John Chen Seow Phun
Singapore
“Sir, Singapore has signed FTAs with a number of countries, including the developed nations, such as the US and Japan. These FTAs give us better access to these developed markets compared to other countries for goods that need the rules of origin.”
“Sir, I thank the Minister for asking the HDB to relook at the case I brought up, but I hope that he would not rule out providing the same loan amount to the family. I understand the need for credit assessment policy, and so on. But I think the policy should not be applied blindly.”
“It can also be stipulated that the grants can only be used to pay part of their mortgage loan monthly. I think this will go a long way in helping these families pay for their flats. I hope the Minister can look into this and see whether these families can be given such help.”
“My point is that the Minister should reconsider this case and exercise flexibility, so that the family will be helped. Otherwise, if the family was asked to sell their flat, it could be negative equity and the problem would come back to HDB. And HDB would be owed money and I do not think that is good for HDB as well.”
“We need to come up with a regular mechanism where older and lower income workers can benefit without the pitfalls of a crutch mentality. I think, in this regard, the Government has not spent enough time or thought to look into what other mechanisms that we can have.”
“On the other hand, at best, we get one Singapore pavilion with a dozen or so companies, and that is about it. If we are really serious with our globalisation effort, our Government agencies must put in more resources to encourage more companies to participate in such events.”
The complete record
Every one of 741 lines we hold for John Chen Seow Phun, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 15.
“Sir, Singapore has signed FTAs with a number of countries, including the developed nations, such as the US and Japan. These FTAs give us better access to these developed markets compared to other countries for goods that need the rules of origin. Therefore, there are products that other countries could make or value add in Singapore to gain access to these developed markets. Their coming to Singapore will provide jobs to Singaporeans and contribute to our GDP. My question for the Minister is whether MTI has considered what products we can attract companies from these other countries, such as China, to manufacture here and whether MTI has an action plan to attract such investments to Singapore. If yes, what are the types of investments and from what countries? Has MTI attracted any in the last few years?”
“My point is that the Minister should reconsider this case and exercise flexibility, so that the family will be helped. Otherwise, if the family was asked to sell their flat, it could be negative equity and the problem would come back to HDB. And HDB would be owed money and I do not think that is good for HDB as well.”
“Sir, I thank the Minister for asking the HDB to relook at the case I brought up, but I hope that he would not rule out providing the same loan amount to the family. I understand the need for credit assessment policy, and so on. But I think the policy should not be applied blindly. In this case, it is not a case of purchasing a new flat, but it is the same old flat. In fact, if it is a bank and if the bank assesses that the property value has dropped and if the houseowner is prepared to provide another co-owner to chip in and contribute to the loan repayment, I think the bank would welcome it. It will be an improvement to the quality of the loan.”
“It can also be stipulated that the grants can only be used to pay part of their mortgage loan monthly. I think this will go a long way in helping these families pay for their flats. I hope the Minister can look into this and see whether these families can be given such help. Sir, I hope the Minister will address the three points that I have brought up.”
“Many of them were advised by HDB to rent a room in the housing market or to borrow from the bank to purchase a smaller flat from the resale market. Sir, these low-income families who wanted to downgrade are doing so because they do not have money. And because many of them might be unemployed or under-employed, the banks would not provide them a housing loan. HDB's advice is therefore of no help at all. Many of them therefore dare not sell their flats because they are not sure if they can find a roof over their head. Can the Minister therefore review the policy? Clear guidelines can be set to allow renting or buying a second flat from HDB. We are told that HDB will be building 2-room flats in the future, and these flats would be ideal for those who want to downgrade. Further, if the family is downgrading by buying a smaller flat from the resale market, then HDB should give them a second loan, just like it will give to those who upgrade. Third, additional housing grants. Sir, the Prime Minister said that these additional housing grants for the low-income families to purchase their first home will be a permanent budget allocation. This is good. However, for those who have already bought a flat but are struggling to pay their mortgage loan, they are left out. Dr Ong Seh Ong told me that he spoke about this in the Budget debate but he lamented that the Prime Minister did not answer this point. So I would like to bring up this point again. These are families who heed the call of the Government to own their home and worked hard to pay for it. But because of the structural unemployment that befalls us, they are now in a difficult predicament. Why can the Government not also extend the additional housing grants to them? A means test can be devised and administered.”
“However, I am surprised at the reply I got from HDB which, while allowing the appeal, offers no help at all. To substantiate what I say, let me show an actual HDB reply to an appeal to include the daughter as a co-lessee. First, to include the daughter, it entails the transfer of ownership from the parents to themselves plus the daughter. That means the parents have to sell the flat to themselves and the daughter. I have no problem even with that if that is a legal requirement. However, since it is a transfer of ownership, HDB then treats it as a new loan. And because the prevailing market value of the flat is low, the new loan works out to be smaller than the current outstanding loan. The outstanding loan owed by the parents is about $205,000 as shown here. The new loan is about $193,000. So there is a shortfall of $12,000. Since the daughter's CPF balance is only about $7,000, the family is required to provide a cash top-up of about $5,000. May I ask the Minister: how is the family helped? If they can afford the $5,000, they would not have come to the meet-the-people session in the first place. So if they cannot afford the transfer, and the problem drags on, may I ask: is HDB better off? Is HDB still not owed the outstanding loan of $205,000 which has become problematic? The wise and pragmatic thing for HDB to do, in my view, is to let the family retain the same amount of loan before the transfer. Second, some low-income families sometimes asked to downgrade their flats. This is one good way to solve their financial problem. However, upon selling their flat, Members know that HDB's current policy is to debar them for 30 months from renting or buying a second flat from HDB. Although HDB presently does allow appeals for hardship cases, it does so sparingly.”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, I think I am the only one who has asked for 10 minutes in a COS cut. I think the Minister should thank me for it because he would have more time to reply. There are many low-income families who own an HDB flat but are struggling to pay their HDB mortgage loans. In fact, most of the HDB cases I received from my residents at the meet-the-people sessions in recent years were about their inability to service the loans. Although HDB is flexible in terms of granting deferment to the repayment of loans or the restructuring of the mortgage terms, the problem does not go away if these low-income families continue to be unemployed or under-employed, which is the case even when the economy recovers because these house owners are mostly the older workers who are also lower-educated. They are suffering from what we call structural unemployment. There are three ways HDB can do to help these families. First, let them include either their spouses or children as co-lessees, as the case may be, to help pay for the loan. Second, many MPs have spoken about it, and that is to help them downgrade to a smaller flat. Third, provide additional housing grants to these families, similar to additional housing grants announced by the Prime Minister in the Budget to help low-income families to own homes. Sir, although HDB tries to help these families solve their problems, I find that the current policies are less than satisfactory. Let me cite examples and explain. First, include either the spouse or children as co-lessees. I have appealed in a few cases, on behalf of my residents, to include either the spouse or children as co-lessees to help pay the mortgage loan. To me, this is straightforward and could solve the problem immediately.”
