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 14 of 20.
“Although we, Members of this House, seldom had the chance to listen to him because the Speaker seldom has the chance to speak, the few times when he spoke, he did so with very clear and thought-provoking words and, at appropriate times, adding a tinge of humour and wit to keep everyone in good spirits. I have always wondered whether the Speaker really listened to our speeches, especially to some of us who have the tendency of making long speeches. I am sure he must have heard the same arguments repeated many times over the many years. While I confirm that he was indeed listening to the speeches that we made when I read the Sunday Times' interview two Sundays ago, in the interview, Mr Tan analysed a number of MPs' speeches and the style of arguments, and I must say that he was right. Now we know that he was listening all along and not sleeping with his eyes open. But, seriously, many times after each sitting of Parliament, Mr Tan made it a point to stay back and sit around the table in the Members' Room with a number of Members each time to discuss issues. During those sessions, Mr Tan used to discuss the contents of debates and speeches with the Members present and always giving his views and, more importantly, giving pointers to Members, especially to new Members, on how we should handle debates and discussions in the House. His many years of listening to and analysing many arguments have always been a great source of knowledge which I found useful for my future speeches. Talking about pointers, one of the more significant things I remember and cherish of Mr Tan's role as Speaker is his reaching out to the new Members of Parliament.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, let me take the opportunity to congratulate you on your appointment as the seventh Speaker of the Singapore Parliament. I have known you for the past 18 years, since 1984, when I served as a grassroots leader in Siglap, the constituency where you first got elected as a Member of Parliament. In fact, it is you who inducted me into politics and subsequently convinced me to stand for election. Sir, I have known you to be a fair person willing to listen to all views. Your track record as an MP and Minister for the past 18 years is testimony of your ability and of what you can achieve, and I am confident that you will once again excel in your new role as Speaker. Sir, today, we are seeing a changeover of a very key position and that is of the Speaker of Parliament. Since 1989, for a span of 13 years, our outgoing Speaker, Mr Tan Soo Khoon, had been at the helm and, today, the hon. Mr Tan is handing over the baton, or should I say the Mace, to you. I have known Mr Tan since 1991 when Siglap became part of Bedok GRC. Having interacted with his grassroots leaders, I have heard many good things about Mr Tan. His grassroots and community leaders hold him in very high regard, and they have always spoken of him as a very friendly, people-oriented person. The residents have also considered him a friend to everyone in the constituency he was elected in. And since I got elected into Parliament in 1997, I got to know Mr Tan personally and know him much better, having the privilege of interacting with him in the House and outside the House, especially when we went for a number of overseas parliamentary trips.”
“Next, during bad times, we are not giving up our efforts to attract foreign investments here in Singapore. It is a difficult time, because many companies will choose to invest in China instead of Singapore. There may be opportunities for them to come here, but we must also review the terms and conditions we offer to these foreign investors so as to continue to attract them to come here. We should simplify our administrative procedures to make it easier for them to set up their businesses here in Singapore, so that in the process we can create more job opportunities for our people.”
“Similarly, in the business world, when we invest in a new market, the challenges are tough and severe. The Government should give them greater encouragement and instill in them more confidence, so that we will be able to create more opportunities for our own people, spread our second wing and venture into this emerging market. Thirdly, Dr Wang Kai Yuen said that the utilities rebate is a very good measure to assist people to overcome their financial difficulties. But for those who live in 5-room flats or private properties, they are not entitled to the benefits under this scheme. I believe that in this present economic downturn, they too are having similar difficulties. I think they too need some form of assistance from the Government. I hope that apart from HDB flat dwellers, the private property owners should also be given some utilities rebate, so that they can share the happiness and hardship together with their fellow countrymen. Just now, DPM mentioned about the wage cut for our Ministers and senior civil servants. I believe that this is something which our people will all agree with. It also shows that we are prepared to share our woes together. Our leaders have put in a lot of efforts to make policies and work out strategies to lead our country. In good times, they lead us to prosperity and in bad times, they guide us out of troubled waters. Our people generally appreciate what these leaders have done. They realise that it is not easy for these leaders to lead our country through bliss and gloom. But during a financial crisis when the people are suffering under adverse circumstances, the Ministers also announced that they will take a pay cut. This is very laudable indeed!”
“According to feedback received, when an applicant telephones in response to a job vacancy advertisement, the first question asked of him is invariably: "How old are you?" If the reply is 50 and above, he will be told, "Do not come, you are too old!" If this trend persists, those who are older and unemployed, or when they are retrenched, will face some very difficult times ahead. The second point I am concerned about is that this financial crisis is not just in Asia but it is global in nature. With the opening up of the Chinese market to the world, the entry of China into the WTO, and its hosting of the Olympic Games in 2008, I think in the next few years, China will be able to attract a lot of foreign investments there. This is also a good opportunity for our people to invest there, but, of course, we must have the avenues and the way to go there. If you depend on special companies to go into China, you may have difficulties. I hope that the Government or MTI will take the lead again to lead our entrepreneurs there. Small companies should endeavour to join together so that they may have the scale and resources to venture into the China market. When you venture into a new market, there are lots of challenges facing us there. I would like to ask the Government to consider giving some sort of special loans to those who are venturing into the China market, or to help them make some arrangements and give them assistance. As it is said: "The business world is like a battle field." When we fight a war, we must have the vanguards to charge ahead and lead the rest of the army forward. Of course, the vanguards are taking the biggest risk. But for the sake of a victory in a war, they will risk their lives and take the lead forward.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I feel that all these rebates are part of a very good package that will help our people overcome this severe economic crisis. It is like the Chinese saying, "sending coal in a snowy weather or handing out umbrellas in heavy rain". It is a very good assistance package indeed, but we must not forget to look into the possibility of longer term schemes to help our citizens. The announcement made by the Deputy Prime Minister will surely be welcomed by our people. The Government is able to do this because we have "made hay when the sun shines, and prepared for the rainy days". During good times, through prudent management, we were able to accumulate surpluses so that when we come across any financial crisis, we are able to fork out extra money from our coffers to help our people. This is a good example and the result of cooperation between the people and the Government. But on the whole, I think it is more important to have long-term plans to help the unemployed people in particular. How do we help them? We can train them, re-skill them and re-educate them in the hope that they can quickly find a job. But I am afraid the older people, those who are 50 and above, will have difficulty getting a job even after going through the training and enhancing their skills, in the present circumstances. I hope that the Government will take the lead because if our retirement age is 62, and the people are only 50 years old, they have 12 more years of working life. The Ministries in the Government should go through various avenues to help these people look for employment. If the Government can take the lead to absorb these people, I believe the private companies will also emulate the Government's move.”
