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 2 of 3.
“Equally important is the move to encourage private sector to be more involved in R&D. The Scandinavian economies have reaped enormous benefits from such a policy. I am glad this support is given across-the-board to big companies, SMEs and start-ups. I am confident that this effort will result in greater commercialisation of R&D efforts as the private sector will be less likely to waste its resources on esoteric R&D activities without commercial potentials. And as the race and competition accelerate towards knowledge-based industries, the spending on R&D by other competing economies will increase. I hope we too will be prepared to grow our R&D spending beyond the 3% of GDP in the future. Since we can never compete on a low cost model in any field, we just need to be more innovative, more productive and be better in everything we do. Our R&D efforts should help. I also want to thank and applaud the Government for their continued support for entrepreneurship, start-ups and SMEs. It is a delight for us to see so many banks now - local and foreign - actively calling up SMEs and start-ups to finance them and help them grow. With mainstreaming financers taking a greater interest, I am confident more of our start-ups and SMEs will grow into successful regional companies. The various Government grants and schemes have helped, especially in the early days when High Street banks were reluctant to finance these fledgling companies. I hope the Government will continue to support these young enterprises even as bankers begin to show interest in them. Sir, some Members have called for review of the GST increase and others have criticised the timing of the increase. I do not think it is fair to expect the Minister to have predicted the extent of the exuberance of the property market.”
“In this way, scholars who return to serve the country will have the chance to contribute to the country in organisations of their choice. Those who willingly join Government service should make happier and better civil servants than if they are coerced. The civil service is no longer an unattractive place to work considering the improved working environment, excellent work-life balance and competitive compensation packages. And added to this, the loftier attraction of serving Singapore through helping to make better policies. The scholarship bond should promote and instil pride of service to the country amongst our young, just as national service has. It must not be allowed to be an instrument for converting free Singaporeans to indentured serfs. Yes, these are strong and emotional words, but they are words that I have heard from disgruntled young Singaporeans. Moreover, whilst those from well-to-do families can afford to send their children overseas, others do not have this choice. We must always remember that if we lose our young, we will have nothing. Further, since we are unable to build universities fast enough to provide more places, I would also urge the Government to consider allowing parents, who send their children to approved institutions overseas, some tax rebates when their children return home to work in Singapore and perhaps to the tune of the subsidy, that the child would have enjoyed if he had been accepted into a university in Singapore. This will help us grow our pool of graduates we need and also give more Singaporeans a chance at university education. I fully support the Government's intention to increase our overall research spending to $7.5 billion per annum, or 3% of our GDP by 2010.”
“If the Government wishes to keep the original intent of the policy of making statutory boards and Government agencies pay the true cost of capital when they invest, may I suggest that MOF make available tranches of Government funds for competitive tender by all statutory boards and Government agencies needing to borrow. Next, I would like to talk about retaining talents. I applaud the Government's many incentives to move us towards a knowledge-based economy. We used to be fearful of producing graduates because jobless graduates have bad revolutions elsewhere. Today, we know we need even more graduates. We cannot create the needed places fast enough. We may need to extend our educational and training support to include overseas institutions in this period of shortage. We are losing some 1,000 bright young people annually to other countries. Many bright students choose not to accept the Government's scholarship so that they will not be bonded to return. Many of them get recruited from Ivy League schools by US firms even before they graduate. They then progress in their careers, get hitched and settle down. My worry is that they may be lost to Singapore permanently. So, the current scholarship bond policy may actually be counter-productive and we should relook and review this policy. Even though I fully support the notion that Singaporeans who have been granted scholarship must return to serve Singapore, may I suggest that we keep bonds short and perhaps capped at three years for each scholarship? Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, all scholars should be bonded to serve Singapore, and not just the Singapore Government, but both the public and private sectors, since they have been financed by public funds.”
“Indeed, the Managing Director of MAS, Mr Heng Swee Keat, cautioned recently at the IMAS investment conference that the tighter credit could lead to a downward spiral in the real economy. Sir, in this regard, I believe one of MOF's policies is no longer helpful and needs to be modified or temporarily suspended. The Ministry of Finance encourages statutory boards and other Government agencies to borrow from the private debt market and thus better appreciate the true cost of capital. This would enable the Government to better allocate resources and stretch the Budget. There was also the intention to deepen the debt and bond market. In ordinary times where liquidity is available and plentiful, the market can accommodate both private and public borrowers. However, in times of liquidity squeeze, private sector companies have no chance of competing against statutory boards and Government agencies for what precious little funds left available in the market. Unlike private sector companies, statutory boards are fully backed by the Singapore Government and enjoy triple-A rating. So, under current market conditions, lenders and investors would understandably choose to park their funds with debt instruments issued by these boards and agencies fully backed by the Government of Singapore. This flight to quality may soak up whatever little liquidity that is available. I understand that the HDB is now in the market looking to borrow $500 million, and LTA and JTC may well follow suit. And this morning, we read of foreign companies also coming to Singapore to raise funds for their operations elsewhere. May I suggest that the Minister suspend this practice until the credit market loosens up so that Singapore businesses will not be choked for funds for business expansion.”
