Lee Tsao Yuan
Singapore
“My last point and, perhaps, the most important, is that the fundamental tenet of democracy is that it must bring the greatest good to the greatest number of people.”
“Clarification, Minister. I think my question was really regarding the last part of your comment which said that you would change the Constitution in order to state whether what part of NII would belong to past reserves and to current reserves. Perhaps I was wrong in this matter.”
“As I see it, Minister, if the change of the Constitution is to define the portion of NII that belongs to past reserves, then would the Minister also consider at the same time including in the Constitution the definition of "reserves" that was stated in the White Paper? Because right now it is not in the Constitution.”
“The Minister stated that he would consider changing the Constitution in order to define NII or the part of NII that goes to current or past reserves. Would the Minister also consider at the same time changing the Constitution in order to incorporate the definition of past reserves in the Constitution?”
“Another clarification, please. As far as I understand from the White Paper, and I could be obtuse, supposing you have a future government that informs the President of the day that it disagrees with the definition of the value of State land, in other words, the value of State land at fair market value at the point of transaction, then tho…”
“The Minister said that the principles in the White Paper are binding and that if a future government so decides to define fair market value as not at the point of transaction but at the time it took over office, then that is clearly in violation of the definition of past reserves.”
The complete record
Every one of 270 lines we hold for Lee Tsao Yuan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 6.
“While revenue-generating service providing statutory boards have been a feature of Singapore's economic institution building, this is the first time that such a wave of corporatisation has occurred. Because of the significance of these two modifications, it is important that there be an assessment of their effectiveness. I would like to suggest that a review be given by the Government regarding the implementation of, first, the market indexing of salaries of Ministers and civil servants and, second, corporatisation. Such a review could incorporate the following elements: for the market indexing of salaries, has it led to an increase in the number and quality of applicants to the Administrative Service, fewer resignations, happier and more satisfied Administrative Service officers? As for the corporatisation review, the key questions are: (1) Does the newly organised body deliver services better and more efficiently? (2) If it does, then who benefits? Shareholders in terms of higher rates of return? The public who gets more value for money, or both? I would like to further suggest that these reviews be made public not only for the sake of public accountability but also to generate full awareness of the consequences of these two important policy modifications. The third principle of governance in this category pertains to the correct pricing of factors of production, as mentioned by the Minister for Finance. The recognition that Singapore Power's electricity tariffs are too low means that there was an under-pricing of at least one factor in the past and that this would be rectified in future. I understand that a similar process of accounting for full cost has been in place in the Government for a few years now.”
“3 billion in 1994, the revised figure was $11.9 billion, and the actual amount was $15.3 billion. It is no mean accomplishment for the Government to turn on a surplus budget every year when other countries had difficulties keeping their budget deficit from increasing in size. It is far better to have surpluses than deficits. I can also understand the difficulties in the budget process. No one can plan perfectly. When economic growth is stronger than expected, revenues go up. However, the discrepancies in the figures are really quite large. Perhaps this is one area where some tightening up can be made. While I understand the preference to err on the side of conservatism, there is a difference between being cautious and being too cautious. Moreover, there are macro-economic effects of unanticipatedly high withdrawals from the economy. The second category of principles of governance comprises those which have undergone significant modifications over time. I can cite four. The first is that of the payment of competitive market index salaries to Ministers and key civil servants. Although ministerial and civil service pay has been raised on an ad hoc basis from time to time, 1994 was the first time that such an indexing formula has been introduced. The second is that of the corporatisation of a number of key statutory boards in recent years to become Singapore Telecom, Television Corporation of Singapore and Singapore Power and Gas. A standard format is adopted where two organisations are established, the regulatory agency and the corporatised revenue-generating body, which may or may not be subsequently floated on the Stock Exchange.”
“A fifth principle is that of fiscal prudence. I would like to comment on the operation of this principle. One of the first figures which catch the eye when examining the Budget book is the size of the surplus - an estimated $7.1 billion for fiscal year 1996 or 5.4% of GDP, the estimated excess of receipts over outlays is $12.8 billion or 9.8% of GDP. These are not small figures. I was therefore curious as to the extent to which these surpluses are planned and the extent to which they are unanticipated and occurred because of shortfalls in expenditure and unexpectantly high revenues. I therefore checked the figures for the estimated, revised and actual surplus figures for 1990 to 1995. This is what I found. Let me cite the figures for the surplus which is defined as "Operating Revenue Less Expenditure". Surpluses Year Estimated Revised Actual $ Billion $ Billion $ Billion 1990 1.5 3.2 2.5 1991 1.4 1.8 3.9 1992 1.0 3.7 5.6 1993 1.7 4.1 7.8 1994 2.2 7.1 9.7 1995 5.8 6.3 (Not available) In short, except for 1990, the story is very consistent. The actual surplus is invariably much higher than the revised figures, which in turn is also higher than the estimated figures. For example, for 1994, the estimated surplus was $2.2 billion, while the actual surplus was $9.7 billion. The story is similar for both the budget surplus which nets off the contributions to Edusave and the various CPF Top-Up and Share-Ownership Schemes as well as for the excess of receipts over outlays which includes net investment income and net capital receipts and excludes net lending. For example, for 1994, the estimated budget surplus was $1.6 billion, the revised figure was $6.0 billion while the actual amount was $8.6 billion. For the excess of receipts over outlays, the estimated figure was $6.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in this era of globalisation where capital is mobile, labour, both skilled and unskilled, moves freely across borders, and information is transmitted almost instantaneously via the Internet, there is one factor which is not mobile. The quality of this factor varies from country to country and has become an increasingly crucial ingredient in determining a country's competitiveness. This factor is governance, in particular, economic governance. We in Singapore are fortunate that our economic governance has, by and large, been right. The formulation of economic policies has been according to sound economic principles and have been efficiently implemented at the appropriate time. I would like to categorise Singapore's principle of economic governance into two categories. The first category pertains to policies which had been put in place since the beginning of our process of economic development in the 1960s and has remained essentially unchanged for the last 3 1/2 decades and is likely to remain so in the foreseeable future. Among these principles are, first, openness to international goods and capital and selective openness to labour - selective because there are political and social considerations to be taken into account. Second, a taxation and expenditure system that has minimum dampening effects on the incentive to work, save and invest. Third, the practice of meritocracy in the labour market and in the educational system. Fourth, emphasis on capital formation, both in terms of physical infrastructure such as roads and airports as well as human resource development. This set of policies is broadly similar to those practised in other rapidly growing East Asian economies and are more or less the East Asians' recipe for economic success.”
