Lim Hwee Hua
Singapore
“Mr Chairman, Sir, I believe the Minister for Finance has actually addressed that quite adequately in the Budget Statement. I will encourage the Member to read the Hansard. As I recall, he did say that our projections for revenue have been made for the next five years and we do not target a particular source of revenue.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would encourage the Member to file a question for MCYS, if she would like to discuss safeguards further. What I would comment here is that at the outset when we conceived the whole Integrated Resorts idea, there were many business risks: whether it is country risk or the timing of the business cycle and so on.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the supplementary questions raised by Ms Denise Phua have actually been debated to some detail under the different heads, in terms of the intended strategy – why we are having Integrated Resorts and casinos in the first place. This has been debated quite extensively by the Ministry of Trade and Industry.”
“Madam, I take the Member's point about the need for checks to be done professionally, and indeed this is the case, and that is why the officers would be sufficiently trained to conduct these checks in a professional manner.”
“The proposed amendments are necessary in order to effect the new financing framework, to allow for greater contestability to be injected into the RTS industry, as well as to ensure security and continuity of the RTS operations. Madam, I beg to move. Question proposed. 4.28 pm”
“Because of the complexity of the issues and the need for us to continue consulting other players who have already been operating in that space, as well as consulting the business community in greater detail, the study would take the better part of this year. OUTCOME OF 50PLUS EXPO 6.”
The complete record
Every one of 805 lines we hold for Lim Hwee Hua, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 12 of 17.
“The ability of these providers to quote lower management charges is linked directly to the scale or size of the aggregate amounts under management. So, it is a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation that we have here. Short of mandating that all funds must be allocated to providers which incidentally is the scenario elsewhere where there is no CPF rate alternative, it could be a real challenge to get enough takers. I would like to ask the Minister how the Board will ensure that there is sufficient scale for a meaningful outcome. Secondly, the accountability for performance. I would also like to ask the Minister what are some of the reservations for the Board itself to be the manager, instead of the facilitator. As it is, it is already providing a risk-free return for balances. Furthermore, in the event that the take-up rate by members is such that the scale allows for the selection of only one or two managers, the accountability of the Board will extend beyond that of a facilitator anyway.”
“Sir, even as we are dealing with the implications of not providing enough finances for old age, we have every motivation to increase the rate of return on CPF savings. Also, I disagree with Mr Steve Chia's proposal to render CPF contribution rates negotiable for certain workers. I think there is some evidence, say, in the US for the 401K, that there will always be a reason not to contribute at all. We should, therefore, not be too quick to dispense with the forced savings feature of the CPF scheme. The Minister has recently stated that the Board is studying ways of assisting in the establishment of an appropriate pension plan within the CPF framework. The objective is to achieve a higher, longer term rate of return through a well-diversified portfolio to be managed by one or more reputable pension plan providers. Sir, diversification is the right strategy. But I would like to raise a few questions regarding this initiative. Firstly, the role of the CPF Board. Unlike the administration of mandatory pension schemes elsewhere, the role of the CPF Board has hitherto been limited to the collection and disbursement of members' monies within a well-prescribed framework, ie, ensuring that employers have made the required contributions on the one hand, and making sure that members meet mortgage instalments on the other. The Board does not explicitly manage members' funds. Yet it guarantees a minimum interest rate of 2.5% on Ordinary Account and 4% on the Special Account balances. This is, in essence, an offer of a risk-free rate by an institution, ie, the CPF Board, familiar to all CPF members. Given this deposit-like facility, it is therefore conceivable that we would need a huge dose of public education to convince members to buy private pension plans.”
“So it is not really a case of MediaCorp Singapore versus Singapore Press Holdings, but with the advent of the Internet and cable TV, the competition is really out there, not just within Singapore. 3.45 pm Sir, lest I leave the impression that I am against having a Competition Law, I must say that it can be meaningful for businesses such as those dwelt on earlier, eg, bus services. Competition must, therefore, be the means to an end, ie, sustained competitiveness for Singapore, and not an end unto itself. In this regard, I would like to ask the Minister to reiterate the guiding principles for drafting the competition law, and how he proposes to guard against any overkill situation, which would be manifested ultimately as cost for doing business in Singapore.”
“Sir, the Government is currently drawing up the legislation for a framework for competition in Singapore. I have no quarrels with the principle, ie, one of ensuring fair play and equal treatment. However, I believe that we should be clear of the desired outcomes about having such a legislation. What is the goal? Is the sustained competitiveness of Singapore the desired outcome? Or is an ideal state of competition per se the goal? Furthermore, in pursuit of an ideal state of competition, what are the costs of introducing competition? Sir, let me cite a few examples. But before that, allow me to declare my interest as an employee of Temasek Holdings which is involved in the businesses mentioned. In mobile telephony, how do we decide that three operators would do just fine? Why not two, or four? Obviously, the size of our domestic market and the sources of competition are crucial considerations. Too much zeal in introducing competition or insisting on a certain level of domestic originated competition, as opposed to ensuring fair play, can be value destroying of Singapore as an aggregate whole. We know for a fact that competition does not originate only from Singapore sources and that the typical definition of monopoly, or oligopoly, may not always hold. At some point, we have to ask ourselves if we are unwittingly disadvantaging our own operators in the name of competition. Let us take another example. Competition in print and broadcast media. Certainly, when one speaks to the consumers, the conclusion is that the variety of choice is welcome. But I think the jury is still out in terms of the cost of the introduction of competition. In this arena, thousands of publications by non-domestic sources distributed through the various channels constitute the real competition.”
“But, Sir, we do not have this luxury. We, therefore, need to go beyond visiting other countries to understanding the different economic and cultural norms. In this regard, apart from repeating my request to the Minister for regular publication of GNP-type statistics, I would also like to request for indicators and messages that are more consistent with our efforts at globalisation. For example, it will be useful to know how far our companies have ventured, what businesses we have engaged in, and what business associations and networks are particularly important. This should not be one-off PR exercises but a constant feature. Ideally, over time, our geographical borders should blur when Singaporeans contemplate the economic participation.”
“Sir, every time I speak on compiling macro statistics, I remember my request to the Minister for the publication of gross national product (GNP) statistics, in addition to gross domestic product (GDP) figures on a regular basis. He has yet to do so, I believe. But my point goes beyond asking for GNP numbers to be published. I believe that the Government can play a key role in broadening the perspectives of all Singaporeans beyond Singapore. Sir, the right Government signals have significant implications. Why else are Singaporeans disinterested in what is going on outside of Singapore? We speak of GDP growth whenever we want to dwell on our economic well-being, but our domestic market should not be our sole focus; otherwise, our working norms revolve around Singapore. In many Singaporeans' minds, working abroad is not seen as an opportunity to widen the horizon but an option for those who cannot find jobs here in Singapore. We regard postings outside of Singapore as the least preferred alternative and expect to be adequately compensated. It is thus not surprising that many Singapore companies expanding overseas frequently experience difficulties recruiting Singaporeans for these posts. Just in today's Business Times, we read about this same difficulty in getting Singaporeans out of their comfort zone. Apart from not realising our potential as good managers, we also forgo the opportunities of learning more about the global market that Singapore operates in. Sir, in a major economy that we all know of, many of the citizens have not travelled or worked outside of the country, and have no particular motivation to do so. They can probably afford to do so as their GDP is many times ours. There is ample industry and job diversification within their domestic market itself.”
