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 17 of 20.
“And through a partnership, we will have a better chance of succeeding. In this way, with a shared responsibility, we will be able to make better decisions and move faster than before. Our Government agencies will do well if they act only as facilitators and not as drivers in this new economy, because too much of Government involvement will only slow things down. So agencies like the NSTB and PSB should either be privatised or they should modify their roles to become more effective. Fourthly, I feel that the civil service needs to be rewarded differently so that they will be motivated to transform Singapore to a knowledge-based economy. If we do not do anything about this, there will be a feeling of being left out and a reluctance to change policies for the sake of promoting entrepreneurship and enriching the private sector. I feel that we need to seriously consider revamping the compensation system. Fifthly, I believe that we have failed in attracting many good people with private sector experience into the civil service because of the bureaucratic and promotion practices that exist today. People do not feel that they will get what they deserve and be able to advance their careers should they move from the private sector to the public sector. I hope that the Government can relook at its practices to change things to attract more people of varying backgrounds into the Government service. I feel that we should not worry about perfecting and devising perfect policies before we make changes. As I mentioned earlier, a little uncertainty and a little chaos may be necessary and may not necessarily be a bad thing for the country.”
“In my opinion, the loss of the Cable and Wireless HKT deal was a result of how fast our Government and GLCs are able to make decisions. Richard Li's Pacific Century Cyberworks is an example of how Internet speed works in this new economy. In certain cases, decisions based on gut feel and on the fly may be necessary. Sir, I have an experience that I would like to share with the House about the speed at which things get done in this new economy. I have started an e-commerce shopping portal about six months ago. I managed to build quite a good concept in the last six months. About two weeks ago, I had a call from a CEO from the Norwegian company that was also doing a similar portal. And we started talking just about two weeks ago. The true negotiations really started last Friday night at about 10.30 pm in my house. We negotiated through the night until 4.00 am on Saturday morning, and we shook hands that we had a deal. We then passed on the work to our lawyers who worked the whole of Saturday. I got the draft legal document on Saturday evening. We met on Saturday at 2 o'clock in my place, thrashed out the whole legal document, and by 4.30 pm the document was ready. At 5.15 pm, I left my home, rushed to a hotel to sign the agreement, witnessed by the Norwegian Ambassador. By 6.00 pm, the deal was done. And this took us just 48 hours. This is an example of how Internet speed works if you want to be successful in this economy. Thirdly, we should seriously consider my suggestion that I made in the past, that of outsourcing the governance of Singapore to the people and the private sector as much as possible, wherever possible. While certain sectors cannot be outsourced, for example, defence and a number of other Ministries, there are others that can be.”
“Hong Kong, for example, has leap-frogged Singapore despite their later start and the danger is that Singapore may lose out in its battle to be the Asian Hub for this new economy and the Silicon Valley of the east. If we do not change, we may just get the number two or number three position. And we as a nation, I believe, cannot risk being in this position. Sir, in my speech today, I would like to touch on three areas which we should focus on in order to be a more potent source in this new economy and these are: (1) Changing the way Singapore is governed; (2) Promoting entrepreneurship; and (3) How to build world class local companies. Changing the Way Singapore is Governed Sir, many observers have advised us that the Government should rethink the traditional strong guiding role in developing the country and the economy. My suggestions are as follows: First, we need an entrepreneurial civil service that is willing to take risks in policy making. In some cases, when we are unsure, it may be necessary to implement a policy first, based on the best of everyone's judgement and, if necessary, fine-tune it as we learn our lessons. If we wait for a perfect policy to be formulated, the battle may be lost. Sir, our Government and civil service need to transform its administrative role to one of being entrepreneurial. Second, in the new economy, as we compete with the best in the world, public policy making and decisions need to be made at very fast speed, which I call Internet speed. And I believe from certain research that I have done, one Internet year is equivalent to seven physical years in terms of how fast things change. This means that we must be able to move seven times faster than how we had moved in the old economy.”
“IT has also increased the productivity of workers, and it is going to reduce uncertainties, create visibility and transparencies and break any barriers that governments may try to erect to protect their economies. So the question is: are our infrastructure and hardware going to make the same difference in this new economy as they did in the past? My contention is that it will not and we will have to create new competencies and use of IT will continue to play the role we played in the old economy, but we know that the physical and geographical advantages are not going to be the differentiating factors anymore. Neither will we have the luxury of just importing and transplanting proven technologies and competencies from other more advanced countries into Singapore as we did in the past. Every one of our competitors will be able to do the same or even better than us. Our role therefore has to be one of an innovator and leader, capable of being in the leading edge of things, and be a choice place where business will be done efficiently. Sir, the recent Cable and Wireless HKT and SingTel episode should be a lesson that we should learn. It basically says that we are not yet ready to participate in a very fast moving new economy. The paper wealth and the speed at which Pacific Century Cyberworks group moves are good examples of how things are going to be done in the future. The worry I have is that this is just a signal and an indication of things to come if we do not change fast. The fact is that Singapore started talking about and planning for a knowledge-based economy about two years ago and many other Asian countries, including Hong Kong, started this journey later than us.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate. Sir, many of us were anxiously waiting for this year's Budget which we anticipated as a growth budget and one that was going to give a strong signal that Singapore is indeed serious about participating in a global knowledge-based economy which is now at our doorsteps. We are now in a completely different era where competition is not in Singapore, nor is it in the region, but it is now throughout the world. Whether we like it or not, we have to participate and fight to win if we want to ensure our survival. The good news is that we have a level playing field and have as good an opportunity as any other world-best countries and economies to be successful. The bad news is that the competition is going to come to our doorsteps and it will be here whether we like it or not and our old ways of doing business is not going to work in this future. All of us will have to make major mindset changes, including how we formulate the country's budget. Sir, today I will be touching a bit on the strategies that we should consider in planning our economy and I will give my detailed suggestions during the Committee of Supply's discussions. First of all, I would like to talk about Singapore's role in this global world and the lessons that we must learn from others. Singapore is fortunate to have a strategic geographical position and through this we have developed ourselves as a hub for various activities like trade, logistics and travel and as a language hub linking Asia to the rest of the world, which were all very important in the `old economy'. In the new economy, information technology will create tremendous efficiencies in the way goods and services are produced and distributed.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, while we wait for the reply from the Malaysian Minister for Finance, can we at the same time set certain deadline for ourselves as to what we would do next in case we do not have a satisfactory response? I think the investors have waited quite a long time and they are dragging their feet on this issue for too long. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, we are pursuing this matter. I do not know whether it would be helpful for us to conduct our negotiations in effect in public, which is what we will do if I oblige Mr Inderjit Singh, but we are pursuing it urgently.”