“The point is that revenues generated from transport taxes and fees alone could cover the capital costs plus a proportion of operating costs of these transport projects. In conclusion, I am not suggesting that the Government subsidises everything. Nor am I suggesting that the Government spend every cent that it has in surplus. But I am suggesting that there are valid areas where Government subsidies are justified, particularly where they do not reduce the incentives to work hard and to save. Unlike some other Members of this House, I beg to disagree that financing of asset replacement in addition to historical cost opens the floodgates for pressures to do so in other areas other than public transport. As I mentioned earlier, education, health and housing have, from the very beginning of the PAP Government, been treated differently. To me, subsidy is not a dirty word. Making basic health, education and housing affordable is, and always has been, the social compact between this Government and the people. I am suggesting that, if the Government is asking that there be a social compact in the area of transportation, then, first, let the Government extend its subsidy to bus transport, the backbone of the public transportation system, and, second, let the Government spell out how much more the public has to pay. With that, I support the motion.”
“8 billion; the LRT, up to $1 billion; expansion of the road network, $1.1 billion. All of these costs would be spread over a number of years. For example, the Underground Road System over 15 years; road network expansion, five years, and so on. The gross revenue collected by the Registry of Vehicles in 1994 alone was $4.2 billion, of which the quota premium or COE collection comprised $1.9 billion. In 1993, gross revenue of the ROV was $3.4 billion, and COE collection, $1.3 billion. Between 1992 and 1994, gross ROV revenues amounted to $10 billion. Add another $3.5 billion for fiscal year 1995 - a very conservative estimate - and this makes a total of $13.5 billion in ROV revenue collections between 1992 and 1995. This alone can pay for the capital cost of the North-East MRT line, SURS, LRT and road expansion as well as cover part of operating costs. In light of these sums, the operating cost of, say, even the Singapore Underground Road System of $80 million a year is really not large at all. It is also not as if the Government budget is in deficit. Far from it. The budget surplus in fiscal year 1994 was $6 billion. The estimate for 1995 is $4.8 billion. If one were to add net capital receipts, the excess of receipts over outlays was $11.9 billion in 1994 and an estimated $9.3 billion in 1995. I mentioned that the fourth principle of the Government is not to tie revenue to specific expenditure items. Many have asked why does the Government not use the COE collections to improve the transportation system. After all, COEs were not meant to be revenue-generating; they were meant to limit demand and as an allocation mechanism. My view is that the Government need not sacrifice this principle if it does not want to.”
“There are three million bus trips per day compared to only 700,000 by the MRT. At present, commuters, especially those along less-populated corridors, have to suffer longer waiting times or longer bus journeys because operating these bus routes are not profitable, so the frequency of service can be cut down. Why not make bus transport not only world class but also world class and very affordable to the low-and average-income household? Why not moderate price increases for bus transport? If the Government can progressively subsidise health, education and housing, can the Government also not progressively subsidise all areas of public transport, including bus transport? After all, I think that there is a valid argument for saying that public transport is as equal a necessity as is housing. It does affect productivity in terms of time, as do education and health. I turn next to cars, the "A" class of the transportation system in Singapore. The Government has set the target of 3% growth in the number of cars, and has devised the COE system as a means of allocation of these cars. With the introduction of Electronic Road Pricing, the cost of using road space will be spread between ownership and usage. My question here is, what is the scenario which lies ahead for car owners? There will be more cars. But will congestion worsen and the total cost of owning and using a car increase, which is the worst case scenario? Or will congestion improve, and the cost of owning and using a car decrease, the best case scenario? What will be the usage charges for the underground road system? It is useful to examine the sums that are involved. In terms of capital costs: the North-East MRT line will cost about $5 billion; the Singapore Underground Road System is estimated to cost $4.”
“Yes, fares have to be regularly revised to account for justifiable cost increases. But how much more? Is there going to be a cap to the percentage increase per year? The White Paper remains silent on these issues. The question of how much more the public has to pay is inter-related with the third principle, that of Government subsidy. The White Paper has stated that the Government will subsidise capital costs plus asset replacement costs, over and above historical costs, and has re-defined operating expenditure to exclude this item. The context of this is capital-intensive projects such as the MRT and light rail transport. But what about bus transport? Will the Government also subsidise the increase in asset replacement costs? I am fully aware that bus services are run by the private sector, so there appears to be no good reason for any Government subsidy. After all, one perception is why should the Government subsidise private corporations? However, the same argument which applies to rail transport can also apply to bus transport. Let me explain why. If bus fares have to cover operating costs, what fare increases will be in future depend on the definition of operating costs. Even though operating assets for bus transport are not as high a proportion of operating costs as for rail transport, fare increases can still be moderated for bus transport if the same financing principle is used for bus transport as for rail transport. Furthermore, the Public Transport Council can ensure that this Government subsidy is passed on directly to the user, and not result in higher profits for the bus operators. There is in addition another argument for applying this principle to bus transport. Bus transport will continue to be the backbone of the public transportation system.”
“In education, the Government subsidises all development costs of schools and other educational institutions. It also subsidises operating costs to the tune of 98-100% for primary, secondary and junior colleges; 94% for the Institute of Technical Education; 83% for polytechnics; and 75% for universities. I would like to reiterate that this is for operating costs. Similarly for public housing. The Government subsidises about 30% of the total development cost of 3- and 4-room flats, and about 10% for 5-room and Executive flats. This is in order to ensure that HDB flats are affordable to the average income household. To reiterate, the third financing principle, which has been used by the Government, is that in health, education and housing, subsidies are provided in a progressive manner in order to maintain basic affordability of these public goods. While the Government eschews welfarism, it does subsidise the provision of certain public goods. The fourth financing principle of the Government is that all Government revenues go into a consolidated revenue account. How do these financing principles jibe with the financing principles laid out in the White Paper? First, there is no such thing as a free lunch where public transport is concerned. Commuters pay for bus and MRT trips. This has always been the case, and has been well accepted. Second, you do get what you pay for in public transport. Taxis and cars cost much more than the bus and the MRT. However, the question left unanswered by the White Paper is: will the vision of a world class transport system mean that transportation will become more costly for the ordinary user? How much more will the man-in-the-street have to pay for the comfortable, safe, speedy and seamless transport?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, transportation in urban centres has become a global problem. Hence, much credit must go to the Government, and the Land Transport Authority in particular, for having this strategic mindset to think long term and to think big. Transportation infrastructure very properly belongs in the domain of the public sector, and the entrepreneurial approach adopted by the Government, as demonstrated by this White Paper, is precisely one of those key success factors which has contributed towards Singapore's economic success. Also, knowing the Government, the White Paper is not going to be all words and no action. I am confident that, if approved, this vision will be promptly and efficiently implemented. My main comment about the White Paper is regarding financing. In this area, the White Paper leaves a number of questions unanswered. Before I raise these questions, it is useful to summarise four financing principles which have been used in the provision of public services by the Government. First, we all know that there is no such thing as a free lunch. A price tag is put on almost everything in Singapore by the Government. The second principle is: "you get what you pay for". Take hospitals, for example. If you want the comfort and privacy of an "A" class ward, well, you pay hotel prices. The third principle, which applies to the provision of three public goods - health, education and housing - is that of progressive subsidisation. In health, the long-term subsidy targets are: 80% subsidy for "C" class wards; 65% for "B2"; 20% for "B1", and no subsidy for "A" class wards. This is to ensure that even the very low-income can have medical treatment, and that basic health care remains affordable for all.”
