Liang Eng Hwa
Singapore
“Sir, in Mandarin, please. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I would like to thank IMDA for its flexibility in allowing the filming of "Dear You" in the Teochew dialect, and for approving additional screenings to meet public demand.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Sir, we hope that there will be peaceful resolution to the Middle East conflict soon and that the Strait of Hormuz will be fully open.”
“Sir, I believe the political office holders have not replied or responded to my cut on traffic congestion, so can I perhaps ask the Minister, whether is it because he disagrees with me that the traffic congestion has worsened or that there is no non-pricing solutions to traffic congestion, which I had asked for.”
“Sir, Minister Chee, in his speech mentioned that this year we will be launching 19,600 new BTO flats. So, I would like to ask, how he sees the trajectory in the next two, three years.”
“Also, flexible work arrangements, through inter-agency coordination, could also help flatten peak demand. Sir, road pricing remains important, of course, but it must be a multi-pronged approach to manage congestions. And all these suggestions that I have made, I hope would also help to reduce congestions.”
“Thank you, Speaker. Sir, there are Singaporeans who felt strongly that the founding Prime Minister Mr Lee Kuan Yew's original wish to have the house demolished should be respected. It is not just because this is his personal wish but also the values that he espouse, which is not to have personal monuments.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,031 lines we hold for Liang Eng Hwa, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 12 of 21.
“Sir, we are entering a challenging economic environment. Growth in developed markets is slowing while protectionist sentiments appear to be on the rise. As a small and open economy with foreign trade more than three times its gross domestic product (GDP), Singapore is particularly vulnerable to global economic shifts. In this regard, one of Singapore's strategies is to continue diversifying our international connections. There is a growing number of emerging economies that are attracting global interest and offering opportunities for our businesses. Singapore should consider how to strengthen our partnership with these countries. Looking beyond our traditional markets like Southeast Asia and China, I would like to highlight four regions of emerging markets with economic potential. Beyond our traditional economic partners in the EU, there is scope to explore greater cooperation with promising markets in Central and Eastern Europe as well as Russia and Turkey. I know that the Singapore-Turkey FTA came into force last year. Could we have an update on Singapore's engagement with Europe and Euro-Asia? 5.45 pm There have been several high-level visits to Latin America in recent years, including then President Tony Tan's State Visit to Mexico in 2016, which was the first by a Singaporean Head of State to the region. The Prime Minister will also be visiting Argentina later this year for the Group of 20 (G20) Summit. In view of the increase in high-level exchanges with Latin America, how has our relationship with the region's two main trade blocs, the Pacific Alliance and Mercosur, progressed? In South Asia, apart from India where we already have a strong economic presence, countries like Sri Lanka and Bangladesh have good economic growth potentials.”
“Mr Chairman, in 2012, the Parliament debated and endorsed the White Paper on "Salaries for a Capable and Committed Government", which consists of recommendations from the Ministerial Salaries Review Committee. Among the recommendations, the Committee recommended that the salary framework be reviewed every five years. Given that we have passed the five-year mark, I would like to ask Deputy Prime Minister Teo whether the Government has conducted a review. If there was, indeed, a recent review done, what are the recommendations and whether there will be adjustments made to the Ministerial salaries as per the framework established? Remuneration”
“Hence, it makes smart sense to tap on the Government guarantees to reduce the borrowing costs. I find this a refreshing approach. Mr Speaker, it is timely that the Finance Minister sets out these funding principles clearly and the thinking behind it. A recent Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) survey with regard to the use of reserves or taxation to pay for social spending suggests that Singaporeans do have an almost equal split view on this issue. We need to talk more on this issue and seek buy-in from Singaporeans on the approach that the Government is taking. Importantly, to expound on our value system about each generation – past, present and future – doing our part to shoulder the funding of a socially cohesive and economically vibrant future Singapore. To a certain extent, this Budget has brought to attention this issue and offers some clarity on how we intend to achieve this inter-generation equity. I urge that we continue this conversation. Mr Speaker, overall, Budget 2018 exhibits traits which make Singapore exceptional – always plan and act for the long-term good of the country. And beyond just about living within our means, Budget 2018 acts to grow the means for better living in the future. So, the most balanced way to look at this year's Budget is not just seeing it from today’s standpoint but imagining that we are in 2030 and looking back at the measures that we have put in place today. With that, Mr Speaker, I support the Budget. 11.48 am”
“I agree with the Minister for Finance that, for recurrent spending like healthcare, security and other social expenditures where it directly benefits the current generation, they should be funded with current taxation so that every generation pays its share. This approach would also instil spending discipline as any further rise in recurring expenditures would have to be funded through more taxes. This in-built discipline will help to keep our operating budget sustainable and fairer as well. For the longer term mega infrastructure projects with high capital investments, the Government will set aside surpluses where possible, and to use savings accumulated to pay part of the lumpy investment costs. This pre-funding approach demonstrates commitment and ensures that there is sufficient funding for projects with very high capital expenditures, such as the Cross Island MRT Line. I also welcome the new financing approach for projects that generate future economic returns to be undertaken by Statutory Boards or Government-owned companies where they can look to borrow to finance the projects and could potentially draw on the Government guarantee to lower the financing costs of these long-term borrowings. The Government is a net creditor and does not need to borrow, other than the issuance of Singapore Government securities which are to help create a risk-free bond market yield curve. However, for the entity that builds the Government-invested infrastructure, borrowing at the project level does require higher financing costs because of the risks associated, such as construction risk. This could result in a negative situation from the Government's standpoint where borrowing rates may be higher than the returns derived from investing the reserves.”
“Whenever there is a Budget surplus situation, the Government does have the practice of redistributing the surpluses, whether it is from the current Budget or past surpluses from the current term of Government, to Singaporeans. The payment of special GST Vouchers and the one-off SG Bonus are good examples where payouts are tilted in favour of the low and middle-income. The Government has also used surpluses from each term of Government to top up endowment funds like ComCare, Pioneer Generation Package and, in this year's Budget, a further top-up to the GSTV Fund. This is to accumulate resources so that we can help more Singaporeans when the GST increase comes into effect after 2021. Here, I hope the Minister for Finance can affirm this surplus redistribution arrangement as part of our social compact. Besides helping to mitigate the impact of GST and rising costs, it can also help manage the income disparity that we see widening in our society. Of course, in the years ahead, we can never be sure of any surpluses or the extent at which our social expenditures rise and where the additional tax revenues are meant to be used for. However, in years where the country has done well, we should be targeted in distributing the surpluses to the low to middle-income. This would give Singaporeans a sense that everyone has a stake in this country and we are all aligned to work together for the betterment of Singapore. This year’s Budget also sets out with great clarity the framework principles on how the Government would fund various spending and how, for some of the infrastructure projects, the share of funding can be distributed more equitably across generations.”