“The ability to adapt and change policies fast will be the necessary ingredients to be successful in a knowledge-based economy. Fourthly, and finally, I notice that we have a self-fulfilling system where a safe approach is taken by many of our Government agencies and also by some of our private entities like the press. For example, I have seen problems faced by many new start-up companies in getting support from the various agencies. Every one of them is waiting for someone else to make an endorsement for such a company. I can understand that such agencies do not want to be associated with picking the wrong company, but I feel that some of them are just too conservative and are not bold enough to take the initiative to show support for companies without a track record. More often than not, most of these Singapore agencies are late in recognising such companies, doing so only after some foreign agency or company has recognised the value of such companies. This self-fulfilling system of just picking winners has to change if we are serious about being a key player in the knowledge-based economy. Sir, I would like to conclude by saying that while I am encouraged by the broad focus of the Government on the people sector, I however feel that we have not done enough to define how we are going to achieve success in these areas. The areas identified do not go deep enough to address the emotional aspects of nation building. It is a difficult task, but we must make our first step now. Sir, I support the motion. 1.46 pm”
“Such companies are also capable of changing the way business is done around the world. My point is that by the current method of selection, none of the 100 PLEs selected will include Internet or start-up companies of such nature. The second problem is that while EDB has been given the task in nurturing the 100 PLEs into world-class companies, it is the NSTB that is given the task of promoting technopreneurship and supporting start-ups. What we really need is one body focusing on local start-ups who will be able to follow the growth of such companies until they become global players. Having seen how things work in the Government agencies, I am not confident that we will be able to identify the right companies to nurture to become world-class. Thirdly, we have a problem of heavy dependence on Government and in the bureaucracy in our Government agencies, making them too slow to react to changes and hence becoming too slow in making the necessary changes needed to participate in the knowledge-based economy. Sir, global players do things differently and if we look at two distinct examples of governance, my point is quite obvious if we compare the Japanese system of a strong bureaucracy to that of the American system of transparency and the private sector driven initiatives. Looking at the performance of the Japanese and the American economies, I think it is obvious which system will work if we really want to become global players. My contention is that we need a group of people in the Government agencies who are more than experts in Government policies. They must also be knowledgeable in the workings of the knowledge-based economy and they must be willing to change things on the fly as opposed to our current slow pace of changes.”
“While we aim to give every child ten years of primary and secondary school education, I hope we will make these 10 years the same for every child and if we have to stream them, I call on the Government to at least mix them up in the same class so that each child will learn that not everyone is the same and that a good team is made up of people of different talents and abilities. We must learn to give up a little efficiency in our system to allow for the blending of hearts and to let our children learn from other's aspirations. This is the only way we can teach each Singaporean to be a little cosmopolitan and a little heartlander. Let us not allow our system of education create a bipolar society of cosmopolitans and heartlanders that will be destructive for nation-building. Sir, it is indeed heartening to see a focused effort to help nurture Singaporean companies to become world-class companies. However, I see some fundamental structural problems in our system and without changing these, I am not sure we will be able to achieve the target of transforming 100 of our local companies into world-class ones. The first problem I see is the way we select the Promising Local Enterprises (PLEs). As I understand it, companies only make it to the PLE status after a number of years of track record, focusing on revenue and profit growth. Similarly, there are a number of other traditional criteria like the number of people, the number of years, physical assets and so on used to select such PLEs. In my opinion, the current criteria used are outdated and archaic especially in the emerging Internet economy that spans across physical boundaries. Sir, companies with market capitalisation bigger than Singapore's GDP are those of the Internet and Information Technology economies.”
“Sir, another system that is quite destructive, especially for the self-esteem of people, is the education system and how we stream our children at such an early age. I am glad to note that in his Address, the President mentioned that changes will be made in the education system to prepare the next generation of Singaporeans for the knowledge-based economy. We have to recognise that the KBE will require people of various talents getting together to improve our competitive edge. In my opinion, everyone can participate in the KBE. The new Internet economy will require not only academic abilities but also creativity, passion, knowledge of the psyche of people and communities. As such, we must recognise that every child will have a talent that we will need and collectively, we will be able to compete in the world arena. To enable such an environment, we have to either do away with the early streaming of children by ability levels based on academic excellence or to modify the system to ensure that we allow our children to interact with each other, no matter how well they score in examinations. The streaming at Primary 4, while well-intentioned, has, in my opinion, been negative in developing, recognising and rewarding children of differing talents. While we pursue to achieve excellence as a nation, we have to recognise that in the future, people whom we classify as the slower track learners and achievers may make a bigger difference on how Singapore will compete as a first world economy.”
“They are assigned mentors and have a helping hand guiding them so that their chances of making mistakes are reduced. On the other hand, those who do not have such a good track record in academic excellence are immediately assigned a ceiling and limits are drawn too early on how far they are assessed to be able to go in their career. This is especially prevalent in our uniformed services liked the Armed Forces and the Police Force where there is a clear distinction drawn between the career path of scholars and those of non-scholars, and the non-scholars call themselves peasants or farmers because they think they are in the lowest rung of society in the Armed Forces or the Police Force. It is self destructive for people who are told that they are not good enough to make it. Worse still, by virtue of how they are assigned their CEP ranking, they are told immediately that they are not good enough to make it to the top. Logic tells us that the best soldiers need not be those with good academic results. I am not criticising our current leaders or civil servants, most of whom came through the same path. In fact, I feel many of them are sharp and bright, but I feel collectively the team is not good enough to steer us through the future where the challenges of a knowledge-based economy need people of various talents, abilities and experiences to be successful as a country. Currently, we have too many people of the same mould in the key decision making positions. I feel that we need to change the system of selection and promotion in Government to give more people opportunities and recognise that people of many backgrounds and talents can do better jobs than those of the same background and that non-academic measures are equally important as those of academic measures.”
“Sir, during the economic crisis in the past two years, we did see some signs of the strain where racial discrimination in employment and the issue of SAP schools were raised. I feel that these are two signals that we still have a long way to go to build emotional bonds necessary to establish a true Singapore Tribe. While the direction set by the President does focus on people, nothing has been mentioned on how we can strengthen the common elements of the various races and how we can increase these common areas over time. I too believe that we can create a Singapore Tribe, not by legislation alone. Sir, I would like next to focus on how we can successfully participate in a knowledge-based economy. The President mentioned about the need for every Singaporean to benefit from the knowledge-based economy that is coming our way. I would like to address two areas which I feel are of utmost importance for us to succeed in this area. Firstly, our system of education and selection of leaders; and secondly, on how our Government agencies need to change with time for us to establish world-class companies. Sir, our system of selection based on academic excellence is in danger of creating an elitist and a class system. Slowly but surely, an old boys network may develop and who now hold positions in Government, in the statutory boards and in Government linked companies. As I understand it, our system selects people at a very early stage, based mainly on their educational attainment which was a result of doing well in examinations. While the CEP (Current Estimated Potential) is a good system to classify the potential of people in their careers, I feel we have failed in its implementation. Scholars are placed in an accelerated path that is lined with gold.”
