Loo Choon Yong
Singapore
“One clarification, Sir. Thank you for the comprehensive review of our political system. Has the Prime Minister considered or already considered this question of by-election where if a seat falls vacant within a period of six months or one year, by-election will have to be called?”
“It is important that views expressed by NMPs to be "independent and non-partisan" as intended in the Constitution. Sir, I believe it is time for us to accept the NMP scheme as a permanent feature of our Parliament. We have tried, tested and tweaked the scheme for 19 years. How much longer do we need to wait to know it is good?”
“Sir, the Minister accepts that there are a lot of details that are important. I know for a fact that there are a lot of technical details. Would it not be possible, under HOTA (section 21), that Minister makes the regulations? I agree that the details should be in the regulations.”
“Is the Senior Minister of State aware that there are known-unknown and unknown-unknown, meaning that there are contingent liabilities or options given by Government agencies or Government-linked companies that they themselves may not be aware that there is a contingent liability.”
“What has been the result in terms of drop-out rate and truancy rate, for instance? Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: I do not think we can attribute the failure or success on the reduction of the drop-out rate in any school solely on the existence of the FTSC. It has to be many other factors.”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, some time ago, MOE placed counsellors in schools. I wonder whether the Ministry would share with the House the experience in terms of whether there has been a falling truancy rate, drop-out rate from school, whether it has been a good practice and whether the Ministry wants to extend the scheme.”
The complete record
Every one of 150 lines we hold for Loo Choon Yong, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 3.
“One clarification, Sir. Thank you for the comprehensive review of our political system. Has the Prime Minister considered or already considered this question of by-election where if a seat falls vacant within a period of six months or one year, by-election will have to be called? I know it is a bit inconvenient but that is to protect the electorate.”
“It is important that views expressed by NMPs to be "independent and non-partisan" as intended in the Constitution. Sir, I believe it is time for us to accept the NMP scheme as a permanent feature of our Parliament. We have tried, tested and tweaked the scheme for 19 years. How much longer do we need to wait to know it is good? I therefore call upon the Government to introduce appropriate amendments to the Constitution to do so. As the President has said, "our political system is not set in stone. Singapore politics must evolve over time", I believe this is the right time to make the NMP scheme permanent. Sir, I support the motion.”
“Sir, if we really want to build "a future in an uncertain world", I urge the Government to leave no stone unturned in reviewing our economy and our competitiveness. Sir, I recommend that the Government gives this proposal serious consideration again. I promise to be satisfied, if after turning the stone, the Government put back the stone exactly to where it was. Sir, the NMP scheme was introduced in March 1990 to add diversity of views and opinions to Parliament in its deliberations. There were reservations, particularly amongst Government backbenchers, that the scheme was tantamount to allowing a back door entry into Parliament. Opposition members were also apprehensive about the scheme for their own reasons. So the then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong made a concession that each new Parliament will decide if it wishes to have Nominated Members of Parliament. The scheme has been in place for 19 years. It currently provides for Parliament to have up to nine NMPs, each serving a term of two and a half years. To date, 49 NMPs have served. Some have contributed more than others. NMP Walter Woon outstandingly moved a Private Members Bill that is today the Maintenance of Parents Act. Some penetrating questions have been asked and quite a few suggestions have been made at Supply Bill debates and Committee of Supply debates. NMPs contribute even outside this House officiating at functions, events and certain NMPs also help at EGMs! Collectively, I think Parliament and Singapore has been well served through the diversity of opinions and views brought into this House and onto our national debates. My observation is that, by and large, NMPs' diverse views have been non-partisan and pro-Singapore.”
“But openness to foreigners does not mean that we do not need home-grown entrepreneurs. We do." I agree with her sentiments. Sir, in the post crisis new world, I believe the Singapore economy would be better served if these GLCs are managed as strategic assets, with KPIs which also reward them for adding value to the Singapore economy as well as rewarding them for their profits and EVA growth. When appropriately incentivised, we will see management of GLCs help nurture other local enterprises and, in the process, help grow and strengthen the Singapore economy. As this nurturing activity requires a different mindset, a different time horizon, different reflexes from that of managing a fund purely for maximising total shareholder value, I call on the Government and Temasek to consider holding all strategic GLCs under a different division with a different mission, and a separate management team with different KPIs. If these strategic assets continue to add value to the Singapore economy beyond total shareholder returns, then I would strongly suggest that we keep them and resist any temptation to sell them for a profit, especially in times when operating profits look sub-optimal. However, if this proposal creates difficulties or confusion of having under the same roof two big strong divisions with differing missions, different management teams with different KPIs, then I urge the Government to consider having two separate Temaseks – Temasek I and Temasek II – each with a separate board and management team to execute the different missions and strategies and both can add value to Singapore, albeit in different ways. Sir, I am sure that such a proposal has been considered by Temasek and the Government before and found not appropriate.”
“So, too, have many Singaporean subcontractors, including door makers and interior decorators. I have no doubt that these transactions are carried out on a win-win, competitive basis. I hope more GLCs will follow CapitaLand’s example and help open up more economic space for our smaller Singaporean companies. We should also undertake an indepth study to assess how these GLCs are adding value to our economy as a whole. I suspect they are contributing more to our economy than paying taxes for their profits and paying dividends to their shareholders. If this is indeed the case, then we should aggressively promote more such GLCs and larger private sector enterprises to go regional first and then eventually go global. Sir, being a non-economist, I was very reassured to read Prof. Linda Lim’s article "Why local entrepreneurs are vital" in Straits Times, 12th May, this year. Prof. Lim, a Singaporean, is Professor of Strategy at the Ross School of Business, University of Michigan. She said, "Home-grown entrepreneurs are more likely to create jobs for Singaporeans for each dollar invested. Their investments will be less capital – and foreign talent-dependent, and less volatile than those of global MNCs. They would be more likely to purchase inputs and services locally than globally, creating a market for other local entrepreneurs and developing the services sector, the main engine of growth and employment in mature economies. More local stock market listings will give Singaporeans more options for investment." I fully agree with her sentiments and she concluded the article by saying "MNCs, foreign capital and foreign talents have done a lot for Singapore. We need and should continue to welcome them.”
“Soon we may have to face competition from adventurous and daring entrepreneurs from China, India and Vietnam in other countries who, too, aspire to grow and prosper outside their own national borders. Sir, besides start-ups, SMEs and larger local enterprises, there are other bigger local enterprises that can play a part to help us grow our economy, our economic resilience and competitiveness. The Government-linked Companies (GLCs), like SIA, SingTel, ST Technologies, CapitaLand, Ascott, Keppel Corporation, Sembawang Corporation, DBS Bank, are big regional or even global companies. They have penetrated foreign markets significantly and they have competed successfully against other foreign market players. They should continue to push and grow further overseas. They have the financial muscles, the management depth and the competitive value proposition to grow and thrive. They represent the external wing of our economy. Sir, besides producing better total shareholders return (TSR) for Temasek, I believe they can also contribute more to the Singapore economy. Many smaller enterprises can benefit from associating with and learning from these GLCs. I understand that CapitaLand actively supports smaller companies to venture overseas to markets where CapitaLand themselves are established. You will find many familiar local food outlets like Bread Talk, Bali Thai, Food Republic, and retailers like Osim, Aussino, Spectacle Hut, and SK Jewellery establishing themselves in the food courts and shopping malls of the various "Raffles Cities" that CapitaLand has established in China. I also know of Singapore architectural, engineering, quantity surveyor and legal firms that have ventured into the region when they won appointments from CapitaLand.”