“Over the last 10 years, the Net Investment Returns (NIR) – previously the Net Investment Income (NII) – contributions of past Budgets have added up to more than $100 billion. Imagine us not having NIRCs or much lesser NIRC, our spending and subsidies of programmes would have been much lower and/or we may have to raise even higher taxes. Parliament had debated the NIR framework in the past and had agreed on a 50-50 split between spending now and saving for the future. This is a fair balance between the current and future generations. I voted in support of the framework then and my position remains firmly unchanged. It is always tempting to go for short-term painless solutions. Our forefathers were resolute in not taking that easy path and so should we. Rather than use more of the returns for current spending, we should let the power of compounding returns do the work by re-investing the other 50% so as to grow the principal amount of the reserves and contribute to bigger value of the NIRC in the future. Going forward, we actually need a bigger NIRC to keep our tax system competitive and, importantly, progressive as well. So, what are the downsides of being more prudent or conservative? Well, there may, indeed, be some years where we do collect more taxes than needed, such as in FY2017. There are many factors that can result in higher than forecasted surpluses ‒ better-than-expected economic performances, actual expenditure and revenue deviating from the forecast, better investment returns, among others. As the Government ‒ like most other governments in the world ‒ adopts a cash accounting approach, as opposed to accrual accounting like companies, the annual Budget position can be significantly affected when there are changes to payment timings for big ticket items.”
“As we transform into a more innovative, entrepreneurial and internationalised economy, our risk exposures to the volatility of the world market will increase, not decrease. The other reality of a small economy is that we will always be a price taker in the fiercely competitive world out there. Today, we have a vibrant and viable economy. We have strong export capabilities and we continue to be able to attract good investments into Singapore. But one day, if this global economic order changes and turns against us or countries decide to impose unfair trade barriers on us, we may really need to count on our reserves to help us buy time to turn things around. This is about survival. So, I asked myself – what can go wrong for a country like Singapore to be more conservative in managing our finances? What are the downsides for doing that and what are the upsides? Our solid financial position helps us to maintain our position as one the few countries in the world with a triple "A" credit rating – very few left in the world. It helps us to keep our Singapore dollar strong ‒ an important counter-inflation tool. It strengthens our position as an international financial centre, ensuring our connectivity and relevance to the world and, of course, creating very good jobs. Perhaps, what is even more tangible is that the reserves that our forefathers have painstakingly built up over the decades have generated investment returns, and 50% of it is today the largest contributing revenue helping to balance our annual Budgets. This amounts to about $14.6 billion in FY2017, which is actually an expansionary injection to the economy, as it is not taken in through tax leakages.”
“Similarly, when we look at the long-term finances of a country, should we not also load a “factor of safety” so that, as a country, we will never be caught in a position where we are unable to decisively respond to an unexpected crisis or disaster? Should we not want to ensure that we have the ability to fight back and recover from an extreme risk event? And these risk events could be known unknowns to us or total unknown-unknowns to us. It could be weather calamities, severe global or regional economic crises or even geopolitical crises in the region. Look at what happened to Qatar. Last year, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, UAE and Egypt cut diplomatic relations with Qatar and imposed an air, sea and land blockade, with the aim to isolate Qatar’s economy. According to estimates by the ratings agency Moody’s, the Qatari government injected almost US$40 billion into the economy, just in the first couple of months of the crisis. Qatar’s huge reserves have certainly come into play in how they cope with the crisis. We are a tiny island state. We are smaller than Qatar in size, with no oil or gas underneath us. Our economy heavily depended on external trade and investments to sustain our economic livelihood. Any changes to the global economic and trade order can have severe direct impact on our economy, more than any other countries in the world, due to our openness as an economy. And given our inherent circumstances with almost no domestic hinterland, we will always have to be an open economy to seek opportunities. Our domestic consumption can never sustain growth in our economy and will certainly not earn us the foreign currency needed to pay for the imports that we need and want.”
“Between not spending on these items or cutting spending, I would rather the Government spend prudently but look for more revenue sources so that we can continue to provide more to improve the quality of life for our people. I believe most Singaporeans can understand why the expenditures are rising. The question is how do we find more revenue to pay for these rising expenditures. Some had suggested why not increase the share of Net Investment Returns Contribution (NIRC) beyond 50% and asked if the Government is too prudent or conservative in managing the finances. So, let me offer my thoughts on this. When I studied Civil Engineering at the Singapore Polytechnic, one of the structural engineering concepts that I learned was this term known as the "Factor of Safety". Essentially, what it meant is that whether it is a building or a structure like a bridge or a tower, engineers will design and build structures with a load carrying capacity way beyond the expected or intended loads ‒ often between two and three times. This is to reduce the probability of the structure collapsing due to unforeseen factors to a negligible level as you can never be 100% sure that the inputs that you use will be accurately captured in the calculations. There could be unexpected extreme wind loads or seismic movements due to major earthquakes nearby, for example, or other possibilities. So, buildings and structures are purposely built much stronger than needed for normal usage, with a "factor of safety” added to, hopefully, cater for the extreme unexpected emergency situations.”