“Many would love exploring the HDB commercial areas or dining at the coffee shops, whilst enjoying the MRT trip along the way. Stand-alone tourist attractions have their place in the overall scheme of things, but where there is little association with the Singaporean identity or lifestyle, they lose their shine rather quickly. We have enough failures like Haw Par Villa to learn from. I therefore like to ask the Minister the following questions: Firstly, have we explored sufficiently the natural charm and heritage of Singapore when developing ideas for both tourists and Singaporeans? Secondly, how do we translate the new initiatives into economic reality, so that it will not be a superficial make-over exercise, and how will progress be tracked and assessed? Finally, what structural changes are needed within the hospitality sector, eg, in the projections for the different class of hotel capacity?”
“Sir, over the years, we have had to reinvent ourselves in terms of our offerings to tourists to Singapore. Where we were once a shopping haven for luxury products, we now often hear the refrain that we are expensive, or that our products are tired. Even when visitors ask their Singaporean friends for ideas on what to see or where to go, the suggestions do not come readily, except when it comes to food or the usual suspects - the zoo, Sentosa. This is well manifested in the challenge for us to push the average length of stay beyond the 3.19 days and raise the tourist expenditure above $758. Sir, the Singapore Tourism Board itself declares that there is no such thing as a typical visitor, and that there is a huge variation in needs. At the same time, we have had to adapt to sudden shocks, such as the September 11 disaster which affected long-haul markets and reshaped travel patterns. Yet, when we plan, not surprisingly, we consider the longer term effects. In this regard, I note that the new initiatives proposed by the STB represent an intention to shift the emphasis beyond volumes, such as tourist arrivals or top line numbers, as I would refer to them. However, I note that there is still a tendency to focus on make-overs and single products on a discrete attraction basis. The same appears to be true, ie, the lack of a holistic approach to accommodation capacity, such as the seemingly ad hoc proposal to offer HDB-type experiences. What is yet more worrying is our tendency to look after only the hardware aspects, rather than the software issues. I do not know, for example, whether Chinatown is a case in point - huge fanfare at the opening, encouraging start but, understandably now, a pitiful stage. Sir, many visitors like to go where the locals go.”
“A high compliance burden, whilst ensuring our standing as a financial centre of integrity, can erode our competitiveness and vibrancy. Are there sanity checks and are benchmarks used? How do we balance the costs of compliance with the risks of something going wrong?”
“Sir, many unfavourable corporate developments have reinforced the need for risk management and compliance, and regulations have given the respective authorities the necessary teeth to deal with breaches. And as banks have figured prominently in most of these developments, they are under the spotlight. The intent is justified - it is the risks of over-regulation that we have to guard against. It is also a question of whether the substance has been achieved, as opposed to merely ensuring compliance with the form. Sir, a few years back, some incidents took place which required, amongst other things, Chinese walls to be put up between certain departments in a typical financial institution, for example, between fund management and investment banking. Compliance was the buzzword and interior decorators received a minor boost in demand - up went walls and doors, as well as the number of curses when people forgot to bring their card-keys along, just walking to the toilets. Even during the market downturn where banks were downsizing, compliance resources ballooned. The zeal has been observed for the listed companies, including banks, where more and more rules have been imposed as best practices, especially in the wake of the corporate misdeeds in the US which were referred to by my colleague, Mr Magad, just now. And yet more reporting and more disclosure have been required. Disclosure is fine but to a point of negative utility. Sir, Singapore has rightly placed emphasis on regulations and compliance. But I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister how do we guard against over-regulation through rules and yet more rules, and the attendant rising compliance cost.”
“On that note, Sir, I support the financial policy for the new fiscal year.”
“This is to be applauded but perhaps the Government should go one step further and impose the sunset clause requirement to rules relating to business operations. A sunset clause puts the onus on the Ministry or statutory board to justify why a particular rule should be kept, whereas a review is likely to lead to the retention of existing rules than otherwise. Sir, as some of my colleagues have urged, we need to shift towards being more pro-business rather than pro-risk aversion. Generally, our policies are sound but our execution is frequently fraught with an overkill of measures to stem out the violation of rules. This, I am sure, is best described by the now famous "no u-turn" story about policy execution in Singapore. Like Mr Raymond Lim, my plea to the public sector is: when in doubt on business issues, please say yes. With regard to Singapore's competitiveness, I would like to propose that the relevant Ministries and statutory boards be assessed according to how well they contain business and other operating costs under their watch. This goes beyond reviewing fees and charges. For example, in compliance checking with the financial institution, if more hours are spent fulfilling this requirement from one year to another, the spotlight should be shone. Frequently, it is time costs which are the real hidden costs. In this context, Ministries should be encouraged to pledge a certain standard of service which must be credible, not the usual 3-6 months or 4-6 weeks, but one that is reflective of a real intent to provide top notch service. Sir, we have an excellent public sector which has served us well. In meeting the challenges ahead, we need to have the same amount of nimble footedness in both the private and public sectors.”
“Some schools in the US have paid the compliment by using our mathematics textbooks. Foreign delegations visit our schools for ideas and to learn more from our experience, and the list goes on. Other examples can be found in our healthcare services, town-planning and business infrastructure building skills. But these are all deemed strategic services and thus far the respective Ministries are unlikely to have considered their commercial applications beyond Singapore. Earlier on, my colleague Mr Khaw Boon Wan had explained the concerns over the influx of foreign patients which may drive up healthcare cost in Singapore. But I also note that he gave many other examples of the pockets of expertise that we have, for example, in running libraries. Sir, I am optimistic that we can add substantial economic vibrancy through broadening the services sector. The challenge is therefore one of commercialising such skills and exporting them to markets where the stage of development warrants the use of such expertise. I would like to urge the Deputy Prime Minister, in his capacity as Chairman of the new Ministerial Committee on Services, to place emphasis on and explore the commercialisation of the expertise residing within the Ministries. I am hopeful that these can be nurtured into new services to be exported and can in turn spawn new business for the private sector to participate in. Unlike Mr Chiam See Tong, I do think we need to operate on a caveat emptor principle as opposed to tight regulation. Role of the Public Sector in Economy Sir, it is heartening to note that the Government will devote serious efforts to reviewing rules.”
“We should work longer, but moderate the pace as we go along and not artificially stop at some pre-determined age. Moreover, there is anecdotal evidence that an abrupt end to active employment can cause the retiree to lose self-esteem and suffer poor health prematurely. I would therefore like to urge the Government to consider abandoning the whole concept of retirement even as we proceed with the various CPF changes. In addition, can incentives be provided for Singaporeans to maintain sufficient finances as they age, eg, such that CPF balances are kept even past the withdrawal age of 55 years? At the same time, can the Government inject more resources into facilitating the employment of older people on a contract or part-time basis? Role of Government in Services Sir, the Deputy Prime Minister has elaborated on the need for us to nurture the services sector as a twin engine of growth to manufacturing. But, many have unwittingly limited this to the role of the private sector as the driver, with the Government playing the role of a facilitator or, better still, as a customer through continual outsourcing of non-strategic services. Sir, I agree that the Government should outsource as much as possible. However, we should not pre-judge the roles or limit our own potential as a collective whole. We need to think out of the box, blur the demarcation between the public and private sectors and do an inventory of our services expertise. Let me illustrate with some examples. Much of our expertise resides within the Government Ministries. In education, we have over the years honed our abilities to develop sound curricula and testing resources for schools, established commendable practices for managing educational institutions and systematically nurturing teaching resources.”