“However there are also the occasional great idea and great execution and when this happens, successful enterprises result. So this is the story of Venture Manufacturing, Hyflux, Creative Technologies, OSIM, Raffles Education. Others have taken over old family businesses, grafted on them modern management methods and governance and grown them into robust regional businesses. Banyan Tree, Eu Yan Sang, Charles & Keith, Coffee Bean are some examples. Sir, these local enterprises belong to Singapore. Some of them are listed on our Stock Exchange. They pay taxes here and they set up their headquarters here because this is their home, home of their founders and owners. The owners, when they make money, build their physical homes here, park and spend their wealth here and employ quite a lot of Singaporeans at home and abroad. Most of the senior management positions are occupied by Singaporeans. They use the services of Singaporean lawyers in Singapore law firms, Singapore accountants in the big four accounting firms, Singapore banks, and I am sure they buy Singapore goods and services reflexly both here and overseas. Local companies compete with each other but they also learn from each other and we are beginning to see signs of collaboration overseas even as they compete here at home. As the economic space is greater in the region than here in Singapore, regionalisation is no longer a luxury. Every company needs to have a regional strategy if it aspires to grow. The region, Vietnam, China, India and Indonesia, still offers great opportunities for Singapore companies. But the window of opportunities may not be opened forever.”
“A Minister for Entrepreneurship (Minister Raymond Lim) was appointed and ACE, a public-private sector collaboration to promote local entrepreneurship, was formed in 2003. The international press mocked us for requiring Government to be involved even in something like promoting entrepreneurship. They think it as an oxymoron. Local entrepreneurs, like Wong Ngit Liong, Inderjit Singh, Kwek Leng Beng, Kim Faulkner, Ong Peng Tsim, Elim Chew, Sunny Verghee, Patrick Daniel and Kenny Yap, were involved. Today, the local entrepreneurship scene has evolved. The entrepreneurial mindset is more evident in Singapore. There are networking opportunities, financing and venture capital opportunities, Government loan and grant schemes, loan-securitisation programmes, mentorship and referral services. Even schools are promoting entrepreneurship amongst their students. Today, start-ups find easier access to capital financing in various forms and ACRA has reported much higher new firms formation. So, we, therefore, must continue to promote local entrepreneurship in order to grow our economy and "help Singapore transform, advance and prosper in its next phase of growth". Many hon. Members of this House, like Inderjit Singh, Ahmad Magad, Edwin Khew and others have tirelessly and repeatedly asked for more support to help start-ups and SMEs grow. Sir, the start-up company is usually small, agile, founded by passionate high energy and often highly creative person and friends. Whilst they are all very sure they are on to the next great thing, the next Google, they are often wrong. Start-ups fail most of the time. It is usually a bad idea or bad execution, often both bad idea and bad execution.”
“Furthermore, he was reported to have said that local entrepreneurs will not hesitate to move their production elsewhere if situations are more favourable elsewhere. Sir, I find it difficult to understand his call. I hope it is mere romantic reminiscence as he recounted his early days of courting foreign MNCs to set up production bases in Singapore to take advantage of our lower costs of production here. He, together with other EDB pioneers, have done well and ought to be recognised and acknowledged for the great execution of our then policy of attracting MNCs to provide FDI to create jobs for our people. But I also hope that this romantic reminiscence is not meant as a prescription for tomorrow. Sir, the world has changed in these last few years. We all know it will be a different world after this global financial crisis. MNCs come and go according to their own interests, not Singapore’s interests. In the new world, local enterprises like MNCs must locate their distributed value chain where it makes most sense. That is why we need to review our strategies and formulate new specific strategies to grow our economy in the new world order. I am glad the President has called on us all, in public and private sectors, to put our minds together, and he is confident we will "develop new ideas to help Singapore transform, advance and prosper" in its next phase of growth. The 2001 Economic Review Committee under the chairmanship of the then Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, dedicated 17 pages of its report on "nurturing an entrepreneurial and creative Singapore". I am happy to note that many of the recommendations have been implemented.”
“Member in question has confused speed of decision with the independence of decision. He should know that decisions even when made contemporaneously by two persons can be different or similar and, when similar, it can still be the result of independent thinking. Further, the President does not act alone. He is advised by the Council of Presidential Advisers (CPA), which consists of eight distinguished former public servants and civic leaders whose reputation for independent thinking, independent judgment, good sense and integrity is beyond reproach. It is the CPA’s duty to advise the President on all drawdowns from past reserves. Sir, I am more than satisfied that the second key of the President has not been automatically turned when the first key of the Government was turned this time. It was a deliberate, well-considered and independent decision. Sir, the President’s speech was titled "Building our Future in an Uncertain World", and he called for "Enhancing our Economic Competitiveness". Building the right infrastructure – be it great airport, seaport, highways, MRT or ultra high speed broadband, incentivising R&D spending, improving education through building more schools and universities to educate and train our young, better and affordable healthcare for Singaporeans – all these are important and helpful in enhancing our economic competitiveness. I commend the Government on these efforts. Sir, recently a former Chairman of EDB was quoted as saying that Singapore does not need local entrepreneurs. He said that we can continue to attract MNCs to Singapore and they will provide the economic growth for Singapore.”
“Institution building is a long and unending process. It is necessary to build these institutions so that we will have the social cohesion and social ballast to see Singapore through difficult and challenging times. The Presidential approval to draw down from past reserves, or better known as the "two keys" system, is one such institution. Sir, I was quite disappointed when a certain hon. Member in this House suggested in the Budget debate that the President’s second key was automatically turned when the Government’s first key was turned. He even wondered in this House if the second key had always been left on the safe! It is one thing for Singaporeans to be witty in coffeeshop conversations or for Mr Brown to satirise any aspect of our national life but it is quite another for a Member of this House to make such an irresponsible suggestion. In fact, as a leader of the community, one should explain to the less informed the conduct of such a serious exercise and strengthen our collective faith in this institution. Sir, the fact that the President agreed to draw down from past reserves within a few days does not ipso facto, make it a mindless turn of the second key. The type of urgent and dire circumstances that will require such a drawdown on past reserves will always require the Government as well as the President to consider the circumstances and act expeditiously and appropriately. The decision to guarantee all bank deposits have to be made quickly as other jurisdictions move, otherwise most deposits will move to countries which guarantee them. The hon. Member should know that billions of dollars can be moved with the press of the "return" key on a computer. Sir, I believe the hon.”
