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 3 of 3.
“On 22nd August 2005, Business Times interviewed a Mr Tom Huzell, head of Ikea's retail operations in Singapore and Malaysia. He is a Swede and Ikea is an international home furnishing company founded in Sweden. When he was asked how the Swedes could live with an average income tax of 40%, and higher earners pay about 50%, a VAT or GST of 25% with extra taxes on liquor and petrol, he replied that most Swedes found it very nice to live in Sweden. He went on to say that the quality of life was, indeed, very high and the Swedes were very egalitarian people. He shared that the high rates of tax meant that they had very little hierarchy and everybody was equal. Many Swedes I know share this sentiment, and they value their egalitarian way of life. The Prime Minister has said that Singapore cannot follow the Nordic high-tax and high-spending model. He would like to pursue a low tax and tight expenditure model. I fully agree, and the low tax part gives me great personal relief. However, we should admire and emulate their egalitarian and communitarian attitude. I certainly hope that the low tax and tight expenditure policy, coupled with compassionate assistance to the less fortunate, will encourage more Singaporeans to pay their taxes cheerfully. I also hope to see Progress packages continuing year after year and not only coincidentally just before the elections. This is because we will always have the poor with us. There will always be some Singaporeans who fall between the cracks - some dysfunctional families, some maladjusted individuals, some unfortunate sick. These packages could take different forms, targeted at different needs.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to participate in this debate. I applaud the Prime Minister on his Budget Statement. Many people have told me that there is nothing substantial in this Budget. I suppose they are disappointed in that the PM did not announce further tax cuts nor did he abolish estate duty, to the disappointment of some living and some dead. But I see it differently. I see this Budget as further consolidating our economic restructuring. I am appreciative of the Progress Package. I believe this is necessary if we are to distinguish ourselves as a society and if we are to encourage young Singaporeans to grow deeper roots in our society. I agree that globalisation will widen the income gap. And I fully support the Government's efforts to help those in the lower-income group, those unemployed and those less fortunate. I believe that this willingness to help the less able and less fortunate amongst us is, indeed, a hallmark of a great society. I note the concern of some colleagues in this House, that some people may take advantage of our kindness, our Progress Package, our Workfare Bonus, etc. I agree. There will always be some who will take advantage of others. However, I urge us to have that generosity of spirit, the magnanimity to see the relief that our assistance brings to those in need. I have many personal experiences to tell me that many Singaporeans have actually such a strong sense of pride and self-esteem that they will decline assistance unless they are actually in quite poor shape. So, let us never become a nation that knows the price of everything but the value of nothing. I have always believed that it is more blessed to give than to receive.”
“Sir, will the Minister, before passing this law, be prepared to consider a period of amnesty for some people who could be unjustly treated? Give them one last chance to come forward, pay their dues and then they could move forward?”
“In the old days, I do not know whether it is still here, for those who came back from institutions of higher learning, some of them served part-time in the Police National Service, Vigilante Corp, but the total amount is equitably calculated. So I think we must not extract our pound of flesh, especially for those who have served. Singapore needs everybody. I think the talent argument is a fairly compelling one. But more importantly is that we have got 18,000 Singaporeans currently studying and working overseas, we should actually welcome them back, provided that they now serve. In other words, they come and make a deal with MINDEF and say, "How much time do I have to serve?" so that it will be equitable to my colleagues, my comrades, who have served previously. I would also like to ask the Minister to reconsider the question of going for imprisonment, a custodial sentence. I know there will be cases where they finally use loopholes to evade the draft, and I can understand there will be such a necessity. But I argue that these cases must be very few and far between. I would therefore urge that we welcome errant citizens, who in their youth have not been serving, to come back and if they want to serve, I do not think we have lost anything as a society. Above all, the service must be real, tangible and equitable, not necessarily 2 1/2 years or 3 years, but it must be something that MINDEF feels is just and fair for the other people who have served.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I was called up for the first batch of NS 38 years ago when I was a student. And I must commend the Minister for reaffirming this principle of universality of conscription. I think it is one of the non-negotiable items, invaluable principle in Singapore. He has also clarified the circumstances surrounding Melvyn Tan's case, and it is quite unfortunate there have been changes of the law and he has been affected. But the point is made that there is no special treatment for anybody, and the public must know this. Not only when it comes to enlistment, it is also when it comes to how people are treated when their children are in NS. There have been adequate explanations about the "white horse" regime. But I must commend the Prime Minister recently when he went to Pulau Tekong. It was noticed by other parents that nobody is treated differently. The Prime Minister was there as a parent - his son was going for NS - he was a parent like everybody else. I hope the leaders will set an example so that all the people will continue to have faith in this national institution. Like hon. Member Iswaran said, we must be able to look at the young people in the eyes when we ask them to serve. I also want to ask for flexibility because I am afraid that all of us harden our position and put those fellows into jail. There are many, many ways we can serve. If, because of circumstances, you are a dodger, when you come back, over and above the fine, why is it not possible to re-enlist the person even if he was 40, 50 years old? He is not going to help the army very much.”
“Many of us in this House, and many of us who have made it in Singapore, have made it because we have got subsidised education. With that, Sir, I support the Bill. 5.55 pm”
“SMU is the only place where students could meet the likes of Kwek Leng Beng, Simon Israel and many others whom people only read about in the papers, who have been successful business leaders, and they are all better for their experience. I would suggest that if the Government were to concentrate on appointing the right type of people to the Board, empowering them and giving them freedom to act, select them well-right thinking people, people with a deep sense of responsibility attached to Singapore, people who want to see Singapore do well, then I think these people would be prepared to spend time, and maybe work harder at their volunteer work than their real jobs, to make sure that our NUS and NTU will be excellent universities. And whether it is financial sustainability, academic freedom, staff retention and many, many other issues of a strategic nature, I am sure that a good group of people, Singaporeans, maybe in future the alumni of these universities,would be able to providethe leadership andsolution. I actually think that betting on a Board of maybe 20 Singaporeans with a heart for Singapore is safer than betting on one Education Minister, even one that is as able as the current one, or one Permanent Secretary, or one Vice-Chancellor, or one University President. I hope the Government will clearly and unstintingly assure Singaporeans, and this is something which I share deeply with my colleague who has spoken earlier, that university education will always be affordable and accessible to as many Singaporeans as possible. We can be creative. We can have partial scholarship, half scholarship, three-quarter-scholarship, or whatever. We can have private scholarship.”