“It is meant to take care of future spending increases beyond 2020. I appreciate the Government sharing this way ahead of time so that Singaporeans and businesses can better prepare for the increase. It will also give the Government time to work on offset schemes to further enhance the progressivity of our GST system, something quite unique to Singapore. We know the reason why we need more revenues. Our expenditures have been rising rapidly, with healthcare and infrastructure spending among the main drivers. In the next decade, this trajectory is likely to continue with even higher healthcare and other recurring expenditures. In some ways, as Members of Parliament, we have a part to play in these rising expenditures. To progress as a society and to improve the well-being of Singaporeans, we are relentless in pushing for more spending in many areas, such as education, housing, healthcare, transport and others. We asked for more subsidies to help low- and middle-income families; we ask for more facilities in the constituencies we represent. It is our duty to improve lives. So, I must admit I am one of those. For example, I requested the Minister for Health for a polyclinic in my constituency three years ago. I am glad that construction will start this year. But I know that it would cost the Government tens of millions of dollars to build a polyclinic and, when completed, it will incur recurring operating and maintenance expenses in perpetuity. I have made another request to the Minister for Health for a Senior Care Centre, which I understand will cost about $1 million to build and, of course, will come with its operating costs thereafter. But such facilities and the various expenditures are necessary to improve lives.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this year's Budget sets out the challenges we are facing, how do we respond and the measures needed and how do we find the means to carry out the comprehensive set of plans and initiatives in the medium to long term. Deepening economic transformations continue to be the focus, with various schemes streamlined and better integrated, such as the Productivity Solutions Grant (PSG) and the Enterprise Development Grant (EDG), the piloting of the Open Innovation Platform to spur partnerships and the enhancements of various tax incentives, such as IP licensing, amongst others. I will speak on the economic measures during the MTI Committee of Supply (COS) debate. I am glad that the introduction of the carbon tax would be phased in gradually to monitor the impact and applaud the Government’s commitment that the projected $1 billion revenue collected over the first five years will be used to support projects that will achieve greater emission reductions. I also welcome the measures to further improve social mobility, such as increasing the annual Edusave contributions, updating the income eligibility for the Edusave Merit Bursary and enhancing the MOE Financial Assistance Scheme, among others. I believe we can do more on this front. But among the most talked about aspect in this year’s Budget is, of course, the topic of fiscal sustainability and the two-percentage point increase in GST. The timing of the GST increase, at least three years from now, should not come as a surprise as both the current and previous Ministers for Finance have already made it quite clear that we do have sufficient revenue to meet the increased expenditures for this term of Government. So, this increase in GST is not a deferred tax.”
“Not easy by any means, but we have high confidence in the new chairman-designate Mr Peter Ong and the new Chief Executive Officer (CEO)-designate Mr Png Cheong Boon. On the related amendment, I support clause 68(b) which transfers the functions relating to the administration of CPFTA to the renamed CCCS. I believed this would sharpen the focus and add more teeth in enforcing fair trading and, hence, better protect consumers, an area we clearly need to do more. With that, Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.”
“We should help SMEs shorten the learning curve and minimise the chances of them paying the "tuition fee" in unfamiliar territories. Here, Enterprise Singapore and the TACs can help pool and share experiences from businesses which are already overseas and learn from one another's practices and experiences. Also, from the survey, it is encouraging to note that more SMEs are making fresh investments in technology and innovation. And importantly, more are also getting revenue gains from their technology investments. Increasingly, data technology is seen as a critical enabler for business successes. For smaller enterprises, to build their own data mining and analytical capabilities may not be economical. Enterprise Singapore can also help in this regard, for example, as a source of data aggregator on industry trends and insights and harnessing on information already collected by other Government agencies. Specialised functionality within the new Statutory Board can be set up to extract and manage data, distilling them into sufficient sectoral granularity that will be of help and usefulness to various business sectors. We could start with the building up of deep data resources for sectors of the 23 ITMs that are already launched. Finally, as an organisation gets bigger, we should avoid the pitfalls of it becoming too hierarchical and less responsive. In an increasingly fast-changing business landscape, the enlarged organisation would need to gear up its quick-response ability to keep up with changing business needs, in addition to developing its breadth and depth. The new operating framework would also require sufficient empowerment to officers at the various levels to carry out their mission of transforming the economy.”
“Some SMEs may be too caught up in developing their product capabilities and may not have the resource or sufficient know-how to more effectively sell and brand their products in overseas markets. As companies seek opportunities beyond the traditional developed markets to newer emerging markets with unfamiliar business environment, the availability of shared brand-building and marketing expertise for specific external markets will be of good help to SMEs and to speed up market penetration. I suggest that the new Statutory Board have a dedicated unit to assist companies in their brand building and product promotion in overseas markets, especially in the ASEAN and South Asian markets. In my interactions with businesses, most recently with the contract manufacturing sector, finance-related issues continued to affect SMEs. In last year’s DP Information Group SME Development Survey, more than a third of SMEs surveyed also cited finance-related issues as their immediate business challenge. This has more than doubled, compared to the survey done in 2014. Most of the issues relate to delays in payments from customers, although high interest rates for bank loans and tighter suppliers’ credit are also cited among the business issues faced. I know that there are various useful SME financing schemes available to assist enterprises to finance their businesses. From the survey, I believe the other help that SMEs need is to improve their financial management capabilities, such as cash management and credit management, for both their customers and suppliers. As more businesses internationalise, such cash and credit management become more complex when they are cross-border. It requires a deeper understanding of the in-country business practices and its legal framework.”
“Unlike attracting MNCs which bring along their capabilities and cutting-edge technology when they invest in Singapore, developing local capabilities of home-bred companies can be a very formidable task. The Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs), which tap on the collective expertise and resources of the ecosystem partners to build capabilities is the way to go. But in reality, we also know that the ITMs are essentially driven by one of the key economic agencies, such as Enterprise Singapore, going forward, which are like the workhorse facilitating the transformations. Therefore, it is critical to the success of ITMs that economic agencies like Enterprise Singapore have the deep industry knowledge, a good ground sense of the prevailing competitive landscape, a good knowledge of the sectoral strengths and gaps as well as enough business acumen to design meaningful policies and schemes to incentivise and help capability buildup. All these are a tall order to expect from a Government agency, staffed by career Public Service officers. Fortunately for Singapore, economic development has always been our foremost priority. Our system of Government and its policies have always been pro-business and pro-growth, and officers are frequently rotated to economic-oriented Ministries and Statutory Boards to gain exposure and experience in economic development. Nevertheless, to diversify its bench strength and to add to its organisational versatility, Enterprise Singapore should also look to continually recruit and induct officers from the private sector with relevant industry and international business experiences. One functionality that the new Enterprise Singapore can step up is in the area of helping SMEs build their brands and promotion overseas.”