“All these measures are timely and should help to alleviate the shortage. [Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Matthias Yao Chih) in the Chair] 4.26 pm However, for each MNC and Asia-Pacific headquarters that finds Singapore too expensive to relocate to, we lose quite a few jobs and all the downstream economic spin-offs with it. So we must not forget the lessons we have learnt in the 2001 recession, ie, we must not price ourselves out of the marketplace. Sir, over and above all the measures that the Government has taken, I wonder if the Minister for Finance would consider giving businesses a little short-term help by allowing double deduction of their rental expenses. This would effectively help them reduce 18% of their high rental cost and help those whose rentals have been revised upwards sharply in the last year. This may actually help marginal businesses stay afloat. I believe such a measure will also be helpful to the many retailers with high shop rentals and who may have to face lower demand when the economy slows down this year. The high rentals and other business costs have resulted in luxury goods sold in Singapore being more expensive than the same goods sold in Tokyo, Hong Kong and even Milan. This rental assistance should be reviewed annually and should be removed when supply comes on stream and rental becomes more affordable. Sir, the sub-prime problem and the attendant financial crisis have already had their effects on the credit market. Whilst the world has been used to excess liquidity, we are now seeing tightening liquidity. Spreads have widened as risk premiums rise. I think it is safe to say that the days of cheap and abundant credit are over.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the economy grew at 7.7% last year and we experienced exuberant residential and commercial property market conditions. Collection of stamp duties alone exceeded estimates by $2.3 billion. Motor car ownership taxes also exceeded by $0.9 billion. These taxes, particularly property-related stamp duties, being volatile, could not be expected to exceed estimates year after year. So last year was really an exceptional year with one-time windfall collections. The sub-prime CDO crisis has slowed down the US economy. It is expected to slow down our economy too. Hence, prudence is clearly called for and the Minister for Finance keeping 70% of surpluses is understandable. This saving for the rainy day will enable us to continue with our assistance to the aged, the poor and the needy even when the economy slows down. So I support this prudent stance even though I feel we can be a little more generous to some of the disadvantaged people. Sir, the buoyant property market brought joy to all property-owning Singaporeans and residents. Developers, real estate companies, contractors and professional firms all did very well. Our assets appreciated and the wealth effect was everywhere. The Government collected more stamp duties and taxes. However, with such high capital values, rentals necessarily have to escalate in order for yield to be kept up. Businesses are complaining of high operating costs, as rentals in the CBD and elsewhere escalated to unprecedented levels. I am very concerned that our competitiveness is being eroded. The Government has reacted quickly to relieve the shortages through releasing more sites for commercial and transitional offices, making available State properties for business use, and even moving some of the Government offices out of CBD.”
“Indeed, I propose that over and above this one-time payment, we should perhaps consider increasing their pension, as many of them are in their old age and a $380 pension may be insufficient if there is no family support. Whilst I advocate a higher payout to the pioneer batch of nation builders, I propose that, going forward, the Government should do away with the pension scheme for political officer-holders and Administrative officers. The pension scheme is an antiquated retention tool. Most civil servants have been converted to the CPF scheme long ago. By the way, the private sector does not use pension anymore. Sir, with the above suggestions and comments, I support the motion. 3.14 pm”
“Whatever the quantum of discount decided by the Government, we will see that that is the portion which is the public service element of the pay that collectively Ministers and civil servants want to give to the society. Taken together, these two modifications will provide a more reliable benchmark not based on outliers but will be more consistent as we go forward. Such a benchmark should be more acceptable to the public too. Capping the increase Sir, in order to reassure taxpayers that in the future, there will still be moderation even as the Government reviews Ministerial pay, may I suggest that after this round of increase, there be a cap of cumulative increase of not more than 50% for any intervening five-year period? This, I believe, will help assuage the angst and sense of inequity felt in some quarters. Sir, because the income gap between the top earners and the rest of society will continue to widen, it is even more important that we must ensure abundant opportunities for young Singaporeans to reach the top. We must ensure that all Singaporeans, regardless of race, language, religion, or socio-economic background have equal opportunities to reach the top. Then they too can enjoy the high pay that top earners command and their family can have a better life. Pension Sir, I applaud the Minister for remembering the pioneer batch of MPs and civil servants. These are people who have contributed much to Singapore. By this act, we are teaching our young that this is not a "disposable" society, like Kleenex tissue, use and throw. It is right to promote the culture of "yin shui si yuan " - remembering where the water comes from.”
“The other portion of compensation is to be based on a Minister's personal performance. It will surely be up to the Prime Minister to assess the Ministers' performance. We do know that PM has his own KPIs for his Ministers and I expect them to be both exacting and demanding. Benchmarking Sir, the current two-thirds M48 is a useful tool. It is better than the previous two-thirds average 24 adopted in the 1994 White Paper. However, choosing the top eight persons from each of the six professional groups is narrow and skewed. The top eight are actually extreme outliers. They actually constitute the top 0.04% of accountants, the top 0.12% of engineers and the top 0.24% of lawyers. Most compensation experts would recommend companies determining CEO salary ranges to be in the range of 75th percentile of comparable scope of responsibility and size of jobs, ie, pay according to the top 25% of comparable group if they wish to be competitive. However, we also note that where highly specialised skills are needed, there is often no choice for the company but to pay whatever compensation that will attract the candidate. Would it be possible to revise the benchmark two-thirds M48 to make it more broad-based and more reliable? May I therefore suggest to the Government to use the median salary of the top 5% of each of the six chosen professional groups instead of just the top eight persons? Secondly, the Government can remove the discount totally or keep it to 4/5 of whatever number instead, as benchmarking to the median salary of the top 5% may depress the benchmark salary.”
“I recommend a book, "The 7 Hidden Reasons Employees Leave" by an expert, Leigh Branham. It is good reading. It tells you why people do not want to tell you the real reasons why they leave. I am relieved that a large part of the increase is pegged to performance of the individual as well as that of Singapore's GDP growth, and not just straight increase in the fixed salary component. Making Ministers' and senior civil servants' pay bear a greater relationship to their performance is indeed a good move. This is actually the situation in the private sector. However, relying on GDP growth alone is, in my mind, a simple, convenient but inadequate measure. I propose the Government also take in at least one other indicator - that of the total costs of running the government as a percentage of total revenue. Private sector CEOs have to ensure that profits are not consumed by increasing costs and expenses. Board of Directors looks to growth not only of the top line but as well as growth of the bottom line when they are evaluating the management performance. GDP growth unfortunately only measures the revenue or the top line. We impose that discipline on charities that, when they raise funds, they must not spend more than 30%. So similarly, we reward Ministers and senior civil servants better only if they can run the Government with increasing productivity and efficiency. Hard data on cost ratios will be more useful and compelling than general declarations of improving service and efficiency. That way, we can further lighten the tax burden for Singaporeans and corporations. More investments will result and more jobs should be created. I believe it is a more refined way to align the interest of Ministers and senior civil servants to that of the society at large.”
“A survey by HR experts Heidrick & Struggles across the Asian Pacific region on "Effectiveness of various HR policies with respect to employee retention" states that of seven areas, two stand out, ie, the two most important things people look at - leadership development, which is training, coaching and mentoring, and long-term career planning, which is succession plans and career path. The survey found that companies that are exceptional in these two areas will be better able to retain their talent. These experts concluded, and I quote, "So while compensation must remain competitive, it is not the primary driver of employee satisfaction." The first trigger for an employee to leave a company is usually related to career development and opportunities, or perceived lack thereof. Other factors are "a favourable culture climate", "increased responsibilities", "community involvement", "promoting a favourable image" and, lastly, "monetary reward system". Sir, it is clear to me that the public sector actually possesses those very attributes that experts say should enable them to retain their officers. The civil service today is different from those in the sixties. Whilst the situation is no longer revolutionary, the job is still no less challenging. Besides, much is done in the area of leadership development and long-term career planning and we even have a Mentor in the Cabinet. So, could it be that the Government is under-selling itself, that the situation is made to seem worse? Or could it be that the quoted 5% is actually quite acceptable and that the Government should not try and aim at a zero-loss situation? So some attritions may be unavoidable. We should accept that. It should also be remembered that not all separations are due to inadequate compensation.”