“How do we have universities that will be innovative and responsive to the demands of society and of the world so that we can offer a good education that our own brightest and best will choose to stay, choose to study here and be trained here, perhaps do their post graduate overseas andreturn to work here, to live here, to sink their roots here? I hope that our universities, when they are empowered through this corporatisation, will enable Singapore to achieve that, perhaps even attract some of the brightest and best from other countries, from the region, and that will improve our talent pool and, some would say, even our DNA pool. We must ensure that our universities are free to compete, free to innovate and be able to respond in whatever way necessary. We should not tie their hands. We must enable the universities to be relevant to society andrelevant to commerce and industry. I am not so sure our state-funded and state run universities have done all that they could. If we were to free them up, I think they can do a lot more. SMU has experienced a lot of changes in the five years since a group of private sector people who knew very little about professorial matters, but all successful in their private sector businesses, got together and with a lot of common sense and goodwill under the able chairmanship of the Chairman, Mr Ho. I think we have done well. In the first year, we were all very concerned. Nobody needed to tell us. All of us went to meet our grassroots and the students. We had many meetings andlunches to interact with the students. We interacted with the parents. Many of the trustees actually took classes.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir,I am not as pessimistic as some of the previous speakers, but I share some of their concerns. Before that, I would like to declare that I am a member of the Board of Trustees of SMU, one of the corporatised universities. To me, the role of universities is to produce graduates for commerce and industry and, also, to provide thought leadership for the country and the society. It should be a home for ideas, a cradle for creativity and, of course, in today's world, hopefully the home which produces a lot of intellectual property with which our economy will benefit from. We must remember that we have inherited a legacy of state-funded, state-run, and often state-employee kind of university. In that sort of environment, it is understandable that a lot of rigidities andbureaucracy would creep in and have crept in. I have been a product of NUS or Singapore University. I had seen what it was like. I was a very active student. I have also served on the Board of SMU, a start-up university, starting from borrowed premises and have seen what innovationcan do.Many of you have talked about academic freedom. The Board of Trustees, in essence,has the confidence of MOE and has greatfreedom to innovate and test ideas. For the next lap, and forusto survive as a people, as a society in a knowledge economy, we face a global competition for talents. I wonder whether people know that we have lost some of our brightest and best over the years to the Ivy League Schools and Oxbridge, and some of them have found jobs, settled down, never to return.We have lost some of these talents and our economy is worse off for it.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I be allowed to join this by asking a question? Can the SPS help us with this logic, or lack of it? If the Dependants' Protection Scheme is good for up to 60 years and people can opt out of it, what is the difficulty of extending for two more years, if we want elderly workers to continue to work? I do not buy the argument of higher premium. If the higher premium is indeed so high, then people would opt out of it. The other issue is that cross-subsidy does not necessarily have to take place. We can price age-adjusted premium. So, I would urge the Ministry to look at this seriously and extend this protection for our workers in their last two years.”
“I believe that such sharing would be important for our society, as it helps our people to relate to the ways decisions are being made. Minister Mentor, Senior Minister and other Ministers have said clearly that they are against gambling. But for Singapore's future, as Cabinet Ministers, they support the IRs with casinos. I would urge the Prime Minister and his Cabinet colleagues to share their personal views and feelings on public issues more freely. In this way, more people will know that their views are being shared by the leaders, considered and deliberated. There is pluralism in views, but decisions are ultimately made on a rational basis with all these views taken into consideration. I believe, in this way, our political fabric will be strengthened and Singaporeans need not fear expressing their personal views, and we will be richer for it. Sir, having made our judgement on this difficult decision, we should close ranks and move on. 18th April 2005 need not be a sad day for Singapore. I applaud the Prime Minister's intention to meet with religious and social groups opposed to casinos in Singapore. Just like he has persuaded many of us here, I believe that his candour, sincerity and compassion will persuade these leaders that this decision is in the long-term interests of Singapore and all Singaporeans.”
“I applaud the "inclusiveness" of the public consultation, where we listened to every person's view and weigh its merits regardless of his background, race, language, or religion, and in the case of Chia Teck Leng, regardless of his current status or residential address. In fact, I have always been arguing that the PAP Government should be the last to fear public consultations and debates. We all know that it has a stable of fierce debaters - super heavyweight, heavyweight, bantamweight, etc. But it is also good to acknowledge from time to time that the Cabinet does not have a monopoly on all wisdom, definitely not in this debate, as it is quite clear that Chia Teck Leng has exhibited greater expertise and experience in casino gaming than the Cabinet. I hope we are witnessing the "greening of Singapore" - whether the Government initiating more public consultations and debates, or people being more willing to express their views and ideas. This is something a whole generation of thinking and caring Singaporeans have been hoping and waiting for. I also like to join issues with Mr Tan Soo Khoon and Minister Mentor about Cabinet, Government and collective responsibility. I believe that Government Ministers who publicly disagree with expressed Government policy, without the Prime Minister's approval, need to leave the Cabinet. Such is the convention in Constitutional Law and I see no good reason to depart from it. However, I see a distinction between a Minister's personal view and his view as a Minister. I see a distinction between a Minister adhering to collective responsibility and showing his views, thoughts and feelings on certain subjects and issues in his personal capacity.”
