Lim Boon Heng
Singapore
“On the first question on foreign domestic worker levy relief for single women who are looking after their aged parents, I think that question should be addressed to the Minister for Manpower and the Ministry of Finance.”
“I shall address the second point first. When it is clearly an item for a Ministry, a Member should address that question to that Ministry because that Ministry is also responsible for that even if it is related to ageing.”
“For those who wonder what the Fourth Age is, it is basically the last couple of years of your life when you are afflicted by, perhaps, chronic illnesses and therefore need to be cared for.”
“The Wellness Programme applies to all estates. In the pilot project, we deliberately chose 12 pilot sites to reflect different mixes. For example, we chose Ulu Pandan, which has a lot of private estates.”
“Maybe MCYS and the PMO could really look into these RC centres to see whether they could incorporate some of the needs of the elderly in these centres as well, like an extra area for karaoke or even mahjong. This area should be quiet and enclosed because the elderly sing loudly as they cannot hear very well.”
“The process has already started. We are already debating this issue in Parliament. The unions have taken up the issue with the management. I know and I am aware of that. So, let the process take its course.”
The complete record
Every one of 715 lines we hold for Lim Boon Heng, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 15.
“Fourthly, there are companies that retrench, even as they are profitable. In the current situation, most have seen profits decline. They ask employees to take pay cuts, otherwise the numbers they will retrench will be higher. Are they doing so just because profits have declined? Sadly, observing what is being done elsewhere, particularly in the United States, we will see more and more companies laying off large numbers of workers, even if profits have not declined. Why? This is the age of "shareholder value". Shareholders expect not only good dividends, but also high share prices. This puts management under great pressure to deliver. Increasingly, the managers are also paid in stock options, and so their interests are more closely aligned with the shareholders. My colleagues in the unions called this "unbridled greed". The management work hard, restructure, make use of technology to produce more, with less people, at lower costs. In the 1980s, we held up employers who did not retrench as model employers. They were Japanese companies (in Japan) and the best of American employers, like IBM or Hewlett Packard. IBM and Hewlett Packard proudly said that they would never retrench, as they value their employees as their greatest asset. But the pace of change quickens, product life cycles become shorter. So, companies found that keeping excess workers on the payroll eat up the financial resources of companies. Some succumbed. Others were brought to the brink of failure, for example, IBM or Nissan. They had to give up their principle of not retrenching. Today, companies retrench as they strive to stay profitable, or meet return on equity benchmarks, or EVA standards. If they do not, they could be dragged down, and sink.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this is my sixth term in Parliament. So I am hardly one who is expected to contribute to the remaking of Parliament, nor one to tell our civil servants how they should change. After all, civil servants merely carry out Government policies that we approve in this House. Sir, today, I rise to raise some questions I hope that new Members of this House will help to answer during this debate or in the Budget session to come. I fully agree with Mr Zainudin Nordin, Member for Bishan-Toa Payoh, when he said yesterday that the top issue on the minds of people today is jobs. Retrenchment hangs like a heavy dark cloud although there is a silver lining. But what is in the nature of retrenchments that we have seen? There are companies that retrench because they are doing poorly in the depths of the business cycle. They lose money and cannot afford to bleed further. When these employers retrench, their employees understand. Next, there are companies that relocate because the cost of doing business here is higher than in other locations. These companies may still be profitable but see declining profits. They act to stay competitive before it is too late. Again, most of their employees understand. Their leaders have seen the competition elsewhere, such as in China. Thirdly, there are companies that consolidate after mergers or acquisitions, and they have to let off redundant workers. Yet, again, union leaders understand. Those who hold their jobs are relieved, but those who lost theirs leave with great apprehension, as the job market is very poor. The retrenched hope that the severance benefits that they get would be fair, and enough to tide them over during the period of unemployment, possibly a long one.”
“I am sure that the energies demonstrated by Members of this House will translate into more babies and stronger families.”
“With regard to liberalising the use of Medisave for assisted conception procedures (ACP), the Ministry of Health has received feedback from the public regarding the inadequacy of the current Medisave withdrawal limits imposed on ACP. It is currently reviewing the Medisave withdrawal limits. By and large, there are also few procedural impediments to childless couples adopting babies. When social investigations are conducted, they serve to safeguard the interests and well-being of the child to be adopted. The primary problem is the lack of babies, especially local ones, available for adoption. Foreign adoptions require certain safeguards and checks to ensure that the adoptive parents see through their responsibility of raising the child. We do not want situations where parents give up their adopted child later because of difficulties in the relationship. Nonetheless, MCDS and other departments involved will continue to look into facilitating foreign adoption. Much of what we have discussed are on social infrastructure and the soft aspects of the issues, and the building up of social capital in our society. It is the subject of social capital which is completely relevant to the subject in hand for which we have not fully explored. We will have to understand not only the work pressures but other factors at work that inhibit couples from having children. Here, I think we are going into a much larger area for which we have as yet little good knowledge. But we should continue to examine those factors and address them wherever we can. With family-friendly workplaces and family-friendly environment and our continual drive in putting forward pro-family policies, programmes, services and messages, I am confident that we can become an even more family-oriented society.”
“The public service promotes on the basis of performance, the result of a performance appraisal which the public service does, and not because of what kind of examination results that person has had in school or at university. And it would be an exaggeration, to put it mildly, to describe our system as elitist. We should not confuse meritocracy with elitism. Next, subsidising health care for children. Dr Neo has suggested providing free medical treatment for our pre-school children. Currently, the Government is already providing a national childhood immunisation programme and the development screening programme which monitors the growth and development of infants and pre-school children free of charge at our polyclinics. For acute care, our healthcare finance policy stresses personal responsibility for maintaining good health. Parents should look after the health of their children. For children who fall sick and seek treatment in our heavily subsidised polyclinics and public hospitals, the parents have to pay only part of the cost of the medical service consumed. The principle of co-payment is necessary to avoid the pitfall of "free" medical services stimulating insatiable demand, and to keep the cost of basic health care affordable. Currently, our children are subsidised at 75% at the polyclinics and between 65% and 80% in Class B2 or C wards. Our children will never be denied access to basic medical care because their parents are in financial difficulties as the parents can apply for Medifund assistance or waiver of fees. As to the point about Government expenditure on health care, we must bear in mind that higher Government expenditure on health care is often related to higher tax rates. So it is one or the other.”