“And if we build up another bubble and it bursts again, we may go the way of Japan where they never recovered from the big burst of their property bubble. Sir, on the whole, I would like to applaud the Government for its leadership in identifying the extensive off-Budget measures. I am confident that we will be able to turn things around as we start implementing these measures. It is always important in situations like this for the Government to take the leadership and to be bold rather than to be conservative. I think if we err, we will err on the positive side rather than on the negative side in the case of the situation when we are too conservative in the measures that we implement. Mr Ang Mong Seng (Bukit Gombak)(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, in 1998, we had the Asian financial crisis. At that time, it was just a mild cold but in the year 2000 and this year, we came across a very serious influenza. After September 11th, with the flu, we were drenched in a heavy rain, and the influenza has developed into something much more serious. Just now, when I heard the off-Budget package announced by the Deputy Prime Minister, I am glad to know that our health is still very strong in Singapore, and that we are able to pull through all kinds of stormy weathers and remain safe and sound. A few months ago, we announced the first package of $2.2 billion and now this second package is $11.3 billion, making a total of $13.5 billion. This is a very comprehensive plan to help our people. In this package, we have very detailed plans and schemes to help our citizens, including rebates on income tax, property tax, HDB and JTC rentals, etc. Among these, there are also extensions to the existing rebates on utilities, HDB and JTC rentals, etc.”
“The $500 million will go a long way to help companies overcome their difficulties in securing financing for activities. In many cases, as has been in the past, there are companies with good business deals but lack the financing and result in the deals collapsing or collapse of the companies. I hope that the loan insurance scheme will be implemented such that it will not be too difficult for companies to apply. It cannot be left to banks to decide solely on disbursement of this loan. There must be some intervention and involvement of the Productivity and Standards Board for the scheme to be successful because leaving it completely to the banks may not change the situation because banks have typically not preferred to lend to small and medium enterprises. Sir, on the issue of property prices, I am a little disappointed that the Government has become distracted from the original objective of preventing speculation in the property market. While I do sympathise with property owners, and I too own a property, that we have lost value in our properties, I feel that it is for the long-term good of the country if we do not allow property price bubbles to develop as a result of speculation. If it develops as a result of genuine buyers, I think we have no choice, but if as a result of speculation, this is something we should not accept. While up to now property buyers in the last few years may not have made gains, as the Deputy Prime Minister indicated just now, my fear is that this lifting of anti-speculative measures will spark off a rapid rise in property prices again by people who hope to make a quick gain, as was the case before 1996.”
“In fact, the measures that we have been used to in the recent past have been a temporary reduction approach of reducing costs. We have to put in more permanent cost reduction measures. Most of the measures put in place like rental rebates, property tax rebates, rebates on charges are all temporary in nature and such an approach does not give comfort to businesses that we have indeed identified a longer term solution for the country. I feel it is about time that we seriously looked at permanent reduction measures. If we fail to do so, especially at this point of time, we may actually see a structural destruction of our industrial base. As countries like China and India catch up and are able to provide same resources at a much cheaper cost, we risk permanent loss of our industries and may see a hollowing of our economy. We have no choice but to keep manufacturing as an important wing of our economy and we therefore have to re-look at how we price the various resources which make significant impact to the cost of manufacturing. For example, why cannot we price industrial land differently? The costs of land and building are just too high, perhaps the highest in the world. We already have a mechanism of differential prices for residential properties, different prices for HDB flats versus private properties. It is really up to the Government to decide how they want to price industrial land. It is the Government which sets the price benchmark in this case. I feel that there needs to be a drastic reduction so that we will be able to address this cost issue once and for all. I am glad that finally something substantial is being done to help SMEs secure funding through the loan insurance scheme.”
“This is especially so for those in the 40s and 50s, who may have been successful in their careers and have a steady income and have families to support. They would have been committed to a property and have many liabilities and responsibilities, especially paying mortgages for properties, children's education, expenses and others. Our system of welfare schemes will not be able to support them. We must think of ways to ease their cash flow situations in the short-term. For such people, it does not make sense to give them the type of assistance given to the lower income Singaporeans. We need to think of new ways. I urge the Government to start thinking out of the box and be flexible on some of its policies. I would like to suggest that we allow such people to borrow money from their CPF Special Account, as opposed to withdrawing it permanently, that they be allowed to borrow so that they can draw a monthly amount to help them tide over the difficult times. And when they are gainfully employed again, we can institute a higher monthly deduction from their employee portion of CPF to repay back into the CPF account with interest, if we have to. In this way, they do not have to be dependent on any of the welfare schemes. With this scheme, we do not have to put extra burden on the public funds as those affected will be using their own money in case they draw from their CPF. It is much easier to justify this to all Singaporeans than to support the asset rich and cash poor Singaporeans with public funds. Sir, I welcome the extensive measures to help reduce business costs which were announced by the Deputy Prime Minister. But in my opinion, while they are going to be effective in the short-term, these are temporary measures.”
“I am sure that the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Trade and Industry must agree with me that the large negative swing of the economic indicators has got nothing to do with the September 11th actions in the USA. The fate of the third quarter results was mostly sealed by then. Many people are, of course, using September 11th as excuses for many things, but I think, in this case, at least for the third quarter results, that cannot be the reason. Looking forward to the fourth quarter and beyond, I think there will be significant impact. It is easy to say in hindsight, but we all know that the position held by the Government, even three months ago, was quite different from what many industry analysts were saying. The reason I am raising this issue is because I am really concerned about the indicators that the Government is using to measure the future state of the economy. My impression is that we are using old models that may have worked in the past but these models may not be suitable in a rapidly changing new economy. I would like to ask whether the Government is doing anything to put in place better models for predicting the economy. The second issue I would like to touch on is the issue of retrenched executives and professionals. While I am comfortable that we have sufficient measures to help the lower income families who may be hit by the recession, our various welfare schemes, including the public assistance, rental rebates, Medifund and others, are tailored to help the lower income Singaporeans. But people who were once drawing high income but are now retrenched are not eligible for any one of them. We are starting to see many cases of Singaporeans who may be asset rich but cash poor because of a sudden turn of events.”
