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 2 of 20.
“For example, in the energy and maritime sectors, Lloyd's Register announced the establishment of a Group Technology Centre in Singapore with an investment of $35 million. The centre is expected to employ 150 full-time staff performing technical research within five years. Our total, in terms of gross expenditure on R&D (GERD) in 2011, reached a high of $7.4 billion or 2.3% of GDP. And importantly, I think this goes to the point that Ms Jessica Tan raised; the business component of it was two-thirds. Two-thirds of this spend was from the business community. So, I think it demonstrates that we are able to capitalise, elicit and commensurate an appropriate response from the business community from this R&D initiative. Our total R&D manpower, including researchers, postgraduate students, technicians and support staff, grew by 4% from 43,000 in 2010 to nearly 45,000 in 2011. A*STAR will support such growth by continuing its strategy of developing local research talent, for example, through its A*STAR Science Award for the Polytechnics. The award provides Polytechnic students with an avenue to pursue their interest in science, and to encourage them to pursue a career in R&D. Ms Chua Pei Qi was a recipient of this inaugural award in 2012. She is a final year student at the School of Engineering in Nanyang Polytechnic and has a particular interest in green technology. Finally, let me address Members' questions on the tourism sector. Tourism is one example of an industry vertical where we seek economic and business transformation to achieve quality growth. Last year, we saw the introduction of several new products such as the Giant Panda Forest, Marine Life Park and best-in-class cruise ships calling at the new Marina Bay Cruise Centre.”
“Companies in these sectors can use the Productivity and Innovation Credit (PIC) Scheme to offset their costs of adopting the technologies. In FY 2011, over 500 SMEs claimed PIC for R&D that they have undertaken, up from about 430 in FY 2010. The total PIC expenditure by SMEs in 2011 was about $183 million. So, there is momentum. Of course, we can do more and that is why we are embarking on this Technology Adoption Programme (TAP) effort. I want to assure Ms Jessica Tan and all Members of our resolve to continue supporting our SMEs through their business transformation and R&D journey. R&D also catalyses new growth areas. For example, Singapore is seeing more personal care companies, such as P&G, L'Oreal and Amore Pacific, collaborating with A*STAR to conduct R&D in Singapore. With their focus on Page: 86 customised solutions for Asian consumers, they also help to strengthen Singapore's positioning in the regional personal care industry. Recently, I also announced our efforts in developing our satellite industry through the Office for Space Technology and Industry (OSTIn). In this regard, this year's Budget, as Deputy Prime Minister Tharman has announced, has established a $90-million Satellite Industry Development Fund. Part of this Fund will support public-private partnerships in R&D to build up our satellite capabilities. For example, NUS and NTU have established their own space-related R&D programmes, which have attracted industry collaborations that could be the nucleus of a new knowledge-intensive industry in our economy. As more companies anchor their R&D facilities here, they also create high-value jobs for Singaporeans.”
“Through this $51 million programme managed by A*STAR, we will introduce a team of experienced intermediaries to link companies up with the solution providers from the public and private sectors which can best meet their productivity needs. In the picture on the top left is Mr Seow Yit Yuee. He is 57 years old and he is an example of the kind of intermediaries we are talking about. He has worked in EDB for nine years and A*STAR for 20 years, and he has a rich technical knowledge as well as a deep understanding of industry needs. In the last three years, he engaged over 250 companies to address their technology needs, and this resulted in more than 180 collaborative projects. Intermediaries like Mr Seow will work with A*STAR's Research Institutes, SPRING's SME Centres, as well as Productivity Centres and Centres of Innovation to facilitate this engagement. We aim to help companies achieve more than 1,000 technology adoptions over three years. This will be done through customisation, technology transfer, training and deployment of various technologies, including ICT, RFID and robotics. Where there are no suitable technological solutions for our companies, technology developers in A*STAR and our tertiary institutions will aim to identify and translate at least 20 novel technologies to be employed and applied in our companies over the next three years. We will pilot this programme in six sectors. It is a question of which sectors and how we would apply them. Specifically, they are in Construction, Food Manufacturing, Precision Engineering, Marine, Aerospace and Retail. These have good potential to harness technology to enhance productivity.”
“By leveraging on technologies developed from the BATC, SMEs can add analytics solutions to their suite of capabilities that are being offered. Further, we are committed to enhancing the transfer of technologies to SMEs and providing support for commercialisation. About 70% of A*STAR's licensing deals are executed with SMEs. We have seen an increase in the successful commercialisation of R&D efforts. Today, Exploit Technologies Pte Ltd (ETPL), the commercialisation arm of A*STAR, has granted over 400 licenses for A*STAR technologies with the possibility of more than $500 million of new commercial revenues for licensees. It has also spun off more than 40 start-up companies. To help our SMEs enhance their competitive edge, A*STAR provides technical advice, technology road-mapping and secondment of A*STAR researchers to SMEs through its GET-Up programme. Since its inception in 2003, GET-Up has helped more than 400 SMEs and over 400 research scientists and engineers (RSEs) have been seconded to more than 240 companies through this programme. Just to give Members one example, PJI Contract, a local company that specialises in industrial flooring, water-proofing and surface protection, it is through GET-Up that PJI Contract was matched to a nano (a titanium dioxide) technology from A*STAR, which it licensed and developed into new products, such as the Delta Nano Hygiene spray. Over 10% of its sales revenue in 2012 Page: 85 can be attributed to the GET-Up programme under this specific initiative. We are also introducing the Technology Adoption Programme (TAP) to make technology enhancement more accessible to companies, particularly SMEs. A point that Ms Jessica Tan and other Members have stressed.”
“Another example is Daily Life Renewable Energy which works with EMA on the Pulau Ubin micro-grid which we have also worked on as a test-bed on how we can use – it is a test-bed infrastructure, really, on renewable energies in the context of a small micro-grid infrastructure. 2.30 pm These efforts in renewable energy underscore the importance of R&D as an important enabler in our economic transformation. R&D has benefited our Page: 84 companies, particularly SMEs, by building up their innovative capabilities. This is a point that many Members have referred to directly and indirectly. R&D helps our SMEs to transform, move up the value chain, and most importantly, seize higher value growth opportunities. We have seen a growth in the number of SMEs involved actively in R&D. Ms Jessica Tan has asked this question. Business expenditure on R&D by SMEs has grown at a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 3% between 2001 and 2011, to reach $551 million in 2011. Our SMEs also benefit from R&D tie-ups with multi-national corporations through intra-industry collaborations, such as the A*STAR Aerospace Programme, and the Industry Consortium in Industrial Coating and Packaging (ICAP). This is an eco-system within the industry where the big companies and our SMEs work together. By integrating across the R&D value chain, SMEs and MNCs can leverage and build on each others' capabilities. In the Infocomm Technology (ICT) area, which Ms Jessica Tan highlighted, SMEs are supported by A*STAR's newly established Business Analytics Translational Centre (BATC). BATC builds capabilities in SMEs by involving them in its user-led innovation projects and gearing SMEs for growth.”