“Primary schools will have constraints as they run double session programmes now. However, this too is being reviewed. The Ministry of Education also agrees that children should not only be exam-smart. Hence, the Ministry of Education implemented the Thinking Skills programme in all secondary schools in 1999, to encourage students to think critically and creatively. It has also introduced Inter-disciplinary Project Work to all schools and have a few challenging "thinking questions" in their examinations. And, recently, that caused a little bit of uproar with respect to the PSLE. Schools are also ranked on both academic and non-academic achievements. The Ministry of Education has also adopted the school excellence model for all schools this year to broaden the scope of the way schools are appraised. Linked to this is an award system that recognises talents and abilities in non-academic spheres. The universities will also implement a new admission system in the year 2003, moving away from a sole reliance on 'A' levels towards a more holistic evaluation of a person's potential to benefit from university education. Hence, performance in a reasoning test, project work and co-curricular activities will be considered. Having said all that, let me take a step back and ask all of us to assess our education system. International studies have shown that we have a good system. I hope that the Public Education Committee will address this and bring home this point to all parents, so that there is less stress come school registration time. It is not necessary to get into the so-called list of top schools. As for stress on academic results, let me reassure Members of the House that the public service does not promote on the basis of examination results.”
“Maybe there are things that they can teach us. And I think one of the possibilities is the availability of services using local domestic workers rather than foreign domestic workers. Next, on stress in education. Dr Neo has made a number of proposals to fine tune our education system. She talked about homework overload. I would like to assure her that the Ministry of Education has a differentiated curriculum to develop each child to his or her potential. However, sometimes the expectations and aspirations of parents come into play, and these have direct impact on their children's stress level. Our message to these parents is that they should not stress the child beyond what he or she is capable of. Instead, we should look at the total development, not just the academic achievements of the child. What is already in the school curriculum is sufficient. It is not necessary to overload the child with a lot of other extra-curricular activities. So it is the responsibility of the parents to ensure that there is no such overload. As for providing tutorial classes after school hours, I understand that the schools today have various programmes and activities to cater to those who need help with their school work. On schools starting later and allowing facilities to be used by students throughout the day, the Ministry of Education has implemented single session programmes in all secondary schools this year. Hence, these schools have the flexibility to rearrange their formal curriculum hours to accommodate the needs of their pupils by starting their day later. Co-curricular activities, pastoral care and other programmes can also be organised after class by the students, and also with the support of the parents.”
“However, if dual income families have no other alternatives to care for their infants, we have to promote other care arrangements. One of the measures taken recently was to revise the requirement for infant care centres to have at least one paediatric-trained nurse to one state approved nurse. This does not compromise standards. In fact, when we have trained sufficient early childhood personnel specialising in infant care, the requirement to have a nurse can be removed altogether. The whole purpose is, of course, to bring down the cost of operating such centres. As for allowing part-time employment of foreign domestic workers, the Ministry of Manpower is hesitant to introduce such an option. Currently, there are more than 100,000 foreign domestic workers in Singapore. This number has doubled in the last 10 years. Allowing households access to part-time foreign domestic workers may greatly increase their numbers, as households without foreign domestic workers could turn to them. This could increase our reliance on foreign labour and could have adverse social consequences. There would also be concerns over the question of responsibility of looking after the welfare and accommodation of these workers. They may be exploited or abused. And allowing foreign domestic workers to work part-time will stunt the emergence of a strong domestic service sector. So let us look at the need and examine how other countries achieve higher female labour force participation rates than us without relying on foreign domestic workers. I think this is an issue which we have not examined to any depth. Why are the Nordic countries, as Dr Lily Neo says, reflecting a higher fertility rate than us, and yet in those Nordic countries they do not have a heavy reliance on foreign domestic maids?”
“This is the more important factor than plot ratios that Dr Lee, Mrs Lim Hwee Hua and Dr Vasoo had mentioned. A critical mass is necessary for a childcare centre to be viable, and that has been the experience of NTUC Childcare for which I have some knowledge. You must have a critical mass of children using a centre for that centre to be economically viable. As a rule of thumb, it is now above 100 children per centre. So, there have been childcare centres at workplaces run by NTUC Childcare contracted by the employers, but the number of children had been too few for the centres to be viable and, unfortunately, they had to close down. I think if we wish to have more such centres set up where the parents work, a viable centre would be one that does not specifically serve one employer only, and has to serve a number of employers, so that we can get a critical mass of children using that centre to make the cost within reason. This is something which private operators can examine and if there are impediments to the setting up of such centres, please let us know and, where possible, the obstacles can be removed. MCDS has also studied the obstacles to the development of childcare centres catering to children below 18 months. We are mindful of the fact that many child experts agree that the first few years of a child's life are important for parent to child bonding, and that infants are best cared for at home by their mothers or relatives. And indeed surveys also show that that is the preference of the parents themselves. Hence, we should put more emphasis on support for home care, such as family-friendly employment practices and also encourage the extended family.”
“Childcare centres in private residential areas are set up by private operators and, as in any commercial enterprise, the numbers are determined by the viability of the project. In new HDB estates, MCDS plans ahead of demand through regular meetings with HDB based on the number of dwelling units for the estate. For older HDB estates, we increase the number of centres in high demand areas. MCDS works closely with HDB so that childcare premises are conveniently sited together with the housing blocks. MCDS will be delegating the local planning of childcare centres to Community Development Councils (CDCs), which will better enable them to gauge and respond to local demand. Here, Members of Parliament who are members of CDCs can expect to play a greater role at the local area. For a start, this will take place starting with Marine Parade and Tanjong Pagar CDCs. MCDS will continue to manage demand and supply at the national level and ensure that acceptable standards are met. Besides promoting the setting up of childcare centres in private residential areas, we also encourage childcare centres in condominiums. URA levies development charges at the residential rate instead of commercial rate for childcare centres in condominiums. URA has also lifted restrictions requiring such centres to serve residents only. Some financial support and incentives are provided to employers who set up childcare centres as an employee benefit. These include capital grants for furnishing and equipping new centres and various tax incentives. We can review these incentives to see whether they are adequate and up them if they are not, although we should note that our studies show a low demand for workplace childcare centres overall.”
“We have to look at the total package and see how those incentives work before we say that we should adopt them. Implementing family-friendly work practices requires much work to be done in changing our employers' mindsets and that is why the Ministry of Community Development and Sports set up a Work-Life Unit in September this year to promote family-friendly work practices. The Ministry of Manpower itself has also set up the Human Resource Promotion Section in 1999 to promote good human resource (HR) practices. These measures reflect our commitment to bringing about a workplace culture change. As mentioned by Dr Lee, MCDS engaged two leading American work-life consultants to conduct awareness seminars and training workshops for HR managers as well as provide consultancy to companies in Singapore. The response to these events was overwhelming. Numerous companies have already approached the Work-Life Unit to give sharing sessions on work-life strategies and to provide more information and advice. So an encouraging ground swell has started to build up. Another initiative which the Ministries are working on would be the compilation of actual pro-family practices that work, for example, K K Hospital, Changi Hospital, ST Aerospace and others, to show other employers what can be done and we will need to provide greater publicity for these measures that work. Next, I turn to childcare facilities. Dr Vasoo has asked for a review of childcare subsidies. We can assure Dr Vasoo that the subsidies will be reviewed periodically to ensure that they keep pace with the times. Dr Neo asked for better distribution of childcare centres.”
