Janil Puthucheary
Singapore
“Sir, I thank Ms Lee for her two supplementary questions, which address what are our targets and what is it that we measure. Indeed, the issue of how we should think about recycling and waste disposal will be at the heart of our review of our Zero Waste Masterplan.”
“Another strategy that we are embarking on is the strengthening of the reuse of waste residue and treated toxic industrial waste before and after they are landfilled.”
“Sir, about half of our recycling material is exported. It is processed overseas. There are business arrangements between businesses here in Singapore and businesses in the region or overseas, to be able to handle the recycling of waste and recycling of material, whether domestic or non-domestic, already today.”
“Sir, I thank Ms Poh for her questions. Indeed, we do have to shift behaviours. The incentives and disincentives around recycling and waste disposal are an important part of it. We will consider her suggestion on looking at the fees.”
“The heat advisory that goes out is clearly defined. In my original answer, I explained what a heat wave was. There are clear definitions that we have been using in Singapore since 2016, if I recall. It was then last revised in 2023.”
“Sir, in the planning of schools, the Ministry of Education ensures that our students can access a primary school near their homes. Except for a small number, 15 of Special Assistance Plan schools, all primary schools offer the three official mother tongue languages.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,326 lines we hold for Janil Puthucheary, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 27 of 27.
“In essence, the Government will still be doing what it has done all these years. Not sticking to a particular dogma or ideology, finding the best way to solve problems by putting Singaporeans at the centre of the issue. We can free ourselves from the idea that nothing good can be free. This idea would benefit Singaporeans, it can be done, and I urge the Government to consider this proposal. Sir, in this Budget, even when it seems that the economy is made the focus of policies, it is with an end in mind that benefits the people. This Government has taken a citizen-centric approach in serving Singapore, and not an ideology or dogma-centric approach. We do what is needed. We do the right thing. Budget 2013 reinforces this and I support the Budget.”
“Let me return to things that are free, things that we can potentially make free. Could something free be the right policy tool? I would like to suggest that in public transport, the concept of "free" could be used as a tool for demand management, for reducing the crush at the peak hour. Currently, on the MRT, a discount is offered to incentivise people to travel early. Instead, why not offer a window period where commuters can travel for free? If we can afford it, have all travel on public transport until the start of peak hour, as free. If that is too great a leap, then maybe, for example, a 30-minute window or an hour, ending at 7.45 am, the commuters travel for free. Will this Page: 128 distort behaviour? Yes, absolutely, it will distort behaviour, that is the whole point. This will attract more people to change their travel patterns than any discount. It will be far more effective than any discount. Money has been budgeted for demand management; why not channel the money that is being put aside into just giving free rides during a window period? Instead of using the money to conduct complex research studies, to create and maintain Smartphone apps or generating programmes with rewards and "free" gifts that we really do not need, just channel all the money directly into free travel that consumers and commuters will benefit from? Everyone will benefit. Those that travel earlier will benefit from free travel. Those that cannot will have less congestion and be more comfortable. Sir, on the surface, it may look like we would be shifting to take a more liberal, leftist approach, but, in truth, this would be a pragmatic, utilitarian approach to achieve a concrete outcome, in this case to change the passengers' behaviour to ease congestion.”
“Doing more and spending more are not automatically going to improve our health. In the US, the medical community is looking actively to reduce the number of investigations performed, procedures done, and medications administered, in recognition of the fact that, sometimes, in spending more and doing more, more errors are made, patients are subjected to needless risks and side effects, and often it fails to affect the outcomes that really matter. A recent study from, I believe the University of California, Davis, looked at the most satisfied patients in the US healthcare system. They found that the patients that were the most satisfied were those that have the highest healthcare expenditure. So, the patients who were the most satisfied with their doctor were the ones who had the highest amount of money spent on them. The study went on to demonstrate that these were also the patients with the highest risks of death. And you can draw from that your own conclusions. They have: spending more does not automatically assume a better outcome. Let us aim for the right outcome, with the most appropriate tool, not just use a tool for its own sake. Another example of an inappropriate tool would be the idea that deregulation of the preschool Anchor Operator Programme would automatically result in lower fees through competition. The point was made that land is scarce, sites are rare, and the labour market for teachers is very tight. The reality is that if the Anchor Operator Programme is de-regulated, the competitiveness would not necessarily lower the cost, the Government would no longer have the ability to ensure affordability, and we would largely be held hostage as a society by the operators that are out there in the industry. So, I disagree with that suggestion.”