“However, as taxpayers, we want to pay our Ministers and political office-holders adequately so that they will be able to provide a good home for their families, good education for their children, financial security for old age, and perhaps a little luxury every now and then. So we are not talking about a Spartan or priestly lifestyle. We certainly do not want our Ministers to be impoverished when they accept political office. This is especially so, now that we are no longer in our initial years of nation-building. Moral authority Sir, much has been said about moral authority and Ministers' salaries. I understand the sentiments but I fail to fathom the logic. I fully agree that there has to be a public service element of sacrifice in the total scheme of Ministers' compensation. In my mind, a Minister's moral authority is not proportional to the quantum of his forgone pay. His moral authority to govern has a lot more to do with this own moral fibre, integrity, intellectual honesty, his competence and his compassion. I am comforted by the fact that the Government has shown restraint and consideration by increasing salaries in phases, over the next two years. They have also decided to take only 2/3 of the benchmark. And more importantly, they have come to this House, openly and clearly explaining their position. And even if one disagrees with the way the benchmark is computed, one must respect them for their approach - open, fair, robust, no hypocrisy. Eventually, it is for the electorate to judge whether $2.2 million per annum for a Minister is fair and acceptable. How important is monetary compensation in public service?”
“I also discovered that besides primary school education, every Singaporean is also an expert on Ministerial pay. Sir, I take comfort in what the Prime Minister said recently at the Administrative Service Dinner. I quote, "We pay competitive wages, attract and retain people of calibre and hold them to high standards of integrity and performance." However, he added, "Financial rewards cannot be the main motivation of public officers." I agree with that. I, like all Singaporeans, will worry for Singapore the day people enter politics, or join public service in order to make a fortune, or worse, to enrich themselves. Indeed, in addition to their monetary compensation, there are other intangible but equally real rewards. Often, the satisfaction one gets from work of passion, sense of nation-building and the knowledge that one is improving the lives of fellow Singaporeans, far exceeds monetary rewards. Besides such personal satisfaction, Singaporeans look up to our Ministers and treat them with great respect. Most Singaporeans know that they are competent, honest and hardworking. We see them at the grassroots functions, community clubs, Parliament and in their Ministries. Newspaper reports have some of the Ministers appearing to have aged prematurely, mentioning Raymond and Vivian, I think, Swee Say too. It is easy to agree that Ministers' pay should not be pegged at a level to compensate them fully, as though they have remained in the private sector and progressed in the private sector. I think that may be deemed speculative.”
“Sir, every organisation, public or private, needs to attract and retain talent. Otherwise, it cannot sustain itself and definitely cannot grow. Sir, the Government is no different. It must continually attract some of the brightest and best to public service as political office-holders, Administrative Officers or officers in other branches of Government. There are also sensitive jobs in defence, intelligence, home security, foreign service, etc, that require people with good brains, firm hands and stout hearts. And because experience and judgement are of paramount importance, these officers need to be retained for many years. A high turnover in these positions will erode the quality of the decision and outcome. I run a private healthcare organisation that delivers healthcare and, if we are unable to attract and retain some of the brightest and best medical talents, we will never be able to deliver high quality healthcare our local and regional patients expect. Our competition is regional and international. Highly skilled physicians and surgeons do not come cheap. On top of that, we require them to be compassionate to all our patients and also to work together as a team. We also appeal to their sense of service and professionalism and, fortunately, part of the reward of a doctor is seeing his patients get better and walk out of hospital. Otherwise, pay has to go up higher and patients will have to bear bigger healthcare bills. I am therefore very sympathetic to challenges faced by the Prime Minister in attracting and retaining talents in the public sector. How to pay Ministers and civil servants adequately and fairly? Sir, this is one subject that never fails to excite the House, the press, the coffeeshop and, recently, cyberspace and its netizens.”
“I understand Japan, Korea and, to some extent, the Taiwanese government do this to help their companies go overseas. A company, I know, that does this is Keppel Land and it actively encourages its consultants and sub-contractors to go with them to new markets - Shanghai, Beijing - as they develop these properties. And I think it has worked well for small companies because this is the first time that they have a chance to break into these foreign markets. The next point that I would like to bring up - that I have no time earlier on to talk about - is that we notice in some established countries - Germany, Italy - there are many, many SMEs which are bigger than our SMEs in Singapore. I think they are beginning to be more interested in Asia because of the growth of the Chinese and Indian markets. I think there is a great opportunity to revisit some of these countries and try and see if they will use Singapore as a springboard to India and China. They could perhaps team up with our SMEs. They have the technology. Our SMEs and local companies have got people in place, knowledge of the terrain and connections with the people in these countries. I hope this will happen and it will enable SMEs to regionalise even further. Finally, I think SMEs are all waiting anxiously for Mr Philip Yeo to take over the chair as Chairman of SPRING. With his immense wealth of experience and boundless energy and vision, I think SMEs and local enterprises would benefit. Entrepreneurship”
“Sir, regionalisation is important to our economy, even as we continue to attract foreign MNCs and global financial institutions and move from a population of 4.5 million to perhaps 6.5 million. By and large, our agencies, such as EDB, IE Singapore, SPRING and even ACE, have done well in helping local enterprises, in particular and start-ups. We have done many right things, provide incentives, organise overseas business trips, conduct forums and organise business matching sessions. ACE, over the last four or five years, has managed to help shift the mindset of Singaporeans and also added to the debt of financing available to new start-ups. Now, given that many other governments are actually actively involved in helping their companies penetrate overseas markets, some even engage in more direct activities, such as negotiating deals, then we should do more for our enterprises. SMEs and start-ups need more assistance than big companies that can help and fend for themselves. I would like to suggest that some of our big companies and TLCs have actually been quite successful in regionalising the companies. You go to China and India and you will see quite a few of Singapore companies have established themselves in various fields - property development, estate development and manufacturing. The question really is: is it possible for the Government to encourage both TLCs and local companies to give smaller Singapore companies a chance to quote for the goods and services when they want to procure them? And obviously, not just moral suasion, but whether there could indeed be some tax incentives given at home when they actually give these contracts to Singapore companies.”