“I propose, therefore, that the Government, as it works out the details, ensure that the maximum casino revenue to be retained by the operator should be pegged to certain multiples of revenue of other attractions or tourist arrivals to the IRs. In this way, we will ensure we obtain the anticipated economic spin-offs. My second proposal is that as the IRs will be built over a few years, developers will certainly try to complete the casino portion first and operate for gaming revenue as soon as possible, just as they did in Macau. This would be a very bad start. We will then be having casinos without IRs for a few years. So I suggest that we must insist that gaming not be allowed until the IRs are substantially completed and the other attractions in operation. Sir, in this whole year's long debate, I have been impressed with the openness of the process. In the Budget debate, I called for a binding referendum even though this is not a life and death issue. I did that because I wanted the Government to demonstrate clearly that it has not made up its mind and that it seriously considers the views of religious and social groups and others opposed to the idea and are prepared to take a vote on it. Notwithstanding that, I am glad that this usually efficient Government has been "uncharacteristically inefficient", taking more than a year to come to this decision. I am glad that the Government has not rushed into this decision. The deliberations have been worth it. Like Mr Tan Soo Khoon, I applaud the process of open public consultation.”
“However, let us remember that pragmatism, responsiveness, and hard-headedness are also our enduring, if not so endearing, attributes. And these are values helping us to consider having casinos in the IRs. But all these wonderful attributes are not our soul, but different manifestations of it. To me, our soul as a society is our collective resolve to remain as an independent and sovereign nation with our distinctive values, multi-racial and multi-religious way of life. Nordic countries like Denmark, Finland, Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland all have casinos but their people continue to work hard and continue to be creative and come up with new technologies. As I shared with this House previously, they are small nations capable of sustaining their economies. Despite having casinos, I believe their fundamental values and integrity have not been eroded. Their social fabric has not been torn asunder or weakened. So there is no reason why we cannot survive this. Sir, with all these reassurances given by the Prime Minister and other Ministers, I support the decision to proceed with two integrated resorts with casinos. Having decided to proceed with the IRs with casinos, we must ensure that we obtain as much economic benefits as possible. The IRs and casinos are expected to create 10,000 new jobs. The spin-off effect is expected to add another 25,000 jobs. I am concerned that the developers may be tempted to focus on the gaming profits and neglect the attractions. This is important as the spin-off effect of economic boost and job creation can only happen if the attractions are truly world class and draw large numbers of tourists to Singapore. These attractions are likely to be loss-leaders and it makes great business sense for developers to do the minimum necessary.”
“I appreciate the responsible manner with which Ministers of Home Affairs, MCYS and Health are preparing to deal with the expected problems. Yes, we certainly need a strong regulatory regime to ensure that the casino does not become a seedy gambling den, infested with loan sharks, money launderers, pimps, and drug peddlers. We need to set up a Council of wise men and women to help our society deal with this challenge. For those who still succumb, MOH has prepared plans to upgrade CAMP to help those with gambling problems. I believe this is a responsible way of dealing with the anticipated incremental social problems. And I am confident that with these efforts, we can substantially reduce or minimise the problems. Religious and community organisations can play useful roles to assist Singaporeans to prepare for this challenging new environment. They can also mobilise their members, followers and other Singaporeans to voluntarily exclude themselves from the casino, an option which Minister Vivian said will be made available. With all these preventive efforts and perhaps more, I hope we will be able to have an IR or two IRs where religious groups may feel comfortable enough to have their functions there and parents will feel safe enough to bring their young for fun at the attractions. Then we would have been successful and have our cake and eat it too. Some people have asked, "Have we lost our soul?" "Are we destroying our values?", when we proceed to have casinos on our soil. I think Singapore's moral DNA is one that upholds and celebrates hard work, thrift, and integrity. Yes, we eschew "get rich quick" schemes. Hence we are uncomfortable with having casinos at the IRs as some feel our values of hard work and honest living will be eroded.”
“In my work as a doctor and social worker, I have seen many families wrecked by gambling, just like many families have been wrecked by illicit drugs, alcohol and other addictions. These are all very painful situations, and I am sure my colleagues here have all experienced this sort of scenarios, helping constituents, friends, and sometimes relatives, going through such hard times. But Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we must also remember that joblessness and business failures can wreck many homes too. It has. Many families begin to dysfunction and disintegrate when the breadwinner loses his job. Children drop out of schools. We have more than 300,000 Singaporeans between 45 to 64 years old who have only primary education or less. How are we going to provide them jobs? Even when we get them, today's manufacturing jobs are highly computerised and they require training or retraining which these workers with minimal education may find hard to cope. I am very touched by Mr Lim Boon Heng's compassion for Singapore workers. As NTUC chief, he must intimately know what life is like for the retrenched worker and his family, especially when they have little education for retraining. He courageously went ahead to support the proposal for IR because he "could not ignore the opportunity for creating 35,000 jobs". The Prime Minister quoted Deng Xiaoping. Yes, we need to open our windows, lest we suffocate. But, we can keep the flies and other pests out with appropriate netting. In this way, only very small insects can get through, for which we must prepare a whole host of pesticides and antidotes. Better still, we immunise our population against these bugs, through public education about the dangers of gambling.”
“Many countries welcome them. In these last few years, our economic fundamentals have changed. We can no longer rely on manufacturing alone to create jobs. We need more service sector jobs. We have had to make many 'U' turns. To grow the service sector, we have to open up our education sector and we are promoting ourselves as the medical hub. The stakes are high. It is about our long-term survival. As Minister Mentor said in this House earlier, we cannot afford to be left out of the global circuit and global network. We cannot afford to risk becoming irrelevant in this new world. We must not risk being bypassed. Some have asked, "Are we that desperate that we need to 'U' turn and accept a casino on our soil?" No, we are not that desperate now, but in my own view, there is a grave risk that we may be bypassed by the world, and then it will be too difficult and too late to get back into the circuit. We have no control over these externalities. On the other hand, we can at least do something to minimise and alleviate the incremental social problems that we anticipate. We must also not fall into the trap of complacency and slow death. We have only recently got our wake-up call in the last recession to keep our economy competitive. Yes, this is a difficult decision. I know the Prime Minister and his Cabinet colleagues agonised over this decision. I think, like myself, many colleagues in this House had to search our own conscience to decide our own stand on the issue. The issue is difficult because an estimated 55,000 persons are at risk of becoming problem gamblers. To me, these are 55,000 problems too many.”