“We have to look at it in context. Subsidising consumption is likely to give us wrong outcomes. What we have chosen to do, however, is to work with the industry upstream, investing in research, development and demonstration (RD&D) projects. This is materially different, although Mr Yee seems to think they are the same. They are not. Because when you invest upstream, we are talking about working on measures to enhance the economic feasibility and liability through technology advancement which will then make its adoption a natural consequence from an economic point of view, as opposed to subsidising consumption which masks the true cost and leads to sub-optimum outcomes. We are investing in R&D and building capabilities to facilitate the entry of renewables. For example, the Energy Innovation Programme Office (EIPO) supports solar energy research through the Solar Energy Research Institute of Singapore (SERIS) and Energy Research Institute at NTU (ERI@N). In addition, the Solar Capability Scheme (SCS) motivates the private sector to offset part of the capital cost involved in installing solar technologies in energy efficient buildings. The Clean Energy Research and Test-bedding (CERT) programme provides opportunities for Government agencies to partner private companies to develop and test-bed clean energy applications using Government facilities in Singapore. Mr Yee and others have asked about the examples. There are several examples of companies, local companies as well, moving in this direction. One example is eco-system which is involved in the project on solar powered Park and Charge stations and electric vehicle infrastructure. This is an important part of developing a new idea, to see how we can support the evolution of clean energy applications.”
“Over the next 10-15 years, we will need more young Singaporeans like Nathaniel and Aloysius to join their more experienced colleagues, in assuming key technical and leadership positions in the power sector. There is an opportunity and we are trying to encourage more young people to take it seriously and to pursue careers on this quite rewarding sector. Separately, Mr Yee Jenn Jong has asked about greater support for the adoption of renewable energy in Singapore. Mdm Chair, while we are supportive of efforts to promote renewable energy, firstly, we must note that there are inherent limitations to its applicability to Singapore's circumstances given the current state of technology. Firstly, Singapore is alternative energy disadvantaged because of our size, our climate and our geography which significantly constrain the scope to deploy renewables. The costs of deploying renewable technology systems are still relatively high today compared to energy from the grid. Moreover, these sources are intermittent, variable and, hence, cannot generate base-load electricity reliably. We do not subsidise the consumption of renewables. Mr Yee has asked, why can we not consider fit-in tariffs like the Germans? In fact, the Germans are actually scaling back their fit-in tariffs now. The reason is simple. They are not scaling back because they have attained their clean energy objectives. What they have realised is that having spent billions of euros, they have found that it is actually an inefficient way of getting the industry or the clean energy sector moving, and in particular, in the context of solar power. What has happened Page: 83 instead is that there has been a large scale importation of low-cost photo-voltage cells and the panels from low-cost manufacturers in China.”
“To illustrate the impact, what it means is that the total U-Save rebates of $520 for a 1-room HDB household will, on average, cover 15 months worth of electricity bills. In other words, effectively, it is more than fully covered. For a 2-room household, it will be equivalent of 10 months; for a 3-room household, six months; and for a 4-room household, four months. These U-Save rebates are substantial and will go a long way in helping our households cope with Page: 82 increases in energy costs, and of course they can respond to the price signal by modifying the electricity consumption behaviour as well. Looking ahead, a key thrust of our energy strategy is to build capabilities and encourage innovation in the evolving energy sector. As Mr Lim Biow Chuan has pointed out, it is critical that we build up our manpower capacity and capabilities to support the continued growth in the power sector. To that end, EMA is currently working closely with the industry and stakeholders to implement and supplement the recommendations of the Power Sector Manpower Taskforce. This was released earlier this year. The power sector in Singapore will need around 2,400 technical professionals over the next 10 years. To re-brand the power sector and attract fresh talent, we have worked with industry players and other stakeholders to offer scholarships to students from ITEs, polytechnics and universities. Such scholarships have allowed youths like Nathaniel Tan and Aloysius Lin – both recipients of Senoko Energy's inaugural ITE scholarships – to pursue meaningful career opportunities in the power sector.”
“Beyond these initial two phases, we are looking at how we can further expand and indeed cover the entire retail electricity market and open it up to competition, a point that Ms Sylvia Lim has raised. There have been several studies done and part of the reason is because of the question on how much technology should be involved, and whether we should be involved. Ms Lim talked about the intelligent energy system, involvement of smart meters, backend payment systems because some countries have proceeded with technology intensive solutions. Others have taken a more rudimentary approach, just aggregation of accounts and then, they allow that to be contested. We want to be sure that, first, when we embark on this, we are able to do this in a systematic way and extend to all households because we have 1.2 million households. Second, when we do so, we also have a clear idea of the capacity in the system at the backend. We are working on it. We should be able to share more in due course, in terms of timelines. The reason why the studies are so involved is precisely because of both the technical nature and the scale of the market. Notwithstanding these efforts, we recognise that energy costs may still be a cause for concern for some households. Our policy is to allow the price of our energy to reflect its true cost and not to subsidise energy consumption, which would be wasteful and unsustainable. Instead, we provide targeted assistance, Members are well aware of this, especially for low- and middle income households through the permanent Utility-Save (U-Save) rebates which announced in last year's Budget. This year's Budget has doubled the U-Save rebates across all categories of HDB households via an additional one-off GST Voucher-U-Save special payment.”
“In particular, I would like to inform Ms Sylvia Lim and indeed all Members of the House that we will be lowering the contestability threshold in phases for commercial and industrial (C&I) consumers from the current monthly consumption of 10 MWh to 8 MWh on 1 April 2014, and then to 4 MWh on 1 October 2014. In addition, consumers will be allowed to aggregate the electricity demand at different locations in Singapore in order to meet the prevailing consumption threshold. What does it mean in practical terms? When these measures are implemented in full, it will allow about 70,000 accounts to benefit from increased retail competition in the sale of electricity, up from the current 13,000 accounts. Let me put it in another way. Our Town Councils will be a key beneficiary – all Town Councils would be able to negotiate for electricity retail packages at competitive market prices for their accounts. SMEs across all sectors will also benefit. For example, in the wholesale and retail trade sector, the number of companies eligible for contestability will nearly triple from the current 1,600 to around 4,200. These include SMEs like Home-Fix D.I.Y Pte Ltd, who would be able to aggregate demand across their 23 stores islandwide, as well as single location companies like Habitat Coffee, Page: 81 which would benefit from the lowering of the contestability threshold to 4 MWh. We are moving in stages to ensure that the back-end systems can scale up to effectively support the implementation process because we are talking about order of magnitude of increases the accounts that will have to be supported through these enhanced retail contestability measures.”
