Leong Horn Kee
Singapore
“My question is that, although at the point of purchase when the blocks were built, this may not be structural deficiency, as the Parliamentary Secretary said, but it is now because the demand or desire is for lift access.”
“Lastly, by centralising at MOM, I wish to urge the kind Minister to provide more funds and resources for job search programmes. Most feedback from residents is that they are not getting sufficient help and satisfaction on job search services at the CDC level.”
“At the same time, our SAF soldiers are better educated and trained to handle more sophisticated fighting system. Thus, the combination of both modern weapon systems and better trained soldiers will provide a good platform for our SAF to build a strong and capable integrated fighting force.”
“All right, "may" allow two months of disruption. But in terms of cohort, after the students have left school, they are no more in the same cohort. They actually enter enlistment at different times of the year. So this issue of relating cohort to enlistment period may not be valid. Therefore, why not just have a clarity of rule?”
“Sir, on this issue of early disruption of two months, we should actually look at it not from the two months' point of view of early disruption, but from the 10 months of waiting time. The servicemen will have to mope around waiting for 10 months for his tertiary education.”
“If the safety and personal security in Johor is not improved, no matter how excellent or scenic a bridge we build, Singaporeans will be hesitant to visit Johor and spend time and money there.”
The complete record
Every one of 876 lines we hold for Leong Horn Kee, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 18.
“But, nevertheless, the public could still be mistaken that the transport operators could be unduly influencing the other Council members, because they sit in the same Council. Secondly, I would like to suggest that a wider representation of members from grassroots bodies be included in the Council. Perhaps, even to include people who actually take public transport regularly, and not people who do not normally take public transport. Thirdly, the Council may wish to conduct more public forums and talks to better place and explain their work, especially pertaining to reviewing of fare increases. Sir, I go on to the future increases in the prices of other public services. I would like to move on to this point which concerns and worries the people even more, which is with regard to future increases in other public services, as expressed by my resident, Mdm Lee. This concern is prompted by the recent decision of the Government to increase GST from 3% to 5%. Though this GST increase is only to be introduced from next year, in fact, we could notice that many retailers have already increased their charges. Common examples are the price of a cup of coffee from 60 cents to 70 cents (more than 2% of GST), and a bowl of noodles from about $2.50 to $3.00 by some hawkers. Less fishballs, maybe even less noodles as well. Then, there have been indications that there may well be other increases by the public bodies on the cards, like Singapore Power and SingTel. We know that HDB is already going to increase the carpark charges from 1st September this year. Sir, I wish to stress that it is very important for the Government to retain the trust and confidence of the people. The Government has recently won a renewed 5-year mandate with resounding support of 75% of the people's votes.”
“Some people, especially the political leaders, may say that it is not good to set a precedent that public pressure can cause the PTC to revise its decisions, and that we cannot govern the country by just listening to the wishes of the people. However, I contend that there are indeed occasions when it is correct and prudent to listen to the people. This is one such occasion. If this is done, the people and the Government would appreciate each other better. Therefore, I would like to state that, contrary to the constant refrain that we cannot govern by giving in to the wishes of the people, I wish to say that the PTC, as well as the Government, would be viewed positively if it would reconsider the fare increases. It would demonstrate that we have public bodies and a Government that could be attuned to the ground and concerns of the people, and be prepared to review policies and regulations when circumstances show the need to do so. Such a bold Government, in fact, would be well liked and well praised by the people. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to make a few additional suggestions with regard to the PTC. First, I support Mr Tan and Mr Tan - as I have said, the double "Tans" - that to demonstrate that the PTC consists of members that are independent, I would, therefore, like to suggest that the Council should not include representatives from the public transport operators. If need be, transport operators can be enlisted to give technical or professional input on specific subjects. But they do not need to be represented on the Council. I understand that the transport operators are excluded from the Council's deliberations on fare increases.”
“If we study the accounts for year 2001, the company actually has achieved, in the last five years, a total after tax profit of $190 million. On the $40 million of returns, based on the $555 million revenue last year, it actually has a 7% return on revenue, which, again, is a very respectable and a very good figure during bad times. In fact, if we look at this one-page chart [indicating], we cannot see a single red mark in this report card, which indicates it is indeed a very healthy company. Why are we saying that this company now needs more fare increases? The same can be said of other operators, like SMRT as well. Therefore, I would like to support Mr Tan's contention that the price increase is difficult to be supportable, based on the argument that transport companies are not making enough money. In fact, on the contrary, they have high reserves, high revenues and high earnings. Therefore, people can accept that fare increases are unavoidable, but they cannot accept unfair fare increases. It is, therefore, unfortunate that the Public Transport Council (PTC) has decided to allow public transport fares to increase during this uncertain economic period. Although the fare increases are already implemented from 1st July, that means, from early this week, and this debate can only be held after the fare increases were implemented, I would like to join my colleagues, Mr Tan Soo Khoon and Dr Tan Cheng Bock, to urge, in our Motion, that the PTC review its fare increases. If the PTC is open-minded and enlightened enough to perhaps even consider postponing the fare increases, so that, at least, there is a stay or suspension of the fare increases.”
“As Mr Tan Soo Khoon has put forth and analysed very closely the accounts of SBS and SMRT, he finds it hard to justify fare increases, based on the fact that they actually achieved good operating performances in the last few years. I wish to reiterate and support Mr Tan's point. In fact, I have a one-page summary here. One can actually get a copy quite easily from the SGX website on SBS Transit. I have attached it to my speech for the reporters to take a look. This one-page summary is produced by the company itself, not prepared by me. It actually tells a very interesting picture of the health of SBS Transit. It shows the performance in the last five years. From 1997 to 2000, SBS Transit has been consistently achieving revenues of above $500 million because people take buses, whether it is in good or bad times. Its after tax profit has actually been increasing since 1997. As Mr Tan has quoted, from $21 million in 1997 all the way up to $50.9 million in 2000. In these four years, its profit went up 2 1/2 times. Last year, in 2001, the profit went down to $40 million, versus $50 million in the year before in 2000, just a drop of $10 million. And now we see that it is coming to the PTC to ask for fare increases so soon. Looking at its capital reserves, it actually has very good capital reserves. It has been growing from a smallish $88 million in 1997 by nearly three times increase to $222 million in 2001. Its equity and capital reserves have increased to $222 million in 2001. On return of capital, as Mr Tan has stated, it has a very high return on equity, ranging from 30% in good times down to 18% last year. But 18% is still a very good return on equity for any company, especially during bad times.”
