestuous relationship among GLCs and Government agencies and an unlevel playing field, which Mr Leong talked about. One of the problems which develops when the Government also gets into business, especially when the regulator also competes with companies it regulates, is the unfair advantage the regulator's related companies get. Similarly, the Government agencies seem to give many contracts to GLCs and some examples include the Singapore Food Industries supplying food to MINDEF, Singapore Technologies supplying equipment to MINDEF too and most of the Government agencies getting its computer and IT services from GLCs. The issue, whether perceived or true, is a big issue when viewed by everyone outside the Government and its agencies. The way tender documents are written could also be a reason why such contracts get issued. Another issue related to the unlevel playing field is how banks rate subsidiaries of GLCs when deciding on financing them, and Mr Leong talked about his personal example in the joint venture. While it is not a direct problem created by the Government, it does exist and private sector companies which may have better balance sheets than the GLC subsidiaries may not be able to get the financing while the GLC subsidiaries get such financing easily. The only suggestion I can make here is that Temasek and the Government must come out and make a very clear statement that none of its companies and subsidiaries will be rescued by them should they fail, and that banks must credit rate all the companies and subsidiaries on their own merit and not on the backing of the Government.”
“The general view is that the Government made very heavy investments and allowed these companies an easy access of money at less than acceptable commercial terms. Such investments by the Government gave the GLCs so much of strength that the private companies could not even think of competing with the GLCs. By sheer brute force, we created large companies, further over-shadowing any local private company trying to compete with the GLCs. So the issue is that we have developed many of our GLCs using a lot of muscles rather than brain power or entrepreneurial thinking. After many years of such a funding practice and facilitation by the Government, we created giant companies - again, as I mentioned - with a lot of muscles but without the necessary entrepreneurial management necessary to create world-class companies. I have personally made assessments of a few companies that I know of and came up the way I described. I noted that when they have to compete and when they start competing where real market forces rule, and the companies that have been developing entrepreneurial type of path, they perform much worse than their competitors. Why is this so? Well, it is because of their well cushioned start-up and growth, and they never had to face the realities of life and they never learned to fight where a level playing field existed. In many cases, GLCs used the excuse of doing "national service" for the easier than commercial practices they took in running their businesses. Had the Government used commercial principles for such companies, this would not have been an issue today. But having been listed, I believe, they came on to market practices. But the issue was before these companies were listed, how did they come about?”
“We are not saying that the Government should suddenly back off. Neither are we saying that they should get out of everything that they have been doing. What we are saying, however, is that the Government needs to re-think and re-position itself with a brand new mindset so that Singapore can transform itself from a mainly `corporate driven economy' to one of an `entrepreneurial and innovation led economy'. If the Government succeeds in doing this, we will have a great future. If the Government fails to realise the need and fails to do something about this need to change, we will surely fail and collapse as did many economies and companies in all of history. What are the issues with GLCs? Why does Professor Michael Porter feel that the Government should reduce its involvement in business? Why are so many people from the private sector very concerned about the out-of-proportion role of the Government and Government-linked companies in Singapore? And what are the reasons for the failure of state-owned enterprises in other parts of the world? I would like to touch on some of the issues which arise as a result of the Government's involvement in business and which led us to the current state of affairs of having so few successful private companies. These issues will give Members a good feel of the type of discussions that my committee had when we looked at this issue. (a) Early Stages of GLCs Development The first one is how GLCs developed in the early stages. While I agree that many of our GLCs which are publicly listed are doing well and operate very well, particularly in the domestic economy, and one of them, Singapore Airlines, has also done well globally, the issue was really in the early stages of the establishment and growth of GLCs.”
“I am sure everyone will agree with me that we can no longer live with a formula which depends on GLCs playing in a protected domestic environment and not allowing private enterprise to bloom and having local companies, particularly the GLCs, which cannot effectively compete with global companies outside our shores. The issue seems to be that we are being misled by our seemingly successful model in the past, and by the comfort of our domestic market and the fact that many GLCs have basically overstayed to the point that they are no longer capable in competing with foreign companies, either on our shores as our domestic market opens up or in foreign lands where true market forces rule and where the domestic protection no longer exists. Our GLCs are late in going global and they are facing the brunt of failing to compete successfully globally and by being `taken for a ride' in certain high profile acquisition transactions, in my opinion. If the Government fails to realise the negative impact of our GLCs overstaying in their old roles, we will see many more such sad stories of Singapore-based companies doing badly outside Singapore. Professor Michael Porter from Harvard Business School was in Singapore, and Mr Leong talked a bit about it and I will not go through it. I would just like to add that he also mentioned, and I quote him, "The historical strategy has played itself out and is no longer robust", in addition to saying that the Government should get out of the way. His point was that the Singapore economy now has to be management driven rather than state driven, as has been the case for Singapore for a very long time. This very well sums up the feeling of most people from the private sector and is the basis of many recommendations that my committee developed.”
