Indranee Rajah
Singapore
“Mr Speaker, I would like to make a clarification in relation to two written answers on childcare leave issued by the Prime Minister's Office on 25 September 2025 and 3 February 2026 in response to Parliamentary Questions filed by Members of Parliament Ms Cassandra Lee and Ms Valerie Lee respectively.”
“Based on Year of Assessment (YA) 2025 data, about 9,500 working mothers claimed a lower amount of Working Mother's Child Relief (WCMR) under the fixed-dollar basis than they would have under the previous percentage-based basis, for children born or adopted on or after 1 January 2024.”
“We regularly receive feedback on enhancing child-related leave provisions, including the Member's suggestion. In recent years, parental leave provisions have been significantly enhanced, such that parents now have 30 weeks of paid leave, including 10 weeks of Shared Parental Leave.”
“The Government does not have data on the number of transactions involving multiple units on a single residential title that have not been subdivided. Such properties are treated as a single property for Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty (ABSD) purposes when it is bought, so no ABSD is foregone.”
“The Government publishes data on personal income tax, which is publicly available on www.data.gov.sg. This includes data on the number of course fees relief claimants and the amount of the relief granted. The Member may refer to the website to access the data for the first three questions.”
“In considering the duration of leave, we will look at the need. In this case, as I have explained, there is a difference between those who give birth physically to a child and those who adopt.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,520 lines we hold for Indranee Rajah, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 50 of 51.
“There is one international law firm when I asked them what was the criterion that they used for their recruitment, they said that one of the things that they looked at was to see whether a potential candidate plays team sports. They actually prefer people who excel at team sports rather than those who excel in individual sports simply because it means that the person is better able to work in a team and that is more valuable to them as an organisation than someone who is a prima donna. I fully support this recommendation. I will comment briefly now on the workload and stress. I notice that one of the recommendations in the report was to trim the curriculum and I hope that the Ministry will take due note of that. In comparison with the United Kingdom and United States, for example, where the average curriculum time for "A" level-type subjects over two years is 280 hours for the United Kingdom, 240 hours for the United States, it is 330 hours in Singapore. We have commented a lot on stress in the system and MOE's usual response is that this is due to society's distorted definition of success. That is only part of the story. I would ask MOE not to keep trotting this out as the usual answer because it does make parents grit their teeth with frustration. The truth is that it lies in between. Stress is a combination of societal expectation and that is attributable to society. But it is also partly due to the system and that is attributable to MOE. Parents want their children to succeed. That is a given. They would measure that success by the benchmark that the system sets as indicia of success. So ranking matters, results matter, grades matter.”
“Koo Tsai Kee mentioned the fact that we were first in Mathematics and second in Science. That is true. But we are the only society in the world, when you are driving and you signal because you want to change lanes, the car behind you in the other lane speeds up, it does not let you go into the lane. When you are in Europe, when you signal, they slow down and they let you go into the lane. But in Singapore, this is what we do. We are first in Mathematics and second in Science, but we will not let somebody get into the lane ahead of us. Have you tried going into the lift, not just HDB blocks, but any office blocks? Somebody is actually there in the lift, but when he sees you coming, he quickly presses the "close door" button. This is an educated society. Our town councils are in despair because we always have a problem of urinating in the lift. Then we have things like the "Hello Kitty" queues where Singaporeans jostle one another to be able to get the free gift. The point I am simply making is this. We may be very good in the Sciences, we may be very good technically, but we still have a certain way to go in the social graces which I think the humanities will help in some measure to enable us to bridge that gap. We are a developing society, granted, but our education system has a lot to do with how we develop. I come now to the next recommendation on the emphasis on the non-academic curriculum to develop the strength of character, leadership, and team skills. I think that is extremely important. We will be excellent technocrats but without leadership skills, without values, without principles, we are really not anything at all.”
“All these are questions that we need to encourage our students to think and to develop. I firmly believe that the function of education is not just to prepare people for jobs. It is to prepare people for life. And that brings me to the next recommendation which is having more flexible options for our students. Currently, about 40% of JC students offer only Mathematics and Science subjects with no humanities offered beyond their "O" levels. One of the reasons for this, as my colleague in this House, Ms Irene Ng, has pointed out, is that it is easier to score in Mathematics and Science subjects which are either formulae in nature or heavily memory-based, at least at JC level. Another reason is that in the past, these subjects were emphasised to equip the students for specific jobs. But the job landscape has now changed. I think Singapore and our society as a whole have suffered to some degree from an over-emphasis on the Sciences at the expense of the Arts and it is high time that we corrected this imbalance. Science and Mathematics teach you how to construct a gun. It is humanities, philosophy and the law that tell you when to pull the trigger. Having one without the other is like "yin" without the "yang" - you have a serious imbalance. This lack of emphasis on the humanities would, to some extent, explain the lack of creative thinking, the weakness in our communication skills. And I dare say if we improve on the humanities, MCDS may be a happier Ministry because it might actually improve the marriage rate of highly educated single women. I do not promise this but I am saying that it may have an impact. It would also improve on Singaporeans' social skills. Yesterday, in his speech, Assoc. Prof.”
“After two or three weeks, the birds are ready for slaughter and their livers would have swelled to about between six and ten times their natural size. Apart from being fed for more than they would eat naturally, the diet of foie gras birds is deliberately deficient in basic nutrients and this makes the liver accumulate so much fat that they can no longer function properly. I am not saying that our entire education system is quite as bad as that, but we must admit that our JC students have been stuffed with quite a lot of content and many of them have been stuffed with Science at the expense of the humanities, which leads to a certain imbalance. I will speak a bit more about that later. The point I am making is that the over-emphasis on content means that they have not been able to think out of the box. They have not been trained as much as they ought to have been in critical and independent thinking. I fully support the recommendations from this Committee because I think they are aimed at promoting and developing critical thinking which is going to be extremely important in an innovation-driven global society. In fact, I know of one university lecturer, a Caucasian, whose daughter was in a local school. But he transferred her out of the local school after a while to an international school because apparently, the teachers at the local school complained that she kept asking too many questions. She always wanted to know "why". She just could not memorise the answers but asked, "Why this? Why that?" But given the new global circumstances that we find ourselves faced with, "why" is an important question, "how" is an important question. Can I do it better? What are the reasons? Can I get round this?”
“Mr Speaker, thank you for allowing me to participate in this debate. The report on the JC/Upper Secondary Education Review Committee contains two broad proposals - a broader and more flexible JC curriculum and, secondly, a more diverse educational landscape. I fully support these proposals which I feel are long overdue. In fact, the proposals are comprehensive, considered and, most importantly, take into account a lot of feedback which we have obtained from parents, students and employers. It is a common complaint among Singaporeans that they give a lot of feedback but nothing happens. But I think this is one example where people have given feedback and it actually finds its way in a concrete form in this report which I hope will be implemented. There are three proposals in the report in which I have particular interest. First, the recommendation to focus on skills more than content. Second, the recommendation to give students more flexibility on subjects. Third, the recommendation to place emphasis on the non-academic curriculum to develop strength of character, leadership and team skills. On skills rather than content, we do acknowledge that the weakness of our education system thus far has been over-emphasis on content. Sometimes, I cannot help comparing our educational system to the production of foie gras. Foie gras, as you know, is a gastronomic delicacy. It is duck or goose liver, very high quality, very expensive, top of the range, very painfully produced. It is the fatty liver which is produced by over-feeding ducks and geese. Just let me describe the process which may sound vaguely familiar. In order to achieve the desired taste and texture, ducks and geese are force-fed two or three times a day with up to half a kilogram of grain and fat.”