“The presence of free food is an immediate draw, people tend to pile more onto their plates, and enjoy it, and it is a great way of making sure my students turn up for some seminars. When ERP charges are removed from some roads, motorists would rather sit through a jam, use up more fuel on an ERP-free road. The word "free" has a powerful impact on people's minds and does, indeed, change behaviour. But what if this is exactly what we want to achieve − a change in behaviour? How would we choose the best tool for achieving that on our part? When choosing a policy tool, the outcome is the issue. An example would be the calls for more healthcare spending or free healthcare. Free healthcare sounds great. Who would not want all the essentials of life taken care of? Unfortunately, when we look at the healthcare outcomes that matter, such as mortality, the quality of life in the last few decades as a senior, there is no correlation. Free healthcare does not change what really matters. Free healthcare achieves one significant outcome − it results in much higher state spending, which is funded by higher taxes. "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch". Free healthcare is not free and is not good for your health. What if we go in the other direction and "spend more", taking healthcare as an example? The first point of comparison is: why do other countries spend more on healthcare? Is it that they achieve better healthcare outcomes? Or is it that they do a less than optimal job of controlling their costs? In principle, I cannot object to spending more on healthcare, and we may all well need to in the future. But we need to be very careful about the "why" and the "how". We Page: 127 should be doing so in order to get better outcomes, not just because other countries are doing so.”
“Sir, one of Singapore's strengths has been that we do not subscribe to ideology for its own sake. Other than sticking to our core beliefs on being a meritocratic system and shaping a fair and harmonious society, we are free of dogma. The Government does not lean on ideology or received wisdom but looks for the right solution for each problem and does what needs to be done in the interest of Singaporeans. How far are we prepared to abandon dogma or ideology, in the interest of our nation? One thing we appear to be quite dogmatic about is the mantra that "nothing is free". There is no such thing as a free lunch. There is always an element of co-payment. The risks are shared between the people and the Page: 126 Government, or businesses and the Government, and "free" has become somewhat of a dirty word, especially in the provision of public services, such as healthcare, transport and education. The concern is that anything free is over-consumed and under-valued − the "moral hazard", the "buffet syndrome". Anything free distorts behaviour. However, this is something that the world of marketing, advertising and consumerism is very well aware of, and takes advantage of. Think of the "free gifts" offered in order to attract customers to buy something bigger, something more expensive, something we really did not need. Logic would have it that the cost of the "free" gift would have been included in the price of the item and the customer would ultimately have to pay for it anyway, but still, the lure of something "free" often works in modifying consumers' behaviour. Free parking is always attractive, even if you have to use more petrol and walk back to your final destination.”