“Sir, I would like to support Mr Inderjit Singh on this issue. For some time now, it has been proposed that a third board on the Stock Exchange be set up in order to allow young start-up companies, especially those from the new technology sector, to raise early capital. This could be similar to the OTC or BB market in the USA, the NSX in Australia, or GEM in Hong Kong. Although there is much concern regarding the quality of companies listed on such a platform and their corporate governance, these issues could be resolved by letting buyers of shares listed on the third board know of the much higher risks that were involved. They can participate with open eyes and, unless there is fraud involved, the Government should not over-regulate this marketplace. Since we already have our strict measures in place to control fraud and other commercial criminal activities, there should be an arena for those who want to take higher risks in order to seek higher profits to invest their money in. A technology-based third board would be ideal. It will help technopreneurs who today find it difficult to raise funds for their new inventions to progress. Despite reports of much available capital, most still gravitate towards more traditional businesses and more mature companies. The third board would make technology start-ups more visible and these could offer themselves as an alternative avenue for investments. It could be most rewarding to diversify a small part of an investment portfolio in such companies because of the manifold returns each success could bring when it grows into multi-million dollar giants. This would also bring much economic benefits to Singapore. Could the Finance Minister give an indication when such a trading board would be ready? Personal Debts”
“We need to come up with a regular mechanism where older and lower income workers can benefit without the pitfalls of a crutch mentality. I think, in this regard, the Government has not spent enough time or thought to look into what other mechanisms that we can have. In the older days, when the Government was concerned about food prices, NTUC Fairprice was set up as a cooperative with the social objective to stabilise prices. Can we now consider the setting up of a labour cooperative, also with a social objective and supported by the Government, to train and place workers for jobs? I believe Government funding for such a cooperative would be a more meaningful approach of Workfare. Sir, I hope the Government would look into my suggestion and see how we can have the Workfare principle implemented on a more regular basis, so that workers can be encouraged to work and, at the same time, benefit from some form of negative income tax. With that, Sir, I support the Budget. 5.15 pm”
“Further, I would like to suggest that energy research be added as a new field for the NRF pursuit. Sir, I come to the second point, which is the Progress Package. Earlier, I have said that for Singapore to stay relevant and compete successfully in the global market we have no choice but to move up the technological ladder through R&D and its commercialisation. However, such progress would also mean that the rich-poor divide in our society will get wider. The rich-poor gap will be worse if we fail to solve our structural unemployment or under-employment problem and cannot help the lower 20% of our people find work or upgrade. In this regard, I must praise the Government for thinking long and hard on how to spend the surpluses it has accumulated during its term of Government with the people. It differentiates the PAP from the Opposition parties. It is easy to give away money, but it is hard to give it meaningfully so that it will reap long term benefits for the country and the people. Sir, the Progress Package can be divided into three main categories, namely, the Growth Dividends, help for the needy, and the Workfare Bonus. I have spoken on the concept of negative income tax in FY 2003 budget debate and the need to use some form of negative income tax to encourage people to work. I am, therefore, pleased to see that the Government has accepted the Workfare principle and is giving out Workfare Bonus this year. However, the Government has not committed to giving Workfare Bonus every year for fear that it would be entrenched and loses its effectiveness. There is also a fear the employers may take advantage of it and depress wages. Sir, if Workfare Bonus is to be given once in four to five years, I am not sure whether it will work either.”
“In an advanced country such as the USA, where risk capital is supposed to be readily available, the Government continues to provide financial resources and grants to help small businesses exploit new technologies. A notable success from this SBIR programme is Qualcomm. I am sure Members would have heard of Qualcomm. The company is the key player behind the CDMA mobile phone technology and is today worth about US$80 billion. Should Singapore not emulate such success? While on the topic of R&D, I would like to commend the Government on starting to focus on three key sectors, ie, biomedical sciences, interactive and digital media and the environment and water technologies. These are relevant to Singapore's economy and the products and services from these industries are exportable world-wide. However, I would like to suggest that we also look at research into energy, renewable and efficient energy resources, energy storage, efficient energy distribution as well as efficient energy use. The recent spike in oil prices reminds us that energy is a very valuable resource which can be scarce. Singapore imports all her energy needs and the savings, when such research bears fruits, will be significant. More important, the know-how can also be exported internationally, bringing significant revenues. Sir, for the R&D, in summary, I would like to recommend that the Government study and incorporate a significant funding scheme to help with the exploitation and commercialisation of technology. Such a scheme, I hope, will in time help spawn many technology start-ups, a few of which will grow into significant global technology companies, generating billions of dollars for the future Singapore economy and bringing high value employment to our people.”
“Although A*Star has introduced the Commercialisation of Technologies scheme (COT), COT only funds development activities of the research institutes under A*Star. It does not fund the SMEs or technopreneurs trying to make use of and commercialise the research results of these institutes. COT also does not cover universities and polytechnics. EDB also recently introduced the Innovation Commercialisation Scheme (ICS) for small firms. ICS reimburses up to 50% of the qualifying cost of supported project, up to a maximum of $75,000. This limited amount that is available and the restrictive terms of reimbursement may not help solve the financial needs of many small start-ups seeking to commercialise R&D, especially those from the biotechnology sector. Sir, let me share a few facts from the most technologically advanced country, and that is the USA. In 1980, the US passed the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act. It is mandated that federal funded laboratories spend at least 0.5% of their budgets on technology transfer. This was followed by the Small Business Innovation Act of 1982, also known as the Bayh-Dole Act. The Act established the Small Business Innovation and Research Scheme (SBIR). Subsequent amendments to date compel that at least 2.5% of extramural research budget from federal funded programmes be spent on commercialisation of research with the small businesses. In his letter to the Straits Times published on 5th September 2005, a reader Lim Keng Hwee wrote, SBIR has served the US economy well by bringing the private and public sectors and academia together. This model may help to do the same for Singapore. Sir, I agree with him.”
“It is from this commercialisation that we sow the seeds to grow giant technology companies. R&D alone cannot achieve this. While the Government has generously allocated over $13 billion for R&D, specific amounts for commercial exploitation of research results must be put aside. Commercialisation is a process of transforming new technologies into commercially successful products. The commercialisation process includes such efforts as market assessment, product design, manufacturing engineering, management of intellectual property rights, marketing strategy development, raising capital and workers' training. This process is risky and can cost more than the R&D effort itself. It is well known that our traditional businessmen and even the venture capital funds avoid taking such risks until more certainty is seen. We also lack sufficient technology managers who have the expertise to exploit and defend our intellectual property rights. This explains why many of our patents from our funded research institutes and research centres sit in dark steel cupboards waiting for the light of day. Sir, after spending billions, how much are such patents in dark cupboards worth? They are worth nothing. Zero. Unexploited patents will simply decay with time and technology progress of others. When other competing technology hits the market first, it will be an uphill struggle to extract any value from the patents, even if you have a superior technology. Now, to be fair, the Singapore Government has tried to encourage technopreneurship with a variety of schemes. However, none is focused on bridging the funding gap face by small firms seeking to commercialise technologies from universities and research institutes.”
