Leon Perera
Singapore
“I thank the Nominated Member, Mr Mark Chay, for his clarification. I did, in my speech, allude to my awareness of the existence of sports scholarships and I mentioned a few, nor in my speech did I claim that there is no Government support for these less well-known sports.”
“Sorry, again. I acknowledge that, of course, no system is perfect. I think we all acknowledge that. My colleague Assoc Prof Jamus Lim presented data on the performance of different countries in sporting excellence, government spending relative to gross domestic product (GDP) per capita.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would like to ask one short supplementary question. I am wondering if the Government will consider requiring or mandating private companies to provide an elderly or parent care leave to some extent, or flexible work arrangements that will allow for time for eldercare and parent care duties?”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Just one supplementary question for the Senior Minister of State. He referred to the service quality framework that the Government uses vis-à-vis SingPost because SingPost is a Government licencee.”
“I was suggesting that the determination of consistency of the Ministerial Code of Conduct be done by an independent organisation. It could be the AGO, it could be a judge or retired judge or someone else to put that imprimatur of independence. I was not suggesting either or. You may disagree with that.”
“At the end of the day, healthcare is, and will remain, must remain, a profoundly human endeavour. There is no more important goal in healthcare than attracting, retaining and bringing out the best from our great healthcare workers.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,226 lines we hold for Leon Perera, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 19 of 25.
“If incremental cost is an issue, let us debate this with the benefit of the numbers so that potential trade-offs can be explored in a concrete manner. And the speed at which we move towards this goal can thus be calibrated accordingly. In summary, I urge the Government to conduct a large, randomised trial for smaller classes to determine the effects on academic achievement, levelling up poorer students in non-cognitive skills and attributes, such as confidence. Such a trial should be designed and supervised by an independent academic panel of recognised professionals and the results published for scrutiny. If the results are positive, we should target a form class size of 20-25 as a mid-term goal and use falling enrolments while keeping the number of teachers stable to make the changes necessary, so as to minimise cost increases. The reduction in form class size should have a cascading effect to reduce the size of most classes as they currently exist, be they remedial or banded. The change should be used as a pivot to revamp our pedagogy in schools, to shift it towards more classroom participation designed to engender non-cognitive skills and attributes, as well as to level up across students from different socio-economic and family backgrounds. The speed at which we can move towards this goal will depend on fiscal resources. But such a change should reduce the need for remedial classes, which may generate cost savings. This change may also produce benefits in terms of teacher satisfaction, which may be linked to productivity, effectiveness and reduced attrition of teachers, which has cost benefits, too. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, effective teaching − teaching that levels up and that instils non-cognitive and non-academic skills − is a critical goal for Singapore.”
“The same objection applies to the work of Wormann and West in 2002 which, while it claims zero class size effect in Singapore, relies mainly on historical data from the TIMSS database on maths scores, is not a randomised experiment nor measures other subjects, let alone non-cognitive skills. It should also be noted that class size is not the same as student-teacher ratio (STR). In terms of STR, the gap between Singapore and other countries may not be as large. However, favourable STRs may be consistent with unfavourable class sizes, depending on how much of a teacher's time is spent teaching, how many classes are held and so on. If the issue is that academic evidence is divided, we suggest there should be a large randomised trial in Singapore, along similar lines to the massive, seminal Tennessee STAR project that is still being referred to by educators today, to study the impact of reducing average and median form class sizes to the 20-25 range. If the trial is positive, we should move towards a universal form class size of 20-25 as a goal. Twenty to 25 seems a good balance point between what is desirable and what is feasible in respect of cost and availability of teachers. It is a little above the 2010 OECD average. Cost is never irrelevant. However, the cost implications of this suggestion should be less of an issue with current declining enrolments, which give us an opportunity to redeploy teachers to smaller classes. And I can think of few other more important national priorities in long-term spending than getting our education right. Education is really one of the key, if not the key competitive success factor for our economy going forward because it potentially creates pathways to innovation, productivity and entrepreneurship.”
“A 2008 paper by Price and Terry of the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration in the USA found evidence of a link between smaller classes and a higher level of teacher satisfaction because smaller classes allowed for more and better enrichment activities. The same study also found evidence that smaller classes may reduce teacher attrition. Using data from the SAGE study, Molnar, Smith and Zahorik, in a 1999 paper, found evidence for a link between smaller classes and fewer discipline problems. The 2015 Harfitt study found that teachers linked smaller class size to having more freedom to plan and interact, less trial-and-error, less worry over deadlines for marking and homework preparation, improved classroom management and the ability to know their pupils better. Opponents of class size as a driver of outcomes often cite the work of John Hattie, an Australian researcher, which some have cited as disproving that class size makes a difference. This work has been criticised by other researchers, notably Ivan Snook from Massey University. The criticism centres on the problems associated with Hattie's methodology of synthesising a whole range of meta-studies on a simple quantitative scale. No control separates good research from bad and more robust gold standard research, like the Tennessee STAR study, from other kinds of studies. Also, Hattie's work focuses on quantifiable academic performance, not attributes like non-cognitive skills and attitudes where evidence suggests smaller classes are of significant benefit.”
“An analysis of multiple studies by David Zyngier of Monash University, drawing on data from several countries and reviewing 112 papers over 35 years, concluded that "smaller class sizes in the first four years of school can have an important and lasting impact on student achievement, especially for children from culturally, linguistically and economically disenfranchised communities". In a previous exchange I had in this House with Minister Ng Chee Meng relating to class size, the Minister cited that smaller class sizes could be found in subject-based banded classes and remedial classes and classes under the Learning Support Programme, though it was revealed in reply to my previous written Parliamentary Question that the size of remedial classes is not tracked by MOE. However, remedial classes with smaller class sizes do not fully address the arguments I have shared here for two reasons. Firstly, being sent to remedial classes or special pull-out classes may stigmatise students and erode their self-confidence. There is evidence that self-confidence or self-esteem affects academic performance, potentially creating a vicious cycle, for example, a 2011 study by Booth and Gerard. Secondly, having to attend remedial classes on top of regular classes, as with tuition, erodes available free time, which has other adverse effects on weaker students, such as less free time to explore and develop other aspects of character and learning. There is also some evidence that smaller class sizes may increase teacher retention. This a worthy goal to pursue. Continuity matters to learning outcomes because a teacher who knows his or her students deeply and builds rapport with them will be a more effective teacher.”