“But I hope that we can be as successful as we were in the past, attracting people from abroad as well as providing for the people at home. At the end of it, it may just be a question of dollars and cents, getting the right job and making sure that the family is well provided for. But more than that. When I first came, I said a clean Government, good opportunities, fair treatment are key. Now, they seem to think, no, not enough. We must have a political system that reflects widespread views, alternative views. This is a sign of the changing times. Are we mature enough to accept that? Sir, I support the Motion.”
“Though we recognise that in a small country where it is multi-racial and multi-religious, there must be constraints to preserve public order, they want less interference, as far as their own actions are concerned, in what they do, what they read and what they watch - in other words, less regulation, less censorship, more privacy. Third, they mention the cost of living, particularly for those with young families. The increasing medical and other costs have weighed heavily on them. Tied to this is the fourth element, ie, a good job. To them, getting the right job is very important. They have this feeling that they have been ignored because of the Government's message that we must attract more foreign talent to Singapore. They see their promotional chances as adversely affected by this importation of foreign talent. I am sure that many of my fellow MPs would give all sorts of suggestions on what the Government should do in order to raise national identity and so on. But, to me, I would like to just make one proposal, ie, that the Government look at the way in which they can lay off certain matters, leave it to the individual choices of people to do, particularly in the social field, and try to cater for alternative lifestyles. One group in particular has mentioned that the reason why they want to leave is because they do not seem to be given the same chances. And these are the singles. They have found it very difficult to benefit from the family-oriented policies in Singapore. This is a new world. We have to realise that Singapore, as a global city competing with other global cities for the same talent, must cope with different lifestyles, different peoples and different expectations. It is a tall order.”
“They feel that they should venture out, climb lower hills, get some expertise, get something that will stand them in good stead when they come back to Singapore to compete. I think these people are strong Singaporeans. They are not relying on the Government. They are brave enough to strike out on their own and they face up to the practicalities of life. They are not quitters. Sir, it is paradoxical that while we are successful in wooing talent from abroad, we have this deep concern about keeping our home-grown talent. Surely, we can build, in the Prime Minister's words, "a culturally vibrant city, capable of attracting the highly mobile creative people from abroad." Should that not also keep Singaporeans in Singapore? Why is it that while we have managed to attract so much foreign talent, including talent from the First World, to put down roots in Singapore, we are now worried that our home-grown talent may uproot and go elsewhere? Sir, when I talk to young Singaporeans and ask them what is it they want to have this sense of belonging, the answers are surprisingly simple and have been mentioned many times before but perhaps bear mentioning again. First of all, instead of looking at the subject, like I did when I first came, which is clean Government and efficient and meritocracy, many of them said they want a political system that allows for more alternative representation and views. There seems to be some inexplicable, and this I cannot explain it, disapproval of the dominance of one party politics, despite all the good that the governing party has done for the country and for them. Second, they want a freer society, more tolerant of alternative lifestyles and attitudes.”
“I remember being influenced by this remark and to assess what it is that would make me take Singapore as a country where I would stay. At that time, the major reasons were more or less the same as they are now. One, clean and efficient Government. Two, good job opportunities. Three, meritocracy. Four, fair treatment to all, no matter whether you come from abroad or is local. Five, a good place to bring up a family. And, six, a future that is promised by an efficient Government and farsighted Government. I think priorities may have changed a bit since that time, which was about 20-odd years ago. But having said that, it pains me when there are those who are born here and have had all the benefits, such as a first-class economy can give them, have very little feelings for Singapore, are not proud of the nation, take the view that if anything happens, they would leave. I believe that, as the Prime Minister has mentioned, this is a very small group. But, like the speaker before me, Ms Indranee Rajah, I like to think that the group of Singaporeans that wants to forge new lives elsewhere, in another country, deserves some recognition, not as quitters, but very much like the forefathers before them - self-reliant, adventurous, brave Singaporeans. They are not quitters, except in the very basic sense of going abroad to earn a living. Why would they do that? Many young Singaporeans, third generation Singaporeans, have told me that they feel the best years have gone past them, that it was the generation before that benefited from the growth in Singapore. Many find it difficult to compete for the limited resources and opportunities available in Singapore now. To them, the mountain of success is too high to climb. It has become an Everest.”
“All I ask is that the Government do very seriously consider the feedback and the suggestions on education policy that will be in the Committee's Report because a lot of profile has been generated by the Remaking Singapore Committee. As a result of that, expectations have been raised. I think that if there is a genuine response to the suggestions and recommendations, people, especially Singaporeans, will feel that their wants and aspirations are taken into account, that there is a direct response and that the feeling of connection between Singaporeans and the Government will be much closer as a result. With that, I support the Motion. EXEMPTED BUSINESS (Motion) Resolved, That the proceedings on the business under discussion be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1. - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. STAYERS AND QUITTERS Debate resumed. Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung (Sembawang): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak on the Motion. This is a Motion that touches me personally. I may be regarded as a "quitter" from my country of birth, which is Malaysia. I worked in Singapore for more than 12 years before I became a citizen. During that time, I had many occasions to reflect on whether I should quit my country of birth for good. It was a difficult decision when the time came. The catalyst surprisingly was a fellow academic from abroad. On my way to see him off at the Airport, he made a remark that has stayed with me to this day. While passing buildings and parks along East Coast Parkway, on returning from a trip abroad, he asked me, "Don't you just feel wonderful and happy setting foot again in your own country?" At that time, he did not know that I was still not Singaporean.”
“Some parents do not understand why there is this policy and feel that they would like their children to have the choice to study in an international school, if possible. The third example was something that was raised in the feedback session for the Indian community. The feedback was given that an Indian boy studying in school was not allowed to take Japanese because he did not have Mandarin as a first language. The unhappiness there was that Japanese was available to be taught, but he was not allowed to do it because he did not have Mandarin. I am not sure, because it was not raised at the feedback session, whether this was the Ministry of Education's policy, or whether it was simply the school. It could well be that they felt he would have better chances of scoring in Japanese if he had a Mandarin base. But the problem is that when you tell a person that he cannot do something where he has an interest and he wants to do it, it denies him a chance of a personal aspiration. Then it makes him feel that he cannot progress and he cannot move up into the system. It is little, little things like that that basically make parents want to move to give their children a better chance in another system. So, at the end of the day, I do not think we have a bad education system. I happen to think that we have a very good one. But I do think that it can be fine-tuned and that the Government should take into account the feedback. I do not propose to set out the whole list of recommendations for the simple reason that the Remaking Singapore Committee is in the process of doing this.”