“Sir, I am glad that the Government has thought of the wide ranging measures which I am confident will have a significant impact on Singaporeans and Singapore companies. While many people had asked for a package of between $10 billion and $15 billion off-Budget measures, I think they never expected to get so much. This time round, as opposed to the past, the Government has pleasantly surprised everyone, which is a $11.3 billion package. I applaud the Government for being bold this time. It would have been pointless to give a small dose, like what Dr Wang Kai Yuen mentioned, like the $2.2 billion measures implemented earlier this year. In that instance, there was no impact at all, and another small package would have meant money down the drain. Governments must have the political will to take bold measures if they are really serious about making a difference in situations like the economic recession. Most of the time, piecemeal effects are wasted efforts. Mr Leong Horn Kee talked about the ineffective measures taken by some other governments in this region. I think this time round, we have shown to everyone, Singaporeans and to the rest of the world, that we are willing to take bold moves which are indeed necessary to make any significant difference in situations like this. Sir, I would like to touch on a few issues. First of all, it is the predictive capability of the Government. Sir, the third quarter results of a negative 5.6% forecast and a negative 3% for the year are once again way off the mark, as has been the case for forecasts done by the Government in the past few years.”
“Sir, I believe the question asked was whether they could claim the difference, the taxi fare that they have incurred. So I think it is better that it be clarified because it may be assumed that they can claim the additional fare that they incurred on taxi.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to confirm what I have heard. Did the Minister of State mention that commuters who were affected by the disruptions are free to go to SLRT for monetary claims right now? Can I confirm that?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask the Minister about the issue of the CIQ. I remember a few years ago we debated on this and many Singaporeans were quite emotional about locating the CIQ within Singapore, being a sovereign issue for us. Is there a plan in the agreement to finally locate the CIQ back to Malaysian soil rather than keeping it in Singapore?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have three supplementary questions. The first question is on the issue of CPF withdrawal. Is this a total withdrawal by an individual, or is it going to be transferred to the Malaysian EPF? And related to that, would not this create a disadvantage or unfair situation for Singaporeans who cannot withdraw their CPF until retirement? What would be the rules that would not create this disadvantaged position for us? The second question is on the 12 new plots of land that have been released in place of the relocation of the railway. Does the Minister have the current market value of the 12 pieces of land? The third question is, while we have got the broad strokes of agreement, when do we expect the agreement to be finally concluded, as we know the POA was something that we thought would have been implemented, but was not implemented? Will this be another example of something that has been discussed, but not implementable?”
“Sir, I have a question on the valuation. I would like to ask the Minister how regularly the valuation is done. And in this round of increases that we did, when was the valuation done and, also, is the valuation done on a collective basis, or is there an opportunity to value every shophouse according to its location, type of renovation that may have been done, type of trade that it has been doing, and that perhaps will be a better way of judging the value?”
“Sir, I have two specific issues to raise. The first issue is whether there is a real need to separate the generating and retailing portions of the industry. From the way I look at, all we need is one type of licence for both generation and supply of gas, making use of a transport system managed by an independent authority. The second issue is one of continuity of supply. My fear is that we may have a situation of over-reliance on one or two sources of gas, especially the gas we are purchasing from Indonesia, as the Minister mentioned earlier. Are we doing enough to diversify our risk? Sir, with these two issues, I support the Bill.”
“Specifically, we must put in place sufficient measures to hold licensees responsible and accountable when there are situations of recurrent power dips and power failures. I hope this move to liberalise the energy markets will not result in the drop of the quality and reliability of electricity supply. In conclusion, Sir, I feel that the liberalisation of electricity is a significant milestone in Singapore's development and it will change the way we do things and change the mindsets about how utilities are supplied. I personally think that this is a move in the right direction, especially if we can ensure true market competition. I am excited about this move and look forward to the successful implementation of the very aggressive plans that the Ministry has laid out. Sir, with that, I support the Bill.”
“This overbooking situation will result in higher cost for the licensees and, hence, higher prices to the consumers. How does the Ministry hope to ensure there is a good balance of demand and supply? Clause 5(2) of the Bill allows the authority to disclose information of suppliers of electricity to third parties if the authority feels that the information would not cause detriment to the supplier. I feel that this clause should be amended to also get the consent of the suppliers before the authority releases any information, unless there is a national security issue involved. This should be the case because the authority would never be in a position to fully determine the impact of such information disclosure on the business of the supplier, especially if the information goes to competition. This is an important issue if we really want to attract private sector companies to come into this field. Clause 9(7) mentions the fees payable by the licensees. Can the Minister share with the House the quantum or range of fees we expect to impose? I also feel that there is no need to license the transmission part, as I mentioned earlier, as this is not going to be subjected to competition anyway. Sir, clause 24 allows the market support licensee to disconnect the supply of electricity, including those of domestic users. I would like to suggest that we add some safeguards in the Bill against possible abuse by some licensees who may become too quick to disconnect supplies for whatever reasons. And this may cause inconveniences to our residents. Finally, Sir, I would like to touch on the issue of reliability of electricity supply. I did bring this issue up during the Committee of Supply and many Members brought up the issue of the Californian example.”