“However, I think that the Bill in its present form allows for too many questions and loopholes to be satisfactory. In particular, there need to be more safeguards built in to prevent abuse and to address the three issues that I have outlined. I would further suggest that there be a review of the AMD scheme after one year to fine-tune its efficacy in actual practice. Sir, I support the Bill provided that it goes to a Select Committee.”
“I believe that this choice is an entirely individual matter to be made after much thought and consideration. Legislation is only the beginning of the process. I would suggest that special attention be given to extensive public education as to what an AMD is and the benefits and cost of making one. This suggestion has already been made previously. A third issue is whether the AMD Bill could eventually lead to the legalisation of euthanasia. I must state here that I am against euthanasia. At present, euthanasia is an offence under the law. I must also emphasise that the Bill per se has nothing to do with euthanasia. However, if individual self-determination forms the basis for the AMD, then it is not that difficult to take this principle one step further to allow an individual the right to die. In 10 or 20 years' time, when the proportion of the aged rises in Singapore, pressures might mount for the logical progression from not wanting life-sustaining treatment to wanting to die rather than face suffering and pain. These pressures are already present in some developed countries today. The Minister has just given the assurance that the Ministry is against euthanasia and that the Bill itself does not permit euthanasia. I would be more assured if I knew for sure that the Minister would still be the Minister for Health in 20-30 years' time. As such, my concern is that there are insufficient safeguards to prevent a slide from an AMD into the legalisation of euthanasia, perhaps not now, not this generation, but in the future. Let me conclude by saying that I support the broad thrust and direction of the Bill. There are instances where life need not be artificially prolonged and the Advance Medical Directive Bill makes that personal choice legal.”
“Instead of blanket immunity, isn't there room for the professional body to deal with cases of gross misconduct in this case? A related question is: suppose a patient has made an AMD and has been diagnosed as terminally ill, when should the treatment be withdrawn - three months, a week, a day? Is there a time limit? Who makes the decision as to timing? The Bill is silent on this issue. The second issue concerns whether the existence of AMD legislation changes doctors' behaviour for patients who have not made AMDs. At present, without legislation, decisions are already being made whether to artificially prolong life or not for terminally ill patients. Doctors and family members exercise considerable flexibility on a discretionary case-by-case basis. Life support systems are being switched off for some terminally ill patients. Would AMD legislation actually limit doctors' choices, in the sense that the decision becomes: for patients with AMDs, withdraw treatment; for patients with no AMDs, therefore, continue treatment? In other words, does the very existence of legislation alter the basis of decision making for patients without AMDs? Similarly, for society as a whole, would AMD legislation change attitudes towards a greater intolerance of terminal illness? Mr Loh Meng See has raised concerns regarding the long-term effects on society and I share his concerns. Pressures could arise in favour of making AMDs, especially since life-sustaining treatment could be very expensive, not to mention the emotional stress borne by the family. I recall that there was a time when eyebrows were raised when a couple had more than two children because it was not socially correct. Similarly, will there come a time when it would not be socially correct not to have an AMD?”
“In my view, the nub of the issue is not whether there should or should not be legislation but whether the legislation provides for sufficient safeguards to prevent abuse of the AMD. I see the need for more safeguards where three issues are concerned. The first issue is the determination of terminal illness. As far as I understand, no medical practitioner, no matter how expert, can determine for sure with 100% certainty that an illness is incurable and will shortly result in death. There are enough documented cases of what can be called miraculous healing, that not even a panel of experts can definitively say that there is no prospect of recovery. The definition of terminal illness in the Bill, therefore, is that of no reasonable prospect of recovery and that death would, within reasonable medical judgment, be imminent. What is reasonable in this case? What if a wrong prognosis is made? And why is it that the three medical practitioners or the Committee of three specialists are absolved not only from civil and criminal liability but even from discipline for professional misconduct in making this literally life or death decision? And, similarly, for a person who gives effect to the directive in the absence of knowledge of revocation or intended revocation of the directive when such care is taken to maintain the registry. Knowing the pain and suffering which the patient and his family members have to go through, do these provisions build in an unconscious bias to broaden the definition of terminal illness? While I understand the need for protection for medical practitioners, as no one can definitively pronounce illness as terminal, a distinction surely can be made between civil and criminal censure on the one hand and professional review and discipline on the other.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Advance Medical Directive Bill is a pragmatic response to a very difficult and sensitive issue. There are a number of advantages to the Bill. First, it is not only entirely voluntary but it is also an opt-in system, not an opt-out system. If a person wants to make a directive, then he or she has to make the effort to do so. This is much better than an opt-out system when AMDs are presumed to be in effect unless a person chooses otherwise. Second, the legislation provides the individual with a choice, the choice of not wanting to prolong his or her life when he or she is terminally ill and incapable of making such a decision. The current practice is that this decision is made by the doctor and the family members who may or may not make a decision in line with the patient's wishes. The patient may not have wanted to have his life artificially prolonged, thus causing more physical, emotional and financial stress on his family. However, his family members may not be able to make the decision to switch off the life support system and thus the treatment continues. Some people, especially older ones, live in fear of being a burden on their family in precisely such instances. The availability of an AMD would reduce this fear. These are powerful and valid arguments for the enactment of AMD legislation. I can see that there is a point at which life need not be artificially prolonged. Life need not be preserved at all costs and in all circumstances and, in particular, there are advantages of not prolonging a living death by artificial means. However, there are a number of issues which the Bill, in its present form, leaves unresolved.”