“Hence, it is clearly not the seedy gambling den or "du chang" that one sees on Channel 8 drama serial about old Shanghai in the 1930s. About the casino proposal, I was a member of the Economic Review Committee and its Services Sub-committee. I remember the first draft report of the Tourism Working Group recommended having a casino on Sentosa as a "iller App". Mr Wee Ee-chao, an astute businessman and experienced property developer, was then Chairman of Singapore Tourism Board and he was chairman of the working group. He had been working and thinking about the various options available to Singapore to revitalise our tourism sector. He saw clearly what was needed to be done. He felt that we need to have resorts on a scale that would draw in the tourists. Better still, these resorts should have gaming casinos. He was prepared to challenge the then conventional wisdom of not permitting casinos. He is clearly ahead of his time. Like others on the subcommittee, I preferred the less controversial option of having performing and visual arts to draw tourists. Well, the Esplanade has been built and Singapore Arts Museum has been around for some time, but our tourism industry is still not strong, and hotel and retail trades are still very weak. Sir, my constant concern for Singapore has been our long-term sustainability and viability as an economy. Without a sustainable and robust economy, our nationhood and sovereignty will easily be undermined. Our vision to make Singapore a land of opportunity for our children and our grandchildren will never materialise. When our young feel that there is no future for them in Singapore, we will quickly lose them to other countries. Despite what we may say of our education system, our young are well-trained, talented and very mobile.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we heard many passionate speeches the last few days. Singaporeans outside this House have been treated to references to "whales", "sharks", "porridge", cooked and uncooked, with or without tonic. I think they will be forgiven if they have the mistaken belief that we are talking about where to get the best fish porridge in town. But on a more serious note, having seen the exhibits of the RFC proposals, I wish that URA had obtained prior permission from the developers to enable the public to view these exhibits. Alternatively, the URA planner could actually have drawn up some concepts of integrated resorts as examples for public viewing so that the debate would have taken place with greater clarity. As my colleague, Ms Irene Ng, has noted yesterday, there is a wide gap in perception and understanding of many people. Many people have not been to an IR, and even if they have visited the attractions, they may not realise that they have actually visited an IR. What is "Shi jie ji zhong he du jia shen di"? Mr Low Thia Khiang, the consummate politician, used the words "du chang". In Hokkien, it is "geow geng". These words conjure up images of seedy gambling joints and expectedly would draw strong gut reactions from people about the evils of gambling. Because of the lack of clarity of concepts, the debate has at times gone off-tangent. Like other colleagues who have viewed the exhibits, I have been impressed with a few of the proposals submitted. The impression is one of iconic buildings, attractions, convention facilities, hotel rooms, some offices and shopping malls. The casino part has been intentionally tucked away to make it as inconspicuous as possible.”
“Sir, I applaud the Government for putting more money to help out-of-school youths (OSYs). I have personally, as SANA President, looked into this problem. I would suggest to the Government, instead of putting more and more money into out-of-school youths, go into the schools, go upstream, before they become OSYs or before they drop out. There are clear signs, eg, truancy, discipline problems, etc. If we send volunteers in and resources there, it is less disruptive. So, if we can reduce the number of OSYs, the problem will be really nipped in the bud, instead of chasing the horse after it has bolted.”
“Sir, on behalf of the stork, I would like to approach the Minister again. While understanding the reason for giving a clear signal of no to these work permit holders to get married to our citizens, there are other people within this category, such as technicians, nurses, and I think they will actually benefit us. We will get a lot more babies for Singapore if we apply this on a selective basis. So I would suggest that perhaps the Minister review this policy in the interest of having more babies, as we are trying so hard to do. We even have the five-day week so that we can make babies - not me, but the younger people. If the nurses and so on were to fall in love, marry and have a family here, they will also help the healthcare industry. So I urge the Minister to reconsider. If we say no, we are actually penalising our citizens who cannot marry them.”
“They will feel loved, parents will feel purposeful in educating their children and the joy of doing that is a great experience. And maybe even the fourth bird, some parents may actually be rekindled to want to learn again. We can also extend this to the area of community service.”
“Workers will no longer need REAP and other retraining programmes because if workers are constantly improving themselves, they will actually be ahead of the curve. Now, parents. Most parents are interested in the education of their children. Would the Minister be considering new and novel ways to tap this large resource of adjunct teachers free of charge? Parents want their children to do well and get ahead. Unfortunately, many of them are responsible for killing their children's interest in learning when they force-feed them with assessment books, home tuition and, in recent times, enrichment classes. Sir, can the MOE not work out ways for parents to participate more constructively in the education of their children and have a stronger parent-teacher partnership in experiential learning? For a start, may I suggest MOE prepare materials to guide parents so that they can bring their children on outings where they can bond as a family, as well as learn things together? Opportunities abound in Singapore - visit the Arts Museum for art appreciation, tree-top walk to learn more about nature, flora and fauna and protect the environment, visit Sungei Buloh to learn about mangrove swamps and the life forms there, visit the Wax Museum to learn about Singapore's history, and Chinatown and Little India to learn about our heritage. The materials should contain information, learning opportunities, learning points, highlights and thoughtful questions, not the assessment book type of questions, one question only one answer. This will equip the parents for the task so that they would not find it too daunting. If we do this well, we will kill three birds with one stone. The children's curiosity gets aroused or stimulated.”