“Unlike the past, when the usual complaints were about local and estate issues, I was most taken aback that the difference this time round, the most common complaint lately was regarding public transport fare increases and other price increases. During a recent dialogue session with a small group of residents, they pleaded and argued most furiously and emotionally against all these unfair fare increases. Some residents even took the trouble to pen down their thoughts and submit petition letters to me. Allow me to read a quotation from one petition that I received from a resident, a Mdm Lee. She actually wrote a two full-page, well-typed out petition. Let me read some sections of it. She said: "Well, my sons and I are grateful to the ruling party for the good life we had in the past. However, the recent economic crisis has dampened our spirits somewhat. We are also very anxious in regard to the never-ending news of steady increases in necessities such as transport, food, utilities, telephone bills, etc, and with rumours of more to come." I repeat, she even said `with rumours of more to come.' Then, she went on to say: "An old lady was overheard complaining loudly in the market that whatever monies the Government had given out (CPF and New Singapore Shares) are now being recouped back and with interest too! She was very bitter and I don't blame her as many people also agreed with her. Many are saying that the carrots given out were because of the elections and now after the elections, prices of everything have gone up." Sir, this letter actually reflects very truly and accurately the sentiments on the ground. Let us now examine the PTC approved fare increases to see whether it is fair or unfair.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in this debate on the motion concerning public transport fares. I would like, first, to express my appreciation to Mr Tan Soo Khoon for taking the effort to raise this Motion and to make a very thorough and eloquent speech, and also my other colleague, Dr Tan Cheng Bock - both of whom I call them the two "big guns" or "big Tans", from our Backbenchers group - for supporting this Motion. Particularly, I would now like to commend Mr Chiam as well for coming up to speak in support of this Motion and join us on our side, the PAP Backbenchers. Thank you, Mr Chiam. He is looking more and more like a PAP MP! Sir, I agree to support Mr Tan Soo Khoon in moving this Motion, because the subject concerns practically all Singaporeans. I wish to highlight that the Motion actually contains two important limbs. The first limb is to urge the Public Transport Council to review its decision on the increase in public transport fares. The second, and perhaps a more important limb, is to urge the Government to take steps to ensure that the prices of public services are not unreasonably increased during these difficult times. First, on public transport fare increases. The increase in public transport fares has caused residents to be greatly concerned. This is evident by the large number of letters to the press. For us as MPs, it is evident by the frequency and the ferocity in which residents raise these questions and issues with us, when they meet us on the ground. I recently conducted a house-to-house visit to an HDB block in my constituency, followed by a typical dialogue session with my residents.”
“So as to foster the growth of a more entrepreneurial climate and a more business-friendly environment, I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister to consider liberalising the restriction on the use of residential addresses for the conduct of business. Of course, the allowed businesses should not create a disamenity to the residential neighbourhood. Singapore does not have many houses with garages, so we cannot boast that many bright ideas from Singaporeans germinate from garages. But many Singaporeans live in HDB flats. Therefore, we should be proud to say that many of our great businesses sprouted from the living rooms of HDB flats. My second suggestion, Sir, is with regard to liquidation of companies. We can now claim that it is very easy to form a company in Singapore, especially with the advent of BizFile. I am not sure whether we can say the same for the liquidation of companies. As I have said earlier, many Singaporeans form companies in preparation to start a business. However, several of these businesses remain dormant and may never see the daylight of a day of business. Finally, they have to be closed. Sir, I would like to suggest that the relevant bodies study the procedures and requirements in the liquidation or closing of companies. I am told that, typically, liquidation of a company costs between $5,000-$15,000. For a small or dormant company, this would be a large sum. I concede that regulations on liquidation of companies should require more careful handling so as to protect creditors. I would like to request that the procedures should be simplified and made cheaper, if possible. One suggestion is to use BizFile for electronic filing of closing of dormant companies. Sir, I support the Bill.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to speak in support of this Bill. As the Deputy Prime Minister has explained, the Bill will facilitate the implementation of electronic filing for companies via BizFile and simplify some procedures for business registration. I particularly support the intent and trend adopted by the Government to make business registration easier, cheaper and faster. This is the basic purpose of BizFile. Sir, in line with this approach, I would like to raise two suggestions to the Deputy Prime Minister. The first suggestion is with regard to the registered address of a business. At present, the requirement is that businesses must be registered in a business address. A company is not allowed to register a residential address as the registered business address. We know that many Singaporeans have formed companies with the intent to eventually start a business. Pending the start of the business, these companies are dormant. The need to be registered in a business address means that companies often have to be registered with business addresses of law firms and audit companies. Though small, often there is a fee to be paid. For the firms whose addresses are being used as the business address, this requirement adds to unnecessary administrative and correspondence work. Hence, I would like to suggest that the Government consider allowing residential addresses to be used as registered and correspondence addresses of firms. In addition, the present residential addresses are not permitted to be used for conducting businesses, except for certain approved purposes, such as IT-based start-ups.”
“While we encourage companies to adopt good international reporting and accounting practices, I agree with the private sector's Company Legislation and Regulatory Framework Committee in its recommendations that these requirements should not be proscribed by law, especially for small and dormant companies. Naturally, active companies of certain size and activity should be required to adopt these practices for good public disclosure reasons. Sir, I support the Bill.”
“As evident in the USA, quarterly reporting has caused top management of companies to be very short-term focused on quarterly results. Share prices jump or plummet on every piece of good or bad news. Management's attention becomes distracted by the need to report good results every quarter, year in year out, which is not an easy thing to achieve, even by the best of management. Sir, I, therefore, have come to the conclusion that quarterly reporting has severe disadvantage of forcing companies and market analysts to be too short-term and narrowly focused. Hence, I would like to ask the DPM and the Minister for Finance to reconsider the requirement to introduce quarterly reporting by listed companies from next year onwards. Sir, I would like to raise two issues relating to the on-going holding costs of companies. Currently, about 75% of Singapore's 100,000 companies are dormant and tax-exempt companies. The reason is that many Singaporeans wish to incorporate companies in readiness to start a business. However, most of these companies remain dormant for a long time. Meanwhile, the shareholders have to incur some unnecessary on-going costs, such as to appoint a qualified accounting firm to prepare audited accounts, and to appoint a professionally qualified company secretary to file accounts. These two requirements add to operating costs. I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister to consider whether the above two requirements can be reduced or simplified, especially for dormant or small companies. The total cost could amount to a few thousand dollars, which are not truly necessary for small or dormant companies.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to express my support for this Bill. The Bill seeks to implement the major recommendations of the Disclosure and Accounting Standards Committee. As Singapore is establishing itself as a major financial centre in the world, we should adopt internationally recognised and accepted accounting standards and practices. However, recent instances of major corporate disclosure failings, like Enron, Worldcom and Xerox in USA, have shown that no amount of good corporate governance regulations or strict accounting standards can guard against management bent on crooked reporting. This is particularly glaring as these incidents occur in the USA which prides itself as the motherland of good corporate disclosures and transparency. For the record, Sir, I support the creation of the proposed panel of Council on Corporate Disclosure and Governance. If its role is only to serve as a body to make recommendations, then there must be retained some teeth in the regulatory framework for existing Government agencies to police and fine offenders who flout these rules. I read in the newspapers that in the USA itself, they are thinking of charging the dishonest management responsible for making untruthful disclosures in their companies' accounts. In line with my disappointment that no amount of good corporate governance regulations can safeguard against dishonest management, I would like to raise the issue of quarterly reporting. Quarterly reporting is required from next year onwards for listed companies. I had supported this idea in the past in the hope that more regular reporting would enable better business information and transparency. However, I now come to the view that quarterly reporting may have some serious disadvantages.”