“An approach where, if public funds were to be used, there was always an element of co-payment to prevent over-consumption. In this day and age, the fundamentals have not changed. There is still a need for the able-bodied to work and to earn a living. There is still a need to promote self-reliance and there is still a need to emphasise the central role of the family. In this Budget, the fundamentals have not changed. There is still a need to attract, encourage and grow businesses. There is a still a need to grow the pie for everyone. There is still a need for those who can, to look after themselves, so that more can be done to support the needy. However, in these complex, globalised times, where the scale and the pace of change are magnified, some assumptions need to be challenged. This Budget demonstrates that we understand that as life in general gets better, not everybody can keep up. This Budget demonstrates that some people need help to be self reliant, as contradictory as that sounds. Some families need help to break out of their situation and become more independent. So, what is this shift in policy? It is an over-simplification to say that it is a shift to the left. For the very wealthy and the low-income needy, it is certainly that, with an increase in re-distribution. This socialist approach is helping those at the lower end of society by increasing taxes on the rich and re-distributing to the poor. As a nation, we are very wary of labelling ourselves, but from the perspective of some of our citizens, there is a well-hidden, well-camouflaged and well-used welfare state. This Budget takes further steps in that direction, but, for the broad majority, the fundamentals have not changed.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Budget 2013 is a generous Budget. The unexpected increase in revenues and the favourable economic conditions Singapore has seen in recent years have allowed the Government to produce a Budget with a balance between extending assistance to companies and employers and at the same time giving help to Singaporeans, especially the needy and lower-income groups who need it the most. The plans to drive and support economic restructuring are a declaration that we, as a nation, intend to make ourselves relevant to the future, to survive and, indeed, to thrive. This Budget also cements the shift in approach which the Government has been taking incrementally over the last few years. It increases the transfers to the needy; it re-distributes wealth with an emphasis on the low-income and the elderly, and makes the tax system more progressive and fair. It assumes that as the nation prospers and thrives, we should not presume that all will benefit equally from the opportunities, and it seeks to correct that imbalance. The shift can be seen from the Grow and Share Package, for example, in 2011 where dividends were given to Singaporeans and, again, when Workfare was introduced. Another example is the GST Voucher scheme in last year's Budget, costing $680 million and has become a permanent fixture. Several other measures address education, healthcare expenditure, social mobility and many other factors that burden all of us, but, particularly, the less fortunate of our fellow citizens. But some may ask: what has happened to "relying on the family first"? Where did "self-reliance" go? Are we no longer concerned about "welfarism" Page: 125 and "the moral hazard"? For many decades, the approach was to stress heavily on self-reliance, to not promote welfarism.”
“Ours is an exceptional nation, a remarkable state and an incredible city. Ours is a story told with disbelief, excitement and wonder, all round the word, a story that is still being written. We should not be writing the last chapter now. We should choose to reject the false choices on offer. We can do what needs to be done. We can do the right thing. We can discuss uncomfortable, unpopular issues and still build a consensus. We can choose to preserve our way of life and embrace change and diversity. We can choose growth and happiness. We can embrace diversity and yet remain one united people. We can choose to have our eyes open to reality, our heads clear and our hearts full of hope. That is what has got us here today and that is what will take us all forward together [Applause]. Page: 67”
“Conversely, it is very optimistic about delivering infrastructure, restructuring the economy, and maintaining a standard of living for all Singaporeans. The Opposition seems to be pessimistic about everything, but that is the role of an Opposition in our democracy. If we examine their position closely, however, they do have hope and they do have faith. The Opposition believes that the Government, the PAP government, can turn Page: 66 around the TFR. The Opposition has faith that MOM policies will be able to increase the labour force participation rate. The Workers' Party believes that business will survive the restrictions on foreign labour. They have hope and they have faith. They are pessimistic, however, that Singaporeans cannot adapt to the changing realities of the world. They believe that Singaporeans cannot be happy in the Singapore of today. They cannot imagine a bright future for Singapore and Singaporeans. We are a participatory democracy. This White Paper has sparked a national interest and citizens from every walk of life have joined in. We are a thriving democracy with the security and freedom to debate such important matters in peace and walk out of this Chamber as friends. That in itself is a remarkable achievement. This is the bright future that was imagined for Singapore many, many decades ago. In this House, this week, we have been presented sometimes with a series of dichotomous choices. In the rhetoric and the debate we have been asked to choose. Choose between survive as an Exceptional Nation or wither away into irrelevance. Choose between preserve our way of life or change beyond all recognition. Choose between growth or happiness, hope or reality, heart or mind, us or them. These are false choices. These are not the only way forward.”