“We place a lot of emphasis on scholastic achievement and they want their children to be able to achieve the standard that the system requires in order for them to progress. So the school ranking system actually puts a lot of pressure on the children and parents because what will happen is that the school feels the need to perform. So the teachers transfer this pressure down to the students and parents, and the parents of course pressure their children as well. So I do not think ranking per se is a bad thing because you need an element of competition. But I think the system could be fine-tuned. Suggestions have been made that, for example, instead of ranking each school individually, we should rank them in band, or rank them according to types of subjects. In other words, broaden the definition of success, alleviate some of the pressure and allow people a greater degree of choice. One of the things that has happened as a result of the push for ranking is that Literature has suffered simply because Mathematics and Science are perceived as the subjects in which it is easier to score in. It is not that you cannot do Literature. But it is just that if you think it is easier to score in Mathematics and Science, that is something that you will take, and Literature suffers as a result. And that also has an impact on society because it has an impact on the way we speak, the creativity and, basically, Literature is good for social interaction. So with the doing away or people not taking up Literature as much, it has a social impact. That is just one example. Another example that has been raised is why is it that Singaporean children cannot study in international schools.”
“I think education and our education policy is the single most important factor in influencing a Singaporean's decision as to whether or not to stay or to quit. I want to say, at the outset, that, by and large, we have an extremely good education system. If you look at it, Singapore in the region has one of the most highly educated populations. It has enabled us to achieve an outstanding level of economic progress. But I do think that there is room for refinement and I do think that it is important to listen to some of the feedback that we have got from especially the young parents. Because, in every feedback session, there will be something said about education, and usually you will find that it touches on the complaints, and the comments are many and varied. But when you actually analyse them, it falls into two large groups. One is stress, and the other is the ability to choose or, at least, to have a certain freedom from restriction in choice of subject. And for many young Singaporeans, especially couples, when I speak to them and I ask them about issues like these, they are happy to stay in Singapore for themselves. But they say that if they leave at all, it will be really because of their children's education. Perhaps what I can do is to illustrate it by three or four examples. One example is school ranking. I know that the Ministry of Education has defended school ranking quite vigorously, and the response has been that, to some extent, it is the parents who put a lot of pressure on the children. But, in Singapore, people and parents love their children. They want their children to progress. So, obviously, they want their children to be able to make it in the system. So they are going to look at the system.”
“I think pull factors are where the person does not really have anything against Singapore but is just attracted to opportunities or things abroad. Take lawyers, for example, who have graduated in Singapore but want the opportunity to work abroad with offshore firms simply because of being able to obtain a different experience, in terms of type of work, live in another country, get to meet different people, experience a different lifestyle. There is nothing wrong with that. There is every reason to believe that, in years to come, they will return to Singapore and hopefully bring with them the skills and the experience that they have acquired abroad. I therefore do not see the pull factors as particularly disturbing. What I think we should be careful about are the push factors. People are people. What makes a person feel alienated or not want to stay in a place? That only happens when a person feels that he or she cannot progress, or somehow is not part or cannot progress up in a system. If you really analyse it, the human want and human need are quite basic. People want safety and security. And in Singapore, that is not an issue. We do have a safe and secure society. So that is taken care of. The second thing that people want is a certain amount of personal happiness and that comes from being able to work, being able to have a certain means by which you can live and being able to achieve their aspirations. And that brings us really to the third point which, I think, is the most critical component of a push factor and, that is, whether or not that person has the ability to achieve his or her aspiration in Singapore. And if a person cannot, that is when a person feels pushed to leave. And the key to all of that is education.”
“Thank you, Sir, for giving me the opportunity to participate in this debate. I stand in support of the Motion and before I actually begin on the points I wanted to raise, it would be useful to deal with the definition of "quitters" and "stayers", because there appears to be some misconception on this. There has been a lot of heated debate on who is a quitter, who is a stayer, and part of the misconception appears to be from a misunderstanding of what the Prime Minister actually said. That same misunderstanding was actually reflected in Mr Chiam's speech just now. The misunderstanding is this. Some people seem to think that just because you leave Singapore, you are necessarily a quitter. That is not what the Prime Minister said. If you actually look at the text of his speech, and for those who were sitting there listening to him, he made it quite clear that those who are quitters are those who have severed their emotional links and ties with Singapore, those who will not come back to the aid of Singapore or contribute to Singapore as and when needed. Just because somebody lives or works abroad does not mean that he or she is a quitter. So long as they are emotionally connected, so long as they care for Singapore, so long as they want to contribute in some way, that person is very much a stayer. So, then, we have to ask ourselves, having regard to the third generation Singaporeans and the fact that with increased mobility in today's globalised world, what is it that actually makes a person want to quit or leave, or to sever his or her emotional ties with Singapore. I think, in this regard, there are actually two factors that we must make a distinction. One is the pull factor, and the other is the push factor.”
“It is about how we, Singapore as a whole, can go out and get more of the international pie.”
“When you are making a rule and you say that you want somebody to be competitive, yet you make a rule that immediately makes them uncompetitive because they have to buy these buses, what do you think will happen to the fares? They have to pass the cost on to somewhere. So that is the first example. The second example is the SBF charges. I had asked the Minister previously what was the reason for making such charges mandatory. The answer was that it was SFCCI's recommendation as there was an earlier practice of voluntary membership and it had not been effective, and compulsory membership would ensure that the SBF had a strong membership base and the mandate of the entire business community. I read the Today paper on 22nd August 2002 which said that about 8,000 business units had paid, but 16,600 businesses are delaying payment and a few thousands are appealing for their fees to be waived. That does not look like a mandate to me. It looks an awful lot like opposition. That is because you are just adding cost on to doing business. If you use the $500,000 paid-up capital criterion, it is like a blunt instrument. Because in many companies which do not do active business, like investment holding companies, they have to pay. I imagine that the GLCs have to pay as well, but they do not need the SBF. So it is cost like that which we are layering on and we are making the business community bear this cost and, at the same time, saying that they have to be more competitive. I would urge the Government and Ministries to review their rules and regulations to see how they can make businesses more competitive, in terms of cost. And at the end of the day, it is not about GLCs versus private sector.”
“But one thing that I did notice about the EISC Report which was not highlighted was the issue of cost. A lot of Singapore companies have complained that they have difficulty in competing because of cost. Some of the costs are necessary. But I think that it is possible for the Government and Ministries to review their rules and regulations to see how we can cut down the cost of doing business in Singapore. Two examples. One is the recent PTC regulations for private bus operators. When I looked at the news release from the PTC, they said that SBS and TIBS have a duopoly. They felt that there should be more competition in bus services. And they said that, in introducing competition to feeder services, certain principles should be observed. First, the new operator and incumbent should compete on equal footing; second, the regulatory framework would not be as tight, and, third, their role will be one guarding against anti-competitive behaviour. But, of course, what they do in the new rules and regulations is that they stipulate certain minimum standards for the private bus operators, and, that is, the entrances and exits must have a minimum of 1.2 m and installed with safety device, and the first step height must be not more than 36 cm from the ground, whereas for most private buses, the first step is 42 cm from the ground. When you make regulations like this, you immediately make them uncompetitive. Because in order to comply with your regulations, they are going to have to buy new buses, or adapt the existing ones, which is not such a good idea. As I understand it, the ones that satisfy the rules are the continental ones, such as the Volvos, which cost about $250,000, which are about $50,000 or $100,000 more than the Japanese models which are currently used.”