“For example, it is useful to know that Singapore's TFP growth performance in the 1960s, 1970s and the first half of the 1980s was poor but has been better since then. Unlike GDP growth figures, it is less useful for me to know what the TFP growth was in 1994 or what the forecasted TFP growth will be in 1995. My third point concerns the continued need for good institutional relationships. For example, the Board, as a first-stop centre for SME schemes, would administer some schemes itself but it would also refer SMEs to other agencies, such as the promising local enterprises scheme of the EDB. It is therefore important for the Board to maintain good working relationships with other agencies, particularly those whose sanctions overlap as in the area of SMEs and technology. This is to ensure that companies do not get caught up in any inter-agency rivalries that could occur in the future. In addition, the Board's mindset should be one where companies are regarded like clients to be treated with respect and to be helped. To summarise, I have made three comments regarding the function of the proposed SPSB, ie, SME development, TFP growth and the need for good institutional relationships. I support the Board's establishment and the Bill.”
“While policy too, such as technology development and in-employment training, would have positive effects on TFP growth, we do not know what the time lag is, if any, and what the exact relationships are. Second, in growth accounting methodology, TFP growth is often computed as a residual, that is, output growth minus the sum of input growth. As such, TFP growth is often sensitive to the business cycle. More specifically, TFP growth figures are often pro-cyclical, rising on the upturn of the business cycle and falling on the downturn when companies tend to engage in labour hoarding in expectation of an upturn in their business activities. This is also the same with labour productivity growth figures. What this means is that in a good year, TFP growth is high, the Board at MTI can breathe a sigh of relief. In a bad year, TFP growth is low, alarm bells ring and there is a rush to find out what the causes for this are. In actual fact, this would be what one would expect because of the business cycle. Third, TFP growth measurement is fraught with difficulties and inaccuracies. To name but one, Singapore does not have a capital stock benchmark because we do not have a wealth survey. I doubt if we will ever have one. I shall not elaborate on the other difficulties here. But having computed these numbers for both the manufacturing industry and the Singapore economy, I fully realise what heroic assumptions have to be made to compute TFP growth in Singapore. While I support the move to measure TFP on an annual basis, I suggest that TFP growth figures should not be used as an annual target but as a medium term one, say, average over five years or so. It should be used as a record of productivity performance in the medium or long term, not in the short term, or from year to year.”
“While the Board would, of course, not devote all its resources exclusively to SME development as it has other responsibilities, I also hope that, since SME development is only one of the 10 functions of the Board, it would not devote only one-tenth of its resources to SME development. My second point concerns the approach to TFP and the use of TFP growth targets. The concept of TFP is a good one, that is, output growth comes not just from the bootstraps approach of the growth of inputs alone, but by increases in the productivity of all factors. As a productivity concept, it is superior to that of labour productivity which emphasises the productivity of one input alone - labour. While I support the promotion of TFP as a concept, I would caution against the use of short-term TFP growth targets. I note in the most recent NPB's Annual Report that with the revised GDP growth estimate of 7%, up to the year 2000, labour productivity growth is expected to be at least 4% annually. NPB's objective is that a 2% average growth in TFP is needed to sustain the 4% labour productivity growth. The use of such TFP growth targets causes some concern. First, TFP growth is a black box. Nobody knows for sure why TFP growth is high or why it is low, although one can generally say that innovation and technological developments, as well as economic restructuring, from low to high-value added sectors, such as from agriculture to manufacturing, are positive contributors to TFP growth. Exactly what the relationship is. For example, that an X% increase in R&D spending would lead to a Y% increase in TFP, nobody can quite say.”
“In this regard, I believe that SME policy in Singapore has to strike a balance between two extremes. The first extreme is that of a hands-off attitude on the part of the Government where SMEs are left to fend for themselves. In the Darwinian world of business competition, if they survive and grow, good for them. If they are unable to compete, too bad. The Government would take care of overall macro-economic stability but would not be involved in any specific programmes to assist SMEs. This is a policy of benign neglect. You swim, or you sink, at your own peril. The other extreme is that of molly-coddling SMEs to the point of heavily subsidising them in the form of preferential credit, generous investment allowances, and so on. This situation is entirely possible as SMEs often elicit much public sympathy. They are often perceived in some countries, and in Singapore as well, who need help because they are competing against the "big boys" and that the playing field is not level. The Singapore Productivity and Standards Board in achieving its stated function of promoting SMEs should neither neglect nor molly-coddle them. Instead, the purpose of the Board should be to facilitate SME development in such a way as to promote healthy and viable SMEs. Its basic orientation should be to help SMEs become competitive by skills training, technology development or other means of upgrading their productivity. After all, the SME of today could well be the local MNC of tomorrow. I hope that the transfer of SME development functions to the proposed Board would result in greater effectiveness in SME development, not less.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the creation of the Singapore Productivity and Standards Board. The merger of NPB, SISIR and SME's development function of EDB into one organisation with a comprehensive mandate to improve productivity and quality standards will bring about positive synergies. I would like to highlight three areas for the Board's consideration when it is formed. First, its role in the development of SMEs; second, the use of Total Factor Productivity growth measures as a policy objective; and third, the need for good institutional relationships. First, SME development. The Bill states that one of the functions of the Board is "to promote, facilitate and assist in the development and upgrading of industry and enterprises and support the growth of small and medium enterprises". The Task Force Report on Institutional Reform for Productivity and Quality Improvements explains that the Board will have a local enterprise upgrading centre which will be a first-stop centre for SMEs and which will implement a number of schemes currently under the EDB. However, SME development is only one of the 10 functions of the Board, as stated in the Bill. My concern is whether SMEs will be given sufficient attention. Would SME development be lost in the multiplicity of functions of the Board? The challenge for the proposed Board is to deliver development support to SMEs more expeditiously, effectively and graciously. With the new synergies arising from the merger of NPB and SISIR, it has more inherent capabilities under one roof to do so. Since it is a new institutional set-up, the Board might want to come up with a new statement on SME policy and what it will do as a first-stop centre for SMEs.”