“EMA has concluded its first round of industry consultations last year and will conduct a second round this year to seek views on the proposed supply framework and implementation details. Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked for the rationale behind the privatisation of the generation companies (gencos). Privatisation has helped to increase competition among the five active today gencos in Singapore. The case Mr Gan mentioned is the sixth which has yet to start actually generating. Privatisation Page: 80 and the competition that ensues drive innovation, production efficiency, and ultimately maintain competitive pressure on energy prices to the benefit of consumers. This is not a theoretical construct. We have seen evidence of it in Singapore in practise. As a result of privatisation and competition, our gencos have progressively switched from oil-fired plants to more efficient natural gas-fired plants. Had we continued to rely on less efficient generation technology, our electricity tariffs today would be at least 15% higher. So, there is a tangible benefit for all Singaporeans arising from this. In fact, the gencos are continuing their investments in energy efficient technologies. Over the next two years, more than 2,000 MW of new generation capacity will be added to our market. That is about 20% of the current installed capacity. This increased capacity will come from Combined Cycle Gas Turbines (CCGTs), which will further enhance competition and, importantly, the efficiency gains in our electricity market. We are also progressively increasing competition in the electricity retail market to further help consumers manage their energy costs.”
“It is a key factor of production. Our aim is to strike a balance between energy security, economic competitiveness and environmental sustainability. To that end, we seek to diversify our energy sources, promote a competitive industry and build capabilities so that we can ensure a reliable and competitively-priced energy supply for Singaporean households and businesses. Mr Vikram Nair has quite rightly observed that Singapore will face greater competition from the region in securing our energy supplies. ASEAN countries are net importers of energy and they accounted for about 20% of the growth in global energy demand in the past five years, which is quite significant. That share is set to grow, with Southeast Asia's energy demand expected to expand by 80% over the next 25 years. Strong economic growth has fuelled the regional demand for energy, especially natural gas, which accounts for 80% of electricity generated in Singapore. So, it is essential that we diversify our energy sources and options to strengthen our energy security. Our Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) terminal, which will commence operations in the second quarter of this year, will broaden our access to fuel sources worldwide, and it will also catalyse opportunities in LNG-related businesses such as trading and bunkering. To ensure that our infrastructure can cater to future needs, we are also building a fourth LNG tank and that will boost our terminal throughput capacity to 9 million metric tonnes per annum (mtpa) and that should come on stream some time in 2015, 2016. We are also studying possible frameworks for the future import of LNG beyond the first tranche of 3 million metric tonnes per annum (mtpa) which was awarded to BG Group.”
“Madam, so far, Parliament has spent a lot of time debating only one part of the productivity equation and that is how companies can emerge as more competitive. And that part that we have rightly debated is cost, which is the bottom part of the productivity. We need to spend some time talking about the numerical part of the equation and that is the demand part. How can companies grow their demand faster than what domestic demand can provide? 2.15 pm In this respect, internationalisation is crucial for SMEs, given our small domestic market. Can the Ministry share if there are any interesting high growth regions or sectors that the companies that want to internationalise should focus on? Also, will the Government give more help to SMEs in this area, especially given the manpower constraints that they may face domestically? We may want to assist companies to move part of their operators overseas, for example, to the Iskandar development area. What is the Ministry planning to help escalate the internationalisation process? We could think of things like providing some of them tax status like pioneer tax status. In the past, that was to attract companies into Singapore, and maybe we want to incentivise some of the companies to become pioneers in restructuring and relocating part of their operations overseas. Some form of similar tax incentives may be one way of helping companies to decide to internationalise. Page: 79 The Second Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr S Iswaran): First, let me thank Members for their comments and ideas, and allow me to elaborate on MTI's plans for the energy, R&D and tourism sectors in support of the transformation that we are seeking at a larger level in our economy. Let me start with energy which is a critical resource for any economy.”
“Madam, ICT as an enabler. The Budget gave a clear direction of how the Government is expecting companies to restructure quickly. In this restructuring exercise, the vulnerable groups are going to be the SMEs and Singaporeans who may not have the right skill-set to adapt to the type of economy and jobs that they are expecting to see in the new future. With the crunch in manpower availability, companies need to rely on technology, especially ICT, to do things more productivity and to remain relevant in the expected future economic environment. Because of foreign manpower cuts, companies will also have to rely on more Singaporeans to pick up the new type of jobs that will be created as a result. I see three groups of Singaporeans who will need help to improve their ICT skills, namely the elderly, the needy and also the disabled. Can the Minister share with the House the Ministry's plans on enabling companies and the groups of people that I have mentioned earlier on their ICT skills? Also, how can the Ministry help children from needy families be better equipped with ICT skills so that they do not get left behind, so that we can level the playing field for everyone? Home-based Work Initiative”
“Let us allow companies to apply for the money that will compensate for their cost of doing business. It may be more cumbersome but it is more targeted, causes companies to justify why they should be given support to manage their costs. So, roll all of the measures into one cost mitigating package. And third, restructuring for productivity. I urge the Government to give companies a five-year roadmap and support the smaller companies with more resources in a more targeted approach to help them restructure. In this respect, I hope that we will add more resources to organisations like SPRING. If we can do all of these things, we can definitely help companies here a lot more in coping with the restructuring while keeping our targets fixed on the same objectives at the end of the five-year period. I hope the Government will consider these initiatives and make sure that our restructuring plans are effective. As I mentioned at the beginning, we have many excellent ideas in this Budget, but I think we just need to re-target them and we will be very effective in achieving our restructuring goals. On the whole, Mdm Speaker, I support the Budget. 2.43 pm”
“One other way of reining in prices is to strictly enforce that industrial property should be only used for goods and services producing activities and not for office and other non-producing activities. The current liberal usage rules have distorted the rentals of industrial properties and, therefore, made it too expensive for industrial users while it may be much cheaper than the office and commercial users. If we still believe that we need cooperatives like NTUC FairPrice, NTUC Choice Homes and NTUC Foodfare to inject reality to market prices, then why do we not believe that we need JTC rental factories to manage factory rental prices? So, let us bring back the JTC of the past to help us inject some reality into the rentals of industrial properties. In fact, this will discourage the investors from playing with our industrial properties to make monies for themselves because the JTC, leveller of rentals, will not make their returns in investing in industrial properties attractive. In summary, I would like to urge that we keep things simple and make the measures sharper and more targeted towards achieving the originally intended recipients. These simple measures are, first, the wage gap. Let us combine the WIS, wage credit and some of the GST rebates to have one simple minimum wage scheme supported by the Government for a five-year period. Then, people do not have to feel that they can only survive because of the handouts that they get from the Government. Second, cost of doing business – combine all the initiatives, including the wage credit, to help companies manage cost and cash flow, instead of a blunt tool like the wage credit, as it is intended right now, that Page: 63 also benefits companies that do not really need it.”