“Such giant corporations can become the driving force of successful economies. If you look at the USA, many of these companies outsource their production to low wage countries like China and Latin-American nations, but the US economy remains strong due to the fact that the ownership and control of these companies remain in America. The R&D and productive design activities remain in the US and these are the high value added jobs which keep the value added to workers high. Only then can there be increase in wages. However, Sir, R&D alone is not enough. In a Straits Times' article yesterday, featuring the start-up biotechnology company Veritas, the founder, Dr Rosemary Tan, was reported to lament that good R&D results were being wasted due to the lack of commercialisation efforts. This is the reason why she started Veritas, which today has successfully produced and has started to sell an H5N1 bird flu test kit. The company has also produced a malaria test kit, the technology obtained from an NUS laboratory where she worked as a PhD student. If successful, Veritas would not only bring economic benefits to Singapore but it will benefit many throughout the world who may be saved from possible deaths. Such companies have the capacity to make a positive difference in the world. We must, therefore, see to it that R&D leads to and spawns technology companies which may be capable of growing into significant world-class companies. Singapore certainly needs such home-grown companies to keep her economy progressing with sustainable growth into the future. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I, therefore, strongly feel that special attention ought to be paid to the commercialisation of our research results.”
“Many software sales are also now being sold by software authors directly to users, bypassing the distributors and publishers. Super long-range commercial airliners may make Changi an airport of little consequence as they now can fly directly from European cities to Australia. We live in times of change and, if we do not keep up, if we keep doing the same things in the same way, year after year, just because it had worked previously, and if we believe that if it ain't broken don't fix it, Singapore will be in big trouble. Creative destruction is the way to go in this age. We must break down the old paradigms, systems and methods that worked before in order to progress and move forward. If we do not do this, we will soon be competing with two billion other people from China and India because these people are hungry to be in the world league and are determined to catch up. What then can Singapore do? We took the first right steps in starting to focus on R&D in the 1980s. This helped to change the mindset of our science and technology communities and that of our administrators and managers. Singapore started to attract the high-tech companies and gradually they began to start their research laboratories here and this, in turn, made our R&D more vibrant. However, I hope we do not repeat the formula that was adopted in the past. This is the formula of our past success in the last 30-plus years, but it is this very same formula that leads to our current weakness. Singapore is overly dependent on the MNCs from the western countries. We hardly have any home-grown companies that are globally significant and almost no large world-wide technology companies. SIA and Creative Technology are notable exceptions, but how many more can we name?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Mr Steve Chia earlier accused the Government for concealing the truth by not including in the Budget proceeds from Government land sales, thereby showing a deficit budget. I think either Mr Chia does not understand what constitutes reserves and the protection of it, or he is, indeed, deceiving the people himself. Proceeds from Government land sales obviously is part of reserves, otherwise a rogue government, with the election promise to give away money, can come in easily and start to sell land and give the money to the people. That is why we have the Presidential Election Act to protect the reserves, and land sales is part of the reserves. Sir, I have only two comments to make on the Budget. The first is on R&D. In his National Day Rally Speech last year, the Prime Minister spoke about the predicament our economy was in. He likened it to being in between the two closing blades of a pair of scissors. We are caught in between the lower cost of production in the liberalising economies of China and India and the technological progress of developed nations. If we cannot keep up with these technology advances, Singapore will become increasingly irrelevant, leading to a gradual fall in the standard of living, increasing unemployment and under-employment and eventually social discontent. We certainly cannot afford for this to happen because it will lead to the end of Singapore as we know it. Even our traditional forte of trade and commerce is not safe. The Internet brings about increasing this intermediation whereby producers now find it more and more convenient and profitable to sell directly to consumers. The music and movie industry is beginning to see this happen.”
“If Government does not take a lead in supporting these companies, then all the research spending would go to waste.”
“Sir, in our effort to upgrade our economy to the first world status, the Government has spent billions of dollars on our national R&D effort through agencies like A*STAR. The universities, research institutes and research centres, which are funded by the Government, have over the years produced many interesting scientific results and discoveries and many patents have been filed. However, Sir, I would like to ask the Government whether there has been a corresponding effort to commercialise our R&D results. Patents are all perishable commodities. The longer they sit in the cupboard, collecting dust, the less valuable they are likely to become. After 20 years, they become worthless because the patent protection ceases. One way to exploit such R&D results is through start-up companies. The effort to set up a start-up company to commercialise R&D results is not easy. Finding sufficient funding is often a big hurdle. In Singapore, this problem is compounded by our extremely kiasu venture capitalists. This stems from the fact that most have a trader's mentality, going for such short-term gains. I wonder if Mr Sim of Creative Technology would have made it if he had remained in Singapore in the formative stage of the company. I suspect the answer is no. Sir, I just want to ask what plans MTI has to increase the volume of patent exploitation and commercialisation in Singapore. In particular, what is the Ministry doing with the patents filed by the universities, research institutes and research centres, supported by A*STAR? This is simply because it would be such a waste if after spending so much in R&D, having so many patents and papers, and even start-up companies, we do not nurture these start-up companies.”
“On the other hand, at best, we get one Singapore pavilion with a dozen or so companies, and that is about it. If we are really serious with our globalisation effort, our Government agencies must put in more resources to encourage more companies to participate in such events. They could take the lead to book the whole hall and then find the participants to fill them, subsidising them if needed. Only then would Singapore be able to mount serious efforts to attract international attention, leading to globalisation for products and services. Finally, Sir, the Government could help our companies with more competitive export credit and insurance. Many countries have EXIM banks, even Japanese companies selling good Japanese brands in other countries. They have the support of the Government. Unfortunately, in Singapore, our companies lack such an advantage, especially our SMEs. I hope the Government would consider this as it would give our companies much needed financing to globalise and build global brands. Promoting Local Enterprises”
“Sir, a major consequence of our industrialisation programme in the 1960s and 1970s is that we have, by and large, turned into a nation of subcontractors and employees, serving the large MNCs who came to use Singapore as a manufacturing base and later as a service base. This effort drew our best and brightest to become their employees and our businesses to focus on supply and serving these MNCs. In the earlier days of our nationhood, in troubled and difficult times, this was probably the best thing to do - a quick ticket out from our other developments and into the first world. However, the side effect of this, which we must now address, is a lack of our own significant global brands and companies. A quick scan through the Table of Billion Dollar Club companies published very recently in the Business Times would reveal that there is a distinct lack of Singapore companies amongst them. Even companies, like SingTel, can at best be described as regional companies. What then does it take to become global? How do we build global brands? The Government today is already helping. We have the double taxation relief for global marketing campaigns as well as IE Singapore which spearheads our trade efforts abroad. However, I feel that much more needs to be done, and can be done. Let me elaborate further. First, building global brands is like creating a global intellectual property. Can the Government provide tax incentives to brand-building efforts similar to what we give to intellectual property rights owners? Second, in many mega trade shows, like Hanover Fair, Comex and SIBEC, we notice that the Korean, Taiwanese and Japanese companies filled the whole hall. Lately, we even see an increasing presence of Hong Kong companies.”
“Now, this 33% CPF contribution rate could actually yield quite a lot of savings for our old age. However, the savings must be used very prudently and we should not use the money on high risk ventures, and do not buy HDB flats which are beyond our means. So do not just withdraw your CPF money at your whims and fancies for various purposes. If we are more disciplined in the use of our CPF savings, then we should not have any problems when we grow old. If we have managed our CPF savings prudently during our younger days, our old age will be a happy one, with enough money for us to live comfortably. The Government should look into all these to make sure that everyone would have enough money in their CPF savings, so that they will be able to live comfortably. Sir, I support the motion.”