“We will also prohibit the large gencos from expanding beyond their current licensed capacity so long as vesting contracts are in place. This is to ensure that the concentration of capacity and market power in the generation companies is not perpetuated. New capacity to meet demand growth will have to be met by companies other than the big three generation companies.”
“These companies may not have been de-registered, but they are active companies with no real trading or activities going on. They are just dormant companies. BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Sir, it is not easy to establish criteria for dormancy. But if such criterion can be established and the dormant status incontrovertibly defined, then I am sure SBF would recommend these companies to me, and I will consider them appropriately. NEW ELECTRICITY MARKET 10. Mr Andy Gan Lai Chiang asked the Minister for Trade and Industry whether the new electricity market to be launched later this year will attract the participation of a sufficient number of generation companies so as to avoid an oligopolistic market. The Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Mr Raymond Lim Siang Keat) (for the Minister for Trade and Industry): Mr Speaker, Sir, we have four generation licensees selling into the pool at the moment. Two other generation licensees have indicated that they are planning to commission their plants sometime in 2005. Despite the number of generation licensees, about 90% of the total installed capacity in our system is concentrated in three big generation companies. These companies will have market power for about 12 years. These companies can use this market power to bid up pool prices. To prevent this, we will impose vesting contracts on the generation companies to curb their market power. Vesting contracts place an obligation on the generation companies to sell part of their capacity into the pool at a specified price. Generation companies will have to compete to sell the rest of the capacity that is not vested into the pool. With market power removed, the pool price is likely to be competitive.”
“Sir, I would like to ask the Minister to consider that for companies which have a paid-up capital of $500,000, but actually became defunct or dormant because their business dealings are no more active, should be exempted from paying subscription fees. BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Sir, if these companies are de-registered, then, obviously, the compulsory membership will not apply.”
“I want to pick up the point from the Minister about the penalty. It seems that the two-year jail penalty is a bit light for a case when the medicine brought in can be very poisonous. Could the Minister reveal whether this needs to be reviewed because if the importer brought in substances that can cause not only permanent damage to a person, but even death to several people, I think the penalty should be even more deterrent than just a 2-year jail sentence.”
“Sir, it seems that the present procedure does not seem to have worked because Slim 10 has got in and has caused harm to the people. May I ask three questions? Firstly, could I ask the Minister to review the procedure whereby in the first instance, although an importer may declare certain substances, he will not be so stupid as to declare disallowed items, so he probably declares all the allowed items. Could the Ministry consider asking the HSA to conduct limited testing of other disallowed products because if the product, for example, is for slimming, they can test the limited range of products that are used for such effects, but maybe not allowed for health reasons? At least, that will help to give better protection to the people. Secondly, after the products are allowed to come in, when the products are being sent in by batches, to do batch testing of the products. At least, they are being tested and monitored regularly by batch testing through the HSA getting samples from each batch being imported. The third question is: if deterrence is the way the Ministry wants to go about doing it, then what is the level of deterrence we are having now? For example, what kind of penalty do we impose on these defaulter importers, and whether this can be reviewed as a procedure?”
“Yes. Sir, I would like to thank the Minister, Senior Minister of State and Minister of State for their elaborate and very persuasive replies. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Sir, since we have a bit of time, may I ask the Minister a few questions? First, in relation to Sentosa, perhaps we should also not forget the offshore islands. Many Singaporeans in fact go all the way to Batam or even Bintan for resorts. So, please do not forget that we can also develop our offshore islands as another resort destination for Singaporeans, besides Sentosa. Next, I would like to address my second remark to Mr Raymond Lim. I have heard of this new committee reviewing the formation of companies. I would like to give him an immediate feedback: one of the rules that I find quite cumbersome is that, for the registration of Singapore companies, domestic addresses, ie, HDB addresses or private home addresses, cannot be used as the registered address of a company. That actually deters many people from forming companies. To enable them to start companies, maybe that can be reviewed. BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Sir, the islands to the south of Sentosa, which were reclaimed for high-class housing, are now under Sentosa Development Corporation and will be developed in an integrated way with the rest of Sentosa.”
“For a while, I thought that the launch of SPRING Singapore was for a new line of seasonal fashion wear. Sir, when the public look at these changes, they do not really understand why familiar old names like TDB, PSB and NSTB are being discarded. As Mr Lim Hng Kiang has said earlier, there is brand value in some of these names. No doubt, it is good to give statutory boards new names to reflect their new roles and responsibilities. However, for new names, we have to incur substantial costs on launching expenses in the form of corporate brochures and other collaterals. The Minister may wish to explain why there is this sudden remaking of the statutory boards. There must be a grand concept plan behind this, I believe. However, I do note that there is one statutory board that has not been renamed, and that is the Sentosa Development Corporation (SDC). We Singaporeans have come to remember Sentosa as a very quaint name which has been changed from the previous name called Pulau Belakang Mati. While I am not urging the Minister to change the name of SDC, I would like to ask him what are his Ministry's plans with regard to the future development of Sentosa. We understand that nearly a billion dollars have been spent on Sentosa for various projects to date and more will be spent in future. As Sentosa is a playground for Singaporeans and a major tourist attraction for foreigners, I hope that some bold and imaginative plans are in store for Sentosa.”
“Thank you, Sir. I would like to join my colleagues to ask the Minister for an update on the various Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) under negotiation between Singapore and the other countries. In particular, I am very interested to know the status of the proposed FTA between ASEAN and China, the FTA between Singapore and USA, and also the proposed FTA between Singapore and Japan. Sir, it has been said in recent reports that FTAs will bring substantial benefits to Singapore, such as the creation of more jobs. This is good. It would be useful if the Minister can give details on how he feels FTAs can be beneficial for Singapore. In fact, it is said that FTA can be helpful to the entire region, as it will be instrumental in promoting free trade practices and investments from other developed countries into our region. As the FTAs are expected to bring substantial benefits, I would like to urge the Ministry of Trade and Industry to expedite the completion of these various FTAs. Sir, my next cut is on the restructuring of MTI and its statutory boards. It appears from recent press reports that it is becoming fashionable for renaming of statutory boards. Yesterday, Mr Tan Soo Khoon mentioned this. For example, under the Ministry of Trade and Industry, we have read about a spate of changes in the names of its statutory boards. First, we read about the NSTB being renamed as A*STAR. When I first heard this, I thought it was a new Grammy Award or a new TV series. Next, we heard about the creation of IE Singapore, in place of the old statutory board called TDB. More recently, we were sprung with a surprise of a new entity called SPRING Singapore, which is actually a remake of the former PSB.”