“When I heard the key people in Temasek and some Government leaders say that without GLCs, there would be no major industries coming out of Singapore, I cannot help but to disagree. Perhaps, yes, but it is also arguable that had Government been a little more patient, many more private sector companies could have moved in and become champions of some of our industries. It is also possible that the Government moved in too early. Is it also not possible that had the Government given the same opportunities and almost the same protectionist measures to private local companies as it gave to the GLCs, many private sector companies could have survived, succeeded and even made it big? Is it also not possible that if the Government had played a developmental role, instead of a direct role in business, they could have helped many more local companies develop into global champions? Why did the Government have to favour only GLCs? Why did it not also favour private companies in the same way? I therefore disagree to a certain extent with the argument that had the Government not moved in as a result of market failure, private sector companies would not have moved in. And Mr Leong gave very good examples of Hong Kong versus Singapore to suggest that this view is not totally wrong. However, all this is history and is an argument not worth pursuing. Now having developed an economy so crowded with GLCs today, do we still need a domestic economy fuelled by the Government through its companies?”
“We then defined the new role and strategy and about 12 or so key recommendations to achieve success in this New Economy. New Charter of Government-linked Companies Let me come back to why I moved this Motion. Having released our report, we waited for the Government to respond. The greatly anticipated Temasek Charter was one key response we wanted to see and it came promptly. What I would like to see is a more comprehensive response from the Government to all our recommendations and therefore the purpose of this Motion. Because, if the Government does not give us convincing response to the serious recommendations put up by serious and concerned people of all backgrounds and which took us many months to develop, then I feel that we will lose our battle in ensuring the future growth and prosperity of Singapore, and the Government will lose its credibility in trying to remake the economy for Singapore. The second reason why I moved this Motion is because I feel that the Temasek Charter, while addressing many key recommendations of our committee, did however leave out a few very important issues which have yet to be addressed satisfactorily by anyone. Also, the Temasek Charter lacked in specifics, so no one knows whether the changes will come fast. Were GLCs Really Necessary for Singapore? Sir, the first question we asked is: were GLCs really necessary for Singapore? I have said it before and will say it again that GLCs did have a significant and positive impact on Singapore's economy. But the question is, was it the only formula for success? Mr Leong touched on this too. My contention is that it is not necessarily so.”
“Sir, unfortunately, I too have a long speech because I have got many issues to get off my chest, having spent a lot of time studying this issue as part of the Committee that Mr Raymond Lim heads. First of all, I would like to share with Members the reason why I decided to move this Motion together with Mr Leong Horn Kee. As I mentioned, since last year, I have been involved in one of the ERC Sub-committees and, specifically, I was asked to chair a sub-group to study recommendations regarding the role of Government in business. My committee, comprising key people from the private sector, GLC captains, SME businessmen and entrepreneurs, spent considerable time studying the many complaints and issues related to the Government's direct role in business and how GLCs have influenced the development of the Singapore economy. We concluded that while the route Singapore took for its economic development depended heavily on the Government's direct role in business, the results were not necessarily all that bad. While the brute force approach taken by the Government did yield the desired results, the question is, did the approach taken result in structural damages in the spirit of private enterprise and entrepreneurship? The answer we all felt in our committee was, to a certain extent, this damage was created. The next important question we asked was whether the same formula would work in the future and this round, the answer from all the committee members was a unanimous `no'. We felt that if we wanted to ensure good growth and economic development, we needed to change and the Government needed to reposition itself and there needs to be a different strategy from what we have been used to in the past, particularly by the Government and also how the GLCs operate.”