“Under this scheme, maybe it would be applicable to these people and, every month, they can draw out some money for their expenses. Because of the insurance element, they could keep withdrawing money until they pass away. By so doing, for those who are caught in this asset-strapped situation, they would be able to live a comfortable life and pay for the possible high medical costs in their old age. I have conducted a survey on the residents of the eight blocks of 26 year-old HDB flats in my constituency. There are a total of 196 owners who are aged 56 and above. 92% of them have already fully discharged their housing loan, and only 5% of them have outstanding housing loan of more than $20,000. In other words, some 95% of the ownershave $100,000 to $200,000 each strapped in their properties. If not for the flat, they would have very substantial savings to live comfortably in their retirement days. By way of reverse mortgage, these people should be able to withdraw between $580 and $1,100 per month for their living expenses till 82 years old. I feel that this insuredreverse mortgage scheme is something that is worth our consideration. In fact, reverse mortgage is nothing new. In the past few years, this concept has been brought up many times in Parliament. Unfortunately, we do not see this being implemented. I believe there are still many details that have to be worked out, resulting in this scheme not being able to be implemented. There may be some legal implications- financial constraints, constraints of MAS and CPF rulesalong the way. I hope that the Government, our insurance companies and financial companies would work out some thing in the near future so that they could market such a scheme to help these asset-rich but cash-poor HDB flat owners.”
“I think there are not many people earning $700 or less a month now. For this small group of people, we should provide them with rental flats so as to look after their housing needs. On the other hand, the Government should also counsel prospective HDB flat purchasers so that they will live within their means and buy the type of flats that they could afford and yet leave enough savings in the CPF account for their old age. While preparing my speech today, I visited the politicalforum.org.sg on the Internet. Many people commented that upon purchase of their HDB flat, they became a slave to their flat. They said, "Why so stupid to buy a flat?�? I think Singaporeans should exercise more wisdom when buying their flat and dealing with their CPF money. They should not becomea slave to their flat and spend their whole life working towards the payment of its instalments and, at the end of it, they still have no money in their CPF account; or their savings are so small that they would not be able to pay for their expenses during their old age, especially when they incur heavy medical costs. In the past, maybe Singaporeans had made the mistake - they bought a flat which was too big for them, such as an Executive flat, a condominium or a 5-room resale flat. To these people, after their retirement at the age of 62, they can be asset-rich but cash-poor. How do they resolve their problems? The property they own cannot provide them with the daily needs, unless they sell it, and by so doing, they will not have a roof over their heads. In that situation, one way out for them is the reverse mortgage scheme so that they would be able to get some cash out of their assets. I would suggest that we introduce an insured reverse mortgage scheme.”
“If they have $250,000 each in their CPF account, and they do not squander it away, and they buy a smaller flat, from 63 years old up to 80 years old, they would be able to get $1,300 every month from their CPF retirement account. From this analysis, we can come to certain conclusions. First, the Government should build more 3-room flats so that those who earn between $1,000 and $1,500 per month could apply, and those earning more than $1,500 could apply for 4-room flats. If the median income is not changed, at least half of our working population would be earning less than $1,500 per month. If we use the 4-room flat as anorm for our HDB building programme, then the result is that most people will retire with less than $50,000 in their CPF savings. So I think we should focus on 3-room flats instead, so that people still can own their own flats and, at thesame time, when they retire, they would have $250,000 in their CPF account that would pay them $1,300 a month as pocket expenses from 63 years old onwards. The Government should review the various schemes that permit people to make use of their CPF savings. We should prevent people from pre-spending their CPF savings. For example, if I am staying in a C class ward, now I can stay in a B2 because I can claim from my Medisave account. There is also some unnecessary risk-taking, for example, buying shares, etc. I feel that the CPF Board should not allow their members to make use of their CPF savings to buy shares. I think we should review this. By so doing, we could ensure that our CPF members would be able to have enough money to spend during their retirement years. As for those whose income is less than $750 a month, perhaps, we should not have a Home Ownership Scheme for them.”
“The reason is that most of the people would have pre-spent a major part of their CPF savings for various purposes. Now, let us look at the various schemes which the CPF Board has allowed our people to use their CPF savings. They use their CPF to buy a house or a flat and then rent it out to other people to collect rent. It is one way to make use of CPF savings before the retirement age. Then, CPF can also be used for certain medical purposes. People spend more than their needs like staying in better grade ward when hospitalised because they could use CPF. That is why they would have used up a large part of their savings before they retire. We all know that most people use large portion of their CPF for buying property. By the time of their retirement, they would have a property but little money left. Let us do a simple analysis. If a person earns $750, he will buy a 3-room flat which is the lowest type flat; those who earn $1,000 will buy a 4-room flat; and those who earn $1,500 will buy a 5-room flat - what would be the result? The result would be that, at the age of 62, their CPF account would not have savings of more than $50,000. So, if he lives from age 63 to, say, 80 years old, and he wants to enjoy life, but he needs to pay for medical expenses, clothing, transport, etc, this $50,000 is definitely not enough to see him through. But, if these people were to downgrade their flat size, say, from a 3-room flat to a 2-room flat, a 4-room flat to a 3-room flat, or a 5-room to a 4-room flat, the situation would have been much better. For those who earn between $750 and $1,500, at the time of their retirement, they would have $250,000 in their CPF savings. With this amount, they should be quite comfortable in meeting their expenses after retirement.”
“Can they cope with such very heavyexpenses for healthcare? Here, I do not want to talk about healthcare matters. I just want to talk about the personal savings of our people. Over the years, in Parliament, many Members have talked about whether or not Singaporeans have enough savings for their old age. The general impression gathered is that our people do not have enough savings for their old age, and this is the feel of the majority. We all agree that Singapore has the highest personal savings rate in the whole world. We have a compulsory savings scheme in the form of the CPF. When the times are good, our CPF contribution rate could be as high as 50% of the monthly salary. Recently, because we want to improve on our business competitiveness, the CPF contribution rate has been reduced to 33%. With 33% CPF and 2.5% interest rate, if a person starts working at 21 and by the retirement age of 62, how much would his CPF savings be? I made a calculation, and to my surprise, the expected savings worked out to be quite sizeable. For a salaried worker who earns $750 a month, by the age of 62, his savings would be as much as $250,000. If he earns about $1,000 a month, his savings would be $320,000. And for those whose monthly income is $2,000, they would have $650,000. Even my parliamentary colleagues here do not get as much as $650,000 in their pension when they retire as an MP. With such high savings in their CPF accounts, it would appear quite incredible that our people would not be able to afford their medical expenses. But the fact remains that even if you earn $2,000 to $3,000 a month, you may not have much savings in the CPF account at the time of your retirement. Why is it so?”