“I think both sides of the House should be more forthcoming with the uncertainty associated with the numbers that they have presented to the public. Speaking on this, to expand on the analogy from my colleague, Dr Chia Shi-Lu, both sides of the House need to admit that they are performing this surgery for the very first time. Madam, this debate has seen a significant ideological shift on the part of the Government. Building ahead of need, slowing down the pace of economic growth, reducing the inflow of foreign labour. This is on top of recent other ideologic changes, such as the institutionalisation of Workfare, making permanent GST vouchers. But, amazingly, in this House, in this week, we are not debating the fundamental ideology, we are not debating the fundamental positions, we are not debating where we want to go. As has been pointed out, repeatedly, largely we all agree on what we all want. Instead, if we strip away the rhetoric, if we look past rewriting slogans, look past the sound bites and throwaway one-liners, we are debating what to be optimistic about and what to be pessimistic about. Antonio Gramsci, an Italian writer, who was a communist jailed by the fascists, his most famous quote attributed to him is "Pessimism of the intellect and Optimism of the Will". In 1929, writing from prison, he went on to explain and expand upon this, as that "The challenge of modernity is to live without illusions and yet without becoming disillusioned". The balance of heart and mind, hope and reality. If we look at the White Paper, the Government is pessimistic about its ability to affect some things, perhaps the falling fertility rate, the ageing population certainly, the labour participation rate.”
“Do we allow this family to bring in their relative? Do we allow this person to stay in Singapore and become a citizen? An explicit statement of the bigger uncertainty would be a completion of the commitment to transparency. Madam, some have suggested that today is not the end of the debate, but rather the beginning. Others have suggested that if we are still debating these issues in the future, we will be in trouble. Respectfully, I disagree with both. These issues and the way we struggled with them have defined us since independence. We have discussed and debated them time and time again. How we deal with these challenges and issues going forward will continue to define us as a people. We should not shy away from debating these matters in the future, and we should not pre-suppose that we can set in motion a single path that will solve all our problems for the future. Madam, while I support the principles described and the intent of the White Paper to secure a future for Singapore and Singaporeans, I find the confidence with which the numbers are described unnerving, and I would like to propose that we need a regular review along the way to see if the projections are accurate, and if we need a course correction, perhaps in the middle of the next Page: 65 term of government may be an appropriate point. I also have concerns about the Workers' Party's proposal. I agree that it is likely to jam the brakes on our economy, to drive away jobs, to increase unemployment and to reduce opportunities for our young. But they have also committed the error of unswerving confidence in their calculations. There is no way that they can predict the effects of their proposal with such accuracy.”
“It will also make it easier for working parents, rather than having to rely on the grandparents. With our changing demography, the age gap between a grandchild and a grandparent is increasing. For some families I know, the grandparent is unable to care for the child, nor Page: 64 take their first-born grandchild to the childcare centre. I am suggesting that we augment the current capacity with a different emphasis, to serve the needs of families with different challenges. Similarly, the Government has put forth proposals to increase our infrastructure, and has defended these with confidence and certainty. Minister Khaw has repeatedly said "Don't worry" and reassured us that "It will be awesome". Madam, the plans are indeed awesome, but I do worry. How will this infrastructure get built on time in the face of a tightening labour pool? To what extent will the cost of providing this infrastructure rise, as the cost of labour rises? Madam, one further concern I have is the lack of explicit discussion in the White Paper of its possible inaccuracy. Population science is not exact, and as past experience has shown, forward projections can turn out to be off the mark, sometimes by a very significant margin. We have in the past reached particular milestones of population size or fertility rate drop way ahead of the forecast. The presentation of facts, statistics and projections with such confidence has given rise to the perception that many of these factors are under the direct control of the Government, when they are not. As Acting Minister Tan Chuan-Jin alluded to yesterday, there is no master control for GDP, nor for migration numbers. There are instead hundreds of daily individual decisions to serve specific purposes: do we support this company? Do we support this business?”
“Preserving the old and the familiar spaces is important as it ensures that people do not feel constantly displaced, which is likely to happen when their physical environment keeps changing. The Land Use Plan does detail the many parks, and park connectors that we have and that are planned. But it fails to specify to what extent these and other shared spaces are protected, and to what extent we commit to preserving our surroundings. Surely, we can find a few more sites within our wonderful 715.8 square kilometres, where we can boldly say, "Your grandchildren can enjoy this as much as you do, please take care of it?" Grandchildren are my next concern. There is a severe shortage of childcare places, nationwide 20,000 more childcare places are being planned by 2017, four years from now, but I have childcare centres that are now struggling to recruit staff. How is the Government planning to deal with the severe shortage of labour in this sector, in the face of plans to further restrict foreign labour growth? What plans are there to ensure that these places will be operational in good time? Our towns, especially our new towns, are populated over a relatively short time. If we ramp up childcare capacity too aggressively, in about 10 years or more, some of it is going to be oversupply. Would the Government consider solutions to significantly increase the provision of childcare facilities at the workplace instead? The proportion of employees within a company or cluster of businesses that need childcare is less likely to vary significantly over time, as compared to within a new housing estate. This approach will address the issue of over-demand for services in a young housing estates as well as the later oversupply when the children grow up.”