“A scholarly article by John Johnston of Memphis State University using STAR data also found that students in smaller classes were more willing to take risks, less inhibited, less afraid of being wrong, volunteered to answer questions more, felt safe with their ideas; were more curious, enthusiastic and eager to participate versus those in regular sized classes. In a 2015 article in the British Educational Research Journal, Harfitt and Tsui found evidence for smaller class sizes being linked to higher frequency of volunteered responses and greater interactions with teachers via asking questions or clarifications, which relate to communication and confidence. In a US National Bureau of Economic Research article in 2008, Dee and West found links between smaller classes and non-cognitive skills that are highly predictive of long-term education and labour-market outcomes. Thirdly, as a result of the factors above, smaller classes may reduce our dependence on Singapore's massive private tuition industry. In the tuition industry, much smaller classes are near-universal. Less tuition and less remedial classes as a result of more effective teaching in smaller classes would free up children's time to explore and develop other aspects of character, learning and skills. Class size reduction also has an egalitarian dimension. Better-off students can always afford to cultivate soft skills and content mastery through private tuition, enrichment classes or parental coaching. Smaller classes may help level the playing field and enhance equality of opportunity for students from disadvantaged backgrounds − which, in turn, may crucially unleash talent from disadvantaged families, the kind of talent that our economy needs.”
“A University of Glasgow study by Valerie Wilson for the Institute of Education Sciences, the research arm of the US Department of Education, concluded that class size reduction does increase student achievement, especially among those who most need it. A 2008 British study by Blatchford, Bassett and Brown with the University of London involving close observation of classrooms in 22 primary schools and 27 secondary schools concluded that low attaining students were more than twice as likely to be disengaged in classes of 30 students than they were in classes of 15. In a 2003 Review of Educational Research article, Finn, Pannozzo and Achilles cited evidence for the visibility principle − students in small classes experienced increased encouragement to participate as they may be called upon more frequently to answer questions or to participate in a class activity. There are many other studies that have arrived at similar conclusions, too numerous to mention here. Secondly, smaller classes may stimulate non-cognitive skills (NCS) or soft skills among students, such as confidence, curiosity, leadership, communication and social skills through participating in discussion, arguing one's case, debating and encouraging students to pose questions and answers. These skills to do with communication, confidence and self-mastery are needed for competitiveness in the 21st century and may lead to economic benefits that would justify the additional investment.”
“The overall class size in the OECD fell by 6.8% between 2000 and 2010 to a little over 20. Class size decreased in countries with the largest classes in 2000 whereas it stayed the same or increased slightly in the countries which already had small class sizes in 2000. Let me first discuss the academic evidence for the benefits of smaller class sizes. Smaller class sizes allow teachers to focus on obtaining more teacher-student interaction during class time. This achieves several benefits as demonstrated by research. Firstly, smaller classes allow deeper internalisation of subject matter through more engagement − weaker or less engaged students have less room to stay quiet and not be engaged in the lesson. A literature review by the US Centre for Public Education based on an analysis of 19 studies showed a positive link, even if there are other factors at play. I quote, "Some researchers have not found a connection between smaller classes and higher student achievement, but most of the research shows that when class size reduction programs are well-designed and implemented in the primary grades (K-3), student achievement rises as class size drops." The famous randomised experiment Project Star in the US State of Tennessee concluded that "students placed in smaller classrooms performed better than their peers in larger classrooms across all grade levels tested and across all geographic regions". And I note that Project Star, while not perfect, meets the basic gold standard for research, namely a controlled, randomised experiment.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, few subjects are as important to the future of our economy and our society as education. The quality of human resources is key to boosting investment, innovation, productivity and entrepreneurship in a developed economy like ours. Effective education is tied to quality of life, and good physical and mental health. In this speech, I shall argue for smaller form class sizes in Primary and Secondary schools with consequent reductions in the size of all classes conducted. This is not a magic bullet solution. We should push for improvement on other fronts, like reducing the script marking workload for teachers which my colleague Mr Dennis Tan asked about recently. But smaller class sizes for core subjects have the potential to unlock many other benefits, especially given the need to grow innovation, productivity and entrepreneurship in an era of artificial intelligence and disruption, where growing non-cognitive skills and attributes are so important. This is not a new subject and has been raised multiple times in this House by current and former Workers' Party Members of Parliament and Non-constituency Members of Parliament, such as Mr Yee Jenn Jong, Mr Png Eng Huat and Assoc Prof Daniel Goh. Average and median form class sizes in Primary and Secondary schools range from 32 to 36. This is above the norm for other developed countries and also substantially above the norm for the Gifted Education Programme classes, private tuition centre classes and classes for most international schools operating in Singapore. Having said that, subject-based banded classes and remedial classes may be smaller, though I was informed in a reply to an earlier Parliamentary Question that the size of remedial classes is not tracked by MOE.”
“The Senior Minister of State has asked if Henkel is a client. Henkel, I believe, has been a very small past client. But as I mentioned earlier, we do not support tobacco companies. We do not work with tobacco companies as clients − Philip Morris and so on and so forth. These are not clients of the company I work for and, therefore, there is no commercial motivation in the comments that I made. And I would like to register my very strong objection to any insinuation that there is any commercial motivation to the comments that I made. They are matters of principle which are matters of my opinion and they are not motivated by any prospect of financial gain or commercial gain. So, I want to register a very strong objection to that.”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for his remarks. And my comments are not in any way motivated by any prospect of financial gain. As a general matter of policy, the work that my company does, does not pertain to the tobacco business at all, in fact. And that is the position that we have taken historically. So, I do not serve tobacco clients in a private capacity in the work that I do for this company. I would add that I take strong objection to any implication that the opinions I have expressed in my speech for the Tobacco Bill was motivated by commercial considerations in any way. They were motivated purely on matters of principle and matters of opinion.”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for his comments. I do not have a specific recollection of the dates but I will say at this point that it could well be the case that there was the correspondence. I would need to go back and refer to my archive of emails to verify if that is the case. But I am sure and I am quite willing to accept what the Senior Minister of State has said that that is the case. I am sure that that will be the case when I have verified. So, I am quite prepared to accept that fact. And, as I said earlier, I am quite prepared to accept the Senior Minister of State's assurance that video footage is not, as a matter of policy, edited, for whatever reason, and that it is uploaded verbatim with the exception of errors or technical glitches that I do accept will happen from time to time.”