“The number of players will no doubt determine the cost of electricity as we move forward. Another fear I have on the expectations of cheaper electricity as a result of liberalisation is whether the various generators and retailers of electricity can really differentiate to the point that they can really offer cheaper electricity to consumers. If they are not able to do so and resort to price wars to win customers, will they be able to sustain themselves in the long run by earning thin or no margins at all? One thing we must realise is that Singapore is a market which is too small for many of us to actually attract even foreign interest in our energy market. We must be prepared that our companies must be able and must be allowed to supply electricity to other countries as well as to import electricity from other countries into Singapore to provide everyone with a bigger market to compete in. In this respect, what is the Ministry's view of allowing retailers to bring electricity from our neighbouring countries, including the fact that some day, some of these may be generated by nuclear means. Sir, I would like to touch on a few specific issues on the Bill. In Part II, clause 3(3)(d) of the Bill, it mentions that prices of licensees have to be controlled. To do so, the authority will end up limiting the margins the licensees will be able to achieve. Because we will be going to have multiple sources of electricity, not all of which will be fully controlled by the Government, we will have to ensure that there is an overbooking situation where the Government will require a higher supply than the demand at any one time, just in case some of the licensees fail to deliver electricity reliability.”
“Sir, first of all, I would like to commend the Ministry for drafting such a comprehensive Bill. I went through the whole Bill and must say that many of the issues have been well covered. The thing that really needs to happen is that we create true competition for those areas which are contestable, that is, the power generation and the electricity retail parts of the whole value chain. I raised my concerns earlier about the transmission and distribution of electricity which is left to Singapore Power to manage. One issue which I have is the speed of changes in the initial phase. And if I got it right, Singapore Power will still be responsible for distribution as well as certain parts of retail of electricity. This I feel will put other retailers at a disadvantage and may just slow down the opening up of the electricity industry. The prudent thing to do is right from the beginning to spin off the two entities into two separate companies with different management control. Mr Low Thia Khiang earlier on brought up the issue of SingTel managing the fixed lines and therefore they have the perpetual advantage over other fixed line telephone operators. And this may result, again, in the electricity distribution sector if we are not careful in separating the roles. One issue I fear is also that the Ministry will end up giving licences only to Government-linked companies and thus not achieve the objective of true liberalisation. So the new Genco that came into the picture is SembCorp which is actually a GLC too. I would like to ask the Acting Minister whether there are any true private companies which have shown interest to enter our energy market. How many players does the Ministry expect in the short and long term and how many can our market really support?”
“It is, therefore, very important that we will successfully create a competitive environment that will, in the long-term, keep costs of energy low. In this respect, I hope that the Ministry will be able to create an environment that supports true market competition and not support only what seems to be a competitive landscape by licensing only Government-linked companies. One last point on the Bill is the appointment of members of the Authority. The Bill provides for up to 10 members to be appointed by the Minister. I suggest that the Minister consider having a good mix of people from the private, public and people sectors to be members of this Authority, as this will give a diversified perspective of things and also give a good representation of everyone who will be affected by the changes to come. With this, Sir, I support the Bill.”
“The infrastructure is already fully developed by the Government, and there is no real reason to spin off these assets as they will not directly affect the intent of liberalising the generation and retail of energy sources. 3. I do not see why there is a need for developing other alternative infrastructures for distribution of electricity and gas, as the Singapore market is too small for one or a few more infrastructure players. 4. If we let a private sector run these distribution channels, there may be problems for generators and retailers of energy sources when all of them compete to use the same infrastructure. It is not inconceivable that if a private company runs the infrastructure, it may lead to some form of preferential treatment for some generators or retailers, by virtue of some business relationships that may develop over time. It is, therefore, more appropriate for an independent entity, which has the interest of the country, to own and manage the infrastructure and the Government, or the EMA as the agency, to do this. The second point I want to make on this Bill is the premise that the liberalisation of the energy sector will lead to cheaper energy sources. I hope that this will truly be the case and that all Singaporeans and Singapore-based companies will enjoy cost reductions for the utilities, which over the years, have been so high that we are paying even more than countries like the US and Japan. While we may think that the cost of utilities is small, compared to the overall cost of doing business in Singapore, the fact is that as we move to the higher technology type industries like water fab, petrochemical and pharmaceutical industries, it is a major cost component.”
“Sir, I am glad that the Government has finally decided to fully liberalise the energy market in Singapore. Like the telecommunications industry, the energy business is really a worldwide commodity and, therefore, there is little need for the Government to have such a strong control and monopoly over the market. This Bill is the basis for the rest of the Bills that we will be debating today and, as I studied the rest of the Bills, I realised that the Government is making drastic changes to make almost everything contestable, and to privatise the whole value chain of activities in the electricity and gas industries. The one concern I have is that the EMA does not have very much control over even some strategic parts of the whole supply and distribution chain. I therefore urge the Minister to consider restructuring the plans, to allow EMA to own and manage the strategic infrastructure in both electricity and gas distribution. For electricity, I suggest that EMA take over the managing of the power grid and, for gas, it can take over the gas transportation infrastructures. The fact is that these two portions of the whole supply chain will not really change from the present infrastructure. I therefore think that EMA should be the neutral body owning these assets for the following reasons: 1. These infrastructures are strategic in nature and they directly affect the consumers, whether they are commercial, industrial or domestic. We should not allow any opportunity for any non-government agency to have too much of authority and control over national strategic infrastructure which could also affect our national security. 2.”
“Sir, I agree with that. But my point is that we tailor it at a later stage. I think tailoring it at Primary 4 probably is just too early. We can at a later stage judge them according to their abilities, according to how well they do in their examinations at PSLE before we stream. RAdm Teo Chee Hean: Sir, again, I wish Mr Inderjit Singh was right. But that is not our experience operating the education system.”
“The reason that we have an EM3 stream is because some of the children are unable to cope with Mathematics, Science and language, which are going on both in the EM1 and EM2 streams. If they are not able to cope and they are overloaded, they end up not learning anything in Primary 4, 5 and 6, because the load is just too heavy, and they have to take a reduced curriculum. They face the same examination paper, and they are totally disheartened because they can make no headway with that. Is that being fairer to them than providing them with a curriculum which they can handle, which they can do reasonably well in, and progress on to secondary schools? In secondary schools, if they do well, as I have indicated just now with the figures, they can move on. If they do well in ITE, they can move on too to the polytechnic. If they do well in the polytechnic, they can move on to the university. The doors are not closed. I am not saying that it is easy, but the doors are not closed. Mr Inderjit Singh has to ask himself whether he really feels that it is fairer to the students if we push them through a uniform programme which they are unable to cope with or we try and tailor programmes which the children are able to cope with.”