“Mdm Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to join the debate. I rise in support of the Motion and the proposed amendments. I support the principles and the intent of the paper, but I have a problem with some of the details. First, I would bring Members' attention to footnote 12, on page 40, where reference is made to nursing as a low-skilled job. Madam, this is inaccurate and inappropriate. My nursing colleagues are dedicated, hard-working skilled professionals, doing a challenging job in difficult conditions. They take pride in their work, they have specialised knowledge, specialised skills. They are not interchangeable warm bodies and pairs of hands. Many have degrees and years of post-graduate training. We need to inspire more Singaporeans to join the caring profession, and to label it in this way serves no one. This should be fixed. I believe an amendment and an apology would be appropriate. Page: 63 I have further concerns. As has been pointed out, the growth of our population will require extensive building and redevelopment. The Land Use Plan clearly explains how and where we will obtain land for building more homes and amenities. Instead of emphasising the parts of Singapore which will be built up, developed and redeveloped, is it possible that we can have lists of more sites that will be preserved, identified as such, and protected? There are many plans for green spaces. How many will be permanent? Would the Government be prepared to identify more areas which will never be redeveloped? Would we be able to reassure citizens that they can enjoy specific green or open or communal spaces in perpetuity?”
“Madam, I would like to ask the hon Member for a couple of clarifications. He made some proposals about increasing labour participation of our elderly. I would like to ask specifically what does he envisage as the average retirement age under his proposals. What proportion of 70-year-olds is he expecting to be within the labour force under his proposals? And how many active workers would this actually add to the economy under their proposals?”
“Mdm Speaker, my apologies. I should have declared my interest as an employee of the public healthcare services.”
“Mdm Speaker, I have two supplementary questions for the Minister. Both relate to the balance between the internal processes of the discipline of medicine and the external overview from Government and regulatory bodies. The first is with respect to trust: does the Minister feel that the primary responsibility for the restoration of trust or the increase of trust lies with members of the profession or with the Government? And similarly, with respect to regulation, the medical profession, for a very long time, has had this principle of internal self regulation because of a presumption of the need for professional knowledge and professional competency. Going forward, where does the Minister see the balance between regulation by external bodies – be they legal bodies or Government bodies – as compared to the idea of internal self regulation by the profession?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would just like to seek one clarification. I can understand and appreciate the caution with respect to the tax and rebate quantum, given that car prices are a very emotive issue, and is something very hard to predict, as COEs fluctuate and supply and demand fluctuate with the economic uncertainty. I am questioning whether the same reasoning applies to emission cut-offs. My concern is that once we set a starting point, every time the revision comes up, a variance from that starting point will be something that people will resist. If we already know that other jurisdictions have chosen certain carbon dioxide emission levels or particulate levels as being appropriate, why do we need to start so far away from what is an internationally-accepted standard, given that we are not going to be able to make that leap in one jump the next time we revise this? Secondly, given the life cycle of a car, even if in our next revision we make a substantial move towards this, the cars that are on the road will remain on the road for many, many years. So, if we really want to make an impact in terms of the local emissions and pollution, we need to not play catch-up and be aggressive about getting there ahead of the curve. So, I would like to seek clarification on the need for caution, and I believe the need for caution is different in the two arenas.”