“It will be viewed as a cost-adding component although the intent is to have companies pay higher wages for Singaporeans who otherwise may not want to take up a job. Third, bigger companies will benefit most from this scheme because they would in any case be increasing their salaries to retain and hire staff. And in the case of hiring new staff, they would in any case be raising salaries after a typical probation of three months or so. Why compensate them when they do not really need it? I recall Page: 62 when we implemented the Jobs Credit Scheme after the 2009 recession, this is exactly what happened. When I spoke with some CEOs, some actually told me that they did not really need the money but it was a welcome addition to their income, a few million dollars each for some of these big companies. Why are companies struggling to pay higher wages to Singaporeans? Because the overall cost of doing business is very high, especially rentals. If we had a good handle on costs, companies may not use their employees as a squeeze point. It is unfair for employees to face the brunt of the serious business cost issues that we are facing as a result of our past economic policies and also because of the liberal investment environment we adopted in the past, that is, investment in commercial and industrial properties by locals and foreigners who are just financial investors and have no vested interest in businesses. Therefore, I strongly feel that unless JTC or any other Government agency goes back to providing affordable rentals for our companies, we will have little chance of seeing future local entrepreneurs starting and growing in Singapore. And we will see many of our SMEs actually not being able to operate.”
“In Singapore, I am suggesting that the minimum wage could be around $1,500, something less than what the US practises. This will allow Singaporeans and their families to have a basic decent quality of life based on our current cost structures. If we pay people well, they will do the job. I firmly believe that what we consider as jobs which Singaporeans are not willing to do are such because we have depressed the wages in industries like construction, security and cleaning industries. It is unfair for such jobs to pay Singaporeans just $800 or $900 per month when cost of living is so high. If we pay a reasonable salary for some of these jobs, I am sure Singaporeans will be willing to do them. It is happening in all the developed countries in the world, like Australia, USA and Japan where locals proudly do these jobs because they are paid well and because the jobs are restructured to be more value added than the way we have structured these jobs in Singapore. We should raise the salary base to uplift the lives of lower income Singaporeans and use the quotas on S Passes to lift the median wages of Singaporeans. The Wage Credit Scheme is a good attempt to help encourage companies to pay employees more, but I do not think we will achieve the desired objective easily for a few reasons. First, the three-year limit of wage support will put an overall salary burden on companies from the fourth year onwards. Fearing that they may not be able to support the future wage all by themselves, we may not achieve the objective of uplifting the workers' salaries in the near term. Second, the scheme requires companies to pay the salary first and claim later, in fact, I think at the end of one year of employment. So, companies incur costs first, adding to their cost and cash flow woes.”
“This will be an excellent way to compel companies to restructure and work seriously on productivity and, if they fail to do so, they will know that it will not be viable for them to operate here in Singapore and may perhaps have to relocate or shut down. We will therefore not artificially kill companies too early with our desired pace of restructuring. We must also have greater confidence that Singaporeans with minimum wage will not be a deterrent for employers. We have many other good things going for us − good infrastructure, good connectivity with global markets, good financial system, stable government, a hardworking work force and, of course, low taxes. These will be enough to balance any negativity that may arise as a result of a minimum wage system here in Singapore. Over the Chinese New Year period, I spoke with a senior banker from Hong Kong who told me that the Hong Kong government was worried that the minimum wage will result in companies leaving and job losses for people. But this did not happen and Hong Kong's economy, in fact, remains vibrant and Page: 61 continues to boom and they are now advocating − just after one year − an increase of the minimum wage that they had set a year ago. I believe that as long we have a vibrant economy, we should be confident and not be afraid of establishing a minimum wage system. Hong Kong's lesson is that the minimum wage policy helped enhance the incentive to work. The labour force participation rates rose across different age groups and educational levels, especially among women and the elderly. Even in the US recently, President Obama announced an increase of the minimum wage, and I do not think the US economy is less vibrant as a result of this policy.”
“While I agree that in the longer term we need to be less dependent on foreigners, in the short term, we cannot suddenly turn off the tap. So, let us recalibrate the reduction rate to Page: 60 give companies some time to restructure their business models. MOM is already working on many things to attract more locals to the workforce and I hope these will work well. This year's Budget also announced a number of measures that, hopefully, will attract locals to the workforce. I believe we will have some success by these measures but we need to attract them with reasonable wages. The current approach by the Government is to encourage employers to raise wages, but I feel that it may take too long and we may lose the battle for restructuring in the near term. I feel that we cannot wait and hope for wages to go up by encouraging employers. We have waited too long and we should, therefore, take a more decisive action right now. Therefore, I would like to once again call on the Government to adopt a formal minimum wage system to speed up the reform of wages for locals. Some say that the minimum wage adds to the cost problems for companies. I am, therefore, suggesting a Government-assisted, time-reducing minimum wage system, something like the Jobs Credit Scheme where the employer pays a certain level of wages he can afford and the Government tops up the rest needed to make up the minimum wage. There can be a five-year decline in the Government top-up which zeroes out in the sixth year and then the company will have to pay the full minimum wage from the sixth year onwards. For companies, what this means is that they will have a clear roadmap of reduction of foreign workforce quotas − a five-year reduction and also a five-year roadmap of having to pay higher wages.”
“I would like to suggest we recalibrate the process and timing and focus on a five-year goal where we slow down in the first two years but we speed up even faster than the current projected five-year rate, from the third year onwards. We will still arrive at the same destination, with the same goals that we want, but through a different journey or route. If, after two years, companies fail to restructure, despite the grace period given by the Government, they will face even greater challenges from the third year onwards, and they will have to make even steeper changes as the rate of restructuring then becomes much more intense. And if they fail to restructure in the first two years, then I think it will be a fair proposition that the Government cannot help any further because they failed to help themselves when they were given ample opportunity. The Minister might say that the Government did give ample notice to companies about the impending foreign labour cuts, but I want to say that many in the business community thought that the Government would again make a U-turn on its labour policies, as it did in the past. Now that everyone knows that the Government means business in the restructuring drive and that there will be no more U-turns, let us give companies a last chance to restructure properly. I am afraid that we are pushing companies beyond the tipping point unnecessarily with the aggressive pace of restructuring. What about the impact on labour policies? I hope that the Government will tweak the labour control measures. We need two things to happen. First, how can we make it more attractive for locals to enter the workforce and, second, we need to recalibrate the reduction rate of foreign workers.”
“It is good that the Government is now serious about the productivity drive and I hope we will not make future U-turns on this as we did in the past, but I am asking the Government to be realistic about the rate at which companies can restructure their businesses. The Government needs to ask whether the current schemes, like the PIC and the intended Wage Credit Scheme, are going to change the behaviour of companies and also that of the employees. The way things are going with the PIC, in my opinion, is that companies that are going to spend on some big ticket items, especially the larger companies, are benefiting by claiming back money from the Government for what they are going to spend anyway. But did they have a mindset change in terms of doing more things to improve productivity? My gut feel is that a small number only really did something to change Page: 59 behaviour towards productivity-driven business models. The same will be with the Wage Credit Scheme, in my opinion. Companies, especially bigger companies, will anyway be increasing their employees' salaries and it would have nothing to do with new productivity behaviour and they will be claiming millions of dollars from the Government. It will be a pity if this is widespread. We should, therefore, relook and sharpen some of these productivity intended tools introduced in this year's and past years' Budgets. On survival versus restructuring, I urge the Government to recalibrate the whole process. I think this is something that we really have to think about very seriously, to allow companies to survive first before going for aggressive restructuring. We are now forcing companies to fight for their survival and aggressively restructure for an aggressive productivity goal, all at the same time.”