“We agree that employers should, as far as possible, implement flexi-work arrangements to help Singaporeans with family responsibilities to participate in the workforce. This is particularly so with the availability of IT. Our existing employment laws are already flexible in allowing flexi-work arrangements. What is needed are creative solutions by human resource managers. Our laws also ensure that workers employed on a part-time basis can enjoy pro-rated employment benefits such as medical leave. Employers are also required to contribute to the Central Provident Fund even if the employee is working part-time. Nevertheless, the Ministry of Manpower is reviewing the Employment Act to ensure that they continue to meet the needs of business and employees. And those employers who want to re-design their working hours and practices and who encounter some problems with our legislation would be encouraged to bring them up with the Ministry of Manpower so that they can be taken into account when the Employment Act is reviewed. We would also like to point out that the paid maternity leave in our Employment Act for up to two children and the additional grants for the second and third child are in fact more favourable and family-friendly as compared to a number of other countries including Australia, New Zealand and some states in the United States of America which do not even require employers to pay for such leave as a statutory benefit. Such benefits in these countries are subject to negotiations between the employer and employee concerned. The point I want to put across to Members is: let us look at the total package, not just on specific measures that are available in any country.”
“The Government is well aware of the increasing struggles for families in coping with a fast-paced knowledge-based economy. This year, both Prime Minister Goh and Deputy Prime Minister BG Lee have emphasised the need to have pro-family workplaces. This is particularly so as the dual income families become the norm and working hours become longer in a 24 x 7 economy. But let us pause and think. The 24 x 7 economy does not necessarily mean that each person has to work longer hours in a week. It is how we roster people at work and how smartly they work that is important, not the number of hours that they spend at work. And this is the focus which all employers should bear in mind when they devise pro-family practices. It will make a mockery of the concept of productivity if getting more work done means getting the workers to work longer hours. As mentioned by Dr Neo, many of the organisations in the United States of America have offered family-friendly work practices believing that being family-friendly makes good business sense. This is despite their government's negligible role in promoting family-friendly programmes. In fact, these companies no longer talk about work-family balance because the word "balance" seems to suggest a zero sum game. Instead, they talk about work-life effectiveness as they strongly believe that employees with strong personal and family ties would be more effective and motivated at work. Family and work are not necessarily at odds with each other. This represents a paradigm shift and reflects a holistic approach. European companies too have adopted family-friendly practices. We want our local companies to emulate these companies.”
“And I hope that all advisers will review the activities of their grassroots organisations and make sure that they are better focused and therefore more effective in strengthening family bonds. The work is not that of just the Government and policies. The work has to be done on the ground and I hope, through the advisers, that more can be done. The civil service has also implemented several family-friendly initiatives. Apart from the paid marriage and paternity leave that were implemented from 1st October this year, it has allowed individual ministries and departments to arrange flexi-work arrangements as long as there is no loss of productivity and lapse in service standards to the public. These are in addition to many other pro-family policies introduced much earlier, for example, no-pay leave for childcare, part-time employment for working mothers and sick childcare leave. Promoting family-friendly practices in private sector companies is a key strategic focus for both the Ministry of Community Development and Sports and the Ministry of Manpower. This is intended not just to improve family life but also work life. Efforts to encourage employers to adopt family-friendly work practices were first initiated by the then Ministry of Community Development and its people sector-led Committee on the Family. One of the first major initiatives was the launch of the Family Friendly Firm Award in 1998. This was introduced together with the Ministry of Manpower, the Singapore National Employers Federation and the National Trades Union Congress. The award aims to recognise companies for their pro-family efforts and encourage them to introduce and promote innovative pro-family practices for their employees.”
“I also note that Dr Vasoo and Dr Jennifer Lee are also members of this Committee. We hope that Dr Neo and these other members of the Committee would spare no effort in this important task of changing mindsets. There are, of course, already many existing pro-family policies. We have, for example, been advocating that the responsibility of parenthood does not lie solely with the women and fathers must share their responsibilities in bringing up their children. The Prime Minister reiterated this when he announced the paternity leave scheme in the civil service in August this year. It may not be very much of a fringe benefit in terms of cost but it is a very strong signal to the public at large that the fathers also have a role to play. MCDS has also been organising and supporting seminars on fathering to highlight the importance of fatherhood. Another example is our pro-family public housing. There are rental schemes in place for young couples setting up homes for the first time. Those who book a new flat still under construction under the Registration for Flat System (RFS) or who have been in the queue for at least three months awaiting selection of a flat can apply to rent a three-room flat under the Transitional Rental Housing Scheme. For low income couples, they could apply under the Public Rental Housing Scheme to rent a one-room or two-room flat from HDB, or the Rent and Purchase Scheme which allows them to first rent a three-room flat and buy over the flat subsequently when their financial situation improves. The People's Association has also been encouraging community-based organisations to conduct more grassroots programmes to strengthen family ties and neighbourliness. Activities range from family day activities to festive celebrations involving families.”
“That report could be submitted to the Ministerial Committee on Marriage and Procreation or, if he feels that he could do so directly with the Minister for National Development, he is also free to do so. This is what we mean when we talk about participation by the public. Dr Neo has urged that there be a comprehensive approach to formulating and implementing policies to address the issue of falling fertility. We totally agree with her. Therefore, when the Government announced the package of measures to encourage marriage and procreation recently, we stressed the need to create a total environment conducive to couples marrying and having more children. Here, I would like to reiterate to Mr Simon Tay that the Government's objective is to have couples marrying and having more children within the institution of marriage. So it is not the role of the Government to promote single parenthood. Besides monetary incentives like the Baby Bonus Scheme, the measures included promoting pro-family work practices, increasing the supply of quality childcare centres, easier home ownership for young couples, public education and creating socialising opportunities for the young. A key measure is public education. Hence, a Public Education Committee (PEC) on the Family chaired by the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for Community Development and Sports, Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon, has been formed. The PEC will look into a number of the proposals that Dr Neo has raised, such as changing the mindset of employers who prefer employees with no family commitments, encouraging earlier childbearing and role-sharing, and expanding the avenues for young people to socialise. I do not need to elaborate on this as Dr Neo, being a member of the PEC, will be familiar with its work.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank Dr Lily Neo for her comprehensive survey of issues relating to the family, especially to raising our fertility rate. I wish also to thank all those who spoke, with great spirit in some cases, and gave their views and suggestions. Most of the concerns raised are real ones, shared by the Government. This is the reason why the Prime Minister has asked me and two of my Cabinet colleagues, Messrs Lim Hng Kiang and Abdullah Tarmugi, to form the Ministerial Committee on Marriage and Procreation to look into these concerns. The fact that the Prime Minister himself raised the subject and spoke of the joys of a family at the National Day Rally, shows that the Government is not just concerned with economic achievements but also with our social achievements. Dr Lee, I feel, misinterpreted the Prime Minister's statement. The Prime Minister acknowledges that it is far harder to measure social development, not that we are clinging to the old economic ones. Many of Dr Neo's proposals and those of the other speakers have actually either been implemented, are being implemented, or are currently being seriously considered. I will now reply to some of the more specific points that they have raised. First, I will start with the physical ones that Dr Teo Ho Pin has suggested. I would like him to expand on his ideas. But it is not necessary to form yet another ministerial committee or committee of Parliament to do it. In the spirit of S21, Dr Teo and like-minded Members of Parliament, as well as like-minded members of the public, can get together, do a study and present a comprehensive report.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the cost of raising children varies from family to family but I hear that many people think it is not expensive. Whatever bonus or incentive that the Government gives to couples for raising their children cannot fully cover the total cost of raising those children. As I said, the measures are really to signal, to encourage, and not to pay for the full costs of bringing up children. It is not a simple subject why people marry earlier and have more children, and why other people do not. So over the next few months, maybe even years, we would have to consider all the various aspects of this issue, learn from the experience of other countries, find out what works and what does not. The more difficult area to consider would be the social changes that have taken place in society, not only in ours but I think worldwide, and whether those changes can be reversed. It has to do with the values that people hold and when we talk about the subject of marriage and family formation, we are really going back to the old fundamentals. As I said, if there are good ideas and viewpoints as to how we can do it, and do an effective job of getting more babies born, please let us have these suggestions and we will consider them carefully and, in due course, perhaps another set of incentives could be announced.”