“I would like to thank the Senior Minister of State. That is, indeed, in accordance with my recollection of the exchange that I had with Mediacorp. What was communicated to me was that was a technical glitch on that occasion where certain parts of the video footage were truncated. So, I think as a result of that exchange I had with Mediacorp, they removed the video with the truncations and then they uploaded a new video without the truncations. As I referred to in my earlier comments during my exchange with the Senior Minister of State, the issue was amicably resolved. The purpose of that exchange was to establish whether or not there is any editing that is occasionally done. If it is the Senior Minister of State's assurance that, generally, as a matter of policy, such footage is never edited, I am quite prepared to accept that assurance.”
“Yes, just 20 seconds. "The studies...that find that e-cigarettes stop people from quitting are not randomised controlled trials. Instead, they surveyed smokers and asked if they are using e-cigarettes. Then, some months later, they asked the same people if they are still smoking." So, I would like to ask for that. The last point is that I am heartened to hear that if new clinical evidence presents itself, the Ministry may review its position. What would constitute definitive proof in that sense? Would it be a randomised controlled trial?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his details. I have just three clarification points. Firstly, I cited three studies − Royal College of Physicians, the Cochrane Report and Public Health, UK. Is it the Ministry's view that all three studies seem to provide some initial grounds, even though they are not foolproof grounds, but some initial grounds that e-cigarettes, a controlled supply can be given to smokers? Is it the view of the Ministry that all three are methodologically flawed? And, if so, in what manner is that the case? Secondly, the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that the relevant question is not to ask whether e-cigarettes are harmless. Nevertheless, I would argue that that is a relevant question because, if there is evidence that e-cigarettes have reduced harm, then we should seriously consider that can be an option for smoking cessation. And, in this context, the Parliamentary Secretary cited an article in the Lancet. The author of the Cochrane Report, Jamie Hartmann-Boyce, actually talked about some of the studies that his committee reviewed that purport to show that e-cigarettes prevent people from quitting, such as the one published in the Lancet − respiratory medicine which the Parliamentary Secretary cited from. And he mentioned that some of these studies are flawed because they did not follow the research gold standard of randomised control trials. He said that, I quote, "The studies have found that —”
“She wanted to protect her children, brought her children upstairs, because they live in an executive apartment. But then she says that the smoke went up and she is asking for help. But her father-in-law smokes in his own home − not against any law. So, I would like to take this opportunity to urge all smokers − be responsible smokers, be more considerate. Before you light up the next cigarette, look around whether there are any other young children, whether the smoke will affect other people, because, in both cases, I can feel that the mothers are so helpless. Sir, in Chinese, please. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Smoking damages the health of our young people. Hence, I fully support the amendment to increase the minimum smoking age to 21. Besides upping the smoking age, I hope the Government can also think of ways to bring down the smoking rate in Singapore. For example, there are many places that ban smoking in Singapore. However, when there are no NEA officers around, smokers will still light up. The public should be able to report these smokers via OneService or a designated hotline. We should also step up anti-smoking efforts at IHLs, including educating students on the harmful effects to themselves and to the country. If the school finds out that a student is addicted, it should not just punish him but also find experts to help him quit smoking. I hope smokers can be more considerate towards others. Before they light up the next cigarette, they should look around to see whether his second-hand smoke will affect his family, friends and neighbours, and be a responsible smoker.”
“Just as we now have professionals in counselling and career guidance stationed in schools to meet changing demands of the youth population, are there counsellors in schools who are trained in smoking cessation? In pursuing a smoke-free nation, we must not alienate the smokers. Many might have picked up the habit due to external influence and pressure or because they did not know what they were getting themselves into and now find it difficult to quit. Some grew up with smoker parents. Furthermore, there should also be more resources to educate family and friends on how they can help their loved ones. Smokers will require compelling reasons and supportive, accessible platforms to kick their addiction willingly. A well-informed and conscious decision to quit is more effective than any law and policy to keep the cigarettes away. In fact, I believe that no amount of law can keep both smokers and non-smokers happy. Just two days ago, I had a block party. A young mother came to share with me her problem. She lives on the ground floor and, beside her block, there is a staircase that leads to the main road. And every morning, she says that there are lots of people standing at the staircase there, either waiting for friends or waiting for transport. And while waiting, they are smoking, puffing away. And she says that the smoke affects her child very badly because her child has asthma. She tried to talk to the smokers but the smokers stared blankly at her and looked into the sky and told her that, "This is open air. You go and call NEA, lah." I have received another feedback from a resident. She says that she lives with her father-in-law. She has two young children. Her father-in-law always smokes in the living room.”
“I hope the agency would have to think of ways to overcome this. Perhaps more education, more campaigns by MOH and more enforcement by NEA. May I suggest agencies work closely with the public to track down and penalise errant smokers. One way is to make it easier for the public to report illegal smoking. There should be a dedicated hotline for the public to call in. Or, better still, use mobile applications like OneService and incorporate a new function that allows people to quickly submit reports on the spot. Once multiple feedback is received about particular hot spot areas, then NEA can deploy more enforcement officers to book the culprits. I have also had feedback from residents who would dutifully call NEA to report smoking on prohibited premises, such as HDB void decks. But they told me they did not receive any follow-up on their feedback. In fact, later on, they would see the culprit committing the offence again. So, they are disappointed. They told me their feedback was not taken seriously. We need to walk the talk. Also important is equipping young Singaporeans with knowledge to make informed decisions for themselves. Our schools are doing a fairly good job imparting the relevant knowledge on hazards of smoking. There have been several anti-smoking campaigns as well. Perhaps, more must be done to highlight the financial and health burden of smoking on the individual, family, environment and the nation. We should home in on how smoking negatively impacts the eco-system, from littering to producing of carcinogenic smoke that can assassinate our young children. Next, give assistance to addicted smokers, especially those under the age of 21.”