“Sir, I would like to clarify one point on the streaming issue. My point was: do we really have to stream our children at such an early age at Primary 4? We can still achieve the same desired objective of having our children go into ITE or polytechnics at secondary school level if we use the PSLE results to do the streaming by having various grades for them to go into various streams. Streaming at Primary 4 level creates unnecessary stress at such an early age, and this will basically develop an attitude among children where they will not enjoy going to school. The other issue the Minister mentioned was that parents have a choice on streaming at EM1, EM2 or EM3 level. In practice, schools really do not allow much choice to parents. Parents are told that this is where they have to go on the ground. While the desired objective is to let our children learn at their own pace, in implementation, I think teachers dread taking an EM3 student, when they should actually enjoy taking this EM3 student and make him or her into an EM1 student through the process. But, I think, in implementation, we are spending a lot of time grooming our EM1 children to be among the best and maybe not putting enough effort to improve those who are in the lower streams. RAdm Teo Chee Hean: Sir, I wish Mr Inderjit Singh were right, that every EM3 student could be converted into an EM1 student. I wish that he was right. I wish that he was right that just by putting in effort, we could do that also. I have the same desires as he has. His heart is in the right place. But we have to face the reality - children are different. We have to give them a curriculum which they can cope with.”
“Those from the lower streams seem to be having self-esteem issue and those from the higher streams seem to have a `high-class' feeling issue. If we start to develop this kind of attitude at early ages, we will see real problems when they grow up as adults in the country. I am also curious to find out what programmes have been put in place to promote creativity and lifelong learning in our schools. Particularly, have there been any changes in the curriculum which develop the creative mind and inculcate the value of lifelong learning? I myself have not seen any evidence of this being done. In fact, we still continue to focus on the academic issues and measures, and therefore there have not been many changes. And I do not think we will see any impact in trying to develop creativity and the issue of lifelong learning among our children.”
“Our children are so stressed these days, as we have heard from our previous two speakers, that I do not think many of them enjoy going to school. How then can we inculcate the value of lifelong learning if they get disillusioned by our education system at such an early age? I have seen in my daughter's school, it was examination period, where a girl was struggling not to go for her test, and her parents were pulling her on one end and the teacher and the principal were all encouraging her to go. It was really a very distracting sight for the children around her too. If we survey all the education systems around the world, we are the only country in the world that does streaming at such an early age. While the intended outcome is to allow every child to learn at his or her pace, the actual outcome is that we label them and eliminate them or greatly reduce their chances of getting back to the mainstream Express or Normal (Academic) streams. Can the Minister give statistics of how many children streamed to the EM3 stream have made it back to EM1 or EM2 streams in the primary schools? And how many EM3 students, who went to the Normal (Technical) stream, made it back to the Normal (Academic) and Express streams? Sir, I attended a function recently organised by CDAC, MENDAKI and SINDA. This is called Project Team, and we have heard about it in this House recently. The programme was intended to bring children of various races and streams together in trying to inculcate a sense of community and bond-building among themselves. When I actually asked some of them, many of them right from the beginning when they got together, segregated themselves according to the streams that they came from, and basically treated each other differently.”
“Sir, last year, I spoke about the education system that is mainly focused on the efficiency of delivery of subjects and lessons and therefore we have achieved well in terms of measures like scoring straight `A's, ranking of schools based on academic excellence and achieving top marks in international Science and Mathematics competition. The issue therefore is whether the efficient education system has allowed us to produce good innovators, entrepreneurs, artists, sportsmen and women of excellence in non-academic areas. The real answer is that we have limited success in these areas. My main question to the Minister is: what has he done in implementing the `mass customisation' approach in our education system? Can the Minister give specifics of what he really means by the mass customisation programme and how he plans to implement this in schools? To-date, I am still confused as to what it means and not able to see the concrete examples of implementation. Are our schools set up to allow customisation of education for our children of differing abilities or are we just categorising our children according to academic learning abilities, like we have been doing in the past? How are we ensuring that the system we have in place is able to identify non-academic talents and groom students of such talents to achieve their full potential? Does our school system consider grooming students to achieve excellence in such non-academic areas as important as those who have done well in academic areas? I have to admit that to-date, I have not been able to see any significant impact of the mass customisation plans. I have spoken about streaming of our children at the Primary 4 level and I would like to touch on this again today.”
“I have heard of instances where companies from developed nations prefer not to deal with some of our privatised GLCs, simply because such companies are still viewed as being Government owned or Government controlled, by virtue of the huge majority shareholding held by the Government through the investment arms, like Temasek Holdings and GIC. I believe we also saw a few failed attempts by both SIA and SingTel when they tried to acquire significant stakes in foreign companies, precisely because both are still viewed as Government linked and Government controlled companies, and therefore negative reactions from the companies that were being acquired. Can the Minister share with us what the Government feels about reducing their stakes in GLCs to become minority shareholders?”
“This will also avoid such GLCs from crowding out our home-grown private sector companies, a point which Mr Leong brought up earlier on. Fifth, there should be greater involvement of private sector individuals in the boards and key management positions of GLCs, for the same reasons that Mr Leong brought up. We cannot possibly expect civil servants, who may not have had any business exposure in the past, to effectively manage such companies, which have to operate based on true market discipline. Sixth, we should set the tone of privatisation and we should therefore plan to outsource the governance of Singapore in areas that make sense, by quickly breaking up statutory boards and Government agencies, and spinning off non-core and non-sensitive Government activities. Can the Government set a target of resource reduction, eg, reduction by a certain number of Government employees or a reduction of a certain percentage of Government expenditure? These targets will help drive the pace of changes that we should be setting for ourselves. We will also ensure that more people will be released to the private sector, which is constantly facing a severe shortage of manpower and talent. Seventh, for Government-linked companies that are already listed, will the Government consider reducing its stake to become a minority stakeholder? In most cases, the Government still holds a majority stake. This will allow true private sector type governance for such companies and hence, it will further help build up their strengths.”