“Similarly, among the many industries that the Government intends to promote is the bio-sciences. Recently, there was a report that the A*STAR has been charged with the responsibility of promoting a biomedical hub in Singapore. However, I am concerned to read in press reports that Mr Philip Yeo, Chairman of A*STAR, has an undisclosed budget to use. Even before getting started, it is said that the centre will now double in size in five years. I would like to ask the Minister if he could give more details on the actual plans of the Government in the promotion of biotechnology. What are the real benefits that can be derived, and whether the expected hundreds of millions, or even billions of dollars, that will be spent on this biomedical hub will be worthwhile?”
“In contrast, another agency, called the World Competitiveness Yearbook 2002, has ranked Singapore the 5th most competitive country, slipping three notches from the 2nd position last year. So, both the EIU and the World Competitiveness Yearbook 2002 have moved Singapore downwards in world-wide economic rankings. Is this an area of concern? Are we losing our competitiveness? Nevertheless, what I feel remarkable is that for a small country like Singapore, with no natural resources, a very small population, a very small domestic market, and a very limited number of home-grown companies, we have consistently achieved high international rankings by the most respected international agencies around the world. This testifies to the excellent achievements and hard work of the Government and the people in getting ourselves to this stage. However, the crucial question is, can we continue to achieve this phenomenal growth and sterling results? Will the future be as bright as before? Or would it turn for the worse? Will Singapore be sliding precipitously downhill henceforth? Sir, in line with the review of international competitiveness, I would like to ask the Minister how he intends to help reduce the overall cost structure of Singapore. It is a perennial complaint of the local companies that the cost of doing business in Singapore is just too high. In this respect, one of the major cost items is electricity consumption. The Government formed the new Energy Management Authority (EMA) last year. The EMA has announced a schedule of plans to liberalise the energy market. Can the Minister update us on the latest situation with regard to the EMA, and whether energy deregulation would really lead to lower prices?”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head V of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100. Sir, as many MPs have said, Singapore is moving into an uncertain future. The main reason is the threat of stronger competition from the neighbouring countries such as Malaysia and Indonesia, which are two very low-cost operating countries. At the same time, we also have to compete against emerging cities like Hong Kong and Shanghai. Then, there is the looming threat of China as a formidable competitor which is soaking up substantial foreign direct investments (FDIs). We are constantly reminded of the threat of China, but we have not been really told as to how this threat can be contained. Better still, we would like to figure out how best we can ride this huge juggernaut of China, as the Minister had said last year, as this country moves forward to become one of the world's largest economies. Sir, I would like to ask the Minister for Trade and Industry what are his Ministry's views of the long-term regional and international competitiveness of Singapore. With respect to competitiveness, we note that there are several international independent agencies that conduct world-wide competitive ratings of different countries. What is interesting is that I note that different agencies seem to give different assessment ratings for Singapore. For example, the well-known Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) in its report of 16 Asian and Australasian countries covered in 1997-2001, has moved Singapore from second place to the top position regionally for the 2002-2006 period. So, we have overtaken Hong Kong for the top place. However, on a world-wide basis, this EIU report has moved Singapore downwards, from 7th to 9th position.”
“I wish to thank the DPM and the Second Finance Minister for their patience and very detailed and clear answers. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“If it is the concern of Government that it may serve to be too much of a tax leakage, then the Government can consider allowing group relief for foreign subsidiaries only a limited number of period, say, only for the initial five years from the period of formation. Sir, I hope the Finance Minister would consider these proposals favourably.”
“Sir, on this cut on corporate tax, I wish to speak on group relief for corporate tax. I am very pleased that the Government has finally agreed to allow group relief for corporate tax. This was a constant request of MPs in the past few years, but it has not been agreed to by the former Finance Minister, Dr Richard Hu. We are pleased that the new Finance Minister, DPM Lee Hsien Loong has agreed to this proposal. I would like to say that this is one of the sacred cows that we are pleased to see being removed. Sir, the present scheme allows us for group relief for corporate tax for Singapore companies, with 75% ownership of Singapore-based subsidiaries. I would like to ask the Minister that in future, the scheme can be extended to the following two areas. One, like Mr Inderjit Singh has said, to allow group relief for subsidiaries that are above 51% ownership. The reason is that the standard definition of subsidiary is for companies that are more than 51% owned. If the concern is of excessive tax losses due to the lowering of the definition of the subsidiary to 51%, then, I would like to suggest that the amount of tax relief can be accrued and computed based on the actual percentage ownership. Second, to allow group relief for foreign-owned subsidiaries of Singapore-owned companies. The main reason is that Singapore companies often have to go overseas to look for investment as Singapore itself is a very small market. As overseas investments are of high-risk and high reward in nature, there is more need for group relief for overseas investments to mitigate the prospects of losses.”
“Individual shareholders and institutions with tax-exempt status will no longer get tax credits based on the difference between their marginal tax rate and the corporate tax rate. From my understanding of the new regulation, I would like to highlight to the Minister for Finance that this one-tier tax system works to the disadvantage of the following groups of people. Firstly, individuals, especially the lower income workers and retirees who own shares, will now have to pay the top-end corporate rate on their earnings from share dividends. For these people, their personal marginal tax rate could well be zero or very low. Therefore, the new scheme is disadvantageous to them as they now have to pay the full corporate tax rates for the dividend on the shares they own. Secondly, institutions that used to enjoy tax-free status, such as charities and community groups, will now have to bear the full corporate tax for the dividends earned from their shareholdings of companies. Thirdly, real estate investment trusts (REITs) also suffer a disadvantage as the shareholders of REITs will pay the top-end corporate tax rate, whereas one of the salient points of REITs is the possibility that taxes will only be paid at the end of the shareholders, and be taxed at their respective marginal income tax rates. Sir, I believe this is not the intention of the new system that has a negative impact on the above groups of persons who are essentially low-income earners and charitable organisations. May I suggest to the Minister for Finance to consider allowing dividends to be imputed as normal income of such shareholders. Thereafter, they could be assessed to pay their respective taxes according to their personal marginal income tax rate.”