“But we all know that the content rapidly becomes outdated in this fast changing world. Even medical knowledge has a half life of seven years only. Sir, I urge all of us to be brave, the teachers especially, to be bold, as we embark on this new course. This is a bold fundamental shift of direction for our education system. Or in sailing language, it is a tack and not just trimming the sails. For myself, if at the end of the 10 years' education, we have instilled in our youths the curiosity and passion for learning and impart to them the arts and skill of learning, we would have succeeded and all the money would have been worth it. Sir, recently, I re-read PM's Address at the National Day Rally last year - 23 insightful and inspiring paragraphs, the result of his conversations with 10 school principals and, of course, his own experience. I recommend that the Minister make these 23 paragraphs compulsory reading for every teacher and principal if he has not done so. It will inspire teachers and principals to be bold and creative and be agents of change and not obstacles to change. Sir, I am optimistic. Last Sunday, I am sure we have all read about the "zi cha" man - a hawker who sells seafood guotiao or whips up a 10-course dinner, shark's fin, suckling pig, etc. This is a hawker who has a dream to sail around the world. He is forking out $8,000 to sail from the Caribbean to Liverpool. To prepare for this sail, he has to learn about navigational rules in the Atlantic, sail routes, currents, coastal, coordinates, hazards and so on. He continues to nurture his passion - to learn and grow. He is a hawker. This is the kind of people we hope our schools will produce. We will then have a learning nation and we will excel.”
“Sir, we have allocated $6.16 billion or 20.8% of total expenditure of Government to education. This is the second largest expenditure. I believe it is a very worthwhile one. Education for our children rightly deserves our attention and resources. They are our future. More importantly, education provides social mobility that the meritocratic society must have. It is a social leveller. A boy from a poor family can make it to the top. He can be educated at the finest university at public expense. This is something I am very proud of Singapore. I support the Government's spending on education and the PM's Edusave top-up for every student. I know I am speaking on the cut, but I actually hope we can spend even more money on educating our children because this is virtuous welfare. Sir, the Prime Minister has promised that our schools will teach less so that the students can learn more. And I agree with Minister Tharman that we should nurture and inspire the next generation of Singaporeans. And through their ideas, convictions and passions, we will make the future of our country. But how is the Minister going to make all these noble ideals a reality? The teachers, principals as well as many MOE officials have grown up in our schools and universities that have emphasised content, grades, rote learning. Can the Minister share with us his plans and strategy and methodology for retraining the teachers and principals to the mindset that my colleague, Dr Lily Neo, talked about? I know it is a lot easier to teach content than to inspire and nurture students to new habits of mind. Contents are more tangible and measurable. So teachers, principals and inspectors will find it easier to account for their work.”
“Sir, if I may reply to the Senior Parliamentary Secretary. I think this is one of the problems in modern management. We always put the problem as you can either have A or B. Why can we not have both A and B?”
“Sir, on the question of subtitling the news broadcast, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary, in answering Ms Olsen, said that we will wait for the technology to improve, then we can subtitle the local ones and the foreign newscasts. Why has it got to be all or none? Yesterday, in this House, hon. Members talked about the short sarong - you cover the top, you expose the bottom; you cover the bottom, you expose the top. I recommend we cut the sarong into half - cover top and bottom and, at the same time, bare the midriff! It is quite acceptable. So, why do we not go ahead and just have the subtitling for the local part and, as for the other one, wait until technology is available, and then bring it on. That way, at least, if I am deaf, I am only half deaf and not fully deaf.”
“We have noticed from the recent tsunami crisis that we win a lot of goodwill from our neighbours. So, if we actually have more people-sector volunteers going into the region, doing a lot of mission, it would actually be good for Singapore when we exhibit our good neighbourliness. I would urge the Ministry to seriously think about this. If it is not 80/20, how about 50/50, and only for bona fide organisations?”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, yesterday I brought up this question of the 80/20 percent rule, that 80% of the donation must be spent in Singapore. I wonder whether we are prepared to abolish this rule or, at least, make sure that the Commissioner grants exemption more freely to bona fide organisations with activities in the region.”
“Sir, we are allocating $135 million for public relations and public exercises in FY 2005 for various Ministries and agencies. This is an increase of about $13 million or 15.8% from the previous year. I understand and support the need for better public communication to explain policies and educate people, especially in special times like SARS, or when anything untoward happens. And the work of MCYS, MOH and MHA requires this sort of communication more than others. However, in the interest of good and lean Government, may I ask how are we going to spend this $135 million? Are we getting all the bangs that we could for the $135 million? Should we not centralise all these PR exercises so that we could aggregate the purchases and also trap the expertise in public communication and messaging, retain them, so that the messaging gets better and better, just like what MINDEF has done with its central purchasing - saving money? The next part of the question is how much of this $135 million is for buying media time and space. If it is substantial, then even more so we should aggregate the demand and purchase it together. Finally, in terms of media time and space, if it is substantial, when the Government is granting permit for broadcasting or newspapers, I am sure it could reserve time and space for this sort of public service announcements and, thereby, reducing the strain on the budget. Offset Requirement of Defence Procurement”
“This may offset the $75 million we expect to get from estate duties this year. Sir, I support the Budget Statement.”
“Through such people-to-people contacts and efforts, we can build a network of trust, goodwill and bonds which will bolster our relationship with our neighbours, even when relationship swings from time to time between the governments. Strengthening the geo-political fabric will add to the strength of our society and our long-term sustainability. I therefore urge the Government to abolish the 80-20 rule, or else give liberal exemptions to organisations with bona fide regional activities. The Government should readily withdraw such exemptions when so-called charitable organisations use this loophole for less than noble purposes. Estate duty Lastly, death duties. The Government has introduced estate duty relief for deaths in quick succession. This is a compassionate measure for those unfortunate families. The Commissioner collected $182 million in FY 2003/04 for 1,569 cases. Estate duty formed 1.1% of all taxes collected. The Budget estimates a collection of $75 million in 2005. The rationale for estate duty is never quite well understood. I believe it has to do with not wanting people to pass wealth from one generation to another. I wonder if this is at odds with our aspiration to become a centre for wealth management for the region. I wonder if foreign private banking clients would be subject to estate duties. I am sure, despite the generally liberal exemption of $9 million for dwelling houses and $600,000 for other assets, there will still be a fair amount of monies and assets kept away from IRAS' grasp. I wonder whether it makes sense to scrap the estate duty altogether so that all the monies and assets can be efficiently re-invested into the economy to create more wealth and jobs in Singapore, rather than sit in some offshore private banking accounts.”