“If the Member has effective suggestions as to how to encourage people to marry younger and have children younger, please forward the suggestions.”
“Some of the measures to encourage couples to have children have been announced. I know that there are many other suggestions that people would have on how we can give further encouragement to couples to do so. The measures which Mr Ang mentioned will be considered together with all other suggestions that we have received from the public. I would like to encourage all Members and members of the public to send in their suggestions. All of them would be considered for their practicality in a holistic manner and not on a one-by-one basis.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, we should look at this in its proper perspective. We have a falling fertility rate. What Government can do is to offer incentives as a signal to the people that we encourage families to have children. As I said, it is not a question of whether it is fair or not fair, whether we are being unfair to those who have children of their own accord naturally, even without the encouragement. It is to address a national problem of declining birth rates, the consequence of which we will see only many years from now. Look at these measures that the Government has announced as an encouragement, signalling to the people that we should have marriage and procreation, and that this is good for the future of Singapore.”
“We are not trying to be clinical. We are trying to set a date for implementation. As I said in my earlier answer, even if we set the effective date at the point of time when the Prime Minister made the announcement, some people will still miss it.”
“Sir, it is not a matter of fairness. We have to look at this "baby bonus" in its proper perspective. It is an encouragement to families to have more children. We cannot count every dollar and cent as to who would benefit and who would not. As in drawing a date for the effective implementation of this "baby bonus", there will be some who will miss it even by a second.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think it is very difficult to be precise as to the date of conception. Some allowance has already been provided in the announcement that it will be effective from 1st April 2001.”
“However, the Government does recognise that some of the older pensioners are receiving low pensions relative to the cost of living, and therefore assists them by paying a top-up allowance, called the Singapore Allowance, to supplement the pensions that they receive. The Singapore Allowance was last revised in August 1997, when it was raised from $130 to $140 per month. Concurrently, the gross pension eligibility ceiling was raised from $900 to $950 per month. Since 1997, the Consumer Price Index has increased by only 2.1%. This year, MTI projects inflation to be only 1-2%. Nonetheless, the Government will review the present quantum and eligibility ceiling for the Singapore Allowance, to determine if another revision is justified. CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY 11. Mr Tay Beng Chuan asked the Minister for National Development whether the Government will bring forward the implementation of more infrastructure and public building projects to restore the growth of the construction industry which has contracted by 9.8% for the eighth consecutive quarter.”
“The Prime Minister has announced in his National Day Rally Speech on 20th August 2000 two measures to address the problem of falling total fertility rate in Singapore. These are the Baby Bonus Scheme and paid third child maternity leave. The Prime Minister has also said that more supporting measures will be announced soon as it is important that we have a total environment conducive to raising a family. He has appointed Mr Lim Boon Heng to chair a committee to oversee this critical matter. As regards the Member's query on 5-day working week for civil servants, PSD's approach is to give Government ministries some flexibility to decide on their working hours. If ministries choose to adjust the working hours for their officers within the overall framework of the 42-hour workweek, PSD has no objection so long as this improves their levels of service to the public, and does not affect productivity. However, there will be no general rule for the whole Civil Service to switch to a 5-day working week. Doing so would send the wrong signal that since the Government itself is now working fewer days, we have now arrived and it is all right for workers throughout the economy to shift to a less intense pace. RETIRED CIVIL SERVANTS' PENSION 9. Mr Thomas Thomas asked the Deputy Prime Minister whether pensions of retired civil servants will be adjusted in the light of the recent public sector salary revision. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Pensions are calculated based on the pensionable component in an officer's last-drawn salary and the length of his pensionable service. As pensions are given on account of past service, they are not adjusted whenever the salaries of serving officers are revised.”
“And even if we may have to live with a higher income disparity than we have been comfortable with, we know that in the next generation, the children from low-income families also have a chance to get to the top, and draw top wages. So our policies must not only ensure everyone has a good job, a comfortable home and access to healthcare, we must also ensure that our education system remains a social leveller that gives every child equal opportunities to go as far as his abilities allow him or her. Sir, I have taken this line in this debate because I know there is a lot of concern for the plight of the low-income. There is concern about this sense of unhappiness seeing others earn top wages, and that maybe the solution could be to narrow the income gap. But to me, after 20 years working with the trade unions, I know that the best way to help the low-income is to ensure that they have a job, that they can earn a living and hold their heads high. And that way is to make sure that we have top talent in Government, in the civil service and also in our companies.”
“Our task is to get people in Government and in the civil service to devise policies that will ensure that the low income share in the progress of the country, even with their relatively lower incomes. It means successfully attracting investments to create good jobs for all our workers. It means keeping HDB flats affordable, ensuring that good healthcare is available to everyone, that children from all families get the best education they deserve. For now, we have to follow the world-wide trend and pay top talent the high wages they can earn elsewhere. But more of the annual wage for them should be variable, as in the private sector. I am pleased that the new wage structure that DPM BG Lee announced matches more closely private sector practice. Apart from ensuring that our workers continue to have good jobs, and their families continue to enjoy a decent life, we must maintain equal opportunities for all, irrespective of family income. This has been so throughout our short history. The children of poor families have been able to go all the way to university, and then into jobs. It is still so today. When I left for London recently, one SATS employee, a Muslim woman, assisted my mother-in-law with a wheelchair, pushing her to the boarding gate. I had a casual conversation with her, and found that she was going on leave next month - on holiday to Canada. It pleased me that an ordinary worker of SATS can afford to take a holiday so far away. But what pleased me much more was her telling me that she would be visiting her son who is there studying to become a doctor. So our system today allows children from humble families to rise to the top! We must make sure that this remains so.”