“As this constitutional safeguard has been in place since 1991, some 18 years ago, and we have drawn on the past reserves only once, we should learn from this event and further strengthen this important institution. Recently, Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong was reported as putting up three "No" signs for drawing on past reserves: (a) No drawdown to support social assistance programme; (b) No drawdown to fund permanent programmes, no matter how meritorious; and (c) No drawdown except under dire circumstances that require one-off extra ordinary measures. I find Senior Minister Goh’s three "No"s useful in guiding our thinking regarding this matter. I would like to propose two more "Nos" to help strengthen these guidelines: (d) No drawdown without Parliament’s approval; and (e) No distinction between actual drawdown and guarantees or any other contingent liabilities on the Government or any part of it. I propose the additional "No"s to ensure that Parliament will always have a chance to debate any actual or potential drawdowns. People should be informed and their elected representatives should have a chance to raise questions and make comments on the Government’s intention to draw down on past reserves, even if the President has indicated his willingness to approve. An emergency session of Parliament can be convened to discuss an urgent drawdown or any urgent guarantee. The fifth "No" will prevent the kind of fait accompli situation that a future President may find himself in, if the Government of the day does not seek his approval before granting guarantee or taking on any contingent liability. Sir, it is imperative that as a young nation of 50 years, we need to keep building upon our national institutions.”
“The Government prudently sought the President’s approval and he approved this guarantee. I would like to commend the Government for obtaining the President’s approval prior to guaranteeing bank deposits. Otherwise, in the unfortunate situation where a MAS licensed bank actually fail, the guarantee would have been called upon and would have to be honoured by the Government. The President will then be presented with a fait accompli. Sir, in early 1999, when Singapore was in recession as a result of the Asian Financial Crisis, then President Ong Teng Cheong had said that he would approve the Government’s request to draw on past reserves to finance recession measures, if asked. However, the then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong said there was no need to dip into past reserves as the Government had accumulated sufficient funds in current reserves. In November 2001, Singapore was again in recession. Then Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong raised the possibility of having to use past reserves to deal with the recession as the Government had only been re-elected to a fresh term. This turned out to be unnecessary again. The above examples showed the Government has been very prudent in managing our reserves and I commend them. This global financial crisis has in fact demonstrated clearly the wisdom of the philosophy to spend tax dollars wisely, accumulating any surpluses, invest them thoughtfully and draw on them only in extreme situations. The reserves form part of our national economic defence and, if safeguarded wisely and managed carefully, it can provide for the economic safety net for our country and our citizens.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Motion of Thanks to the President. I would also like to comment on some aspects of his Address. The constitutional safeguards requiring the President's approval came into effect in November 1991, but were invoked for the first time only this year – in January 2009 – when the Government sought to use part of the reserves to fund the Job Credits Scheme and the Special Risk-Sharing Initiative. The President gave his in-principal approval for the drawdown on 21st January, the day before Budget 2009 was presented to Parliament. The amount of drawdown from past reserves was S$4.9 billion. This House passed the Supply Bill and Supplementary Supply Bill on 13th February, approving the Budget. The President gave his assent to both the Supply Act and the Supplementary Supply Act on 9th March, effectively giving his formal approval for the drawdown of S$4.9 billion from past reserves. During the global financial meltdown in 2008, the Government announced in October that up to S$150 billion of past reserves have been set aside to guarantee deposits in Singapore until the end of 2010. The guarantee covered all Singapore Dollar and foreign currency deposits of individual and non-bank customers in banks, financial companies and merchant banks licensed by MAS. This move was to give banks in Singapore a level playing field with those countries where the Government had introduced similar guarantees, Hong Kong and Australia. Whilst this guarantee did not constitute an actual draw on the reserves, it was nevertheless a contingent liability and should any of the depository financial institutions fail, the Government will have to make good the deposit.”
“Sir, the Minister accepts that there are a lot of details that are important. I know for a fact that there are a lot of technical details. Would it not be possible, under HOTA (section 21), that Minister makes the regulations? I agree that the details should be in the regulations. Will the Minister be prepared to assure this House that he will bring back the regulations and table them for discussion at a later stage, so that Members will see the nature of the regulations and be able to comment on them?”
“Sir, I also wish to make the following suggestions to the Minister: (a) that MOH or a MOH agency regulates and administers the living related and living unrelated organ transplantations in Singapore, and not leave it to hospital committees; (b) a committee be set up to set the quantum of fair and reasonable compensation and reimbursements for donation of various organs and review these quantums periodically to keep up with changing circumstances; (c) that foreign and local donors be treated alike; (d) that the lead agency for all organ donations, local and foreign donors, be responsible for ensuring that they are well-informed of the risks and that informed consents are taken properly. They should also ensure all aspects of organ transplantation are carried out lawfully. They should also ensure that the compensation or reimbursement is paid directly to the donor. This should help to prevent or reduce exploitation; (e) that doctors, working in public hospitals, who are conscientious objectors to this amendment be exempted from such kidney harvesting; and (f) greater steps be taken to promote and also to recognise living related and other altruistic donors of kidneys and other organs. Sir, I am also supportive of the enhanced penalties for organ trading and, on this basis, I support the amendment.”
“Proponents will see this amendment as recognising today’s realities and avoiding social hypocrisy. A very sensitive and important point has been raised in this House by Mdm Halimah yesterday and some of my other colleagues today. She is rightly concerned that the poor and vulnerable from neighbouring countries may flock to Singapore to offer their organs. Unemployed foreign workers may also offer their organs for sale before they go back. I admit this is a delicate point but we also have the poor and vulnerable amongst us in Singapore. Whatever the rule is, I think it is only fair that we apply them to locals and foreigners as well. Otherwise we will be precluded from compensating an altruistic donor, say, a distant relative or a religious person from our neighbouring countries where healthcare facilities are not as readily available. It would be unfair and exploitative if we do not extend the same rules to them. Sir, on balance, I believe there is more good to society for this amendment allowing reimbursements and compensation to be accepted. My reasoning for saying so is: (a) it will enable us to bring cure and relief to the many patients on the waiting list for renal transplantation; (b) it will prevent the desperate patients and their families from being exploited and cheated by middlemen helping them to get kidneys unlawfully; (c) compensating and reimbursing the altruistic donor is not necessarily allowing organ trading; (d) exploitation of the poor and vulnerable can be minimised if a proper regime is instituted; and (e) the medical profession should not feel the existence of an ethical conflict as this is a conscious variation from medical ethical rules that the Singapore society makes for the greater benefit of society.”
“There are also strong advocates for allowing healthy persons to part with their organs in exchange for cash or kind, as long as it is a "willing buyer" and "willing seller" situation. I believe this is dangerous and wrong. It is further argued in support that the money that the seller gets for his kidney will enable him to survive or even thrive economically from whence he comes. In short, there can be a new lease of economic life for him and his family when he sells one of his two healthy kidneys or part of his liver. It is also known that there is already a well-developed underground network for wealthy Americans to purchase kidneys. These kidneys are bought from Brazil through middlemen in Israel and Brazil, and the kidneys are transplanted into the buyer in Brazil or South Africa. There have also been kidney thefts, where innocent job seekers are brought to a hospital in London for what was supposed to be a pre-employment checkup, only to wake up with a loin scar and one kidney stolen. What does this amendment to HOTA seeks to do? It is supposed to enable altruistic living donors to be able to be compensated fairly for their trouble and to provide for future expenses. Sir, the WHO Guidelines' guiding principle five has stated that "the prohibition on sale or purchase of cells, tissues and organs does not preclude reimbursing reasonable and verifiable expenses incurred by the donor, including loss of income, or paying the costs of recovering, processing, preserving and supplying human cells, tissues or organs for transplantation". So the guidelines, we are actually within the guiding principle of WHO. But objectors to the trading of organs will see this as a backdoor way to allow legalised organ trading.”