“I am pleased to note that in recent years, the Government has been actively introducing new measures aimed at gradually making smoking a thing of the past. Having received disturbing feedback about students spotted smoking in their school uniforms, or even forming smoking cliques in school and National Service, I am supportive of the Bill to raise the legal smoking age to 21. I believe this will, to some extent, serve as an additional impediment to discourage teenagers and adolescents, at their most impressionable age, to pick up smoking. There are ample studies, including by the World Health Organization, to indicate that a huge percentage of smokers pick up the habit or get addicted before they turn 21. Cities across the US are raising the legal tobacco purchase age from 18 to 21. Experts have rationalised that this would reduce peer pressure to smoke. Meanwhile, members of the Eliminate Cancer Initiative in Australia are lobbying to convince federal and state governments to raise the legal tobacco purchase age from 18 to 21, which they believe will not only save lives but up to A$3.1 billion a year from the government's coffers. So, we are catching up with what a number of countries had done. I should add that this is only a small part of the solution. Determined young smokers will find ways to get around the law. They can ask their older friends or even strangers to help them to buy cigarettes. In spite of a smoking ban in many public places, that is not stopping smokers from lighting up, as long as no NEA officer is around to enforce the smoking ban. If enforcement is inadequate, the policy will become a white elephant. Understandably, NEA has limited resources and is unable to station officers throughout Singapore at the right time, at the right place.”
“But in any case, in passing, I would note the point that the UK RCP study made, which is that they did not find any evidence that e-cigarettes were a gateway to smoking conventional cigarettes or that they normalise smoking. In conclusion, I would urge MOH to review its position and allow some degree of access to e-cigarettes for confirmed smokers. If we can extend the lives of smokers and those exposed to second-hand smoke, if we can reduce their suffering and, at the same time, reduce medical costs borne by the state and individuals, we should explore every option to do so. We have a duty to explore every option to do so. If the Ministry will not change its position, would the Ministry at least agree to review the evidence and re-consider its position if more evidence emerges that e-cigarettes really do reduce harm? What standard of evidence would satisfy MOH on this issue if that is the case? Having said that, Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe the good in this Bill outweighs the bad and I do support the Bill with the reservations mentioned above. 2.56 pm Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, Sir, promoting a smoke-free environment in Singapore is an enduring challenge that is close to my heart. From championing for designated smoking points to rallying ambassadors to educate and spread awareness, it is my wish for residents to enjoy living in a clean and green environment. More importantly, good health is crucial for one to lead an active and fruitful lifestyle. I fully support the view that smoking and the presence of second-hand smoke are detrimental to one's well-being. It is also an immense burden on public health.”
“It would only be so if there are no reasonable methods to bring some degree of reasonable control over the moral hazards, downside risk, and if the downside risk outweighs the upside benefit. In this case, smokers who enrol into a programme to get access to e-cigarettes could be asked to sign a declaration that they are smokers, have friends or family members sign a declaration, too, and they could be given a detailed questionnaire and, perhaps, even physical tests, if possible, to ensure that they are, indeed, smokers. Penalties would be attached to false declarations. The third objection would be that people could use this technique and procure e-cigarettes through such a programme and sell them into the black market for profit. However, each individual, under this suggestion, would only get enough for their own consumption, a controlled amount that could be reduced over time. The supply could be decreased over time to encourage them to quit. It would be risky, difficult and costly for a prospective black marketer or syndicate to use this method to obtain such small quantities of e-cigarettes when they can simply resort to the kind of smuggling to bring in quantities in bulk that is often seen in cases where non-duty paid cigarettes are seized by customs authorities. The fourth objection would be that e-cigarettes are a gateway to smoking. My suggestion is not to legalise e-cigarettes for the general public − I cannot emphasise this point enough − but only for confirmed smokers who are trying to quit or reduce smoking. So, this objection is not applicable as it would give access to e-cigarettes only to those already smoking conventional cigarettes, people who have already gone through the gateway, as it were.”
“In this way, e-cigarettes can act as a gateway from smoking." There are a number of possible objections to this suggestion. Let me deal with them one by one. The first objection is that there is no evidence that e-cigarettes help people to quit. But there is. The RCP study and the Cochrane study I cited state, and I will quote again from the RCP study: "Among smokers, e-cigarette use is likely to lead to quit attempts that would not otherwise have happened…" Public Health England also released a report in August 2015 and I will quote from some of the academics who collaborated on this report. Firstly, from Prof Anne McNeill of King's College London, "…the evidence consistently finds that e-cigarettes are another tool for stopping smoking and in my view, smokers should try vaping and vapers should stop smoking entirely." From Prof Linda Bauld of Cancer Research UK, an expert in cancer prevention: "In fact, the overall evidence points to e-cigarettes actually helping people to give up smoking tobacco." The second objection is that non-smokers could game the system and declare themselves to be smokers trying to quit just to get access to e-cigarettes. But this moral hazard argument applies to many other areas of policies. For example, employers can and frequently do over-declare the salaries of workers on employment passes and special passes and take kick-backs in cash from those workers. Willing buyer, willing seller. Very hard to enforce. But we do enforce it by advertising penalties, investigating complaints, prosecuting offenders, encouraging whistle-blowing and so on and so forth. The possibility of moral hazard is not a reason not to enact a certain policy in and of itself.”
“" A report from Cochrane, a global non-profit group that reviews all the evidence on healthcare interventions and summarises the findings, came to similar conclusions. I will quote from the report from Cochrane: "While our conclusions are limited because there are not many high quality studies available yet, overall the evidence suggests that one, e-cigarettes with nicotine can help people quit smoking; two, they do not seem to have any serious side effects in the short- to mid- term (up to two years); and three, in some cases, switching to them leads to changes in your blood and breath that are consistent with the changes you would see in people who give up smoking altogether." We can say that the evidence on e-cigarettes is not 100% fool-proof. But is the evidence for any policy ever 100% fool-proof? Rarely so. The point is: where is the evidence that e-cigarettes are as harmful or more harmful than normal cigarettes? There is none. The reason is well-known among professionals in the field but not among the wider public so much. The vast bulk of the harm caused by cigarettes is from tar and other harmful chemicals, not nicotine. Nicotine, in and of itself, is not of benign chemical but would seem to be no more harmful in a significant way than many other substances that are perfectly legal, such as alcohol and trans-fats, for example. Again, I am not arguing that e-cigarettes be made legal but that we allow confirmed smokers access to e-cigarettes at least for a certain period of time as part of their efforts to quit smoking or reduce consumption. To quote from the RCP report: "…among smokers, e-cigarette use is likely to lead to quit attempts that would not otherwise have happened, and in a proportion of these to successful cessation.”
