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 21 of 21.
“Have we been consistent in this area? More competition as a result of more players is of course good, especially to the end consumers. There are currently about five to six power generation companies (Gencos) in Singapore, supplying power in the contestable and non-contestable segment of the market. While we want even higher intensity of competition, EMA has to be mindful that competition remains healthy and sustainable, given our relatively small market. The power generation business is capital intensive, with high sunken costs and very little product differentiation. So, these five to six players compete mainly on prices in the contestable segment. Besides the competition, the gencos also take on the fuel price volatility and volume risk. If the gencos are too caught up in the competition for short-term market share, we may see gencos being less willing to invest in long-term efficiency. This would not be in the long-term interest of consumers. Like any sectors, our energy industry needs to yield a reasonable return so as to continue to attract long-term capital and investments to sustain our future capacity. My next point is on the legacy issues that have arisen because of the access. This amendment gives EMA wide powers to manage the market. For example, in section 38(4), EMA is given the powers to dictate to the facility owner how to charge existing users of the facility. The amendment also enables EMA to direct parties to enter into an agreement for the allocation of gas in offshore pipelines on terms specified by EMA.”
“PowerGas, which will be the eventual owner of Singapore's gas infrastructure, will be regulated by EMA, in terms of price and, among others, shareholding control, as stated in clause 25. This shareholding controls is particularly important as EMA will be empowered to reject potential ownership transfer of critical gas infrastructure that is assessed to be detrimental to national security. For the new structure to work, all competitive players, existing or new, need to have open access to the common gas grid on a non-discriminatory basis. These amendments would widen the powers of EMA significantly, giving the Authority the teeth to push through these changes. While I support the intent of this amendment, I would also want to raise a few related points as well: Firstly, on the supply and demand imbalance. Our generation capacity has grown steadily and I understand that the current excess capacity is way above the optimal 30% reserve capacity. With this amendment removing the impairment to open access, one more player would enter the market. Island Power is not covered under the moratorium to control piped natural gas coming to Singapore and hence would mean adding new capacity when they start operations. Even with this eventuality, how would the supply and demand imbalance situation be like from now to, say, 2012 when the new LNG gas starts kicking in? The LNG terminal is expected to be ready by 2012. How would the capacity versus the projected demand situation be like beyond 2012 as well? We also have another situation. On the one hand, we want new player to enter the market to intensify the competition, but, on the other hand, there are currently still about 25% of the demand, mainly from the household consumers, that are not subjected to competition.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, first and foremost, allow me to declare my interest that in my professional work in the financial industry, I do work with companies in the power sector from time to time. This amendment to the Gas Act is a much anticipated Bill, if we read the recent media reports. For example, according to the Business Times' report on 10th May, this Bill, and I quote, "should help new players like Island Power, whose S$1 billion power station project here has been delayed for years because of its inability to access the pipeline, to bring its own Indonesia natural gas for its project". The Dow Jones Newswires went so far as to say, and I quote, "a piped gas deal between Island Power and US-based ConocoPhillips hinges on the passing of an amendment by the Singapore Parliament, which will also pave the way for the construction of a state-of-the-art gas-fired power plant". It even said that this Gas (Amendment) Bill is the last remaining major milestone before Island Power can gain access to the Sumatra-Singapore gas pipeline. There are also reports that mentioned of a June deadline for Island Power from the Indonesian authorities on the supply of gas. In the light of all these news reports, would the Minister clarify on this perception that this Amendment Bill is tailor-made to pave the way for the entry of Island Power, as reported by the media? I applaud the Government's resolve to further restructure the gas market and to enhance the security of Singapore's energy supply. And I support the Government's decision to separate the ownership of gas transportation business, which is a natural monopoly, from the contestable segment.”
“Sir, anecdotally, I think we will be seeing more Malaysian vehicles coming into Singapore. I know it is too much to ask for data from the Minister now, but maybe he can give us a sense of whether the number of vehicles coming in will pose a problem to us in terms of road congestion and how the Ministry intends to manage this number of vehicles coming in.”