“So when you are going and competing, you have to make a distinction between the local market and the foreign market. When you are competing in a foreign market, it is not a question anymore of us competing against the GLCs. It is a question of how all of us can compete against the foreign companies. If the small companies in Singapore are not able to compete by themselves, you cannot complain about the GLCs because they are bigger, they have more financial muscles, and they are more likely to be able to compete globally. The other suggestion made was that they should form clusters and bring local businesses along, which again means you want the GLCs but you want them to bring you along. And that means that there is a certain amount of good that they can bring to the economy. You see, at the end of the day, the local market is too small. The local market is too small for both the GLCs and the private sector to be fighting over the limited market that we have here. It is not a question of GLCs versus private sector. It is about Singapore Inc versus the rest of the world, and it is something that we have to do together. There is a role for the GLCs simply because of their connections, because of their financial muscles, but there is also a role for the private sector and the SMEs. It is a question of how each one can find its place in the international market and make our mark regionally, because the local market is just too small. This is not to say, of course, that I do not have issues with the EISC Report. What I am saying is that, as far as the Temasek Charter and the EISC Report are concerned, they define a role for the GLCs and the way business should be done in Singapore, and I heartily endorse that.”
“In other words, give you the money, and once we are profitable, go away. I do not think that is very fair either. It is definitely not the basis on which investors put in money through any company. More than that, I think we have to realise that if we want the Government to put money in through an existing GLC and hold shares in the company, you become a GLC too, because you become a subsidiary. So, it does not quite work that way. You have to go according to the rules of how business is conducted. The next comment that was made was perhaps you should have more private sector representatives appointed to the GLC boards. But, then, on the other hand, the argument was Government should get out of business. So I do not understand which is it. You want them in business or you want them out of business. You want them in business, then, you should allow them to run the companies the way they want to. If you are saying that you should be appointed to the GLC board, that means you want the GLCs around. What you are really saying then is you want the GLCs, you want to be on their boards, and you want part of the old boy connection or network. That is really what is being said. Again, I have a certain problem with the logical consistency of that. Then, it was suggested that they were inefficient. Mr Inderjit Singh said that our GLCs are late in going global and the consequences of it can be seen in the failure to compete successfully and in being taken for a ride in certain high profile acquisition transactions. On the other hand, we have also heard that all the top talent is going to the GLCs. So all the top talent is working hard to produce this inefficient result, in which case I do not understand why do we want them in the first place. It cannot be right.”
“" You should be sitting down and saying to yourself, "I no stupid." It is over the question of attitude. It is a question of approach and it is a question of how you view the competition. Mr Leong Horn Kee suggested yesterday that perhaps we should have more of the Government leaders in business and who knows, if some of them had gone into private enterprise, where would we be now, he asked. Perhaps, if SM had become a top lawyer, where would we be now? I am not sure about the others, but I can tell you, we would not be a sovereign independent state and we would not be discussing PSA Corporation because it would be called Tanjong Pelepas! So I think what we really need is talent across the board - in Government, in GLCs, in private sector, SMEs, wherever it is - but you need talent everywhere. It is not a question of challenges being located in a certain place. The private sector should have faith in itself and believed in itself, and we do have a private sector that is good and intelligent, and it should not adopt the attitude that, "Oh, I can't compete", just because somebody else has more strength. Competition is all about finding out how you can go ahead and compete against others. The other suggestion that was put forward was that Government should help by, through existing GLCs, taking a minority stake in new firms and should sell off its shares once the new business is on track. I examine this suggestion rather carefully. You want them to put in money or to take a minority stake, what you are basically saying is, we want Government money but you do not want them to have any control. You do not want them to have any say. And you say that they should sell off its shares once the new business is on track.”
“As I understand it, the thrust of the arguments appears to be that (1) Government should get out of business; (2) GLCs are squeezing out the local companies because they are bigger and have more financial muscles; (3) GLCs have more connections, they have the old boys' network, and all things being equal, contracts will go to them; (4) GLCs are sucking up all the talent; and (5) GLCs are inefficient. Now, when you make an argument like that and you put forward suggestions to remedy these evils, you have to have an inherent consistency in your argument. And I have some serious difficulties with the arguments that have been put forward in support of these arguments. If you run through this list and you wonder why its sounds very familiar, that is basically because it has a Star War theme about it. The GLCs are the evil empire and the private sector is the struggling rebels, I suppose, fighting against the evil empire. Let me just examine a few of these propositions that have been put forward. First, it was suggested that GLCs are sucking up the talent. If we did not create GLCs, we would have a larger pool of entrepreneurs and the rise of GLCs has led to the death of the entrepreneurs and monopoly of top brains by the civil service. But I do not know about you. I refuse to believe that the only brains here are the civil service and that the private sector is completely stupid. It cannot be because half the time in Parliament, we are always telling the civil service where they have gone wrong. So it must be that on this other side of the House and in the private sector, there are some smart people. I do not think that the private sector should sit down, wring its hands and lament that the other side is, "They so smart.”
“Mr Speaker, thank you for allowing me to participate in the debate. I have been sitting here in my corner in Parliament listening to the debate as it goes along. And I am not sure that this debate about GLCs versus private sector is really the correct issue. The Motion is that, having regard to the Temasek Charter and the EISC report, the Government should implement the recommendations in the EISC report. The way the debate has gone seems to suggest that there is some inconsistency between the two. Frankly, I see no inconsistency. The EISC report recommends that Temasek Holdings scale up their core businesses, not enter into unrelated business, that they should expand internationally, explore divestment, attract world-class talent into the GLCs, follow the Yellow Pages rules, do not corporatise or privatise the regulatory functions, conduct mandatory periodic housekeeping, outsource Government's functions and define specifications more broadly to provide opportunities for SMEs. The Temasek Charter, as far as I can see, is quite consistent. It talks about having Government ownership and control for the critical or strategic businesses or areas. It talks about going international and regional, when necessary, to grow, and it is open to partnering other companies to regionalise or internationalise, and it also talks about divestment. So, I do not see any inconsistency between the two reports. So, what is the fuss about GLCs versus private sector?”
“What would be the position with regard to companies which are not trading, for example, investment holding companies? Would this be an appropriate category for an exemption? BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: I would prefer that such feedback be given to SBF and for SBF to look at the full implications and then put up its recommendations to me. I should not go behind the SBF to second guess what its recommendations should be.”
“Then the arts will no longer be something that we have got to push people to support. But like the air it breathes, it will become an essential part of us. That is the vision of the arts that MITA will work towards. The Chairman: Order. I propose to take the break now. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.”
“The RCP funds have given the arts a boost, and helped to make Singapore a more "happening" place, indeed, a more funky place, as Ms Indranee said. With our new vision for the arts, and with the support of hon. Members of this House, MITA will continue to make a case for higher Government funding and for the arts to develop a creative economy, both in good times and bad. But, at the same time, we need the continuing support of the private sector. The private sector has been supportive. But MITA will continue to develop new programmes to create a stronger partnership with them, to unlock the value of the arts in business, and to bring about mutual benefits. Sir, quite a few Members have asked how we can measure the impact of the arts on our society and economy. We can measure the impact of the arts on our economy from the number of tourists, or the output of the creative and copyright industries, or the number of talented people who will make Singapore their home. But we cannot measure in dollars and cents how the arts contributes to our social bonding. What value can we place on the Singapore heartbeat, or the happiness that we feel after listening to an orchestra play, or the sense of pride that beats within us when others speak well of our communities and our nation? These are priceless. We need a new mindset towards the arts. Like seeing the big heart in that stereogram, this is easier said than done. But once you see it [indicating], once you are able to see the heart within the picture, you always see it. If we succeed, if we are able to have a paradigm shift in the minds of all Singaporeans, then Singaporeans will see that the arts contributes to the well-being of our society, as well as to the creation of new jobs, and greater competitiveness of our economy.”