“The phenomenon is known as "cycle-beating" by the manufacturers where, under laboratory conditions, the car can be demonstrated to have relatively low emissions because it is driven in an ideal way but, on the road, people can put the pedal to the metal, burn the rubber, race from one red light to the other, apart from generating a lot of noise, using up a lot of fuel, the emissions of the car will increase very, very significantly. This is a difficult area to police, to enforce and to measure, but I wonder whether this is something that, moving forward, we should consider. Further, in other jurisdictions, consideration is given to other gases, apart from just carbon dioxide and carbon emissions. Examples include carbon monoxide, as well as ultra fine particulates, and that is not in the current proposal at all. Sir, I support the motion and its intent, but I am worried that the proposed scheme, as it stands, will not significantly shift our car population towards being more environmentally-friendly. I am concerned that the majority of car buyers will not in any way have their purchasing behaviour affected. I would like to recommend that the tax and rebate amounts be significantly increased, and the limits for carbon dioxide emissions made stricter. Will the Ministry review the limits after a year of implementing the scheme, so as to better incentivise car buyers to choose vehicles with lower emission rates? Sir, I support the motion.”
“What this means is that we are not as aggressive in pursuing this environmental cause, and we are going to have to do a lot of work to change consumers' mindsets and choices. In several countries, the penalty barrier is at 150 g/km to 160 g/km. So, what we are considering as the threshold between low emission and standard emission, many other countries are considering as the barrier between standard and high emissions. To give you an example, the EU's average carbon dioxide emission for cars is about 145 g/km. The average for EU is actually within our low band, not even our standard band. Our average – I do not have the data for our average − if I take the assumption that MOT has set the cut-offs on the basis of the majority of our current car population, and our cut-offs are between 160 g/km to 211 g/km, the mid range is about 180 g/km to 190 g/km. As it happens, in the UK, the "F Band" – the fail band, the worst band of emissions – is set at 186 g/km. So, are we being too lax in our standards for carbon dioxide emissions for cars? Page: 1498 I do support the motion and the proposed amendments. They are a welcome signal that we need to be taking these things into account, but I believe they do not go far enough. In addition, there is no consideration in the current scheme, given the fact that real-world driving, much like what is being described in Yishun, does not produce the same amount of emissions as a car would in the laboratory or in a test facility.”
“If you are a purchaser of a high-performance, high-capacity, high-emission car − some of whom very graphically described by Er Dr Lee Bee Wah − and many of these purchasers are wealthy, they are paying large sums of money for a car that they want to enjoy, this $20,000 tax is going to be an even smaller percentage of the purchase price. The scheme sounds very neat – tax the highest 20%, give the rebate to the lowest 20%, but the effects at either end are disproportional. If you have already chosen to purchase a low emission car, if that is what you can afford and within your means, a smaller capacity car, one that suits your needs, you will be very grateful for the tax rebates, but your purchasing behaviour has not necessarily been changed. I put it that the group of purchasers at the high end – the 20% of high emission cars – is not going to have their purchasing behaviour significantly affected. And, really, I wonder whether the middle group, the 60%, is going to be lured by this up to $20,000, and maybe much less, rebate. I worry that instead of purchasing a "sensible" car that meets people's needs, most consumers will do what they have always done, from the high-emission across the standard-emission cars, they will choose their dream car − not their green car. Sir, moving on to my second concern, many countries have a system of carbon emissions tax. The limits set for taxation and benefits will, of course, vary from country to country, but compared to many countries, many limits for carbon emissions tax, Singapore's proposed limit of equal to or lower than 160 g/km for tax rebates is very generous. Many others will have a stricter standard of 120 g/km.”
“While the new scheme has merits, I wonder whether it will have a significant impact on changing our purchasing behaviour or on our consumer preferences. Is the aim of this change to significantly shift car purchasing behaviour and significantly shift our car population to make it greener? What indicators will the Ministry use to gauge the success or failure of this scheme and what extent of a shift will be considered a success? I have two main concerns – the quantum of the tax and proposed rebate and, secondly, the carbon dioxide emission cut-offs chosen. Sir, under the proposal for the new scheme, about 20% of cars will be considered as having high emissions and, as explained, will be taxed up to about $20,000. At the other end of the spectrum, 20% of cars will be considered as having low emissions with rebates of up to $20,000. But this leaves the majority, the 60% in the middle, of cars unaffected. Even with the introduction of this new scheme, the majority of car buyers will not be affected. Their purchasing behaviour and their consumption behaviour will not be significantly influenced. One can make an argument that there is the carrot – the lure of the $20,000 rebate – at the low emission end. And maybe people who are within the standard emissions bracket will be persuaded to shift their behaviour downstream. However, with the rising cost of car ownership, this quantum of $20,000 is not a huge relative discount on the purchase price. And, over time, if car prices and COE prices continue to rise, that discount is going to become less and less significant. Page: 1497 If you consider the high-emission side, this factor is even more pronounced.”