“Would the slack be picked up by the increase in population and higher car usage as we saw recently? I understand that between 1997 and 2004, our car population grew by 10%, from 377,000 to 417,000. More alarmingly, for the same period, the daily number of car trips generated increased by 23%, which is double the rate of the car population increase. I guess Singaporeans are just trying to do justice to the cars that they bought. That is why they are using it more. Sir, the solutions to our transport challenge cannot be executed without changes to the way we work and to our lifestyles, in addition to careful town planning. We may need to implement policies to persuade and expedite the adoption of telecommuting and flexi working hours, both by the public and private sectors. This will reduce the demands on our transport system during peak hours. Our recreational facilities must also be well served by public transport so as to reduce the need to drive. I am glad that our policy makers also see that transportation could well be the main impediment to Singapore achieving the status of a First World First Tier City. That is why the Budget Statement mentions that the Government expects to spend at least $20 billion on our land transport infrastructure over the next 10 to 15 years. I hope the Minister will share with us more details of the plans to enhance our transportation infrastructure. Singaporeans need the assurance from the Government that even as we increase our population, our land transport system, our road system and our public transport system are able to cope with this increase, and that our quality of life will not be compromised. Multi-modal Competition”
“My concern is: would the train not become even more crowded if we really do succeed in getting more Singaporeans to switch from car to trains, not to mention the added traffic from the likely increase in population base? I can hardly imagine how our public transport system will be able to cope when the centrepiece of our Marina Bay city redevelopment Marina Bay is completed. There will be even more office workers travelling to the city centre. I have observed that the train-to-train interval is already about three minutes during peak hours. I do not think we could cut it any shorter or add more trains onto the existing lines without compromising safety. Sir, we need to boost capacity, as identified by the Concept Plan, and we need to do it pretty quickly. Hence, I would like to clarify with the Minister whether the Government is going ahead with the Downtown Line, as there was a brief mention of it in the Budget Statement. If it is indeed so, can the Minister give us some indication of the timeline? The Downtown Line will be a welcome relief to residents from North Western and the Eastern parts of the island. It will free up the commuter load on the East-West Line and allow residents from these areas to have a more direct route to the city centre. Secondly, on the road system. The Concept Plan rightly pointed out that there will be limited land for more road space. Some segments of our major expressways are already four-lane wide. Can the Ministry shed some light as to how much more road space we can add on? For example, for the existing major expressways like PIE and CTE, will it be possible to add more road space? Even if we succeed in increasing the share of public transport to 70%, how much will it help to ease road congestion?”
“Sir, what could stand in our way of a larger population may well be transport, ie, if we cannot get our act together. In the recent mid-term concept plan review, our population planning parameter was increased from 5.5 million to 6.5 million. Travel demands will increase, though there would be limited land for more road space. The plan calls for a more sustainable solution, which is to increase public transport utilisation. It aims to raise the share of trips taken on public transport from the current 63% to 70% over the next 10 -15 years. In addition, we are likely to see more foreigners using our transport system, such as tourists, numbering about 17 million by 2015, foreign workers and business visitors. Our stronger economic activity would also lead to higher workforce participation and therefore more travels needs. Sir, against this backdrop, I want to raise two issues here. Firstly, our public transport systems in some routes are already near capacity or at capacity during peak hours. The concern among Singaporeans is whether our system will be able to keep pace with our fast rising population and the higher public usage. Let us not forget that from 1990 to 2000, in a span of 10 years, we actually added about one million to our residential population. Two days ago, my grassroots leaders and I took the LRT from Bukit Panjang Town to Choa Chua Kang MRT Station, with the journey ending at City Hall Station. We set off at about 7.30 am and reached City Hall Station at about 8.30 am - about an hour's journey. As the train approached downtown locations like Tiong Bahru, Redhill and Outram Park, it became very crowded. One commuter sighed that it was even worse on the way home.”
“Sir, I would like to get an indication from the Minister whether the Ministry will push for a smoking ban in public areas where there are children and children's facilities, such as outside the kindergartens or the playgrounds. Because I do not see these places as less important compared to the entertainment outlets. Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: Sir, it is difficult for us to enforce a ban in an open area. As I mentioned in my reply, we need to also give some space to smokers. I agree with him that it is not good or healthy for children to be in the vicinity of smokers. I would urge kindergarten teachers not to bring their kids to playgrounds where there are smokers. At the same time, we should also ask smokers not to hang around in the vicinity of kids. But all our kindergartens are smoke-free. We will continue to explore whether we want to extend the smoking ban to other public places.”