“If some of the claims being made about e-cigarettes are even remotely true, for example, the headline claim is that they are 95% safer − this could end up extending the lives of smokers and reducing their suffering. This could also reduce state spending on treating the medical conditions associated with smoking normal cigarettes, state spending in the form of hospital subsidies and so on. It is not easy for smokers to quit. Surely, the humane thing to do is to allow the smokers − both those seeking to quit and reduce consumption − an avenue to use a less harmful product. I agree with MOH's statement, however, that there is no harmless level of smoking. What I disagree with is what is the best, most humane path to take on the road towards that goal. Next, let me come to the clinical evidence about e-cigarettes. In a report released in February 2016, which I also referred to earlier this year in this House, the British Royal College of Physicians (RCP) reviewed the clinical evidence and concluded that e-cigarettes are beneficial to public health and much safer than smoking. I quote from their press release: "…the possibility of some harm from long-term e-cigarette use cannot be dismissed due to inhalation of the ingredients other than nicotine, but is likely to be very small, and substantially smaller than that arising from tobacco smoking. With appropriate product standards to minimise exposure to the other ingredients, it should be possible to reduce risks of physical health still further. Although it is not possible to estimate the long-term health risks associated with e-cigarettes precisely, the available data suggest that they are unlikely to exceed 5% of those associated with smoked tobacco products, and may well be substantially lower than this figure.”
“We note the UK reports but despite reports from the UK, the experience of the US is quite different. The US CDC has reported that e-cigarette use among high school students between 2011 and 2015 increased by more than 10 times, from 1.5% to 16%. The US Surgeon-General also reported that the use of e-cigarettes is closely associated with cigarette smoking among youths and young adults." There are two distinct points here. The first is that legalising e-cigarettes may induce non-smokers to take up smoking of e-cigarettes. The second is that legalising e-cigarettes may provide a gateway to smoking regular cigarettes. I agree with preventing non-smokers from having access to e-cigarettes. We do not want to expand the pool of smokers of any kind of cigarette. We want to move in the opposite direction. I would like to argue that both the points made by the Senior Minister of State in her reply to my PQ on 2 March 2017 are not arguments against allowing smokers who are trying to quit to have access to e-cigarettes, which was the argument I made in March. Why not allow a controlled quantity of e-cigarettes to smokers who register with, say, the Health Promotion Board, for a smoking cessation programme and sign a declaration that they are smokers trying to quit? Why should we allow this? The reason is simple. If e-cigarettes are truly less harmful, allowing non-smokers access to e-cigarettes will enable them to reduce the harm they cause to themselves and others. Over 10% of adult Singaporeans are smokers. The number of people this could benefit is not small − in fact, it is massive.”
“While there is some division of medical opinion about the extent to which e-cigarettes are less harmful than regular cigarettes, surely, there is no evidence and no one would argue, and surely, it is not the Government's argument that e-cigarettes are as harmful or more harmful than regular cigarettes. Yet, after this Bill is passed, it would seem that the possession of e-cigarettes will be an offence, but possession of normal, duty-paid cigarettes will not be. Earlier this year, I asked a Parliamentary Question (PQ) about the Government's stance on e-cigarettes. The reply was that the Government will not relax its stance because there is insufficient evidence that e-cigarettes are significantly less harmful than conventional cigarettes. The reply also stated that e-cigarettes contain similar levels of nicotine as normal cigarettes. In my supplementary question, I alluded to a study by the British Royal College of Physicians (RCP) that concluded that there is evidence to suggest that e-cigarettes can reduce harm by enabling smokers to move from a more harmful to a not harmless but less harmful class of products. I would like to repeat the observation that there is no evidence that e-cigarettes are more harmful than normal cigarettes. If the Government has any such evidence, it would be useful to share that evidence with the wider public, but to the best of my knowledge, no such evidence exists. In response to my supplementary question, Senior Minister of State Amy Khor said – and I will quote this in full for a more well-informed debate: "Our concern really is with the fact that allowing the use of such products could attract a much larger group of users, especially among the youths, and that could be the gateway to nicotine addiction and, eventually, smoking.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, smoking substantially harms human health − the health of the smoker, the health of those inhaling second-hand smoke. It has been causally linked to conditions like lung cancer, stroke, heart disease, emphysema and chronic bronchitis. I support the raising of the legal smoking age to 21 as well as including online transactions under the Tobacco (Control of Advertisements and Sale) Act. In fact, I would urge the Government to make restrictions on tobacco marketing even more stringent by studying the case of Australia and emulating what Australia has done in imposing plain packaging if legally permissible. This idea has been implemented in Australia, New Zealand, France, the United Kingdom, Norway, Ireland and Hungary. There is promising evidence that plain packaging can change people's attitudes towards smoking and may help reduce the prevalence of smoking and increase attempts to quit. I hope the Government will explore this in the next round of amendments. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to spend the remainder of my speech on the issue of e-cigarettes or heat-not-burn tobacco products. Once this Bill is passed, we will be in a curious position. It will be illegal to possess e-cigarettes but it would not be illegal to possess and smoke regular cigarettes. I am certainly not suggesting a ban on normal cigarettes. That would, I suspect, lead to consequences like what was seen in the USA in the 1920s when they attempted the prohibition of alcohol. I would like to explore if we can take a more nuanced position with regard to e-cigarettes by allowing confirmed smokers' access to them in a controlled way.”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. There was a specific example where a clip was put up in relation to the Presidential Election Act debates. If my memory serves me well, it was in January or February and the clip that was put up of certain exchanges, there were certain bits removed. It was actually communicated with Mediacorp and, through the correspondence, they actually made the rectification and put up a different clip. So, I think that was resolved quite amicably. My point is that, in general, is it the case that all the clips that are put up are completely free of editing? I think the Senior Minister of State himself conceded that there is a certain degree of editing. So, those decisions are decisions which involve a high level of discretion. Should they be decisions handled by a private entity or should they be handled by a Government body subject to scrutiny, subject to questioning?”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. Just a few supplementary questions. Firstly, why is Parliament not given the modest funding and ability to make its own live feed and video recordings available and provide a searchable archive? This is common in other developed countries and legislatures like Australia, Taiwan, Japan, UK, US and France, for example, many of whom have their YouTube channel or some other ways of archiving video recordings of sittings. That is the first one. The second one is: why does a corporate entity own the copyright to record a Parliamentary proceedings − an activity where other costs associated with creating the proceedings, such as the cost of the Parliament team, for example, are paid for by the taxpayers? Why should a corporate entity be given so much power to choose what to put up, when to put it up, when to take it down, how to edit it before presentation? And I do know from direct experience that, at times, these clips are edited and they are not archived and made available verbatim. Thirdly, if the consideration behind this is cost, is it possible to rethink the allocation of cost by collecting fees on a pay-per-use basis from a variety of media outlets?”