“When the Prime Minister first talked about the Singapore Tribe, many people doubted such a tribe will ever evolve using history as a reason. In fact, I was a little disappointed at the tone of caution against the unrealistic expectations of the S21 vision which took us more than one year to formulate. Today, again I am a bit disappointed that no commitment has been made by the Government in further defining the structure and plans for a Singapore Tribe that is so essential in strengthening the thread that binds the various races together. No matter how difficult the task seems, we must start today. There are no concrete plans to maximise the overlapping areas of the various races, as the Prime Minister has raised the issue, and in the eventual blending of these common areas so that Singaporeans of the future will see less of a difference among each other in these areas while maintaining their distinctiveness in areas like religion and cultures that are quite impossible to blend. While I see many more years of strong Government with great policies that make racial and religious harmony a reality in Singapore, I do not want to leave the true emotional bonding to chance because I feel complacency will set in among all of us when a certain policy or approach seems to work in good times. Firstly, complacency in Government could happen because policies and legislation are easy to define and implement while working on the more different aspects of nation-building like building emotional bonds takes time and cannot show results quickly. Secondly, the population taking cue from Government policies that a superficial bond and dependence on legislation is sufficient and hence no additional effort has to be put in to bond the softer aspect of relationship building.”
“First, possibly because people remained at peace because of government policies which compelled them to maintain racial harmony without actually focusing on the gelling of hearts or emotions. Second, because of the undue advantage one race may have had over another and when everyone had to fight for survival, tribe instincts prevailed, and thirdly, because of the deep rooted mistrust that was never addressed because tough policies to ensure racial harmony worked and complacency in government had set in and there was a lack of focus on enhancing emotional bonds. Of course, the second example closer to home happened in Indonesia recently, and similarly where racial harmony seemingly existed for slightly over 30 years, again under a strong government. Once again, when the strong government collapsed, so did the weak thread that bound the various races together. Sir, I would like to question whether the same tragedy will face us should Singapore one day see a weak government in office. While I have full confidence that the PAP is committed to promote and improve racial and religious harmony, I worry that approach has been more skewed towards the use of policies and legislation as the main means of achieving these. While this must be the first right step, I feel that we have not focused, as we rightly should, on building of emotional bonds and in strengthening the heartware of Singaporeans. Sir, we have been touting the experience of hardships and the real example of racial riots that happened right in our doorsteps as reasons for caution against complacency and for the tough policies that we have in place. I feel that this approach is increasingly becoming less effective in driving home the intended message.”
“While it was very easy to measure the result of our economic policies and physical and infrastructure development policies in terms of economic measures like the GDP, purchasing power, ownership of physical goods like telephones, televisions and others and of physical development measures like the number of people owning houses, the educational attainment of Singaporeans and others, I am sure even our well-qualified leaders of today are scratching their heads as to how we can measure the success of our attainment towards the Singapore Tribe which Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong hopes to develop for Singapore over the long-term. Sir, we have set the motion and are starting to gain momentum towards setting up the Singapore Tribe and in my opinion, this debate is the third major milestone towards this journey, the first being when Prime Minister Goh in 1997 made a call for a vision focusing on heartware. The second milestone was the S21 debate in Parliament this year and now this is the third milestone, our debate on the Presidential Address. Sir, Singapore is one example of a success story of early nation-building of a multi-racial, multi-religious and multi-ethnic society where everyone, no matter what race or background, has equal opportunity to participate and succeed and contribute. However, we must be willing to question whether this will remain the same or further improve in the next one or two generations of Singaporeans. Sadly, the odds are against us as evidenced by the problems seen in similar countries around the world and Yugoslavia comes first to our mind. A strong government kept Yugoslavia together, but only after 45 years, the tragedy happened in that country and I suggest three possible reasons why this happened.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate. I support the motion in the name of Mr Davinder Singh. It is indeed heartening to note that people will be the focus of the Government's policy in the next millennium. Having participated in the parliamentary process for the last three years, I see this Address by the President as the most significant signal by the Government in valuing people as the most important resource of the country and I feel most excited about this major focus on people as the centre and the heart of the Government's policy. Rightfully, the governments of the past, since the independence of our country, have consistently focused on economic development, sharpening our competitive edge as a country and on material and tangible things, and while the past 34 years have been extremely challenging to bring Singapore to where it is today, I feel that the shift from economic and physical developments to human resource and emotional developments will be far more challenging and will require even stronger commitment and emotional involvement of all leaders who must be prepared to look beyond short-term results and have the ability to feel the pulse of the people in a completely different way than our leaders have been used to in the past.”
“Can I suggest that we take a bolder step by amending this section to read as follows: "Bankrupts should be allowed to act as company directors unless the Official Assignee disagrees." In this approach, such bankrupts would automatically be allowed to do all the things that we have mentioned without getting permission, but if someone wants to object, then the Official Assignee can come in and take action based on that objection. This would give a more positive outlook to our legislation. One last comment I have is on section 254(2)(a) where the debt threshold for filing bankruptcy has been raised from $2,000 to $10,000. While the increase looks big and is welcomed, I feel that many high-tech start-ups can be very much more expensive than the $10,000 and this $10,000 limit may not be helpful if such ventures fail. Here again, having a two-tier bankruptcy rule where perhaps, we set a much higher limit for high-tech start-ups and for ventures that require a lot more capital to be accorded a different limit. In conclusion, I would like to add that the changes proposed in this Bill reflect the desire of the Government to promote a conducive environment for technopreneurs and will give a good signal of the type of changes we need to make for T21 to be successful. I hope that this will not be the end of the changes we are willing to make to this Bill and I hope that the Minister of State will be willing to be more aggressive and consider some of the recommendations I have made in reviewing the Bill again in the near future. Sir, I support the Bill.”
“Sir, since the Ministry does have the intent to institute a differential treatment for the two categories, I would like to suggest that the Ministry study the proposal of institutionalising a two-tier bankruptcy ruling where those who became bankrupts by virtue of true business failure, without the intent of malice or mismanagement, be allowed an easier option to be discharged. This will achieve two objectives in my opinion. First, it will encourage more people to embark on high-risk technological start-ups and, second, it will allow people who failed to become more productive and to try again at a much faster pace than the current legislation allows. As an example, in the Silicon Valley in the USA, once a person who has become a bankrupt proves that he has no other assets that can be used to distribute to his creditors, automatic discharge is possible. This of course is an ideal approach. This has made Silicon Valley in the USA a vibrant place for many new start-ups because technopreneurs do not have to wait too long before starting up new ventures again. In my opinion, such a change will definitely shift mindsets among Singaporeans towards being more entrepreneurial. By amending section 148 of the Companies Act, we effectively allow bankrupts to be economically productive. This is an excellent move because I feel that this allows many talented people to contribute their knowledge and experience and perhaps even establish successful ventures in the process. It is a waste of our valuable resources by not allowing them to do business or to act as company directors or to manage companies. The new arrangement of empowering the Official Assignee will definitely make it easier for them to become economically active faster.”