“For example, the creation of Media Development Authority to deal with the convergence of channels and the corporatisation of certain services like HDB Corp. With employment trends changing in tandem with those in the underlying economy, gone are the days of a predictable job pattern and fixed compensation schemes. Jobs are no longer 9-5, Mondays to Fridays, or confined to working within Singapore. Salaries will increasingly be linked to performance rather than to seniority or pre-determined salary structure. The short business cycles mean that companies can no longer carry fixed labour overheads and that they need to be nimble-footed when it comes to right-sizing. Therefore, unlike in the past where contract work is associated with temporary or even cheap labour, contract work will increasingly be the norm for many professions. By extension, Singaporeans can no longer expect the income levels to be one predictable and regular wave, but a series of steps, both up and down, with the occasional gaps. Towards this end, the promotion of portable medical benefits is a step in the right direction of dealing with multiple employers and the occasional breathers in-between employment. Sir, in this context, the concept of retirement at a certain legislated age is no longer tenable. Neither will it be helpful to our ageing nation. Some may argue that the solution may be found in raising the retirement age, difficult as it is politically, to inch the bar upwards. Sir, I believe we should abandon the concept of retirement altogether, and the earlier the better. Singaporeans should decide when they want to make transitions between jobs or to slow down at a certain age or when they would like more leisure.”
“Retirement is therefore a given - regarded by some as a necessity, by others as an entitlement and, to many, the earlier the better. But, Sir, the reality is, as a nation, we cannot afford the pensions and the CPF savings are insufficient for most people. With the CPF withdrawal age at 55 and a life span of almost 80, we could be facing some serious challenges if Singaporeans, who are expecting to retire at around 60-62, fail to ensure they have sufficient finances for themselves for a good 20-25 years. This takes on greater urgency when one were to look at the sweeping changes to the concept of employment itself and, specifically, to the relationship between the employer and the employee. Let me explain why I think this relationship will increasingly be mercenary. Firstly, the idea of a one-career-in-one's-lifetime is no longer the reality. Business and product cycles are shorter. Just look at the speed at which new mobile phone designs flood the market. A manufacturer employing a few thousand workers today may be history in a matter of 2-3 years. Thus, a person will increasingly have to bring his skills across different industries in order to remain employed. Even more unlikely is the possibility of one-employer-in-one's-lifetime. This is not peculiar to Singapore. It is incumbent on corporations world-wide to restructure and re-position themselves to meet the changing demands of a global market place. Look at the sweeping changes in the telecommunications arena. Even hitherto old-fashioned businesses, like postal services, have extended themselves into a larger supply chain of courier and other distribution services. Sir, even Government Ministries have to remake themselves on a continual basis to serve the economy better.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, it is interesting to note that when the Deputy Prime Minister delivered his Budget Statement, we were expecting both a response to the ERC report which contains recommendations for the longer term and Government's package of measures for the immediate or short-term challenges. Some of these ideas may appear to contradict one another. But the themes common to both are those of Singapore's competitiveness and economic positioning. Let me dwell on three aspects, with the first in greater detail. CPF and the Concept of Retirement The ERC has made many recommendations on restructuring the Central Provident Fund in order to refocus its role back to old age financing. The Government has decided to defer the restoration of the CPF contribution rates for two years, lowered salary ceilings for contributions and reduced contribution rates for older workers, whilst phasing in higher contribution rates to the Special and Medisave Accounts. Sir, these can be confusing signals, as they serve different purposes - from ensuring Singapore's competitiveness to providing for old age to checking any imprudent allocations to property investment. I believe the discussion on what appropriate structure our CPF scheme should take is incomplete without addressing the fundamental concept of retirement itself, and not enough attention is paid to this. Sir, generations ahead of us never stopped working and had no concept of retirement. They literally worked till they dropped or were prevented from doing so by illness. The present generation of Singaporeans, however, feel they have worked doubly hard, no thanks to the competitive pressure from globalisation and technological advances.”
“Whilst the Government clearly has the responsibility for macro planning for countering terrorism, it is in every Singaporean's interest to do his utmost to preserve the precious aspects of being Singaporean. In this regard, I would like to urge my fellow Chinese Singaporeans to reach out even more, so as to increase our appreciation for the other cultures and religions. As the majority racial group in Singapore, we have the responsibility to ensure that we keep out any divisive attempts. With that, Sir, I register my full support for the motion.”
“We must be clear and mindful that terrorism proponents frequently attempt to masquerade themselves as champions for a religious cause. For example, the Jemaah Islamiyah group portrays itself as an Islamic organisation. We must always ask ourselves what the true motive could be, differentiate carefully and not jump to conclusions, as in this case, to wrongly assume that all Muslims are somehow involved; Thirdly, that we will instead be vigilant and quick to dismiss any suggestion or speculation that there is friction between the different racial or religious groups which has given rise to acts of aggression; and Finally, that we will act as one people, by consciously reaching out to each other towards better understanding and trust, and by rallying behind the Government against terrorism. Sir, I would like to echo my colleagues' sentiments and suggest that the Government pay special attention to educating the young on what terrorism is, and how to respond to threats or acts. Recently, I carried out a straw poll on the recipients of the Edusave awards and saw many clueless faces as I asked how many of them were aware of the terrorist threats. Many have little association to, nor appreciation for, what terrorism can entail. I believe it is vital for them to have some perspective, hard though it may be to explain some of these serious issues. Sir, I have witnessed in many countries how the different racial and religious groups barely tolerate each other and how palpable the lack of trust and harmony is. Singapore is truly different, but our current level of social cohesion does not happen by chance. We have to work at it.”