“I suggest that we put in place a watchdog body which has a mix of private and public sector people and this body should have the responsibility to review and regulate how GLCs operate and are managed. I believe this is being done in some countries like in Hong Kong and New Zealand. Thirdly, the Government should set a time-frame for each current and future GLCs to be fully privatised and this plan should be publicised so that all Singaporeans will be aware of the privatisation schedules. We should make out a list of such companies and invite private sector investments from around the world, not just from Singapore, so that the Government can divest as much of its holdings in the GLCs as it possibly can. It is about time we monitored the progress of our privatisation plans. We have heard of plans but we just do not know the schedules, and therefore, cannot measure the success rate of privatisation. I also suggest that we shut down non-viable GLCs by identifying them early in the process. If we do not do this, we will continue to pour public funds into wasteful investments. 4.45 pm Fourthly, we have seen many examples of GLCs getting into businesses they have no experiences in running. For example, the Singapore Bus Service got into the property business and got its fingers burnt by losing quite a lot of money, and another GLC getting into the food business by buying the fast food chain, Delifrance, which made no sense for the GLC's long-term growth strategy. There are many more examples of failed investments by GLCs, which got into businesses they had no expertise or experience in managing. We should therefore put in place strict rules, disallowing GLCs to venture into non-core-competency activities.”
“Sir, for the reasons that Mr Leong Horn Kee just mentioned about the role of GLCs, I would like to bring up a few issues and suggestions on how we can make Government-linked companies more effective and how they should be managed for them to be more successful in the new economy. And I too feel that GLCs do have a role to play, but it is about time that we reviewed the regulations and roles and the responsibilities that the Government and GLCs have with respect to how they should be managed as we move forward in the new economy. First of all, the speed of privatisation needs to be picked up because now is a good time for Singapore-based companies to get ahead in the global marketplace. Due to the economic uncertainty around the world, there are and will be many viable companies which will be in distress and which would be in need for strong partners who can bring financial strength through acquisitions or mergers. I feel that it is only when we successfully privatise our GLCs, can they effectively move fast enough to capitalise on such opportunities and expand globally. Secondly, there is a need for greater transparency on how GLCs are managed, a point brought up by many Members and especially for those that are not listed on the stock market. Some of the things that need to be monitored are the funding and fund-raising from Government coffers, corporate Government issues and related party transactions among GLCs, where GLCs are given preference to each other in conducting business, even when there are, and maybe better and more cost-effective solutions provided by private companies. Transparency will not only make them stronger as this will subject them to more stringent scrutiny than private sector companies are subjected to.”
“We know in reality that in Singapore nowadays, the cost of looking after the parents is normally spread among several siblings. As such, should the scheme not be adjusted to reflect the actual scenario by allowing more than one sibling to claim the amount? Perhaps the one with the parents staying in his house could claim higher relief, while the other siblings claim lower reliefs.”
“In most families today, maids are employed to assist in looking after young children. Under the present provision, a married woman who employs a maid to look after her children is entitled to a tax relief of up to $8,280. This works out to about $690 per month on average. In comparison, someone who cannot afford or is not willing to employ a maid, can only claim a child relief of $2,000 for each of the first three children, which works out to an average of $166 a month per child. I am sure all of you will agree with me that it takes much more than this amount to raise a child. 4.00 pm Please do not get me wrong. I fully understand the rationale behind why the foreign maid tax was levied, and I am not asking for more tax reliefs. All I am asking for is for the Ministry of Finance to review the child relief and to make it more realistic in a more proportionate way. So in this way, in addition to the "baby bonus", it would also be a strategy to encourage more families to have children Secondly, at the moment, the foreign maid relief is applicable only to the women. I find it a bit strange because we are always talking about equality of sexes. Moreover, nowadays husbands are expected to perform their fair share of duties at home. So, should we not extend the foreign maid relief to the husbands as well, in the event that they were given custody of the children in a divorce situation or where the spouses have passed away. They need to work too and will definitely require a maid to look after their children. I hope the Minister would consider this. Thirdly, on the parent relief scheme. The current provision only permits one sibling to claim relief for looking after his or her parents.”
“To encourage individual enterprise and to create a culture where every Singaporean thinks as an entrepreneur, I suggest the following three schemes: Firstly, I suggest that we introduce a negative gearing scheme where individuals can write off expenditures related to individual business related activities, like when they rent out their premises or do some part-time business to supplement their income. In this way, when it comes to paying taxes, individuals will behave like businesses, thus developing a sense of enterprise within themselves. Secondly, we should allow individuals and entrepreneurs to carry forward losses resulting from investments they made in start-up companies so that they can reduce their tax burden in future years. This would eliminate the risk averse nature of Singaporeans. Thirdly, while I am very happy to see the progressive tax incentives for stock options, I would like to suggest that the individuals and employees be taxed upon realisation of their gains when they encash their shares rather than when they exercise their options. While the current system allows for delay of up to three years of exercise, should they make a paper gain, in fact, the paper gain could actually become a loss depending on the market conditions some years later, and this will create a burden for the individuals when they have to pay tax on the gain that they made when in fact they actually did not gain anything when they sold their shares. Mr Ong Ah Heng(In Mandarin): Sir, this year's Budget can be said to have given a double bonus to the individuals because in this year they not only get a personal income tax cut of between 2% and 5%, but also a 10% rebate on the tax payable. Sir, I would like to point out certain anomalies in the manner our tax reliefs are worked out.”
“Sir, I would like to make a few suggestions on how we make further improvements to our tax system as we enter into the new economy. First, I would like to suggest that we allow all new companies to have a 10-year average tax plan so that companies which do not enjoy any of the EDB tax incentives (like pioneer status, business HQ tax status, and others) can enjoy an effectively low tax during that period. We should allow companies to carry forward losses within this 10-year period, and the system can also be flexible to allow different levels of tax rate depending on which year of operation the company is. This will basically allow companies to have a smoother start-up with less burden on their cash flow. Secondly, the Ministry should allow pre-production expenses to be tax-deductible and allow interest income for the first few years of operations for such companies to be tax exempt or tax deductible. The reason is that many companies, especially the capital intensive companies, may raise substantial funds upfront for use for future years. They have to raise such funds because of the capital intensive nature of their companies. But when they do that the money basically sits in the bank earning interest, but we are taxing them for all this. It is prudent for them to do so and we should not penalise such companies from raising funds early. I also raised some suggestions on enhancing Singapore's position as a manufacturing hub during the Budget debate. I hope the Minister will study these suggestions and take them into account when he implements changes to any of the future tax system.”