“Take another example: the telecommunications sector. Technology has changed so fast in this sector, and the ground rules have likewise changed. Today SingTel has a tough challenge to remain a national champion generating thousands of good jobs for Singaporeans. In order to strengthen our chances of remaining our telecommunications hub in the region, we have opened up the sector, adding greater pressure on SingTel. Better to open up, create jobs for Singaporeans, even if they work for foreign companies, than to continue to protect SingTel and risk losing everything. These are but three examples. They show that we are not just competing with countries in the region, we are competing globally. Therefore, we need to get the best talent in Government, in the civil service and in our leading companies. If US companies, European companies and, most likely, also the Japanese companies all pay top wages for top talent, we will see top end wages here rise as well, if we are to retain and attract our share of talent to tackle the new challenges before us. The income gap may widen, but it will widen because wages will rise much more slowly at the lower end. But it does not mean that there is no improvement in the lives of those at the bottom. Will the income gap stop widening? At this stage of our development, it will widen further, but it will slow down. Even in the United States, the gap will not widen indefinitely. It must also plateau off, even swing back and narrow somewhat. Indeed, the dip in the Dow Jones index and Nasdaq recently has, in many instances, reduced the variable payments top executives get. One day it may be a more prolonged dip. If that happens, it will happen here as well. When that will be, it is difficult to predict.”
“In 20 years, the names at the top are quite different! So even in the sectors where we are rated among the best, we can be left behind. Take, for example, the port of Singapore. It has been our lifeline since the founding of modern Singapore. In recent years, we have seen how new ports close by can pose a real challenge to PSA. Take Changi Airport. It has developed into the leading hub in the region, even though, geographically, Bangkok is better sited. But this position may not last forever. Two days ago, I flew back from London. The Singapore Airlines flight was almost full. However, most of the passengers did not stop over in Singapore. The majority changed to connecting flights to Australia. Good business for SIA and Changi Airport, but not our hotels or shops. The same day (27th June) at noon, I read in the New Paper that with the new Boeing 747-400 and flight paths over China, Qantas can fly London-Sydney refuelling at Bangkok, cutting one hour from the journey. That is only the harbinger of things to come. In a few short years, a new generation of aircraft can fly London-Sydney non-stop. So will most of those who commute between Europe and Australia over fly Singapore? Will Changi face the same fate as Honolulu? Honolulu used to be a stop-over for trans-Pacific flights, but aircraft now fly non-stop across the Pacific. Will Changi face the same fate as airports in the Middle East, once a necessary stop between Asia and Europe? What implications have this development for Singapore Airlines? What new strategies must it adopt to remain one of the leading airlines in the world, maintaining 25,000 jobs it creates, mostly for Singaporeans, and we are not talking about jobs for the lower 10% of Singaporeans. We are talking about good jobs.”
“Their traffic jams in the evenings are not due just to bicycles but also to many motorcycles. But they could have done a lot better, if their leaders have been bolder in accepting market-oriented policies. They could have attracted more investments creating jobs in Vietnam. Instead, today they are planning to export 300,000 workers overseas, the solution which Mr Zulkifli might have suggested for our lower income and low-skilled workers. But I do not think that is the way to go, because to send our low-skilled workers overseas means paying them wages of third world countries. They get a better pay working here in Singapore. Vietnamese workers, I think, toil harder than Singaporean workers but they do not enjoy the quality of life our workers have. What is the difference? It is in the quality of leadership - in Government and in the civil service. Without capable leaders showing the right way, our workers can work hard but see no improvement in their lives. I do not mean to criticise the Vietnamese government. The transition from a centrally-planned economy to a market economy is not an easy one. But the point is: hard work by the people alone is not enough; the policies must be right. We do not want Singaporeans to toil hard for little return. We want them to have good jobs here. We want them to be better skilled, more productive and earning higher wages. While our economic recovery is firm, let us not underestimate the problems that we face. The transition that we have to make into the knowledge economy is not an easy one. At the same time, many of the jobs we now have are under threat. We have done well in a number of areas. But this success does not guarantee the future. We have to draw a lesson from the Fortune Top 100 list.”
“Fortunately, we still have most of our top talent here. But try to narrow the income gap here by imposing a limit on top end wages instead of letting market forces work - we will merely see the migration of our top talent. The cost would be a sluggish economy, higher unemployment and lower wages across the board, not just low wages at the top, but lower wages also at the bottom. Far from helping the lower income, we will be consigning them to third world standards of living. If we are concerned about the welfare of the less-skilled lower income families here, which, evidently many Members are, judging from the debate earlier this afternoon, then we must not only retain our talent but also attract more talent here. Only a thriving economy will create good jobs for all, including the less skilled. We must have some of the best talent in Government and in the civil service. Some will say that the wealth of the country is not due just to the efforts of Government or the civil service but due to the hard-work of the people of Singapore. True, I agree but our hardworking people need leaders to show them the right way. If we do not have top talent to analyse the problems we face and devise the right policies and plans, all their hard work will be in vain. I made my first of several trips to Vietnam in 1992. I was deeply impressed by how motivated and hardworking the Vietnamese people are. They had abandoned the centrally-planned economy, where everyone was paid almost the same low wages, for the market economy, following what other communist countries had done. I made my most recent trip two weeks ago. One Vietnamese asked what I think of Vietnam. Well, there has been progress. Some Vietnamese are better off. They drive cars or motorcycles.”
“They ask: are the wages of top earners obscene? European MNCs are not waiting for the conclusion of this debate - they have to survive, and therefore, they are fighting for their share of top talent who will make a difference to their future. What is the result? Under the administration of Tony Blair's New Labour, the income gap in the United Kingdom is now wider than it ever was during the Thatcher years! French Socialist Finance Minister, Laurent Fabius could not persuade one top talent he wanted to join and work for him. Why? He was locked up by his company with stock options! And the Japanese have taken notice. They too, are beginning to embrace American methods. They have started to employ non-Japanese to lead their troubled companies and I am sure that they must pay top wages to get those foreigners to work for Japanese companies. Some people ask: can we stop the income gap from widening? In other words, let the Americans and the Europeans and even the Japanese go their way and let us go our way. This is unrealistic. We cannot buck the trend. Ours is rated as the most globalised economy by one research company, AT Kearney reported in The Economist. Therefore, what happens elsewhere will come to pass here as well. Our top talent will compete for jobs at top first world wages. Go to New York, Silicon Valley, London, Hong Kong or Tokyo - you will find some of our best talents there. They are paid what top talents in the world are paid. Many of them earn several millions a year and they do so quietly. Do we want more of our top talent leaving to join first world companies? Are we satisfied that they do well in the first world countries, creating jobs there? Or do we want them here, developing companies, creating jobs for Singaporeans? I think we want the latter.”