“By empowering the Official Assignee to issue the Certificate of Annulment, or discharge, the process will be much faster, saving both time and cost. Sir, these changes are big steps that show the Government's willingness to help those who have failed to get back to their normal mode of living by removing some major obstacles. However, I would like to ask the Minister of State to clarify whether the Official Assignee will be able to issue such Certificate of Annulment within the minimum three years, as stipulated in the Bill, or will the bankrupt still have to wait for this time period to be up before being eligible for discharge by a Certificate, especially in the case where the bankrupt has already paid up all the debts that he owes to the creditors. This brings me to the next amendment in section 125. I am glad that the minimum period of bankruptcy before a Certificate of Discharge can be issued has been reduced from five years to three years. Can I, however, ask the Minister of State whether he will consider reducing this period to less than three years? At this juncture, in fact, I would like to suggest that we define in our legislation two categories of bankruptcy. One that occurs as a result of failure of business venture especially those of high-tech in nature and, the second, as a result of malpractice and mismanagement. Our current "one size fits all" ruling treats all failures equally and this, in my opinion, will discourage many technopreneurs.”
“While I strongly support the Minister of State's intent to give differential treatment for persons who get into financial problems due to normal business risks versus those who do so as a result of mismanagement and malpractice, the Bill however does not attempt to clearly differentiate the two circumstances and it leaves entirely to the judgement of the Official Assignee. I would like to suggest that the Minister of State consider stating these clearly in the Bill. I believe that business failure need not result in bankruptcy and therefore we should encourage and strengthen the use of informal debt settlement as an alternative and therefore mediation should be made a prerequisite before any bankruptcy proceedings go to the courts. I hope that the requirement of mediation before going to the courts can be formalised in the Bill. This will be a cheaper process and, in my opinion, will give the creditors a better chance to recover their money. I hope the Minister of State will institutionalise pre-bankruptcy mediation in the Bill. This will save many people from the unpleasant experience of becoming bankrupt, a stigma that will last a life time. Sir, sections 95 and 95A attempt to streamline the process of discharge from bankruptcy. By allowing a bankrupt to make an offer of composition or propose a scheme of arrangement without calling a general meeting of creditors will make the whole process less cumbersome. By allowing the Official Assignee to administratively discharge a bankrupt through a certificate after this arrangement is passed by a special resolution means that there is no need to bring the process to the court. Similarly, the new section 123A does not require a person to go back to the courts to be discharged from bankruptcy if he has paid his debts.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill. First of all, I would like to say that I am encouraged that the Minister of State has taken some bold steps in amending this Bill and I am confident that this will be a good signal to Singaporeans and those who plan to become entrepreneurs that we are indeed moving towards an environment where we wish to foster greater tolerance for failure. Sir, many start-ups, especially high-tech ones, are typically risky in nature and not all ideas can develop into successful business opportunities. However, if some of these ideas do become good business ventures, the gains can be tremendous, as evidenced by the many Internet start-ups which have achieved impressive market capitalisation around the world. In cases where a venture fails, the entrepreneur and the investors could suffer substantial losses and our current legislation, especially the bankruptcy law, can be very unforgiving and intolerant to those who dared to take the step towards entrepreneurship and technopreneurship. So I am hopeful that the changes proposed will encourage greater risk-taking among Singaporeans, a trait we lack currently. Sir, in today's context, being a bankrupt is a very big stigma and leaves a permanent scar in their lives. Such people are treated badly by society and not many, especially institutions like banks and Government agencies, will be willing to give them a second chance to try again.”
“Sir, while I accept all the explanations that the Minister for Finance has given on the technical issues that were raised by the President, I think one issue that still remains to be answered is that of the mindset changes that the President talked about, ie, the attitudes of the civil servants and some of the Ministers that he had encountered during his term in office. Does the Prime Minister intend to address these issues of attitude among the civil servants?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether the Government has been inconsistent when they supported President Ong Teng Cheong's attempt at the Presidential office six years ago knowing that he already had a similar medical condition and now, given that the condition has not changed, it is not supporting his bid for a second term.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, having worked in a multi-national environment, I do know that some MNCs have concerns about setting up unions in Singapore. Part of the reason is that they operate in many countries and it may weaken their position. That is why they refuse to set up unions in some of these countries. I believe that some of these feedback have been given to the Economic Development Board.”
“It will be made into case studies. Therefore, we are trying our best to make sure that it becomes as much of a success as possible.”
“Sir, I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister that having learnt a lesson of the problems that we face in Suzhou with the Chinese officials, are we applying this lesson learnt in the other deals that we have in the other industrial parks? Are we facing any problems in the other parks that we have in China, for example, the Wuxi industrial park? BG Lee Hsien Loong: I am not aware of the details of the Wuxi industrial Park. There is no G-to-G element in that. That is purely a commercial proposition. It is much less ambitious. They are not talking about 70 sq km with 8 sq km in phase I. They are going one sq km by one sq km, advancing as the project develops. From my not very up-to-date knowledge, I believe that they are also having some difficulties, not because of the Chinese partners but because investments into China generally are down this year and therefore they are finding it difficult to get tenants. But certainly, from the lessons from SIP, we would have to do a full post mortem and derive the full benefits from them. And it is not just us who will do the post mortem but I am sure Harvard Business School will take a very close interest and so will the Europeans, Insead, and the others. And they will write it up because here was a very important project, given very high level support from both sides, including the Chinese side. It is not a laughing matter, when the President of the People's Republic of China goes and provides calligraphy for a park. And yet, there were these difficulties which finally could not be properly overcome and we have had to re-adjust our project in order to accept these limitations. It will be very carefully scrutinised and the lessons documented so that everybody who goes to China will have it available.”