“Sir, over the years, the ban has also helped bring down the proportion of smokers in the population. The prevalence of daily cigarette smoking among adults declined from 18% in 1992 to 15% in 1998, and further dropped to less than 13% in 2004. Dr Maliki asked whether we have a target. Yes, we wish all Singaporeans to be non-smokers. But let us be realistic. I think we will have to continue to find ways to provide places for people who want to smoke without compromising the health of non-smokers. We will continue to monitor the effectiveness of the smoking ban before we decide whether to further tighten the ban and to extend it to more public areas. The Government will continue to do what is necessary to protect the public from the harmful effect of second-hand tobacco smoke. Sir, Mr Liang Eng Hwa has asked for some details on the data. I do not have it with me here, but I will be more than happy to provide this after the debate. I will now leave it to my colleague, Dr Amy Khor, to take the more biting cuts on dengue.”
“We are happy to see that most of the food shop operators and smokers abide by the ban. There, however, remains a small minority of smokers who flout the ban, and some operators who fail to enforce the ban within their premises. We take a serious view of such violations. Since the implementation of the ban in July last year, 1,057 smokers and 205 food shop operators have been fined for infringing the rules under the smoking ban. NEA will continue to carry out enforcement action through its environmental health officers and through a private operator whom it has engaged to supplement its enforcement efforts. For the impending smoking ban on entertainment outlets this year, operators have a lead time of two years to prepare for the ban. So it is not a surprise, as noted by Dr Maliki. NEA has also been liaising closely with the operators to help prepare them for smooth implementation of the ban. We do not think that the smoking ban in entertainment outlets will impede Singapore’s effort to become a tourist destination. Indeed, Singapore was one of the first few countries to ban smoking in public places. Many countries and cities have since recognised that second-hand smoke is a serious health hazard, and are moving quickly towards becoming smoke-free societies, banning smoking in pubs, bars, restaurants and other workplaces. Even the French are moving in that direction. Over the years, we have successfully extended the smoking ban to cover more than 30 types of premises and public places. This is achieved through cooperation from businesses and members of the public, especially from the premises owners and trade operators. The smoking ban regime gives due consideration to the need to balance the interests of non-smokers, smokers and businesses.”
“Sir, the smoking ban in entertainment outlets will soon come into effect on 1st July this year. I support this ban and applaud the Ministry for stepping on with the tough measures to protect the well-being of non-smokers. I would like to ask the Ministry how it intends to enforce the ban - whether it is going to be the same light approach that we have seen so far for the smoking ban in public areas. Are the entertainment outlets ready and prepared for this ban, and would there be any impact on our tourism business? Secondly, may I suggest to the Ministry to consider extending smoking ban to public areas that are near facilities used by children such as kindergartens and playgrounds? Thirdly, I see a disturbing trend of increasing numbers of young smokers seen in public areas along Orchard Road, in our neighbourhood shopping malls and so on. Does the Ministry have an estimated number of smokers by the various age group and the profile of a typical offender caught for smoking in non-smoking areas? I would like to suggest that the Ministry be more targeted in the enforcement of the ban with higher emphasis in locations more frequented by the young, eg, near campuses, recreational areas and sports facilities. Lastly, would the Ministry consider banning smoking in all public areas, like what Hong Kong and France have done? Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: Sir, I will update first on the smoking ban. Mr Charles Chong, Mr Liang Eng Hwa and Dr Maliki have asked about the effectiveness of the smoking ban. To protect the general public against the harmful effects of second-hand tobacco smoke, we extended the smoking ban to coffee shops and hawker centres in July last year and, as rightly noted, we will be extending it to entertainment outlets on 1st July this year.”
