Ivan Png Paak Liang
Singapore
“Indeed, Sir, have we reviewed our force structure accordingly? For instance, last year, the US Army was busy converting artillerymen into MPs - not Members of Parliaments, but military policemen. Given our tax revenue and investment income, if we spend more on defence, we must be spending less on something else, for instance, R&D.”
“I think this should reassure Members that we adopt a very disciplined and focused approach in our attempts to bring in investments. We try not to give specific numbers because, as I said, we are in a very competitive environment. Other investment promotion agencies also look at what we are giving and try to top it.”
“This would be a superb complement to all the other attractions that we have around the Marina Bay - a functional maritime museum. Not one of those full of dead things, but one which is alive, with real people, real boat building. We can bring in the craftsmen from the region.”
“The really big ticket items on which we should focus are questions of how to ensure value for money in Government expenditure, questions like how much the market value of an HDB block increases for every $1 million spent on upgrading and utilisation of Government buildings.”
“Sir, responding to the hon. Minister's explanation on scholarships, let me say that I am not saying that we should not send scholars overseas. Rather, I was advocating one scholarship. There should not be a local scholarship or overseas scholarship.”
“Sir, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by, leave, withdrawn. The sum of $12,771,780 for Head C ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $265,200 for Head C ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Column No : 619 Head R - Ministry of Law”
The complete record
Every one of 96 lines we hold for Ivan Png Paak Liang, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 2.
“Indeed, Sir, have we reviewed our force structure accordingly? For instance, last year, the US Army was busy converting artillerymen into MPs - not Members of Parliaments, but military policemen. Given our tax revenue and investment income, if we spend more on defence, we must be spending less on something else, for instance, R&D. The Government is aiming to emulate Finland and Sweden in R&D spending. Finland spends 3.5% of GDP on R&D, Sweden spends 4%. We spend just 2.25%, aiming to increase to 3%. Sir, let us be judicious in defence spending. Let us be very sure that every additional dollar spent on defence provides us good value as every additional dollar in education, healthcare, housing and R&D. 3G SAF”
“Sir, the International Institute for Strategic Studies publishes Military Balance. This publication reports military expenditure of 19 countries in East Asia and Australasia. In 2004, we spent 4.7% of GDP on defence. Parliament staff are now distributing a chart which I have extracted from Military Balance. Members will see that our military expenditure at 4.7% of GDP places us fifth out of 19 countries in the region. Who were ahead of us? North Korea, Myanmar, Vietnam and Brunei. Sir, let me give another perspective by comparing us with other developed countries in stable regions. These are all similarly sized. Finland spends 1.3% of GPD on defence; Sweden spends 1.5%; and Switzerland spends 1.0%. Note that these are not NATO countries. It is easy to spend a lot on defence. Few will challenge defence expenditure, as it sounds like compromising national security. In the current Budget, defence expenditure will increase by 8.5% relative to 2005, and consume one-third of the entire budget. Sir, Prime Minister Lee has likened our defence expenditure to an insurance policy - the more we are worth, the more we should spend. Let me offer a different analogy - a bank. If a bank holds twice as much money, it does not double the number of security guards. The reason is economies of scale. As the economy grows larger, surely, we can reap economies of scale from defence like every other Government function. Further, let me echo hon. Members, Dr Ong Chit Chung and Mr Hawazi. Have we drawn the implications of changes in the threats to Singapore? Today, our most dangerous, imminent threat is global terrorism. Yet, we are adding more heavy artillery - a new squadron of F15s. How do these help us to combat Al Qaeda and Jemaah Islamiyah?”
“I think this should reassure Members that we adopt a very disciplined and focused approach in our attempts to bring in investments. We try not to give specific numbers because, as I said, we are in a very competitive environment. Other investment promotion agencies also look at what we are giving and try to top it. As the Prime Minister mentioned, investors sometimes come with a list of proposals on what they are getting from other countries and ask us to better the offer. We are very wary of such tactics and we do not want to fall prey to such tactics.”
“Sir, a clarifying question to the Hon. Minister. He has presented us with magnificent numbers for the fixed assets and total business spending attracted by EDB. Could I ask the Hon. Minister what is the incremental quantity? Some of these investments would have come even if we had not given grants and tax incentives. We really need to understand what is the incremental quantity. Because we have a good Government, we have good infrastructures, and some of these investments would have come any way. What is the incremental amount that came because of the incentives? That is what we need to know. Secondly, the Hon. Minister has agreed that there is no good measure of R&D. I agree. The best possible one - as far as I know, and OECD uses this - is the growth of multi-factor productivity. The fact that it is hard to measure does not mean that we should duck and not measure at all. If it is hard to measure, we should try to get the best possible measure. We should not just run away from it. Mr Lim Hng Kiang: Sir, our approach to attracting investments, as I have mentioned just now, is to evaluate each investment proposal very carefully. And if we can get by without giving the potential investor the incentives, the Member can be assured that EDB and JTC would not do so. So, if we look at our track record, MTI and EDB would generally ask for a significantly large EDAS budget, because we need a fairly significant war chest to be able to go out and promote Singapore and to attract investments. But if we look at the actual expenditure, in terms of equity, grants and loans, we will find that, in fact, it is a very small percentage of the budget that is granted to MTI and EDB.”