“Further integration of these linkages, such as between the police and the voluntary welfare organisations, for example, in the Ang Mo Kio pilot project, would be positively helpful. Ultimately, the nub of the matter is financing. Needless to say, violence prevention is not a profitable operation. It cannot function on the bottom line basis unlike, say, for example, the MRT. If the Government is serious in preventing family violence, and I believe it is, then it is time that they should commit more resources and funds to violence prevention work. In conclusion, many of the provisions of the Family Violence Bill have much merit and are worthy of serious consideration. If the view of the Government is that the Family Violence Bill goes too far, I would submit that perhaps the proposed amendments to the Women's Charter do not go far enough. Perhaps, some middle ground could be found, for example, in Select Committee deliberations of the proposed amendments to the Women's Charter. If it is the collective view of experts and practitioners that legislating police intervention is too extreme, why not as an alternative provide for strengthened police intervention by training the police so that the attitude of the police is one of sensitivity, of having enough training, of expertise, in order to deal with cases of family violence. It is my sincere wish that we will very soon see strengthened legislation against family violence. I reiterate that it is the provisions which count, not the location of those provisions. I support the spirit and a number of provisions of the Family Violence Bill. 2.07 pm”
“As somebody who is a non-expert in this issue, I would suggest that we pause for a moment, take the time to deliberate carefully on this issue, perhaps in Select Committee, make reference to available research before making a decision. This brings me to another major point. Violence prevention is not merely an issue of legislation alone. A holistic approach to violence prevention would include the strengthening of other institutional aspects. I am glad that the Acting Minister for Community Development mentioned this just now in his speech. Allow me to highlight two other dimensions which already exist but which should be further developed. The first is the need to provide greater training for front-line professionals who are directly involved in violence prevention, namely, the police and social workers. Family violence is such a complex issue that those who deal with it should be adequately equipped. For example, violence prevention can usefully be part of the curriculum development of the Police Academy. There is also an urgent need for more trained social workers, including from the university, especially if counselling is given a central role in violence prevention. At a broader level, greater understanding in society regarding family violence and violence prevention would be helpful. Public education has a valuable role to play. The second dimension is the need to strengthen the linkages between each component in the violence prevention system to ensure that the system, as a whole, works smoothly and effectively. The Inter-Ministry Work Group is a good start to collaboration between the various Government agencies and voluntary welfare organisations.”
“One strong case for the empowerment of the police is that it does lessen the burden of action on the victim who is already undergoing severe emotional trauma. In this, the proposed amendments to the Women's Charter to make it easier to obtain a Protection Order may perhaps not go far enough in offering immediate protection for the victim. The victim still has to go through a series of procedures in order to apply for the Protection Order. Furthermore, applying for a Protection Order takes time and effort with no guarantee of preservation of privacy. In this, I would like to suggest that, in terms of the amendments of the Women's Charter, if the amendments could go further in taking care of the preservation of privacy for the victim and in taking care of the ease of applying for a Protection Order, then I think that would go a long way towards facilitating protection for the victim. There is one major disadvantage of police involvement and that the Minister for Home Affairs has elaborated on yesterday, so I need not go into it. And I believe that this indeed does constitute a major disadvantage of police involvement. Regarding whether police involvement will make things worse for the family, there are two contrasting opinions. On the one hand, Dr Soin's view is that police investigation in a discreet, quiet manner and, if necessary, advocating counselling for the abuser, does in no way interfere with the intactness of the family and is preferable to obtaining a Protection Order from the court. On the other hand, the Government's view is that police involvement could make things worse for the family. Which point of view is more correct?”
“If this is the course of action of the Government, then I am in favour of the proposal of changing the title from Women's Charter to Family Charter. Regarding the provisions against family violence, there are two issues which I would like to address. The first issue is that of a central role given to counselling. I believe that counselling is indeed an important step towards reconciliation, a first step, nevertheless, but a very important step and counselling for the victim, the abuser as well as the other members of the family, for example, children who have witnessed constant abuse of one parent by another is a vital aspect of the rehabilitation process and in as much as abusers are often reluctant to undergo counselling, this needs to be made mandatory. I therefore support the provision for mandatory counselling for the abuser in the Family Violence Bill. In addition, I would suggest that not only counselling be made mandatory but that treatment of illnesses which could lead to family violence also be made compulsory. For example, there is, at present, no such provision for abusers who become violent because of, say, alcoholism or mental illness, to undergo compulsory treatment. The second issue is that of protection for the victim. The objective here is to facilitate protection of the victim in such a manner which is the least disruptive to the family and there are two alternatives before us - the Family Violence Bill which advocates a direct intervention of the police and the proposed amendments to the Women's Charter which make it easier for the victim to obtain a Protection Order from the court. There are pros and cons of those approaches.”
“I would also like to give credit to the volunteer organisations who have worked with the Government in the area of violence prevention, such as the Society Against Family Violence, AWARE and SOS in the Women and Family Violence Committee which work together with the CID, and also the Society Against Family Violence in AWARE which has worked with the Government in the Inter-Ministry Work Group. I believe that considerable work has been done already by these, including the establishment of the Ang Mo Kio Pilot Project, and these should be given credit. I believe also that it is the work of many of these volunteers working without remuneration that have also resulted in the formulation of the amendment to the Women's Charter which was done together with the Government. There are two specific issues here. The first is regarding whether family violence should be in a separate Bill or whether it should be incorporated in amendments to the Women's Charter. I have no strong views regarding the location of the legislation and I believe that for those who suffer abuse, their first problem is recourse to protection, recourse to some solution rather than what exact legislation there is as to what protection can be given to them. What matter more therefore are the provisions for violence protection, violence prevention and family rehabilitation. For example, technically speaking, the entire Family Violence Bill could actually be incorporated as an entirety, as an amended section in the Women's Charter rather than a separate Bill per se. Having said these, I would like to add that it does seem odd to include family violence for all members of the family, including husbands and elderly parents under the Women's Charter.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to highlight the many areas of convergence in this discussion of family violence. First, most of us believe in the fundamental principle of the family as the basic unit of society and there is a strong consensus in Singapore that family violence is wrong and should not be condoned. There is also a consensus that existing legislation is inadequate and that additional legislation is needed. Second, there is also widespread recognition that family violence is a very complex, emotive and private issue. We all hope when family violence does occur, that there can indeed be reconciliation, mediation, restoration of family unity. There is also agreement that a mediatory, reconciliatory approach to family problems is a preferred alternative and that the first best is for family violence to be resolved within the family with the help of relatives, friends and other support groups. The debate before us is therefore not whether there should be additional legislation but over the where and the how of such additional provision. In this, Dr Kanwaljit Soin is to be commended for bringing family violence to the forefront of public policy. By taking the initiative to propose a formulation of the necessary legislation in this House, she has enabled us all to focus on what exactly is needed in terms of additional provision. That by itself constitutes significant value-added. We may or may not support the Family Violence Bill per se but the introduction of the Bill has enabled the discussion to progress forward to this point of the second level of debate which is regarding the where and the how.”