“Sir, I applaud the Government for putting various measures in place to make Singapore the best place to grow and start business and to globalise these businesses. I agree that the best way to help all Singaporeans in good times and bad times is to build a strong economy and build it on a sustainable basis. We continue to be attractive to MNCs and global financial institutions. Our communication infrastructure, IP protection, rule of law, competitive tax regime and comfortable living environment for the expatriate staff will continue to give us an edge. Sir, the many new measures announced in the Budget Statement, such as increasing partial tax exemption, tax exemption on chargeable income, will benefit SMEs and start-ups. I urge the Government to continue to promote all local enterprises, including SMEs and start-ups, and not to slow down the momentum as our economy improves. As we diversify our economy, SMEs and start-ups will continue to provide jobs and contribute to the development in many ways. Local enterprises are also more likely to stay rooted in Singapore and even if they were to expand all over the region and the world, they are likely to keep their HQ status in Singapore and repatriate their profits back home and pay Singapore taxes. I also support the Government's intention to invest 3% of our GDP in R&D. This, I think, is a very good signal and it will in time create new companies once the products and services are commercialised. I hope that our agencies can revisit some of these opportunities in the region because SMEs in Europe like Germany and Italy are interested to use Singapore as a springboard into China and India. Research and Development Plan and Biomedical Strategy”
“Sir, I intended to speak about the speculative activities spilling over to public housing, but the Minister had anticipated and had given able and adequate reassurance to this House. Housing for Singles”
“Sir, the back-of-envelope calculation shows that the lifetime contribution of the average citizen is in excess of $100,000, and half of them are males doing National Service which is priceless contribution. When I look at the list of goodies for babies, totalling up to $10,000 to $15,000, would the Government not think it sensible to expend more money in various forms, either more leave, more aid, or more bonuses? So I think it is quite justifiable to double or triple the Baby Bonus packages.”
“Let us not forget that this is a multi-racial, multi-religious and multi-lingual society, and inter-racial harmony and inter-religious tolerance will move us forward. We must not forget that. Foreign Talents”
“Sir, we all know that to globalise our economy, we have to really grow our population. Prof Richard Florida in the Flight of the Creative Class talked about three things - 3Ts - technology, talent and tolerance. Well, America has benefited from successive waves of immigration in the last 100 years, from Europe, Latin America and Asia, and that is why they have Wall Street, Silicon Valley and also Route 128, and have prospered. Singapore will need to attract more creative individuals from all over the world. Otherwise, we will not be able to grow. But we hear of disturbing trends developing in Singapore - landlords slamming their doors on foreigners when they try to rent their flat. We know of mothers who complain about bright PRC students competing against their children for academic prizes in schools. We even hear of professionals complaining about foreign talents taking over their jobs. I am concerned that all these tendencies are appearing even when we have growth of 7.9% and a tight labour market. We wonder what will happen if there is an economic downturn - the scene may get ugly. All of us came from migrant stock - from China, India and the Malay Archipelago. Let us remind ourselves that it was not too long ago that signs outside Singapore Cricket Club said, "No dogs, no Chinese allowed". And it was not too long ago when we were regarded as second class citizens in our own country. So, to be a first-world economy, we need a first-world mindset and matching habits. The tolerance in cities like New York, London, Paris and Boston helps welcome foreigners, and that is why they are vibrant, diverse and that is why they thrive. We must do the same.”
“Besides the creation of the office of the Commissioner for Charities and other related measures, I would recommend that our universities provide suitable courses for volunteers and directors of charities, VWOs and other non-profit organisations (NPOs). I believe that, as our society matures, more people will be involved in this sector. I think it would be useful to have courses to train directors of charities, VWOs and NPOs on governance, procurement, fund raising and other best practices, just like the Singapore Institute of Directors holding courses for company directors so that they can do the job more effectively. Management staff of these organisations can undergo appropriate training so that they can manage charities and non-profit organisations better. In time, there could even be degree and master programmes for these people. Others from the region can also avail themselves of the requisite training through these courses, not unlike the LKY School of Government helping to train administrators from the region. Sir, I support the philosophy enunciated and the direction advocated by the Minister in his Budget Statement. I will continue to pay my taxes cheerfully. 1.52 pm”
“An examination of property indices showed that between 1st Quarter of 1990 and 4th Quarter of 1996, HDB resale price index rose 400%, which is an average of 57% per year! That kind of number is high by any standard. The corresponding rise in private property index was 300% over the same period, or 43% per annum. When prices of HDB flats grow too fast, owners are understandably happy as they feel richer. However, between 4th Quarter 1996 and 4th Quarter 2003, the HDB index fell 31%. Some HDB owners who bought their flats at the top of the market, or near the top of the market, they are still in the negative equity territory. And I do not think it is a nice spot to be in. I hope we will learn from the past experiences and put in place measures to prevent the HDB sector becoming a vehicle for speculation. Now that the economy is doing well and property and share prices are buoyant, we should have more room to move in this regard. Finally, I also wish to support the Government's intention to grow Singapore into a philanthropy hub. I support the Minister's intention to do away with the 80:20 rule on spending and liberalising double tax deduction for donations. The NKF saga shows up clearly the need for greater transparency and better governance for many charities. It is now more difficult to raise funds and to find volunteers to sit on boards of charitable organisations. Many well meaning and compassionate people want to help charitable causes, but they do not wish to be dragged into all kinds of investigations and become responsible for breaches by other less noble people.”
“People need to realise that, to be successful, they must be able to adapt to rapidly changing workplace, workforce, work nature and work system. We need to "reinvent" ourselves every few years. Otherwise, we will become irrelevant and extinct. The medical profession, as an example, spends the most years training and studying, compared to other professions. Yet, we realise the need to do continuing medical education if we want to keep abreast of changes and developments in our own respective fields. Some of you may not know doctors now need to be re-certified every two years in order that they will be able to obtain their practising certificates. So as the Minister said, "We need to encourage every Singaporean to see that lifelong learning is a way of life." Sir, another important concern I have is regarding our HDB property market. 85% of Singaporeans live in HDB flats and most of them own their flats. HDB housing is one of the cornerstones of our socio-economic success. I believe it is in our long-term interest to ensure that HDB housing serves the social needs of ensuring most Singaporeans can have an affordable roof over their heads, whilst also serving as a long-term investment for retirement. But HDB flats should never be allowed to become instruments for speculation. Those who want to speculate can take the chances with the private market. But the private market has become more exuberant in recent times. I hope this exuberance is well founded and of the rationale kind. We have been reassured that there is no property bubble waiting to burst. It is precisely because we are doing well that I would like the Government to re-examine the various CPF and HDB rules and ensure that we shield HDB sector from the forces of greed and speculation.”