“This is not explosive growth, but it shows a steady and sustained interest in the arts. So we have made progress. Mr Loh Meng See suggested that we work more closely with university and polytechnic students to tap them, both as audiences and artistes. I agree, but the process of exposure should start earlier. This is the aim of the joint MITA-MOE Arts Education Programme, which reaches out to primary, secondary, JC and ITE students. Mr Seng Han Thong expressed his hope that everyone will develop an appreciation for the arts. I agree. To achieve this, we need to change people's perception that the arts is only for the rich or well-educated. We can only do this by giving more people a first-hand experience of the arts. Some arts groups are already doing quite a bit of this. The SSO performed in Tampines earlier this year, attracting about 2,000 people. Last month, STB's performance at West Coast Park drew 3,000 people. But we can and will do more, and it will not plateau, as Mr Loh Meng See fears. MITA will launch an "Arts Everywhere" movement to bring the arts to everyone, every time, to make the arts a part of our everyday environment. We will partner agencies like HDB, CDCs and grassroots organisations, to bring more performances to neighbourhood parks and community halls. We will also develop mobile exhibits that can travel to the heartlands. Mr Seng will be glad to hear that many of these performances and programmes will be free. But if you want to buy a painting, you have to pay for it. But, Sir, nothing is really for free. Ms Penny Low asked, given our new vision for the arts, and the contribution of the arts to the economy, whether we have set aside sufficient funds to promote and develop the arts.”
“That it drives new industries and creates new jobs, and opens up new employment opportunities for Singaporeans. Most of all, that it makes us a more creative people, equipped and energised to drive a creative economy. Now, Sir, let me move on to address a number of specific issues Members have raised. Mr Loh Meng See raises a pertinent point when he calls for the conservation of certain old buildings, like the Capitol Cinema, to retain our heritage. Such projects require the concerted effort of various agencies, such as the URA, STB and NHB, and also the private sector. I assure Mr Loh that these agencies will work actively to identify suitable uses for old buildings, including the ones owned by the Government. Mr Zainudin wanted to know whether the money spent on the arts has brought the sought after benefits. Over the past two years, additional funds under the Renaissance City Project (or RCP) have enabled MITA to support more artistes and to bring the arts to wider audiences. Let me cite a few examples. In FY 2000 and FY 2001, about $7.5 million and $8.3 million were disbursed through NAC's grant schemes respectively. This higher funding enabled our artistes to develop new works and also to perform overseas to gain wider exposure. The funds also provide 31 individuals and 66 arts groups with affordable space to practise their art under the NAC's Arts Housing Programme. Last year, Singapore hosted more than 4,500 art events - so on any one day, you've got more than 10 things you can do - attended by about 940,000 people at ticketed events - these are the highest figures we have ever seen in our local arts scene. Compared to 1997, the number of events has increased about 60% while audiences have grown 25%.”
“MITA, together with our economic and educational partners, will launch a new design initiative to develop our design capabilities. We would include fashion, as suggested by Ms Indranee, but we also want to go beyond fashion to exploit the value of design across all sectors of the economy. Media and content creation are also good industries to promote. We have a good chance of turning them into a new growth area if we can leverage on our strength in digital technologies such as animation and multi-media, and promote more companies to set up pre- and post-production facilities in Singapore. Perhaps, one day, we can get Harry Potter or Gandalf, or Yoda, to make a movie in Singapore, and to conjure the magic here. Or perhaps it will be a combination of Mulan and Lara Croft fighting the toy soldiers. The possibilities, of course, are endless. Finally, the arts helps to make us a more creative economy. The arts shapes the way we think. It challenges us to think out-of-the-box, and develops new habits of looking at things from unusual perspectives. If we practise these new habits, then, over time we develop a more curious spirit and a more probing mind. Such a change will help promote original and critical thinking in every sector across the economy, so that creativity becomes our natural response to challenges. Sir, the arts and culture have always been an essential part of our society, enhancing the quality of our lives and shaping the character of our communities. But, today, in a globally and sharply competitive world, the arts plays an important economic role. So this, then, is our new vision for the arts: That it adds vim and vitality to our city, drawing tourists, and keeping talents.”
“Here, let me expand on some of the ways that the arts can and do create economic value. Firstly, as Dr Teo pointed out, the arts attracts tourists. This creates jobs for Singaporeans. For every dollar that a tourist spends on the arts, Singapore Tourism Board estimates that $1.80 is spent on other things, like food and accommodation. Can we do more? Yes, we can and will. NAC and STB collaborate closely to make the arts one of the attractions for tourists. The NAC estimates that up to 5% of the people who attended the Singapore Arts Festival last year were tourists. But that is just 5%, at most, a mere 8,000 people. So there is clearly potential here to do more. Our new performing arts centre - the Esplanade - Theatres on the Bay - which will be a world-class performing centre, will give us a big boost in this direction. Secondly, the arts creates economic value because it makes talented people want to live in Singapore. And we all know that talents create jobs. Our first priority is to develop and retain our own home-grown talent. Offering them good jobs is one thing. But we also need to offer them interesting, exciting and fulfilling lifestyles. If through the arts, we can make Singapore the preferred choice of our own home-grown talents, then, I think we also have the chance of attracting international talents. Thirdly, as many of the Members have said, the arts is also an industry. In developed economies, like the US and the UK, the creative and copyright industries, that is, activities such as advertising, film production, music, fashion and design, account for between 5-7% of the economy, and they are growing more rapidly than the total economy. We should therefore build up our applied arts industry, as Mr Seng has urged.”
“But I bring up this illustration because unless we take a different way of looking at the arts, unless we move away from our notion that the arts is only for the well-to-do or is an indulgence, then we would not begin to see the potential that the arts has for the economy. Now, let me share MITA's vision. Today, the arts plays three roles. Firstly, the arts keeps alive our traditions and culture. Whether it is gamelan music, or Teochew opera, the arts connects us with our heritage, one of the "Cs" that Ms Penny Low brought up. We may not understand the opera, but watching it somehow gives us a sense of identity and belonging. Or as Ms Penny Low also said, the arts provides the "social glue" that keeps us together, and I think most of us accept this view of the arts. Secondly, the arts is also important for the sheer enjoyment and wonder that it brings. It arouses our emotions, and stimulates our minds, and it makes us feel alive. The arts reminds us that there are some things that money cannot buy. It lifts our human spirit. It affirms our humanity. I think most of us would also agree with the second view. Thirdly, even though the arts is important in and of itself, we can leverage on the power of the arts and especially the fusion of arts, business and technology to spur the growth of a creative economy and to make Singapore a vibrant city. The arts has economic value, but here, I think, is when not everybody agrees. It is true that artists are often driven solely by their passion. They may create images or play music only because they want to express their innermost thoughts and feelings. But whatever their motivations, their performances add life and zest to our community, and create economic benefits perhaps in more ways than they intend.”