“Littering in the HDB heartlands has also not improved. Often, the common dirty spots are those behind the blocks where socially irresponsible residents just throw their rubbish out of their kitchen windows. This should also be another targeted area of enforcement by NEA and the Town Councils. However, in the HDB communities, I think a more sustainable approach to keep the estate clean is to build a stronger sense of community ownership. If our residents feel a strong sense of ownership to their community, keeping their estate clean will come naturally for them. But to build this community ownership, a by-the-people-for-the-people approach would be more effective, rather than a top-down approach. I hope NEA and HDB can be given even more resources to work with the grassroots communities to strengthen ownership and spread this message of keeping their home environment clean. Public Cleanliness”
“Sir, we can do more to reduce littering. Anecdotal evidence seems to suggest that public cleanliness in crowded parts of Singapore is deteriorating as a result of littering. A clean environment in Singapore is of utmost importance because we are a densely populated country. Litter can also spoil the image of our cityscape and clog up our waterways. The Keep Singapore Clean campaign goes all the way back to 1968. Over the years, we have numerous initiatives at the national and local levels to keep Singapore litter free. Despite these campaigns and initiatives, I do not think we would have this current state of cleanliness, if not for the efforts of our cleaners. One effective way to drive home the anti-littering message is to have an annual national No Sweep Day so that the public can have a sense of the extent of littering if the cleaners are not there to sweep the floors and the streets. It will also give us a good sense of whether our litter-free habit has taken root and it will enable us to track progress and calibrate new approaches to tackle the littering problem. I understand that some constituencies already have such No Sweep Days in some form. But I believe a national level No Sweep Day would be better able to drive home the point to all Singaporeans. I would also like to suggest to the Ministry to be more targeted in anti-littering enforcement by focusing, firstly, on the most littered areas, such as hawker centres and bus interchanges. Secondly, it is always the recalcitrant minority that are the habitual litterbugs. Hence, I would like to suggest different penalties for repeat or habitual offenders, which include also a mandatory education programme for those repeat offenders to learn why we need to keep the environment clean.”
“Sir, on JTC's divestments, can the Ministry consider not divesting the JTC workshops that are near the HDB heartlands, as they offer budget and low-cost repair works to the residents there as well as the SMEs there?”
“I understand that in Hong Kong, the government actually helps their local players cope with the entry of Disneyland into the markets with tangible assistance schemes. Can we do more to help our local players? My last point is this. We have been pretty successful in bringing major conventions to Singapore. How about sports events, like the F1 or A1, that Mr Teo Ser Luck has mentioned as well? Can the Ministry give an update on that?”
“The news of Crazy Horse coming to Singapore was quite well reported by world media. I remember reading about it in the Financial Times. However, little more than a year later, after making its Asian debut, the famous Crazy Horse, which has been running for more than 50 years in Paris, closed its doors in Singapore due to poor attendance. According to the company, the 400-seat theatre was less than half filled on most nights. So what went wrong with Crazy Horse? Not that I am crazy about it. Like Mr Baey, I have not watched the show as well. Is it a case of tight advertisement controls? I thinkthe House had heard replies from SMOS Balaji last week. But my point today is: do we have an effective cross-selling system to cross sell our tourism products, such as Crazy Horse, among our tourism stakeholders? Tourist arrivals hit 9.7 million tourists last year. If we have, say, about 1 % of these 9.7 million tourists visited the theatre, the company may not have to close its door prematurely. So, are our hotel concierges or the tour agents, or even the taxi drivers, aware of our tourism products and what to recommend to visitors? Mr Ang mentioned about the attractions of Geylang. I think there are other attractions that we can also offer. We can do more to encourage cross-selling. My next point is whether we have done enough to nurture the industry’s local players . With the two IRs, local players are beginning to feel the cost pressure from the tight labour market. Headcount turnover is expected to increase and wages are set to rise further. Local operators fear that they are not able to match the high salaries offered by the IRs because they do not have the casino component in their business models.”