“Maybe this is the father of all consultations, if we ever have a referendum. Finally, I applaud the PM's decision to build a culture of volunteerism and philanthropy so as to strengthen our collective social responsibility and build stronger community bonds. I am glad we have removed the different tax treatment for donations with naming opportunities. SMU's Lee Kong Chian School of Business sounds so much more distinguished and prestigious than a bland SMU "School of Business". Extending the definition of "charitable purposes" will also help promote private and corporate philanthropy. There is a small suggestion I would like to make for the sake of Singapore-based charities with operations in the region. Sir, I would like to declare my interest that I am the Chairman of Asian Medical Foundation. The 80-20 rule Currently, fund raisers must apply 80% of net proceeds within Singapore, unless the Commissioner in his discretion allows otherwise. The tsunami disaster has clearly demonstrated the need and opportunities for Singapore to play a constructive role as a good neighbour in the region. We may be small but our people are serious, reliable and effective. We are prosperous and rather fortunate. Helping our neighbours, especially when they have problems, deepens the bonds we have with each other and improve our acceptance in the region. I believe we should promote more people-to-people bonds and network through reaching out to the region. The Government can spearhead and lead, as it has done admirably during the tsunami disaster. However, for such efforts to be sustained and to engender the kind of goodwill, the people sector volunteers are very necessary.”
“I, therefore, propose that the Government consider conducting a binding referendum on the issue of whether we should permit a casino in the proposed Integrated Resort with certain restrictions to access. Like the PM, I do not believe in Government by referenda or plebiscite. But I believe this is one issue where we can benefit as a society when we clearly articulate our collective moral DNA, as I would term it. In short, our collective moral stand may be that we are prepared to deny ourselves the economic benefits of a casino because it is morally objectionable. By submitting this issue to a binding referendum, the Government will also demonstrate that it really means to have a public debate and the people's views matter. It is not form. It is substance. The results of such a referendum will remind us all that we live a culturally, racially and religiously diverse society, and as fervently as we believe in our side of the argument, there are fellow citizens who believe just as fervently as the other side. So we need to moderate our stance and be sensitive to each other and show consideration for each other's views. And this will help us mature as a society. So there is more at stake here than just whether we get another GDP point on economic development, or whether we have a casino or not, or whether we have more tourists. Such a referendum should not be set as a precedent. It is not often that a PAP Cabinet is divided. You may ask, Sir, will a non-binding referendum or lifting the Government Whip during the debate do? After careful thought, my answer is "no". It would not help. Yes, a referendum will be costly and inconvenient. But the divisiveness of such magnitude exists even across party lines and it may make the trouble worth it.”
“I see a great opportunity here for PM to recalibrate the tenor and the tone of the people-Government relationship. For 40 years, we have lived under the "wisdom" of "Government knows best". The PM has set a new direction for his Government and for this country in a short space of six months since he took office last year. But old habits die hard. Because the Government has called for proposals, people mistakenly have the perception that the Government has made up its mind and the consultation is only for show. Coffeeshop talk is that it is already "kelong". Of course, in this debate, religious organisations have risen to the challenge, as we would expect them to. I am personally neutral towards allowing or not allowing a casino at the Integrated Resort. But I am struck by the divisiveness of this issue. This House is divided on this issue. I heard the passionate speeches of many hon. Members of this House, arguing against the casino during the debate on the President's Address. Mr Loh Meng See questioned, "Are we prepared to give up the values we held dear in the past because of economic benefits?" Mr Tan Soo Khoon, in the same debate, commented, "Singapore got to where it is today not by taking easy options but through sheer doggedness and hard work". And in January, this year, MM Lee told NUS students that the Cabinet is divided. What does this mean to us? I see this as an excellent opportunity to rework the process for active citizenry. Singaporeans want to have more say in policies, especially important ones. The Government is encouraging them to participate more actively. I believe this is a step in the right direction. When people speak out, it is because they care about Singapore.”
“Lean and efficient Government I applaud the PM's commitment to a lean and effective Government. Currently, we spend 16% of our GDP on Government. This 16% pays for defence, security, foreign affairs, education, health, as well as business promotion. Americans spend 14.7% of their GDP on healthcare alone! So we are doing not too badly. However, being Singaporeans, we must not be content and complacent. Although we have across-the-board 2% cut in the block budget, the absolute dollar spending by Government has increased. Government and civil servants must not waste. We owe it to the people. We must get more bangs for every buck. Every dollar we save will enable us to help more poor, elderly or sickly Singaporeans. Mr Tan Soo Khoon has previously mentioned in this House the lavish spendings of some Government offices. We should heed his warning even as we want to have a comfortable environment for our civil servants to work productively and efficiently. I, therefore, recommend that the Government try to reduce total Government spending even as the GDP grows. Perhaps, we can aim for a lower percentage when our GDP reaches a certain level and an even lower one. This will reflect the efficiency we have as our economy grows bigger. In this way, we will retain and maintain our competitiveness as an economy and secure our long-term future. Effective Government The Government recognises the need to "consult widely on its policies" and that "feedback is essential to formulating successful public policies". Minister Vivian Balakrishnan, Chairman of Remaking of Singapore Committee, has called the casino issue the "mother of all consultations". I agree that this is the mother. But I do not know who is the father.”