“Sir, I take the point. But now in the PSL scheme, those appointed to the top jobs would be appointed for 10 years and, after that, they would have to leave. Now it is not quite the same as the private sector but there is a limit as to how long the person will serve in that job and that does not mean that if the person really fumbles in the job, he will not be removed. I do not think that is the intention of the Government. Earlier this afternoon, Members debated a full hour on the widening income gap. The numbers that were released by DPM BG Lee puts this in sharp focus. Members will observe how much the income gap has widened in top talent and the workers in the factory. This trend, however, is not a Singapore phenomenon. I have been associated with the trade unions for 20 years. It is my job to see how others pay workers elsewhere and what incomes were like between management and workers. I know that this trend has its origins in the United States. In the 1980s, US companies restructured and re-engineered to regain the competitiveness they had lost to other MNCs, particularly the Japanese. One of the key changes they made was to provide new and attractive incentive schemes to top executives, the most significant of which are stock options. The stock option message is clear. If you make the company grow, your share in it grows as well. By the 1990s, US companies had regained their vitality. New ideas emerged, using new technology. As the revitalised US companies sweep the competition, MNCs elsewhere followed these successful United States models. In Europe, the United Kingdom led the way and these methods are now spreading in Western Europe. Indeed, there is an on-going debate raging in some continental European countries steeped in socialist thinking.”
“Sir, first, let me give a short response to Dr Ong Chit Chung on the point about private sector jobs being more risky than those in the civil service. I am not sure whether he intended to echo what Mr Inderjit Singh had earlier said about the job of political office holders - whether that was the real point. But I think he will agree with me, observing governments in different parts of the world, that there is no riskier job than that of a political office. I think the risk may be different but the job is no less risky. Dr Ong Chit Chung rose ---”
“I agree that much water has passed under the bridge of our short history. But that is not to say that the water will remain still all the time. We will continue to be tested by events and time, and sometimes events and time beyond our control and outside our area. There is definitely a need to create a better understanding all the time. Co-existence and tolerance are not sufficient. Someone described co-existence as a relationship between a turkey and a farmer, until Christmas time. An hon. Member: Thanksgiving!”
“Understanding how sensitive the issue was and is, she rightly reported SM's full reply, in context. SM's remarks, set in that background, certainly make a more understanding reading. These are not simple statements. They are laden with personal experiences over the years which show deep seated concerns that cannot be easily wished away by rational thinking. They are a matter of life and death that are abounded by deep emotions and primordial instincts. Geopolitical realities might even make it worse. The extremist and the fanatical ways of some groups in acting in the name of Islam in some parts of the Muslim world complicate matters further. Non-Muslim bias and stereotyping too add to the complexity of the matter. But how does a Muslim Singaporean who seriously and sincerely believe in being Singaporean reconcile his belief in being Singaporean with what he sees as being seen as non-loyal or not loyal to Singapore? To many a Muslim, being religious is also being responsible and being a good human being. Also a good citizen. Does an average Singaporean, especially a secular Chinese, prefer Malays/Muslims not to be religious? Is there truth in what a Chinese gentleman once told me at a forum? I quote, "The problem with you Malays is that you are Muslims. If you are just Malays, you are all right." Is that a problem of stereotyping? Are Malays/Muslims cast in the image and shadows of some of the extremist Muslim groups elsewhere? Muslim Singaporeans, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, generally believe in moderation and pluralism. They are conscious of the multi-racial context they live in. Most, I am sure, believe in independent Singapore and will die for Singapore as their "tanah tumpah darah" or motherland.”
“Just look around us, and we will be able to see enough of events that will continue to remind us that the ugly heads of ethnicity, racial bigotry and religious fanaticism are as real in the past as it is today. Gory scenes of Rwanda, Kosovo and even Timor, Ambon and Kalimantan, in the recent past still remind us that we cannot ever take racial and religious harmony for granted. Rwanda and Kosovo may be too far for us to really understand their vibes, but after more than 30 years of relative peace and harmony in Indonesia, look at what could happen when a plural society stirs and unravels. Domestic politics and economic ills must surely have contributed to the problems too. And these factors will continue to also feature in the future. These issues could have been on Senior Minister Lee's mind when he answered the Polytechnic student's questions about Malays in the SAF. This issue has been haunting our minds, I am sure, not only the Malay minds, for some time now. And it looks set to continue to do so for some time more. This is certainly not an issue that could be settled once and for all, at least not for now. This issue too drew the attention of the Straits Times last Thursday. Ms Irene Ng, born a Malaysian but now a Singaporean, and who speaks Bahasa very eloquently, as the Malays say "macam air" chose two Malay sayings to open and close the matter discussed in the papers. Capturing the disappointment of many Malays over SM Lee's comment, she said it was like "Sudah berputik, balik berbunga", meaning that the fruit has taken shape, regressed to a flower stage. She ended by using another Malay saying "Akar dah tumbuh, janganlah dibongkar" meaning what has taken root, let it not be destroyed. Very appropriate indeed.”
“There is also an urgent need to do centralised recruitment, training and deployment of pre-school teachers. The MOE might want to consider either doing it themselves or to establish an independent agency to undertake that role. This will certainly reduce the headaches now faced by pre-school operators and help to control the quality of teaching at these centres. [Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair] 4.23 pm We have read about certain pre-school centres producing students whose quality is below par. They get educationally-handicapped even before they begin their primary schooling. This will have serious ramifications as the education deficit sets in early, aggravating the situation as the students move up the educational ladder. Pre-school education deserves more attention and I am sure MOE will be well supported in their move to do more for the pre-schoolers. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, moving on to the bigger picture, allow me now to touch on an equally important, if not more important point mentioned in the President's Address, that is, multi-racial harmony and social cohesiveness. That is an even more challenging task. The message is the same, perhaps just as bland and boring but it is definitely worth reiterating. We cannot take multi-racial and multi-religious harmony that now exists in Singapore for granted. One can try to add more colour to that message by using different languages and imageries. Yet the message is that the stark and cold realities of primordial instincts still linger and apparently will continue to haunt us for some time to come. History has shown us how difficult it is to tackle that problem. There are enough examples to scare us.”