“Singapore is a small country with limited historical or natural attractions and therefore we need to create and develop our own tourism appeal. To help boost the sector, the Government decided to go ahead with the two IRs with casinos. It seems that the gaming component has done the trick. STB received quality bids from world renowned names in resort development and gaming. And, in one stroke, we will soon see an iconic building at the Marina Bay and Universal Studio at Sentosa. Without the casino component, it would be very difficult to draw in such mega investments. But we still need more of such "wow" and bold attractions to make Singapore a more compelling destination , attracting the non-gaming tourists as well. How would the Ministry intend to attract other major tourism investments into Singapore without the gaming component? Would the Ministry consider sweetening existing incentive schemes? Few years back, I read in the Straits Times that the Singapore Flyer project was delayed because of financing difficulties. Is STB prepared to take a more catalytic role, in not only assisting in the financing of such projects but perhaps to also participate as a co-investor? And is our high cost of land working against the viability of these projects? Often, our hot and humid weather is cited as a drawback to attract repeat visitors to Singapore. What more can we do to mitigate our shortcomings? Should we explore more mega indoor attractions that are also children-centric, something like the Hello Kitty Land in Tokyo? When the Government announced about one year ago that the Crazy Horse is coming to Singapore, it signals to the world that Singapore is a vibrant global city with buzz and we do have premium night entertainment for the niche segment of our visitors.”
“Finally, sustainable development can only be sustainable if we have public awareness, public and private support, as well as it has to be hip and cool. How would the Ministry intend to step up awareness in this area? Energy-efficient Buildings”
“Just now the Minister has touched briefly on sustainable development. I would still want to express my views and ask some specific questions. Although Singapore is a small nation, we, too, must do our part to ensure that our future development is sustainable. One of the latest initiatives is the Singapore Standard (SS) 530 launched by SPRING Singapore in January this year. The new standard specified the minimum level of efficiency required of all technology and equipment in new offices, commercial, industrial and institution buildings. It will help developers meet the requirements for the Green Mark scheme which was launched by the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) in 2005. The Green Mark scheme covers the areas of energy efficiency, water efficiency and indoor environment quality. While I fully support these wonderful initiatives, I would like to ask, firstly, if the Ministry has plans to encourage more existing buildings to attain the Green Mark certification. Currently, only 34 buildings have the Green Mark. Secondly, SS 530 only targets commercial, industrial and institution buildings. Does the Ministry have any plans to spread such requirements to existing and new HDB and private residential buildings? Due to our warm weather, many households have air-conditioning. We also utilise many other energy-consuming household appliances. Individually, their consumption levels may not seem like much but, if we add them up, I expect the collective impact can be quite substantial. 5.45 pm Thirdly, Singapore-based companies and individuals can presently obtain grants from the $50 million MND fund for R&D of green technologies for the building industry. Would the Minister give an update on the status of R&D in this field?”
“We need to give Singaporeans a positive experience in our public housing and build an endearing home that would foster home ownership. While I am excited by the scenario painted by MOS Grace Fu earlier on, we still need to plug those cracks and seepages judiciously. Security in HDB Neighbourhoods”
“Madam, the mission of HDB is to provide affordable quality homes. This is stated in HDB's mission statement. In our quest to create and rejuvenate our towns at breathtaking speed, have we overlooked the quality of our HDB flats? Here, I am referring to flats that are built only in recent years. For example, I come across six blocks of flats at Senja Road, Bukit Panjang Town, which had only just been completed in 2003. Since 2003, these residents have to live with external wall cracks and seepages, some as soon as less than one year after completion. Complaints about wall defects were as high as about 25% in some blocks. There are others who suffer in silence. My question is whether MND is satisfied with the quality of work by HDB contractors. What does the Ministry intend to do to ensure good quality work by contractors? What more can HDB do to help those who are experiencing repeated defects? For the batch of flats that experienced high percentage of defects and poor workmanship, can the HDB take the contractor to task? According to feedback on the ground, there is this feeling that HDB is placing low priority and setting aside minimal resources on rectifying HDB flat defects. Waiting time for inspection by HDB can take about two to three weeks and another few months before repair works get started. I suggest that for such situations with high numbers of defects and poor workmanship, HDB can tender out a contract to do the entire repair works at one go, thereby enjoying considerable savings, rather than taking care of it on a piecemeal basis. Alternatively, if HDB cannot cope with the numerous requests for repairs, it can outsource them to town councils who can respond to them more judiciously.”