“Sir, Members have pointed out that the arts has economic value. Indeed, our economy has changed, and we are now restructuring the economy and, likewise, the arts is at a turning point. What I would like to do, before I answer the specific suggestions that have been raised, is to sketch out MITA's new vision for the arts. To get the most value out of the arts, we need to have a new way of looking at the arts. But this is a difficult task to do, because many of us look at the arts as something of an indulgence, something that is for the well-heeled, the rich and those who have the time to spend. 2.45 pm Sir, to help me illustrate this point, I brought along a piece of unusual art. If I may, I will hold it up for Members to see. At first glance, this is a very ordinary picture. It is a picture of rows of flower baskets. But this is no ordinary picture. This is a stereogram. Stereograms were all the rage several years ago, all over the world. You see, Sir, within this picture, there is a hidden picture, and this is a picture that you can only see if you have the technique to look at it. It is a special technique. But if you know how, you will see that within this picture, right in the middle of it, is one big heart of flowers. Sir, the problem is most of us are very frustrated when we look at this and do not see the heart. The problem is that we have been taught our whole lives, when we look at a picture, to focus on the picture. But we can only see this heart if we do not focus on this picture, but that we focus in front of it. I can cross my eyes like that [indicating] or focus my ends behind it. Like, if I held it up, I look at you while looking at the picture. Sir, this is a fusion of arts and technology.”
“I was wondering whether it would be possible to develop Singapore as a fashion centre of the East, something which Thailand is aiming to do, but perhaps we can pip them to it. And whether, possibly, we could have something like a weekend fashion street to allow young designers to display their designs and sell them. The reason why I say this is because we should not put them in shopping centres where the rents are high. Let them go to somewhere where the rents are relatively low. They can sell their designs and the acid test of whether their design is good or not is whether people will actually buy it. And this is something where tourists can go as well, because the demand is not always for branded goods, but sometimes for street fashion - things which are considered as edgy and funky. Finally, I would like to ask the Ministry what are the plans to develop Singapore as a cultural hub, certainly in terms of concerts and performances. Again, this has an economic reason behind it. If we want to attract MNCs and expatriates to Singapore, one of the reasons why they might choose Singapore over another country is when they look at lifestyle. If they had to make a choice between Singapore and Hong Kong, if all else remains equal, if we are able to offer a better lifestyle in terms of arts, performances, concerts, we might have an edge. Sir, I would be very grateful if the Minister could answer that. The Acting Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts (Mr David T. E. Lim): Sir, may I first thank Mr Seng Han Thong and all the other Members who have just spoken for their enthusiastic support for the arts, especially for the call for more money. Perhaps they could repeat that another day when the Minister for Finance is in the House.”
“Sir, I was very much encouraged to read in the newspapers the other day that MITA is pursuing the concept of cultural capital, ie, the synergy between arts and enterprise. I really do think that this is long overdue, because for too long, the arts have been regarded as the poor cousin to sciences in Singapore. When we were a developing country, we could understand the need to push science and technology. But I think that concept, in the present changing global economy, is a little outdated, because the arts does have a tremendous economic value. In this regard, I really think that the budget for MITA should be increased. I see arts not just as something for arts sake. I am a firm believer in arts for arts sake, but the problem is that I do not think that artists can live off talent and fresh air alone. They obviously need funding. They obviously need a demand for the arts and the creative sciences. I was wondering if the Ministry could comment on whether it sees Singapore as a potential design centre for the region, because there is a big demand for design in furniture, handphones, computers. The Scandinavians are especially good at this, but we do not have a reputation for this in Southeast Asia. So, I was wondering whether Singapore could be developed as a design centre. The second area is in fashion. Fashion, obviously, is often regarded as frivolous - girls' stuff. But the thing is that it is actually a multi-billion dollar industry. And I do not think that, in Singapore, we have actually fully tapped into this. New York, London, Paris, Milan are fashion capitals of the world, but not a lot of the manufacturing goes on there. Their value is actually as a design centre for fashion and, of course, they outsource the manufacturing.”
“So the singles do not understand why, because there is a surplus but they still cannot get their hands on it. Then there are rental flats. Because not all married couples want rental flats, there are obviously rental flats available. But when you apply for it, you run into the policy, and so you cannot have your rental flat. In truth, I do not blame the civil servants or those in HDB because their hands are tied by the rope of policy. Mr Chairman, I will only take another 30 seconds. We come back to the original thinking of the need for housing, the raison d'etre for the HDB, which is that we wanted housing so that Singaporeans could have a stake in Singapore. The singles think or feel that they are Singaporeans. They too are entitled to a stake in Singapore and they do not understand why they should be discriminated against. So, I would just ask for a review on allowing rentals for people above the age of 21 and perhaps reviewing the age at which they can purchase HDB flats and consider the question of subsidised housing for singles.”
“Mother is also dead, and we begin to wonder, after a while, whether there is a common element here, about not being let back into the family home where the mother is not there. The father would not let her come back because he does not approve of the fact that she is an unmarried mother. She is estranged from her siblings. She needs to look after her son. Where is she to go? Where is she to live? She cannot afford private housing either. She has been told by the HDB that there is another policy which is because she is an unmarried mother, she cannot get a flat. And it is difficult. We say we want to be a gracious society, but to be a gracious society, sometimes we have to show grace. So I anticipate the answer from the Minister will be that for exceptional cases, we can always write in for a waiver of policy. Well, my colleagues in this House know all about waivers of policy. The Minister will forgive me if I say that sometimes, I think, with a certain lack of originality, it is easier for the camel to pass an eye of a needle than to get a waiver of policy. 5.00 pm Sir, let us go back to the issue of policy itself. Why this policy? The Minister will say that it is subsidised housing, we must be careful because it is taxpayers' money. I understand that. But the singles will also say that they pay taxes too. So they are not quite sure why they cannot benefit from this. If the second reason is to encourage people to get married, then the policy is not working. Because the number of singles is growing and the birth rate is falling. If the objective of the policy is to give priority to married couples, then, no problem. By all means give them priority because a family unit would have a greater need. But then we have a surplus of housing.”
“I would like to ask the Minister if the Ministry would consider a review on housing policy, vis-a-vis, singles. At the present time, of course, one cannot rent unless it is under the Joint Singles Scheme, which means that they must find somebody as a partner, and also be over 35. Secondly, singles cannot purchase unless they are 35 and above, and this is for resale flats. This policy ignores the changing demographics, and therefore the changing aspirations in our society and, in some cases, actually causes hardship where there is genuine need. Minister Lim Boon Heng did mention that there may be over-housing in Singapore. That may be true in some cases, and there may also be cases where people buy for investment or speculation. But there are other cases where there is a genuine need for housing for singles. Let me give Members three examples which I have encountered in my MPS cases. First, there is a man, over 50, with a low level of education, primary education, I think, and he cannot find a place to live. He needs a place to live but he does not have a family and so he needs to have a flat. He cannot just go into the street and ask some man or woman to come and live with him. Not everybody needs a house as well, but he needs one. So he is in a very difficult position. I have written on his behalf and I hope something would come out of it. Second case is a woman, who has been divorced. Her mother is dead, the father would not let her back into the house because he did not approve of the marriage. She earns something between $700-800. She cannot go and get private housing. Where is she to go? Third case, unmarried mother, primary 6 education. She is estranged from the family.”