“We need to give companies some breathing space to survive first and then restructure to Page: 58 become competitive and, then, strong. How can we build a strong and resilient economy if the bulk of our companies are struggling to stay afloat with these issues? The tax rebates to help mitigate costs which, although is a welcome move, will help only those companies that are profitable and will not do much to help those companies that are already struggling to make profits. On achieving productivity gains, it is good that we are now really focused on productivity-driven growth, as a small and expensive country like Singapore should be pursuing such a growth strategy in the first place. But I think we are putting the cart before the horse by increasing levies and restricting foreign workers before productivity improvements can take effect; and this is a risky strategy that the Government is taking, in my opinion. In the past, we also tried to pursue a productivity-driven growth, through the Construction 21 project in late 1999, to address the increasing problems in the construction sector. Then, there was Retail 21 launched in March 2001, which was part of the SME 21 vision of doubling the impact on the productivity level of the retail sector in Singapore. And there was ProAct 21 launched about a decade ago for Singapore to become a knowledge-based economy, deriving its competitive edge from productivity. All of these did not produce the desired results. But we also started to forgo many of these productivity initiatives as we pursued the growth-at-all-cost economic strategy with the import of cheap and, in many cases, unskilled workers.”
“Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak on Budget 2013. Madam, this year's Budget has many initiatives for both companies as well as for Singaporeans, especially those more affected by the high cost of living and in doing business. I feel that while the intention of the Budget is very good, to be an inclusive Budget, we really need to be more targeted on how we roll out the various schemes and incentives and the Minister could have consolidated many of the Budget measures into three clear areas. First, increasing the real wages of Singaporeans, especially for the lower income Singaporeans; second, helping companies survive the short-term pressures of cost and manpower crunch by introducing cost mitigation initiatives; and third, to recalibrate the rate of restructuring. Madam, on helping companies, I feel that the current year's Budget did not adequately address the cost of doing business issues that are faced by many of our companies. The problems that they face are multi-faceted – the high cost of rental and real estate, high cost of the Singapore dollar therefore making us uncompetitive, the increasing labour costs, and the demand and supply imbalance of infrastructure and vehicles that has skyrocketed prices of goods and services in Singapore. This year's Budget could, therefore, have focused on cost competitiveness, especially since we are already facing steeper competition from many of our neighbouring countries. The Government has placed all its bets on productivity improvements, which, we all know, will take a little longer to be achieved and that, too, not easily. So, in the meantime, all the other bottomline cost issues will plague companies rendering them uncompetitive.”
“In answer to Mr Low, slowing down population growth is not the same as zero population growth. I think the Paper has proposed a certain level of growth. I am suggesting a level of growth that is lower, but I am not suggesting zero growth as the Workers' Party has proposed.”
“I own a couple of businesses. I know that restructuring is going to take some time and, in fact, not here that I was going to talk about it, I was going to talk about it at the Budget debate, that, yes, we need to slow down the tightening of the labour workforce and focus on productivity improvements but it is going to take us a bit more time. Because companies have got a certain business model that they are used to. Business models cannot change overnight. If we really care about companies, then we would not tighten the labour workforce any further. Give them a chance, a longer time Page: 119 horizon to restructure and then talk about tightening the labour force. But what the Workers' Party is proposing is just shut off the tap right now. That is not going to accelerate restructuring. It is going to kill companies. [Interruptions]”
“Sir, if the Workers' Party cares about SMEs, then I think we would not have seen this proposal of zero growth in the foreign labour, simply because if you have your feet to the ground, you would have got the feedback from the SMEs that they all are suffering right now, with the current policy of still growing but growing at a slow rate. We are not at a zero rate, we are still growing and yet companies are suffering. We just heard yesterday from the Chambers of Commerce that they, too, are going to leave Singapore if we do not address this issue. So, I am surprised because the paper that was presented seemed to show that you do not really care.”
“So, let us delay the plans for further population growth for now and focus on nation-building. 6.13 pm”
“Twenty-thirty is too soon. I do not think that we can live with 6.9 million population here in Singapore by 2030. We may be able to handle it in 2050, but no one really knows. But the rate of growth is no different from what we have seen in the past, so I think we should slow down. Please abandon the "instant tree" mentality as we cannot afford to make Singaporeans' lives more difficult as a result. I would rather err on the side of caution when it comes to growing our population. We cannot keep paying a high price for any planning misjudgements in this area. Sir, in conclusion, I would like to see us take a breather from re-growing our population again. We have too many problems. As the Government, we need to rebuild the trust and confidence among Singaporeans that our citizens matter most to us and that we are willing to take a break from our relentless drive for growth to solve their problems and our problems, make their lives more comfortable, give them a better quality of life and show them that any future growth of population will not create similar social and cost of living problems that they faced in the past. At this stage, many Singaporeans from all walks of life do not have the confidence that we can handle another steep growth of the population, so let us not push it too hard. I would like all of us, including the Government, to spend the time creating an environment that gives us confidence in our future and where our young can see a sense of hope and opportunity and if we fail to instil this sense of hope and opportunity for our future generations, we will not be able to root them Page: 118 here and build a strong national identity and a strong nation made of core Singaporeans. This is what building a strong Singapore Core should entail.”
“The mathematics is very simple. The cost of living did not just go up by 1.3% per annum in the last 28 years and even more, the cost of owning properties in Singapore did not just go up by 37% since 1985. Finally, I am perturbed by the banquet analogy used by Minister Khaw. We are talking about lives of Singaporeans here. Our banquet guests come for one night and leave when the function is over. So, we can have that kind of a buffer planning. But there is no turning back when we grant PR and citizenship to foreigners. We must be more exact about the numbers we want to add to the Page: 117 Singapore population and not plan on a basis of "hoping that we hit some number". Because if we overdo things and the end population is more than 7 million, as we overdid in the last 10 years and we exceeded what we may have thought that we would have achieved, it may be too late to stop the fast moving train of population growth when we fire up all the engines of growing the population. We missed the mark in the last 10 years, and we are already paying a heavy price for that mistake. Sir, in my speech in this House in 2008 during the Committee of Supply debate on the population, at that time, I urged the Government to abandon what I called "the instant tree mentality" in trying to grow the population in response to declining birth rates. At that time, I did not agree with the rate of growth pursued and we all know the consequences and the hardship that Singaporeans faced as a result of that rapid growth that we allowed to happen here in Singapore. We all know that instant trees cannot grow strong roots and can be uprooted in difficult times. I, therefore, once again urge the Government to slow down and plan on reaching their population target over a longer time horizon.”