“Sir, on competition, although Mr Mah Bow Tan has explained why free market competition is not necessarily desirable, I would like to echo the call to the Minister for Transport to review the competitive and regulatory framework for transport services. I believe the circumstances are different and should justify a fresh review. Regardless of any changes to the transport services sector, or to the composition of the PTC, the PTC's very independence of the Minister and Ministry officials that was conceived at the outset, must be preserved. Sir, to make a villain of the PTC, as alluded to by Mr Steve Chia and Mr Low Thia Khiang, is unwise. Any hint of moderating or influencing the decision of the PTC cannot be allowed, without a debate on the very existence of the PTC itself, its integrity, its very institution, an existence that this very House had created back in 1987. Hence, while I am in total sympathy with the plight of families in need, I caution against unwittingly destroying the very integrity of the Public Transport Council. 5.10 pm”
“Sir, I accept that the Public Transport Council can be requested or urged to broaden their considerations and to be more exhaustive in their deliberations. But I cannot support the motion that the PTC be asked to review their decision, let alone have the Government stay, revoke or reject the PTC's decision, as suggested by Mr Chiam See Tong and Mr Steve Chia. Doing so would question the very existence of and the purpose for constituting the PTC. It would threaten the very independence that was crafted into the Bill back in 1987. Sir, at that time, one of the main functions was to consider applications for fare adjustments, taking into account two frequently divergent objectives: firstly, for transport operators to remain financially viable whilst, secondly, safeguarding public interest. The basis is that if transport operators are not viable and have to offer poorer quality of service, then commuters at large would suffer. Yet, Sir, commuters' interests and ability to afford the proposed fare hikes must weigh heavily, especially in difficult times. Hence, the Public Transport Council, understandably, has a difficult balance to strike and on an on-going basis. I would agree with Mr Tan Soo Khoon that perhaps there could be more disclosure on the criteria for evaluation of proposals, whether it is for new services or for fare adjustments, and to have more transparency on the process itself. Or perhaps, the composition of the Public Transport Council should be re-looked at to ensure that, firstly, there is a wider representation of views and interest and, secondly, there is a clear management and separation of conflicts of interest.”
“I feel that the people responsible for initiating the PTC review should have been more sensitive to the real world problems and not just implement the SOPs which may have been set many years ago. In this respect, Sir, I feel that the Government and the civil service need to come out with more convincing answers to the questions on issues like price increases. The attitude reflected in the replies, especially those given in the newspapers' Forum pages are no longer acceptable and reflect a certain level of arrogance in the replies. I think this is something that is not convincing enough for Singaporeans. In conclusion, I feel that the real issue at hand is that we have been using a PTC system and a charter, which is now out-dated, and there is an urgent need for this to be reviewed. It is understandable why the PTC ended up allowing a fare increase this time round because the PTC and its charter have been designed to allow this to happen. Had the guidelines been different, I am sure the decision would have been different. For example, at this point of time, many Singaporeans actually shifted from using their private cars or taxis to buses and the MRT. I can almost predict that the public transport companies would have seen an increase, and not a decrease of revenue this time round. How then could the PTC have approved the fare increases this time? We therefore need a new formula that would determine a new balance for the future. Mrs Lim Hwee Hua (Marine Parade): Sir, even as I rise to comment on the Motion, I am mindful of the financial challenges that Singaporeans face which this economic downturn has presented, and that many have been unemployed for a prolonged period of time.”
“The fact that all transport companies are allowed to increase fares in tandem this time round also puts to question the assessment of operating cost impact for each of the companies, the fact that we allow all of them to increase at the same time. I cannot believe that both companies have similar rate of cost increases. The second issue is one of composition of the PTC. I feel that we should have more people from the private sector involved, particularly industry captains from different industries, especially those who face stiff competition in their industry. Such people would be able to ask better questions related to cost increases, cost reduction efforts and productivity improvements, return on investments and other financial measures to determine the true efficiency of the transport companies before agreeing to any fare increases. In my opinion, with the heavy Government representation and the representation of the transport companies, this important role cannot be well-performed. So, I call on the Government to review the composition of the Council as soon as possible so that this would give confidence to Singaporeans that their interest would be taken care of in the future. Another issue I have is on how this round of increases took place. It is my impression that the fare increases, which the PTC just approved, seem to have been a result of a set piece of standard operating procedures (SOPs) which the Government seems to have adopted many years ago. The people responsible in executing these SOPs just went on to implement this set piece without due consideration of what is really happening in the real world. What probably went wrong this time is that the SOP did not consider the economic condition of the country and the financial position of Singaporeans.”
“We would probably have a lot more stronger companies and in that process, create a lot more efficiency in the whole system. The second issue is related to the charter which I am not convinced that the PTC has done a thorough job in reviewing the cost reduction efforts of transport companies before allowing them to increase fare prices. The excuse that the companies use is that they are seeing increases in cost and want to be compensated for these increases. My argument is that in the last two years, companies in Singapore should have seen a reduction and not an increase in cost. Given the recession, wage costs should have come down. The Government allowed rentals to come down, property tax is down and many other charges came down, as a result of the recession that we saw two years ago. So where are the cost increases coming from? I therefore repeat that I am not convinced that the review was thorough enough. Such a situation would create inefficient and unproductive companies and we should not accept these things. Even if costs may have increased, the PTC should have convinced itself that the transport companies did do their best in putting in place serious cost reduction and productivity improvement measures before agreeing to allow any fare increases. In examples in my industry, in a recession like this, we have to talk about cost reduction, in the range of 20-30%, and even 40% sometimes just to survive. I do not see the transport companies having shown they have tried to do that. In the review of the charter, we must insist on a better methodology to review cost increases, cost reduction, productivity improvement, and set a benchmark of performance before any transport company becomes eligible for fare increases.”