“In the topping up of the CPF accounts, the Government emphasised assistance for the elderly. On the one hand, it shows its appreciation of the past contributions made by these old people but, on the other hand, it also shows thatGovernment isworried about the escalating healthcare cost of the elderly people. This can be shown in the proposed increase in the MediShield premiums. The Lianhe Zaobao has reported that many people in the United States were made bankrupt because they could not pay for their medical fees, and this was recorded in the Journal of Health Affairs. In the year 2001, an investigation revealed that about 50% of the people were declared bankrupt because they could not pay for the very heavy medical cost incurred. Among them, about 75% of them had medical insurance, but the medical insurance had pretty high deductibles, and that alone had bankrupted the people. They had to pay as high as S$19,000 out of their own pocket for some minor surgery, and if they suffer from cancer, their own contribution would be about S$58,000 though covered by medical insurance. The article also estimated that in 2010,about 1.8 million to 2.2 million Americans would be made bankrupt because they could not pay for their medical expenses. In the United States where almost everybody has medical insurance, and it being the richest country in the world, yet they have such a phenomenon. I cannot help thinking whether this will one day happen to Singapore. I think this is a very important and complicated matter. On the one hand, it involves the containment ofthe rise in medical cost and, onthe other hand, themanagement of medical insurance in Singapore to ensure its healthy development. Another point is this: how much savings do our people have?”
“From the CPF top-ups alone and the reduction in maid levy, my family would benefit by $1,300. This is unexpected. Even the betting tax has been reduced. Maybe this is done in conjunction with the impending opening of the casino, although it is said that there is no direct connection with the opening of the casino. But the Government's revenue from betting will be reduced by half. Perhaps the only people who are adversely affected by this Budget are the smokers. Tobacco tax has gone up by 5.9 cents per stick. To these people, they have not suffered much because if they smoke one packet of cigarettes a day, and also bet on 4D, and have two children studying in school, the benefits they will get from this Budget would be enough to offset the additional tax incurred. Sir, all in all, everybody should be happy. Even the newspapers from Malaysia commented that this was apeople's Budget. Among the measures announced in this Budget, there are sevenitems relating to CPF, but most people are focusing their attention on one item - the topping-up of the various CPF accounts. Not many people would have realised that under the new measures, their contribution ceilings have been limited, so has the ceiling on SRS which is now capped at 17 monthsof the monthly CPF contribution limit. So those people earning $5,000 a month and those who have receivedmore bonuses, like those working in the newspaper companies and the airlines, will suffer a lot because of the cap. Withsuch a measure, of course, there will be an increase inrevenue for the Government, but it has a negative effect on the Government. Why do I say that? Because by so doing, it has acted in contradiction to the Government's call for the people to save more for their old age.”
“What they really need is a chance, an opportunity, some trust from a benevolent lender, some guidelines on how to start and run a business in an efficient way and perhaps a coach to help them along. The Government could fulfil all these roles. Finally, Sir, to build a strong and cohesive community, we must take care of the poor among us. In the last 5-7 years since the Asian financial crisis, the standard of living among the lowest 20-30% of Singaporeans has not improved. Our social welfare approach has always been to target specifically at those who need help, instead of subsidising goods and services in general. This approach is correct, and I am glad that the Government has started the ComCare Fund to further help the needy. One of the more meaningful ways such fund can help poorer families is to provide for the educational needs of the children of these poor families. So I hope that the ComCare Fund can provide books as well as pocket money for transport and food to these schooling children. Though some organisations and even schools have been doing this, their resources are limited, and such efforts are not widespread. I believe ComCare can partner the CCCs,the schools and other voluntary organisations in reaching out to these children more widely and more consistently. With that, Sir, I support the Budget. EXEMPTED BUSINESS (Motion) Resolved, "That the debate on the Budget Statement be proceeded beyond 7.00 pm and the proceedings thereon be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 91(3). - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. ANNUAL BUDGET STATEMENT Debate resumed. Assoc. Prof. Low Seow Chay (Chua Chu Kang) (In Mandarin) :Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this Budget benefits everybody.”
“In addition, such cuts should also not be seen as impacting Government revenue proportionately. Very often, when these cuts are made, economic activity increases. And under right circumstances, the increase in economic activity may even more than compensate for the cut, resulting in little or no loss in revenue. Further, a direct 2% cut will also immediately restore the anomaly of a 2% difference between our corporate tax rate and the top tier of the personal income tax. Sir, to help our older unemployed workers who may have been victims of the rapid progress of technology and the impact of the progress made by countries such as China and India, the Government has stepped up its effort in the retraining of workers and redesigning of jobs. The emphasis seems to be to fit these workers intojobs which they can and want to do. This effort has seen some success. However, to further help such displaced workers, I would like to suggest an alternative. The Government could also implement training schemes to help these unemployed workers start small businesses. In many poor third-world countries, transnational organisations, like Opportunity International, make micro credit and business training available to the very poor who want to start their own businesses. Many of the borrowers start cottage industries and a significant number are successful. The best benefit of this effort is that when they grow, they can start to employ other unemployed workers, which further lowers unemployment. In Singapore, where our unemployed are better skilled, their chances of success in starting their own business should be far higher. Examples range from ice cream vendors in parks to dress-making at home.”
“This is rather critical for SMEs in the new technology field because with every month of delay, new competitors are eating into their market share. Our venture capital industry seems to have gone extra kiasu after the Nasdaq crash of 2000. In the last three years, less and less has been invested in our Singapore start-up companies, and most have gone to pre-IPO investment. So one idea to solve this problem is to start a third board on our Stock Exchange. This could be similar to the OTC of Nasdaq but some safeguards may be needed. However, the general idea is that where risky companies are listed, investors must be careful and should not invest before conducting their own basic due diligence. Although the third board idea had been proposed some time last year, not much progress has been reported since then. I feel that this should be expedited since it would be very beneficial to our young start-ups. Sir, the cut in personal income tax is an important measure of our economic restructuring. It was not implemented last year because of the economic downturn in 2003 and our deficit budget in 2004. However, with the recovery seen in 2004, the Government should not delay further. It should make a full 2% cut in personal income tax rates this year. The Prime Minister has stated that the lowering of income tax is to make us more attractive to internationally mobile talent. Hence, we should send a strong signal to these people with a significant 2% cut. This is to reinforce the image of Singapore as a nation with one of the most competitive personal income tax regimes in the world. The reduction in tax revenue is estimated to be over $100 million which I think will be outweighed by the benefits it will bring to the successful restructuring of our economy.”
“Charges for Government services must also be reviewed and brought down. Another way to help the SMEs is to support them in venturing into foreign markets. The effort required to go into the international markets, to go into each and every country, to look into their government'sred tapes, to find ways to get through the rules and regulations and to understand how the marketsand business work in the foreign land, is not an easy nor pleasant task. This is where our Government agencies like IE Singapore must redouble their efforts to assist Singapore companies, especially the smaller ones. Could we also provide more tax incentives for our SMEs when they invest in marketing their products overseas? Sir, the loss carry-back provision for small businesses is an excellent idea to help SMEs in temporary difficulties. However, the cap of $100,000 in losses and a one-year limitation could be seen as less than generous. The $20,000 in re-claimed taxes may be a welcome injection to companies in financial difficulties but the amount could be too little. I would go for, in the first instance, an aggregate of $300,000 of losses over three years for carry-back over three years. This means, if need be, the company can claim up to $60,000 in a single year.Sir, the timeliness of the tax refund is also crucial. I urge IRAS to work out a process to refund this claim quickly or it may not be in time to save the company from closure. Could I also suggest that, in future budgets, this scheme be reviewed to see whether the cap needs to be raised even further? It has been said many times that one of the main difficulties of SMEs is their inability to raise capital and funding to expand their business.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this year's Budget is people-oriented in that it focuses on looking after the long term social well being of Singaporeans. However, to many businessmen, the Budget is a non-event.From the macro-economic viewpoint, the Budget actually places a burden on the economy and, hence, dampens growth. Last year, we budgeted a deficit of $750 million. This year, we expect a surplus of $200 millionand this is assuming this year's NII is $800 million less than last year. At the least, the difference between last year's projected deficit and this year's projected surplus is about $1 billion. We are, therefore, moving from an expansionary budget last year to one that is substantially opposite. I am concerned that this negative fiscal impetus may have an adverse impact on our economic recovery, which is still precarious and delicate. Although our economy grew by 8.4% last year, many SMEs and domestic businesses have not felt the recovery. Mr Othman mentioned about this earlier. This year's economic growth is expectedto slow down in view of slower growth in the US, China andJapan. In such a scenario, I am not sure our SMEs and domestic businesses would ever get to see the recovery at all. I am, therefore, of the view that more should be done even if it means we have to budget another year of deficit which, in the end, may once again turn out to be a surplus, as we have seen in the past. There are many ways to help the SMEs and domestic businesses. First, we must continue to help them reduce their business costs. I think another year of rental and property tax rebates would be helpful. Even though the rental of Government properties has been lowered to be in line with the so-called market rents, many SMEs still face increased rents when the rebates are removed.”