“The establishment of a Singapore international school is to facilitate re-entry of the students as well as to provide them with a Singapore-based curriculum. Would the Minister elaborate on the provision for re-entry of students who have studied abroad into the Singapore school system?”
“Will the Minister not consider having a subsidy to cover operating cost, after all the projections do show that this is temporary? In terms of the provision of a public good, I think it is entirely in order for the Government, where the provision of a public good for the good of society is concerned, actually to subsidise part of the cost of the provision of the public good. In this case, it would be temporary in terms of covering the operating cost.”
“I appreciate that the basis for the Minister's position would be the user-pay principle and also no subsidy for operating cost. Would the Minister care to respond to two alternative principles? One is, instead of user-pay, to have a cross-payment and, secondly, instead of having no subsidy for operating cost, what about having a temporary subsidy for operating cost?”
“In conclusion, the Jurong Town Corporation (Amendment) Bill enables JTC to deepen and broaden its functions in response to Singapore's own current and future development needs as well as the opportunities in the rapidly growing Asia-Pacific region. With these footnotes in mind, I support the Bill.”
“6%, and rentals of standard and flatted factory space were frozen for the second year in 1994, even in spite of these rents being at least 15% lower than comparable private sector rates. Land pricing and rentals as well as the entire building regulatory framework do affect the competitiveness of Singapore's manufacturing. It is a difficult and sensitive task to balance excess demand induced price increases due to land scarcity on the one hand, and the need to price land in order to offer investors a competitive package on the other. This involves more agencies than just JTC. I would therefore urge the Government to initiate a comprehensive study of land pricing, land usage and the associated regulatory framework in Singapore involving all the relevant agencies in consultation with key private sector companies in order to facilitate the implementation of appropriate policies in this area. The second developmental responsibility is in the area of human resources development. I see JTC as a training ground for the building up of a core of engineering, managerial and specialist staff, which constitute a valuable asset to Singapore, both domestically and overseas. Some of these expertise can, over time, be released to the private sector to the benefit of the country at large. The third developmental responsibility is the nurturing of local companies. In the many projects that JTC handles domestically and abroad, it is important that JTC considers how it can help local companies establish track records and broaden their job experiences. The consortium approach is one way. Sub-contracting out certain tasks such as waste management is another. JTC already incorporates some or all of these measures. It should continue to do so as an integral part of its mission.”
“Foreign investors, including Singapore-based companies, likewise benefit because of the ease of establishment of their operations in the host country. There are also returns to Singapore from the development and operation of the industrial park itself. Third, the amendment allows JTC to "act in combination or association with other persons or organisations for the discharge of any of its functions" (clause 4(2)(a)); and "to form or participate in the formation of a company or companies or enter into any joint venture or partnership in Singapore or elsewhere" (clause 4(2)(j)). This enables JTC itself to enter into joint ventures with local and foreign companies in a consortium approach to the development of industrial parks abroad. I would like to add a number of footnotes which constitute qualifiers and these observations come from a study of infrastructure development in Singapore which I did a year ago. JTC not only has got to watch out for its own bottom line but has a role to fulfil as a key public sector agency. I see three major developmental roles for JTC. The first developmental responsibility is domestic. The stated objective of the Government is to sustain the manufacturing sector - at least 25% of GDP. JTC has a key role to play in helping to fulfil this objective. I wholeheartedly agree with the statement in JTC's Annual Report 1993/94 that there is a new resolve in JTC to become more customer focused. The report goes on to add that JTC carried out a review of land pricing and leasing policy to ensure that they are relevant in today's context. Specifically, the cap on annual rent escalation was reduced from 10% to 7.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this amendment to the Jurong Town Corporation Act is a timely one for several reasons. Apart from the administrative amendments such as the number of Board members, submission of the annual report, etc, the main thrust of the amendment is to empower JTC to carry out functions which are better suited to the current and future development needs of Singapore. First, the amendment empowers JTC to develop and manage not only industrial estates but also parks and estates for industries as well as businesses. In Singapore itself, the regionalisation of plant line operation has converted the Singapore operations into headquarter activities involving marketing, procurement, technical and administrative support. Manufacturing functions are increasingly becoming blended into R&D and producer services in one continuous spectrum; as such, business parks of the 1990's version of the industrial estate of the 1960s. In addition, more capital and technology intensive manufacturing sites such as for wafer fabrication are required. Second, the amendment Bill provides for the participation of JTC in overseas ventures and development. One key regionalisation thrust has been the development of industrial estates and townships outside Singapore such as in Batam and Suzhou. This is a win-win situation. The host country benefits in the technology transfer, both in terms of the hardware and the software of Singapore's successful experience in the development and management of industrial townships. The window of opportunity is now at this crucial stage of industrialisation in the emerging economies of China, India, Vietnam and, possibly, Myanmar later on.”
“Does the Government mean that where Internet is concerned, anything goes regarding these articles, apart from pornography? BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Mr Speaker, Sir, it is very difficult to generalise because Internet is going through a revolution and we are not quite sure how it will shape out and what new rules, new patterns, will emerge. I expect in the years to come that there will be parts of Internet which are like public spaces where communications are in the nature of broadcasting. For those public spaces, we will continue to regulate and police strictly. But where they are discussions taking place in dark alleys - and indeed community action all over the world will force certain kinds of discussion to go under deep cover - I think we can afford to be less stringent. FERRY SERVICE ALONG EAST COAST The following Question stood in the name of Mr Chiam See Tong - 13. To ask the Minister for Communications whether he will consider the running of a ferry service along the east coast, now that there will be sufficient passenger load, considering the congestion of traffic along the East Coast Parkway, and the necessity to impose a road pricing scheme there. Dr Lee Tsao Yuan: Question No. 13, Sir.”