“Soon after the merger was announced last year, a concerned business executive asked me whether, for the post-merger, will there be rationalisation and reduction of total headcount for the combined entity. My answer to him was that I hope not. Of course, we should seek efficiency and streamline any duplications and unnecessary workflows but I believe the motivation and purpose of the merger is not about reducing headcount and to cut costs but rather to be more effective in assisting companies by way of harnessing the combined and now more integrated resources of the two entities. In his answer to my Parliamentary Question last year on the impact of the merger, Minister Iswaran assured the House that Enterprise Singapore will continue "to support our enterprises, regardless of their size or stage of growth". With more extensive use of technology and various platforms, including through the TACs and Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs), Enterprise Singapore should aim to further expand its outreach to businesses, including reaching out to the newer SMEs and micro enterprises. The new Statutory Board should also continue its work to simplify ways for businesses to tap on the various support schemes, such as using platforms like the Business Grant Portal (BGP). There should also be, in parallel, a regular closing of the loop on the utilised schemes to ascertain their effectiveness. Mr Deputy Speaker, besides the role of outreach and administering of schemes which are important functions, Enterprise Singapore must also see building strong clusters of competitive enterprises as its key mission.”
“Internationalisation requires capabilities building, and both are actually inseparable and intertwined when companies expand into overseas markets. Hence, the need for an integrated and a more lifecycle approach to help companies grow and build capabilities, developing competitive advantages that can help sell their products and services to the consumers of the world. Over the years, SPRING Singapore and IE Singapore have done a good job helping businesses, each engaging and assisting tens of thousands of enterprises per year. In my interactions with businesses, I do hear good feedback and accolades from companies on the work done by SPRING Singapore and IE Singapore. On the other hand, I have also heard comments from businesses that they would prefer to deal with one single agency, one point of contact, for Government-related support. So, we all buy in to the merger. So, how can the new Enterprise Singapore do a better job helping businesses to grow? The merger presents a timely opportunity to fundamentally restructure the merged organisation and reconfigure its functionalities to meet both the present and future needs. Presently, SPRING Singapore, with its multiple SME Centres, and IE Singapore with its overseas Singapore Centres in major cities, have been a very useful first stop or touchpoint for businesses seeking help. Coupled with its sectoral coverage, they have been able to maximise their outreach, especially to SMEs. I hope that the locations and sectoral coverage will continue under the new Statutory Board and grow further as many companies continue to need assistance and support in this next phase where we deepen restructuring.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, in his speech to announce the merger of SPRING Singapore and IE Singapore in September last year, Minister Iswaran mentioned that while the Government has been urging companies and industries to transform themselves, Government agencies, too, must be prepared to adapt and restructure with the changing landscape. This is so true both in substance and in the spirit of it. We need to restructure to stay relevant and to up the game, and this applies to all stakeholders. Indeed, we have recently seen notable restructuring efforts in the Government space, such as the merger of the Infocomm Development Authority (IDA) and the Media Development Authority (MDA) to form the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) and the consolidation of Housing and Development Board (HDB) industrial properties into JTC, among others. With enterprise capability-building and internationalisation as among the two key thrusts in the current phase of transformation, the merger of SPRING Singapore and IE Singapore is the next logical move. This merger signalled to businesses that we need to look beyond our small and near-saturated domestic market to seek new growth frontiers overseas so as to sustain economic growth and job creations. Otherwise, we run the risk of a stagnant economy and may even decline as regional competitors step up and eat our lunches. As more companies trade, service and venture overseas, it does not make good sense to have more than one agency serving the same enterprise, where the overlapping coverage can actually add more administrative work for companies and it is also a case of sub-optimal utilisation of resources.”
“Given that HDB does have the flat as a collateral, would the Second Minister consider this?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, first and foremost, I want to thank HDB for extending the Goodwill Repair Scheme to flats up to 15 years. In all fairness, this is a generous goodwill offer. I have two further questions for the Second Minister. I do have higher reported cases as well in the first two weeks of January. In fact, it was more than 30 cases reported. I do notice that certain clusters of flats have more cases. I want to ask the Second Minister if, indeed, it is a batch problem, whether it is a problem with quality or workmanship. Therefore, if that is the case, would HDB be flexible to extend that goodwill repair to those cases, even though it is after 15 years? Secondly, I hope the Second Minister can understand that when residents see the tiles popping up on the floor, it can be quite a traumatic experience. And the next shocking truth is, of course, to know the costs of repair, which can range from $5,000 to $10,000. For a three- to four-room flat, with a household income of $2,000 to $4,000 a month, that is a major outlay. If they are not lucky enough to have the tiles pop up before 15 years, they have to go and find ways to find cash to pay for it. So, would the HDB look at other ways to assist residents who are faced with such problems, because we do not want them to resort to licensed or unlicensed moneylending to fix the tiles. Can HDB facilitate some kind of financing scheme, very much like how other agencies have done, like the small and medium enterprises financing or the Study Loan where we work with the financial institutions to do it?”
“Sir, I just want to follow up on the Minister's comment on having alternatives in our rail system. Indeed, that was the case. Many of our lines are quite skeletal, we do not have alternative or parallel loops. I would like to ask the Minister whether he would consider the other alternative of giving up the bus resources, perhaps a "Version 2" of the BSEP to ply through some of these routes where there are limited alternatives and, especially, in some parts of the system where it is still not reliable and we still experience frequent breakdowns, such as the BPLRT, and to enhance their resilience.”
“We already have a strong foundation. Going forward, we need to continue to build our multiracial society in an organic and sustainable way. I believe this little red dot will be able to withstand the test by demonstrating our unity and resilience at critical times.”