“We regularly achieve budget surpluses, as shown in the charts by Mr Tan Soo Khoon yesterday, also in billions of dollars every year. Local-based corporations and people are paying relatively low taxes, compared to many other countries. So, if the formula is right, let us keep it. Do not tinker too much with it. The people wish to know what is the Government's long-term plan with regard to the tax philosophy of the Government. What the people want is some degree of certainty of how our tax burden would be like in the long term. Hence, I would like to ask the Minister for Finance whether he could enlighten the House on this matter. Secondly, the present trend seems to be towards making our present personal income tax system more complex, with the various new reliefs and rebates being introduced. Like Mr Inderjit Singh said yesterday, we appear to have become a nation of reliefs and rebates. There are several types of reliefs, such as for NSF, handicapped children, baby bonus and many others. Then, there are also constant rebates being given. Should we not make all these rebates simplified as part of the basic tax structure? I would like to ask the Minister for Finance whether this approach will continue with regard to reliefs and rebates in future, or is there an intention to simplify the overall tax structure? Sir, for my second cut, I wish to talk on the tax system with regard to the impact of the one-tier tax system for dividends. Sir, under the proposed one-tier system for dividend payments for shares, there is no allowance for tax credit for individuals. Under the new system, both corporate and individual shareholders are treated equally, as they will be taxed at the prevailing corporate tax rate.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head M of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100. Sir, the Singapore tax regime has now been firmly set on the path of being a mixture of direct taxes and indirect taxes through the introduction of GST. The Government has announced that it intends to reduce the corporate tax rate in the top-end personal income tax rate to 20% by year 2004. Meanwhile, the GST is increased to 5%. Sir, since 1985, almost 20 years ago, we have reduced our direct corporate tax from a high of 40% to nearly half at 20% by year 2004. This is a very substantial drop, and it has helped Singapore to maintain its competitiveness. I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether the Government has any further intention to set a lower direct tax to, say, 16%, to be closer to the rate used in Hong Kong. If there is a need to reduce direct tax, the main concern is whether there would be a parallel increase in the GST rate, to account for the loss of income due to a reduction of direct taxes. Yesterday, we heard from Deputy Prime Minister Lee that he cannot give an assurance that GST will not be raised in the next five years. Sir, this is a concern of many people on this remark of the Deputy Prime Minister. We know that many prudent policies and principles are being reviewed by the Economic Review Committee and the Committee on the Remaking of Singapore. It is well and good that policies be constantly reviewed to bring them up to date and are changed with the times. We want to ensure that they remain relevant. However, overall, I want to say that we must have been striking the right formula with regard to Singapore's global tax regime. $7-8 billion of foreign investments continue to flow into Singapore yearly.”
“Such conflicting reports add to the confusion and uncertainty. We are living in a fast changing world with shifting sands, hazy future and few guide posts to help us find our way. As I said earlier in my speech, Mr Speaker, Sir, I cannot help but feel that the Budget is only revealing a part of the big picture on how the Government intends to take Singapore into the future. I would urge the leaders to conclude the reviews of the ERC and the Remaking of Singapore expeditiously. Do not try to fly too many trial balloons. Do not pick every stone to turn it up, and then merely put it back down again. Do not mindlessly slaughter all our sacred cows, many have served us well. Mr Speaker, Sir, in times of uncertainty, the people want strong and able leadership. The Government has in the past proven itself to be capable of tackling crises. Work out the short, medium and long term plans quickly, explain them to the people and then just get on with it. We believe that if we work side by side together, Singapore could once again pull through this crisis. All we need is the Government to point the way.”
“Those with jobs clung on precariously, toiling long hours just to keep their jobs. Those in business saw business failures, or severe cutback in their business volume. Many are just hanging on. In the last two years, we saw the September 11 incident, read about the terrorist threat in Singapore and around the world; watched with concern the political and religious turmoils yet to be fully unfolded in Indonesia; the escalation of the quarrel between Singapore and Malaysia; repeatedly told of the great threat of China but not yet told of how Singaporeans should work together to deal with this threat and turn it into an opportunity. They were worried about the rising costs, such as how the increase in GST could add to their household costs. The talk about CPF cuts has raised some concern. People are worried about how the CPF cuts will affect their ability to service their housing mortgages. Just today, there is a report in the front page of Business Times that states that "Defaults on HDB mortgage loans on the rise". There were 19,400 households in arrears as at end March this year against 14,400 a year ago. Sir, on the bright side, there are reports of signs of economic recovery in Singapore. The Government has upped the forecast of the GDP growth rate. In the US, which is our largest trading and export partner, the Federal Reserve Board Chairman, Mr Alan Greenspan, has said that signs of recovery are evident. In typical "Greenspan" speak, he recently said on 17th April 2002 at a Joint Economic Committee hearing that "the foundation for economic expansion has been laid." I think we have to figure out ourselves what he meant by that. But there are also other economists and politicians who have said that it is still too early to tell.”
“In previous years, the Government has helped the SMEs by lowering property tax rate, lower rental charges by HDB and JTC and other such measures. This year, there is scarce mention of how the Government intends to promote local companies and how to help them to combat rising business costs. A good example is the recent increase in petrol prices. There is a call on the Government to address these issues, perhaps under the Economic Review Committee. There is also a call on the Government to continue to extend the previous rebates and rental reductions, such as property tax rebates and other fee reductions for local companies. The reason is that many of them are still facing severe business downturn, with no signs of recovery yet in sight for them. We need to lift the doom and gloom mood Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to report that there is a prevailing mood of gloom and doom amongst some people, especially amongst the older segment of the working population. Maybe I could cite this example to illustrate my point. Recently, I was informed by a colleague of mine who said that he was very struck by the very low spirits of his elder brother and his group of friends. In the past, he and his friends were a cheerful and spirited lot. They are in their late 40s and early 50s. They have enjoyed the heydays of Singapore's boom in the 80s and 90s. They bought houses and cars, went on family holidays overseas, and generally had a good run. But in recent years, since the Asian financial crisis in 1997, and the recession last year, many saw their fortunes turned for the worse. They saw their friends losing their jobs and encountering great difficulties to be re-employed. Prospective employers thought they were too old and outdated to employ them.”
“Small firms bear the GST The other common misunderstanding is that the small firms, since they are not GST-registered, therefore cannot claim for GST paid from the Government. For small firms and retailers, they have to absorb the GST which is charged on them by the larger GST-registered suppliers. In turn, they cannot claim from the IRAS. In the process they are disadvantaged. Obviously, this is another false understanding. Sir, I believe there is a need for more public education to clarify the matter on GST. Combat Profiteering There may be unscrupulous retailers, shops, hawkers and companies which want to take advantage of the added 2% GST increase to charge unfair higher prices. I am pleased that the Government has formed a Committee to Combat Profiteering under the Minister of State, Mr Chan Soo Sen. To improve the effectiveness of this committee, I wish to urge the mass media to come in to take part and help to publicise those culprits, retailers, shopkeepers, group companies who are proven to be profiteering from this GST increase. Assistance to local companies It is said that the tax reduction is to attract foreign MNCs to invest in Singapore. By the same line of justification, it can be construed that the corporate tax cut is therefore beneficial primarily to MNCs, and not to local companies, especially for the SMEs. The reason is that SMEs generally pay low or no corporate tax as they do not make substantial profits. Hence, the corporate tax cut does not benefit them. On the other hand, SMEs continue to face pressure on the high cost of doing business in Singapore. Unfortunately, this year's Budget did not address in much detail on how SMEs can be helped to lower business costs.”