“I had a dialogue session with my private estates residents just last week and, in the dialogue session, one of my Singaporean residents complained about a towering three-and-a-half storey building, semi-detached house that was coming up in an estate that was mainly single-storey and double-storey houses. Their accusation is that the owner-to-be is a foreigner. At the tea break, I had a chat with this owner who also happened to attend my dialogue session. When he identified himself as a new citizen recently arrived from China, a citizen, he mentioned to me that he had bought three landed properties in Kebun Baru alone. I do not know where else, and I felt surprised and saddened because I know that many of my fellow Singaporeans cannot afford to do the same. This new citizen, no matter how he had made his wealth, is able to do so. I think we need to put in restrictions so that Singaporeans do not feel that the foreigners have benefited more than they have, after all the hard work they have put in, in Singapore. Many young Singaporeans I talk to, especially those who have recently graduated and have just entered the workforce, feel demoralised that many of the things that they grew up aspiring to have are now beyond their reach. Our aggressive growth strategies, which allowed cheaper foreign workers, including professionals, to easily gain employment passes degraded or depressed wage levels of many Singaporeans, not just the lower income Singaporeans. I remember when I started work in 1985, my salary was $1,900 as an entry level engineer. After a few years, I could afford to buy a house and a car. Today, 28 years later, an entry level engineer in Singapore earns just $2,600, that is just $700 more than what I earned when I started 28 years ago.”
“I think this will be a more equitable way of trying to manage the HDB prices and also being fair to Singaporeans, who should be given the first preference for HDB flats. We should also force all PR children to study in our national schools which will increase the chance of integrating them at the next generation. On the employment front, I suggest that we implement a Singaporean-First policy where employers will have to prove that they are not able to fill a position with a Singaporean before we allow them to hire foreigners. I would like the Government to also reconsider the dependants policy. I have come across cases where one child is studying in Singapore, say, from China, and whose parents would come down to Singapore as dependants or to support the child and then who, in turn, bring both of their parents into Singapore. The net effect has been one child that we brought in for our future and six people who are going to add to our ageing population problem in the future. I think we need to be a lot more firm about this so that we do not allow too many to come into Singapore. Sir, I feel that the differentiated privileges will separate the genuine ones from those who are here for a ride. We should grant PRs to only those who are most likely to take up citizenships so these differentiated privileges should not stifle our plans to attract quality PRs and new citizens. Page: 116 This brings me to the point of how Singaporeans are feeling about the presence of such huge numbers of new citizens, PRs and foreigners amongst our midst. First, for housing, there is no doubt that the influx of foreigners into Singapore has driven up our property prices, as many Members have brought up. I just want to quote an example.”
“PR children today still study in international system schools, sticking to their home cultures because these schools provide their kind of environment. PRs can buy HDB flats from the open market and this has driven the HDB prices to very high levels. Therefore, I urge the Government to reduce the number of projected PRs and citizens to just the population replacement levels that we need because of the problematic TFR that we have. And let us be more selective and differentiate the privileges that they are given from citizens. I have a few suggestions for the Government to consider. Sir, in the past few years, we had tried to draw the distinction between PRs and citizens by increasing school fees and healthcare fees for them. But I Page: 115 wonder if it would not have been better to instead partially subsidise the same fees for Singapore citizens? So, do it the other way round, reduce fees for Singaporeans and not just increase it for PRs so that Singaporeans benefit more, simply because cost of living is already very high for Singaporeans. Moving forward, PR children must be made to do NS – it should no longer be a choice and we should make it an offence if they do not do it. Send them to jail if we can. We should not grant PRs to families who do not commit their sons to NS. On HDB, I think we need to manage prices. Definitely, prices have been driven up by many of them buying it from the open market. I suggest that we add a levy of, say, $50,000 – I am just floating a number – if they decide to buy a flat even from the open market and allow them to sell that flat back only to Singaporeans. And if the PRs become citizens within five years, give them back the $50,000 levy that they have put in place.”
“We just read from the papers this morning, the letter written to MOM by the various industry associations about the problems that they are already facing with the tightened labour force. And I believe one of them has seen about 5% of the members having already moved out of Singapore as a result. And if you follow the policy that the Workers' Party is proposing, I think we are going to see a rapid decline and I think life will be worse off for everyone because jobs will not be there and we cannot ensure a comfortable life for everyone. The other thing that the Workers' Party is proposing is that we depend on our resident population to add to the workforce. By my calculations, that means that Singaporeans will have to retire later; we will have people who will work very hard throughout their lives and with no chance of enjoying their retirement after all the effort they have put in to build up their families, their country. I think this basically is also not a solution that is workable. We have to be realistic about this. Therefore, I am proposing that we do not abandon the Dubai model – in fact, adopt it – and depend for our growth on some resident workforce, resident population, but also a transient population that can support future growth. On PRs, today we already have too many of them, as I have mentioned, and they are enjoying full citizen privileges almost without citizens' responsibilities. Today, far too many of our PR boys skip National Service (NS) when they turn 18. After enjoying the privileges, they have a choice of not doing NS and then leave the country. I believe that only about 30% of PR boys do NS today. Our Singaporean sons do not have that choice but to do the NS. If not, it is an offence for them.”
“And if we just look at the resident population alone, we grew the numbers from 2.3 million in 1980, 2.7 million in 1990, 3.3 million in the year 2000 and then to 3.8 million last year. So, in the last decade, we added more than 1 million resident population, and the in last 25 years, which is close to one generation of Singaporeans, we have added another close to 50% more to our resident population. I believe this must be the fastest rate of population growth in the world! And I feel that this is just too much for us to comfortably go back to build a national identity and social cohesion which was progressing very well till the 1990s. And then when we decided to grow very fast, things started to fall apart. According to the projection of 30,000 PRs per year and some citizens – some of whom may be from the PR pool – we are talking of adding another 500,000 to 800,000 more PRs and citizens possibly and this will be disastrous, in my opinion, and add to our already difficult infrastructure and social problems that they are facing as a result of the past policy. Sir, if it is economic growth that we want, then just adopt the Dubai model of a transient workforce which will give us a lot more flexibility to manage numbers in the longer term. But according to the Workers' Party's proposal of a zero growth of foreign workforce starting this year and even beyond to 2020, as I have mentioned, it will be a disastrous spell for our SMEs. In fact, they are already victims of a very tight foreign labour policy and they are employing 75% of our workforce – a number of them, as we have read from the papers, have started to move out to places like Iskandar and some of them were even shut Page: 114 down.”