“About 15-20 years ago, we would never have believed that competition would have been good for telecommunications, and the results have shown that it has worked for all of us. The Minister also quoted two extreme examples. One was of the rickety buses of the 1960s, which I also rode on. It was a completely chaotic environment - no proper rules and regulations, no regulators, or perhaps no good regulators. Then, we have the other extreme of a monopoly situation today, which seems to have worked. It is arguable whether competition will or will not work. I think we should experiment with this, by introducing one more transport company and see the results. We should not, just because it has worked in the past, believe that changes are not going to be good for us in the future. I would also like to see benchmarks being used with operators from other countries in the way the PTC makes its decision on setting new prices. In this respect, I would like to ask the Minister: what is the pre-determined profit level that we have to set for transport companies, before which they are allowed to ask for fare increases? In fact, I would like to ask if there should even be a profit criterion in determining fare increases, perhaps in determining other things. Frankly, I am amazed that we are giving so much of protection for publicly listed companies. It is precisely this type of involvement that creates an uneven playing field for many more private sector players. How I wish that the Government also provides the industry I am operating in that type of protection, so that I do not have to worry about profitability and I do not have to worry about downturns. My point is that sometimes, companies have to face the real situation of profitability, and losses at some other time.”
“I believe this is because of the charter, the roles and the guidelines which the Ministry has given them. So, in a way, it is not fair to put the entire blame on the PTC. They were basically designed to fulfill certain objectives, as they have been doing all along. Times have changed and we have to change with times. We have to therefore change the objectives to better achieve the results that we want to achieve for all the stakeholders. The stakeholders in this case are the public, the Government and the transport companies. Such a revised charter needs to be better balanced to place a heavier weightage on the impact on the commuting public. Some of the things which need to be reviewed include the process through which decisions are made. For example, can I ask what are the benchmarks the PTC and the Government use to determine the required profitability level for the transport companies? We cannot use internal data alone, because we have an almost monopoly situation for all our transport companies, especially if we look at the way routes are allocated to each operator. It is not even a duopoly. It is a monopoly, especially if we consider the Government's unwillingness to open up the transport sector to competition. Frankly, I wonder why the Government is so reluctant to allow more competitors, as many Members have asked. Sir, I also disagree with the Minister for National Development's argument that competition will not work in this case. Just like transport companies, the telecommunication industry too has had heavy infrastructural costs. If competition works in the telecommunication industry, why can it not work in the transport companies?”
“Hopefully, by understanding the root causes, we can put in place systematic changes and new processes which will be acceptable to all of us, and I hope to talk about these during my speech today. Sir, I support the Motion in the name of Mr Tan Soo Khoon. I have a few issues with the way the Public Transport Council operates, and the operating principle it uses to determine and approve fare increases when requested by the transport operators. I believe that the issue with the recent fare increases lies not with the PTC alone, but also with the Government, which sets the agenda and the charter of the PTC. Until and unless the Government steps in and changes the charter of the PTC, I am afraid that we will continue to see problematic decisions, as we have experienced this time round. Sir, I agree with Dr Wang that the PTC was just doing its job, and a job that is designed by the Government. I feel that it is about time that we reviewed the charter, which was established in 1987 and modified about 10 years later. Similarly, I would like to see changes in the composition of the PTC, as have been suggested by many Members, to better reflect the views of consumers and the public who use public transport daily, and also to have members who understand the mechanics of business a lot better. Sir, first, on the charter. I would like to urge the Government, and particularly the Minister for Transport, to take the opportunity to learn from the mistake this time round and to put in place a revised charter and set out new objectives and guidelines which can better serve the purpose of the commuting public. The view many people have right now is that the PTC seems to be a body which watches over the interest of the transport companies more than the public. Why is this so?”
“Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in. Frankly, I was a bit confused at the direction the NCMP was going as I could not understand some of the things he was saying. For example, I am surprised that the NCMP feels that the transport system is not world-class. I am sure that he does not really mean it, as we do indeed have an excellent transport system not matched by many. The issue at hand that we are debating today is - and this is a question he should really ask - at what cost are we having such a world-class transport system? This is the issue that he should have focused on. The other point the NCMP added to the Motion - which again confused me - was that he wanted to reject the latest fare increases in addition to the review question. While I can understand the NCMP's desire to have more power than what he already has - as an MP without a constituency - it is equally important to understand the mechanics of the whole process. Sir, the PTC, as I understand it, does not report to Parliament and we should, therefore, not be unrealistic about what we can or cannot do. In the case of this Motion, we really have to urge the PTC, and the Government for that matter, to initiate the process to review, if we carry through the Motion - and we are not in a position to reject the increases or the decisions of the PTC - instead of having a disruptive process where Parliament gets in the way of the Government and other agencies, I feel that the current process works well. Furthermore, there is a lot more value for our Members today in this debate to address the root cause of the issue of what caused the fare increases this time round.”