“The agency vested with the land can be more competitive because there is no land cost to form the floor fixed cost. The Government will then get different yields from its land according to the economic climate and get more visitors to Singapore, more airlines and ships calling at Singapore. The economic spillovers surely will outweigh the gains from land rental. The Government should refrain from behaving like a commercial real estate developer but use its land resources wisely to retain our competitiveness and to do what benefit Singapore as a whole, and not what benefits the agency itself only. Minor discrepancies Sir, with your indulgence, I want to mention two minor discrepancies in our taxation policy in these areas. First, we have reduced 10% withholding tax on REIT distribution for foreign non-individual investors. This will no doubt attract foreign investment firms to invest in REIT in Singapore. However, Singapore non-individual investors are still taxed at a corporate tax of 20% for REIT distributions. I think we should align this to 10%, otherwise we will be penalising local corporate investors which may wish to invest in REITs. Second, as of 2005, we require corporates to expense their stock options. However, even as such stock option expenses are charged against the profit of companies, I understand they are not considered as "allowable expenses" for corporate tax purposes. Yet when the employee exercises the option, he is taxed on this benefit. I believe, for consistency, the Government should allow stock option expenses to be deducted for tax computation, just like cash and non-cash employee compensation and benefits. Sir, may I declare my interest as Chairman of Raffles Medical Group. We do have such a scheme in place.”
“But instead of creating a new agency, I propose that the Government consider seriously of merging SPRING and IE Singapore into one agency for all local enterprises, and charter it to do what EDB has done for MNCs in Singapore. This combined agency will have more talent and resources and eliminate any duplication. And indeed, if you look at the Mission Statement, there is a lot of overlap. If we take the combined budgets of SPRING and IE Singapore, this agency will have a budget of $211 million and that is not small change. Many local enterprises will benefit from working with a combined agency that can help them grow and expand into the region. The KPI for an agency like this should be the growth of local enterprises as measured by combined value add, job provision, and new job creation. In this way, the Board and the CEO can be totally focused on delivering the goods for local enterprises. Land pricing policy Sir, our property market seems to have bottomed out. Our residential transactions were recorded and prices are firming. Office rental is firming also as demand picks up. These signs augur well for the economy. However, we should be on our guard against excessively high property prices, which would render our economy uncompetitive again. The Government, through its promotion of REITs, has helped to promote a yield-based property investment environment, as opposed to capital gains property investment environment. The latter tends to promote speculative bubble with its boom and bust effects. The Government could also review its land pricing policy and be prepared to zero-rate the land for strategic assets like port, airport, and other strategic industries.”
“We should promote all local enterprises, create a conducive pro-enterprise environment so that they can flourish. They will then help to provide jobs and contribute to the economy in bigger ways. We need more than 66,000 jobs a year to grow. Local enterprises are more likely to stay rooted in Singapore. Even if they expand all over the world, many of them keep their HQ and their listing status in Singapore. They repatriate their profits back to Singapore and pay Singapore taxes. So, does the name matter? Of course! Branding works. "Entrepreneurs", "technopreneurs", "start-ups" all have sexy rings to them. So, just like we would not think of naming our new born child "Ah Kow" or "Ah Tee", we should rename our local enterprises. Perhaps SLE will do. SLE can stand for Singapore Local Enterprise or Singapore Local Entrepreneur. My colleagues, Mr Inderjit Singh and Mr Lawrence Leow, called passionately that there should be a single agency and more resources allocated to them. Mr Singh is asking for EDB-like approach. Mr Lawrence Leow asked for more resources to be allocated to SPRING and IE Singapore. I support their call for more effort and resources to be allocated for the promotion of local enterprises. Like them, I have been working with ACE - the Action Committee for Entrepreneurship - for the past two years. And I agree that there should be a single point of contact for all local enterprises who need assistance or simply want to expand their businesses locally or overseas. Yes, we do need an EDB for local enterprises, just like we have had an EDB for 40 years for MNCs.”
“Otherwise, we will soon become another country requiring international aid. This is even more important as the economy matures and we grow moderately at 3-5% only. Helping local enterprises Sir, in his speech, the Prime Minister commented that, "The best way to make Singapore a land of opportunity is to grow our economy, to generate the resources to realise our aspirations." Since our recession, we are diversifying our economy, building up services and promoting local enterprises and SMEs. Much has been done. But like my colleagues, Mr Inderjit Singh and Mr Lawrence Leow, I urge the Government not to slow down the momentum even as our economy improves. We must not let up. For 40 years, we have relied on foreign direct investments (FDIs) of MNCs to help us create jobs. The service sector has grown despite our past neglect. But as competition for FDIs intensifies, we need to grow our service sector and our local enterprises. A large part of the service sector is served by local enterprises - both large and small. And many of our local enterprises have become world-class contract manufacturers. A few have even become regional and global brands in their own right. For a start, I think we need to replace the term "SME". SMEs are, by definition, companies with fixed assets not exceeding $15 million and employ less than 200 staff. But SMEs are just not sexy! Somehow, over the years, a certain misperception has been created. People think that these enterprises have no future. We should not brand small companies and start-ups with such inauspicious and unattractive names. Creative Technology, Venture Manufacturing and Hyflux were all SMEs some time ago. But people tend to forget this fact.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the FY 2005/06 Budget as presented by the Prime Minister. Sir, this is indeed a Budget for all. It is a Budget reflective of the right priorities - building a dynamic and entrepreneurial economy, keeping Government lean and effective, and applying surpluses to help Singaporeans cope with changes in a caring and inclusive society. I believe the six top-ups are well considered and delivered with surgical precision to those who really need them. These are steps towards a compassionate society. Of course, one can ask for more rebates and more benefits. The economy has rebounded, the unemployment rate has lowered and many companies are posting good results. But I believe it is more important to ensure that we move in the right direction, and that the economy develops in a sustainable manner. For only when we, as a nation, can "earn our keeps" do we have the means to help and care for our fellow citizens. Slightly more than a month ago, in the debate on the President's Address, I urged the Government to study the Nordic countries' ability to create wealth on a sustainable basis. Their economic success enables them to provide good welfare services for their citizens. They are worthy of our study because they, like us, have relatively small populations, as well as highly educated and hardworking citizens. These countries have more natural resources than us. But what is particularly interesting is that despite operating within a high-cost environment, they are still able to retain their competitiveness and develop new strengths. I am glad the Government has taken note of this suggestion. I hope, as a society, we will form a national consensus that we need to first produce wealth before we can distribute wealth.”