“We must not repeat the past mistake of looking at academic qualifications and examination results when accepting students for our Sports and Arts Schools. Instead, we must look for real talent in the respective fields. The staff and principals of such schools must themselves be talented in these areas. Diversity in our school system also allows students to maximise their potential in their area of interest. Diversity also brings about survivability, in this case, social and economic survivability and colour. For the students, it is about learning subjects they like and are interested in, not something boring which they are forced to learn. In this way, they will be truly schooled and their potential realised. Sir, in the next lap of our nation-building, the importance of education cannot be over emphasised. I am glad to see that the Ministry of Education is putting in place many changes. The world is changing faster than ever before. It will not wait for us. Singapore has no future besides competing with the world and competes well, and an excellent education of our young holds the key to winning the competition and building a prosperous nation and gracious people. I am in full support of our Government's initiatives in this respect. On that note, Sir, I support the motion.”
“Child-minding or babysitting, home cooking, such as baking, cottage industry, telephone services for call centres, for instance, should not be disallowed in the home, if properly carried out. Sir, with the economic recovery, the unemployment rate has come down to about 3.5%. It is important for us to work hard to bring this figure further down. The Government should set a target to bring it down to, say, below 3%, within a year. Sir, the third and final observation I have is on education. Education is the best long-term investment in our young and for our future. It is also the best social leveller, allowing people to advance their economic status no matter how poor they were born. In the past, when Singapore was limited in its resources, we had to ensure that our education system is efficient. Almost all schools were run in two sessions. We needed to ensure that the majority were sufficiently skilled to man our booming industries. Those with special needs or even those with special talents could not be catered for. It was inevitable that we lost these talents. Either they migrated or the talent remained undeveloped. However, today, with an abundance of resources and a dearth of babies, the emphasis now must be different. We must now ensure that we can bring out the best in every student and every individual, thus maximising our national talent capital. We must pay special attention to each person, in order to maximise his or her potential. Those with special needs and special talents must be catered for. The Sports School, Science School and Arts School are very good efforts towards this goal. These efforts not only maximise our nation's talent pool, they engender a sense of special belonging.”
“We have a class of those who enjoy prosperity and good economic advancement due to their ability to cope with the ever increasing demands of a high-tech economy. On the other hand, we are seeing an increasing number of others who are constantly struggling to earn a living. If we manage this divide poorly, the resulting disaffection will cause our society potential problems in the future. National unity is at stake. To overcome this, I agree with Dr Amy Khor that we must spare no efforts to create jobs that can be manned by the structural unemployed. Low skilled and mundane jobs should be redesigned and upgraded. Automation and mechanisation of such jobs would bring about higher productivity, and our lower skilled workers can be trained accordingly. Some Town Councils have already tried to do this with the cleaning contractors, but we should explore this upgrading in many other areas, eg, our construction industry. In this regard, I am glad to hear from Mr Seng Han Thong that the NTUC is working with the Government to spearhead this effort. In doing so, systems and procedures must be put in place to help streamline jobs which require higher skills in order to help train the workers. It has been proven that even the lower skilled workers can be trained through hand holding and fixed instructions to perform these jobs effectively. Another way to assist displaced workers is to help them start small businesses. I am glad to see again the ice-cream sellers at some suitable locations, as well as the steamed peanut tor dao and roast chestnut kau lak hawkers. ENV should be more lenient when granting such licences, especially when an applicant has been out of a job for several months. One other area we could look at is to encourage or promote the work-at-home industry.”
“I am confident that our strategies of riding on Asia's rapid growth and moving up the value chain in both manufacturing and services will continue to bring success to Singapore. Singapore offers a premium to the high-tech investors as well as sophisticated service providers because of its transparent Government regulations and efficient infrastructure. Furthermore, the protection Singapore gives to IP owners encourages foreign IPR owners to set up their businesses here. This gives us a good lead over other countries in Asia. However, our economic recovery has not been enjoyed by all. The feel-good factor is still absent among many, especially those who could not keep up with the progress of the knowledge economy. The lack of this feel-good factor, despite our good growth, is a real concern. Though some may argue that the export-led growth will in time trickle down to the domestic economy, I am concerned that for some years to come, many, especially the older and lower educated workers, will continue to be burdened by structural unemployment, under-employment and the fear of unemployment. Sir, many of the lower skilled jobs have been permanently lost to low wage countries, such as India and China. Those with lower skills and who could not be retrained often end up as the long-term unemployed. Some would be forced through circumstances to take up jobs that pay way below the salaries they formerly earned; hence, under-employment. Even those who currently hold a job but are less skilled, constantly fear losing their jobs. Our Government must redouble its efforts and solve this problem before it leads to social fracture.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to join my colleagues here in thanking the President for his Opening Address. There are three observations that I would like to make. The first observation is on Singapore's role in the recent tsunami relief operations. In the recent tsunami disaster which befell our neighbouring countries in the Indian Ocean, I feel proud that Singapore has responded so quickly, generously and efficiently. As noted by one commentator, this is one rare instance where efficiency can have a heart. In fact, Singapore led the world in bringing relief to the affected areas not only because of our proximity, but because we acted quickly and decisively, with the conviction that our help was needed by the victims and that Singaporeans were 100% behind this effort. The people's response, through their donations and other efforts, was also most commendable. This gesture will surely bring Singapore much goodwill among our neighbours and the world. It makes us good citizens of the world and puts us in a very good stead. We can hope that, should we be affected by a similar crisis, others would be ready to help us. Sir, I am heartened by the way Singaporeans responded to the disaster. It shows a very charitable heart, one which can be depended upon in times of crisis. This augurs well for our national spirit and unity because, if we could show such willingness to help others hundreds of miles away, surely we would help our own fellow citizens even more in a national crisis. This bodes well for national resilience, not unlike our united response in the SARS crisis. Sir, the second observation I would like to make is on the economy. Our economy is well on the mend, with the growth of 8.1% last year. This is on the back of an expansion of the high-tech sectors.”