“We have achieved this precious level of racial and religious harmony with a lot of effort. We must, therefore, as the Minister had urged, jealously guard what we have as Singaporeans. It is not enough that the Government is actively mounting efforts to prevent or ensure preparedness because, like that for an earthquake, no amount of preparation can insulate us from the effects of terrorism. Unlike the earthquake, terrorism is not a natural disaster. Terrorism is a deliberate act of man, involving violent action for political purpose, according to the Cambridge International English Dictionary. Sir, we may debate on whether we agree with this definition. Regardless of the purpose for terrorism, every Singaporean must try to see terrorism for what it truly is. We must not be taken in by what it purports to be, for example, that it is the result or the ambition of a particular race or religion, which is being suppressed or oppressed. Sir, terrorism is terrorism, pure and simple, and when undertaken in Singapore, attacks us as a people. Hence, not only must every Member of this House support the motion, but also must every Singaporean who cares about Singapore and who treasures the cohesion and harmony that we have painstakingly built up over all these years. Sir, our greatest defence against terrorism is a cohesive people. Every Singaporean, regardless of age, race or religion, has a responsibility to ensure the following: Firstly, that we are not intimidated by terrorist threats or acts, extensive or inhumane, though they are. We will not allow ourselves to be cowed into living our lives in dread and fear; Secondly, that we will not be misled by what these acts pretend to be.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in October 1987, whilst many others were financially dislocated by the mighty Wall Street crash, my family and I had an experience of the terrestrial kind in Los Angeles. In a matter of days, we were shaken by a mighty earthquake that measured 6 on the Richter scale, along with several equally earth-shaking aftershocks. I can still recall vividly the sight of the refrigerator swaying to and fro with each roll of the earth. The earthquake experience left an indelible mark on our lives, as we suddenly realised that we were vulnerable to something that could inflict widespread damage, and the occurrence of which could not be accurately predicted nor prevented. Sir, every kid, down to my son who was in preschool then, was taught what earthquakes were and what steps to take when the earth shook, such as getting underneath the table, running out into open spaces. I also marvelled at how the local residents responded and rallied around each other. They were not intimidated by the damage that a nasty earthquake could wreak, but they carried on their lives, fully aware that they could face personal adversity when it happened. In short, everyone saw the earthquake for what it was, paid attention to the possibilities of its occurrences, and was psychologically prepared. The local government obviously sprang into action when the earthquake did strike, but they did not act alone. People were ready and responded without panic despite the widespread damage to the highways and personal property. Sir, I have used the analogy of the earthquake to urge all Singaporeans to take a personal interest in the terrorist threat, that is both real and serious. Countering terrorism is every Singaporean's responsibility. We have built this nation from virtually nothing.”
“Towards this end, given our limited resources, collaboration must surely be the name of the game. But collaboration can only exist and be meaningful if mutual benefits can truly be derived. I would urge both GLCs and non-GLCs, especially the small and medium enterprises, to identify common areas of focus, say, within a cluster, where collaboration is possible. Similar collaborations between MNCs and local companies should also be actively structured and pursued. I would also urge the relevant Government agencies to be more focused in their promotional efforts and to emphasise substance over form. For example, do not be too preoccupied with the degree of participation in trade delegations but with the number of concrete business ventures or relationships that result from a trade delegation's visit. On that note, Sir, I support the principle of promoting private enterprise and entrepreneurship in Singapore. However, Sir, whilst we should certainly spend time and effort to address specific concerns of the private sector, we should take extreme care not to quibble excessively over domestic space, as the world may just pass us by.”
“Sir, the Motion revolves around the role that each sector should play in building GDP. According to the official statistics, the table of which was circulated by the hon. Member, Mr Leong Horn Kee, the MNCs accounted for a 42% share, followed by an implied 36% share by the non-GLC private sector, 13% by the GLCs, and 9% by the public sector. However, unlike Mr Leong Horn Kee, I do not think it is complete to discuss the relative shares of GDP on a locally-owned basis, as it ignores the role that MNCs play. We should not limit ourselves to the many possibilities that the MNCs can interact with our own enterprises. In light of the significant role that MNCs play, the EDB's efforts in promoting investments must continue full steam ahead. Last year, the EDB managed to secure some $9 billion worth of investment commitments. This is no small feat and demonstrates that Singapore has indeed been nimble-footed. We must continue to have this mindset, both the Government as promoter and the people as human capital. Whilst investments by MNCs have helped spur and will continue to spur the development of supporting cluster services, we need to build up our own capabilities, our own enterprise, for both GLCs and the non-GLCs in the private sector. Some of the GLCs, as we all know, have evolved with Singapore's history. They nonetheless still need to hold their own in the global marketplace. They must do this by building on their core competence to continue to expand outside Singapore. Sir, the imperative is equally applicable to the non-GLCs, as the marketplace does not differentiate between ownership, whether it is Government, private, local or foreign, but only the level of competitiveness. Pooling of interests can therefore be mutually beneficial.”
“Who are the players here and how can they relate to each other? Firstly, on skills and strengths. Over the years, we have built up substantial expertise as a services hub in airport and seaport management, telecommunications and financial services. Hence, we should be actively seeking ways of exporting these capabilities abroad. For example, we should not centre our airport management services around yet more terminals at Changi but at other regional or Asian airports. Likewise, whatever seaport management expertise we have built up over the years, eg, in vessel connectivity, should be actively promoted elsewhere as well. Our human capital should not be ignored too. As a people, we have been respected for our integrity and diligence. These are useful values to build management and the labour force at large upon. We should certainly not be arrogant but be prepared to explore foreign postings as part and parcel of our working lives. Getting out of our comfort zone is not easy, but if we accept that it is not only inevitable but that it can also be a rich experience, I believe we can all become better contributors. Sir, the flip side to identifying our strengths is the need to validate the tried-and-tested success formula. Industry and market conditions are now changing with a vengeance. Hence, we need to constantly check our assumptions. What has worked well before in terms of achieving pure efficiency may now be a value-for-money proposition. This is well illustrated within the logistics area where value is sometimes defined as "getting goods off the balance sheet" rather than shipping to the destination in the fastest possible time. In a nutshell, we must test every assumption. Secondly, identifying roles of players.”
“Or that if Singapore Telecom were to just cater to the domestic market, growth would require organic expansion domestically and increased usage of telecommunication services or, in simple terms, we all need to talk a little more over the phone. Or that if Yeo Hiap Seng had remained in Singapore, with our low population growth rates, how many more tins of chicken curry and packet drinks can Singaporeans consume? In short, expanding outside Singapore is no longer a wish but an imperative for most businesses, regardless of ownership. We have to get out of our comfort zone. We must now think GNP (Gross National Product) and not GDP (Gross Domestic Product). Sir, the second reality is one of intensifying competition. Increasing globalisation brings with it pressure to break down protectionist barriers, and hence heightened competition. In a free market such as ours, fierce competition from all players, big or small, local or foreign, has already been felt. This is most evident in the retail sector. Take the supermarkets, for example. I recall, when I was young, going to the NTUC Welcome Supermarket at Beo Crescent was a real treat. Nowadays, it is almost a must for most working couples. It is therefore almost inevitable that the smaller provision shops will find it tougher to compete unless they offer that something special. We may think that NTUC Fairprice, as it is called now, has it easier. But they too have to compete against foreign-owned players like Cold Storage. So what is our response? In the face of these externally-driven challenges, we need not despair. However, we need to examine our position from the following two perspectives: 1) What are our skills and strengths that we can leverage on to get out of our comfort zone; and 2) How do we position Singapore?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate. I would like to declare my interest as an employee of Temasek Holdings. Sir, the Motion is, in essence, a discussion of the role of Government in business, whether the Government is a regulator, promoter or a participant. This is an important discussion, but it derives meaning only when it is made in the context of the realities of the marketplace that Singapore competes in. I would like now to offer my take on two harsh realities. The first reality is of increasing globalisation. Increasing globalisation of the marketplace is not an option nor a passing fad, but is a reality that we have to address head-on as an on-going challenge. Globalisation has real significance for us in Singapore as we do not have our own hinterland, unlike major markets like the US or Europe. The lack of a hinterland is most keenly felt by Singaporean entrepreneurs and companies who have already ventured abroad. We have no critical mass of our own and cannot pretend that we can sustain businesses purely domestically. Some Singaporeans have asked if we can pump prime our economy or consume our way out of a recession, and the answer is no. Our economy depends too much on external demand for us to be able to prop the economy up by merely raising expenditure. Hence, to sustain economic growth, not only do we have to ensure there are enough inbound investments, but we have also to source growth potential from outside Singapore as well. Imagine if Singapore Airlines were to just fly mainly Singaporeans from Singapore to other destinations, and no one else, nor from anywhere else, then it would not have half the chance of Ansett and would have folded up long ago.”