“We should make good use of these platforms and expand the scope of interaction, plan engaging and interesting dialogues to deepen understandings amongst us. I am pleased to see that Singapore has enlightened and well-respected religious and community leaders. They continuously contribute to the country and our unity. What is more, they all know the importance of the overall interest of the country and speak out when necessary. They also condemn terrorism without hesitation to protect our harmony. Although what they say may be criticised or even attacked by their own community, they do not shirk. This has demonstrated our community and religious leaders' courage and faith. I would like to thank leaders of the Muslim community and the whole community for their efforts and contribution to Singapore's peace and harmony, and their very firm stance against extremism. For example, the Asatizah Accreditation Scheme under MUIS is very commendable. This scheme stipulates that asatizahs must register with MUIS. This is to make sure that their teachings can help the community practise their faith in a way that is suitable in our multi-religious society. Just now, I listened to Dr Yaacob's speech. I can imagine the stress and challenges faced by our Muslim community leaders. In Parliament, we often see Mr Masagos and Dr Yaacob speaking up on sensitive policies that could affect the Muslim community. They do so to defend Singapore's multiracialism. Their stance is firm and they have never shirked. Building a harmonious society is an endless journey. We should see this as something that can enrich our lives, broaden our views, and a unique Singapore way of life. The key is to promote unity in a natural and sustainable way and not to see it as a burden.”
“The purpose of grassroots organisations is to build more common spaces in the community, facilitating residents of different races to have more opportunities to interact and build rapport. Promoting integration and harmony does not mean that we will neglect our own cultural heritage. We will continue to promote the culture of different races and this will help different races to appreciate and understand one another's culture. Seeking consensus while allowing differences is a sustainable way to bring different races together and make our multicultural society attractive. Based on this, we can deepen our interactions. During the engagement and the interaction process among different races, we can adopt light-hearted ways that are close to people's daily life to build rapport and trust. In recent years, I noticed that while we have a stronger awareness of tolerance and the need to respect one another's differences and sensitivities, we have become more reluctant to discuss issues concerning race and religion at the personal level. In fact, many people do not know how to talk about these issues with friends or neighbours. They are worried that if they say something inappropriately, they may offend friends of a different race or religion. If this situation continues, or people only say politically correct things, not only will it not help build the trust, but hinder the efforts to build a long-lasting bond. A strong, long-lasting bond is, in fact, the key to whether a society can withstand a major incident. We should create more opportunities and an environment whereby Singaporeans can have sincere and candid discussions concerning race and religion without much inhibition. Grassroots and other community organisations have provided a very good platform.”
“Since Independence, be it legislation, governance or policies, the Government has spent a lot of energy on formulating forward-looking policies to build a harmonious multiracial society. We have integrated multiracialism as part of our country's core values and enshrined it into our pledge, the Constitution and the state institutions, such as the Presidential Council for Minority Rights (PCMR) and the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony (PCRH) under the President. We have also introduced the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act to strengthen the legal framework to ensure social harmony. We put in place EIP for HDB estates. In order to have enough representation of minority groups in Parliament, we have implemented the Group Representation Constituency (GRC) system. Recently, we also introduced the Reserved Presidential Election system to make sure that, every now and then, there will be a President from the minority groups. We have self-help groups for different ethnic groups to create a caring and harmonious multiracial society. Of course, we can further strengthen our legislation and policies, such as focusing on solving upstream problems. But we also know that it is not enough to rely on policies and laws alone to build strong and long-lasting trust and a harmonious relationship. We need to further strengthen the relationship among different races by working harder in the communities, schools and workplaces to build mutual trust and confidence. Fortunately, our Pioneers had the firm belief that a multiracial Singapore must be built upon strong social harmony. By setting up the People's Association (PA), we have created grassroots organisations which can bring together residents and promote a harmonious relationship among people of different backgrounds.”
“Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I would like to thank Mr de Souza for this Motion to call for Singaporeans to stay firm and fight the threat of terrorism together. The current threat level is at the highest and our security forces are staying vigilant all the time to prevent terror attacks from happening in Singapore. However, terror attacks in other countries have become unpredictable, like the many lone-wolf attacks that had happened in Europe and the US. We know it is impossible to have 100% security assurance. We may well already be in the situation whereby it is not a matter of "if", but "when". We must be fully prepared for the day when a terror attack eventually happens. What is equally important is the preparedness at the people's level. We should be prepared at the psychological level and build resilience and mutual trust among different races. We need to focus on how to cope with the "Day after" effect and recover quickly and resume our normal life as fast as possible. For the past 50 years, we have been fortunate in that we have not experienced any serious racial or religious conflicts. This is due to the continuous efforts of the Government as well as people of the various races. Most Singaporeans recognise the importance of living in harmony and social stability. Hence, they respect and tolerate one another, mind the sensitivity of different races and respect the differences. But we also know that Singapore's social harmony and resilience have not really been tested by a major incident. Should a terror attack in the pretext of race or religion happen and result in large casualties, can we continue to maintain racial harmony and not be mired in racial tensions? This would be the real test.”
“It is hence appropriate to have some executive leeway. The Ministry of Finance (MOF) should also monitor the impact of these changes to private sector companies who are receiving public funding. Many countries have empowered their National Audit Offices to audit on the "follow-the-dollar" basis. Overall, I believe that it will reduce the possibility of improper conduct and strengthen trust in public finance. Sir, with that, I support the amendments.”
“This would continue to be the modus operandi in the way the future whole-of-Government would work. We know that as the delivery of services and its accounting on the use of funds are further away from the direct view of Government audit, the risk of improper or corrupt conduct would increase. Under current law, some of the entities that receive such public funding are not accessible for audit by the public auditors. Hence, there is the need to equip AGO with the powers to audit the non-government entities and to ensure that public funds are, indeed, properly used. The current laws, therefore, need to be updated to keep up with the times. I support the changes to the Audit Act which allow the AGO to conduct "follow-the-dollar" audit. The amendments would also enhance the powers of the AGO to obtain documents, information, records or equipment which are necessary to establish the proper use of the fund against its public intent and to ensure full accountability. Mr Speaker, Sir, while we seek accountability and increase trust in public finance, we must be mindful that the enhanced powers of the AGO would not add a heavy regulatory burden to businesses seeking public sector contracts and that the new changes would not be so onerous that it discourages businesses wanting to seek public sector contract. That would work against public interest. Hopefully, a balance can be struck with the provision under section 4A where the Finance Minister's approval must be sought on the basis of public interest to carry out the "follow-the-dollar" audit and for the Minister to set limits on the scope of the audit. There may be instances where public money may need to be disbursed to non-government sectors or agencies to carry out emergency tasks, such as in a disaster recovery situation.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the way the public sector delivers its services has changed significantly over the years. Besides direct service by public agencies, increasingly, much of the public services and public goods are contracted out to private sectors and the not-for-profit sectors. The Government also disburses a substantial amount of public money in the form of grants and subsidies to a wide range of organisations, such as restructured hospitals, VWOs and the Town Councils, amongst others. In addition, the Government also provides performance guarantees to help finance infrastructural projects and undertake utility payments in public-private partnership (PPP) projects. Going forward, there will be more varied, more complex and more innovative arrangements where public money will go to non-government sectors, which could be multi-layered and multi-dimensional. This is unavoidable as the Government seeks to carry out its public functions and specific policy executions in the most efficient, most effective and optimal way, drawing on the strengths and expertise of the private and non-government sectors. In addition, the Government also used its budgetary resources to subsidise services and programmes. For example, the Government kept the costs of municipal services affordable by giving cash grants to Town Councils to help keep down the costs of estate maintenance. Another example, the Ministry of Transport (MOT) also injects funds to the public transport operators (PTOs) to help reduce the capital costs of enhancing public transport, such as the Bus Service Enhancement Programme (BSEP). And there are increasingly more of such programmes as the Government intervenes to improve public services, to build economic and security capabilities or to increase its social spending.”