“Thank you, Speaker. Just a quick clarification of what the Minister has said. So, is it right to say that the benchmarking is done only with respect to the Reference Portfolio which is the primary means of benchmarking good performance and differentiating good from bad performance right now with GIC?”
“Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Minister for his reply. I have a few supplementary questions. Firstly, if the gap between the Reference Portfolio returns and the actual GIC returns widens in the future, under what conditions or what trigger point will MOF actually intervene to request for changes, either to the strategy or personnel of GIC? Secondly, just to follow the line of questioning about the allocation to developed market equities: why did GIC reduce its allocation to developed market equities in such a big way in the years 2010 to 2012 and then continue to do so gradually until 2016, missing the surge in developed market equities within the last five-year period? Because even if one takes the view that these developed market equities might not hold good long-term returns, one could still have executed a strategy whereby this asset class was used to generate short-term returns before taking profit and exiting over the past five years. That is my second question. My third supplementary question is really about benchmarking of performance. In response to what the Minister said, I would like to ask: why the fact that the different Sovereign Wealth Funds may have different risk profiles and so on is the reason for not benchmarking performance against them? One can still compare one's performance against other Sovereign Wealth Funds, even if they have different strategies, different risk profiles, for the sake of referencing the performance and referencing the strategy as well. The fourth question: if such benchmarking is not being done against other Sovereign Wealth Funds, how does the Government derive an understanding of what is a good return and a good performance versus one that is less than good?”
“Thank you, Sir. Just a quick follow-up question. I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his reply. The Parliamentary Secretary alluded to taking into consideration public sentiments. Is there any evidence that the general public is concerned about this issue that political parties or institutions should not be undermined via arts funding?”
“Sir, I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his helpful reply. I just have three supplementary questions. Firstly, regarding the condition that arts funding not be tied to undermining confidence in public institutions, political parties or figures − which I think we have discussed in the House before − will the Government be reviewing this in the light of the clear evidence from the case of Sonny Liew that good arts and artists can be penalised from this rule and that this politicisation of the arts is likely to set back the development of the arts in Singapore? That is my first supplementary question. Secondly, has the Government sought feedback from artists specifically about this rule and, if not, why not? And, if so, does the feedback suggest that artists agree with this rule? Thirdly, perhaps, I missed this, but just to clarify: is there a timeline for reviewing these guidelines? Is there a fixed schedule, say, every three or five years, to review them and, if so, when is the next review scheduled to be held?”
“May I ask the Senior Minister of State: is this Committee considering accelerating the deployment of drones as one solution for urban logistics which would reduce the demands on our roads for cars but still allow e-commerce to develop? This is perhaps a very promising area to explore.”
“But if we go too far in this, we compromise other values in our pledge. We are a people regardless of race, language and religion to build a democratic society. Let us remember that. Let us strike a balance. Lastly, as we go forward into the future, as future Parliaments consider new policies towards multiracialism in decades to come, let us always remember the physician's oath set down by Hippocrates of ancient Greece − first, do no harm. Whatever we do in the multiracialism arena should always make things better, not make things worse. Our cures must never be worse than the disease. Mr Speaker, Sir, we have more work to do. But we must do the right work, do it well and do it as one people. The day may come when we are all tested. And if that day comes, I am confident that that test will call forth the strength and unity of all Singaporeans. That strength, that steel that was forged in our hawker centres, our schools, our army camps, our workplace pantries, our void decks and yes, our common corridors − that steel will prove stronger than any attacker. We will defend our democratic society regardless of race language and religion. And we will give the gift of multiracialism to future generations of Singaporeans yet unborn. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion.”
“Such speech can legitimise the thoughts of the minority who are inclined towards bigotry, a minority that exists − let us recall − in every society and among all races. "See, how I feel is the natural state of human beings," they may say. And then the minority may influence the majority, one day replacing it. In speaking of the dangers of getting race relations wrong, let us not go too far and fall into the trap of legitimising and empowering that which we fear. Thirdly, yes, we should not permit − we should never permit − irresponsible racist speech and acts. Civilisation depends on the existence of some boundaries. I want to be absolutely clear about that. But we should never draw these boundaries so tightly that responsible discussion of race issues cannot take place in any public platform. If that happens, people will be cut off from information. They will not be able to form an educated opinion. This will make them more, not less, vulnerable to ignorant and divisive views available on the Internet or in the coffee shops or elsewhere. Between the extremes of barring all public discussion of race except behind closed doors and the other extreme of allowing any kind of speech about race however irresponsible and hateful, there lies a middle ground − the middle ground of responsible, rule-bound public speech about issues of race. Let us embrace that middle ground. Fourthly, let us not use the very real danger of racial strife to reach for authoritarian, heavy-handed solutions at every turn. In Yugoslavia under Tito, and Iraq under Saddam Hussein, there was little of the sectarian strife that broke out after those leaders were gone. But at what price was that peace achieved? We can repress racial tension with the weapons of an authoritarian state.”
“Many Singaporeans ask if this structure is as strong today as it was when I played in the common corridor in the 1970s. But rather than dwell on that subject, I want to focus on the future tense. How can we strengthen multiracialism going forward? We have today talked about aspects of policy. That is important. In concluding my speech, I would like to talk about some principles that I feel we should hold onto tightly when we formulate, debate, review, replace, evolve policies, projects and initiatives towards multiracialism. Firstly, we should focus on real everyday issues. Not that symbols are not important, but I would like to humbly and respectfully offer the opinion that real, everyday issues that affect the day-to-day lives of Singaporeans are more important. For example, in school and at work, we do not all start running the race from the same starting line. And the labour market is not 100% free of prejudice of any kind. That is as it always has been, in Singapore and in every country. But what we do about that is our choice. What we do to level up, correct for the inequities of birth and, in so doing, harness all the talent we have. Those are deliberate choices we make as a society. What is at stake is victory or defeat against divisions of class and race, which intersect in complex ways. Let us focus on fighting the real battles which are more important than the cosmetic ones. Secondly, what public figures say matters. We do not want to be complacent about race relations. But implying at every turn that there is a deep, seething primordial tribalism waiting to break out at any time goes too far. It risks creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.”