“Sir, whilst recognising the usefulness of enacting a competition law in Singapore, I have concerns over the limitations to its efficacy imposed by the smallness or size of our market. Let me illustrate with a well-known example - oil pump prices. How can we detect anti-competitive behaviour when the size of our market permits instantaneous price information transfer or discovery? Will we, therefore, be spending precious time and money to investigate into this and similar situations? At the larger policy level, what would be the cost of administering such a regime? Would anti-trust type investigations slow corporate activity down or stifle the taking of initiatives for similar companies to merge for true economies of scale from which consumers can also benefit? Moreover, in pursuing competition as an end onto itself, how do we balance the cost of the introduction of competition against ensuring the existence of a competitive framework? Take the case of the liberalisation of telecommunications activity, where the value of telcos has been eroded not just here but everywhere else, and consumer preferences are for certain pricing philosophies, like calling party pays, or for mobile phone number portability. At which point do we say that there has been collusion amongst the various operators not to allow these features? At which point do we say that, for the market as a whole, it would be better not to accede to such preferences? In other words, is competition always good for a small market like ours?”
“Sir, on a related point, many old economy businesses have successfully grown outside Singapore, mostly very quietly and without Government's assistance. Yet, they have embraced the very essence of our economic survival, which is to move beyond our finite domestic market. They have done all this, whilst the national preoccupation, including the Government, has been the domestic economy. Sir, for businesses which have hitherto done well, the inertia of exploring outside the comfort of Singapore is extremely great. For the Government, it is our constant reference to our domestic growth rate that sets the tone. If I am not mistaken, the Minister still owes me the quarterly GNP numbers. Sir, I would like to urge the Minister to help the entire economy shift the emphasis from having domestically oriented supply to meeting globally generated demand.”
“Sir, I would like to focus on the unglamorous but nonetheless important contributors to the Singapore economy. In pursuing a knowledge-based and intensive economy and, in emphasising the importance of employing technology, we have actually reached a situation where many sectors of the old economy feel alienated and ignored. They feel that the various incentives are skewed towards the new economy type businesses and are not meant for them. In fact, some even feel that there are actually disincentives to doing more out of Singapore. For example, garment manufacturing now runs on very similar economic models to electronics contract manufacturing, requiring similar competencies, such as the application of technology towards state-of-the-art equipment for Government's teaching, labelling, packing, sourcing networks, inventory control and logistics capabilities. However, the garment manufacturers face limitations to employing foreign talent in designing and cutting as these are considered as non-professional in nature and classified somewhat differently by the Government. As such, many are forced to relocate manufacturing activities elsewhere where there are lower or no barriers to the flow of expertise. Sir, I would like to urge the Minister not to neglect or, worse still, ignore the growth potential of these old economy businesses and to actively think of ways to help them leverage on our hub capabilities and grow. The signalling is also crucial, as how else can we explain the poor take-up rate of vacancies in the marine sector in spite of the rising unemployment. The sector is perceived to be unglamorous, not the new economy type.”
“The greatest challenge in the EUP was, surprisingly, not in consulting the residents, nor in the design, but in the areas of overlap between two or worse still, more Government agencies. There was frequently great reluctance to take the perspective of the end-user or of another agency as it may mean having to go the extra mile. Preserving the status quo appears to rank supreme, certainly well above customer satisfaction. On another occasion, it took my town council almost two months to realise that no agency wanted to acknowledge ownership of a tract of land for which residents had requested some lighting. As we were getting nowhere, the lamp post went up anyway. Sir, I would like to ask the DPM how the civil service can be more customer-centric and how they can be incentivised to ensure smooth inter-agency coordination.”
“Sir, in the context of the Singapore economy, the role of the public sector is extremely important. Our growth record is in part a testimony of the high standards that our civil service operates on. However, as competition heats up on a global scale, it is imperative that the public sector move in tandem with the changing private sector and continually reinvent itself. In this regard, I would like to raise two areas of importance for the DPM's response - the need to be more customer-focused and to improve our inter-agency coordination. Firstly, more customer-focused. How does the civil service internalise the need to be more customer-centric? How does it strive to serve the public, especially the business sector, to have empathy and to be spontaneous about it? Sir, there is a real need to have substance beyond the mere form of efficiency. For example, it is extremely frustrating to suffer the curse of a very politely recorded voicemail when all you want is some clarification. Many SMEs, when applying for assistance under the myriad Government schemes, have recounted experiences of dealing with young bureaucratic officers, whose fault lies not in the lack of experience, but in their unwillingness to listen and understand. Also, how have working and servicing hours changed? With most Singaporeans working longer hours, it would be helpful if public service can be provided without people having to take leave just to attend to personal matters with Government agencies. Secondly, inter-agency coordination. Sir, I have had first-hand experience on this in my private Estate Upgrading Programme (EUP) and I know now that I am not very popular with several agencies.”
“Sir, if the public can be convinced that Government expenditure is well justified and that raising GST revenues was inevitable, then the transition will be acceptable and the offset package appreciated in its entirety. If, however, the public sees what it considers to be excesses in infrastructural building or in Government expenditure in general, then the GST increase will be resisted. I would, therefore, like the Minister to explain the underlying principles for undertaking massive infrastructural projects and the accountability thereafter. I would also like to urge the Minister to, firstly, review anew and scrutinise all real estate propositions by Ministries and statutory boards; secondly, urge all Ministries to be especially mindful of such expenditure; and, thirdly, to educate the public fully on the merits of such infrastructural projects. Sir, notwithstanding the need to explain the balancing of the fiscal Budget, I agree with the underlying intent of the Budget which, I believe, will help put Singapore on a firmer path. I support the Budget. 5.15 pm”
“How about spending more for, say, administrative support or teacher counselling than on a theatrette? Sir, let me now move on to another illustration, that of Government buildings, which my honourable colleague, Mr Tan Soo Khoon, has so eloquently spoken on a while ago. It would appear that it is not only local businessmen who love to have their own piece of real estate and their very own building. Over the past decade, virtually every Ministry and statutory board has constructed its own building, and some on prime land, no less. It is not quite clear to the public why this is necessary. Ownership of buildings and land, accounting issues aside, is very capital-intensive, and can distract Government agencies from pursuing their primary objectives and roles. Sir, the issue goes really beyond the size of the development expenditure to one of balancing the Budget. Many Singaporeans accept that in order to have jobs, we need to have a conducive business environment and that reducing corporate and income taxes was a necessary step. They also accept that this could mean a revenue shortfall unless economic activity and, therefore tax collections pick up and compensate for the rate reduction, such as what we have seen previously. As many of my honourable colleagues have raised in this debate, the attendant question is therefore one of the quality of the Budget estimates or the possibility of reducing Government expenditure, both operating and development, against having to raise the GST. I shall not belabour the point as many of my colleagues have already spoken on the concerns over the increase in the GST rate.”