“Almost a cliche perhaps, but do not let that fool us, for the substance in that Addendum speaks volumes of the thinking and the mission MOE sets for the Ministry and for all of us Singaporeans. Mr Speaker, Sir, time does not permit me to belabour the points here but suffice to say that the same Minister also chaired the Singapore 21 Committee which presented us with a vision for a progressive and gracious Singapore, living in harmony with itself, the region and the world in the next century. Allow me, however, to highlight just one point in the Addendum which, to me, will bring about far-reaching impact and I quote, "We will be more involved in pre-school education, investing in curriculum design and teacher training, conducting research and tightening regulation. A pilot research will be conducted to ascertain the most effective way for MOE to work with pre-school centres to prepare children for school learning." Currently, pre-school education is not under the direct aegis of MOE, although the pre-school centres need to be registered with the Ministry. There is ample evidence to say that in preparing for our children's education, we should start from as early as possible. Some even say, pre-natal. I do not know the extent to which MOE would get "more involved", but I am sure that parents would be most happy to learn that the MOE's hand would be more visible in pre-school education. The MOE research should also look into how more of the Ministry's budget and/or Edusave funds could be disbursed for pre-school education. The PAP's Community Foundation (PCF) now runs classes for about 70% of the nursery, K1 and K2 classes for each cohort each year. The fees chargeable vary from $15 to $100 a month, and even more in the private ones. Surely, the quality will also vary.”
“When Mr Nathan was the Chairman of the Straits Times, he had at times wished that our journalists write better, not just with colour, but with commitment and passion. Passion can come in many different colours. And in different forms too. But what about substance? That was definitely aplenty in the Presidential Address. Similarly with the Addenda. What matters most is that the Singapore Government believes in bringing home the bacon, the more succulent the better it is. However, I am sure you would understand if the Muslim Singaporeans also ask for their fair share of halal providence. This is provided for in both the Presidential Address and the Addenda. In other words, lots of food for thought and more, if we do not belong to that class of pleasure seekers, who only believe in material well-being, to be arrived at without toil, sweat and tears as in Mr Rajaratnam's speech. In short, we Singaporeans believe in our people. Those few words almost wax lyrical. Like the passion in the Pledge and the song, "We the citizens of Singapore, pledge ourselves as one united people.". I will come back to that later. But first, Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me to focus on two areas which I think are critical as we prepare for our future. First, on education. The wealth of Singapore lies in our people - our values and our instincts, our courage and tenacity, our skills and competencies. So says the MOE Addendum. I could not agree more. Our success in the future depends on how well we prepare our people for the challenges ahead. Singapore has always placed a premium on education, and it is worth reiterating why we must continue to invest heavily in our young. That is how the MOE prefaced its role.”
“It is time we did the selling, the mobilising. We have to do this in concert. In pushing for Manpower 21, we must not forget that there are significant numbers within our workforce who do not have basic education. So we need to give BEST another push. We must initiate other imaginative programmes that give such people hope that they too will benefit in a better Singapore we want to create. Then, we will move into the 21st century, entering the knowledge-based economy and building our world-class homes here. Sir, I support the motion. The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate on the President's Address and I rise in support of the motion in the name of Mr Davinder Singh. At the risk of sounding bland and making the Straits Times political writer Chua Lee Hoong yawn, I must first confess that I agree with her that we can do with more c olour in our speeches, such as the one mentioned by her in Mr S Rajaratnam's Harvard Club Anniversary speech in 1981. However, I hope she and others would not be too disappointed if I shun the example of the happy pigs mentioned in Mr Rajaratnam's speech. I do not know whether that will make my comments more acceptable today or more halal, but I hope it would not lack the passion called for. Indeed, there are happier things to speak of too. If the President's Address was lacking in passion, as Lee Hoong said, it was definitely not because President S R Nathan lacks such a spirit. I know Mr President as one who reads widely and as a man with a strong passion for Singapore.”
“Employees with stock options get a windfall, unless stock options are indexed to the stock market. So let us study ESOP carefully and not end up with a scheme that will weigh down company earnings in the future. We may have no choice but to follow what other people do. But let us learn from their experiences to avoid the problems they run into. The pace of change will be faster. Already the average length of service of employees with a company has shrunk. With the faster pace of change, this average length of service will shrink further. It will not be because of poor work attitudes and job hopping. It will be driven by shorter life cycles of products and services. Therefore, compensation schemes and provisions for employee-welfare will have to take this factor into account. Employability, not employment, is the key issue. It is fundamental to workers' welfare. Skills training must therefore be high on our national agenda. So I return to where I started - rating agencies. We lag behind others in skills and work attitude. This shows up in all indicators of rating agencies. They tell us our weaknesses, even if BERI rates our workforce as number one. Unless we correct these weaknesses, we cannot move up the new growth curve. There will not be the bright future we want for our people. This is why we have Manpower 21. It is a key blueprint for the welfare of our people. Let us act on it! Manpower 21 can take off only if all three social partners - unions, employers and Government - work in tandem and support these schemes and enlist the support of the people. Yes, all three social partners have indeed made significant contributions on what needs to be done to develop a globally competitive workforce to support our economic vision.”
“For the first time in its history, IBM may be unionised as unhappy workers turn to the union to redress their grievances! So we should learn from such experiences to know that at first sight the idea is great, it does not necessarily turn out to be great. Today, one idea is in fashion - employee stock option plans (ESOPs). Surveys show that American companies with stock option plans out-perform those that do not. These plans are touted as 'cost free' for the companies except for the dilutive effect on shareholders. Companies here are plunging into ESOP. I think ESOP is a great idea for new start-ups like those we want under our technopreneurship programme. It offers employees the attraction of becoming millionaires by sharing risks with the company founders. Beyond the start-up phase, I am not so sure. If employee numbers become very large and growth moderates, will there be enough shares to go round, to be effective as a motivator? For mature companies seeking the services of top-notch business leaders, ESOP is also a good idea. It is a form of risks-sharing. The top executives are rewarded if their actions do bring results, take the company on a new growth curve. But ESOPs widen the income gap. The US trade union federation AFL-CIO points out that thanks largely to share options, the average American chief executive now takes home 419 times the wage of the average factory worker. In 1980, he made 42 times as much. Other studies show that ESOPs inflate reported earnings because options are not treated as expenses, and mask employee earnings to show lower wage growth. Others point out that shareholder value may well be due to bull runs of the stock market rather than the actions of management and employees.”
“What we need are mortgage assistance schemes, like what we have in the downturn. For those who rent, why, we have rent vouchers and utility vouchers, an idea which some in the West are only now discussing! Of course, our CDCs dispense those vouchers. And these are not being paid for by social insurance contributions, direct cost to companies. There will be calls for a minimum wage. It is an icon of the conventional social safety net. Yes, we do not have a minimum wage. But we do have subsidised public housing. The subsidised public housing scheme is actually another way of delivering what the minimum wage concept tries to deliver. The minimum wage adopted in other countries aims to give workers at the lower end enough to pay for housing. Our scheme delivers the same, but does not add cost to the employer. So there should be no monopoly of effective ideas for social safety nets. We should also take care that we do not adopt new ideas that appear to be great, but whose consequences are not fully known, like social security as developed in Western Europe. When first implemented, everyone thought it was great. Now the system is breaking down and governments are voted out because they try to cut back benefits to balance budgets. Why did a great idea turn out to be a millstone on the necks of society? Because people did not appreciate social trends - people living longer and birth rates falling. Instead of each generation providing for themselves, it has become one generation living off the next! Companies also get into trouble with their employee benefits. Take pensions. IBM in the United States is overhauling its employee pension scheme. It says it must do so to stay competitive with rivals which have lower cost schemes. But it is creating an employee backlash.”