“I thank the Second Minister for his commitment to fix the LRT problem with both long-term and short-term solutions. The feedback I have received from my residents in Bukit Panjang Town is that while they are unhappy with the frequent disruptions of BPLRT, they still find that the LRT serves their commuting needs and hope that the LRT will continue as another mode of transport in Bukit Panjang Town. My first question to the Second Minister is: with this revamp, is there any indication of the timeline, what are the different phases involved and whether there will be disruptions in the process as the operator tries to fix the longer-term problems? Secondly, in the meantime, when these are in progress, can the bus resources be increased to serve as a back-up whenever there are stoppages, and also to provide alternatives, especially during the crowded peak periods?”
“Mr Speaker, I fully support the merger of the two agencies and I have two further questions for the Minister. SPRING assisted about 22,000 companies a year and IE Singapore about 34,000 a year. These are very impressive numbers and credit to the two organisations for helping out the SMEs. So, I would like to ask the Minister: following the merger of the two agencies, whether the focus will continue to be to grow the number of companies assisted, or that the merged entity will dedicate more resources and support to high-growth enterprises which are scaling up or internationalising and will tend to create more jobs, better jobs. The second question is: how would the new Enterprise Singapore develop the ethos and the culture that are in keeping with its mission to transform Singapore's economy? And the merged entity would also need to regularly recruit people from the industry with experience to strengthen its business enabling capabilities.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, and congratulations. Before my questions, I just want to declare my interest. I do work in a financial institution that offers payment services. Two questions. Firstly, one of the major impediments to achieving a unified e-payment system and the interoperability is the difficulty to align the commercial interests of the different stakeholders and players, both new and incumbents. In this regard, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether the Government would take a more regulatory stance, such as the payment players to collaborate with one another, or the Government may take a more developmental incentivising approach here. Secondly, can I also ask the Senior Minister of State as there has been quite a fair bit of public interest on the submission of a proposal for a unified e-payment system by the tech company, Razer? Can I ask the Senior Minister of State the approach the Government will take in considering such a proposal and whether the Government will be looking at other proposals submitted by other companies as well?”
“Coming back to today's topic, of course, as Singaporeans, we should be concerned about allegations of abuse of power. Parliament should get to the bottom of it. However, we must also have confidence in the system which we have built up over the last 50 years. Although our system is not perfect, many countries envy us and want to learn from us. Although we are a small island without any natural resources, we have been able to continuously adapt to the external environment, grow, create economic miracles and raise the standard of living for Singaporeans. This is not something that can be achieved by a Government that has abused its power. At this time, we need a strong, capable and decisive Government in order to meet the various short- and long-term challenges. The trust and confidence of the people in Government leaders are absolutely important and are key to our success. We cannot turn back the clock to go back to before 14 June. The accusations have brought invisible harm but there is no use crying over spilt milk. What we should do now is to rebuild confidence and trust in our system. As Prime Minister and the eldest son of Mr Lee Kuan Yew, the Prime Minister is in a dilemma between the country and the family on how to deal with 38 Oxley Road. Mencius said that "people come first, the country second and the king, last." From this incident we can see that the Prime Minister, in all his decisions and dealings, has put the country and the system before himself and his family. This may well be the root cause of the dispute between him and his siblings. We look forward to the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister's replies. 12.59 pm”
“Many people cannot bear to see this kind of dispute happening to the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew and the family of Prime Minister Lee. They do not wish to choose sides in this family dispute. They feel that they have somehow been dragged into this dispute inadvertently. I think many Singaporeans hope that this dispute will come to an end quickly and be resolved within the family so that the Government and society can focus its energy on more serious issues and challenges that are facing us. I am sure Singaporeans would like to know what is next after today's debate in Parliament. Can we get out of this cycle of allegations? How can we deal with the impact of this dispute thereafter? From the point of national identity and historical legacy, 38 Oxley Road is definitely important to Singaporeans. However, this is not a problem that we need to address immediately. What is more, Dr Lee Wei Ling has expressed the wish to continue living there. So, I hope the Government will not have its attention divided by this dispute, because there are more pressing issues, such as the economy, security, employment and an ageing population. The political situation in the world is changing rapidly and has brought about much uncertainty for Singapore. Tomorrow, Prime Minister Lee will be going to Hamburg to attend the G20 meeting. Although Singapore is not a member of the G20, Singapore has been invited by the host country every year. This time, the Prime Minister will be meeting President Trump for the first time. We hope that the Prime Minister will make good progress in his discussions with various Heads of State during this trip and continue to widen the economic development space for Singapore.”