“" Secondly, as the Prime Minister has said, we need to get the appropriate performance measures, because how we measure influences what people will do. We need to have a coherent set of KPIs to measure the achievement of the comprehensive R&D strategy that will be implemented. We should not be relying on winning awards and competitions alone, or the total number of research publications and citations count. We should also not be too skewed towards commercialisation of technologies and ideas as this would influence the research towards a more downstream development work. What we need is a range of indicators, such as the number of publications, citation counts, patents filed, patent commercialised, research dollar attracted from industry, investment dollar attracted for IP commercialisation, etc. This whole range of indicators should not be applied equally to all institutions conducting research work. Rather, it should depend on the institution, whether it is a university, polytechnic or RI. A different combination of these indicators should be applied to measure the research output. Lastly, much funds set aside for R&D have been spent on development of expensive iconic buildings, such as the $500 million Biopolis and the $700 million Fusionpolis. In the Science and Technology Plan 2010, 3% of the total R&D budget will be spent on such infrastructures. Sir, what will put us on the world map of R&D is not the iconic building that costs millions to build and millions to maintain, but the research output in terms of breakthroughs, patents, commercialised products, IPs and technology transfers from RIs to the industry. National Research Foundation”
“Often, we hear from local researchers that they need to write grant applications to the research agency, fulfil burdensome paperwork and the grant approval, if successful, will usually only come maybe nine months or a year later. Sir, I have no quibble over these measures or quick access to funding, speedy grant approvals and less paperwork. My plea is only for equal treatment, not to favour the foreign scientists and therefore discriminate against the local R&D talents. We are not asking for special favours, we are only asking for the chance to compete equally. Scientific research today is increasingly about access to grants and rewards, such as fame, prizes and commercial spin-offs, ie, incentives that can sometimes lead to unethical practices, such as the South Korean stem cell research scandal. In Singapore, we have the BAC to guide biomedical research, and we have an external oversight system. However, we need a sound research governance framework that is aimed at continuous improvement of standards and the reduction of unacceptable variations in research practices to safeguard scientific integrity, ensure financial probity and prevent fraud and misconduct in research. We are reminded of proper corporate governance in the recent meltdown of NKF. In line with proper accountability and transparency, we need proper research governance to enhance accountability and transparency in the money spent on catching these "whales". If I may be frank here, Singapore has been taken to be a "Santa Claus" by many overseas researchers and research institutes (RIs). As the Prime Minister has said, "We will not spend it blindly. We will make sure it is well spent.”
“(1) If a world-renowned scientist is not able or faces certain difficulties to find grants to support a certain research work back home in his own country, there must be some reasons and important factors to it, and we should analyse carefully before we throw in huge amounts of money for this scientist to come to Singapore and conduct the research work here. A different angle to view this is: is the Singapore Government offering them huge sums of research grants without requiring them to clearly state their research objectives and deliverables in the form of writing research grants? (2) In attracting these world-renowned scientists with huge research grants and salaries, what are the key performance indicators that we have set for them to meet, and within what kind of a timeframe do these scientists have to deliver what they promise? (3) Have excessive money and research grants been paid to "catch these whales"? Will these "whales" turn into "ikan bilis" after a while? (4) Is "buying scientists" the right approach for Singapore to put us on the world map of R&D? How many such scientists can Singapore "buy" as each may cost at least a few millions, considering the salaries and research grants that have been paid to them? (5) Have we given a different treatment to the foreign scientists as compared to home-grown researchers in research grant application and approval? Many foreign scientists have echoed in the various media reports that Singapore's quick access to funding, speedy grant approvals and lack of burdensome paperwork are the attractions for them to relocate here. This seems to contradict what local researchers have experienced.”
“55 billion will be pumped into R&D over the next five years, of which more than half will go to MTI and its research agency and research institutes. This is certainly good news, but I perceive that overseas researchers and institutes could be more excited than Singaporeans over this news! It is necessary to look into how these research resources will be used to transform Singapore into an R&D driven economy with the outputs that we wish to achieve. First, in attracting and recruiting world-renowned scientists to Singapore, it has been reported recently in the local media that what attracted these scientists were Singapore's offer of "direct funding, less restrictive rules for research and the freedom to commercialise their science". A web-based magazine, however, reported that Singapore offers "unrestricted research, top-notch equipment and limitless funds" to these scientists, as long as they agree to relocate to Singapore. How contrasting this is! It has also been reported that Singapore promises these foreign renowned scientists world-class laboratories and more than enough money to pursue work that is not fundable, or is too controversial back in the home countries of these scientists. So far, this has worked and many "whales" have been caught by our local research agency. They are renowned researchers from the US, Japan and UK who have made their names in cancer and life science research, including Sirs and a Nobel Laureate. There is nothing wrong in attracting renowned foreign scientists to Singapore, and I agree with the Prime Minister that we should attract foreign R&D talents. But I think we have to ask ourselves a few questions.”