“Often the patients' spouses have donated their own kidneys to give their spouses a new lease of life. Such a self sacrificial act must surely be the supreme act of love. But we still have a grave shortfall of kidneys for transplantation. Many such patients die whilst waiting for a kidney donor, whether living or cadaveric. Sometimes, out of desperation, these patients resort to buying kidneys and having kidneys transplanted in them in some lesser known hospitals in China and India. Many of these patients end up with less than optimal kidneys. The transplanted kidneys often get rejected and the poor desperate patients often get even more sick, with acquired infections. So doing nothing is not an option. Sir, I support the repeal of section 5(2)(d). Those 60 years and above are no longer prevented from donating their organs. With modern living and modern medicine, many 60-year-olds keep their organs well maintained. Besides these are not only healthy organs, but experienced ones too. I also support the amendment to allow for paired living donor transplantation. These measures should help to increase slightly the number of kidneys available annually. Sir, in an ideal world, we would never be short of cadaveric or living donors, and all the unfortunate people who suffer from end-stage kidney, liver or heart diseases will have enough organs to be transplanted to take over the functions of their failing organs. But this is an imperfect world, like Jack Neo said "not only money no enough, organs also no enough". The recent prosecution of seller, buyer and middleman in organ trading has brought this issue into the open.”
“Some religious groups have also expressed objections to the organ trading as they view it against the Almighty’s design for the universe and not part of divine will for us mortals to trade organs. Some non-religious but fair-minded people see organ trading as exploitative as only the wealthy members of a society can afford to pay for body parts and usually the "donor" or "seller" of such body parts is a member of the poorer, disadvantaged and vulnerable group. There is also the concern that when it comes to cross border organ trading, "donors" or "sellers" are always from poorer, less developed countries where healthcare facilities and services are poor or sometimes non-existent. The future health risks to such a "donor" are often greater than the risks for people from better developed countries. There is also often gross exploitation in such situations. Against all these objections and concerns, there are equally unhappy circumstances and problems that this amendment seeks to address. We know the statistics by now. Every year, 750 people are diagnosed with kidney failure. These are new cases, and we have in Singapore a backlog of 563 cases waiting for kidney transplant and are on chronic dialysis in 2007. We all know that the waiting time is about nine years. These patients need to undergo renal dialysis two to three times a week just to stay alive. Each haemodialysis episode lasts four to five hours. It is a costly, inconvenient and uncomfortable process. Few patients on renal dialysis can lead full and productive lives for sustainable periods. Their family members, especially their children, suffer. Their spouses often bear the brunt of the burden of support. Living related donors are actively encouraged.”
“Mr Speaker, before I join the debate on the amendment to HOTA, I would like to declare my interest as the Executive Chairman of Raffles Medical Group, whose Raffles Hospital conducts renal transplantation surgeries in the course of its business, and I am also a practicing member of the medical profession. This amendment has stirred some age old controversies because the amendment calls for payment to organ donors. Why is it so controversial to make payments to organ donors? Let me explain. The medical profession believes in the sanctity of life. Doctors are supposed to put the interest of their patients above all else. They are taught to "cure sometimes, relieve often and comfort always". They are also ethically bound to "do no harm" to their patients. Hence any cure must never be worse than the disease. It is therefore not surprising that the medical profession here and elsewhere feel uncomfortable if body parts were to be traded for cash or kind. They are uncomfortable because while society may want to change its norms, customs and laws, it is the doctor who ultimately has to wield the scalpel and do the harvesting of organ from the donor. Some doctors believe they are conflicted ethically when they have to harvest an organ from a donor whom they also regard as their patient. How can they be not doing harm if they are removing the kidney from the patient? Besides cadaveric donors, many doctors are willing to make a concession for the harvest of organs only from clearly altruistic living related donors. They are absolutely against the trading of body parts. Some are even against the donation of organ by living unrelated donors, that means strangers, no strong emotional ties.”
“So there is little room for politeness. Sir, finally I would like to commend the Minister for Finance on his Budget statement. It is clear, thoughtful, bold and decisive. It balances our short-term needs with our longer term goals. I support the Budget.”
“Many global banks and insurance companies are still not able to ascertain the extent of their exposure and liabilities. That is why they are asking for more and more billions of dollars of bailout funds. Yesterday, the hon. Senior Minister of State for Finance answered my question on contingent liabilities in the best way she could. I thank her gallant efforts. We have all learned by now that question time is not the place to debate real issues so today is my chance! I accept that there are controls and oversights over the issue of guarantees. But what about other exposures? External auditors do their auditing and reporting based on representation by management or letters of representation. Board directors rely on these reports. Internal auditors with access to the Chairman of Audit Committee may help reduce these risks, but they may also not know or understand the exposures the CFO, CIO, or CEO have undertaken. This is a new situation. Adherence to FRS39 itself may not be adequate. FRS39 only requires reporting at the closing of accounts and at a fair value. Often, fair value is difficult to ascertain if there is no ready market. It is quite plausible that these gaps exist in some of our Government agencies and Government-Linked Companies. Annual audit and reports may not be adequate. The whole world has turned topsy-turvy in the last three months. In this new dynamic and evolving situation, one month is an eternity. Sir, I urge the Minister to require improvement to the overall risk management process. And if we have such exposures, we should take appropriate steps to reduce or mitigate our exposure while it is manageable. Why? Because our past, present and future reserves and hence, the future of our children and grandchildren are at stake.”
“In the old days when we were a smaller economy, old guard Ministers and senior civil servants like Dr Goh Keng Swee, Mr Hon Sui Sen, Mr Howe Yoong Chong and Mr Sim Kee Boon would guard the monies entrusted to them with an eagle eye, often more carefully than they guard their own. Today, we are bigger, we have more money to manage and we are more spread out. We employ fund managers to look after our monies. They are paid salaries and bonuses. But it is the bonuses, which are performance-based that makes a lot of money for them. The basis of their compensation follows that of Wall Street banks. Hence, it is in their interests to take risks on behalf of the owner. Their own risk is only their jobs. One particular group of products called "the accumulator", which is meant to provide equity or currency hedge, requires the investor to double up when the hedge goes against him. Many such "investors" have been burnt. They lose more than their principal, that means, if you invest $1 million, you may end up losing $10 million or more, in this turbulent market. Sir, in current market conditions, even well-managed and well-diversified portfolios will be under-performing. So I am not worried about paper loses at this point of time. If the portfolio is not too leveraged, it should recover when financial markets recover. I am not alleging any misconduct on anyone's part. Neither am I saying there is anything amiss. But looking at what is happening to other institutions around us, I am urging caution. I urge the Minister of Finance to exercise greater oversight on all the Government agencies and Government entities. The current risk management framework may not be sufficient.”