“Sir, does the Ministry tend to have any sort of censorship regarding material which is critical of the Government? BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Sir, it depends on what the Nominated Member refers to as "critical of the Government", and presumably which is politically so. Over the years, we have developed a political culture which accepts certain norms, which also proscribes discussion which may be incendiary and can cause racial, religious or other kinds of hatreds. These norms will continue to apply. What is important when we are talking about cyberspace is to make a distinction between discussion which is in the nature of narrow-casting as opposed to discussion which is in the area of broadcasting. Broadcasting is always more sensitive because large numbers of people are reached simultaneously. But in the case of Internet, it is such a jungle there and you can have all kinds of discussion going on at odd corners and no one, except for the most determined, would take notice. So for those, what I would call "niche discussions", we can take a more relaxed approach.”
“In the proposed study, will the Government include all the relevant business costs in Singapore, including Government fee increases?”
“Sir, while I fully appreciate that there should not be a need to subsidise the private sector unduly, I think for the private sector, costs need to be calculated in toto, including the relative appreciation of the S$ as well as other business costs in Singapore.”
“Sir, I am glad that the Minister has said that the Government would try somehow to moderate the pace of appreciation of the S$ relative to these other currencies. Would the Government also consider, as a temporary adjustment, to have a standstill on necessary Government fee increases which affect the business sector?”
“When the Government does the study, does the Government intend to include in this study some policy recommendations to help the private sector adjust not only to the magnitude of the appreciation of the S$ but, I believe, the pace of appreciation of the S$, vis-a-vis these other currencies?”
“Sir, does the Government intend to treat Internet like the press, specifically the written press?”
“The world environment market is currently estimated to be worth some US$300 billion, doubling to US$600 billion by the year 2000. The Asian market will contribute more than 40% to this market. Singapore is well placed to supply technology to the growing Asian market. The major components and the necessary spectrum of activities - technology development, project management, funding, procurement and all other infrastructural support - are more or less in place in Singapore. These are provided by a number of private businesses as well as public sector organisations. What is needed is for some organisation to provide an overarching national strategy to give direction, minimise duplication and to effectively promote Singapore as a desirable environmental technology and business centre. In this regard, I think Dr John Chen and I have exactly the same point. I suggest that the Ministry examine how this can best be achieved. For example, the setting up of a national steering committee would be one way to achieve this kind of coordination purpose, a steering committee that could comprise all the environmental agencies and some private sector bodies that are involved in environment. We have to remember the keen competition in Asia. Many countries in Asia aspire to be environmental centres. Given time, they will succeed as many of these countries have large domestic markets for environmental services, and larger than we do. Our window of opportunities is therefore limited by time and we should strike while the iron is hot. However, if we want to become a regional environmental technology centre, we need to aggressively and proactively position ourselves to be one.”
“Sir, the Ministry of the Environment has so far performed mainly a regulatory role in terms of enforcing environmental standards in Singapore. This is entirely necessary and has helped to make Singapore clean and green. I wonder whether the Minister would care to consider that the Ministry take on, in addition to its regulatory role, more of a developmental role. This is because the environment has become a business opportunity. There are two specific issues that I would like to discuss. The first is ISO 14000. Just like ISO 9000 is a management standard, an environment management standard or ISO 14000 is being developed which will become a world-wide standard to ensure that companies pursue clean technologies and environmentally friendly processes. It is important that companies in Singapore take proactive steps to prepare for the implementation of ISO 14000. This will undoubtedly be a plus factor for doing business in developed countries - US, Europe, Canada - where environmental awareness is very high. Japan also places a high priority on environmental issues. Japan, for example, has spent over US$20 million and to date preparing for portions of ISO 14000. However, certification will not be easy. It will take a company between 16-24 months to achieve certification of ISO 14000. For companies with ISO 9000, it will require 48 months. It is therefore important to begin now by setting up environment management and environmental audit systems. The question is: how can the Ministry assist the business community in this area? Will the Government consider giving some fiscal and training incentives to help them to achieve the necessary ISO 14000 certification? The second issue is to develop Singapore into an environmental technology centre.”
“It appears to me that although these schemes are available on paper, in the public sector at least, they are not popular in practice. If this assessment is correct, it leads me to my next question as to why. I suspect that part of the reason is because many mothers want to carry on working - that is their choice. But it could also be that employers are not, in practice, in favour of such schemes. True, there are a host of practical difficulties in implementing flexible work schedule for women. However, in pragmatic Singapore, when there is a will, there is a way. My question is: does Government and does society in general not consider it important to give mothers of young children the option of full-time mothering? If so, then is there not a need for greater social acceptability of flexible working schemes for women?”
“Sir, two important aspects of Singapore affect women. First, the family is considered the core institution of society. It follows that the highest priority is also placed on the raising of children. There is no substitute for parental care. No maid or even grandparent can look after a child as a mother or father can. In the formative years in particular, the role of the mother is vital in providing love, security and the physical needs of a child. Second, women constitute a precious human resource in resource-scarce Singapore. For example, female university graduates slightly outnumber their male counterparts and women comprise 41% of the labour force in Singapore. Balancing the demands of the family and that of the workplace is a continual struggle for many women. Some women are able to juggle both a career and children. For these women, the establishment of child care centres is a tremendous assistance and continued Government support is of crucial importance. However, there are others who prefer to place priority on one or the other at any one time. Some mothers with young children would prefer to leave their jobs either on a temporary or permanent basis in order to devote themselves to mothering as a full-time occupation. In the public sector, a number of schemes have been established to enable mothers of young children to do so. They can opt to take extended no-pay leave, work part time, and so on. In the private sector, I understand that long-term leave schemes for mothers of young children are not an established practice. Part-time work, in general, is becoming more acceptable as the rules governing fringe benefits, etc. become clearer and this applies to mothers as well. I would like to ask the Minister as to the take-up rate of these flexible work schemes.”
“SAF commanders of overseas detachment also make special efforts to assist families of their servicemen. They organise regular gatherings and other social activities for the families to provide mutual support. And the families are also included in unit functions such as anniversary celebrations and farewell parties to maintain the camaraderie. Sir, may I say that Mindef's personnel policy is to ensure that the families of servicemen who are posted overseas do not face unnecessary hardship as a result of their posting. Sir, the Minister of State and Senior Parliamentary Secretary will respond to the other points.”