“The Science and Technology Plan 2010 increases A*STAR's budget by over 20% from $4 billion to $5.15 billion. It creates a National Research Foundation on a budget of $5 billion. I worry about the ability of our research organisation to make good use of a sharp increase in funds. Let me give an analogy. Suppose that we are running at 7 km an hour, and we want to accelerate to 10 km an hour. Yes, if we want to run faster, we must eat more. But the additional food must be calibrated according to how fast we are running, not just stuffing in food and hoping we can run faster. Indeed, I have heard talk of a "feeding frenzy" as foreign researchers swarm to Singapore for the rich research funding. Sir, A*STAR's performance indicators include the number of patent applications and industry funding. Again, the number of patents has the flavour of an output target. It is just a matter of how much money you put into filing applications. Let me propose an alternative indicator which, I think, would be more reflective - the royalty income from patents and commercialisation. After all, we are not interested in collecting pieces of paper but rather their economic impact. So let us measure the royalty income. I do applaud A*STAR's focus on industry funding as a performance measure. That is great! But let me suggest another one. Besides industry funding, let us also measure A*STAR by the amount of co-funding of A*STAR's research by foreign national agencies and international agencies, for instance, the US National Science Foundation, the US Defence Advance Research Projects Agency, the European Union and the various UN organisations. Assoc. Prof. Ong Soh Khim (Nominated Member): Sir, I declare that I am an academic at NUS. $13.”
“In this way, we could put tax incentives on a similar footing as grants and loans that we budget for tax, budget for grants and loans, and we could more accurately measure and compare the cost vis-a-vis benefits of these various schemes. Research and Development (R&D) Sir, just last month, Minister Lim Hng Kiang announced the Science and Technology Plan 2010. Allow me to applaud Minister Lim for publishing the plan and also the review of the previous plan. This is a big step towards greater transparency and good governance. Sir, the plan has three targets at the national level by the year 2010. (1) Increase national R&D spending to 3% of GDP; (2) Increase the private sector share of R&D to two-thirds; (3) Increase research manpower to catch up with Sweden and Japan. As a researcher, I applaud investments in R&D. However, as an economist, I worry about two aspects of the R&D plan. First, the key targets are inputs. I and, I think, most economists and other policy makers would rather aim at output targets. Let me propose the following alternative, increase our growth rate of multi-factor productivity to the top quartile in the OECD. Sir, please refer to the chart which is being distributed by Parliament staff. You will see Singapore's multi-factor productivity growth right at the end on the right hand side. It leaves much to be improved. Over the period, 1990 to 2002, we were placed just above the OECD median, at about slightly under 1%. Sir, we are much more flexible and dynamic than many of these OECD countries. Yet, our productivity growth pales by comparison. So instead of aiming at national R&D spending be 3% of GDP, let us aim that our growth rate of multi-factor productivity be in the top quartile of the OECD. Sir, my second worry.”
“Sir, the Government offers a range of incentives to businesses, including tax incentives, loans, grants and co-investments. MTI's Economic Development Assistance Scheme is budgeted for $2.125 billion in Phase IV. In years 2004 and 2005, the EDB provided for grants of $106 million and $82 million respectively. In the same two years, EDB had loans outstanding of $523 and $107 million respectively. Sir, I ask if the Ministry could please share with the House three points: (1) What performance measure does it use to evaluate the results of these grants and loans? (2) What have been the results in Phases III and IV of the Economic Development Assistance Scheme? Sir, I have referred to the EDB's Annual Report. It does publish data on such things as fixed asset investment, total value added, total business spending. However, the problem is that it does not say how much of these are due to EDB grants, loans, etc, and how much would have come to Singapore anyway. To evaluate the policy, we really need to know the incremental value-add of the policies. How much extra as an investment, how much extra value added, how much extra business spending resulted from EDB grants and incentives? (3) As discussed during the Budget debate, we should be concerned about the economic impact, both in economic performance and revenue loss of tax incentives. May I suggest to MTI that it agrees with the Ministry of Finance a tax revenue budget for economic incentives. This tax revenue budget would measure the value of tax incentives given out, specifically the amount of revenue loss resulting from these tax incentives.”
“Yes, clarification. Sir, I pointed out that one of the problems with Golden Mile Complex is not just a matter of painting. Will the Parliamentary Secretary please acknowledge that it is also a matter of all those unsightly extensions, glass, wood and so on? Responding to the Hon. Minister, I was not thinking of commercial boat-building, but just demonstrative boat-building. All those boats are non-engine boats. They are all sail boats and so there is very little pollution. Dr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman: Sir, the issue of Golden Mile Complex is, as Prof. Png mentioned, an extreme example. It is an issue of a building that was built in the 70s and, at that time, the conditions were slightly different. The history of Golden Mile Complex is one. We have confirmed with URA that, at that time, planning approval was not required for enclosing of balconies because the balconies were included as part of the GSA at that time. Because of that, the BCA allows these structures to be regularised now under the Building Control Act as long as they do not impact on the structural safety of the building. The MC had actually approved such enclosures and facilitated their regularisation. It is within those constraints that right now what the Commissioner of Buildings has done is to try to make the best of what we have at this point in time. And sprucing up is really indeed one of the things that we could do. Hopefully, with sprucing up, with better facade, things would be better. It may not be the ideal that we want with regard to what we can see from Nicoll Highway, but certainly it is better than what it is today. Why do we not wait till they complete their work, take a look at it and see how else we can further enhance the view from Nicoll Highway as we drive up there?”