“As a country, foresight and forward planning have served us very, very well, and I am not for one moment suggesting that we live our lives right on the edge. But, Sir, there is a fine line between allowing some bursting at the seams, to induce productivity improvements, and over-providing. Sir, as I understand, the new Terminal 3 can handle another 20 million passengers while Terminal 1 and Terminal 2 currently handle an aggregate of 28.6 million passengers. It could therefore take a while before we fill up. In the meantime, there will be gross under-utilisation. That is not all. There is a real massive cost to be depreciated, and this will find its way into the economics of landing charges, ground and other related services, thereby affecting our cost competitiveness. Let me now move on to the expenditure relating to the schools development programme and to the buildings for Ministries, their agencies and statutory boards. Sir, our schools are generally already of a very high standard, and I wonder how we can guard against the over building of features and facilities. Every school strives to have the full works, but is the expense really justified, relative to the benefits and utilisation? Until recently, because schools have fought so hard for such features, raised funds for them, they have guarded them very jealously, and sharing with, say, the community is rare, if at all. Many foreign visitors to our schools have nothing but praise for the modern and extremely high-tech facilities that we have. But they themselves have produced excellent students from their own older premises. So when will it be sufficient or do we always have to be top-notch in hardware? Excellent hardware can sometimes be value-destroying. We seem to focus more on the hardware than software.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to begin with a businessman who flies in from Hong Kong to Singapore for his company's board meeting, hopefully on Singapore Airlines. His plane gets a slot, touches down as scheduled, and he enjoys air-conditioned comfort right from the aerobridge. He has no hand-carry baggage, so he whizzes through immigration and customs at Changi International Airport Terminal 2, and breezes into the CBD in a limousine, all in a record time of 35 minutes. Sir, we may ask: is this good enough? Perhaps, not quite enough from our perspective, if we are thinking of being excellent, being number one. Since traffic flow is hard to control, we focus on reducing the time required to clear him at Changi Airport. We study the challenge and then decide that in order for the time to be reduced by, say, five minutes, the plane must always be served by an aerobridge whenever it arrives. To ensure this, we must have enough aerobridges and other airport terminal services. We then aggregate all such demands and conclude that we need to increase capacity because in the words of the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore, "our philosophy is providing capacity ahead of time". Sir, what about the passenger's perspective? He may not even notice the five minutes' improvement or, even if he did, it may not matter to him at all. After all, in the other major cities, he takes a good 60 minutes at least. Sir, I am of course oversimplifying the situation here and may have even been unfair to the very well-run Changi Airport. I do understand that we are building Terminal 3 at a cost of $1.54 billion to handle the new generation of large aircraft. But my point here is: how do we guard against the danger of over investing in infrastructure and in hardware?”
“And we have just heard from the Government, by the Prime Minister himself, that the Government will provide strong leadership and assurance that it will do just that: anticipate change, do long-term strategic planning to anticipate the shifts and leverage on our strengths, see how we can prepare our people to meet the new challenges, explain the need for change, and invest in the necessary physical and social infrastructure, so as to enable every Singaporean to contribute in his own way. Our individual response is, therefore, critical as well. So, Sir, the ultimate challenge will be the uniting of both the Government and people in purpose and in undertaking the necessary changes. It leaves me now to thank all Members once again for their support, and I would like to invite all Members to join me in thanking the President for his Address. [Applause.] Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the following Address in reply to the Speech of the President be agreed to:- "We, the Parliament of the Republic of Singapore, express our thanks to the President for the Speech which he delivered on behalf of the Government at the Opening of the First Session of this Parliament.". REMUNERATION OF SPEAKER (Motion)”
“Globalisation has made the world seem smaller. Technology transfer can be had in the twinkling of an eye. But terrorism has also globalised along the way. The "911" attacks and similar events in the region have demonstrated how the economic consequences can be so widespread. Experiencing terrorism right at our doorsteps and in the region underscores the importance of national defence and a need for vigilance. We must guard against the negative effects of extremist tendencies. Engagement Sir, last but not least, change is all about engagement. Many Members have implored the Government to engage Singaporeans with greater intensity at all levels and regardless of gender, race, age, religion or physical ability. No single group of Singaporeans should feel alienated. Sir, I believe it is worth belabouring the need to engage especially the young, to increase their sense of belonging to Singapore, to enable them to contribute their all to the future of Singapore, including, hopefully, procreating enough. This should rank high on the Government's agenda. Engagement must be genuine; feedback and participation must be seen to play a constructive role so as to address any lingering scepticism. Engagement is, therefore, vital to strengthening the sense of ownership of, and belonging to, Singapore. In turn, it will strengthen our sense of ownership and belonging to one another. As a nation, our sovereignty is absolute, and one shared by all Singaporeans. It shall also be the basis for which we relate to our neighbours. Let me now just make some concluding remarks. We have the certainty of change and uncertainty from change. Change will not wait to happen. If unexpected, change will be very uncomfortable. But change can be anticipated to a certain extent.”
“Adaptation Change is also all about adaptation, in a pro-active and not reactive manner. Many Members have called for a mindset change in the way we maintain our relevance as employees whilst recognising that insecurity will be hard to shake off - in the way we view success and failure in society, even in schools; in the way the civil service can be flexible and effectively facilitate growth in the private sector. As employees, we now have to accept that contract work could be a dominant feature, and the norm will be that we go through several jobs in our lifetime or be economic gypsies, as one Member has put it. Loyalties and predictable wage growth would be replaced by rewards according to the degree of innovation, creativity and risk-assumption. Sir, as a people, we have to be psychologically prepared for strategic changes that we would have to make: changes in the tax structure, the composition of wages, as well as the CPF scheme. We would also have to rethink and review how we use our CPF as we address the aging population and rising singlehood trends. Narrower Divides Next, Sir, on narrower divides. As a people, we should strive towards narrower divides, ie, help bridge the wealth and digital divides that would otherwise characterise our modern world. And this, we should achieve through closer community bonding and mutual responsibility. We would have to be watchful of external stresses on our racial and religious harmony and move towards greater integration and understanding. We would also have to continue to build on the principle of meritocracy and equality of treatment and opportunity. Globalisation of Terrorism Sir, let me now move on to the globalisation of terrorism, which the Prime Minister has already dwelt on at length.”