“It seems that from this incident, Singaporeans are being singled out and treated differently from other investors in other countries. I have two questions. Firstly, are there any other investments other than the Clob shares that have been affected by the controls that the Malaysian government has placed specifically for Singaporeans? For example, I recall that we have some ringgit holdings. What has happened to them? Secondly, is there any message from the Government to Singaporeans regarding investing in the Malaysian market in the future? Even if he invests directly in the KLSE today, will he be treated differently again in the future? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, other investments in Malaysia would of course be affected by the capital controls, in terms of movements of float funds and withdrawal of funds. As for the ringgit holdings, I do not have the latest position. But I understand that they have been converted into commercial deposits and have gradually been withdrawn over a period of time in a way which has not caused a disturbance in the market, and which the Malaysian authorities were aware of. As to whether other investments in Malaysia now will be affected by future uncertainties, I am in no position to answer that question. INTERNET (Blocking access to web-sites of satanic cults) 3. Dr Lily Neo asked the Minister for Information and the Arts if his Ministry will consider blocking access to the web-sites of satanic cults on the Internet because they pose enormous potential harm to our young and the unwitting public.”
“I am hopeful that the Ministry of Education will look into these issues when they implement the "mass customisation" approach to our education system, which the Minister for Education spoke about during the Budget debate this year. In conclusion, I would like to add that we have set the stage for changes in the way Singapore should be governed in the future. Many recommendations we have made will require mindset changes among all sectors of society. We must ensure that every one feels they have a useful role to play in the development of Singapore and that they are valued as individuals and as a community. While our past approaches of nation-building have worked, the same approaches cannot ensure continued success in the future. Ultimately, we must all adopt a sense of responsibility and ownership to want to make a difference and the key ingredient that will make this work is the trust that the people, public and the private sectors have in each other. I am confident that we will make the necessary changes because I see a determined PAP leadership who wants to make these changes and who is sincere in sharing this vision that we have defined as a nation. I am grateful for being given an opportunity to be involved in the S21 process and in helping to define the S21 Vision. I believe that the people are wholeheartedly behind this Vision. The 6,000 or so people we consulted, each represents many more Singaporeans because we consulted leaders from various sectors of society, and together, I strongly believe we have reached out to a significant proportion of Singaporeans in arriving at our Vision. Sir, I support the motion.”
“Girls in the normal stream were vocal, rowdy but have little self-esteem. However, we want to say it is not true that the practice of streaming and its effect of slapping labels onto students does draw invisible lines that shape our self-confidence or the lack of it." As we segregate our children in the various streams, they miss out on the opportunity to learn from one another. Putting all the slow learners together is a self-defeating approach. Let me quote from the article again: "As far as I know, there is not much interaction among the different streams. It is almost an "us against them" sort of mentality sometimes." Hopefully, allowing the students to work together will let them understand that they are alike in many ways. And this was after this writer made a recommendation that they should be spending a lot more time together rather than separate from one another. I would also like to highlight that coming from a person who went through the system, and who went through the better part of the system and feels this way about it, speaks volumes about the need to change. Let me quote the writer again: "But the weeding out procedure of our education system which may be the most efficient is not entirely perfect since it is difficult to measure the potential of an individual. Slow starters or those who do not qualify as gifted in Primary 3 or 6 miss a precious opportunity." This is the reality of our education system and of how all of us, the schools, the parents and society are treating those who are not academically well-off and late developers. We have to change if we are serious about the notion of "Every Singaporean matters".”
“He even contemplated suicide at one stage of his life. Because of his frustration, he felt that he had no place in the system in Singapore. However, fortunately, he self-motivated himself and wanted to prove to everyone that he is not a failure, and that the system was wrong in classifying him as one. Today, he holds a Masters degree and he is doing well in life. He is still bitter with the education system and fears for his children if they have to go through what he went through. In another incident, during one of my meet-the-people sessions, the parents of a 9-year old boy came to see me and they sought my help to appeal for their son to be transferred from EM3 to EM2 stream, and pleaded with me that if their son remained in the EM3 stream, his life would be destroyed forever. And they made this comment in front of the child. Our system is not forgiving and every one is responsible for this, including our educators, parents and society. The issue of self-esteem is also a serious one and I have seen this in the faces of those who came from the lower streams. I would like to refer the House to an article which appeared in the Straits Times on 12 July 1998 regarding the Gifted Programme. It reads, "Being Gifted is fine, but what if you are Normal." This article was written by a 20-year old undergraduate who was selected for the Gifted Programme in 1998. Let me quote from the article to illustrate my point on our education system: "Recently, a friend of mine who taught both the GEP [which is a gifted programme] and the non-GEP students as a relief teacher told me she thought that they were quite different when it came to self-esteem. The GEP students were much more self-assured and spoke up more often in class.”
“Many Members have spoken about the competitive and stressful education system. That, I must agree, has served us well in the past. Our system of education, however, needs to be fine-tuned to remove those elements that are not tolerant to failures and are not forgiving to those who are late developers. I am referring to the early streaming in our schools and the subsequent streaming throughout the system which I feel will result in a class society in Singapore in the long-term, if we are not careful. While the intent of streaming was to segregate students into various capability levels and let each group develop at its own pace, I feel that in implementing, the educators, the parents and the society have created a system where emphasis is placed on making the good better, and with the best resources being used so that they will continue to improve and score well and the school's performance will improve. We treat those who are streamed into EM3 and into the Normal (Technical) stream as failures too early in the lives of our children. In my opinion, we have yet to see this class society developing in Singapore because this will only happen when the children who went through this system become parents and have children of their own. And I see real danger of this happening in the future if we do not put in efforts to change the system that we have. I would like to share with the House two real examples that I came across. One was during the focus group discussion that I had with one of the minority groups. A young man aged mid-30s, told me that he was streamed into EM3, and then into Normal (Technical) stream and he later went to ITE. He told me that he felt very frustrated that he was treated as a failure and as an outcast and he felt very angry with the system.”
“Sir, I feel that when I grew up, there was much more inter-racial interaction and we did not highlight the differences among the various races and therefore our inter-racial bonding was strengthened. Today, our children are growing up with a greater awareness of the differences because of the way we organise, either in schools, for example, in SAP schools or in certain schools where students studying the same mother tongue are put in the same class, or through the various self-help groups. Our subject committee has suggested that we promote more inter-racial interaction by having an umbrella body for all self-help groups, so that the various races can contribute towards each other's efforts. We all need to think and see ourselves as Singaporeans first. The fourth issue that came out is the practice of meritocracy. One unintended impact of our practice of meritocracy, which I must admit, is a transparent system and applies equally to all races. It is because the members of the minority races, the Malays, Indians and Eurasians, do not perform as well as the Chinese in the academic measures of examinations, they end up not being selected as scholars or to key positions in Government, because of the way we practise meritocracy by academic excellence alone. While the long-term solution has been correctly identified as one of uplifting the academic performances of the minority races, which the self-help groups are trying to do, I believe if we can change the way we measure success and practise meritocracy to include non-academic measures, this unintended effect can be easily resolved. The next issue that I want to discuss, and this affects not only the minority communities, was brought up during our other focus group discussions, and that is our education system.”