“This would be a superb complement to all the other attractions that we have around the Marina Bay - a functional maritime museum. Not one of those full of dead things, but one which is alive, with real people, real boat building. We can bring in the craftsmen from the region. Let us help to sustain some of these skills and let our children, tourists and businesses understand where we came from and where we will be going.”
“Sir, I will address two questions. First, building maintenance. We must all be quite familiar with the Golden Mile Complex, that landmark along Beach Road. But, Sir, view it from the other side and you see what I call a "vertical slum". It is a terrible eyesore and a national disgrace. The appearance of Golden Mile Complex appals me whenever I drive along Nicoll Highway. It must create a terrible impression on foreign visitors arriving from the airport. How can we be a world-class city in a garden? The Golden Mile Complex is just the most extreme of how a strata-title property can deteriorate. It illustrates what economists call a "negative externality". Each individual owner acts selfishly, adding extensions, zinc sheets, patched floors, glass, all without any regard for other owners and without any regard for the national welfare. The result is market failure. Unless we take resolute measures, other strata buildings will go that way. I ask the Minister to quickly act to arrest the deterioration of such property. Two, Marina Bay, my second point. The Hon. Minister has set out a visionary plan for the development of the Marina Bay. I applaud the Ministry for that. But I want to echo hon. Member Geh Min, that we can do more to support leisure and even tourists' use of Marina Bay. Specifically, the Marina Bay would be a superb location for a maritime museum. I mean not only to showcase our heritage but also a functional museum, that is, we should have operational Chinese junks, Arab dhows, sailing crafts from India, Indonesia and the Philippines. Let our kids play, enjoy and learn and let tourists come in. I am glad to see the Minister for Trade and Industry is here. There is an economic angle here.”
“Sir, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by, leave, withdrawn. The sum of $12,771,780 for Head C ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $265,200 for Head C ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Column No : 619 Head R - Ministry of Law”
“The really big ticket items on which we should focus are questions of how to ensure value for money in Government expenditure, questions like how much the market value of an HDB block increases for every $1 million spent on upgrading and utilisation of Government buildings. Mr Chairman, we note here in Parliament that we have an auditorium. Across the street, in the Supreme Court, they have an auditorium. Around the block, at the Treasury building, there is another auditorium. There are a lot of auditoriums all within a 100-metres of each other. Other big ticket items like what is value add of the billions we have spent on economic incentives to multi-national and domestic companies? Sir, let us focus the Auditor-General on the big ticket items, issues of value for money. Let us focus on dollars and not cents.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head C of the Estimates be reduced by $100. Mr Chairman, by the Constitution, the Auditor-General's duties are to audit and report on the accounts of the Government. His scope of work is very limited. In his Report for financial year 2004/05, the Auditor-General noted various irregularities, such as the mistaken Giro deduction of $3,020 by the Ministry of Home Affairs, and the $437 jackpot over-payment by the Paya Lebar Airbase Officers' Mess. Such items are very trivial. We should focus the Auditor-General on big ticket items. Let us learn from other jurisdictions, such as Australia, Hong Kong, New Zealand and the UK. For instance, the duties of the Auditor-General of Australia are to report on the performance and financial management of the government. Two recent reports focus on the effectiveness of the government in, one, administering quarantine and, two, the Australian Armed Forces' upgrade of its M113 armoured personnel carriers. Mr Chairman, I have another example - the UK National Audit Office's report on, I quote, "The economy, efficiency and effectiveness of the government". Presently, the officers are preparing a report on the lessons from the merger of five existing regulatory bodies into off-com. The UK National Audit Office hopes to identify good practices to guide future mergers of government agencies. By contrast, our Auditor-General catches a few thousand dollars worth of late payments and some missing invoices. This misses the wood for the trees.”
“Yes, Sir. Secondly, would the Minister please clarify this term "farmers" is not used to distinguish people from scholars?”