“Just following up on Mdm Halimah on anomalies, this is the point that I had raised in my speech in the debate on the Budget, which is the difference in the legislation to the Employment Act employees and non-Employment Act employees as far as maternity leave is concerned. The Employment Act allows for paid maternity leave of two months and protection against termination of employment. This covers all employees except for professionals, executives, managers, and those in the confidential positions. For the Employment Act employees, they also get protection for the third child under the Children Development Co-Savings Act. For women though, who are not covered by the Employment Act, they do not get this protection for the first and second child but, oddly enough, they get it for their third child and that is because the legislation used there is a tool for social engineering. But I would like to ask the Minister whether he would consider correcting this anomaly by extending paid maternity leave and protection against termination to professionals and women in executive positions for their first and second child. There are two reasons. One, it will achieve the objective of having more babies. But, secondly, and, much more importantly, just for humane reason, because having gone through what they have to go through for nine months, they are tired at the end of it and I think they do need that rest. So for humane reason, I think it is important.”
“Sir, the problem seems to be that we do not have sufficient legislation, and I would like to ask the Minister if he would be prepared to look into legislation to provide for it to be an offence for the police to have appropriate powers for other remedial action, eg, referral for counselling or psychiatric evaluation. And, finally, if the person is not a Singapore citizen, then perhaps to review the conditions of his stay in Singapore. That is all I have, Sir.”
“Sir, I would like to speak on the topic on a gap in our law, and this is in the area of stalking and harassment. I think as a result of urbanisation and widespread use of information technology, we are seeing an increase in a new type of aberrant social conduct, namely, stalking and harassment. As regards stalking, we all know what that means. Harassment can take many forms; particularly with the use of IT, it is taking the form of e-mails and SMS messages through the handphone. The current status of the law does not afford sufficient protection. The only relevant legislation is the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act. The combined effect of section 13 (a), (b) and (c) is that it prohibits threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour in written or oral form within sight of a person, or in such a manner as to believe that immediate unlawful violence will be used. The problem is you can have a conduct which is not threatening, abusive or insulting, but which is nevertheless harassment, eg, silent phone calls in the middle of the night, persistent calls of conduct. Or you send flowers which the person does not want or if you send dead flowers. Or you could send unwanted gifts which people do not want either. When I became an MP, I received a message to return a call. And when I did, I discovered he had not called but this woman had left messages with a whole host of people to call him, and it was a form of harassment. It was only in October of last year that it became an actionable tort in Singapore when our High Court ruled that you could actually have a civil course of action.”
“But all the kudos received from businessmen, and the like, would not make our legal system a great one if the common man or woman cannot have reasonable cause to use the legal system to resolve disputes and enforce his rights. To this end, Sir, I would like to suggest that we look into how we can bring justice to the heartlands as it were. We already have community mediation centres set up in various parts of Singapore. Can we not have a circuit of mediation centres or small claims courts for settling minor claims, that is, claims not over $10,000 perhaps, where the costs of hiring lawyers or filing documents would not be too prohibitive? In fact, such courts may take the stance that they should not have lawyers at all in such cases. I should also like to suggest that we can involve more members of the community in the dispute resolution process. Right now, some community leaders are already trained in mediating neighbour disputes. It may be appropriate to increase their role to include mediating between, for example, traders and consumers. I wonder whether that would be something we can see in the future. Sir, Singapore can, of course, be very proud of its legal system. Our lawyers are well trained and this has, of course, been the envy of many. But the quest for justice, especially for the common man, is not an easy one and it is not a cheap one. It is very important therefore to have a legal system that is affordable. At the end of the day, if the man-in-the-street agrees that our legal system can dispense justice fairly quickly and at reasonable cost, that should perhaps be the most sought after kudos that one would want.”
“The third group are those who join foreign law firms and therefore do not practise Singapore law but practise offshore law, either in Singapore or overseas. So the policy on the restriction of the numbers appears not to take into account this leakage. Perhaps the Minister could comment on that. Also in commenting on the numbers of lawyers admitted to practice, would the Minister also let us know whether the Ministry has taken into account the increased demand, or potential demand, bearing in mind, that now there is actually a greater demand for what we call professional support lawyers (PSLs). These are the people who do research, for example, or carry out administrative functions. They are qualified lawyers and their background, as lawyers, is helpful but they do not actually practise law. 5.00 pm Secondly, the fact that we wish to develop Singapore as an arbitration hub means that we need the back-up support from lawyers as well. And thirdly, the fact that we wish to develop Singapore as an IT hub again is going to need lawyers. So I would be grateful if the Minister would comment on the quota of lawyers available for that. Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung: Sir, one of the major concerns has been the costs involved in taking cases to court. Lawyers have never been cheap, but also they remain not cheap these days. Some of the lawyers in this House may be able to confirm this trend. Neither are costs involved in bringing cases to the courts. Indeed, many Members of this House must have received feedback from residents saying how expensive it is to bring private action suits, enforce your rights, and so on. Singapore has an enviable reputation no doubt for its efficient courts and its pro-business approach.”
“Sir, I would like to ask the Minister about the current policy with regard to the quota of law students allowed to practise in Singapore, and that includes the numbers admitted to NUS as well as the restrictions on those coming in from foreign universities. I ask this because in 1993 there were amendments to the Legal Profession Act where we restricted the numbers of lawyers allowed to practise. I understand that the reasons for that were two-fold. One, it was to regulate the quality of the lawyers allowed to practise, a reason with which I agree fully. The second was the allocation of manpower, because the concern was that too many people might go into law, resulting in the detraction from the other areas of the economy. On the second reason, what we have seen from the impact of the amendments in 1993, which was felt in 1997, was a fairly sharp reduction of lawyers available for practice in the market. That seems to have the effect of actually driving up the starting salaries of lawyers because there were fewer good talents available. Secondly, we did not at that time take into account the phenomenon that we saw after 1997, which was the increasing numbers of lawyers leaving practice. Without meaning to take away from the Minister's right to reply to Prof. Chin Tet Yung, I can actually enumerate some of the reasons why the lawyers have been leaving practice. Firstly, there are those who leave for personal reasons because they have decided that law is not their thing. The second group are those who have decided that practice is a little bit too stressful, but they would still like to maintain contact with the law and therefore go and become in-house counsel or some other law-related practice which is not actually professional practice.”
“So I hope that when a company has to pay for the use of intellectual property or right/licence for manufacture, these expenses would also be entitled to double tax rebates. Despite all my doubts and reservations, I nevertheless support the motion standing in the name of the Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister.”