“After eight years of recession, the system is proving unsustainable. Cracks and strains are showing. Unemployment was 4.1% last year and estimated to push past 5% this year. Japanese companies are chipping away at their seniority-based system, shifting towards performance-based systems, closer to the US model. This will strain social cohesiveness and a new social contract will have to be made. So which way should we go? What measure do we have to take to make us even more competitive so that we can create good-paying jobs for our workers? Obviously, we want to move into the knowledge-based economy. One aspect of it is Silicon Valley type start-ups. Another is developing our companies into regionally competitive, if not, globally competitive ones. What can we do to moderate the excesses of the competitive market economy? How can we strengthen our social safety net? Some people, both Singaporeans and foreigners, mistakenly think we are grossly lacking in not setting up a social safety net. But that is because they see the social safety net as the one modelled by the West. In the years ahead, as the harsh pace of globalisation becomes more manifest, there will be louder calls for the setting up of social safety nets. We need not oppose such calls. Rather, we should contribute to the debate by pointing out that there are different solutions. There should be a free market for ideas. Let me explain with an example. Some countries have unemployment benefits, pegged to the last-drawn pay. We do not - we only have provision for retrenchment benefits. Does it mean ours is deficient? Not necessarily. Typically, in most countries, home ownership is 60% of the population. Ours is 90%. Therefore, one major household expenditure - rents - is not an issue for most of our people.”
“In the US, wage disparity is translated into substantial differences in the quality of life, especially in housing and education of children. Richer Americans have, over the years, retreated into their suburban enclaves and their own private schools. The inner city is a mess. The homeless roam the streets at night. Crime rate is high: there has been a doubling of the adult population in prison since 1985. Now about 2.3% of the male adult population are behind bars. The US is large and diverse. Civil society is strong. The US can absorb the social discontent. While the US model is attractive, can a small country like Singapore withstand the excesses the model brings? Do we have a choice? In a global economy, the labour market is becoming one, we have to change our sense of place. But in every country, there is a spread of people with differing abilities. Low-skilled workers should not be priced out of the market. Which is better - a system that provides more people with the dignity of work, even low paying, or one where the unemployed or unemployable live on the backs of those who work? In Europe, wage disparity is far narrower, but the social security systems are struggling. Many people choose to remain unemployed, rather than take up jobs with lower pay. Immigrants from Central Europe and North Africa take up those lower value and lower pay jobs. Most recently, many jobs of lower value and lower pay have migrated to Central Europe. The unemployed are also voters, and they applied political pressure. In France, the unemployed, led by unions, marched for higher unemployment benefits. Japan had taken a different path, using under-employment to keep unemployment low. Large conglomerates also create businesses to "retire" their older executives.”
“But we are in danger of having stopped our clocks in the 1980s. This constituent of his works for ICAO, and had recently visited China to examine their standards and procedures. He was impressed by how fast Chinese airlines have progressed. In the 1980s he thought it would take them 50 years to catch up with Singapore. He thinks they have caught up, a good system is in place. Only the lack of expertise in marketing and selling was holding them back to give us a run for our money. These two examples, I hope, are sufficient to prod us to change, whichever industry we are in, be it banking, insurance, telecoms, air transport, sea transport, retailing, healthcare, construction, ship repairing, chemicals and petrochemicals, or electronics. We operate in a global environment. The forces at work elsewhere are present here as well. It is impossible for us to be isolated and to shut out these competitive forces. Our own market is far too small. We have to trade with the world and so contend with the global forces at work. Almost all countries embrace the market economy. The critical question for us is: what kind of operating system is best suited for us? Which system will allow our companies to be competitive and, at the same time, maintain social harmony? Which variant of the market economy is the more efficient and bring about the most good? Is it the US model, or the European one? Some say the US model, because it is the most dynamic and competitive. The US has been able to create more jobs than Europe. So unemployment in the US is lower than in Europe. But critics point out that many jobs are low-paying ones. Wage disparity in the US is far wider than in Europe.”
“Those familiar with the telecoms industry know how MCIWorldCom - a relative newcomer - now challenges AT&T for top ranking. This is why management gurus say that a company must start on a new growth curve before it reaches the top of its current one. So it is useful to know where we are. What strategies we adopt depends on where we are on the growth curve. This explains why we have to make changes, even when things seem to be going well, such as in the banking industry. But it is not easy. The attitude is: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!" But if we do not start on new growth strategies, we will be left behind in the dustbins of history. Are some of our companies in danger of being overtaken? We are Number One in ship repair. The CEO of Jurong Shipyard, Mr K K Tan, told me recently that he had visited a shipyard in Shanghai, China. The orderliness of the shipyard impressed him greatly. Obviously the shipyard was efficient and well run. He asked his host where they had learnt such modern management methods. His host replied: "From you!" Mr Tan was taken aback! How was that possible? His host said: "Do you remember 10 years ago you gave a talk here on 5S? You told us about it, and we have applied it since then." That left an even deeper impression on Mr Tan. It shows how bright, dynamic and hungry Chinese can learn and catch up! So our shipyards need to restructure to stay ahead, and Mr Tan will certainly want to do business with China, where land and labour costs are much lower. SIA regularly wins accolades. Recently, one of Mr Charles Chong's constituents in Pasir Ris told him his fears by e-mail. He said that many countries stopped their clocks when they threw out their colonial masters, and have declined ever since.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion. A friend asked me: Why is the Government so preoccupied with ratings by various agencies? Why is it not concerned with the people, but so concerned about being Number One? It made me pause. Not to ponder over the question, but to ponder why the question was asked. There is an obvious lack of understanding! Why is the Government concerned about ratings? Government wants to know how rating agencies see us, because that is how investors see us. If rating agencies score us poorly, we will be out of favour with investors. A poor rating will mean it would be so much harder to attract investments to create new jobs, better paying jobs for Singaporeans. Government looks at the factors rating agencies use, to see where we are trailing others, so that we can take steps to improve - if those factors are important. Only then will we get the quality investments we want, for quality jobs for our workers. We have scored well in many ratings. The danger is we can be blinded by our own success, and fail to note how others are improving. When one who is Number One becomes complacent, others will overtake it. History is replete with examples. It happens to whole industrial sectors of countries. Just after the Second World War, the leading shipbuilding country was Britain. By the late 1960s, she was overtaken by Japan. Why? Because British shipbuilders did not recognise the greater efficiency of Japanese shipbuilding methods, and when they did, management was unable to get the support of unions for the changes they needed to make. It happens to companies more frequently. IBM was the undisputed Number One in computers. When the PC came on the scene, IBM thought it was a toy. When the PC business grew, IBM belatedly went into the PC business.”