“This one tier tax system is unfair to lower income earners and also to pensioners who depend on their share dividends as part of their income. These groups of people pay no tax or much lower than the full rate of income tax. Again, I intend to elaborate on this detail on my proposal during the COS stage. Educating the public on the purpose and impact of GST Since the GST is a hot topic, I thought it is imperative of the Government to continue to educate the public about the concept of GST. For a start, the Government has to continuously explain to the people via public education programmes on why lower direct tax can help to attract foreign investors, and in the process create jobs. Many people are enquiring: Will the shift of direct corporate tax burden from lower direct tax to higher GST truly bring in new investments and therefore bring in employment? What if we cannot achieve these desired results? Will there then be deeper direct corporate tax cuts and personal income tax cuts leading to the need to increase on GST? I believe it is useful for this matter to be fully explained to the people. GST as a tax-on-tax Another common misunderstanding of the GST is that the 5% rate is a tax-on-tax. The confusion is that some people think that the GST is computed at the full 5% at each stage of a transaction. So for a product that requires a few transactions before reaching the final consumer, the total GST charged could end up being 15% to 20% because of the tax-on-tax effect. Of course, this is the wrong perception because GST is computed on a value-added basis. However the public is not clear. To make matters worse, I understand that certain opposition MPs are propagating this misunderstanding and instilling unnecessary fear on the people.”
“However, they will pay fully on the higher GST rates without enjoying any of the offset package being offered since they do not live in HDB flats. Therefore, inherently there is a flaw in this method of offering offset reliefs via HDB flat dwellers as the definition. On the other hand, these groups of Singaporeans are too proud to seek redress through the relief scheme administered by the constituency's Citizens' Consultative Committee. I would like to suggest that the Government comb through its pensioners' list and offer on an automatic basis, those lower income pensioners who do not live in HDB flats, a package similar to those given to the HDB dwellers. This would be a very nice gesture on the part of the Government if done. It will demonstrate the Government's appreciation of this bunch of old civil servants who have laboured hard to help Singapore in the progress we have made today. Group offsetting of corporate tax I am very pleased that the Government has finally agreed to this long-standing call by MPs, including myself, to allow group offset of corporate tax. The first step agreed upon is to allow subsidiaries of 75% owned Singapore companies for corporate tax group offset. I have some suggestions. One is to include all Singapore companies above 51% because 51% is the standard definition of a subsidiary to enjoy group tax offset; and the second is to consider extending group offset to foreign subsidiaries of Singapore-based companies. Sir, I shall elaborate on these suggestions during the debate in the Committee of Supply under the Ministry of Finance. One tier tax system on dividends Under the proposed one-tier system, there is no allowance of a tax credit to the individual, who will then be taxed at full rate for the dividends earned on shares they own.”
“We are very thankful and appreciative of the very generous gesture of the Government to introduce this ERS soon after giving out the New Singapore Shares (NSS) last year. Similarly for FY 2002, the Government is projecting a small surplus of S$0.89 billion. Again, we are very thankful that due to prudent and careful financial management, the Government operating budget for FY 2002 remains in surplus and not a deficit. Impact of tax changes The general concern of the people is that the tax and GST changes are shifting the tax burden from the rich individuals and successful companies to the lower and middle income people. About 70% of the people, essentially those from the lower and middle income bracket, do not pay income tax, so they will not enjoy the income tax reduction but at the same time will pay more on consumption tax. Fundamentally the tax changes are regressive. I am very pleased to note that the Government has introduced offset measures to lighten the higher GST load on the low income group. But the definition of this group is derived from the use of 1-5 room HDB flats as the base criterion. However, two groups of Singaporeans will have to bear the brunt of the GST increase without much relief from the offset package. One group is the lower to middle income employees and executives who do not live in HDB 1-5 room flats. They enjoy very little of the income tax reduction, but at the same time have to pay more GST. Another group is the pensioners, especially a certain pocket of retired junior and mid-level former civil servants, who live in old condominiums, old private apartments and small terrace units. They also do not enjoy the personal tax cut.”
“The main reason for this sense of incompleteness of the Budget is primarily because the Government has launched two initiatives where the final reports are not out yet. One is the Economic Review Committee (ERC) chaired by DPM Lee himself and the other is the Remaking of Singapore called the ROS. These two major long-term review studies have various sub-committees looking into several areas. As DPM Lee has said, these groups will review all matters, including sacred cows and leave no stone unturned. Because of these two committees, the people are adopting a bit of a wait and see attitude. I believe that once these reviews are completed, the entire jigsaw puzzle will be complete and the total picture will emerge. DPM Lee could perhaps enlighten this House on the progress of these committees, and when do we expect to see the whole picture. What are the final grand plans? What directions are we taking? Where are the threats and opportunities? Where are the further pains to be borne by the people? Will there be final light at the end of the tunnel? Specific comments on the Budget announcement While we wait for the big picture to emerge, Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me to make some specific remarks on the Budget. Financial Year 2001 and Financial Year 2002 Budgets I am very pleased to note that for the FY 2001 Budget, the Government has achieved a surplus of S$3.84 billion versus an original estimate of S$6.22 billion. Although lower than expected, we are pleased that a surplus is nevertheless achieved, in spite of the year 2001 being a very bad recession year. This enabled the Government to introduce the new Economic Restructuring Shares (ERS).”
“The basic objectives of these fundamental changes are to make Singapore more competitive and better able to attract foreign investments, attract foreign talent, and hold on to the well-qualified and wealthy residents and Singaporeans to remain here, arising from the lower tax incidence for them. However, I cannot help but feel that if merely changing the tax structure will attract foreign investments, retain talent and solve all our problems, then the solution seems all too easy. As DPM Lee has said, the Budget is not a magical wand. Merely by one wave of the wand, everything will be solved magically. I think that is too simplistic. Budget is part of an unfinished jigsaw puzzle Mr Speaker, Sir, I feel that this year's Budget policies and changes announced by DPM is but part of an unfinished jigsaw puzzle. Annually, the Budget serves as the blueprint of the Government for not only the year's financial and fiscal policy, but a policy narration of the medium and long term economic plans of the Government. For this Budget, a major piece of the puzzle is in place, which is with regard to tax policy. However, certain major Government policies are not fully described in the Budget. The overall economic plan normally includes other key elements. They should encompass the following: 1. Major industrial policies, such as promotion of local industries, technopreneurship, innovation, target industrial sectors for promotion such as biotech, IT, education services and tourism; 2. Manpower planning and labour policies, which impinge on CPF rates, retirement age, foreign labour, foreign talent and training; and 3. Trade and international competition, such as economic relations with our neighbouring countries, and threat and opportunity of China and India.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am most obliged and honoured to be given this opportunity to start this Budget Debate with you in the Chair for the first time as Speaker, and with the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Lee Hsien Loong in his maiden Budget Speech as the Finance Minister. Sir, after the announcement of the Budget, our GPC for Finance, Trade and Industry, held a meeting with 20 newly-appointed members of the GPC Resource Panel. The Resource Panel Members comprise professionals, top executives and entrepreneurs who come from varied industry background, such as banks, insurance companies, manufacturing companies, hotels, retail and others. For the record, on behalf of the GPC, I wish to express our sincere thanks to them for their valuable comments and contributions. My GPC members and I shall be bringing up meaningful points raised by the Resource Panel members during this Budget Debate and at the debates in the Committee of Supply. Global changes to the tax system Overall I would like to describe this year's Budget as a watershed, not so much because of the above factors that both you, Mr Speaker, Sir, and DPM Lee, are in your new appointments, but because of the profound long-term impact this Budget will have on the Singapore economy. It is a forward-looking and progressive Budget in the sense that the announced policies are meant to prepare Singapore for the challenges of the future. Sir, the proposed tax and GST changes are bold and will have deep structural impact. For this Budget, the corporate tax and personal income tax rates will be reduced to 22%, with the GST increased by 2% to 5%.”