“If this trend continues, we may see an erosion of the values that we have put in place for a multi-racial society and this needs to be addressed. The second issue that came out during the discussion with the minority communities was the SAP school that has been much debated before. The issue is not that the minority communities do not support the concept of SAP school. But the worry is that the future leaders of our country would have gone through a system of education without having much interaction with people of the non-Chinese race. These same people would then be responsible for making policies that affect other races. How can they be conversant of the sensitivities of each of the minority races if they never had a real experience of mixing with them? The issue is not whether SAP schools are necessary. But with SAP schools present, how can we resolve this issue of not being aware and hence potentially making mistakes affecting sensitive racial issues in the future? Our subject committee recommends that the twinning of SAP and non-SAP schools be done as a solution. Perhaps, all ECAs should be done at a twinning level if we want to ensure true interaction. Substantial interaction needs to happen throughout the year if we want to make a real difference. Doing it once or twice a year during multi-racial day is not enough. Sir, the third issue that came up was the effect of the ethnic based self-help groups. Whilst the objectives are good, they have resulted in less help across ethnic and racial lines. In fact, the current practice creates a real danger of the various races being alienated from one another.”
“I had a total of three such discussions and I would like to share the findings with this House. And I also feel that we need to discuss these openly and address them if we truly want to achieve excellence in the area of racial harmony. While legislation has been used as one tool to ensure racial harmony in Singapore, I feel that we need to go beyond rules and regulations to ensure that all races interact and live happily with each other so that our fundamentals of a multi-racial and multi-religious society will continue to exist for a long time to come. Sir, from the minorities' point of view, there are a number of issues. First of all, awareness and sensitivity. If each one of us does not make a special effort to know the sensitivities and peculiarities of each other's way of life, the danger is that we may end up offending others without realising that we have done so. In this respect, there is fear among the minority communities that I spoke to that this lack of awareness is starting to emerge in our society. For example, one issue raised is that while most members of the minority communities understood the need of the Speak Mandarin Campaign, some felt that it is inappropriate for the members of the Chinese community to break into speaking Mandarin when people of other races who do not understand Mandarin are present in group discussions or in a meeting. Many have felt offended, but are not expressing this concern openly. Similarly, not knowing that Muslim's food preference has to be halal could result in a big problem. Sir, a parliamentary colleague of mine thought that I am Tamil speaking. I did not feel offended, but rather amused at the lack of awareness and understanding of who I am after so many years of multi-racial society.”
“A true leader possesses many qualities consisting of both IQ and EQ factors and I feel that it is about time we modified our practice of meritocracy to include the new EQ measures, which I can agree, are difficult to measure. But this needs to be done. Our current scholar system which was set in place many years ago needs to change so that we will be able to select leaders of diverse backgrounds and not those of the same mould to lead the country. We have to move away from stereotype role models and include both non-scholars as well as those who have talents other than being able to score well in examinations as examples of successful Singaporeans whom we value. Sir, every Singaporean has a role to play and as long as everyone tries to achieve his or her full potential, we should be proud of them. Not everyone will make it to the top, neither can such a society exist because we need people at all levels of society for a country to function. We therefore should respect and give equal opportunities to everyone no matter what they do for a living. It is about time that we practised meritocracy with a heart, appreciating and recognising that every Singaporean is important and must feel as such. Sir, the third issue that I would like to talk about is one of racial harmony and the Prime Minister has touched about this earlier on. I would like to share with the House some of the issues that came about as we went through our process of getting feedback from the various focus groups. In the early stages of our discussion, I sensed a more in-depth study was needed on this issue, especially from the perspectives of the minority communities. I therefore decided to conduct further focus group discussions with the minority communities.”
“Our committee, however, felt that the participation rate of Singaporeans in such organisations and in performing community service is far too low. In fact, a survey that was conducted by the S21 Committee also showed this. More encouragement and latitude should be given to people wanting to organise themselves in community service activities. We hope to see more community activities and civic organisations through bottom-up initiatives with people with a common interest getting together spontaneously, rather than being asked to do so. These will complement the many existing organisations that we already have. These organisations should not be Government-driven and the people sector must take the responsibility for forming such organisations to improve the lives of Singaporeans. Secondly, everyone is important and we must broaden the definition of meritocracy and success. Sir, the practice of meritocracy has served us well in the past. It has enabled the best and the brightest to rise through the system, irregardless of race, family backdrop or gender. However, the system may no longer work as we move towards a different type of environment where being academically smart alone is not enough. Sir, for us to succeed in the future, we feel that the current definition of meritocracy is too narrow, focusing only on academic and economic excellence. This definition and the practice of meritocracy and the way we define success along the same lines does not allow every Singaporean to develop to his or her full potential. If we look back in history, the best leaders in the world are not all scholars. On the contrary, many did not have straight `As' or impressive paper qualification.”
“Sir, in developing the goal of the Singapore Heartbeat with the vision of Singapore as a Home, our committee focused on how we could strengthen the emotional rootednesss of Singaporeans and we realised that there are many factors involved in creating the sense of belonging. The best home must provide the best hope for its people. There must be confidence and not fear of the future. Singapore should offer a good quality of life, not just for those who we traditionally classify as being successful, but also to all citizens. No matter what one's race, religion or background is, there must be harmony, unity of purpose and a transcending sense of national identity. These common attitudes and attributes will uniquely identify the Singaporean community of the future. People of all races must make special efforts to learn of the beliefs and peculiarities of each other's practices and ways of life. They must make it a personal responsibility to be aware of the sensitivities and to promote a spirit of tolerance and understanding. Sir, in this respect, I would like to touch on a few of the recommendations that our subject committee made. Firstly, on encouraging the community spirit to blossom through more bottom-up initiatives. Sir, we have many grassroots organisations, the main ones being Government or PA-driven. They have been very successful in serving the needs of citizens, particularly those living in the HDB estates, through organisations like the Residents' Committees. The Community Development Councils are also starting to be very effective in promoting community bonding. There are also many other non-Government linked volunteer organisations like the Lions Club, the Buddhist Lodge and many others who have played a very important role in promoting community bonding.”