“In retrospect, we now see how keeping some of the surpluses in reserve for the rainy days makes sense. We do not know how long this recession will last and how deep it will go. Having some reserves tucked away gives us the reassurance and confidence that we will survive this financial tsunami. I support the drawing of $4.5 billion from our past reserves for this Budget and for the purposes set out. Sir, one other grave and serious concern I have is that of the exposure, known or unknown, that Government agencies and Government-Linked Companies may have to the market place. The basis for my concern is the fact that Iceland, a small country of 300,000 tough and hard working people have gone bankrupt overnight. In our region and even at home, supposedly well-managed companies have been caught out with hundreds of millions and billions of dollar losses on currency, and equity hedges. I heard that even very savvy, well-regarded and respected investors have been caught out. When one looks at the list of people who have lost money in the Madoff Ponzi scheme, one sees established banks and previously credible fund managers and wealthy individuals losing money. It is now well-known that many financial derivative products and credit default swaps are created in such a complicated manner, that nobody other than the creator, who is usually an engineer, understands how they work. Most sales people do not understand the product and many buyers, individuals, CFOs, CIOs, CEOs do not fully know what they are buying, and are too shy to ask! After all, so many other companies are buying also – they think! My concern is with investments that may be open positioned when the losses are not capped and not even quantifiable at the time of entering into the investment.”
“Sir, in view of the fact that a five-day week has not helped us get the babies we hoped for, and in view of the progressive erosion of our work ethics, I urge the Government to take steps to determine whether our productivity and competitiveness have been affected by the five-day week and to review the policy if necessary. In the meantime, I hope the Government, unions and employers will take steps to prevent the further erosion of our work ethics. Sir, as we spend more on infrastructure projects, recruit more public servants, I urge the Government not to relax its discipline to stay trim and fit. In particular, I urge the Government to continue to reduce wastages in the public sector. My colleague, Mr Baey Yam Keng, has mentioned a lot of examples. Eventually, the cost of public sector services has to be passed on to businesses and taxpayers. One sees wastages in allocation and utilisation of resources especially during bountiful years. I hope in this recession, we will be more vigilant to reduce wastages in the public sector as much as possible because every bit counts and every bit will improve our competitiveness. Wastages help no one. I wonder what has happened to our Cut Waste Panel, whether it still exists. Sir, I am glad to see us supporting families to the tune of $2.6 billion and also provide targeted help for vulnerable groups, whilst we do much to reduce business costs and to keep people in jobs. Sir, I would like to commend the Government on its prudent fiscal policy over these past few years. Saving for a rainy day has always been its mantra. I remember last year, when we had a bountiful year, there were many calls from both sides of this House for more spending.”
“Younger Singaporeans view work as something they have to do – they do not like it but they have to do – just to justify the pay they get. Often, they attend to their jobs grudgingly. This attitude has even penetrated the ranks of younger doctors and nurses who are professionals who ought to be committed to compassion, service and sacrifice. Sir, what worries me is that, over this period, I have detected a serious erosion of our work ethics. In December these past years, the Straits Times, without fail, will publish a list of public holidays with advisory and colourful calendar on how to maximise one's leave. For example, how one could take three days' leave and be away from workplace for nine days between 24th January and 1st February. No one is thinking of their shop in that nine days. I have nothing against our young Singaporeans having fun and partying. But I hope they will work as hard as they play hard. That work-life balance is about the right measure of work with a right measure of play. We need to keep things in perspective and not to let our collective work ethics be eroded and lose our competitiveness. I am quite concerned with what my colleague, Mr Nordin, said about our productivity going down. Sir, in 2004, when the public service went into five-day week, we also hope that our procreation ability will improve. Private sector soon followed. By reviewing the total births, 37,485 in 2003 to 39,490 in 2007 and Total Fertility Rate (TFR) was 1.27 in 2003 to 1.29 in 2007. I would say the effect has been feeble at most. We might as well accept that as a people, our procreation talent is not our forte - nothing to crow about!”
“The banks, insurance companies, automobile industry, steel industry – they do not hesitate to use whatever clout they have to cajole, demand or sometimes threaten their government for bailout packages or financial injection. Fortunately, in spite of the private sector's very measured feedback, the Government has heeded their plea to reduce business costs and help make credit more readily available. Together, these measures should help most businesses see through this tough period. Sir, I support the various SPUR initiatives to use this downturn to retrain our workers and prepare for the recovery. When the recovery comes, we want to charge ahead. But besides retraining and upgrading our workers' skills and competency, I believe we need to also develop our psychological resilience. We need to strengthen our collective resolve to stare the crisis in the eye and prevail. With the news media broadcasting doom and gloom stories daily, it is understandable that the more senior workers, the sole breadwinners are worried and their spirits are down. This is especially so if there is a retrenchment exercise in their companies, even though they are still in jobs. But we must not allow them to become immobilised by depression or fear. As a community, if we rally around each other, the going gets easier because they will not feel they are facing this crisis by themselves. Sir, whilst I worry about the sagging morale of older workers, I have a slightly different concern about our younger workers. Perhaps this recession may be long enough to re-educate younger Singaporeans on the need for a true work-life balance. Old and conservative as I am, I am also for work-life balance. But I notice that we now have "all life" and "very little work".”
“A new financial institution with a clean balance sheet may be able to do more for businesses in line with SRI framework. Sir, I have been involved with ACE (Action Community for Entrepreneurship) which promotes entrepreneurship and start-ups and have seen SPRING’s work supporting SMEs. Successful enterprises and businesses are not easy to start or sustain. Most start-ups fail. But when they have been around a few years, they confer value to our society, they provide goods and services, jobs, pay taxes and many even contribute to social causes. Some of the start-ups and SMEs do grow into solid companies contributing even more to Singapore. Therefore, it is in our collective interests to nurture and support our enterprises and businesses through this crisis. Sir, let me not be misunderstood. I am not arguing for propping up failing companies blindly. The Darwinian law of "survival of the fittest" must apply to businesses as well. But if erstwhile viable companies succumb to this sudden and unexpected crisis, we should extend a hand. When an enterprise goes under, it is not just that jobs are lost, but also knowledge, business networks, brands that can evaporate overnight. There is the knock-on effect on suppliers, service providers, creditors, etc. These suppliers, providers and creditors may also fail in time. Chronically unfit companies will go down sooner or later and they should be allowed to go down. We must not throw good money after bad. Our local enterprises often under lobby the Government. We are too polite. Look at the situation in America.”
“It is not surprising to find foreign banks using their governmental bailout – not our Government but their governmental bailout funds to ensure their own survival, rather than to lend to their clients. Our local banks do not receive any bailout funds, but they naturally have to look after their own balance sheet first, just like my colleague Denise has said. The Special Risk-sharing Initiative (SRI), the new Bridging Loan Programme (BLP), together with the Local Enterprise Finance Scheme (LEFS) and Micro Loan Programme (MLP) should help stimulate bank lending theoretically. With the Government underwriting 80% of the risks, the risk-reward ratio is actually five times for the bank. It sounds like our local banks should be rushing to extend credit to our businesses on such terms. It is comforting to hear at least one local bank stating that it is processing increased number of applications and it is processing them as quickly as it can. But to date, the business community is still lamenting the poor credit availability and that banks are still not keen to lend. You have heard Ms Denise Phua elaborating on this. These people who complain and lament – they cannot possibly all be unworthy borrowers! As credit is the lifeline of business, I urge the Minister to monitor the situation very closely and to explore with our local banks how beyond these schemes they can help support our businesses better. I am very sure borrowers who are supported in this period would be quite grateful to their bankers and become loyal customers. And in the event that there are real structural and institutional obstacles to stimulating bank lending, I urge the Minister to seriously consider the setting up of some form of financial institution to meet this need.”