“Sir, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary has put the blame of maintenance on the real cost of spalling concrete. I would like to explain to my residents what does maintenance mean and what it takes to maintain. So, can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary make available a list to the public on the maintenance that is necessary and, if they do the maintenance, how many more years they would earn before spalling concrete sets in? Assoc. Prof. Koo Tsai Kee: The simplest form of maintenance is to repaint the ceiling of the flat, as and when is required. If we use good water-proof paint, for example, then it should last between 5-7 years. Some paints are moisture resistant. So, by painting the ceiling of the flat, it will prevent carbon dioxide from penetrating the surface of the concrete. The carbon dioxide reacts with the alkaline on the steel bars and therefore reduces the rust-proof nature of the steel bars. So Members should advise the flat dwellers to paint their flats.”
“Sir, I would like to confirm once again that for a child above eight years old, it is not compulsory for the child to use a booster seat or a car seat. Is that true? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Provided he is a short child. If he is below 1.5 metres in height, then he is not required to use a booster seat or a child seat. The position is this. A child who is below eight years old must use a child restraint. A child who is above eight years old, but who is below 1.5 metres, need not use a child restraint nor a booster seat, although he is encouraged to do so. LINKS ISLAND SHARES (Assistance to affected investors) 4. Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) what avenues of help are available for investors, who are caught by the Singapore Exchange Settlement Committee's decision on the Links Island shares and who are forced to pick up the trades that they have sold per contra before the suspension; and (b) whether there is a fund to help such affected investors and to prevent the broking firms from taking legal action against them. Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, before the Minister replies, I would like to again declare my interest as regards Question No. 4.”
“I would like to ask the Minister, roughly, how long will the review take and how soon can the changes be implemented.”
“This Act, among other things, places important priority on targeting assistance to society's most disadvantaged students in the hope of closing the learning divide once and for all. A learning divide is what our education system is creating in Singapore, in my opinion. I feel that this is such an important issue that we perhaps need a whole day session to debate this issue. If I ask the MPs here to put up their hands as to whether they agree - I would not try it - I think many would not. I have spoken to many teachers and principals. Many of them do not agree with this system too, although they are afraid to speak up. Most Singaporeans do not agree with the streaming system, as it is. I hope some changes will be made.”
“From what I understand, the selection of the Primary 4 level was an arbitrary decision for lack of scientific information, when the then Education Minister, Dr Goh Keng Swee, made the decision on the streaming system. The issues with continuous streaming are: How do we teach children about friendships, building bonds and to help those who have different ability levels compared to themselves when they are moved constantly? Secondly, can the Ministry do a study on the attitudes of teachers and students towards EM3 students? While the intent of streaming is to allow them to progress at different levels, the real practice is that teachers dread taking EM3 classes when, in fact, they should see it as a challenge. The very fact that this happens means that the system has not been able to achieve very good EM3 to EM2 crossovers. Can the Minister share with the House on the success rate of such crossovers? Thirdly, does the Ministry have a performance target as to how many crossovers it hopes to achieve every year? Lack of such performance measures means that there is a lack of interest to see many more EM3 students making it back to the higher streams. If the Ministry wants to take a conservative approach to changing the system, can we implement a hybrid system where children are kept in the same class and share a common curriculum for most of their contact time, and then break up for specific areas to focus, for children of different abilities? Perhaps we can choose a few schools with good PSLE track records to experiment with the hybrid system. Sir, recently, in the USA, a new law was passed, called the "No Child Left Behind Act" (NCLB Act of 2002).”
“Thank you, Sir, for allowing me to continue. Yesterday, I started my speech and gave my impression that while the streaming system was intended to allow each child to learn and progress at his or her own pace, the problem seems to be in implementing the system. For many reasons, including the pressure of the school ranking system, schools and principals end up putting their best resources to focus on the EM1 and EM2 streams, or the best streams in the school system, so that the overall grades of the school look good. The end effect has been detrimental, both in terms of the failure to let late bloomers bloom at all, and in terms of destroying the self-esteem of our children at such a young age by putting labels on them. The Minister's argument has been that the streaming system has prevented wastage and resulted in very few children dropping out of the school system. I would like to suggest to the Minister that he would still achieve no dropouts from the education system if he allows every child to be streamed at the Primary 6 level, after the PSLE examinations. There are many ways to skin a cat - to borrow a phrase from the Malaysians - and one of them in the education system is to categorise our children after the PSLE examinations, a bit later, and send weaker children to technical schools to pursue a different route. This one change of streaming children from Primary 4 to Primary 6 level will satisfy many Singaporeans who have a major issue with the current system. The issues I would like the Minister to address are, firstly, are there any scientific reasons for continuously streaming our children at Primary 2, Primary 4, Primary 6 and Secondary 2 levels? Children are moved every two years depending on their academic results.”