“And having saved some money for the children's future education, we hope they will be more serious about their children's education. Allow PSEA to be used for all approved educational establishments, Government or private Sir, I urge PSEA be allowed to be used for approved private educational establishments because this will allow more choices for Singaporeans and encourage more competition amongst educational institutions. The globalised world requires Singaporeans to quickly acquire new skills to seize the opportunities that abound. Our educational system should really be extremely mobile and quick footed to respond to the needs of these people. If PSEA is substantial over time, it will allow to be used for private institutions. I see more private local institutions being spawned and more foreign institutions setting up campuses in Singapore. Singapore's aspiration to become a "Global Schoolhouse" will then be realised. I am however not supportive of allowing PSEA to be used for education outside Singapore. I believe the present scholarships, student loans and CPF withdrawal policy should suffice. Transfer balance account to CPF Ordinary Account to be deferred to 40 years instead. With our goal of lifelong learning, extending PSEA to 40 years will enable people to take multiple courses as they reinvent themselves for the rest of their working lives. Sir, I also like to applaud the Government's support for lifelong learning. This is a necessity for our economy to meet the challenges ahead. I also support greater promotion of this concept by employers, unions and the media for this is also one way to help our older workers adapt and upgrade themselves so that they will continue to be relevant to commerce and industry.”
“The thousands of decisions, trade-offs, calculations and millions of transactions that take place daily will constantly adjust, review and refine the system. Surely, this would work better than relying on choices, preferences made by civil servants and Ministers notwithstanding their eminence and scholastic achievements. Besides, the Government should be better appreciated for making subsidies available to needy citizens rather than blamed for inadequately responsive social services. Even as I applaud this initiative, I would like the Government to consider extending the PSEA in future years in the following manner. Annual top-up of PSEA I would like to see an annual top-up of PSEA and more in time of budget surpluses. This would be a constant reminder to everyone that we, as a society, truly treasure our only resource - our people. In time, it is conceivable that the annual grants to our post-secondary institutions may be reduced as more money is put in the hands of students and their parents. MOE's role will have to change progressively to that of regulator, financier, quality monitor and industry promoter. Amount of top-up inversely related to family income This will surely ensure that those with smaller family income, the poorer ones, will benefit more. And this is another way for students from poor families to have a chance to move ahead with the rest of Singapore. Extend the scheme to cover children from birth Yes, this will mean more money but the earlier coverage will mean that there will be more money in the pot when the child needs it. Allow parents to make voluntary tax deductible deposits in their children's PSEA This, together with extending coverage earlier, will encourage parents to save for their children's future education.”
“25%, and this rate does not seem to be improving despite all the baby bonus packages and the pro-family 5-day work week, I think we need to rely more on immigration to grow our population. And if we indeed want to grow over time to become a 6.5 million population, then I think we need to take all the steps to ensure proper integration of immigrants and minimise the attendant social costs and disruptions associated with a large immigrant population. I would certainly encourage the Government to conduct open discussions with stakeholder groups in Singapore towards determining this question. I would also point out that size matters, but not all the time, and there are successful economies in Scandinavia with population of somewhere between 5 and 8 million. Sir, I congratulate the Government on implementing the Post-Secondary Education Account (PSEA). I see this as a small first step towards shifting our social support system from "supply side subsidy" to that of "demand side subsidy". I believe the Government should progressively make greater use of market forces and the individual's freedom to choose, as eloquently argued by the late Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman. Perhaps, we may not have to go so far as to use the voucher system. Our account system probably works just as well. I believe that as we gradually move towards subsidising the person who needs a subsidy and less so subsidising the geographies and institutions, I think we will allow market forces to work better. Government, as regulator and financier or co-financier of services, can ensure adequate competition as well as the availability and adequacy of information for the subsidised person to make informed choices. Service providers will become more responsive to the needs of people they provide services to.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Budget Statement delivered by the Second Finance Minister. I must congratulate the Second Finance Minister for a sound and balanced Budget Statement with adequate contributions from all the right anatomical parts - brain, heart and a little further down. I compliment the courage and candour of the Minister when he said that "in real terms, the lowest 20% of the households has seen their incomes per capita decline from year 2000 to 2005". Actually, a statement like this is definitely political cyanide elsewhere. But this sort of open approach to problem actually defines Singapore. In true Singapore fashion, having diagnosed the problem and the danger of the bottom 20% being left out of our growth and prosperity, I am very confident that the various measures to be taken by the Government, eg, CPF restructuring and Workfare, will help us bridge the gap. Last year, 173,300 new jobs were created and more than half of these jobs were taken up by the local workforce. Sir, there is still considerable concern about whether Singaporeans are getting these jobs. With a population of 72% Singaporeans, 10% permanent residents and 18% non-resident workers, it would be useful for the Minister to provide this House with a breakdown of beneficiaries of these new jobs. Hopefully, Singaporeans will be reassured that they are the main beneficiaries directly and indirectly of new job creation. Sir, a larger question which we have to decide at some stage is really what is the optimum population Singapore should have. With technological advances, there is much less concern about adequacy of water resources and land for building flats and accommodation. However, with the total fertility rate of only 1.”
“I thank the Minister for the clarification. But I also want to share with the House about an organisation like Medecins Frontieres in Europe. They actually received a lot of money for tsunami victims but when they realised they could not actually use it, they returned the money to the donors. I think that is really an exemplary behaviour. I hope that the people responsible for the Courage Fund will do something in line with the principles outlined by the Minister. Fertility Rate”
“" Sir, the IMC on Regulation of Charities reiterated this and said that fund raisers and people involved when soliciting for donations must be accountable. In the circumstances, may I suggest that the Courage Fund communicate with its donors through letters and press advertisements its intention to use the donations for purposes not directly related to helping SARS' victims and their dependants. These donors should be given a chance to consent to these alternative uses or redirect their donations to another charity or even to have their donations refunded.”