“He felt that he should not have listened to the Prime Minister to meet with the Cabinet. So, I would like to ask the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister whether the Cabinet exerted pressure on Mr Lee Kuan Yew at that time to give up his idea of demolishing the house, or whether they told or misled Mr Lee Kuan Yew that the Government would preserve the house, regardless of his views. We must be clear about this. Next, I would like to reflect my residents' views on this dispute and their expectations. As this is a matter of a family dispute going public, many Singaporeans have felt upset and sad. Because Singaporeans never expected that this could happen to Mr Lee Kuan Yew, our beloved founding Prime Minister who Singaporeans are grateful to. Singaporeans are also concerned because this incident happened to our Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong. The Prime Minister is not only the eldest son of Mr Lee Kuan Yew, he is also the top leader of our Government. This incident would definitely cause some degree of damage to our reputation. The Prime Minister had stated before that he had always wanted to settle his disagreement with his siblings within the family. But, now, since the dispute has been made public, the Government has no choice but to respond in order to restore the confidence of the people in the Government. And the Prime Minister has also apologised to the people. Every family has its own difficulties and, within the family, it is common that different members have different views on certain issues. Singaporeans do not wish to be part of this family dispute. Looking at the exchanges on Facebook, people feel upset and helpless. A resident told me that he had stopped reading or following the postings and allegations on social media.”
“So, I cannot find any other allegation that warrants further questioning. In fact, if the Prime Minister did not follow normal procedures and gave instructions to the Cabinet and relevant agencies to demolish the house in order to fulfil his late father's wishes, that would actually be a case of abuse of power. I cannot see anything improper with setting up the Ministerial Committee led by Deputy Prime Minister Teo to look at the various options for the house and the Prime Minister recusing himself from it. I do not see any evidence of abuse of power. In fact, this is the normal workings of the Government. Yesterday, the Prime Minister and Minister Lawrence Wong addressed the issue of the Deed of Gift, explaining under what circumstance the Prime Minster got hold of the Deed. Looking at the entire process of NHB's dealings with the Estate Executors on the exhibition of items from the house, we have discovered some other areas that are not quite right. For example, one of the beneficiaries, that is, the Prime Minister, was totally unaware of the Deed of Gift and the Deed of Gift contains certain unusual clauses. More seriously, the role that Ms Lim Suet Fern played in the process gave rise to suspicion of conflict of interest. I am not going to repeat the questions that other hon Members have raised. I hope the Prime Minister and the Ministers can give a comprehensive and complete reply. But I have one additional point of doubt which I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister, and that is, what transpired in the meeting between the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew and the Cabinet on 14 July 2011. In Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling's 14 June post, they claimed that Mr Lee Kuan Yew, after coming back from the meeting with the Cabinet, was anguished and despondent.”
“Mdm Speaker, let me first say that, from a financial governance standpoint, I am satisfied that there were no financial implications or any misuse of public funds in this episode. For the Prime Minister, there was no personal financial gain from the transaction and he now also has no financial interest in 38 Oxley Road. Quite the reverse, a substantial sum of money, the equivalent of about one and a half times the property value of 38 Oxley Road actually went into charity and for a very good cause. I am sure those beneficiaries will be very grateful for the substantial donations. Madam, I want to speak on two areas. Firstly, what is left to be said about the alleged abuse of power on 38 Oxley Road; and, two, more importantly, where do we go from here? In Mandarin, please. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] In the Prime Minister's Statement on 19 June, he urged Members of Parliament to raise all questions without reservation with him and the relevant Ministers on the serious allegations raised by his siblings, in order to clear any doubts. Indeed, abuse of power is a very serious allegation. It violates the core governing principles and values which Singapore has been upholding all along. These accusations will affect public confidence and trust in the Government and the system of governance. I have, indeed, responded to the Prime Minister's appeal and had wanted to raise some tough questions with the Prime Minister and the Ministers. However, after seven hours of debate yesterday, including the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister's detailed Statements with attached documents, several Ministers and more than 20 Members' speeches, what should be asked has been asked and we have heard reasonable answers to almost all of them.”
“Madam, I agree with the Minister that transforming the economy is our foremost task at hand. We need to really move fast and move decisively, as these are among the key success factors. While the establishment of the Steering Council would help the various stakeholders align and better coordinate across the various verticals within the Government, I would like to ask the Minister whether the Council would also help to achieve the agility that the CFE had emphasised on a lot in the report that the Minister had mentioned and whether having a Council such as this would help it to be able to move fast and decisively. Secondly, the Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) for Finance, and Trade and Industry has put up a series of recommendations to the CFE last year. We are happy that many of our suggestions are featured in the CFE report. May I ask the Minister if FEC will continue to engage and consult widely and, if so, how does it intend to go about doing this in taking in new ideas, harnessing new ideas in this fast-changing environment that we are in?”
“Madam, I just want to find out from the Minister of State why do we not consider setting up an anti-profiteering task force like what we did some years back or perhaps consider having the Competition Commission to look into this task of anti-profiteering.”
“Madam, from the Minister of State's reply, it seems that CASE will be the agency that will be the watchdog for anti-profiteering. I would like to ask the Minister of State whether CASE does have the resources and the regulatory power, as well as the investigative resources, to do that because there are cases all around the neighbourhood and sometimes you may just want to report, and whether they have that ability to do that. I think that is important.”
“Mdm Speaker, I want to also express my support for this amendment to address the stamp duty rate differential and also to urge the Government to continue some form of demand management measures for our property, so that we have a stable property market. I just have one question for the Minister. Does this new Bill provide some flexibility to address, should, in the future, the property players come up with more ingenious or some creative way to counter this? Are there provisions for that without having to come to Parliament to do another amendment?”
“Mdm Chairman, the public may not know this but we generate a tremendous amount of waste each year. As I understand from the Ministry, in 2015, an estimated 785,500 tonnes of food waste were generated, a 40% increase from the amount generated in 2005. So, a 40% increase over 10 years. Besides efforts to reduce waste, we should also look at how we could better recycle waste. I understand that NEA has already worked with the private sector to treat food waste, for example, in hawker centres. Many large F&B operators have also installed their own on-site food waste digesters. May I seek an update on the progress of these initiatives? While these are commendable, these premises only treat the waste they generate. There are benefits to adopt a district-level approach to treat food waste from various premises, such as economies of scale and avoiding the need for individual premises to set aside space for their own digester. Last year, the Ministry announced a project to collect food waste from various premises in Clementi for treatment at a centralised facility. Can the Minister provide an update on the project?”