“Sir, the streaming system, in my opinion, is a very destructive system, simply because it affects the self-esteem of our children. We start segregating and labelling them at such an early age. I mentioned about how the education system can support developing the entrepreneur society. I fully understand the intention of streaming, and that is to allow each child to develop at his or her own pace, to avoid early drop outs from the education system, by giving an easy curriculum for weaker students to follow. Should not our system also focus on how we can try to make the slower children catch up with the rest? Even if it means just a small percentage of slow learners who catch up, it will be a huge gain for our nation of such a small population. What special things has the Ministry done to help the weaker children catch up? Has it channelled the best teachers to EM3 classes? Has it made EM3 classes smaller, so that there is more attention for the children? Has it spent more money per child for an EM3 than an EM1 or EM2 class? The real answer, in my opinion, is that the Ministry and schools have done the exact opposite. And, along with it, we are labelling our children, first risking creating a class society.”
“Thirdly, we need to develop a culture to promote tolerance to failure and giving people more second chances. We can achieve this by fine-tuning some of our policies as two Members before me have spoken. And, of course, I feel very strongly about fine-tuning the streaming system. Sir, I have two specific issues I would like to ask. The first one is about the small cross-section of our society, and I am talking about the students who are taking the minority Indian languages, the non-Tamil Indian languages. Currently, students who study Hindi, Punjabi, Gujarati, Urdu and Bengali, are not given full recognition for their subject, despite their meeting many requirements. I know that the self-help organisations responsible for teaching and assessing each of these languages have put in tremendous effort over the last 10 years to ensure international standards are met. They have gone through the extent of forming a coordinating council among themselves, although they started separately, to standardise curriculum, as well as setting common examinations and setting marking standards. It is a pity that despite their effort, they have not been given the full recognition of the languages. I recall a few years ago the Minister in his reply to a similar question raised the issue of standards of curriculum, and of results. I believe the situation has changed drastically now. Can the Minister please look into the issue and advise on what else these people need to do so that the above languages can have full recognition? The final question I would like to ask the Minister on the system is on the progress of implementing Tamil as a second language at a higher level.”
“Sir, it has been a long time since the Ministry announced and identified initiatives to promote creativity and thinking in schools, and I understand that it was supposed to cut curriculum down by about 30% to make way for creativity and innovation development. The key issue now is that Singaporeans, particularly, parents, have not felt the impact of these changes yet, because they continue to be stressed and pressured by the children's need to achieve higher grades, and the children, no doubt, continue to be stressed too. There is nothing wrong with higher grades, but the system is creating an obsession with grades at this point of time. To support the national objective of promoting entrepreneurship, I believe the real long-term impact has to come from our education system. We have many examples to follow from. The US is a very good example. In my opinion, we can nurture the entrepreneurial spirit through our education system in three ways. First of all, we need to train our students to be not just academically smart, but also street smart. In other words, developing both the IQ and the EQ measures for our children, and we should value each child and value the talent of each child, and to find ways to groom them so that they can excel in their talent and in their area of interest so that they can achieve something significant. The second is that we really need to create channels and expose our children to the concept of entrepreneurship, particularly at the secondary school and at ITE, or higher levels, and I suggest that the Minister thinks about implementing programmes that teach entrepreneurship at the CCA or ECA programmes and just like we do with the uniformed groups and with societies like the Debating Society, Rotract Club, and so on.”
“For the last lever, the Government should stick to its original objectives and that the fundamental strategy should be to curb speculation in the property market, whether times are good or bad. In his reply to the Member's questions on the use of CPF for housing, the Minister for Manpower highlighted that some Singaporeans over-invested in properties for the purpose of speculative gains (and he used the words "speculative gains" when he replied) and it is this category of people who are now in real difficulties as their property values have decreased. I therefore wonder why the Minister for National Development has once again created a "death trap" for Singaporeans by lifting the anti-speculative measures. There seems to be a disconnect in the Government's thinking on this issue. I urge the Minister to relook at the whole issue and put in place once again the relevant anti-speculative measures so that we can avoid getting into the same problem again down the road. After all, speculation is undesirable for any situation, or for anything that we do.”