“This means speaking more English in our international dealings, and more Chinese when engaging China. I think the present situation is actually very beneficial to Singapore because Singaporeans can make full use of our English-speaking environment to acquire a good standing in our exchanges with the western world. At the same time, with more opportunities to learn and speak Mandarin in Asia, we will be able to enhance our standards in Mandarin so that we would play a useful role in our engagement with China. In this respect, I am hopeful that we would be able to strengthen the Chinese Language foundation of our younger generation of Singaporeans, and to make sure that they are better prepared and equipped for the future.”
“We have to be innovative so that we can enhance their interest in the learning of the Chinese Language. Recently, I sought the views of the Chinese teachers' community. I asked them what are the things that they are most concerned with in the teaching of Chinese Language. They told me that they are most concerned that our Singapore students are learning Chinese just for the sake of examination, and the teachers are teaching Chinese because of the school ranking. Because of that, the interest level is getting lower and lower, the effectiveness of learning is getting poorer and poorer, and more students have lost their confidence in the learning of the language. So we must change all these. How do we cultivate their interest, improve the effectiveness and enhance their confidence? I think the recommendations in this White Paper are correct. We have to have more innovative and more flexible use of teaching methods, teaching materials and technology so that our students will have a greater interest in the learning of Chinese. I think this is something that we have to change. Under the present circumstances of not being easy to practise bilingualism on the one hand, and not being practical to be monolingual on the other hand, we have to make changes to make sure that all the students would sustain the interest to learn. All teachers, parents and students will have to work together to make the teaching and learning of Chinese more interesting and more effective. In Singapore, the overall environment is such that we are using English as our working language. With the rise of China, the opportunity of using Chinese is getting greater and greater in the larger environment of Asia.”
“No matter how we reform our education system, we must maintain our bilingual feature so that as many Singaporeans as possible could still be effectively bilingual, though to varying degrees. My third point is: having accepted that it is not easy to be bilingual and being monolingual is no good, how should we change our method of learning and teaching? The Member for Potong Pasir said that the recommendation of this White Paper will lead to further decline in the standard of Chinese in Singapore. I do not agree. When my children were young, I wanted them to have a healthy body, and I sent them to a swimming school to learn swimming. Every day, they will go to the swimming pool, change into their swimming costume, do some warming up and then they plunge into the water and swim 20 or 30 laps. It was very boring, and after some time, my children said, "This is very boring. Can we stop the swimming lessons?" I spoke to the coach. I said, "They have learned how to swim. They are very healthy now. But then, they feel that your training method is quite boring." The coach said, "No problem." So the next morning, half way through their swimming, the coach blew the whistle and said, "Let's go to the smaller pool. Let's play water polo there." Since the children found the lap-swimming very boring, he decided to add in water polo, and with water polo, the children became interested. To play water polo well, you need to be able to swim fast. The children now have the incentive to train harder in swimming. By using this water polo method, he managed to enhance the interest of the children in learning swimming. Likewise, if we keep using a boring method to teach our children, sooner or later they will find it boring and lose interest in learning.”
“In this global economy of today, Chinese is used in China and English is used in the United States. If we are monolingual, we will be handicapped. When I was in Shanghai, I met a Singaporean. I asked him, "How is it here?" He said, "It is very good." I asked him, "Why?" He said, "I built up a strong foundation in my Chinese language when I was in primary and secondary school. When I came to China, I was like a fish in the water as I had no difficulty speaking Mandarin. I got along very well with the people here, and my business is very good." So I asked him, "Since you are communicating with the Chinese in Mandarin, which they all know, why are these people attracted to work with you and deal with you? What is so special about you?" He said, "Oh, although I communicated with them in Mandarin, they know that I could also speak and understand English! Because I know English, I would be able to have very direct contacts with the outside world." In other words, we have different strengths from theirs. We complement each other, and it benefits both sides. He is a Singapore fish, but he swims very well in this very great pond in China. He said, "I am a Singapore fish. But I am different from the Chinese fish. That is why the Chinese people find me attractive." So I said, "You are not only a Singapore fish. You are a Singapore frog. You can jump on the land and you can swim in the water. That is why you are doing so well." I think being bilingual is very useful. This is our strong point and this is something we should not easily give up. My second point is therefore this: in a world of change, this is something that should remain unchanged.”
“" So, when we exert too much pressure on them, I think they will be turned off and repulsive. I do not agree with the Member for Potong Pasir that if our students have failed in the mother tongue language, they should not be admitted to the university, that we should force them to stay back for one year, and that it would not affect their future. I totally disagree with him. Because if you force our students to stay one more year just because their MTL is no good, it will deal a very heavy blow on them. It would turn them off completely from the MTL and even grow repulsive towards it. I was very fortunate that when I was in Primary 3, when I could not catch up with the English language, Mr Chiam was not the Minister for Education, otherwise I would have to stay back for many years! So, my first point is that we have to change our mindset and accept the varying abilities of individual students to be bilingual. My next point is that there is one area we cannot change. Since we accept that it is not easy to be bilingual, some people may say why not give up bilingualism altogether and be a monolingual society and monolingual people. This, I do not agree. A mother mouse brought her children out to look for food one day and they met a cat. They were cornered by the cat and had no means to escape. At that critical moment when the cat was about to catch hold of the baby mice and eat them up, the mother mouse suddenly imitated the barking of the dog. When the cat heard the barking, it became frightened and ran away. So the mother mouse told her children, "All these years, I have been encouraging you to be bilingual. Now, you should know how important and useful to be bilingual." I think the same applies to us.”
“Every day, when I attended the English lesson, I would receive corporal punishment for not able to keep up with the lessons, and it was painful, so much so that I dared not go to school. Why am I telling this story? Because this reminds me that many years ago when I was a student, learning English was very difficult. But, today, the students feel that learning Chinese is difficult. So, which is more difficult? English or Chinese? My conclusion is, no matter whether it is English or Chinese, so long as you are learning a second language, it is going to be difficult. Why? This is because our brain power and our ability to digest our learning is limited. So I think that we have to change our mindset and our expectation of our students in their ability to master two languages. Over the years, we have been pressurising our students. We want everyone to attain a certain level of competence in both the languages. But everybody has different learning abilities. We should not keep on exerting pressures on them. I remember about 10 years ago, after my two years' posting in the United States, my children attended a primary school in Singapore. Having spent two years in the States, they refused to speak Mandarin at home. I wanted to force them to speak Mandarin, I told them, "From now onwards, every night from 7.00 pm to 8.00 pm, during dinner time, you could only speak Mandarin. No English is allowed. Since you are living in Singapore, as Singaporeans, you have to be bilingual." At that time, my daughter was in Primary 1, but she already had her own mind. She said, "All right. If you force us to speak only Mandarin from 7.00 to 8.00 o'clock every night, then I would keep quiet and not say a word. It is so difficult to speak in Mandarin!”