“4,500 jobs for healthcare professionals and administrative staff for our hospitals – can we not outsource some of these tasks and even patient treatment? 1,400 jobs for Home Team. MHA has successfully outsourced the imposition and collection of fines for traffic offences. Can we not go further? Singapore is actually quite an efficient market and there are many companies happy to provide various services to the Government. Sir, let us also speculate why we are not doing enough outsourcing when we have the opportunity to. Perhaps it has to do with our instincts for control. We rather employ than buy services. Or perhaps it is an article of faith, somewhere which says, "that the public sector is the most efficient provider of goods and services". I do not have the answer. Some may say that the public sector jobs require security clearance. Hence it is not easy to outsource them. I am quite sure not all the 18,000 jobs are security-related. Even where there is security element we have appropriate private sector firms like CISCO, Aetos, which can undertake these jobs, without compromising security. Whatever the reason or reasons, I strongly urge the Minister to thoughtfully consider this proposal, as not only will the outsourced tasks also result in job creation, but it will also result in marginal companies being kept afloat, keeping their current staff employed. With luck, we may even help thriving local enterprises bloom and become strong, big companies contributing to Singapore economy in a bigger way. Sir, many local companies are still feeling the credit squeeze. I am sure you have heard a lot about it.”
“While I welcome these new jobs, I call on the Government to ensure that these "extra hands" must not be converted into permanent establishment, as people get used to "extra hands". Our attempt at Keynesian economics must not be allowed to lead to a bloated bureaucracy. It will undo many years of gallant efforts to keep our Government lean, trim and efficient. I also hope the Minister would ensure that the increased funds will be used to employ new staff, and not used to pay more bonuses or higher salaries to a few prima donnas or high-flyers. There are also other more meaningful ways we can create jobs for Singaporeans. Would the Minister not seriously consider outsourcing some of the tasks to be carried out by these 18,000 new public servants to the private sector? The Minister has said the current crisis is the result of shrinking worldwide demand for goods and services I agree with him. So I believe if some of these tasks were to be outsourced to the private sector, more Singapore companies and SMEs will with the additional demand survive better. Those businesses which are doing well, will do even better with some outsourced work. This will enable them to be better able to compete and perhaps even expand into the region when conditions are more favourable. I am sure quite a few of the tasks waiting to be done by the 18,000 public sector employees can be easily outsourced to Singapore companies. Sir, at this point, I must declare my interests as Chairman of Raffles Medical Group, a local healthcare company. Sir, look at the jobs. 7,500 jobs in teaching and teaching support. Can we not outsource the teaching support jobs? Can we not let whole schools be managed by suitable private companies and hold them accountable for performance, standards, quality and outcome?”
“Because if joblessness is allowed to spread and becomes widespread, when every Singaporean has got a few relatives unemployed, Singaporeans’ morale will sag, despondency will creep in and soon lawlessness will spread. I am sure the Government will do everything it can to prevent such a nightmarish scenario. As a society we can give Jobs Credit and Workfare. We rather do that than welfare for the unemployed. This is right, as Workfare and Jobs Credit come with the dignity of one earning one's keep and not receiving handouts. The dignity of his labour and hence his self-esteem is preserved. This morning, I read press reports of the debates in this House yesterday. I understand some of my hon. colleagues have misgivings about the Jobs Credit Scheme. May I shed some light from an employer’s perspective? My company employs 1,200 staff, not counting the doctors, and so on. The 12% Jobs Credit will enable us to create another 100 jobs and be cost neutral. We have not had to retrench staff. We are still growing and we are still recruiting staff for growth. The additional 100 jobs will enable us to send other staff for training, upgrading and fill positions that we could not have filled previously. 100 additional jobs may not be much, but it also means 100 more families will have another source of income, to help put food on the table. The Minister has informed us that 18,000 jobs will be created in the public sector, that is good. And the jobs is supposed to be for teaching positions, teaching support staff, in healthcare, the Home Team, MINDEF and the rest of public service. I suspect some of these positions have not been easy to fill in times when the economy was buoyant.”
“I believe this is a move in the right direction. This is a commendable way to cut costs and save jobs. I also take comfort in the Minister’s assurance that whilst this is a temporary measure, the Government is prepared to extend this measure in some form in accordance with the state of the economy. Like many Singaporeans, I am appreciative of the Government’s efforts to save jobs, especially when it is difficult in this environment to create new jobs. We have done well these last 40 years. Very few people in this House know what it is like to want work and not be able to get work. But I remember when I was a young boy in the 1950s, jobs were so scarce that when someone was called up for interview after scores of applications, the whole kampong waited with bated breath for the outcome. When the kampong boy, "tua kow" (big dog), his name, that was what his mother called him, got a job as a salesman in a sports shop, the whole kampong celebrated. It was like striking 4D! That was a long time ago. Some Members may remember the 1963-1965 period when there was "Confrontasi" and Singapore’s entrepot trade with Indonesia fell through the bottom. I remember "Ba Wang Che " or unlicensed taxi mushrooming overnight. Anyone who could lay his hands on a vehicle will be plying North Bridge Road and Victoria Street, picking up loose passengers for 20 to 30 cents each. Others would do whatever was needed, lawful or otherwise, to eke out a living to put rice on the table. Having grown up in a very different Singapore and having personally experienced those conditions, I deeply understand the importance of saving jobs for Singaporeans.”
“Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Budget Statement of the Finance Minister. Indeed these are extraordinary times. While the world hopes that President Obama will do enough to stabilise the situation, there is no clear light at the end of the tunnel. This crisis may yet turn into global financial meltdown and a global depression. The only comfort Singaporeans can have is that our accumulated reserves will stand us in good stead. I also do not believe that this is the end of civilisation as we know it. It is true that recovery is not yet in sight and when it comes, it is likely to be a prolonged weak recovery, but I am confident that the global economy will recover at some stage. As a people, we need to rally around the Government, close ranks and help each other to survive this turmoil. In this regard, I applaud the Government’s decisive and timely action to present the Resilience Package and obtain the President’s agreement to dip into our reserves. The Jobs Credit Scheme in the Resilience Package is novel and helpful. Many marginally profitable businesses, especially SMEs, would benefit from the job credits. This is a very direct response to private sector’s plea for the Government to help lower business cost. I also agree that this scheme is better than cutting employers’ CPF contributions as a CPF cut will reduce wages of workers, their earnings and thereby reduce their ability to service their housing loans. Besides, this crisis is brought on by shrinking global demand and not because of our uncompetitive labour costs. This Jobs Credit will also enable businesses to better hold on to their Singaporean workers. In a way, the job credit has helped to make the Singaporean worker more competitive vis-a-vis foreign workers.”