“The effective cost of owning a car is actually higher than the original one. I think the Government should reconsider this PARF adjustment, as it runs contrary to its original intention. In this Budget, it is mentioned that the civil service and statutory boards should be "lean" and efficient. But when you look at the procedure in some of the Government departments, you will find that some of the procedures are unnecessarily cumbersome. For example, if you want to register a car, you have to go through so many payments before a car can be registered. Let me tell you what are the things you have to do. First of all, you have to pay the import duty, the GST on the import duty, the ARF, the registration fee, and then the road tax, and then another GST. When the car is on the road, you pay petrol tax GST and ERP. There are so many types of charges that you have to pay. Is it really necessary? If the Government wants the Government departments to be lean and efficient, then you should consolidate all these levies into one payment. If the Government wants to be effective, to be lean, it has to simplify all these procedures. Another point is that we are talking about giving double tax rebates for R&D expenses and for those who are employing foreign companies to conduct R&D for local companies. It is a very good practice. It is something that warrants our support. But we know that in R&D, the scope is very wide. More often than not, it is not just one company doing everything in a R&D project. In the R&D market, there are things like copyright, patent and other intellectual property rights on sale. Companies could speed up their technology by purchasing all these intellectual property rights. It will benefit many companies.”
“This will benefit the businesses, and the businesses would be more willing to undertake more high risk ventures and this would help in building up their entrepreneurship. As for the reduction in the vehicle taxes, I have some views. Every time, when the Government reduces the vehicle taxes like the Additional Registration Fee (ARF) or the import duty, the second-hand car dealers would be hard-hit as the stock of second-hand cars would almost immediately lose its value substantially. The losses can be very severe. For example, a second-hand car dealer has about 20 to 30 cars in hand. If the price of a second-car drops by, say, $2,000, he would have suffered a loss of some $40,000 to $60,000 overnight. How do we help these people when we implement these measures? How do we help the second-hand car dealers? It would depend on how we are going to decide on the PARF value. If reduction in the PARF values equals to the total reduction in the ARF and import tax, the effect on price of the second-hand cars would be minimised. In this instance, the ARF and import tax are reduced by a total of 20 percentage points of the OMV, when the car is to be scrapped in five years' time, the PARF value will be reduced by 33% of OMV from the original PARF value. In other words, by these new measures, on the surface, it would appear that they would reduce the cost of owning a car. But, in fact, by implementing these new measures, the scrap-value for vehicles will be reduced, and the amount recoverable by the owners will be less. Hence, the net cost in owning a car is higher under the proposed new scheme. Therefore, the end result of these new measures actually runs contrary to the original intention of making cars more affordable to the people.”
“On the other hand, we know that many people living in the HDB executive flats have a lot of unhappiness over the distribution of the New Singapore Shares. Those who are living in the Executive Condominiums (EC) were conveniently classified as "rich" people. As such, they were deprived of the benefits enjoyed by those living in HDB flats. Under such circumstances, many people living in the Executive Condominiums were very unhappy with this distribution. This time round, when the Economic Restructuring Shares (ERS) are being distributed, the Executive Condominium residents should be very happy because they will be entitled to the same number of shares as the HDB residents. In this aspect, I think we should recognise that the residents in the Executive Condominiums are not really "rich" people as such. However, on conservancy charges rebate, the E-flat residents again will be excluded from this benefit. I hope that the Finance Minister would listen to the complaints of EC owners. They are not high-income people. In fact, many E-flat residents are earning just as low as other HDB residents. I hope that the Finance Minister would consider this aspect of it and consider giving some of these benefits to the owners of Executive flats to offset the impact of higher GST. In my speech during the debate on the President's Address, I mentioned that subsidiary companies should be allowed to offset their losses against the profits of the other companies in the group or the main company. This is also one of the means to reduce business cost. I also mentioned about the high business cost due to high transportation cost. I am pleased that both are being provided for in Budget 2002.”
“If you have a product for sale, take away the production cost, the overheads and other costs, your profit margin is 45% and above, you will benefit from this scheme. If the profit margin is less than 45%, the company would be worse off. Three years later, when the corporate tax is further reduced to 20%, you will benefit if your profit margin is 35% and above. Unlike the MNCs, most, if not all, small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in Singapore do not have a profit margin as high as 35%, not to mention 45%. So with this new tax regime, the business cost would increase rather than decrease for the SMEs. These measures would not benefit them and it would, in fact, be detrimental to their operation. I do not know what measures we have to help these companies which would end up worse off because of these tax adjustments. At present, most Singaporeans are not paying any income tax since the major adjustment when the 3% GST was implemented in 1994. That being the case, this present round of tax reduction does not benefit them at all. On the other hand, they have to pay 2% more in GST, the tax burden would be heavier for them. Although we do have an offset package, it is going to last only five years or, at most, 10 years. What is going to happen after that? Like it or not, the poor people would still have to pay 5% GST. As a result, the lower income people will have a heavier tax burden, and this burden is added to them because they have to make up for the reduction in tax revenue resulting from the tax cut for the high income earners and the corporate tax. In the long run, this is not being fair to the lower income people. As far as this issue is concerned, in five or 10 years' time, it will be a real problem for our people. I think the Government should take note of this.”
“Singaporeans have been born and bred to believe that we are a meritocratic system and, in many respects, we are equal and there are equal opportunities for all. Certainly, there are many graduate women I know of who do not appreciate the distinction, and they automatically switch off when they receive something from SDU. This is not to denigrate the efforts of SDU whose officers work extremely hard and are very diligent. I know because when I became an MP, I received a packet on dating tips which I have not yet made use of. But they do work very hard. But they are fighting against something which is not within their control. So if we do wish to address the problem, I think maybe this distinction between graduates and non-graduates should be done away with. And we should see Singaporeans as a whole, as equal people. With that, Sir, I support the motion. Assoc. Prof. Low Seow Chay (Chua Chu Kang)(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this is a tax reform Budget. The Government intends to offset the reduction in direct tax revenue by increasing the Goods and Services Tax (GST). The reason for reducing the corporate tax is to attract more investments, retain the present investments and create more job opportunities for our people. At the same time, we are reducing the personal income tax to attract more foreign talents to come to Singapore and to encourage Singaporeans to be more enterprising. If this policy can attain the above objectives, then there is no reason why we should not support it. However, having heard the Budget Statement by the Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister, I do have a number of doubts. We reduce the corporate tax by 2.5% and then raise the GST by 2%. This would only benefit those companies which are making substantial amount of profits.”
“For women, they see the men today less as a protector and a provider, although I think many still do. But many see them as a person whom they can look to for their emotional or intellectual needs. By this, what I mean is that in the past, many women would have married for financial security. Today, because they can actually earn for themselves, this is not the reason to marry anymore. They have the option of not marrying, which means that they do not look for a man for financial security. They look to him and would consider marrying him only if he meets their emotional and intellectual needs. And I am not sure that this problem has been sufficiently identified or realised because the way we treat the problem is one of, "Oh, well, you know, maybe they are not meeting one another enough. Maybe they don't have opportunities for interaction." So I asked a friend of mine, who is single, after the Prime Minister's speech, and I said, "Well, you know, you think it would help if you get to meet more men?" And she looked at me with a slightly incredulous expression and said, "What will I talk to him about?" She obviously had this difficulty. So that is actually the real area of the problem. And if it is something that we want to address, then this is what we should be looking at, not so much of fiscal measures. The role that SDU and SDS play in helping people to meet, I am sure, is helpful, but it does not actually address the crux of the problem. Just a brief word on the role of SDU and SDS. I am not sure that the public actually appreciates the distinction of one organisation for graduates and another for non-graduates. Because what we are actually doing is sending out a message that there are two classes of society.”