“So how do we know what has to be totally changed, what does not need to be changed at all? Well, the answer is that if we understand the reason for the change, then embracing change is easier and simple, and life would be easier for us. In the last few weeks, I have been thinking how I could apply what I have learned from the Book of Changes to this debate in Parliament. This White Paper also brings me to three important points: certain things in the teaching of Mandarin have to change; certain things should not be changed, and the reasons for certain changes must be clearly understood for the changes to be implemented effectively. I remember when I was a Primary 3 student in the primary section of Catholic High School, I was in the afternoon session. There was a period when every day, at about 12.15 pm, I would have stomachache. So I told my father, "I have stomachache. I cannot go to school." The first time I managed to skip school. The second time I also managed to get through. But on the third time, my father said, "No. It is very serious. Stomachache is all right. But if you have stomachache at 12 o'clock every day, then it is not stomachache; it must be gastric problem. You will have to see a doctor." The doctor examined me and said, "It can't be. Your child is only nine years' old. How could he have gastric problem? I think there must be something in the school that made him not want to go to school." Why was it that I did not want to go to school? Catholic High School was a bilingual school at that time. The standard of English was very high. I could not catch up with the standard of English in the school.”
“If this is going to be the case, and we want to reverse the situation, we are going to lose the time of yet another generation of people in Singapore. In conclusion, I would like to quote from an article in the Lianhe Zaobao which said, "Do not make the general standard of Chinese so low that it becomes a 'car that cannot even hit the road'!" Column No : 1354 Column No : 1354 EXEMPTED BUSINESS (Motion) Resolved, That the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 2. - [Mr Lim Swee Say]. Column No : 1354 Column No : 1354 REVISED CHINESE LANGUAGE CURRICULUM Debate resumed. The Minister, Prime Minister's Office and Second Minister for National Development (Mr Lim Swee Say) (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, recently Yi Jing (Book of Changes) scholars from all over the world held its World Conference in Singapore and I was invited to be the Guest-of-Honour. I consulted Mr Seng Han Thong and sought his help to prepare my speech at the Opening Ceremony. From there, I learnt something about this great classic, Yi Jing or the Book of Changes. In this Book of Changes, it brings forward the theory that everything in the universe is subjected to one of the three very important kinds of changes. Firstly, bian yi (variance or changes), that is, everything, everybody, every object in this world is subject to changes. Secondly, bu bian (invariance or no change). Although everyone changes, everything changes, certain things remain unchanged. For example, the sky is always the sky; the earth is always the earth, and this is the invariance among the variance. Thirdly, jian bian (simplification). Some have to change while some will not change.”
“At the same time, would it not add to the learning burden of our students if they have to memorise more words? If we are not careful, "recognise first, write later" may also turn out to be a contributing factor to the difficulty in learning for our students. (5) I heard that the number of characters in our Character List will be reduced by 20%. If "recognise first, write later" is really successful, then the materials in the existing curriculum whereby our students "simultaneously recognise and write" and complete by secondary four, be so much easier for our students under "recognise first and write later." They could complete the curriculum in no time, and we may just have to put in more teaching materials to fill up the vacated Chinese lesson times? That being the case, will the students not be made to learn more than what they are doing today? Will this not add to the burden of our students? This White Paper hopes to help the students who have difficulty in learning Chinese by providing them with an easier, more interesting method of "more listening, speaking and reading but less writing" to complete the basic core module in Chinese. It also hopes to develop the students' love and interest in Chinese. This is a well-meaning intention, and I support it. However, such simplification of the learning process of the Chinese language may just sacrifice some students who originally had the potential to learn higher levels of Chinese. If, in the future, too many secondary school graduates can achieve only the core module level whereby they could only read but cannot write, then our desire of levelling up on our people's proficiency in the Chinese Language as an advantage to catch a share in China's economic success will be in vain.”
“Being made to look at these wrong words, you will get accustomed to them, hence, you recognise and learn the wrong words. A few days ago, I went to Block 3, Singapore General Hospital. There was a huge banner with three Chinese characters, gan, si, nin（感 �? 您）on it. These are very beautifully calligraphed Chinese characters. But these three Chinese characters put together do not mean anything. I asked my wife, "What do you think?" She replied that there seemed to be a religious flavour in it. These Chinese characters, when put together in this manner, do not look or sound Chinese. It is neither a phrase nor a sentence. If the standard of our Chinese is so pathetic and yet the ignorance is displayed in open view to members of the public, what kind of effect will it have on our young students? Recognise and learn - the wrong thing! If our students learn just to recognise without learning how to write the characters correctly, they may not be able to appreciate the finer details of the Chinese words. (3) In China, Chinese is their first language. Before the children start learning to recognise the characters, they are already young linguists in their own rights. Ask them a question, and they can answer eloquently in Mandarin as quickly as the flow of water. How can we compare our children from the English-speaking families with the young children in China? (4) "Recognise first, write later" means to say recognising more words in the shortest possible time, thereby enhancing the ability to learn how to read, and through reading you enhance the Chinese standard and the interest in it. Has it ever occurred to us that recognising more words would also mean that we have to memorise more words?”
“We have to be very careful whenever we make any changes to the education system. We should not be obsessed with specious slogans which may appear to be right, but are actually wrong! Of late, we hear a lot of people advocating "teach less, learn more" and "recognise first, write later". In my personal opinion, these slogans are right in some aspects and wrong in some other aspects. It depends on who and where these concepts are applied. In the case of the students of Raffles Institution and Chinese High, teaching less and learning more is correct, because the academic results of these students are so good that even without the teachers, they can do well! However, if you apply the "teach less, learn more" concept on the weaker neighbourhood schools, the students may be so free that they have nothing to do and loiter at the shopping centres every day. As for recognising first, and writing later, or even no writing, I have very big reservations: (1) This is a concept of teaching Chinese which is still in the experimental stage in China. Why do we want to adopt a concept which other people are experimenting to be our mainstream method of teaching? This is much too risky! If it turns out to be defective, we stand to lose time for another generation of people in Singapore. (2) It is said that this experimental method works in Shanghai, but it does not necessarily mean that it will be effective in Singapore. I say this because in Shanghai, you see Chinese characters all over the places, whereas in Singapore, Chinese is not used even on street names and sign boards. Recognition of words is not an easy thing to do, especially in Singapore. Very often, the Chinese words are written wrongly, or the wrong words are used.”
“The core module recommended in the White Paper emphasises listening, speaking and reading, but less emphasis on writing. What will be the eventual outcome for the learning of Chinese? If the recommended Chinese curriculum is customised to suit the present 42% to 47% of students who have difficulty in learning Chinese, then the expected outcome will be that the 12% EM3 students would complete the said core module at the minimum standard, with the remaining 30% who originally had learning difficulty, completing the core module in a relaxed and less painful situation, at PSLE level. Is this the outcome that we want? As regards students who are more comfortable with Chinese, how will the new curriculum benefit them? These students account for 53%-57% of the cohort, with 10% taking Higher Chinese. In the event that enrolment for Higher Chinese does not increase hereafter, it would imply that as much as 43% to 47% of the students would have to accommodate those who are having learning difficulties and thereby drastically lower their level of learning for the Chinese language. The outcome may not be what the Ministry of Education wants to see. This large group of potential Chinese elites may well be the victims of the curriculum changes. This will have negative impact on our desire to use our advantage in Chinese to share the economic prosperity of China. I hope that the Ministry of Education would give more space to these more able students with the vast majority of them to be absorbed into the Higher Chinese courses. There is a traditional Chinese saying, "It takes 10 years to grow trees but 100 years to rear people." This is to say that if the education system fails, the damage will be evident only 100 years later.”