“Sir, the Courage Fund was set up on 11th April 2003, as a fund raising effort to provide relief to SARS' victims and healthcare workers. In its last published financial statement up to 31st December 2004, it had more than $18 million in donors' funds unexpended. Over the last year, it has allocated funds for various purposes, such as the Courage Fund Visiting Professorship for Infectious Diseases and Epidemiology, Courage Fund Bursary Awards for Nurses and Allied Health professionals, Endowment Fund for Healthcare Humanity Awards. These may be worthwhile alternative uses of the donated funds. But I wonder if they are beyond the contemplation of the donors when they so generously and spontaneously donated the monies to the Courage Fund when we were struck by SARS in 2003. I was relieved when I discovered that there was the usual omnibus clause that the Fund was also established to "promote any charitable purpose for the benefit of healthcare workers in Singapore and, in particular, the advancement of education, the protection of health and the relief of poverty, distress and sickness." However, members of the public and donors to the Fund could understandably be upset and unhappy. They may feel that these other uses of the Fund have not been in accordance with the spirit of the Courage Fund. Sir, the Council on Governance of IPC recommended in May 2005 that "IPCs and their fund raisers shall be accountable to their donors for the donations received." One of the clauses, clause 4.1 recommended that "IPCs shall ensure that the funds and donations are used in accordance with donors' intentions and the specific purpose as communicated when soliciting for donations.”
“Sir, I am happy to note that we have many schemes to help the physically disabled, to get them jobs and to give them financial assistance. But I know that there are many who are mentally disabled and there are many families with children who have very severe learning disabilities or behavioural problems. I wonder what sort of schemes, arrangements or facilities we have for these families. Often, I see a couple giving up good jobs out of their love for their child, boy or girl, who cannot go to normal school, cannot function as they get older, cannot get jobs, and so on. Occasionally, the newspaper will report that the parents are so exasperated, because it is very difficult to give this kind of care at home, that they even just chain up the child. I think they need professional help. They also need our community to rally around and say, "This is a very difficult problem and that you need expertise and facilities and resources to handle." I wonder how much we have done and whether we can do more because this is a more difficult problem than physical disability.”
“Secondly, I hope that in all these assistance schemes, we must not stigmatise the children, so that they will not be ridiculed and hurt by the other children. Teachers”
“Sir, with this wonderful assistance programme offered by the Opportunity Fund, I hope that the MOE, the principals and the teachers will be very careful and circumspect in its implementation, and pay attention to the following points: (1) The Opportunity Fund is meant to help and assist needy students. So we must find the best use for the money, and I would hate to see this Fund being used for generic purposes, such as buying computer for computer rooms.”
“Sir, Singapore needs to develop all its people to maximise their potential, even as we attract people from all over the world to settle and to work here. Something I do not understand is why do we have this artificial classification between talent and non-talent. I am not sure that it is useful. And if we all watched Jack Neo's "I Not Stupid", we would realise that there are different children with different talents and abilities, and they all can grow up and prosper. I am glad that our education system has become more flexible - many paths to success and many different roads to glory. Sir, I support the new initiative by the MOE to help children from low-income families. The Government has repeatedly assured that no child will be denied education because of a lack of financial support. To me, this is wonderful. However, there are other expenses that the child in school needs to bear - supplementary fees, enrichment courses, books, stationery, uniform, shoes, meals and, sometimes, laptop or computer for the older students. For enrichment courses - study tours and training - I think the child from the poor family is disadvantaged if he is not able to participate. I certainly hope that the Opportunity Fund will make this happen and will be put to good use so that these children can enrich their education and really develop together with the other children. It is also heartening to know that the MOE will be providing breakfast to some children. I believe this will help quite a few poor children so that they can concentrate better on the lessons instead of being distracted by the noisy and hungry stomachs.”
“Let us not forget that many women are taking leadership positions in industry and commerce, and they all become mothers at one time or other. So I think we should look at this issue carefully and we study the situation. Research and Development”
“Sir, I commend the Government for giving the 40th anniversary NS Bonus as well as accepting all the recommendations of RECORD IV. But, from time to time, I also hear people saying that $400 is too little. I agree it is not a very big sum. It cannot be equated to the sweat, blood and tears or the climbing, jumping, crawling, and sometimes, humiliation. But I think it is a great gesture. I think it can never be enough. So people should not look at the numerical value, but this is a token on behalf of the nation to say we thank them and we recognise their efforts. Sir, I hope some National Servicemen out there will understand that it cannot be a decimal equal compensation for all their years in NS. It is meant to be a gesture. Second, women in NS again. Sir, from time to time, in this House, outside this House, people call for enlisting women into NS. I understand and accept the Minister's explanation in a previous debate. He will use the Enlistment Act only for critical missions. Can we then have a volunteer corps for women? For instance, we have women in SAF hospital units. We have the Special Constabulary, where women serve as policewomen. I think this will be good because it is a common experience serving the nation, nation building objectives and, of course, bonding with peers - male and female - and it might even help us procreate and have more Singaporeans. I wonder whether the Government will look at this with a fresh pair of eyes and see whether there is scope to enable people either in the gap year or working women - professionals and non-professionals - to volunteer for various activities within the Armed Forces or the Police Force, and perhaps, later on, they may even sign on.”
“I believe, Sir, that the best time to put in this kind of checks would be when you are divesting, not after you have divested and you want to change the ground rules. I think there are legal consequences when you want to do that. There is a bigger interest at stake here, which is our competitiveness in terms of land cost and cost of manufacturing. So I would urge the Minister to reconsider this and make sure that he puts in his divestment agreement something which will be indexed, so that we will not become uncompetitive. Taking feedback is one thing. Does he have the legal rights and power to redress the problem once it has happened? It is now a glut. Industrial properties have slackened. But think of the time when property prices doubled and trebled. Whoever bought your JTC properties is not going to turn away from good windfall profit. 4.00 pm”
“Would the Minister of State be able to enlighten the House the mechanisms that he has put in place after the divestment of JTC to the private sector to prevent the industrial property price from going up so high according to market forces when there is a shortage, so much so that SMEs and other manufacturers would find it prohibitive to manufacture in Singapore and, thereby, eroding our competitiveness again?”