“Sir, there is also an acute awareness of the need and a sense of urgency for Singapore to remain competitive. Many Members have urged the Government to review the cost of doing business in Singapore. Competition also comes in the juggernaut of China, how with its ample resources and massive domestic market, it is already competing for FDIs aggressively. Human Capital Sir, nothing strikes a more common chord than the recognition that people are our most precious resource. And many Members have made calls to the Government to do all it can to maximise the potential of all, including women, by ensuring that opportunities for education and multiple role playing are available. Sustaining a competitive edge is all about having a relevant and nimble workforce, one that can bounce back in adversity. There is no doubt that the current spate of retrenchments will come increasingly from restructuring than a pure downturn in demand. Sir, we recognise that retrenchment can occasionally be opportunistic, in the name of creating shareholder value, that it afflicts all across-the-board and is not limited to lower-skilled workers. There is, therefore, also no doubt that some jobs will never return, and Singaporeans who used to hold these jobs will simply have to be reskilled for other employment. Otherwise, structural unemployment, especially of the older workers, will be hard at the personal, family and community levels. Sir, we can build on our strengths. We have a highly skilled workforce, well-regarded for quality work and diligence, and a very strong Singapore brand. We also have solid tripartite relations which we should leverage on, to help ease transition in career switches and, more importantly, to continue to present a difference to foreign investors.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, wrapping up after the Prime Minister has spoken is a challenging task but one which I will endeavour to do my best. Sir, I would like to begin by thanking all 61 hon. Members who have risen in support of the Motion of Thanks to the President. Over the past five days, we have heard statements of harsh realities, treated to excellent displays of wit and humour, and even a little poetry. There is, however, strong evidence of a common will and spirit in all that Members have said. I am also happy to note that all new Members have participated and clearly demonstrated their ability to add significantly to the depth and breadth of parliamentary debate. The House can therefore be expected to witness similarly lively debates for future sittings. Sir, this whole debate has to do with change in response to all the challenges: what has brought about the numerous changes to our economic conditions, our social ties, values and the political landscape, how do we cope with change at the country and individual level, how we can exploit change using our strengths, and so on. It is now my humble duty to highlight the common threads that run through this debate, in the context of change, along the following themes: competition, human capital, adaptation, narrower divides, globalisation of terrorism, and engagement. Competition Sir, many Members have eloquently dwelt on the onslaught of competition. Increasing competition, especially from technological advances, will lead to shorter product life-cycles and, therefore, innovation and creativity are all-important. Competition is ruthless and does not discriminate. Therefore, survival means that we need to constantly offer a point of differentiation. It is no longer enough to be simply more effective and efficient.”
“But in this, my opinion is that we should be careful about putting such decisions onto the legal plane for it takes away the discretion from the people who can resolve the matters without going through an elaborate legal process. The truth is, so long as we have wise leadership, willing to listen and to take into account individual circumstances in the special case, we should be able to "remake" Singapore, not in anybody else's image, but one that is uniquely our own. There must be confidence in all Singaporeans that they will be listened to. But all Singaporeans must also exercise their freedoms reasonably and responsibly. It must not degenerate into a series of demands based on self-interest. We must have and cultivate a politically sophisticated population - willing to see and understand the wider picture even if it impinges on their own interests. Then, and only then, can the Singapore heart-beat be heard to beat as one. Sir, I support the motion of thanks.”
“I know that we do not want to put too many barriers for employers - but on occasions, some are justified so that we can forestall a serious social problem. Sir, as we move from the economic to the political, one of the most positive statements in the Address is the intention of the Government to "widen the out-of-bounds" markers for political engagement and debate, not just in this House, but generally in Singapore. We must once again wait and see how these OB markers will be defined. What is interesting too is how this intention is read by the younger generation. I asked my daughter who recently finished her Junior College studies how she and her friends would view this increase in freedom. Her answer in a way surprised me. She said that some feel (I suppose including herself) that the intention is not quite genuine. Somehow they feel that the Government will still control the exercise of such freedoms and will only pretend to listen. We must take steps to remove such doubts and cynicism among the young people in Singapore - indeed, among all Singaporeans, otherwise the problem will remain unresolved. Sir, I believe that care must be taken in this move towards greater opportunity for the people to express themselves. We do not want a situation where the expressions of individual opinions turn into a claim for rights, and where legal action is always contemplated. I know many young people, especially those familiar with the law, look towards well-developed countries such as the US or the UK and bemoan the fact that we do not have an administrative law structure that allows individuals to challenge public servants' decisions on a myriad of matters.”
“I am sure that some Members will return to this theme in the next few days or in the Budget debates to come. Sir, the Address rightly refers to the widening income gap between those who are able and willing to embrace the new technologies and those who are not. We are already in an economic recession - and many Singaporeans have faced the traumatic experience of being out of a job. With a family to feed, and no job on the horizon, it takes a lot out of a person. Many Members of this House would have had to deal with many jobless persons - you can see the despair and the frustration. They have lost their dignity - and they do not want pity. They accept but are not satisfied with an interim grant to them to tide things over. They just want a job. Being jobless affects not just one's income, but one's belief in oneself - and above all, the family's belief in his ability to provide for their basic needs and happiness. Sir, I am glad that the Address signals the Government's determination to tackle this problem. Job creation and retraining of our workforce remain top priorities for the new Government. But, one particularly difficult problem which hitherto still remains unresolved is how do we provide for the increasing group of jobless workers who are either unwilling or unable to retrain or find jobs. The problem is particularly acute for those around 50 years old. Who will provide for them? Very often, for those about 50 or so, companies do not want them even after they have been retrained. I believe that this problem needs to be tackled immediately. Do we need regulation or legislation to make it unlawful for employers who refuse to hire on the basis of age, if the applicant otherwise has all the necessary qualifications?”
“I cannot agree more that entrepreneurship and risk-taking must be encouraged, and that our young people must have a more inquiring and adventurous spirit. But I cannot agree, as stated in the President's Address that "developing arts, sports and a stronger civic society" would be part of the process to bring this about, as if developing arts, sports and a stronger civic society is a means to bringing about entreprenuership. I should have thought that developing arts, sports and a stronger civic society are ends in themselves, not as a means to foster entrepreneurship. I am not sure that the founder of Creative Technologies indulgently sees himself as an artist, poet or writer. And the Sound Blaster card, we are sure, does not write music - it merely reproduces it, or more accurately, blasts it out. Sir, literature, poetry, arts, music - these are the things that define the culture of a nation, the soul of a nation. They should be encouraged so that Singaporeans can see themselves in prose, in poetry, in art or in music. They add to the uniqueness of being Singaporean. As for sportsmen and women who excel and do Singapore proud in schools, constituency, national or international competitions, they are to be valued for their sporting achievements, and hopefully not for their entrepreneurship potential. Singaporeans draw together to salute such achievers. If anything, they help promote national pride and solidarity. We must adopt the development of the arts and sports as primary aims, and not as secondary aims to promote entrepreneurship. I want to emphasise this in case an argument is made that certain types of art or music have no economic or entrepreneurial value and therefore should not be encouraged or supported. We must avoid this type of thinking.”