“Sir, my key point is one of keeping property prices affordable. There have been recent calls by some section of our society to allow property prices to rise again, particularly, developers. The Government on its part has been party to trying to keep the property prices higher than necessary by, first of all, slowing down the sale of land and, secondly, by lifting the anti-speculation measures first put in place after the property bubble of the 1990s became untenable. The anti-speculation measures were a good move. The intention at that time in 1996 was to remove the speculative element in property prices and allow market forces to rule. I was therefore disappointed when the Government got the 'cold feet' and went on to remove all the anti-speculation measures in an attempt to prop up property prices. As the phrase "prop up" indicates, it is an artificial measure and by propping, it does not allow true market forces to determine and settle property prices. I have dealt at length on the impact of the asset enhancement policy of the 1990s and will not repeat it again. I am afraid that removal of the measures seems to indicate that the Government has too short a memory of the property bubble problem of the 1990s. I am not denying that, in land scarce Singapore, prices of land and properties have to go up, but in our case the prices went up a little too much. The Government has all the levers to fix the problem. The first lever is the rate of release of land for development; the second is the price of new HDB flats; the third is the limit on the proportion of CPF that can be used for investing in properties; and the fourth is putting in place permanent anti-speculative measures.”
“I also have the opposite experience with locals who, after taking the job and working for a few days, because of the discomfort that I mentioned earlier, left in a hurry. For the sake of employers being able to carry on business here, I hope that the Minister will consider this request.”
“It does not give a good signal to future potential talent whom we want to bring into Singapore. I suggest that the Ministry work with the Home Affairs Ministry to issue such people with a six-month Transition Visa, so that they can either look for alternative employment or have enough time to organise themselves before they leave. Sir, the third issue is on work permits for non-domestic workers. We have a few levers to control this. The first is the quota system and the other is on the levies. Can I suggest that, for the sake of employers who cannot find enough local employees and for the sake of reducing cost, we have a multi-tier system of levies? Because we already have quotas to control foreign workers, perhaps for the first 50% of the foreign workers, we could issue a lower levy. And as they hire more, we can gradually increase the levy. In this way, companies will still be compelled to hire locals first. The cost of business will be kept low, and we can still control the number of foreign workers by controlling the quota. I fully support that we should hire local workers first. But the truth of the matter, as many Members have brought up, is that there are some jobs which are not attractive enough, especially those that require shift work or those that require employees to work in clean rooms, and the reason is of discomfort. I would like to qualify myself that I have always believed in hiring locals first in all the companies that I have worked in. My own record is that I have hired a 66-year old retiree, a drug addict, who despite 200-300 job applications, no one wanted to give him a chance, and I hired him. I would like to hire locals.”
“Sir, I have three different issues to raise. First, is on the issuance of employment passes. Sir, many companies, especially the smaller ones, face a dilemma when they try to bring in foreign talent into Singapore, especially from developing countries. Good people from these countries have many capabilities, sometimes better than our locals, but do not demand very high salaries. On the other hand, many start-ups cannot afford to pay high basic salaries, even if the employee deserves it, but instead they issue stock options or variable compensation like bonuses, commissions or profit sharing as alternatives to make up for lower salaries. In both cases, with our restrictive employment pass issuance practices, we create great problems for companies hiring such people from overseas. The issue is one of minimum salary requirement for employment pass approvals. The Ministry should exercise flexibility, in my opinion, to give the benefit of doubt to the companies when they declare that such people are indeed talented, despite the fact that they are paying lower basic salaries. Currently, to cover all eventualities, the rules have become very tight. I hope the Minister would consider this. The second issue is on the termination of employment passes. When employment pass holders lose their jobs, and they have to leave Singapore, they are only given about a couple of weeks, I believe, two or three weeks, to leave. In the last few years, there are quite a number of them who have lost their jobs. Many of them have been in Singapore for many years too and have families and children comfortably studying in our local schools, and they have other commitments in Singapore. Giving them a very short time to wrap up, pack up and leave the country is not a fair and humane thing to do.”
“Sir, my points have been raised and so I will not speak.”
“We need to change the rules to allow easier shutting down of companies, in addition to easier setting up of companies. The cost of maintaining a company is also an issue, where there are many regulatory requirements from the Registry of Companies and Businesses and also from IRAS. Sir, I suggest that, in addition to the many financing schemes and funds that were given to VCs, we set up a special entrepreneurship fund that can be farmed out to a group of Singaporean businessmen or entrepreneurs who already have experience. They could manage this fund on behalf of the Government. I think this will complement the VCs that are already here in Singapore. Finally, on the issue of HDB shophouses, the Senior Minister of State mentioned this. Can I suggest that the vacant HDB shophouses that come about be converted to offices for technology type of start-ups that are basically light industries and those which are non-polluting? This, in addition to helping to lower cost, will help make the neighbourhood more vibrant and also increase availability of space, thus allowing cost of commercial spaces to come down further.”