“Sir, responding to the hon. Minister's explanation on scholarships, let me say that I am not saying that we should not send scholars overseas. Rather, I was advocating one scholarship. There should not be a local scholarship or overseas scholarship. If we are going to offer scholarships, let us offer one scholarship, ie, same terms to everybody, a certain lump-sum of money, let them decide how to spend it. From the Government's point of view, same expenditure and no discrimination between local and foreign universities. Secondly, will be the Minister please confirm that the usage of this ---”
“Second, and ironically, another loser is the scholarship-granting organisation. One loss is the money spent on university tuition and allowances. A bigger loss is in the morale and contribution of "non-scholars". As I have said, the Government does attract talented people without scholarships. However, Sir, there is at least a perception that the career opportunities of "non-scholars" are limited. Indeed, I have even heard that they are called "farmers". This is very disheartening to me. The third loser from the scholarship is our Singapore universities. We have world-class institutions here. So, why do Government and agencies discriminate between "overseas" and "local" scholarships? Indeed, in a recent report from the Ministry of Trade and Industry on A*STAR, it also mentioned overseas and local scholarships. Sir, there should be only one class of scholarships. Give the student a fixed sum of money and let him/her choose how to spend it. That would be true empowerment. Sir, there was a time for Government scholarships. Let us agree that that time has passed. Forty-one years after independence, our country has matured. Our Government has also matured. It is time to compete for talent on a level playing field.”
“Sir, once upon a time, the Government faced a shortage of talent. The civil service paid poorly, and white officers were leaving for their home countries. The Singapore Armed Forces had to start almost from scratch. However, today, the situation is vastly different. The civil service and SAF offer exciting careers, pay market salaries, and attract plenty of talent. Yet, the Government and statutory boards continue to grab young people at the age of 18. Today, the Ministry of Education announced GCE 'A' level results. Every year, about this time, the Straits Times makes thousands of dollars from its scholarship supplement. Our talent pool, however, is quite fixed. So, the scholarship competition is just a zero-sum arms race. Sir, it is time for a performance review of the scholarship system. Scholarship selection is based on interviews and examination results at age 18. However, using such information to predict a person's future aptitude and interest four to 10 years later is almost like speculation. I know this from personal experience. For instance, what proportion of Administrative Officers reach the Superscale Grade at the end of their bond? What proportion of SAF officers reach the rank of Colonel at the end of their bond? And likewise for Police officers. I am not saying that the "failures" were not talented. It is simply a matter of poor fit - they might have been better suited for another career. Who loses from the scholarship scheme? First, the person himself/herself? Young people are attracted to scholarships. Indeed, I have heard that in certain junior colleges, it is shameful not to win an overseas scholarship. Yet, eight, even four years later, will they fit the organisation that they are bonded to?”
“Accordingly, the actual expenditure depends on the fund income and is not related to the current transfer. It is worth noting therefore that the actual budget deficit might be lower than projected. Indeed, the Government should consider calculating the budget surplus, or deficit, on the basis of the expenditure, rather than the transfers. Sir, allow me, in closing, to thank the Prime Minister and the Government for such a people-friendly and growth-oriented Budget. Sir, I strongly support the motion. 4.26 pm”
“In last year's Budget debate, we called on the Government to focus the national dividend on those who needed it most. The Government has done so. I am sure that our whole society - rich and poor - appreciates and supports such targeting. My second response is to thank the Government for accepting my suggestion to rationalise our record-keeping requirements. I do appreciate there was some element of having to cut the Gordian knot here. On the evening of the Prime Minister's Budget Statement, I mentioned this change to a manager with a multi-national company. She was delighted. She said that she would soon clear out part of her CISCO storage! Bad for CISCO, but good for enterprise. My third response is to thank the Government for committing to review the estate duty system. Let me state clearly that I do support the estate duty. We do not tax capital gains, unlike many countries, and it is right and efficient not to do so. So, some level of estate duty is reasonable. It is the structure that needs fine-tuning. One, as I have suggested in this House before, and I echo hon. Members, Dr Ong Chit Chung and Mr Chay Wai Chuen, we need to balance the exemptions between real estate and non-real estate properties. Two, as I echo my hon. colleagues, we need to refine the procedures to reduce compliance costs. Sir, my one observation concerns the budget deficit. The budget projects a deficit of $2.39 billion, or about 1.15% of next year's GDP, assuming 5% growth. Let me point out one reason why the actual deficit might be lower. The budget includes $900 million of transfers to various funds as expenses. The largest transfer is $500 million to the National Research Foundation. But these funds only spend the income from their endowments.”