“NTUC Income has done a very good job of simplifying its policies, but they are still hampered by the fact that the law is painfully laden with language from the ancient cases using language and a style of English no longer meaningful in the Third Millennium. If the law of insurance updates and simplifies its language, then the policies will follow suit. Can we look at our neighbours and emulate them? Finally, Sir, it is a common practice for many life insurers to provide a column for the proposed insured to nominate a beneficiary. Unlike CPF nominations, this nomination is not effective in disposing the proceeds of the policy if there is a will stating otherwise. As for nominations in NTUC Income policies, these are valid because their policies are not governed by the Insurance Act, but by the Cooperative Societies Act (Chapter 62). Nonetheless, such nominations are not revoked by marriage, unlike the case with CPF nominations. Then there is the complication of nominations that take effect under section 73 of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act (Chapter 61). In the case of Eng Li Cheng Dolly v Lim Yeo Hua, reported in [1995], 3 Singapore Law Reports 363, the High Court held that a divorced wife was entitled to proceeds of her ex-husband's life policy, just because he had named her in the policy, despite the fact that he had divorced her and had intended to remarry before he died. Surely this could not have been his intention? Part XIII of the Insurance Act 1996 of Malaysia has 11 sections dealing with nominations. We have not a single section. Our convoluted law needs reform and consolidation in one Act now. Are we ready, Sir, for this mammoth task for the New Millennium?”
“Violation of this section results in a fine but the insured still is not entitled to payment. And this provision yet does not tell the insured what to say, what part of his store of knowledge is relevant when he "proposes" to enter into a contract of insurance. Worse still, the policy is void even if there is something he ought to know. What ought a poorly educated man or woman "ought to know"? That his "hong sip" (Hokkien for "wind and wet", referring to a whole range of ailments from rheumatism to arthritis) is something that he must declare because it is some kind of preliminary cancer? What ought a well-educated non-medical professional "ought to know", that disclosing his high blood pressure may not be the same thing in medical science as revealing his ischemia or his propensity to myocardiac infarction? 3.15 pm In legal jargon, leaving aside medical jargon, the standard of disclosure is that of the prudent insurer, ie, the insured must disclose all facts which a prudent insurer will want to know in assessing the risk. How would a layman know what a prudent insurer requires? In Australia and in Malaysia, the legislatures have amended the common law test to one of what a reasonable insured knows to be relevant to the issue of risk. This remains difficult to fulfill, but at least the insured is not tested on his guess on what the insurer wants to know; nor what the insured "ought" to know but nevertheless does not know until a court says he ought to know. That leads me to this question of insurance policies which an insurance company issues. Our policies are chock-full of obscure and laborious English, not plain conversational English.”
“Now that SGX has revised its listing criteria, many companies, which in the past would have had no choice but to list on Sesdaq, can now list directly on the main board, although not all of them. SGX is therefore studying the proper role of Sesdaq, to review the merits of continuing with two separate boards. It has not reached any decision on the matter. Assoc. Prof. Toh See Kiat (Aljunied): Sir, our law of insurance requires the insured to declare what he knows to the insurer if such knowledge has relevance to the insurer's assessment of the risks involved. The impact of this rule extends to the Home Protection Scheme (HPS) run by the CPF Board which, in law, is another insurance policy. Many Singaporeans sign their HPS documents as one of a whole stack of papers they sign when they are allocated their HDB flats. They are not specifically alerted to the nature of the HPS as an insurance policy. Hence, they are totally baffled and deeply aggrieved when a breadwinner dies of a pre-existing medical condition, ie, existing before they signed the HPS and HDB papers, but which they have not disclosed at the time of signing of the papers. Actually, the same happens even when an insurance agent has properly directed the attention of the insured to the duty of disclosure because of the vagueness of the parameters of this duty. The only reference in our Insurance Act (Cap 142) to the duty of disclosure is in section 25(5), which attempts to ameliorate the harshness of this common law rule. The section mandates that insurers who wish to rely on this rule ought to display prominently a warning that "if a proposer does not fully and faithfully give the facts as he knows of them or ought to know them, he may receive nothing from this policy".”
“As long as the risk is an honest business risk, the company complies with the Exchange's listing rules and disclosure requirements, and their shares are properly traded and not cornered or manipulated, then the Stock Exchange is fulfilling its proper function - providing a well-regulated marketplace for the company to raise equity capital from the public. The business risk is something which the investors have to judge. If it is a matter of dishonesty, fraud, somebody running away with the bank's money, manipulating their shares, for that kind of risk, we would do something about it. We would chase it up and put it right. But if it is a business risk - I put forward a proposal, full disclosure, you know what I am trying to do, you know the dangers, you put your money up, then I do not think we should stand in the way and require you to be separately listed or to prevent you from listing. Indeed, in today's business environment, risk is no longer very much a function of size and recent earnings profile, especially for technology firms. Large and profitable firms can also be risky because the conditions can change very rapidly. When SGX liberalised its criteria to allow more firms to list directly on the main board, it was in effect saying that the main board was no longer a low-risk board. Sesdaq then became a small cap board instead of a high-risk board. I believe that this is the correct approach for SGX to take. But it does raise the question of the need for SGX to have a separate small cap board. Sesdaq was launched to allow less well-established companies that did not qualify for the main board to be listed.”