“Whether you are in a small SME or a big company, you will also enjoy some very generous concessions from this Budget. We can say that this Budget is pro-business and pro-people. It looks after not only our immediate benefits but, most importantly, our long-term and strategic investments, to enhance our competitiveness and broaden our economic spirit. We would not only enjoy good fortune for the next few years but for the next five years, 10 years or 15 years, we will have even more and bigger flow of good fortune coming our way, to make our country more prosperous. Earlier, Mr Ang Mong Seng said the feng shui grand-master has predicted that Singapore will have another 20 years of good fortune. But beyond the more good fortunes as predicted, we should also work for Singapore to continue doing well. Sir, I am confident that we will not only have good fortune, but also peace and prosperity, and our people will have a better standard of living and better quality of life. It is with great joy that I support this year's Budget. 1.18 pm”
“Sir, in summary, this Budget shows that even as we pursue our growth strategies to enhance our economic livelihood, we have not overlooked our social priorities. This Budget not only boosts our economic capital but also strengthens our social capital. It speaks well for Singapore as a nation and shows that we are not merely an economic entity. Sir, let me speak briefly in Mandarin. *Cols. 2227-2228. (In Mandarin): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A*.] Mr Speaker, Sir, while we are still in this Chinese New Year festive season and the atmosphere is still very strong, let me use the frequently used greeting words to describe our Budget this year. This Budget can be said to be a Budget which shows "a great flow of good fortune for a happy family." We always say cai yuan guang jing or "a good flow of good fortunes" to describe our aspirations to have more income, more good fortune and earn more money. So I would like to use this to greet our fellow Singaporeans. But to me, this phrase of "flow of good fortune for a happy family" has another meaning, because good fortune means that this Budget has also given our people another source of income from the various packages, be it WIS or senior citizen's bonus, giving our people other sources of income, and this is what I mean by "a great flow of good fortune." Why is there a great flow of good fortune? If we go deeper into this Budget, we will notice that the Government has given much thought to the matter. Whether it is from the individual's perspective or from the family's perspective, we can see that they will benefit from this Budget. Whether you are a senior citizen, a young student or a working person, you will receive some assistance or benefits from this Budget.”
“That is why I am not in favour of Mr Inderjit Singh’s suggestion on Tuesday to use a percentage of our reserves per year. Ninety-nine percent of the time, I am agreeable with him, but not this issue of reserves - he is my GPC Chairman. In fact, I believe we should set a targeted growth for our reserves, pegging it to world inflation, our population growth and our GDP. Any amount in excess of this target can then be used for our fiscal spending. We can actually benefit from our reserves without having to take a dip at them. NII is one good example. More importantly, the reserves give us good financial standing that helps us earn the much coveted highest AAA (triple A) sovereign rating by the international rating agencies. Only a few countries in the world belong to this club and tiny Singapore with no natural resources is one of them. The benefit of a triple-A rating is that it allows us to borrow at the lowest rate or what we call a risk-free rate in the international capital markets. It also offers more scope for the Singapore companies to achieve higher rating. For example, PSA cannot be AAA rated if Singapore's sovereign rating is lower than AAA. This has direct flow-on benefits to their borrowing cost as the country's sovereign rating is often used as a reference benchmark. The strong reserves also bring about a strong Singapore dollar, which helps to lower imported inflation. It also instills foreign investor confidence in Singapore and helps increase direct investments. Sir, I will say, reserves, like our defence, should only be used in catastrophic situations, where we need to rebuild and regain confidence. Otherwise, let us safeguard it and grow it so that we can benefit more from it indirectly.”