“Hosting the UN could pay for itself through economic as well as security spin-offs. The presence of the UN in Singapore might be even better contribution to our security than the US naval base. Sir, my third suggestion concerns research and development. As a researcher, I support investments in R&D. However, as an economist, I worry about two aspects of the R&D plan. One, the target to invest 3% of GDP in R&D is an input. As an economist, I would rather aim at output targets. For instance, we should be aiming at the target increase in productivity growth. After all, we are more interested in productivity than we should be in spending. Two, with regard to the R&D plan, I worry about the ability of our research organisations to make a good use of such a sharp increase in funds. Let me give an analogy. Suppose that we are running at 7 kms per hour and we want to speed up to 10 kms per hour. Yes, if we want to run faster, we must increase our caloric intake. But the increase must be calibrated and measured carefully, or else we will just make ourselves sick. I will make detailed suggestions on R&D funding in the Committee of Supply. My fourth suggestion concerns taxation. The Prime Minister's Budget proposes new tax incentives to the financial, maritime and logistics industries. These add to a wide range of incentives - tax incentives, grants and loans - that we give to particular industries and activities. Sir, as I said last year, and I reiterate now, I urge the Government to resist creating more tax incentives. Our key tax incentive ought to be a simple tax system with low headline rates. Sir, my three responses. My first response is to thank the Government for hearing hon. Members, Ms Irene Ng, Mr Sin Boon Ann and me.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for letting me join in the debate. I strongly support the Prime Minister's and the Government's vision to build Singapore into the best possible home for our people. Allow me, Sir, to offer four suggestions, three responses and one observation. My first suggestion is that the Committee of Supply include a test for every Head. This test is, what activities would the responsible entity cut if its budget were cut by 1%? What activities would they add if its budget were increased by 1%? Only with such a test, would Parliament and the people understand the Government's priorities and trade-offs. Only then, would this Committee of Supply be a true budgetary exercise. Absent such a test, every Ministry, every MP has incentive to ask for more. And the Ministry of Finance is alone in defending against more expenditure. Instead, we should engage all MPs and all people in judging the priorities and making the trade-offs. On a related matter, Sir, we should broaden the scope of the Auditor-General's work. The Auditor-General should not be confined to checking for accounting errors and non-compliance with procedures. He should be empowered to conduct value-for-money audits. I will give details in the Committee of Supply. My second suggestion concerns international relations. Prime Minister Lee mentioned the WIPO office in Singapore. I consider this to be good for us. I suggest that we build on this to make a bold, strategic move. Let us become the Asian base for the United Nations. Many hon. Members have visited Geneva which is the UN base in Europe. The UN provides many well-paid jobs and many positive economic spin-offs to Geneva. In this, the Asia-Pacific century, we should aim to bring the UN to Asia.”
“I have two supplementary questions for the hon. Minister. Sir, recently the Coffeeshop Association has announced a 10-cent rise in the price of coffee nationwide. This, to me, strikes as an example of price fixing. Will the hon. Minister say whether the Competition Commission will be investigating this case? Before the Competition Act came into force this year, last December, the School Bus Operators Association raised fares across the board and affected many school children across all schools. May I ask the hon. Minister if the School Bus Owners Association were to do so again this year, would the Competition Commission investigate them for price fixing?”
“May I ask the Hon. Minister if Singapore has done a study of the use of carpets in our tropical climate or is the Ministry relying on studies done in temperate countries where the climate and environmental conditions may be different, and the hazards may be different? Secondly, may I ask the Minister whether he would pay particular attention to the use of carpeting in hospitals. I notice on my most recent visit to a Government hospital that linoleum is now being replaced by carpeting. I am wondering whether that is customer service really, or they have considered the impact on health.”
“Sir, would the Hon. Minister please consider coordinating with the regulatory agencies, such as MAS, to persuade our banking and financial institutions to offer their services on browsers other than Internet Explorer? As the Hon. Minister has just observed, one-third of the users are not using Internet Explorer. I would like to stress that Internet Explorer has been documented to be a much less secure browser than other alternatives. So it behoves us in the interest of our population to encourage our banking, healthcare and other sectors where security is important, to make their services available on something other than Microsoft Internet Explorer.”
“Sir, I thank the Hon. Minister for the comprehensive reply. I have two supplementary questions. We are a country which is very open. We are trying to promote tourism. We are very open to international trade and investments. We have very many foreign visitors, both vacationers and businessmen. First, can Singapore take the lead in implementing the "112"? There is no need to wait for the rest of the world to catch up. Let us implement it first for all our fixed-line calls and non-GSM mobile. It is just a matter of call forwarding. It should not be that difficult. So, can we take the lead in this and we will actually get the most benefits as an open country? Second, can we do our utmost in the international forum, not just wait for ITU? We can press this in ASEAN, APEC and many other forums where we can move this forward, and then bring this to fruition. As an open economy which depends on trade, investments and tourism, we stand to benefit the most. We should take the lead here.”