“In this respect, I agree with Mr Gerald Giam that the rate of growth in the last decade, in fact, in the last 25 years, has just been too steep. I call on the Government to take a breather for five years, solve all the problems that have been created by the past policies of rapid economic and population growth. We can safely say that we have failed to achieve the goal set by the then Prime Minister Mr Goh Chok Tong, of a Swiss standard of living for most Singaporeans, except for the higher income Singaporeans, including foreigners who just recently decided to make Singapore their home. But we did not achieve that for most of our Singapore population. So, I call for a breather in this quest of growing the population and focus on improving the lives of Singaporeans and achieve that promised Swiss Standard of living for most Singaporeans first before we plan our next growth trajectory. I am not saying that we stop growing the population forever; let us Page: 113 take a break; assess the situation; improve things before we start growing again. The most important thing is for us as a Government to take care of the Singaporean Core and, therefore, I have a big issue with the number of PRs and new citizens we are planning to add to the population. That part of the White Paper is something that I cannot agree with. [Deputy Speaker (Mr Seah Kian Peng) in the Chair] I do not see the necessity for us to be as aggressive when the key consideration of the population growth is the economy. We have already added too many new citizens and Permanent Residents (PRs) and need time for integration and social cohesion to happen. Looking at history, our population grew from 2.4 million in 1980 to 3 million in 1990 and then to 4 million in the year 2000, reaching 5.3 million last year.”
“Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me to join the debate on the White Paper on Population. While the report has some compelling arguments for the 6.9 million population figure projected, we all know it is based mainly on economic considerations. Had we focused on things like building a cohesive nation with a strong national identity, the outcome would likely be very different. I feel the time has come for us to find a better balance between economic growth and social cohesion. And, yes, there will have to be trade-offs of economic growth but I would rather trade some of these for a cohesive, united nation where people feel taken care of at home and are confident of their future. I am not saying that we go for low or no growth, as the Workers' Party had proposed. A low or slow growth – in fact, even starting from 2013 is what I am reading from the proposal that they just put up – would mean that most of our SMEs will stop growing and Singapore will stagnate and decline. Some SMEs or most of them may even end up closing down. Every one of us will be worse off, not better, in my opinion. Instead, I am willing to adjust my growth expectations for a more comfortable life for all Singaporeans; so reasonable growth but not low or no growth. I am confident that we will still be able to pursue a respectable economic growth when companies and Singaporeans are faced with a situation of tightened labour availability, by focusing on improving ourselves through productivity and higher value capabilities. Finland and other small nations have done so, and I believe that we, too, can achieve that. Our past decade of rapid population growth has already created too many problems which need to be solved first before we can take the next step.”
“Sir, I wish to clarify. What I meant was that owning is one of it. But the other portion that I am requesting is, JTC becomes a landlord that rents out. What the Minister mentioned was that JTC was only controlling about 20% of it that has then been given to the private sector. I am asking for JTC to take it back – be the industrial landlord, and then rent these factories out to SMEs. In addition to that, there is also the portion of the re-sold factories that are driving rental prices up, probably because of the investment nature of the whole process. Page: 1446”
“Thank you, Sir. If we look at it in the whole scheme of things, that 55% of industrial land is owned by owners. Most of them are probably big multi-national companies or big companies. So, if we narrow down to SMEs who are operating in the remaining 20% or 25% of space that they now sublet, it would make a big difference to our SME community. I am very interested to know whether the factories that are re-sold – where they bought the land from Government, developed it, and re-sold some of the units built on the land to investors – is that driving up the rentals of industrial land for SMEs? If we can stop that perhaps we can reverse the trend.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Minister mentioned that about 27% of the industrial land is bought by industrialists or private developers. Does the Ministry track what proportion of those that are sub-divided, strata-title factories that are developed by the private developers that are then sold as investment properties? Does the Minister track that level of data? If so, can we look at who are the buyers – are they the end-users or investors? Can we stop the investment portion of the whole process?”
“Sir, I also asked the Minister about the proportion of foreign investors who have invested in our industrial and commercial properties. As the Minister correctly pointed out, the land cost has gone up rapidly and maybe not rental. This seems to be driven by investors – foreign or local – who want to invest in industrial land for their own returns. They have moved from the residential property market to commercial and industrial. I think that is something that has to be controlled.”
“Sir, last year, Singapore was rated as one of the top three most expensive places in terms of prime industrial land in the whole world, alongside Tokyo. This makes Singapore too expensive for companies, whether big or small, to remain competitive here. In this respect, I would like to ask the Minister the following questions. First, the price of industrial land in Singapore has increased by 60% in the past two years – 2011 and 2012 to date – driven probably by investors speculating in the market. Does the Minister think that the 60% is good or bad for the economy? Secondly, in the last two years, what proportion of industrial land is held by foreign investors and what proportion of industrial land has been converted for non-industrial uses? Thirdly, on the release of additional land, as the Minister announced, does the Minister agree that releasing more land alone is not the answer if the land is allowed for investment purposes, versus direct allocation to end-users? In this aspect, should the Government not regain its old role as the major industrial landlord rather than giving out to private developers to be the landlord for end-users? Page: 1443”
“I remember during the 1988 General Election, your second election, Mr Abdullah, when we were waiting for the results at Temasek Junior College, you mentioned to me that your son told you that he had hoped that you would lose that election so that you could spend more time with him and the family. It just showed that you had spent time serving the community in your constituency, leaving little time for your family. Well, Mr Abdullah, you finally have left politics and you can have more time for your family now. But I am not sure if this brings comfort to you, now that time has passed and your children have grown up. Hirman, I think, was only a teenager at that time. But I do hope that you will now be able to smell the roses, spend more time with your family and do the things that you enjoy most. You can proudly say that you have done more than many for the country and deserve to spend more time doing things for yourself. Mr Abdullah, I would like to thank you for the opportunity for me to have worked with you and for creating the opportunity for me to serve the nation. Thank you for being a friend and a mentor. We all thank you for your sterling service to the nation. On behalf of our colleagues in this House, I would like to wish you good health, happiness and a meaningful and fulfilling life ahead. My best wishes to you, Sir. [Applause.] 4.13 pm”
“It is your unassuming and humble approach to things which kept me at Siglap and allowed me to enjoy my time as a volunteer in your constituency. Sir, as Speaker of the House, I have seen you helped smoothen the proceedings so that we could get our business done efficiently. Notable changes included the time limit that you instituted for the total speaking time during the Committee of Supply every year and the amount of time an MP has to speak each time, from 30 minutes to 20 minutes. While initially some of us who made longer speeches were apprehensive about these changes that they would curtail debate, we finally realised that it was better to focus and be concise than to make lengthy speeches and not necessarily deliver the messages that we wanted to deliver effectively. I think I speak for most Members of the House to say that it was far better to have the time limit than to stretch the Committee of Supply to more number of days. I, for one, benefited by learning to make sharper and concise speeches although I know I tested your patience at times by hitting close to the time limit. In most cases, I won the race for time before you could cut me off. Page: 12 I made some trips with Mr Abdullah for the AIPA meetings and want to say that, as Leader of the delegation, he went out of his way to ensure that all the delegation members were well taken care of and he was very flexible to accommodate the individual needs of the members. At each of these AIPA meetings, when delegations of each country had to present items during the closing dinners, we were fortunate to have a Speaker who sang very well and this allowed those of us who could not sing, like me, to get by, by being background singers, singing softly.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, I want to thank the voters of Ang Mo Kio for giving us the overwhelming support that has elected us in Parliament, and we promise to do our best to serve our residents as best as possible. Mr Speaker, Sir, I like to also take this opportunity to congratulate you on your election as Speaker of Parliament. Given your legal background, I am sure that you will do well to guide the House as we do our work in Parliament. Sir, my best wishes to you. Sir, I like to take this opportunity to thank our previous Speaker, Mr Abdullah Tarmugi, who is also present here, for what he has done as the Speaker of Parliament during his term of office. Sir, I have known Mr Abdullah Tarmugi for longer than many Members in this House, and most Members may not know that I was a grassroots leader and a branch activist in Siglap since the day he entered politics. Mr Abdullah, I recall helping you fight your first election in 1984 when you first came to Siglap and, subsequently, I stayed on as a volunteer in your constituency till I left to join Ang Mo Kio in 1993. In fact, you are the one who inducted me into politics and got me to agree to stand as a PAP candidate when you persuaded me to go for one of the PAP tea parties. And, today, 27 years later, as you leave politics, I want to thank you for the mentorship that you provided me in my early years as a volunteer. I stayed in Siglap for 13 years before moving to Ang Mo Kio for two reasons. First, it was the fact that I wanted to contribute back to society and provided my services as a volunteer to the community around me; and, second, because I enjoyed working with you and the fact that you were serving your constituency sincerely to improve the lives of your residents.”