“I am very encouraged, listening to the Minister and the Senior Minister of State, that there are many new initiatives, and I think these will really help. On the issue of EDB's SEED financial scheme, I think that has helped a lot. Can I suggest that we include the amounts that an entrepreneur may have already spent on his own, including in kind or in cash, and also what the entrepreneur may be spending from his own pocket moving forward, when they consider matching the grant, and not just matching what the new investors are going to put in? This will greatly help them. Matching something that he is going to put in over time can mean that he may draw down on the SEED funds over a period of time. The second issue is one of streamlining rules and regulations to cut down on red tape, especially licensing requirements. We talked about the 12 licences needed to operate a pub. In this respect, we have a pro-enterprise panel that the Government has set up. This has been very effective in trying to resolve issues that businesses face. This is headed by Mr Lim Siong Guan, who has tremendous influence over many Ministries. I hope that the pro-enterprise panel will be a permanent feature so that we can continue to address the issue of red tape and bureaucracy. We should also make it easier to register as well as to shut down companies. The nature of entrepreneurship is that entrepreneurs have limited resources and have to face the risk of failure. While there have been improvements in setting up companies, we should make it even easier to start up companies. Shutting down companies can be a nightmare too, and it is a very onerous task and takes a long time to happen and costs a lot of money.”
“Sir, I would like to touch on the issue of promoting entrepreneurship. While the new tax measures are welcome, the basic issue for entrepreneurs is cost first and foremost, and whether they get taxed at 24% or 20% rate is just a small issue. I can personally vouch for this, given my many experiences of starting up companies and working with start-ups. Entrepreneurs aim to create so much of wealth that the tax rate is a small issue because of the great wealth they are going to create. It becomes an issue after they have become rich. Their real worry in their early days is whether they survive or not, and for sure the cost factor is the biggest issue for them. They will be extremely grateful and will remain very loyal to Singapore if we address their survival concerns, and this involves costs and access to funds. The immediate impact of the tax issue is to attract the already rich and the already successful. I think we should also try to focus on entrepreneurs who are trying and who are basically "PhDs" - poor, hungry and driven. In addition to the financial cost of creating new companies, one big factor is the cost of failure. And by cost of failure, I do not just mean the social cost (that one is one of intolerance to failure, which we have a problem here in Singapore), but also the high price one has to pay because of the high cost of living in Singapore. Having failed in a business may mean one never being able to own a house or a car for a long time. Such fears deter many from taking risks. While I can spend a lot of time talking about entrepreneurship as I have spent a lot of time on it, I would like just to go to some specific issues which I feel need addressing.”
“Sir, trading is a neglected sector, because I feel that it is not a glamorous area for most of our Government agencies to handle. I have asked a few times, and some Members have asked over many years, and nothing special has been done to help grow the trading sector in Singapore. I would like to ask the Minister whether there are any initiatives being considered to help them, particularly in the area of financing. Specifically, I have a question on how we can make Singapore more attractive for third country trade, whether we can, by way of tax incentives, make this an attractive place. If we do that, we may be able to bring in businesses and companies from Hong Kong into Singapore. Currently, we are just not attractive.”
“Sir, I have just one question for the Minister and, that is, how does cost of doing business in Singapore feature in the list of priorities that the Minister has? How important is this in his list of priorities?”
“I suggest SPRING Singapore can lead this initiative to re-categorise our companies, so that it is easier when we talk about the various types of companies. Sir, when we impose MNC type rules and criteria when approving grants and incentive schemes for SMEs, it does not necessarily mean that SMEs will be better off operating under MNC type of rules. We therefore should not impose the same criteria for MNCs and SMEs when deciding on approvals for application of some of these things. A "one-size-fits-all" approach may not necessarily work. I also suggest that in selecting Promising Local Enterprises, the EDB enlists the help of the private sector, perhaps outsource this whole activity. As for the selection criteria, I suggest that we re-look at them, so that we can have a better chance of identifying winners. During the Committee of Supply discussions on the Ministry of Finance, I mentioned about the proposal on the modification of the LEFS scheme, where VCs and angel investors, through a hybrid system, have access to the LEFS scheme. I hope that the Minister will be able to reply as I did not get an answer earlier. Finally, to encourage mergers and acquisitions so that our companies will consolidate and strengthen themselves, we should devise the appropriate tax incentives that will spur such activities. I believe that many of the smaller companies need to group or merge together in order for them to effectively compete as we move forward.”