“Sir, would the Minister agree that, in Singapore, we are very much driven by evidence-based policies and, in this case, it seems that the evidence is very weak and we do know that this costs about $200,000 a year to new drivers? So, it is time we relooked at this policy since the evidence against is $200,000 a year, and some of the arguments, such as the Minister has put forward, that putting on the triangle makes other drivers drive more carefully, then that would be an argument for having every car put on the triangle so that every other driver will drive more carefully. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: First, I would say that the numbers I have given are not really indicative. It is not evidence as such, because it talks about the general accident rates, not just pertaining to "P" plate drivers. Second, they are a vulnerable group. It is the same approach that we take with other vulnerabe groups, whether it is motorcyclists as a group or senior citizens and young pedestrians as a group. I think for "P" plate drivers who are new, whether they are motorists or motorcyclists, they are a vulnerable group. Therefore, we should help them become better drivers in the process. Third, I think $11 for a "P" plate is not too much to ask, for the gain that can be secured from the scheme. COMMUNITY CHEST (Review of role and functions) 7. Mdm Ho Geok Choo asked the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (a) if the Ministry will review the role and functions of the Community Chest to make it more effective in the management and coordination of the voluntary social services sector; and (b) how many voluntary organisations are there which carry out annual fund raising activities but are not affiliated to the Community Chest.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Minister for the reply. It seems that the decrement in the accident rate has been from 5.5 per thousand to anywhere from 4.9 to 5.2 per thousand, which is not that much of a decrement, especially if we think of 5.2 and we do not know the data after 1997 and the data beforehand was for only one year. It could well have been a spike year. So, in that light, and also in the light that one of these devices costs about $11 and maybe we need several tens of thousands of them a year, is it not worth considering removing this requirement now? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, this is part of the entire matrix of measures that we have taken to improve road safety. The figures given are general statistics, not pertaining only to accidents involving "P" plate holders. So, whilst the numbers have come down, showing some improvement, in fact, we cannot conclude therefore that it is the scheme that has made it such. But the point is that, from feedback from drivers and from what we have done in general, we can see that the "P" plate has served its function, because it has caused other drivers to be more mindful that this person is new and, therefore, they take greater care when their own vehicles are near these drivers. Also, for newer drivers, it probably gives them greater confidence that whilst they are working-in, post getting the licence for one year, others are aware that they are new. So, let us keep this scheme.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, to follow up on the Minister's response, I do agree. Yes, the media have been most forward-looking in agreeing to not to publish full NRIC numbers. As far as I can see, the only non-complying body now is the Official Assignee, who still insists on publishing a huge number of people's full names and NRIC numbers. Would the Minister please work with the Minister for Law to have that corrected? Secondly, would the Minister agree that, going forward, when we look at the regulatory framework for privacy and even legislation for privacy, we should be neutral and make no distinction between on-line and off-line dissemination and use of information? So, there should be the same robust protection for off-line information as well as on-line information.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the hon. Minister four supplementary questions. First, does Singapore currently comply with the European Union data protection directive? Second, if we do not comply with this directive, to what extent does this non-compliance affect the future development of call centre and data centre businesses in Singapore? Third, the Minister mentioned the inter-ministerial sub-committee. May I ask the Minister whether this sub-committee is charged with recommending legislation or just providing guidance and some principles that will not be binding? Finally, may I ask the Minister if he is aware of the tremendous public concern over the privacy of ICs and IC numbers, as was shown in the considerable number of letters to the Straits Times last year and, if so, how does the Ministry plan to address these concerns?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, would the hon. Minister not agree that the $600,000 invested, say, at 3%, yields only $18,000 a year, whereas $9 million invested in housing will yield a much larger income? This imbalance will really encourage people to invest in real estate rather than in productive investments, such as businesses and factories.”
“Sir, in future, if such a discrepancy arises and the correction is wrong and then it is noticed, would it not be better if this were announced before it was found out by the newspapers? Would it not be better if the Ministry were to announce this than for this to be discovered by the Straits Times?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in the original Question, I asked whether this discrepancy and the correction had been announced prior to the Straits Times' report.”
“Sir, two supplementary questions for the Hon. Minister. First, what are the procedures regarding doctors who practise both in the public sector and the private sector? We do have doctors who practise in both places at the same time. How do we safeguard against the transfer of information in such cases? Secondly, the Hon. Minister referred to the Medical Council and other guidelines. How do we ensure that doctors when they move between sectors or from one sector to the other sector, they do not take the medical records but they may take names and phone numbers, and that may be all that is enough to solicit business from the public sector patients?”
“Would the Minister please remark on whether the consortium would be a way by which the existing members can cartelise the business in Changi Airport?”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, for allowing me to join in this debate. First, I should disclose that I am a professor of the National University of Singapore and an elected member of the Senate Delegacy.I would like address the same point to both the NUS and the NTU Bills. I support both these Bills. I have only one concern. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the cornerstone of the success of our universities is academic governance, and,in turn, the academic governance is founded upon the university's constitution. I think we are all aware of the sensitivity of the issue of academic governance, especially with regardto the recent decision of the University of Warwick not to come to Singapore. Sir, my concern is, with regard to the NUS and NTU Corporatisation Bills. Under these two Bills, theoriginal NUS and NTU Acts will be repealed. Along with the repeal of those Acts, the respective universities' constitutions will also be repealed. My concern, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, is what will become of the universities' constitutions with the corporatisation of these two universities? Will the constitutions be incorporated into the new university Memorandum and Articles of Association? If not, how can we be assured that the academic governance of our two great universities will be continued to be safeguarded in the era of corporatisation?”
“Sir,is the Minister aware that as a result of the revenue pool, there are fewer flights between Singapore and KL, and the prices are higher than even more distant destinations such as Singapore-Bangkok orSingapore-Jakarta?Would the Minister please comment on the usual way to undermine a cartel, such as this revenue pool, is through the entry of competition? Competition is now limited on the KL side, according to the Minister. But if we allow low-cost carriers to operate a combination of bus plus air services through Senai Airport, this would be a way by which the consumers - theSingapore travelling public -can enjoy low-cost fares to Kuala Lumpur, and the additional benefit of undermining this revenue pool that SIA and MAS are holding up.”