“Clarification, Sir. I have read the Canadian report. Currently, our tax rate is indeed competitive. I also acknowledge that for strategic industries that we want, we even give them tax exemption. What is the impact? For every percentage point reduction, how many more jobs and how many more businesses are we likely to create? And what are the downstream benefits? Is it worth acquiring these jobs and cut our tax further? This is really my question.”
“And it is estimated that only $70 million will be collected, maybe no small sum, as PM said. But I think the continuance of estate duty certainly runs counter to our aim to be an international wealth management centre, our attraction to global entrepreneur who has made his pile. And this is even more jarring when Australia, Malaysia, New Zealand and Hong Kong have all abolished estate duty in recent years. I am sure that the PM knows that estate planners and experts publicly share six best ways to avoid death taxes. However, when they advise you privately, they share with you another 36-lesson own ways. I hope the review will be expeditiously undertaken. Some people are counting on it. They cannot afford to die otherwise.”
“Sir, the PM has stated that our present headline corporate income tax of 20% is competitive. And for some strategic industries, they are granted preferential tax rates or exemptions. The question is: would we be able to be more competitive and more attractive to other general direct foreign investments, if our corporate income tax were to be lower? Can we be ahead of the curve and not be just there? Do we know how much investments we will be able to attract to Singapore and how many more jobs we can create if we were to reduce our corporate income tax to, say, 18%? To do this, a quick calculation is that the tax forgone is about $770 million and this is equivalent to 3.1% reduction of the operating expenditure. The question is: has MOF not explored this and see if the reduction is worthwhile? After all, if we create more jobs, we will also reduce the amount of assistance we need to extend through Progress packages and so on whilst having more corporations and workers paying taxes. Finally, estate duty. Much has been said but it bears repeating. I agree that in old societies where there were few opportunities to socially move upwards and where wealth was represented by great estates and other fixed assets, it was more justifiable to tax inherited wealth to preserve social equity. However, the situation is quite different today. In our meritocratic society, there are numerous opportunities for those in poor families to succeed. Our education system and scholarship scheme all exist to preserve social equity and cohesion. Besides, a fool who inherit wealth will soon part with it. Further, only 3% of the 16,000 deaths pay estate duties and it seems only 2% of those dutiable cases contribute 70% of duty assessed.”
“We all know that this has been a great factor in our society, spending more on education, creating more places for people, and this has helped us to have the kind of upward social mobility. And actually, many of us in this House have benefited from our own publicly funded university. I am glad that PM has given emphasis to investing in and developing our own people, whether talented or not, whether they are talent or no talent. Yes, we must grow our own timber for our own saplings will grow deeper roots in Singapore soil and hopefully withstand monsoons and typhoons. The PM quoted Peter Drucker and I agree that Singapore must actively attract talent from everywhere. America has been the beneficiary of successive tides of talent migration. We must do likewise. Sir, unlike businesses that Drucker referred to, they can relocate their domicile. We are a nation and we certainly cannot relocate our domicile. As the late Mr Rajaratnam asked in the television clip I saw, "Where can 2.5 million Singaporeans go?" So I hope we will always reassure our own people that regardless of whether they are considered talent or not, we will invest in them and help them to realise their potential. I am glad we now have many routes to success and many paths to glory. Sir, may I congratulate the PM on setting up the Opportunity Funds to provide more enrichment opportunities for needy students. This will certainly help these students to develop and compete better beyond subsidised school fees, and so on. Finally, Sir, I agree with the PM that this Budget aims to build a vibrant economy where opportunities abound and an inclusive society where no one is left behind. I am proud to be a Singaporean. I support the motion, and I will pay my taxes cheerfully. 12.55 pm”
“The Government has rightly said that the survival of Changi Airport is more important than the survival of SIA, our national carrier. That was the rationale for allowing and encouraging low-cost carriers into Singapore. I would like to see Changi Airport land price zero-rated. I would like to see the key performance indicators of CAAS to be those of the number of flight arrivals and departures, number of passenger throughputs, number of cities and regions to which Changi Airport is connected. I would be less interested in how much money CAAS makes. Yes, we can keep that as a score, to measure the efficiency. Instead of collecting higher landing fees and charges, I would rather the Singapore economy benefits along the way as tourists, shoppers, private banking clients, businessmen, foreign patients, patronise our banks, hotels, retail outlets, restaurants and hospitals. This multiple effect not only makes financial sense but it is also more likely to create the kind of jobs our older and less educated Singaporeans will be able to have and do well in. Singapore still collects the fees but over a longer period and downstream, instead of at the top, upstream. I believe Dubai has taken this approach and their thriving busy airport has brought people from many lands to a once sleepy desert town, and Dubai Inc. has benefited. Their approach may be less rational and disciplined. But it has worked for them. Sir, on growing human talent, I am appreciative of what has been done in recent years by MOE. I am also very glad to hear that 25% of each cohort will go to publicly funded universities. In my time, which was slightly less than 40 years ago, it was 10%-11% only. At this juncture, I would like to declare my interest as an SMU Trustee and RJC Board member.”
“I hope the Government will revisit these observations and recommendations and implement them across all service industries. I believe we can even exceed our targets, if we have the conviction to follow through these recommendations. On land pricing, as property prices move upwards, we can all see that the Chief Valuer is not wasting any time. He is vigilant and has revised development charges upwards steeply. I expect he will have adequate justification. I certainly hope he will just be as quick to revise these charges downwards when the property market dips. Sir, rising property prices make everyone feels good. Banks lend more money at better rates, non-performing loan (NPL) portfolio becomes smaller, professional services do well and the Government collects more stamp duties and fees. I like to remind us to be careful about our land prices. We must never allow ourselves to be priced out of the market and become an uncompetitive economy. We must be prepared to make exceptions for industries and sectors which will bring greater economic benefits downstream to Singapore. A high land price for such industry is equivalent to taking a one-time capital gain upfront. Alternatively, we can have a lower land price but take the economic benefits like jobs, reduce assistance pay-outs and more taxes over the next few years. One outstanding example is the land around Changi Airport. We all know that Changi Airport is the only international gateway into Singapore, unlike other countries that have many cities and airports. When airlines bypass us, many tourists, businessmen, investors, private banking clients, foreign patients would be lost to the Singapore economy.”