“(I should state at the outset that I admire HDB's comprehensive replies to residents on every conceivable problem that might arise. I am only using this illustration because many Members must have faced this problem.) I refer to the treatment of cases where the owner in the recession that we are facing now wants to change down from his original choice of flat because he can no longer afford it as he had lost his job and means of support. The stock answer is that if you have not stayed in the flat for five years, you cannot sell, whether you can afford to pay for it or not. If there is a genuine case, if someone has been retrenched and is making a painful decision to change down, why do we prolong his agony? Sir, the way to foster meaningful relationships between Government and people is to allow the official to take the extra step, without adverse consequences to himself or herself, to question policies and to see whether a reasonable solution can be reached, whether an exception to a policy can be justified. Otherwise, we will have a civil service that is recognised as being super efficient, but which remains out of sync with those whom they serve. Sir, the President's Address contains much to think about and to debate on. Its key message seems to be that Singapore must "remake" itself to face tougher global competition and global terrorism. Economic restructuring, social cohesion and political renewal - these are the themes that will matter in the remaking of Singapore. Quite frankly, the themes are the same as those in the making of Singapore since independence. What is different is in the ways and means in which we seek to "remake" Singapore.”
“Sir, if the truth be told, in fact, the man-in-the-street sees the Government in its most elemental form through the actions of civil servants and other public officials he deals with, and not through the comparatively rare occasions when he actually listens to a speech by a Minister or other political leader. If the public were to have confidence in the Government, it would be through how responsive the civil servants or public officials are to their problems, whether it be their summonses for traffic offences, or their utilities bills or their HDB problems or their children's schooling problems. Too often, we have seen replies that are hardly helpful and the response is very frequently in terms of a negative decision, without any reason being given. The citizen is left in the dark to contemplate his next move, which is to see the MP, who is also in the dark, as he is seldom told more than what is told to the citizen. This gives rise to further appeals and further letters of rejection from officers who follow policies laid down without question. Sometimes, I wonder whether any GLC has a controlling interest in the paper industry. Sir, there would be a quantum leap in confidence building if we can have public officials who take the extra step to view such appeals as appeals from an individual rather than from a class. We want civil servants in this new era who do not take comfort in the uniformity of replies. We want public officials who can think. We also want civil servants who can feel - civil servants whose hearts are not left at home when they go to work every day. To borrow a phrase from American Express, never leave home without it. Let me illustrate with an example from HDB.”
“I am sure that the high standards of decorum and dignity in Parliamentary debate set by your distinguished predecessor will be continued. Sir, observers might have remarked before that proceedings in this House were conducted in a tame, even somnambulistic manner. There might have been some video evidence of this after we moved into this House, where no corner of this Chamber is left uncovered by a TV camera or from the sharp eyes of the reporters above us. I say this now as a victim of the all-seeing electronic eyes, so that our new colleagues would not, well, be caught napping. I am not sure that we will be entirely rid of soporific speeches in this Tenth Parliament, but let us hope that with the measures announced to "liven" up debates in this House, such speeches would be in shorter supply. Lest I be accused of inducing sleep, may I say at once that I believe the measures announced recently would go some way to help foster more lively debates, but the effectiveness of them remains to be seen. How willing will Ministers and others in the Government accept the challenge to re-examine policies and legislation, how often will they accept suggestions to set up Select Committees to examine the language and impact of proposed legislation, how willing are they to engage in debate, and even concede to a winning argument - we will have to wait and see. Indeed, Sir, I think there is one more thing worth emphasising - and that is, there should be a signal from political leaders that our civil servants, the ones dealing with the everyday running of the country, should also listen and may I say, more frequently, listen with their hearts rather than applying policies and rules blindly.”
“Instead, we should actively look for alternatives and explore opportunities to learn new skills for other jobs. We should also not allow isolated incidents of inter-racial discord to fester. We should actively reach out to friends and fellow Singaporeans to gain a better understanding and build common ground. Above all, if we have been alerted to these challenges, we can then take all these in our stride - assess what we have to do and how we can respond to yet another set of challenges or changing circumstances. Sir, I would like to conclude by observing that we have a lot going for us. We have huge savings as a nation, a sound financial and physical infrastructure, substantial goodwill from the Singapore branding - in terms of integrity, transparency and an excellent workforce - and most importantly, political and economic stability. We can therefore embrace the changes to policy and strategies that the Government will have to painstakingly undertake and be receptive to the need for a change, especially at the personal level. Sir, I believe that Singaporeans are a pragmatic and sensible lot and the resounding mandate of 75% at the last GE reflects, firstly, a common destiny and appreciation for the need for survival in challenging times and, secondly, the trust the Singaporeans have in the PAP Government to take us through the necessary transformations, and to help us cope with change. Question proposed. Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of the Motion of Thanks, moved by Mrs Lim Hwee Hua, to the President for his Address in this House a week ago. Before that, may I offer my congratulations to you and the newly elected Deputy Speakers.”
“As a small country, we can ill-afford to let external events and external influences exert pressure on us. In a nutshell, we must jealously guard our racial and religious harmony. Wake-up Call Number 3 This wake-up call, which probably takes on a more subtle and dull tone, is that we Singaporeans have to take ownership of our future and strengthen our sense of belonging to the country and to one another. Sir, there is a need to bond even closer to increase our survival as a small nation with no natural resources. There is also a need to give the Government full moral authority and support so as to bring about the much-needed wide-ranging and transformational changes. The sense of ownership to Singapore and one another is all the more important because of our aging population and the need to help fellow Singaporeans cope with the digital, information and wealth divide. Sir, the key really is, how do we react to these three wake-up calls? Do we break out in cold sweat or have we been tossing and turning and dreading the wake-up call, or do we arise and take these changes in our stride? If we break out in cold sweat, we should check why we have fears and concerns and how we can address them. If we have just lost a job that we have had for the past 15-20 years, then we can try examining what skills and experience we have accumulated and seek to apply these skills to jobs outside of the natural industry. If we now shudder at how insecure our surroundings have become, no thanks to terrorism, then we should discuss with our friends and community how we can look out for each other. However, if we have been tossing and turning, and dreading the calls, then we should no longer wait for the seemingly inevitable events to happen.”
“This will no longer be a sure thing, which means that we can no longer use this assumption to make investments or consume the way we could have in the past. Going forward, there will also be a change in the employer-employee relationship. We now have less control over our working lives and loyalties to companies will weaken as we realise that companies can no longer be paternalistic and avoid laying off workers. Sir, in a nutshell, this wake-up call is all about change, and having to cope with a more rapid pace of change, much of which is uncomfortable. Most of the jobs that are lost are gone forever so we should not hold out for a US-led recovery and for a return of the same old jobs. Instead, we have to continually make ourselves relevant and think in terms of our skills, ie, what we can do and contribute, rather than the jobs we would like. Wake-up Call Number 2 We Singaporeans have to work towards preserving our racial and religious harmony, that harmony will not continue as a matter of course, and that external events and stresses can attack our harmony. Until the infamous 911 terrorist attacks in the US, the war in Afghanistan, the fighting in the West Bank and some other events, we did not realise that we need to pay attention to our own racial and religious harmony. Now, Sir, we realise that these external events can surface or resurface old issues stemming from differences. The wake-up call can cut both ways. If we allow it, external stresses can undo whatever precious harmony we have built up, or we can become even more conscious of the differences between races and religions and seek to proactively integrate and understand even more. Sir, we have come a long way in fostering inter-racial and inter-religious ties.”