“No. The rising number of inter-ethnic marriages may be a sign of progress − may be − but that should not make us complacent. There is no complete race blindness, just as there is no complete equality of opportunity for all citizens. Not in Singapore and not in any country. And there will always be − always − a minority of people for whom attachment to their own identity crosses that line into a close-minded mistrust of others. Such minorities exist in every country. But do the majority aspire towards a Singapore, regardless of race? In my experience, the answer to that question is a resounding yes today. But we must entertain the possibility that it may not be a resounding yes tomorrow. And the question is how can we nurture, cherish, grow, entrench our multiracial society? Let us start from where we are. Our schools, workplaces, army camps, playgrounds are the crucibles and also the testing grounds of race relations. Multiracialism succeeds or fails in these places. Multiracialism in the common corridors is just as important as multiracialism in the corridors of power. The topsoil of multiracialism in Singapore has many colours. Our Singlish. Our shared festivals. Our shared food culture and love of one another's ethnic foods, and this is very important in Singapore's context. Our coffee shops and hawker centres are where all these things come into play. That is the topsoil. The bedrock underneath that topsoil is beliefs and attitudes. Our willingness to see one another as equal human beings deserving of the same respect we seek for ourselves, our willingness to give and take, to negotiate differences and not to escalate and amplify every single thing.”
“They still do sometimes. They play football with our neighbour's son and sometimes they play on their scooters. But, in truth, not as much as I did back in the 1970s. As I grew up in Singapore, my experience was not much different from other Members of this House. I was very fortunate to rarely experience anything like a sense that I was excluded. I know that not everyone maybe as fortunate. In the workplace over the decades, there were times when race issues emerged. But those times were extremely rare. Once, early on in my career, I wanted to hire someone of a particular race and a colleague told me that they had had bad experiences with employees of that race. I went ahead to hire this person anyway. That employee turned out to be outstanding and got promoted twice. But such incidents were extremely rare. Mr Speaker, Sir, terrorists of the kind we most fear seek to turn races, religions, cultures against one another. When we fight among ourselves, they win. This we all know. Multiracialism is the surest defence against terror. It is the ultimate goalkeeper. Multiracialism is part of the Singapore pledge which we take as schoolchildren, to be united regardless of race, language or religion. This is one of the most important parts of the pledge. I feel this because when I talk to residents on house visits and outreach, when I look at postings on the Internet, many, many people use the language of the pledge many, many times − that particular bit of language − to express that urge, that aspiration to go beyond race. Regardless of race. At one market outreach last week a resident recited these words several times, emotionally, his voice rising each time. Regardless of race then. Can we set race, religion, culture aside completely? Are we perfectly unconscious of race?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this Motion and I thank the hon Member Mr Christopher de Souza for moving this Motion, which is timely and worthy of support. Sir, Singapore has not faced a terrorist attack in recent times. Will it happen one day? Probably yes. How will it affect Singaporeans? How will it affect Singapore, the idea of our nation? Peering at the future from today, we cannot see clearly because the future is always moving, always buffeted by the choices that we make today. I was born in a 3-room flat. I still remember clearly: Block 74, Commonwealth Drive, even though we later moved to a flat in Telok Blangah. I still remember a few things incredibly clearly. We had a common corridor. The kids who lived on that corridor − and in those days there were lots of children around − would play on that corridor together. We would run into one another's flats and spend time there playing and then coming out and running into someone else's flat. One neighbour, who happened to be Chinese, was good at cutting hair. She would cut people's hair for a small fee, but, for us, she would cut our hair for free, the neighbours who lived on the corridor. I still remember going to her house to cut my hair. I have such a clear memory of this because once there was an Ultra-man television (TV) show playing on the TV while she was doing that. Another memory was that all the children running around downstairs playing with lanterns in our pyjamas during the Mid-Autumn Festival. Back then, children wore pyjamas and did not shy away from wearing them outside the house. I also remember enjoying lots of good Malay food during Hari Raya. Do children still play in the common corridors these days and mix among different races? I have two children.”
“Just a supplementary question to the Minister. Has the Ministry considered this technology that is quite widespread, I believe, in Japan, which is attached to the hot water pot? It monitors the frequency at which an elderly resident consumes hot water. When they do not consume for a while, it sends a short message service (SMS) alert to their next-of-kin. Apparently, this is widely used in Japan, it is very economical. And is that being considered to be something that can be pushed out here?”
“Just two supplementary questions regarding bullying. Is there right now a national hotline that children who are bullied can call up? Because, understandably, some children may have reservations about approaching their teachers, friends and parents. Is there a national hotline, and is there awareness of that hotline among all the schools? I believe the Minister mentioned the Singapore Children's Society. I believe there is one such hotline. So, I just want to clarify if there is awareness of that hotline across all schools. That is the first one. Secondly, if that is the case, then does MOE analyse the data from this hotline − aggregated and anonymised data − to see if there are certain patterns? For example, are there more bullying complaints reported from a certain school and, if so, then should an intervention be done with the teachers of that school, that sort of thing?”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for the very clear reassurance. Just a very quick clarification. I take it that 100% of the Government and Statutory Boards websites are compliant with this standard. Can we infer that from the Senior Minister of State's answer? At the present point in time, 100% of Government and Statutory Board websites are compliant with the WCAG 2.0 standard?”
“I am sorry. Just wanted to know the 42 companies in TEC. What proportion are SMEs, if the Minister has that data?”
“I thank the Minister for his response. Just two follow-up questions. One is on the Tianjin project. Of the 42 companies, would the Minister have the proportion which are SMEs? And then the second question is really on whether the Ministry of Trade and Industry has studied the issue of the impact of these investments on domestic operations and what is the positive feedback loop? So, to what extent are domestic operations impacted and in what way, from these investments overseas, whether there is any study or any data in that regard?”