“At the growth rate of 20%, we will reach our target of 1 million patients by 2012. I am sure the public and private sectors will continue to move together to make Singapore the leading healthcare hub in the region. Sir, despite my optimism, I still have a few concerns about Singapore being the logical and default service hub for the region. Others are trying to compete with us to do the same. My concerns are that some of the excellent and insightful recommendations of the ERC Sub-committee on service industries have yet to be implemented. With your indulgence, may I quote from the Report, paragraph 5, "Nevertheless, in many services, the exportable component seldom exceeds the local demand. It is therefore natural for the regulator to put priority on regulation to address social, political concerns of the domestic demand ahead of industry development. Powerful regulations often end up hindering the growth of the exportable component." Paragraph 6: "In some sectors, Government inevitably gets deeply involved in the services sector beyond being a mere regulator to become a dominant player. When it also tries to be a promoter of exportable component, it becomes largely ambivalent." Sir, four recommendations were made. Recommendation No. 1: regulator cannot be the promoter. But the regulator must be sympathetic to the industry's development. Recommendation No. 2: regulator must not also be a player. In other words, Government should actively outsource such services to local enterprises wherever possible. Recommendation No. 3: promote regional and global demand. I am glad this has been done by agencies, like STB and EDB. Recommendation No. 4: stimulate sophisticated local demand. I believe some stimulation is done like placing out reserves for private fund management.”
“Sir, as we upgrade our manufacturing sector, I have been told that Singapore needs to have a total manufacturing eco-system environment. It appears that because of our costlier environment, manufacturers of small parts cannot survive in Singapore. Unlike China, Taiwan and Vietnam, we do not have these downstream and often low-tech, low-cost industries. I suppose they like to see the situation of a little town outside Shanghai - I believe it is called Wenzhou - where most of the world's cigarette lighters and maybe cigars flame-throwers are made. Different brands, different styles, different qualities, different costs. And there are companies that supply millions of flint grinders. Some people make millions of these little gas fuel casings and gas nozzles, and many other parts that are needed to make cigarette lighters. I wonder what has happened to our efforts to promote Batam and Bintan industrial parks. I think Johor could make a good partner with cheaper land and labour. Together with them, we can perhaps provide this eco-system that manufacturers like to have. With the return towards stability in Indonesia and our improved relationships with them and Johor, it is perhaps time to revisit and reinvigorate this win-win strategy. On the service industries, I agree that we cannot afford low cost as an attraction. But we can surely offer trust, quality and service. At this juncture, I would like to declare my interest as Chairman of Raffles Medical Group. In healthcare, we can offer patient safety, professional reliability, service consistency, cost predictability and institutional governance to foreign patients. I am heartened to note that in 2005, we received, as a nation, 374,000 foreign patients who came here to seek treatment.”
“This was noted in the deliberations of the ERC's Sub-committee on Services Industry in 2002 of which I was a member. It was noted that we have structural problems because the public sector is not mandated to grow their organisations via revenue from external sources. We are aware of the many advances and innovations made by our defence scientists in DSTA, system engineers in LTA, researchers in MOE, universities and hospitals. Some public agencies have acquired this IP in the course of their work when they tender for this and that project. Of course, there have been delightful stories of successful privatisation of PWD and SingTel. One recent story is that of former HDB's Architects and Town Planners Department, now reorganised as Surbana, designing a great motorcar showroom and racing track in Abu Dhabi. It would not have been possible or conceivable have they still been part of HDB. I like to share with you that the Sub-committee recommended that we push on with corporatisation and privatisation of Government agencies; designate an agency to collate the inventory of such IP and sell or license them for commercialisation; incentivise research institutions and universities to consider licensing their IPs; and support technology and skills transfer from Government IP owners to Singapore-based companies as well as co-develop technology with them. I hope the Government will implement these recommendations so that Singapore-based companies can commercialise their IP and build profitable businesses with them. This proven IP should provide quicker returns than doing new projects. It will enable us to further broaden and deepen our capabilities, strengthen and grow our economy.”
“Even after 45 other colleagues have spoken before me, I still feel that I have to ask this question again this year. I applaud the Government's effort to invest in R&D to help us become a knowledge hub. The setting up of a R&D Trust Fund, the RIEC, the NRF are all good things. Spending 3% of our GDP on research and development by 2010 will bring us closer to the R&D's spending level in the Nordic countries. However, I hope that the RIEC and NRF will try their best to ensure that a progressively greater portion of these R&D expenditures are spent together with the private sector and in the private sector. This is because the Nordic countries actually spend 60% of all their R&D expenditures in the private sector. Ours is about 40% only. I believe that because of this, there is better choice of research projects, earlier commercialisation of discoveries, and in all a better payback of their R&D investments. They build great knowledge industries as we all know. The private sector cannot afford and does not believe in the pure pursuit of knowledge. And with our increase but still relatively modest R&D expenditure, we really must try to get more bangs for our bucks. I therefore propose that RIEC and NRF, besides seeking to raise the R&D expenditures to 3% of our GDP by 2010, set as their goal to involve and partner the private sector, so that 60% of the R&D expenditure will be used and spent in the private sector. Sir, besides increasing our spending on R&D and creating a safe and reliable environment for the protection of IPR, I believe there is yet another way to grow our knowledge-based economy. There is an observation that quite a lot of intellectual property is trapped in the public sector.”
“Perhaps, instead of only giving Progress packages where there are higher budget surpluses, the PM may wish to make it his priority to set aside, say, $1 billion every year for the Progress Package targeted at those Singaporeans. When there are surpluses, then even more can be done. Some members of the public have some reservations about cash handouts. Most societies do it through free or highly subsidised welfare services of one kind or another. Sir, this old fashioned welfarism presupposes that the government is the most efficient producer of goods and services. That has been an article of faith of planned economies. And we now actually clearly see that after 50 years, the greater efficiency of the market economy shows that not to be the case. So I believe that cash bonuses will enable recipients to decide what goods and services they need to buy and from whom. Besides, the bonuses from the Progress packages are more targeted and, therefore, less open to abuse and misuse. I am in support. Sir, I am appreciative of the welfare assistance, the many job creation and workers' training programmes. I believe that helping the unemployed, finding him a job, is much better than giving him handouts. I am happy to note that last year, 110,800 new jobs were created and unemployment rate is a low 2.5%. These new jobs bring cheer to many families, enable many young stomachs to be filled. With more people in jobs and progressively better-paying ones, we will need less Workfare and assistance, and future Progress packages can be even more targeted and, therefore, more effective. Sir, I am interested in the big question of how do we build a competitive, growing and yet sustainable economy. Having been in Parliament for one year, I have learned to be dermatologically more fortified.”