“Should we not also keep our powder dry just in case another severe downturn comes about that is not within our control? In fact, Minister Tharman did mention in the Budget Statement that we are not free of risk. He cited a sharp slowdown in the US economy triggered by a hard landing in US housing markets as one of our biggest external risks. The other risks are those like the US external deficits and geopolitical risks in the Middle East that could trigger sharp rises in oil prices. Post-Secondary Education Account (PSEA) My last point is on PSEA. PSEA is a good move and it signals the Government’s sound approach to use education as a social leveller and to enhance social mobility. It would benefit the low and middle-income Singaporeans indirectly and can be another channel for the Government to help Singaporeans in times of need. PSEA should continue even after 30 years of age and can be used as a vehicle for the Government to encourage continual and lifelong learning. Who knows, in addition to Workfare, we may well need another "Edufare" in the years to come to enhance our employability. Summing up Sir, our ability to pull off a first-class Budget such as this one does not come by chance or accident, thanks to the many years of fiscal prudence by the Government and the innovative and hardworking officials from the Finance Ministry in structuring the various ingenious tax schemes and packages. But also equally important is that we have two very valuable trump cards that allow us to deliver such an impressive Budget. They are our reserves which give us net investment income (NII) to balance our Budget and our CPF system. We have to safeguard and strengthen these two trump cards.”
“However, we have to be careful that, in the process, we do not overheat the economy and drive up business cost, thereby eroding our competitiveness. Already, businesses are feeling the heat and the feedback is that business cost has gone up due to increased activities and demand in the last one over year. Tight labour market, higher rentals, high material cost and high interest rates are some of those cited. Now, with a further 1.5% increase in employers' CPF and the 2% GST hike, cost is likely to head further north. Let us not forget our experiences in the mid-80s when our economy took a severe downturn due to high cost. We have to watch our cost competitiveness and ensure that our cost increases are matched by higher productivity, which leads me to my caution on our budgetary stance. Do we need to load on such an expansionary budget in the midst of a booming and seemingly hot economy? I hope there is no overkill here. Already, some analysts see the Singapore economy as a high beta economy, given our economy’s external orientation. High beta economies, like high beta stocks in the stock market, experience higher volatility and higher magnitudes of ups and downs in the economic cycles. With further stimulus from the Budget, would we further exaggerate the swings in our economy and is our workforce able to adjust to such volatile and sometimes painful swings in the economy? Also, we should be mindful that our public spending, including the Government-initiated PPP type, does not add further upward pressure to our business costs or crowd out the private sector activities. Another caution I have would be that, by having an expansionary budget during an economic upturn, are we unnecessarily using up our bullets?”
“We should still work to better the salary of our low-wage workers and hope that many of the 438,000 workers expected to benefit from the WIS can graduate to better- paying jobs and earning more than $1,500 per month. The last thing we want is for the society and the low-wage workers themselves to feel that there is little hope for them to earn a better salary and $1,500 is their salary cap. I am an optimist, or you can call me a blind optimist, but I strongly believe that we can help these low-wage workers increase their income by offering assistance to train and upgrade and through job re-design. On enhancing their employability, one area the Government can look at is to improve the literacy of these low-wage workers. For example, many of them do not speak or understand English. It would give them better job mobility and open up more opportunities in the services sector if we can help them improve their language skills. High beta economy My next point is on our economic growth strategy. The Singapore economy grew at a sterling 7.9% in 2006. There is a buzz of activities, especially in the construction and financial sectors. There are quite a number of mega projects that are in progress and there are many others in the pipeline. Some initiated by the Government involve public and private partnership (PPP). As expressed in the Budget Statement, the major economies in the world are doing well and likely to keep up with the momentum. The budgetary stance for this year is clearly expansionary and generous; and is likely to add to our growth momentum. I can see where the Government is coming from with regard to maximising growth in our economy when the going is good. Our strategy is to pick up as much growth under our belt so as to build up our resources.”
“Nevertheless, I would still want to raise some cautions and potential pitfalls that we should be mindful of. WIS - not an end state First, on the WIS. I salute the Government for coming up with the WIS. To me, the introduction of Workfare, besides narrowing the income gap, is also a recognition of the problem that some of our lower-income Singaporeans do have difficulties making ends meet and saving for retirement. With a monthly salary lower than $1,500 per month and above the age of 35, they could be supporting school-going children with a single income. It is a struggle to spend within their means. A few years ago, when I was volunteering at the Buona Vista's meet-the-people sessions, a few of our youth members got together and did a study on how low-income residents cope with the cost of living. We did a pretty thorough survey on those low-income residents that come to our MPS. And the conclusion that we arrived at, after studying families with a monthly salary of about $1,000, is that, even if they could balance their monthly income and expenditure, there was absolutely no saving for contingencies, such as falling ill, and not to mention about retirement. Like many who have voiced this concern, we feed back our studies to the various channels. So, while we do not claim credit for the WIS, I am glad that the Government is responding to these voices in coming up with a permanent assistance scheme. It again demonstrates that the Government does listen and would come up with practicable and sustainable solutions to narrow the income gap. Even with the introduction of WIS, I hope the Government would continue to assist in enhancing the employability of low-wage workers.”