“Sir, I want to ask about water as well, but in a different context. Since the Prime Minister has mentioned that Singapore intends to be self-sufficient in water, especially with NEWater and other water supplies, how did the Malaysians react so far in their communication with us, ie, whether they have a particular response? My second question is in the same line of questioning. The Malaysians had mentioned the disagreement over our reclamation of the shores between Singapore and Malaysia. We said that we want to wait for a third party official communication from Malaysia. So, has there been any communication from the Malaysians on this matter?”
“Sir, may I ask the Minister whether it is possible for him to disclose some main details of the contents of the counter-offer from Malaysia, and also whether it is possible for us to know about Singapore's position, because I think the public is interested in this matter. And if it is not possible, then at least he could let us know what kind of tack we intend to take with regard to Malaysia's request. Because we understand that the offer of price for water is exorbitant.”
“We, the backbenchers, have asked the Minister and civil servants for a mindset change. How about our own mindset? We also must change. Be prepared to say, no, if you are persuaded that a "no" is right. Say "no" to the NMP motion.”
“The debate on the Presidential Address is a prime example. Over 50 MPs spoke up, not counting the Ministers, DPM and PM himself. But many MPs' speeches were not covered at all by the media. So, if we have more NMPs, it means even less coverage for the elected MPs. Sir, allow me to make a final point as to why I feel that things are a bit different now. Debate is a two-way process. NMPs may add to the debate, yes, I can agree with that. But we can have all debates we want in this House. It is no use if the Ministers are not listening. We now know that the Ministers are listening. Yesterday, DPM Lee actually assured the House that he would listen, and he would not bristle. When the Ministers are listening, at least the speeches they make are making an impact. So it is not the quantity or the numbers that count. It is whether the recipient side also makes an effort to hear and to take into account the views. With more receptive Ministers, of course capable and good Ministers, and more eloquent and elected MPs, do we need more NMPs? Surely not. Sir, let me end by saying that since the PAP Whip is lifted, I urge my fellow PAP MPs to search deeply into their hearts. Ask yourself: is there a need for NMPs? What is it that they can do that we elected MPs cannot do? With the Whip off my back, Sir, I intend to vote against this motion. Just like me, those MPs who have spoken in support of the Bill in the past, which I did, could change their minds given the new circumstances. That is precisely the purpose of the motion being tabled and put to the new term of Parliament, so that each new term of Parliament can reconsider whether there is a need for NMPs. Sir, there is no longer a need. I contend the time has now come for us, the elected MPs, to speak up, speak from our hearts.”
“There is no reason for us to introduce a third brand called NMP. NMP is, what I call, a "generic" brand, a no-name brand, a "me too" product. No self-respecting premium brand producer wants to introduce a generic brand to the consumers just because the competitor No. 2 is very weak. I do not understand this marketing strategy. Sir, I want to reiterate that we are not against competition as such in this House. It is good to have more debates and more competition. And I have nothing against NMPs themselves. I also do not want to debase their past contribution, but I am only against the NMP scheme. Those who have accepted to be NMPs in the past have contributed, but there are other avenues for them to be heard, to voice their opinions. Of course, they can first join the elections, no matter whether they are on a PAP ticket, or opposition ticket. Or they can become an independent candidate, if they want to. If not, they can join the other processes where they can also have their views heard. They can be invited to the Economic Review Committee, the Remaking of Singapore Committee, Feedback Committee, public forums and dialogues where their views can be heard. So I contend that there is no need for them to enter Parliament. As Dr Tan Cheng Bock has said, it is a political process, not a talking process. The elected MPs have work to do here. Sometimes, I am very saddened to hear an MP, especially a newer MP, making very good points in Parliament, but because of the limited media space, as I said earlier, shelf space, they are shut out. They did not get the media coverage they deserve, such that their constituents cannot know what he or she has to say on their behalf. Elected MPs have constituents to answer to. NMPs do not.”
“Sir, when this NMP Bill was first introduced in 1989, I was ambivalent and unsure of whether to support it. I checked the Hansard and noted that I did say that I could support this Bill subject to certain qualifications. But over the years and after observing my fellow elected backbenchers perform in the last few days, I would say that now I do not feel the need for the NMPs. When the Bill was first introduced by the Prime Minister, Mr Goh Chok Tong who was the first Deputy Prime Minister then, he summed up the debate by saying that he surmised that the uneasiness was not so much about the Bill itself, but with the uneasiness of the elected MPs themselves. I think this uneasiness was true, and is still true. Let me explain why. Let me use the concept of "shelf space". Parliament is an august House, not a theatre, where all the elected MPs do their serious work. This is where MPs do their work, by making laws and debating on Government policies, as the Prime Minister has just made a very important and inspiring speech for us to hear. Parliament is also a major avenue for elected MPs to reach out to the constituents they represent. Their constituents want to hear their MPs speaking out for them. They want to see their MPs at work. Now, the NMP interrupts this process of the elected MPs at work. Again, let me explain the "shelf space" concept. NMPs occupy shelf space. In a supermarket, every product is fighting for shelf space to gain consumer attention. One extra product, one extra can of sardine by another brand, takes up the shelf space. So PAP is the premium No. 1 product. The consumers decided that this is so. They also decided that Opposition MPs can only have two out of the 84 shelf space. So be it. But why do we need more?”