“And fourthly, NEA has been advocating tray-return with varied levels of success. What more will the Government do to improve tray-return rates in existing centres? Littering and Tray Return Initiatives”
“Madam, hawker centres are an integral part of Singaporeans' everyday life. It is also an important part of Singapore's social landscape where Singaporeans from all walks of lifes and all backgrounds come together to enjoy a good meal and at an affordable price. We must retain and strengthen this unique identity of ours and keep the culture of hawker centres alive and well. This is why, like many Members here in this House, I have always pushed for more hawker centres in Parliament as well as during my engagements with the Ministers and Ministries during GPC meetings. Hence, it was with great joy and satisfaction for me personally when the Government finally announced to resume the building of new hawker centres in 2011, and, in total, 20 centres by 2027, which I thought is not an ambitious timeline. We should do it faster. I am glad that the Ministry commissioned a Hawker Centre 3.0 Committee, chaired by Senior Minister of State Amy Khor, to look into how we can make improvements to the overall offerings of hawker centres, making them more vibrant and to sustain the hawker business. The report, with a list of recommendations, was released last month. I would like to use this opportunity of the COS to seek the Ministry's response to the recommendations put up by the Committee. In particular, I have four specific questions. Firstly, on sustaining the hawker trade, what training programmes would the Government be introducing that are different from the existing culinary courses? Secondly, productivity initiatives usually have cost implications, such as requiring upfront costs. Are there any measures to address the cost implications of productivity initiatives on the hawkers? Thirdly, what plans does the Government have to increase the vibrancy of hawker centres?”
“Thank you, Madam. I just want to follow up on the clarification by Mr Zaqy Mohamad. I suppose he was referring to the Bus Service Reliability Framework which is really a good intention by LTA to keep the bus to the timings and to arrive punctually and so on. But what happens on the ground, sometimes, is that the bus may arrive too early and then, therefore, they stop at the bus stop for a while or they slow down the speed of the travelling and so on. It is causing disservice to the commuters instead. I would like to ask the Minister whether for some buses like those along trunk routes where it is a loop service, maybe the whole loop will take about three hours, should there not be more leeway given to the bus operator, so that they do not have to do such things as to slow down and then, overall, the commuter will have a bad experience because of that.”
“Mdm Chair, I want to thank Minister Lawrence Wong and Senior Minister of State Indranee for the comprehensive answers, notwithstanding a very short guillotine time, and also the hardworking MOF team for the Budget, and Minister Heng for coming back and delivering a far-sighted Budget and staying the course and readying Singaporeans for the future landscape with confidence. With that, Mdm Chairman, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. [(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of $800,157,600 for Head M ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. (proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of $184,120,400 for Head M ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. (proc text)]”
“Madam, I just want to ask the Minister on the progress of the MyInfo portal which was launched last year. How has the take-up been like? And given that this is a voluntary system where you need to get consent from the users, how does the Government intend to incentivise more users to sign up, and because this is really a good start to the digitalisation journey where there is just one touchpoint? There is this convenience of not having to fill up personal data in the system. So, what would the Government do to get more sign-ups in this area?”
“At last year's MOF's Committee of Supply (COS) debate, Members had raised about using Government procurement to support innovation and capability-building by small and medium enterprises (SMEs). Many jurisdictions have already practised this approach and we should move on this as well. I was, hence, delighted to hear at this year's Ministry of Trade and Industry's (MTI's) COS that the Government will launch a new scheme known as the Government's enhanced Partnerships for Capability Transformation (Gov-PACT) where SMEs can leverage Government-led demand to participate and offer innovative solutions, in the process, strengthening their new capabilities and track record. This is a good start and I would like to ask the Minister how we could push the frontier further to help more new startups in this area. How would the Government agencies resource themselves to carry out such procurement in an extensive way? [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“The concept of "no need for service is the best service" is clearly demonstrated here. If such service philosophy and strategy can be replicated extensively within the public sector, we would have made a quantum leap in not just the efficient delivery of public service but also deliver positive experience to the public. We have to ask, why not? I note that digital transformation of Government services is already on the Ministry of Finance's (MOF's) and many Ministries' to-do list. The Committee on the Future Economy (CFE) has also recommended to intensify digitisation and to leverage data as a key enabling asset to transform the economy. The sooner we become a digital nation where interacting digitally is citizens' everyday way of life, the sooner we can reap the benefits and advantages of a smart economy. That, in itself, opens up new possibilities. The public sector must be early adopters in this digitisation drive and be prepared to try out newer and innovative digital solutions to improve bureaucracy and, hence, benefit society at large. Of course, as we digitise, along the way, we may inevitably encounter some bugs or blind spots in the initial implementation. It is not uncommon to have minor glitches in new information technology (IT) rollouts for large organisations as well. There may be criticism from the public and complaints for the inconvenience caused. We should take all these in our stride, learn from the mistakes, quickly rectify the gaps and continue to press on with bold and necessary digitisation efforts. I would appreciate if the Minister can provide an update on the Government's digitisation efforts and the results so far. Moving on to another area, Government procurement.”
“Mdm Chairman, I beg to move, "That the total sum to be allocated for Head M of the Estimates be reduced by $100". During the Budget Statement speech, the Minister for Finance announced that a permanent 2% downward adjustment to the budget caps of all Ministries and Organs of State will apply from financial year (FY) 2017 onwards. Mdm Chairman, I support this measure and the emphasis to spend judiciously and to do more and better with less. A 2% cost adjustment is a reasonable decremental target to work on and the public sector agencies should use the exercise as impetus to review its organisation and its policy implementation, modus operandi to improve its efficiency and, importantly, as a result, to cut red tape. Rather than go on penny-wise mode, the Ministries and agencies should look to trim down costs by way of re-engineering existing processes and streamlining workflows. Thoughtful harnessing of technologies should be considered in every aspect to improve productivity and service delivery. This will benefit both the public and the public sector employees as well. There are excellent examples by the Public Service agencies which have done more and which have done well with less. One example that comes to mind is the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) with regard to their efforts to simplify the tax system and their effective use of technology. Its 24/7, one-stop self-service MyTax portal and the no-filing service offer taxpayers a hassle-free way to manage their tax returns. 2.30 pm The outcomes are most impressive. The cost of tax collection by IRAS is among the lowest in the world, and among the lowest rates of arrears as well. And the taxpayers' satisfaction surveys ranked high consistently.”