“Is the Senior Minister of State aware that there are known-unknown and unknown-unknown, meaning that there are contingent liabilities or options given by Government agencies or Government-linked companies that they themselves may not be aware that there is a contingent liability. How do the external auditors, auditing based on letter of representation, make sure that the known contingent liabilities and the unknown contingent liabilities are surfaced and be provided for?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think the Standing Order does not preclude that, as long as it is before you put the question to the House. Anyway, 30 seconds more. Despite what the PM said, I seriously urge the PM, the Government, to think seriously because you have 23 or 24 minority MPs in this House. From a representation in Parliament, even if one or two vacate, you still have representation here. But at the constituency/GRC level, if the minority vacates, you do not have, and I take you at your word, we are trying to entrench multi-racialism at every constituency. Thank you for your forbearance. Mr Deputy Speaker: The Question before the House is: That this House affirms the importance of representative democracy and calls on the Government to fine-tune the electoral system by introducing amendments to the Parliamentary Elections Act such that (a) a writ for by-election shall be issued in the event (i) a Member of a Group Representation Constituency (GRC) belonging to a minority community within the terms of section 8A(1) of the Act vacates his or her seat for any reason; (ii) half or more of the Members elected on a group basis in relation to a GRC vacate their seats for any reason; or (iii) a Member of a single member constituency vacates his or her seat for any reason; and (b) all by-elections shall be called within three months from the date of vacancy unless the parliamentary term is due to expire within six months from the date of vacancy. As many as are of the opinion say "Aye". Some hon. Members: Aye.”
“Discussions and debates at such times are likely to be calm, rational and reasoned even though the subject matter may be somewhat sensitive. We just celebrated our 43rd National Day. We have been building our social and political institutions in Singapore. I am very glad and proud that one of those cherished institutions is that of our multi-racial, multi-cultural and multi-religious society. We accept our differences and we accommodate each other. Hence, in this spirit we should reassure our fellow Singaporeans from minority communities that when a lacuna is revealed, we will take the appropriate steps to ensure the intent behind the GRC system is observed and their representation in this House is preserved. We should likewise reassure all our GRC voters that when half or more of their MPs vacate their seats, their votes will be sought again for a full team of GRC MPs and that no citizen will be left unrepresented in this House for too long. Sir, it is well-known that all governments frown upon by-elections as they are psephologically disadvantaged. But because our Constitution and Parliamentary Elections Act (PEA) ought to serve the larger interests of Singapore and all Singaporeans, I appeal to the Government to rise to the occasion and support this motion to refine our by-election laws. As it is a matter of great importance for all Singaporeans, may I also humbly call on the Government to lift the Whip and allow its members to vote according to their conscience on this motion. Let us remind ourselves that we have all taken the oath when we entered this House to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore". 4.04 pm”
“There is some justification for this point of view. However, from a practical point of view, I would be quite happy at this moment to see a by-election called when half or more of the MPs in a GRC vacate their seats. Hence, my support for the motion. Sir, I believe the provision for the issue of writ for by-election in the event of a Single Member Constituency (SMC) is in place and it has been included in this motion for completeness sake. Sir, I now come to the timing for by-elections. Currently, as we all know, there is no provision with regard to the time frame within which a writ for a by-election has to be issued. I think this is quite unsatisfactory. Sir, I support the motion in proposing that all by-elections be called within three months from the date of vacancy, unless the parliamentary term is due to expire within six months from the date of vacancy. When a parliamentary seat falls vacant, the voters in that SMC and/or GRC are deprived of their representation in this House, until the vacancy is filled. The longer the vacancy remains unfilled, the greater the inequality to these voters. Their votes then count for less. Sir, I believe it is in our own common interest to ensure that we have clear, unambiguous and transparent rules and law for by-elections. When an ambiguity or lacuna is revealed, we should take steps to rectify it. Leaving the timing of by-election vague and ambiguous is not a good practice, and certainly not what people would call “best practice”. The PEA is silent on the timing of by-elections and we should therefore amend it to give greater certainty, clarity and transparency. Sir, I also believe that it is best to settle these constitutional and election law issues when there is no urgency.”
“In short, every voter is entitled to be represented in this House. This is our "one man, one vote" system. His vote must count and it must not count for less. Sir, it is here that I have difficulty with the existing provisions in the Parliamentary Elections Act (PEA). Under the existing laws, the Government does not have to call a by-election even if four out of five of the Jurong GRC members were to vacate their seats for whatever reasons. Heaven forbid, we are not wishing that. And it is believed that one lone GRC member is deemed sufficient to represent the whole GRC, an electorate of about 116,676 voters who have previously been represented by five Members of Parliament. Sir, it is in this context that the motion proposes that when half or more of GRC members vacate their seats in Parliament, a by-election should be called. The reasons for calling a by-election are, first, to ensure that voters in that GRC are adequately and fairly represented in Parliament and, secondly, a new full team with or without any MP from the previous team, seeks a fresh mandate from voters in that GRC. Sir, the desire and aspirations of people to be adequately represented in this House should not be underestimated and we should uphold that principle and not allow consideration of convenience or costs to prevent voters from being adequately represented. Further, when half or more of the MPs vacate their seats at a GRC, I believe the remaining half or less of the MPs have lost their moral authority to represent that GRC. I, therefore, support the motion which also calls for a by-election in such a circumstance. I am aware that some have called for a by-election in a GRC when any MP vacates his seat, even if he were to be from a majority community.”
“Further, in summing up the 1988 debate on the GRC proposal, Senior Minister Goh referred to an article, "Federalism in Switzerland" by Vernon Bogdanor, and said "The change to our Constitution and Parliamentary Elections Act to provide for election of MPs on a team basis is putting into place an institutional mechanism to ensure a multi-racial society. It is a formal institutional arrangement but for us to succeed, we must have the same spirit as the Swiss to search for consensus, to work through informal as much as formal arrangements, to make every citizen whichever community he belongs to, feel that he is a Singaporean". Yes, the spirit behind the formal words in the Constitution and Parliamentary Elections Act (PEA) must be considered and given adequate weight. I would urge this House to support the motion so as to preserve the original intent of the GRC scheme and the spirit behind it. Sir, I also support the motion calling for a by-election in GRC when half or more of MPs from any GRC vacate their seats. The present position is that a by-election needs to be called only when all the MPs vacate their seats. Some people may not see a need for a by-election when vacancies arise in GRCs as they say the remaining MPs can cover each other's duties. Sir, I believe a distinction has to be made between an MP being the advocate of his constituents when it comes to "municipal issues" such as appeal on HDB housing matters, assisting with jobs, etc, as opposed to the MP being the constituents' representative in this House, to debate on policies and to pass necessary laws and to supply money appropriately for Government to function. Sir, I strongly believe that these representational responsibilities cannot be delegated.”