“Is it to encourage more adventurous investors to buy their shares, or is it to warn off investors who may not be aware of the risks? I do not believe that the present SGX rules prevent any companies from listing who could list on a third board, as Mr Singh acknowledges. Nor do the rules hold back any adventurous investors seeking risky stocks prepared to accept the downside in the hope of high returns. The experience of other countries confirms that setting up a third board would not, in itself, draw liquidity and interest to the companies listed on it. During the technology stock boom, exchanges in several Asian countries created technology boards along the lines suggested. They have had mixed success. Some attracted significant interest in their initial months, but have been hard hit by the declining interest and valuation of technology companies. Their overall market capitalisation has fallen sharply. Today, technology companies are finding much more difficulty raising funds on these boards. We can look at several examples. Germany has the Neuer market, Korea has KOSDAQ, Hongkong has GEM, Tokyo has the Mothers market, Malaysia has MESDAQ. The experience is mixed. It is not clear that by putting it on a different board, you make the company more successful. Yes, it was hot at the time when the boom and frenzy was on, but now the excitement has ebbed and many of these boards are languishing, their companies and their shares too. Not all the companies listed on SGX need be, or should be, established, safe, blue chip companies. There is nothing wrong with having risky start-ups being listed on the exchange, alongside established names like SIA or DBS, once these start-ups reach a certain threshold size.”
“Mr Singh argues that if we put risky shares on a third board, this would be a signal from SGX to the public that the shares are more risky. There are some examples overseas where they have tried this approach. But our approach is: the investing public should already know, from the company's prospectus, the nature of their business and the risks which the company is subject to. If a retail investor needs help in interpreting the prospectus, which sometimes he does because it is put in a complicated way, there are analysts and financial journalists who comment publicly on pending issues, and whose considered opinions the retail investor can read in the newspapers. If SGX had to decide which of several boards to allow the company on to, it would have to base its judgement on the same public information that is already in the prospectus because SGX should not have information which is secret to itself. Furthermore, SGX does not want to pass judgement on the company, beyond deciding that it meets the listing criteria. To do so would be inconsistent with disclosure-based regulation, and would bring SGX back to the pitfalls of merit-based regulation which it used to practise. The fact that several IPOs were under-subscribed this year and tanked suggest that investors do know a doubtful proposition when they see one. They are not such suckers. They may not have understood all the fine print and legal language, but they knew enough not to part with their money. It is only when investors pursue the shares of a risky company without realising the risks, then we have a problem. We should also be clear about the motivations for wanting to segregate risky companies onto a third board.”
“Why were the regulators not able to sieve out the companies that should not have been listed in the first place? I suggest that we go for the third board for emerging and technology and risky companies to raise funds. By segregating the three boards this way, where we know that the third board is for high-risk companies to get listed, investors would, right from the beginning, know about the risk nature of their investments. We should also take the opportunity to use technology to make it into a global board, if we want to do this, that trading can go on for 24 hours a day, not just to service markets in Singapore, but the global market and, where trading can be done in global currencies. I feel this is the best way forward to further ease fund-raising issues in Singapore while we avoid tarnishing the image of our two existing boards, as is the current situation, when fundamentally weak companies get listed on them. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Sir, on Mr Inderjit Singh's idea of a third board, he raised it last year and I explained then why I did not think it was practical. Since then, SGX has had an eventful year. Many companies have had their IPOs. Some were successful, others not. The question is whether in the light of this experience, we now think a third board is a good idea. We have asked SGX and in their view, which MAS agrees with, the answer is still no. Let me explain why. SGX's basic decision is what criteria to use when allowing a company to be listed and when allowing the public to trade shares in the company, whichever board the company goes on. What are the criteria for letting it be listed and letting the public buy and sell the shares?”
“Sir, I have brought up this issue about a third board for listing Singapore companies before. The main issue is the balance of having a third board for listing of new and risky companies versus using the existing main and Sesdaq boards for fund-raising by companies. While Singapore is currently too small a market to justify a third board, we should expect Singapore to grow as a significant financial hub for the region. It is therefore, an opportune time for us to have a third board or as an alternative, an over-the-counter (OTC) board, for ease of fund-raising so that in the long-term, we would have a much more vibrant place for fund-raising and stock market investment. My complaint is not so much that companies are not able to raise funds, but the problem is the approach that has been taken by the Singapore Exchange (SGX) for the last two years to make it easier for companies without track records to list on both boards in Singapore. It became so easy that so much so there were too many examples of fundamentally weak companies that got listed easily, resulting in the investing public getting hurt, while the promoters of the companies made their money. While I know that the answer is going to be that investors must be more prudent and study such offerings of public listings carefully before making their investments, the fact is that some of them, together with the advisors, do a very good job in marketing their companies, and the prospectuses are so detailed and legalistic that the common man finds it difficult to fully comprehend the contents. When we see too many fundamentally weak companies getting approvals to list on our two boards, the unintended effect is also that the reputation and credibility of our main board and of SGX comes into question.”
“Sir, I would like to thank the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Home Affairs for answering our questions. I therefore would like to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $179,930,810 for Head V ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $51,383,200 for Head V ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head N -”
“It was years of interaction and understanding and emotional bonding that made this happen and possible. Such things do not get developed overnight. It takes many years and constant interaction to develop such a relationship. I look forward to this happening with the current and future generations of leadership so that the trust among the leaders and the members of the various ethnic groups and races can be built and strengthened upon.”
“I fully believe in and support the meritocratic practice in Singapore, but when such a practice is based on academic performance and when the ethnic minorities are the ones that perform worse than the majority ethnic group, the result may lead to a feeling of discrimination among the minorities when they are not selected for key Government positions in the civil service or in the uniformed service. I therefore urge the Prime Minister to seriously consider restructuring the ethnic-based self-help group concept to one that more effectively gives equal opportunities for improvement to all races. It is about time that we merged the various ethnic-based self-help groups into one, or to create an umbrella body which oversees all the ethnic-based self-help groups. One possibility is to consolidate certain activities, like fund-raising, administration and others that make sense from each of these groups, while keeping the operational arms of each discrete. I concede that there will be more success in reaching out to people if this is done via the ethnic grouping route, but perhaps, it is only this portion of reaching out that should be kept separate while we consolidate the rest of the functions for the various groups. Finally, I feel that the younger generation of leaders needs to do more to have frank and open discussions with Singaporeans of all races, especially among the leaders and the minorities in Singapore, to understand the feelings, frustrations and aspirations of each community so that they can be better understood and explained. I attended the dialogue session that the Senior Minister held with the Malay community about two weeks ago and could not help but notice the trust and respect those who were present had for the Senior Minister and his views.”