“Sir, I therefore feel that this sense of ownership and being a stakeholder is the most important prerequisite if we are serious about realising the Singapore 21 Vision. We, as citizens, must have a buy-in to the vision. This does not belong just to the Government, not to the public sector alone, but to all of us. If we cannot achieve this sense of ownership, then I am afraid we will fail in developing this notion of Singapore as our Best Home and we will not get closer to realising our vision. Sir, our subject committee, very early in the process, identified the concept of emotional rootedness, as Dr Lee Tsao Yuan mentioned earlier on, as being the most important approach of developing the type of attachment that we want for Singaporeans. Physical rootedness of being physically present in Singapore alone is not enough. No matter where one's physical location is, one's sense of belonging, emotional attachment and loyalty should be to Singapore. Emotional rootedness refers to the degree of psychological commitment to the country. A high degree of emotional rootedness suggests a passionate and intense sense of belonging, commitment and loyalty to the country. As Singapore globalises, a larger proportion of our talented people who are highly mobile will grow. The danger is that their physical absence from Singapore might reduce the emotional commitment to the country and may result in a higher rate of emigration. The solution therefore is to encourage a high degree of emotional rootedness so that Singapore will always have a special place in one's heart, as a home. It is only then that we can achieve the Singapore heartbeat that we have talked about.”
“This is because new issues have to be addressed if we really want to make Singapore the best home for everyone. Our past system of relying on a few good men alone will not work well. We will need many more minds to come together to offer solutions. Our formula of over dependence on the Government was acceptable in the past because both the Government and the people were comfortable with this arrangement. Today, both the people and the Government need to accept that their roles will have to change and both must find a happy balance of the formula that will work in the future. Major mindset changes need to take place first. The Government needs to let go while Singaporeans need to take more interest to do more. This must be a joint responsibility of the public, private and the people sectors. Sir, my subject committee studied the issue of "Singapore as a Home" thoroughly and the reason is, as Singaporeans internationalise, there will be increasing pressures on them to make choices as to where they would live, work and raise their families. We felt that if we wanted Singaporeans to call Singapore their home, a number of conditions in our country must prevail first. The most important of these is that each Singaporean must feel that he or she has a stake in the country and as a stakeholder, there must be a sense of ownership of what goes on here. For this sense of ownership to prevail, everyone must participate in the running of the country. If every Singaporean makes it his or her responsibility to contribute constructive ideas and solutions and be willing to be accountable for the outcome, then I believe we will be successful in bringing Singapore to a higher level of progress in the future.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate on the motion on the Singapore 21 Vision. Sir, I support the motion and feel fortunate that I have been involved in the S21 process for the last 18 months. Our last 30 years of nation building has been largely successful because of the style of governance we have had during those years, where the Government played a dominant role and many decisions being top down driven. The style of governance was necessary because of the political and social environment of those times. Looking ahead, the governance of Singapore is going to be much more complex than before because of a number of reasons. Firstly, we are heading towards a knowledge based economy but the complexity is not because of the content of such an economy, but rather how we must be organised to participate in it. Second, the world is becoming increasingly borderless and many of our people will be able to choose to live and work in most of the appealing parts of the world. Similarly, many foreigners will be living and working in Singapore, thus influencing the behaviour of Singaporeans. Third, our people are more educated today, well travelled and more exposed to the cultures, values and systems of other worlds. They will be able to and will want to play an increasingly important role in how the country is run. Fourth, as we progress, the needs of people become more sophisticated and as we clearly know, basic needs like food, shelter and job having been fulfilled will give way to higher level needs like self-esteem, individual rights and spirituality. Sir, managing the affairs of the country in the future will therefore become a more difficult job because the focus of governance will become much wider compared to the last 30 years.”
“I urge the Minister to consider this modification to what the Committee has proposed because I feel that we will better achieve the objectives established by the committee. If it goes by what they have proposed now, I do not think they will achieve their desired objectives.”
“While I support the reduction of academic measures to 65% of the total score in determining admission to the university, I feel that replacing the remainder with 25% of a reasoning test like the SAT examination has merely resulted in shifting of an academic or examination measure from landmark examination to a new type of examination. Sir, what is going to happen is that students will now spend a lot of time and money preparing for SAT examination and the net effect may be negative, especially since many will try to do the rote learning approach as they do for current examinations. In fact this is already happening now, if you look at the Straits Times report in today's papers. The Secondary Four students are rushing to purchase SAT assessment books and enrolling themselves in classes to prepare for SAT. So we have just shifted the problem from one type of examination to another. While I can agree to a reasoning type of examination, I feel that the overall contribution to the admission criteria should be much smaller than the 25% suggested. I would like to suggest the following: (1) Reduce the reasoning test contribution to a maximum of 10% of the total score. In this way, the students will not spend too much time preparing for any one of these examinations. (2) Add a new criterion based on continuous assessments on EQ factors like leadership, creativity, teamwork and others, and allow these to contribute to about 15% of the total admission criteria. (3) Allow ECA to contribute directly to the admission criteria rather than using it just as a bonus criterion as was proposed by the Committee. Project work and ECA could together contribute an additional 10% to the total score.”
“Sir, I am glad that the Government has taken the initiative to review the university admission criteria for our local universities so that we can keep up with the changing times. I believe that the criteria used for university admissions greatly affect the whole education system starting from Primary One, and this education then drives the attitudes of our people. If the system is based on academic results alone, as it is presently, then we will have an examination-orientated approach in our schools. Our whole system of education and employment and of offering scholarships is based on an almost 100% academic measure of success and as a result, our practice of meritocracy is purely based on academic achievements. While examinations do offer a suitable benchmark to measure students' performances, I feel such a system is going to be less relevant in the future where being academically smart alone will not be sufficient to be successful in the market place of the 21st century. Our current system is unfair to students who have other abilities like creativity, innovation, leadership qualities and others that can be categorised as EQ measures. It is also unforgiving to people who may have had a transient problem resulting in them not scoring very well in an examination, while they could have done so should circumstances be better for them during the examination. 4.15 pm One of the key recommendations of the Committee on university admission is to reduce the heavy dependence on academic measures and to include EQ type measures.”
“And finally, a point that has to do with the new proposals about taking project work into account in admissions. The evaluation of project work is always an issue that has to be tackled. There are three problems here. First, how do we ensure that the project work done is that of the students, especially we have huge schools and huge numbers to contend with? Secondly, how do we ensure a certain sense of commensurability among the scores between schools and classes in the nation? Unless and until we have solved these problems, it would be very good to take time and look at this issue, find how this can be solved before we implement any scheme whereby project work would be taken into account in admission to our higher tertiary institutions.”
“" He said that was a new word to him and what did that mean. The simple answer, of course, is that you can read as much as you want and you can use as many resources as you have. But part of the creative nature of study is to make sure that the materials you get from all these various databases, you can summarise, you can put it in your own words and you can give your own view. This is something which apparently is quite new to many of our students. They are very comfortable with using electronic databases by cutting and pasting from it, and they see no moral issue on that point. Sir, my point is this. It is clearly laudable to have more project works, raise creativity and improve IT competence. But I think it is also necessary to ensure that our teachers are able to teach in a way that would inculcate good research practices, and we can never start too young as far as this is concerned, among our students. With the availablility of electronic databases, and so on, it is so easy to do research by doing a search as it were and that should not be the creative part, that should not be the end-all of creativity. So I believe that there is a lot to be done in terms of not just student training but also staff training to monitor our students and inculcate in them good research values. Also, in terms of project works, I think it requires a lot of staff supervision. Does that mean that all schools would have to increase their staff, not just to make them more IT competent but also to increase the number of staff that are available to supervise such work? Thirdly, project work takes time. How is that to be traded off against the traditional studies that they have to do at this time?”