“Then we have the final line, the strongest line we call it, there we have the double Tans: Dr Tan Cheng Bock and Mr Tan Soo Khoon. And backed by them are also good and capable MPs, Dr Wang Kai Yuen and, again, Prof. Chin Tet Yung, and of course next to him, Dr Ong Chit Chung and others. These are all very good back-up forces to support the two Tans. With all this firepower, why do we need NMPs? I do not understand. Mr Speaker, Sir, the final analysis on whether or not we should have NMPs does not depend on how well they speak, but what value they bring to the House and what contrasting views they can bring. Sir, I must say that they do bring some views. But I must contend against Mr Raymond Lim that maybe, at best, marginal. Sir, my GRC colleague, Dr Ng Eng Hen, has called this Chamber a "theatre". I am sure he did not mean that this House is a theatre for shows. Not a place for wayang wayang, or play-play. This House debates on serious matters. We all agree on that. Therefore, it is not the quantity, that means the additional number of NMPs, that counts, but it is the quality and substance that count. Added to that, we need to add in "conviction". Elected MPs need to have the conviction. They speak from their hearts for the people. NMPs do not have to do that. They have no constituents. NMPs can come and go. But elected MPs cannot. Elected MPs have obligations to the people who vote for them. Elected MPs must be responsible, speak up and make their voice heard in this House. Sir, Dr Wang Kai Yuen said that roses that smell like roses must be roses. I do not agree. NMPs and elected MPs are different, and they are different. They come from a different breeding process.”
“So, all the other past NMPs that we have in this House can be equally matched by our PAP MPs. So what can they add? I would like to argue against Mr Raymond Lim that, at best, the contributions the NMPs can give are marginal, not substantial. Of course, we also have the other NMP who was quite notable, Mr Simon Tay. I remember him very well. He made very good remarks, very articulate. Of course, we have on our side Dr Tan Cheng Bock himself, well matched to Mr Simon Tay. Sir, I do not want to belittle the contributions of the past 26 NMPs, or imply that they did not contribute to the debates, or the cut and thrust of this House. I said they are honourable people and I have very high regard for them. I respect them. All I am saying is that we do have sufficient numbers of elected MPs in this House to cover all the bases. In addition, there are three strong lines of attacks we have from the backbench to take on the frontbench. After listening to the speeches of the MPs in the last few days, I am even more convinced than ever that we do not need NMPs. The backbenchers are particularly pleased with the return of Mr Tan Soo Khoon, the former Speaker. He has demonstrated just by two speeches that he is a speechmaker par excellence, as Dr Wang Kai Yuen has said. Therefore, in this new House, we have three strong lines of formation of attack to take on the frontbench. The first line are the 25 new MPs which includes the "Magnificent Seven", ie, the seven new Ministers of State and Senior Ministers of State. The next line we have are the second, third and slightly older MPs, which include people like Mr Inderjit Singh, Mrs Lim Hwee Hua, Dr Lily Neo and Prof. Chin Tet Yung.”
“Sir, the other argument about having NMPs is that they represent a wider spectrum of public opinion. Once again, I wish to contend that we already have a wide and adequate representation in this House. As Dr Tan Cheng Bock has said, we have businessmen, we have Ph.Ds., we have entrepreneurs, we have unionists, we have professionals, doctors, lawyers - what else do we want? Everything is in this House. Sir, in terms of elected female MPs, again like Dr Tan Cheng Bock has said, now we have increased from four to 10, and we see more colours of dresses now. So do you want more colours from the NMPs? I think not. Dr Wang had also mentioned that in the past, there were some very good NMPs. I must say I agree with him. I can single out some very good ones myself. But my contention is that for every good NMP, we have at least one good PAP MP to cover or be equal to the person. Let me cite you examples. I recall Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon - he was eloquent, penetrating in his remarks. In fact, he came out with the Maintenance of Parents Bill, which was very remarkable. We had Dr Augustine Tan, equally eloquent, equally deep and penetrating in his debates. Then we had Dr Lee Tsao Yuan, from the NMP side; on our side we had Dr Aline Wong, equally eloquent and adequate in covering points. I think in the last Parliament, we had Mr Tay Beng Chuan, a good businessman who brought up several business issues, but we have Inderjit Singh. And then we had, of course, Mdm Claire Chiang, who is a very good speaker as well. We have Dr Lily Neo who can match Mdm Claire Chiang, word for word, speech for speech, maybe dress for dress. I think she also has one up on Mdm Claire Chiang. She has her famous "Hairdo Debate".”
“You can speak against it, but you have to vote for it. It sounds very illogical. Anyway, now that the Whip has been lifted for those who want to speak, I think they can speak more readily and more heartily. But, of course, they have to be responsible for whatever they say. Therefore, I think we do not need more NMPs, because we already have such a large body of PAP MPs. This is one major difference. Sir, the second difference I would like to say is that we now have a large quantity and quality of MPs, and new PAP MPs, in this Parliament. There are 24 new PAP MPs and one new NCMP. Certainly, with these 25 new faces put together, and with the old existing veteran MPs, what more views can be offered in this House and not more effective that can be covered. We have heard how well most of the MPs who have spoken - all the 50-over of them - how well they have covered their points, and how eloquent they are. As you have seen, even including a poem by my GRC colleague, Dr Ng Eng Hen. And also we just saw this morning how well a new Minister of State, Dr Balaji, had fielded the barrage of questions from the other MPs. Many of these questions are from the new MPs themselves. So these are examples that we are going to have good debate in this House with this new crop of good MPs. Sir, even the hon. Member, Mr Chiam - I remember he told me just two days ago - that it was most refreshing to hear our new PAP MPs speak. Is that not right?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, first, I would like to thank you for allowing me to join in this debate on Nominated MPs (NMPs). The objective of the NMP scheme is, of course, laudable. As explained by the Leader of the House, Mr Wong, the addition of up to nine NMPs will add to the quality of the debate in this House. I surmise therefore that the NMP scheme is introduced not so much due to the lack of PAP MPs, but to overcome the lack of opposing and discerning views in Parliament, arising from the lack of Opposition MPs. Sir, allow me to state my case on why I feel that for this new Parliament, there is no need for an NMP scheme, in spite of the fact that there continues to be a paucity of Opposition Members in this House. I would like to bring up some new angles, instead of what some Members have claimed to be old angles, as raised by Dr Tan Cheng Bock. There are many reasons why this new term of Parliament could do away with NMPs. I think the NMP scheme has been useful in the past, but I think it will serve limited use in the future. My first point is that for this new session of Parliament, the PAP Whip will be lifted. That makes a big difference. The Leader of the House has said that in cases of certain Bills that are not critical - even the PM himself has said so - he will allow PAP MPs to speak up, which means that now, except for some critical Bills, we have a new body of MPs to take on issues - the PAP MPs. With this new Parliament, the new PAP MPs, as well as the old PAP MPs, can therefore speak with more conviction and freedom. Their views on Government policy can be more engaging. In the past, we all know that the PAP MPs' mouths had been gagged. We could not speak up, because there was a Whip behind us. Some hon. Members: No.”