“Sir, this recent event has caused some Singaporeans to ask if there is a lacuna in our laws. Would the situation in Jurong GRC be different if the member vacating the seat were to be the designated minority member? If the GRC system is to "entrench multi-racial politics at every constituency" and to ensure the minority communities in every constituency are represented in this House, then surely we should not leave minority communities unrepresented in this House for too long. Whilst it may be argued that when an MP from a majority community vacates his seat, his colleagues could cover his duties, and continue to represent the voters from the majority community, it is clearly not the same when a minority community member vacates his seat. In this situation, the very foundation of the GRC system is severely shakened. The raison d'etre of the GRC, that of ensuring minority representation in Parliament, is nullified when the minority Member of Parliament vacates the seat. Sir, I therefore submit that, in this regard, the existing provisions in the Parliamentary Elections Act (PEA) relating to GRC by-elections are weak and ambiguous and need to be amended to ensure Singapore's intention to "entrench multi-racialism in every constituency" is safeguarded. I therefore support the motion because it will ensure that when an MP from a minority community vacates his seat in a GRC, a by-election has to be called, so that the minority community can continue to be represented in this House.”
“Sir, I rise in support of the motion standing in Prof. Thio's name. The Group Representation Constituency (GRC) was introduced by the Government in 1988 to ensure that we have Members of Parliament from the minority communities – Malays, Indians and other communities. This is one fine example of Singapore successfully modifying the Westminster model of parliamentary democracy to specially cater to our multi-racial society. It is also an example of a majority community on its own, accommodating the minority communities, to ensure that they are represented in Parliament. Such a spirit of accommodation has done much to reassure minority communities that they have a place in Singapore's mainstream and they are truly part of us. In 1988, when moving the Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Bill in this House, the then Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Goh Chok Tong said, "The main argument for returning MPs on a team basis throughout Singapore is that it entrenches multi-racial politics in every constituency. It leaves no room for communal politics." Sir, the Senior Minister's words quoted above ring true today, 20 years after he said it. I strongly support this policy of entrenching multi-racial politics in every constituency. Sir, the recent vacancy in the Jurong GRC stimulated some discussion amongst Singaporeans. Some feel that a by-election should be called for, others disagree. Sir, the Parliamentary Elections Act, (PEA) section 24 (2A) requires a writ for election to be issued only when all the members for that constituency have vacated their seats. There is, therefore, no legal necessity for the Government to call a by-election, as the other four members have not vacated their seats.”
“What has been the result in terms of drop-out rate and truancy rate, for instance? Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: I do not think we can attribute the failure or success on the reduction of the drop-out rate in any school solely on the existence of the FTSC. It has to be many other factors. Some schools used, for example, the time-out programme, incorporating the FTSC, the operation manager within that programme, to address the issue. So I think it is not so black and white, whether FTSCs do address the attrition issue. However, they do address the need to case manage some of these students on an individual basis on the issues that they have in their growing up. 4.45 pm”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, some time ago, MOE placed counsellors in schools. I wonder whether the Ministry would share with the House the experience in terms of whether there has been a falling truancy rate, drop-out rate from school, whether it has been a good practice and whether the Ministry wants to extend the scheme.”
“Sir, the private sector also needs talents and people. If you keep them in the public service for too long, they will have public service reflexes and may not, in the end, be too suitable for private sector. We also have to grow our economy and we need the private sector to help us grow the economy. That is the contribution to Singapore.”
“Sir, yesterday, I mentioned about the bond and asked whether we would review the bond since it discourages people, especially people from families with wealth, who can afford to go overseas on parents' scholarship. Can we make our scholarship bond less unattractive? I have made two suggestions. One is to reduce the length to three years and, secondly, to make it a bond to Singapore, not just to the Government service.”
“Sir, these old Singaporeans have also contributed to our country in one way or the other. I am all for Workfare, so I share the sentiments about not weakening the incentive to find and stay in a job. But I suggest that these sentiments do not apply to this group of unfortunate Singaporeans who are on the PA scheme because we have selected them rigorously and I bet there are no undeserving cases. I therefore urge the Minister to review this increase and be more generous and compassionate towards these poor Singaporeans. Perhaps, the $40 increase was decided before he knew of the 6.6% inflation rate, or perhaps, it was just a simple oversight in an otherwise brilliant Budget statement. I hope the Minister will be stout-hearted to remedy this oversight and raise PA allowance by 38% to $400 per month for single person households and equivalent increases for family households. This will cost the Government approximately $4 million more instead of the proposed $1.5 million increase, which means, net-net, it is $2.5 million more only. Having taken the issue with the Finance Minister over the subject of poverty and elderly, I am glad I can now compliment him on removing estate duties. People who spend all their working and waking hours paying taxes can now take comfort that death is now more affordable. And when they pass away peacefully, they can really rest in peace. Sir, I support this Budget. I believe, save for a little oversight, there is the right mix of prudence, imagination, compassion, a brilliant piece of work indeed. I will continue to pay my taxes cheerfully. 4.44 pm”
“I am sure there is also the concern that this may set a precedent in the future. Notwithstanding all the above and being an unrepentant optimist, I still hope that the Minister will be persuaded to review and suspend the additional 2% GST. It will mean a forgone GST collection of about $1.35 billion if the 2% increase is suspended in July this year. I am sure such a move will reaffirm in all our hearts that this Government cares and will always respond to the people's hardship. I believe the trust and the bond between Singaporeans and the Government will be that much stronger. Sir, there is one small item in the Finance Minister's Statement that I have difficulty with. Yes, he has raised Public Assistance, from $290 per month to $330 a month, a 13.8% increase. And apparently, this was in response to the pleas of many Members of this House. The Minister has said that he had to refine the safety nets to help the most vulnerable in the community and that we have to do this, he said, in a calibrated fashion because the last thing we should do is to weaken the incentive for individuals to find a job and stay in one. I understand, and I agree with these sentiments. Sir, the PA scheme applies only to needy Singaporeans who are unable to work and have no other means of support, that means, no other family or social communal support. I understand that about 50% of applicants are usually rejected because they either have other support or they can work, or with a bit of help, they can work. So the half that is accepted onto the PA scheme must really be in bad shape. They are often old, in poor health and cannot fend for themselves. There are not many of them, only 2,772 in 2006, and the number has not increased. So the PA scheme costs the Government about $10 million a year.”
“That would call for a degree of prescience, not commonly associated with budgetary formulation. That is why I see the $6.4 billion surplus as a windfall for Singapore. This House has heard many impassioned speeches on high rate of inflation and the Minister informed us that had it not been for the strengthening of the Singapore dollar, our last quarter's inflation rate would have averaged 6.5% instead of 4.1%. As the Singapore dollar cannot be strengthened indefinitely, we will see an even higher inflation rate. So yesterday's announcement of 6.6% inflation rate in January this year did not come as a surprise. The Government has stated that it is very concerned with the higher cost of living. Fortunately, the GST offset packages will help to offset the 2% GST increase. But what about the increased cost of living as a result of high inflation? I therefore strongly recommend the Minister to review the situation and consider suspending the 2% increase in GST. The GST is widespread in effect and it can quickly bring relief to all Singaporeans experiencing higher cost of living. I remember in 2002, the Government agonised over increasing GST, from the then 3% to 5%. And that was against a backdrop of economic recession, where we had unemployment and we have to cut corporate and personal taxes to restructure our economy. We now have surpluses and do not have to cut corporate and personal income taxes. Indeed, the collection of both these taxes also exceeded earlier estimates. Sir, I also understand the reluctance of all governments and revenue collectors to give up what they have collected, especially when they have paid or spent political capital on. Governments also prefer to be distributing goodies to the poor and needy, rather than reducing taxes.”