“Just a quick supplementary question. In the same vein, when we talk about making sure ComCare is available to everyone who needs it, will the SSOs work with applicants or potential applicants to overcome issues, like they are not able to go down and bring documentation, because that is usually one of the steps in the process that they have to go down to the SSOs with documentation. Some of them, of course, are not very mobile or have chronic conditions. Some of them have to take leave from work to do so. So, would the SSOs try to overcome that by, for example, having a phone conversation and exchange of documents some other way, by mail or email, or will they consider even making house visits in certain cases where it is absolutely necessary? Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: I thank the Member for the question. It is a very important question because, like what I have shared with Mr Seah earlier, it is not only the role of the SSOs, I am happy to see community leaders, grassroots leaders, working together with Government agencies to help our fellow Singaporeans. Let us, say, in my area, if there are residents who have issues, who even cannot go to the SSO, my grassroots leaders and fellow residents will come and assist in the process. And SSO officers also do house visits. It is something that I want to assure the House that we will do all we can to help fellow Singaporeans.”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for the detailed and comprehensive answer. I have two supplementary questions. Firstly, in light of the fact that our Gini coefficient, which the Senior Minister of State alluded to, is still among the highest among developed countries in the world, and given the fact that even though the Gini coefficient refers to inequality of outcomes and the inequality of outcomes can impact inequality of opportunity, how confident is the Government that it is keeping abreast of international best practices in the field of ameliorating and mitigating inequality of opportunity? This is a field where I think the policy is evolving worldwide; there are different innovations. So, how confident is the Government that it is being done? And to link to that, my second question would be: would the Government consider publishing at regular intervals a report which measures the state of equality of opportunity, looking at indicators – not just the indicators that the Senior Minister of State mentioned like absolute incomes – but also measures like social mobility which are more infrequently measured at the current point. Could the Government consider that kind of regular measurement publication and public debate on this issue, given the importance of the issue and how it cuts across so many other areas of policy?”
“Attempting to control such costs through management of land supply to private developers is too blunt an instrument, given that there is never a perfect method of demand forecasting. JTC taking a larger share of the market for industrial and office space would send a strong signal to SMEs that manageable space costs will be here to stay and would not simply be gone tomorrow by the next market fluctuation, thus potentially wiping out the viability of a business that could have taken the founders of the business years or even decades of hard work and forgone income to build up. It could be argued that JTC providing low-cost rents would create excess demand and how then would we allocate the supply among competing companies? A points-based balloting system is one mechanism to do so. The principle behind such a system is reflected in other areas of public policy today, such as the allocation of school places. Taking every effort to minimise industrial and commercial rentals and property costs is important to stimulate entrepreneurship and the SME sector to be the vital third engine of value and job creation that we need it to be. It behooves the Government to think through these deeper and fundamental issues relating to the pricing of land for industrial and commercial use and to provide the necessary assurances to all stakeholders about its commitment to control costs now and in the future so as to unleash growth in SMEs and startups.”
“Moreover, keeping JTC's market share in the industrial and commercial market low while making ad hoc interventions to create pockets of low-cost space here and there also fails to address the concern that low cost today will not necessarily be low cost tomorrow. So, my questions and suggestions would be as follows. Firstly, does the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) measure rental and land costs for industrial and commercial properties regularly and compare those costs to those faced by SMEs and startups in other developed countries? It would be useful, in my view, to benchmark against Germany, Switzerland, Japan and Israel, which are countries known for thriving SME and startup sectors. Secondly, would MTI consider forming a target for commercial and industrial land costs faced by SMEs and startups by benchmarking against other countries or cities which have been very successful in stimulating startups and SMEs? This target could be formed by considering the cost to the state of providing such land against the additional incremental revenue that the state would gain and the benefit to the economy and people of Singapore from the greater economic activity unleashed by such lower property costs. At the risk of repetition, I make the observation here once again that the state owns most of the available land in Singapore and, hence, the Government has a unique responsibility to consider such issues and make such choices in a manner that benefits the whole society. Thirdly, would MTI consider pursuing such land cost targets by JTC taking up a larger market share in the industrial and commercial property market, as was the case in the past?”
“This may require actions to, first, take a long-term view on reducing business rentals and have JTC pick up, in part, their former approach of building lower-cost industrial and commercial property, before many of their many properties were privatised". In his reply in 2016, Minister Lim had said, "the Government believes in letting market forces set the rent, and we allow the private sector to provide the responses in supplying the demand. Where we intervene is where we recognise some possible market failures, for example, in startups where it is not so commercially viable to provide the space, the Government will step in, and, indeed, we have. JTC set up LaunchPad@one-north in 2015, and plans to build a network of LaunchPads around Singapore". This year, Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon said, "However, in terms of the market share, JTC industrial space currently constitute only 8% of all industrial space and we do not have the critical mass to influence overall market pricing". Mr Speaker, Sir, it would seem that the Government, as the largest landowner in the country, has a choice to release land to private developers of industrial or commercial properties, or to develop the land under the umbrella of JTC to provide lower-cost properties to SMEs and startups. The Government has accepted the principle that, in certain cases, the state should step in to provide land at lower costs to SMEs and startups. The downside of doing this is, of course, fiscal cost. But it is not clear if the state providing lower-cost industrial and commercial space would stimulate entrepreneurship and value creation in such a way that the tax revenue from additional economic activity would partly or wholly offset the provision by the state of such low-cost land.”
“He was referring to a survey that had recently been conducted, I believe, by the Singapore Business Federation (SBF). He went on to say, "I hope the Government will consider conducting a major comprehensive historical and international benchmarking study on business rental costs to understand why rental costs rose so rapidly over the past two decades and why despite the Government's efforts in recent years to release more land through the Industrial Government Land Sales (IGLS) programme so as to ensure more industrial space, SMEs are still feeling the squeeze. The study should also include how the cost of doing business in Singapore compares globally". At the COS debate this year, I also pointed out how, even if business costs, such as rentals, have recently declined, in the absence of any confidence that such costs are going to be managed well in future, individuals may choose not to become entrepreneurs, since there is no degree of assurance that rentals will remain affordable in future, and no degree of assurance that a spike in rentals in future may push their business models into the zone of commercial non-viability. Low cost today may not mean low cost tomorrow. At COS 2016, my colleague Mr Chen Show Mao said, "Over the longer term, access to low rent premises has diminished, following the corporatisation of JTC assets as well as the commercial pricing of HDB rentals. We call on the Government to not only keep commercial and industrial rental increases near or below inflation but also to keep their absolute amounts manageable as part of the more serious effort to nurture SMEs as the third pillar.”