“Despite the far-sighted vision painted and the various aspirations we hope to achieve, our feet remain planted very firmly on the ground as we tackle the challenge of the widening income gap head on. We meant what we said about "no one left behind". This Budget, whether you see it from an individual’s point of view or from a family’s point of view, there is something for everyone, be it more or less. Whether you are an elderly citizen or a school-going child, the Budget does extend its helping hand. And whether you are running small businesses as SMEs or a large corporation, you will still find this Budget pro-business. In a major shift from our total economically rationalist approach, this year’s Budget laid out a clear principle how the Government intends to help Singaporeans by both focusing on growth as well as managing its downside. Firstly, it provides direct assistance to Singaporeans who are less skilled and negatively impacted by globalisation. These are mostly from the low-income group. Their incomes are depressed by low wage countries like China, Vietnam and India. WIS and the other assistance will help supplement their income. Secondly, for the middle and higher-income Singaporeans, the Government’s principal approach of improving their livelihood is by investing in our capabilities and competitiveness. By growing our economic pie, Singaporeans will have better jobs, better pay and a better future. This is the indirect approach. I think we have hit the sweet spot in our social-economic balance. Many within and outside this House have said to me that it is pretty difficult to critique this year’s Budget, given its comprehensiveness as well as its inclusiveness.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, after more than 50 speeches in two days, I think you will agree with me that there are not many good words or adjectives left to praise the Budget. For example, the 3Gs and the 3Cs are used up by our labour MPs. In fact, from what I can gather, the most frequently used word in the last two days is the word "generous". And the next most frequently used words after "generous" are "overly generous". So, I have to move to a different space to get some new descriptions on my take of the Budget. Overall take on Budget 2007 I asked a foreign colleague of mine, who is a derivative trader, about what he thinks about our Budget. He is a Canadian citizen. In his usual derivatives option lingo, he said, "You Singaporeans are lucky". He said this is a "free option Budget". What he meant is that the Budget gives Singaporean a payoff of unlimited upside but yet, the downside is limited. And it comes at almost no cost or zero premium. Indeed, this Budget offers tremendous opportunities and upside to Singaporeans who have the skills, capital and enterprise. Yet, those with lesser skill set will still have their downside protected by the safety nets that are in place, eg, the CPF, subsidised housing, the 3Ms and now, the WIS. The Budget Statement outlines the vision ahead for Singapore and I am particularly excited about the opportunities mentioned by the Second Finance Minister about the world coming to Singapore and Singaporeans going out to the world. It enables us to break free from the mindset that we are a small country with no hinterland and, therefore, our potential is limited. This is clearly a Budget of opportunities and confidence. Yet, importantly for us as a nation, it is socially inclusive and a reassuring one.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill to extend the investment allowance under the EEIA as well. In fact, I support the suggestion to extend this incentive beyond the MROs and to other areas, such as those mentioned by Ms Jessica Tan. The proposed amendment will be a welcome relief for companies who are prepared to spend large capital expenditure. Tax incentives have always played an important part in Singapore's economic development. While we should continue to use tax incentives to develop new and high-growth sectors, such a scheme should always be regularly reviewed for its relevance and, if need be, we should include a sunset clause. We should also review its attractiveness vis-a-vis countries in the region with similar aspiration. We should also closely monitor whether we achieve the desired outcome. There must be measures there to assess such outcomes. Singapore's tax rates are already among the most attractive in the world and, come 15th February, it may even go lower. Hence, I would like MTI to also look beyond corporate tax relief as an incentive or to encourage big-ticket item investments and to consider other incentives such as lower cost financing and other measures. Sir, I support the Bill.”