“Moreover, with Singapore actively pursuing an ASEAN Community with our neighbours, we need to educate Singaporeans not just about ourselves, but also about our region. Our National Education framework could also be expanded to include this knowledge. Sir, we now have four Universities and I remember not long ago we had plans of bringing in several foreign institutions of higher learning here which seems to have now taken a back seat after the withdrawal of the University of New South Wales (UNSW). I would like to seek clarification on our plans to expand our higher education learning sector and if the UNSW issue had any adverse impact on this. I think it is necessary to have a vibrant and diverse array of options if we are serious about making Singapore into an educational hub and also to address the issues with other Members who have raised about the availability of spaces for our own children in Singapore. Sir, now that we have the Council of Private Education in place, we should look to aggressively attract more players here and also try to create more spaces for own children to study here instead of going to the same places overseas. In addition, we should also look to create a more diverse set of institutions to cater to the diverse needs of our economy of the future. We spoke, not too long ago, about College of Liberal Arts being set up here. Can I ask the Minister what had happened to these plans? Are we thinking of a fifth university to do this? Can the Minister elaborate on this?”
“Sir, I would like to raise two broad points on National Education and on Higher Education. The problem of religious awareness and tolerance has been an acute and sensitive one in recent times. Grassroots and community leaders have narrated to me various experiences where there is a lack of understanding of one another's religious practices and values at various levels of society. Even in schools, I hear about cases of religious ignorance as staff reprimand students without considering the religious sensitivities involved. All these are in addition to some of the very high-profile cases highlighted in the media recently. I think the time has come for us to address this problem as a serious one and look into how we can plug this gap of religious ignorance. Sir, I feel that the schools play an important role here as they are a domain of knowledge and also since we are able to instil these values and knowledge in Singaporeans from a younger age. I would like to commend the National Education programmes in schools which was launched in 1997, and also the 2007 Report of the Committee on National Education. Both of which emphasised the need for schools to incorporate this element into our curriculum. I remember some time ago, we had Religious Knowledge in schools, which imparted religious knowledge of their own faiths to students. While I understand that schools should not be used to propagate any religion, it is important that the curriculum be devised to give students a broad understanding of one another's religion. We should not shy away from using schools to address this sensitive topic as delaying it will only damage our social fabric in the long term. Besides religious awareness, we also need to promote and encourage awareness and knowledge of Singapore and the region.”
“I hope the Minister will try to understand why the Internationalisation Finance Scheme was not successful so that the EXIM bank can learn and do it right when implemented. GIC's investment and financial health”
“Would there be a conflict of interest as such and should we, in fact, set up a third SWF called Seatown rather than putting all of it under Temasek? Sir, on EXIM bank, I would like to comment on the idea. This was mooted by the ESC. I would also like to remind the House that a similar recommendation was made a few years ago when I was heading the Finance Advisory Committee of SPRING's Board. But the Government's response at that time was not positive. I think it found that there was no need for it. But many developed countries, in fact, have had similar schemes to help their companies, so why not Singapore? I am glad that this has finally become a reality through the ESC's recommendations. There are some very good examples of EXIM banks that have worked in Canada and Japan and we should look into how we can emulate some of their successful strategies and they have done really well. However, I feel strongly that unless we have a focused agency working with companies managing the EXIM bank, we may not succeed. So I hope that we do not farm this out to a private bank because they may not be able to focus on the task at hand. I also think that it is necessary to study our Internationalisation Finance Scheme which was supposed to help our companies internationalise and help them finance their international operations. This has been in place for many years but I understand that it has not been successful in achieving the objectives and too few companies have benefited from the scheme. This is despite the fact that many of us at it, proposed refinements of the scheme and still it did not work. It would be wise for us to learn about the failure there so that when we implement the EXIM bank, we will be successful in achieving our objective.”
“Sir, I would like to raise some points regarding our Sovereign Wealth Funds (SWF). Firstly, both the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC) and Temasek are operated as private funds, with larger risk appetites today compared to the past. Both have made losses in recent time and it is timely that the Government gives them a more conservative mandate since their investment outcomes invariably impact the reserves of Singapore and our future. We may want to perhaps learn from China where in today's papers it was reported that their SWF China Investment Corp (CIC) booked US$10 billion unaudited profit for 2009 compared to the losses our SWFs made last year. Sir, last year, I also brought up the need for Temasek to refocus on Singapore and was told that in doing so, we will validate some of the concerns overseas over our SWFs having political objectives. However, if the Government is already setting overall returns objectives, risk thresholds and tolerance limits for our SWFs, then I see little problem in Temasek investing actively in promising locally-based companies. I think we should move away from the mindset that helping local companies would compromise the objectives of Temasek as long as we have a clear mandate, objective and investment philosophy for Temasek, and, in fact, for other funds that we may set up. I also would like to clarify the rationale for setting up Seatown as a new investment vehicle under Temasek. First, what is the need for this fund and how does its investment philosophy and risk appetite differ from that of Temasek as a whole? I think we need to be clear about the mandate of Seatown and if it is different from Temasek, then how can two investment philosophies come under one company and under one management?”