“I thank the Minister for the answer. I just want to reiterate to the Ministerthat we know there is very little economic ground for another pay cable TV operator to come in, because they just cannot earn the required return on investment of the network. That is why I have asked the Minister to please consider using satellite TV as the way to ensure good enough competition with the cable TV company.”
“Sir, I thank the Minister for the answer. I have two supplementary questions. First, I understand that thereare a lot of choices available on cable TV. Indeed, there is even more content available on the Internet, as the Government has said so many times. Since we are not fearful of what is available on the Internet, we should not be fearful of what is available on satellite TV. My supplementary question is this. Content is one issue. The other issue is choice and pricing. We have only one cable TV provider. Would the Ministry not consider the introduction of satellite TV from the point of view of competitiveness as well as from content? Namely, we have no way to make sure that our cable TV provider provides good choices atlow prices, because no one else wants to provide cable TV. The obvious way is a technologically neutral policy which admits satellite TV as a competitor to cable TV. My second supplementary question is: does the Ministry also regulate the use of global positioning system (GPS) receivers in Singapore? Are there any restrictions in Singapore on the use of GPS receivers?”
“Sir, the Minister has explained to the House how petrol duty is being used as a way to curb usage of cars. We all know that we have limited land space and car usage is intensive of our land space. My question to the Minister is: in light of technological developments, such as the development of hybrid vehicles, which are going to be much less intensive in fuel, will this not undermine the policy intent of our petrol duty? And if so, what would be the Minister's response to this?”
“Sir, I thank the Minister for the comprehensive and candid reply. May I ask whether the authorities take due care even with flights originating from what might seem like large world powers, such as the United States. In particular, may I ask the Minister if our security agencies are aware of a recent report published by the US Congress' General Accounting Office which reports: "The Transportation Security Administration lacks adequate internal controls to provide reasonable assurance that screeners received legislatively-mandated basic and remedial training and to monitor its recurrent training programme." I further quote - this is in regard to covert tests run by the Transportation Security Administration: "These tests identified that overall weaknesses and vulnerabilities continue to exist in passenger and check-baggage screening systems at airports of all sizes."”
“So maybe "Others" and sub-others and sub, sub-others, depending on how big these are.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to join in this debate. I have two comments and they relate to the financial reporting structure for Institutions of Public Character (IPCs).IPCs are required to post financial information annually using a prescribed format. My first comment regards operatingand administrative expenses. Consider a big institution likea university or a hospital. It has multiple activities spanning some profitable, some charitable andsome non-profit. All of these are lumped together and we get one big lump sumoperatingand administrative expenses. I think it would be much better for everyone and much more transparent if there were proper segregation of these operatingand administrativeexpenses between the charitable and the non-charitable and the profit-making activities. This would ensure full transparency.We talk in the House a lot about expense ratios. We can see some expense ratios looking very good and that is because things have been commingled with one another. So I do not think we want to have too much clever accounting. We should rather have these segregated so that the public can understand the picture much more clearly. Sir, my second comment relates also to the financial format prescribed by the CommissionerofIRAS. "Income" is divided into a number of categories. Members would have seen the chart performance shown by the hon. Member Wang Kai Yuen. One of the categories is "Other Income". Let me call attention to NKF that"Other Income" in 2003 was $25 million, which is a lot of "Others". So my second suggestion is that in this prescribed format by IRAS, if the so-called "Others" indeed becomes so large and exceeds some particular level, it would be much better for us to see a further breakdown.”
“I thank the Hon. Minister for his detailed reply. I have two supplementary questions. First, I thank the Hon. Minister for the explanation on the compensation scheme. I wonder if the Ministry can take into account that NSmen are there on a compulsory basis. And while it does seem good to treat them on the same basis as regular servicemen, this is not the NSmen's career of choice. That man may well become an engineer, a lawyer or even a Minister in the future. So, maybe, the basis of compensation is not quite right, and the Ministry may like to reconsider it. I thank the Minister for the explanation on the charges taken against the servicemen who are not charged in criminal court. It does seem to me a bit odd that their charge was "negligence". From all accounts, this was a deliberate act and it was not a negligent act. I appreciate the Minister's comment on that.”
“Sir, I thank the Minister for his considered response to my suggestion. In June 29th Straits Times, it was reported that in the construction industry, building contractors are actively buying and selling foreign worker quotas. The going rate is $2,000-$3,000 a worker. In this light, I ask the Minister, would it not be better for this trade to be simply legalised and the revenue to go to the Government than some crooked building contractors?”
“Sir, I would like to take up a point made by another Member on the connection between the war on terrorism and Iraq. I note that our engagement in Iraq was singled out in the joint statement between President Bush and our Prime Minister Lee in the Prime Minister's recent visit to Washington. But, Sir, even some years after the coalition intervention in Iraq, there has been no evidence of weapons of mass destruction. So, I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister for his views on whether the coalition intervention in Iraq has actually advanced or brought us backwards in the war against terrorism.”
“Sir, the Ministers have not answered my question, ie, if the operators of the IRs come back and ask for relaxed conditions on admission of Singaporeans, will the Government commit that it will not relax these conditions.”