“Sir, Singapore has many good reasons to be progressive about environmental issues. Our limited natural resources and the population density are strong motivations to reduce consumption, to reduce local pollution and to improve the quality of our environment. Although we, as a state, may contribute very little to the global environmental changes, we have another very good reason to go "green". We can show how a small city-state can do this, can be environmentally friendly in a way that is effective, that is economically sustainable, and in a way that perhaps others can learn from and maybe even emulate. After some years of striving to be more environmentally friendly, the results are mixed. Some external indices will rank us as Asia's greenest metropolis, or as one of the world's most efficient energy users. But there are some studies listing Singapore as having one of the biggest carbon footprints per person in Asia. There are many factors that contribute to the calculation of a country's carbon footprint, but the consumption pattern of its people is a major factor. It is this that I wish to address and, specifically, how the execution of the proposed amendment might impact upon our consumption behaviour. Sir, the Carbon Emissions-based Vehicle (CEV) scheme, which is a component of the proposed amendment to the Bill, will enable the imposition of a tax on high-emission vehicles and grant a rebate for the low-emission cars. This proposed scheme is fairer and more precise than the previous "Green Vehicle Rebate" because it rewards or penalises the purchasers on the basis of the actual emissions tested and not merely on the allegedly greener technology which may have been installed. Not all the marketing is true.”
“Would the Ministry consider looking at cycling in a more holistic way to rationalise the enforcement framework? Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, I thank the Member for the good questions. As Members mentioned, cycling behaviour is affected by many, many things. We feel that one of the factors to provide safe cycling is to have separate off-road cycling lanes. Beyond that, we will continue to educate the public, not only the cyclists, but the motorists and beyond, to see how we can care for one another. We will continue to educate the public and, in fact, we have engaged the community widely during the community events and beyond to see how we can share cycling safety tips among the cyclists, as well as for children and the elderly, when they walk along these pathways, how they can detect some of the dangers coming on board in front of them. With regard to the enforcement regime, I take the suggestion by the Member and, as I mentioned in my answer, the Traffic Police and MHA are reviewing the enforcement regime. We are going to see how we can make it commensurate with the severity of the offences.”
“I would like to echo the congratulations to the Parliamentary Secretary, and ask a number of supplementary questions. In the engagement and the review of the process of looking at cycling, going forward, I wonder whether the Ministry might consider the priority. The framework, as explained, is to essentially segregate traffic cyclists and pedestrians, but no matter how many cycle paths we build, there will always be on-road cycling. There is just no possibility of building enough cycle paths. And given that no cyclists have killed any pedestrians and pedestrians have not been killed on cycle paths, perhaps rather than trying to significantly change the existing behaviour by building more and more cycle paths and doing a little bit more for on-road cycling, could the Ministry consider the priority might be to map funding and resources to the existing behaviour and the existing risks – which is for cyclists who are being killed on the road – for consideration. The other question I have is with respect to fines. I do not advocate an increasingly strict enforcement regime to drive behaviour but I would ask if the Ministry would consider that some consistency in terms of the enforcement framework would be necessary. I give one particular example. The Parliamentary Secretary said errant cyclists flouting the rules would be fined about $20 if it was a minor infringement. Just outside Parliament House in the walkway along the river, as the walkway extends under the bridge, there is a large sign saying that cyclists have to dismount and push and, if one does not, the fine is $1,000. There is a significant discrepancy for an on-road risk flouting the Highway Code and off-road courtesy and safety to pedestrians.”
“Question No 8, Sir. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Transport (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim) (for the Minister for Transport) : Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 8 to16 together?”