“They understand our shortage of training areas and have offered SAF use of training facilities and test facilities in South Africa. And we are looking into these offers and studying the possibilities of organising exchange visits, joint training, and sending some SAF officers to attend courses conducted by the South African Defence Force. We are also exploring defence industry cooperation with the South Africans. Sir, other countries nearby have also offered us the use of military training areas. In February last year, the RSAF signed an agreement with the Bangladesh Air Force for helicopter training. We have also reached in-principle agreement with India to broaden defence cooperation. I am confident that by expanding defence relations and cooperation with more friendly countries, the SAF will be better placed to develop professionalism and to overcome domestic constraints on training areas. The Member for Toa Payoh GRC, Dr Ho, has also raised a point about families of servicemen who are posted overseas. The SAF has a number of servicemen who are in fact posted overseas for fairly long periods such as RSAF instructors and technicians at the Flying Training School in Australia and also support personnel attached to the RSAF training detachment in Luke Airforce Base in Arizona. Our policy is to allow families of servicemen who are posted for extended periods overseas to accompany them. The problems that such families face include adjusting to different environment, different society, housing needs, education requirements for their children. They are of course provided with all the necessary allowances to cover the added expenses of living overseas. We even provide them with language tuition allowance for their children, particularly for the second language.”
“' As for the US, the RSAF continues to benefit from its F-16 pilot training programme at the Luke Airforce Base in Phoenix, Arizona. We will also hold regular working forum with the US Pacific Command to further defence interaction and cooperation. The SAF is also discussing with the US Pacific Fleet about holding annual bilateral naval exercises in the region to increase the level of interaction between the RSN and the Pacific Fleet. We have built up a strong defence relation with the US and will be looking out for more opportunities to enhance this relationship. Sir, may I now address the points raised by Dr Ho Tat Kin, particularly with regard to SAF training in Australia. I would like to point out that, as I mentioned earlier, Australia has actually provided very generous support for SAF training. Australia has provided extensive facilities and training areas in the country for use by the SAF because, as I quoted from the Defence White Paper, it sees Singapore as a close friend. Australia has recently granted approval to the RSAF to conduct advance-jet training programmes for pilot trainees and helicopter training. The Australian Defence Force has also indicated that the SAF will be allowed to use the proposed training area in the Northern Territory when it is developed. I believe that this new initiative, the advance-jet training, helicopter training, incorporation of our need for the NATA, will go a long way to enhancing the professionalism and operational readiness of the SAF. The Member has also asked about our defence cooperation with South Africa. We have already established defence relations with South Africa following my visit there and the return visit by the Defence Minister.”
“The RSAF also participated in a trilateral exercise with the Thai and US Air Forces in Thailand. Brunei remains a close defence partner. Our level of defence interaction has increased. This year we hosted the first in a series of joint battalion level command exercises. We have also established joint training with the Brunei Air Defence and Combat Engineers Unit. In addition to joint exercises, Indonesia, Thailand and Brunei also allow the SAF to conduct unilateral training in their military training areas. Earlier this month, the Vietnamese Defence Minister led a high level delegation to Singapore, marking the start of defence relations between Singapore and Vietnam. We are now exploring ways to enhance defence cooperation with Vietnam. I am confident that over time, our defence interaction with Vietnam will grow to be comparable to our defence ties with our other ASEAN partners. Beyond ASEAN, we have made good progress in defence interaction with Australia and the United States. In February this year, the SAF signed a Memorandum of Agreement with the Australian Defence Force which allows the SAF to conduct armour exercises in the Shoalwater Bay training area in Queensland. This agreement is valid for the next five years. And last year we opened the RSAF Flying Training School in RAAF Pearce Air Base in Western Australia. Sir, these are concrete examples of the strength of our defence relationship with Australia, a relationship which is greatly appreciated by both sides. In the words of the Australian Defence White Paper which was published last December, and here I quote: `These activities reflect the strong sense of trust between Australia and Singapore and serve our strategic interest by helping to enhance Singapore's defence capability.”
“We have already had two defence industrial cooperation projects arising from the defence industrial cooperation Memorandum of Understanding which was signed at the inauguration of this forum. The first project allows the Republic of Singapore Air Force pilots to use the Malaysian Airline System (MAS) Fokker-50 aircraft simulator. This is because both MAS and the RSAF operate the same type of aircraft (Fokker-50). The second project is between Singapore Aerospace and again with MAS for the repair and overhaul of aircraft components. Sub-contracting, joint procurement and marketing and co-production of defence products by the defence industries of both Malaysia and Singapore are possibilities with better understanding of each other's capabilities. We have also strengthened our defence links with Indonesia. The Air Combat Manoeuvring Range, jointly developed by the Indonesian Armed Forces and the SAF, was commissioned in March 1994. This range allows the Air Forces of both countries to carry out sophisticated and realistic air combat manoeuvres. New joint projects which will benefit both Armed Forces and provide more opportunities to enhance defence cooperation are being discussed. Sir, we also have regular bilateral exercises with our ASEAN partners. Last May, we signed a long-term agreement for joint exercises between the Philippine Armed Forces and the SAF. This month, the Philippine Armed Forces and the SAF held their third joint exercise at Fort Magsaysay training areas in the Philippines. Our defence ties with Thailand remain strong. In January this year, the agreement allowing the RSAF to train in Thailand was renewed. The Royal Thai Armed Forces invited the SAF to observe the 1994 US-Thai bilateral exercise.”
“The throwing together of men of diverse social backgrounds all on an equal footing throughout their training does something for improving understanding and tolerance of others from entirely different social backgrounds. Also, bonds of friendship are forged during those years which last for life. Women have so far been excluded from this form of social cohesion. The time has come to include them. The Minister for Defence (Dr Lee Boon Yang): Sir, I will first respond to Mr Bernard Chen, Chairman of the GPC for Defence and Foreign Affairs' request for review of the state of Singapore's defence relations with our neighbours. Sir, Mindef's approach to enhancing Singapore's security is based on a strategy of deterrence and diplomacy complementing each other. We have over the years built up a strong and effective SAF capable of responding to any threat against Singapore. But equally important is defence relations with friendly countries. Regular and broad-based defence interactions strengthen mutual respect and understanding and create channels to discuss and resolve sensitive issues without acrimony. Sir, our aim is to develop strong and robust defence relations with friendly countries. And I am pleased to inform this House that we have made further progress in developing defence relations. A new chapter in defence relations with Malaysia opened in January this year with the establishment of the Malaysia-Singapore Defence Forum. This forum, co-chaired by the Defence Ministers of both countries, will meet annually to facilitate cooperation between the Malaysian Armed Forces and the Singapore Armed Forces. Two joint working committees have been established to explore new avenues for our defence relations and for defence interactions.”