“The grades obtained for such projects can then be used to measure the performance of the student. I believe this is practised in schools in the USA and Australia. Sir, while I feel the society's attitude needs to change, our education system too needs to transform so that we do not penalise people who are not academically smart, but have other unique qualities. Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung (Sembawang): Sir, there is no doubt that we are all in agreement as to the need for more project work, the need to raise creativity among our students and also to improve IT competence. My comments are in relation to what this means for our young children today. I have three issues to raise. These are conditioned by an experience I had with my son who was, at that time, in school and given a project to do. It had to do with the history of the Second World War and he was trying to find out what were the causes of the Second World War. His idea of doing this project was very simple. He asked me how many databases I have, and I said there are Microsoft Encarta, Encyclopedia Britannica and another called Grolier Encyclopedia. All these are available in electronic form. He then put all of them in the computer, extracted the various parts, did a search for World War II, got all the articles out and he dutifully cut and pasted parts of it into a very nicely coloured paper which he then called his project. Sir, I was forced to ask him, "Where is this creative element that you are supposed to have in doing a project of this sort?" He said it is creative `cut and paste'. He did not believe in putting the whole thing in and he had to select. So the second question I asked him was, "Do you know that there is a very fundamental value in research and, that is, you must never plagiarise?”
“I have spoken to a number of parents whose children are in the upper streams or in gifted programmes and these parents themselves fear that their children's attitude towards children of lower streams is unhealthy. I really fear that we are developing a class system by placing labels on our children starting at a very early age. I also recall a case of a child who was streamed to EM3. His parents came to see me during my meet-the-people session to help transfer their son to an EM2 stream. Right in front of their son, they told me that if their son remains in the EM3 stream, his life would be destroyed forever. I fear that such attitudes will create a serious self-esteem problem, a sense of hopelessness and of not willing to try again for such children. I would like the Minister to consider the following: (1) Can we modify our school system to use non-academic measures for streaming and for promotion? I suggest a large proportion of the decision criteria be based on project work and EQ measures. (2) Even if we continue with the streaming system, can we ensure that all students mix well with each other to avoid the drawing of lines? I suggest that students from the various streams spend at least 30% to 40% of their school time in the same class. In this way, they can learn to appreciate each other's abilities and limitations and perhaps help the weaker students to do better because of a more conducive environment. (3) Can we recognise and reward those who may not score well in examinations, but have the other abilities that I mentioned earlier in my speech? I would like to suggest that we introduce project work as a gradable subject where students can use their non-academic skills to do a few projects throughout the year.”
“Sir, as we look ahead to achieve our vision of having a world class workforce in the 21st century, we have to start by addressing our education system because this is where attitudes, aptitudes and skills are developed that will last for a life time. If we do a good job in establishing the right fundamentals, we will be successful in achieving the goal of developing the knowledge workers of the future. The `Thinking School, Learning Nation' is therefore an appropriate programme if we are serious about achieving this goal. I believe we need to make some structural changes to our education system if we are serious about moulding our children to be the knowledge workers of the future. Our current system creates some obstacles in promoting creativity, to encourage our children to do things differently, to experiment and to question conventional wisdom. Sir, these are the same qualities which will help us groom more technopreneurs and entrepreneurs in the future. 2.45 pm I therefore feel that we need to make a number of changes. Firstly, the streaming of our children as early as in Primary Four and at the various levels after that, based on purely academic performance, recognises and rewards only one category of students, those who can score well in examinations. While I agree with the original concept of streaming which allows students to develop at their own pace, however, I feel that we have not been successful in achieving the objective because I believe schools actually channel the best resources to the upper streams. There is a stigma for our students who are streamed to the lower streams because of the way our system treats them. This includes the teachers, parents and their peers.”
“Sir, despite the difficult environment and the record number of retrenchments, we are still seeing a disturbing trend among Singaporean workers. I spoke to a number of the employers who experienced staff turnover of new employees within the first six months of employment. Some even leave just one day after starting their new job. This happens even today. From my own personal experience, I have seen this to be a problem. Within the first three months of this year, I have seen a 21.4% staff turnover for reasons like unwillingness to work in clean room environment, disliking the job and the unwillingness to do shift work. This is despite they being told of all of these during the interview process. And this is despite the gloomy employment environment. Some Members also talk about potential employees not accepting job offers. From my own experience this year, we actually interviewed a total of 58 candidates and we looked at the candidates that were referred to us by NTUC. These were people who were retrenched from their work. Of the 58 that we interviewed, some of course were rejected. 26 of those we offered did not accept the job. Sir, I would say that this problem of job hopping and attitude of employees still exist. In my personal case, the compensation package was designed to match those of MNCs, in fact, even better than MNCs, but workers are still not willing to stay around. I hope that the Minister will seriously consider this approach to prevent job hopping. The Chairman: Can I draw hon. Members' attention to the fact that we are running out of time on this amendment. We still have got quite a number of speeches to be heard.”
“Sir, while I understand that our economy is experiencing a slowdown and jobs are in short supply, nonetheless, I would like to address the issue of job hopping which I believe will become a problem for us once we recover from the crisis. Sir, in a past report by the Political and Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC), Singapore was ranked 10 out of 12 countries surveyed in the category of employee loyalty and job hopping was cited as a serious problem for our country. This was 10 out of 12 Asian countries surveyed. The manufacturing sub-committee of the Committee on Singapore's Competitiveness recommended the use of CPF as a measure of controlling staff turnover. I, however, do not agree with the approach they suggested because it results in a permanent disadvantage for the employee. I would like to suggest an alternative approach that does not penalise a worker in the initial years if he or she remains with the company for at least one year. The suggestions I have are as follows: (1) For the first one year of employment, the employer contributes only half of the prevailing CPF rate to the employee's account. (2) If the employee stays for at least one year, then the employer reimburses the employee's CPF account with the full amount of the remaining half of the employer's CPF contribution not paid for the past one year. (3) If the employee leaves within the first year of employment, then he or she will not be entitled to the employer's portion of the CPF retained by the employer. Sir, in this way, no one loses while the burden on the employer is greatly reduced because the cost of hiring, training and re-hiring can be quite substantial. The employer can use the retained money to defray the cost involved in the re-hiring process.”