“I am clarifying my own stand, Sir. ADJOURNMENT OF DEBATE Resolved, "That the Debate be now adjourned." - [Mr Wong Kan Seng].”
“I mentioned the Nordic countries. Mr Low Thia Khiang talked about Finland, which is one of the countries that I mentioned. I agree with the Prime Minister that until we know how to produce wealth, we should be careful about distributing wealth that we do not yet have. Mr Speaker: You are not asking for clarification. You are telling us what you think.”
“I am clarifying the difference between distribution of wealth and accumulation of wealth, for the benefit of joining in the debate. Please give me two minutes, Mr Speaker, Sir.”
“A clarification, Sir. It has been said that if you are below 40 and you are not a socialist, you have no heart, but if you are more than 40 and you are still a socialist, you have no head. I think if we were to look at socialism as a system, I would say it is very efficient in the distribution of wealth. It talks about, let us give better this, better that, everything for free.”
“I hope the Government will continue to review and, if necessary, restructure our economy and take whatever steps necessary to ensure that our economy will remain robust and capable of sustainable growth, so that Singapore will become the home for our children and our children's children. We Singaporeans have demonstrated through past recessions, the 911 crisis and SARS outbreak that we will rally behind the Government and stand ready to make the necessary changes to strengthen our economy and build a secure future. I am reassured by the following words in the President's Address: "We must ensure that all Singaporeans benefit from our success as a nation. Therefore, no group should miss out on the fruits of our progress. We must help to uplift children from lower income families and others less well endowed, so that they can succeed in school and in their careers, and so break the cycle of poverty." These are beautiful words, great words, and they paint the vision that gives life and meaning to and ennoble our quest to build a stronger, more robust and more resilient economy. This is the solemn promise the Government under the leadership of Mr Lee Hsien Loong has pledged. We look towards the realisation of this vision. Singapore will then truly be a land of opportunity for all.”
“Second, industries, ie, private sector, in these countries undertook a larger proportion of the R&D compared to Singapore. In Sweden, the private sector undertook 77.6% of the R&D effort; Switzerland, 73.9%; and Finland, 71.1%. Our corresponding figure in Singapore was 63.3%, 10 percentage points lower. It is believed that when industries are encouraged to invest more in R&D, the economic impact and returns from such R&D activities are more tangible, and they result in economic growth. Third, the literacy rates in these countries are all about 100% - one or two countries, 99% - whilst ours is 94.2%. Moreover, what is particularly impressive is that these countries generally have higher percentage of people who receive tertiary education and, consequently, a larger proportion of their workers have got longer years of education, and increasingly so. In Denmark, 39% of their people have got higher education; Finland, 41%; Sweden, 30%. In Singapore, our corresponding figures, including the diploma and degree holders, add up to 22.8%. So we still have some way to go to ensure that our workforce is even better educated. Finding the critical success factors for Singapore Besides investments in R&D and a responsive educational system that produces a well educated and well trained workforce, I believe there could be other critical success factors for durability and sustainability of the economies in these countries. These economies have produced today's Volvo cars and trucks, Saab cabriolets and planes, Astra pharmaceuticals, Nokia phones, Electrolux fridges and washing machines, Borfos and Oerlikon guns as well Rolexes, Swatches, Frank Mullers and other timepieces, whose names many of us cannot pronounce.”
“Their people are highly educated, highly skilled and their workers' productivity is high. They pay high taxes, but they are also progressively lightening their taxes to be competitive. Their cost of living and cost of doing business are high, like ourselves. But what is noteworthy is that despite being small like us, burdened with some of the same constraints we have, they have been able to register sustainable economic growth over a long period. Impressive sustainable growth Between 1913 and 1998, a period of 85 years, their GDP has grown by many- fold: Norway, 17.1 times; Finland, 14.8 times; Sweden, 9.5 times; Switzerland, 9.2 times; and Denmark, 11.3 times. It is even more remarkable when you consider that this period included the disruptions of the Second World War and, in the case of Finland, the regular "push and shove" of their Soviet bear neighbour. Since these economies have shown such sustainability, perhaps we should take a closer look at their economies and societies to see if there are useful lessons for us. Perhaps the MTI could form a small task force to look into this matter, and should we find useful tips, we should consider introducing the same to our economy. Some discerning features Not being an economist by training, and having only one part-time assistant, we got whatever data we could find and try to make sense out of it. Interestingly, there are a few discernable features in these countries. First, if you look at their R&D expenditure as a percentage of their GDP, you will find that Sweden spends 4.27%; Finland, 3.46%; Denmark, 2.52%; Switzerland, 2.57%. By comparison, our R&D expenditure in Singapore was 2.13% for 2003. So we are spending less than them.”
“Towards a sustainable economy Despite our economic progress in the last 40 years of nationhood, there is a nagging fear that our economic growth may not be sufficiently robust to withstand prolonged recession, international terrorism, unexpected calamities or unforeseen epidemics. Not everybody believes that we have a robust and sustainable economy. With our reserves, many people know that we can pump ourselves out of any cyclical downturn, but what if any of these terrible eventualities befall us? Such a fear will surely erode and undermine the confidence and trust our people have in Singapore. It will also weaken our resolve and loosen the roots that bind us to our motherland. To remain firmly rooted in Singapore, we must be convinced that our small population of four million multi-racial and multi-cultural people is capable of being developed into a sustainable economy, and an inclusive society which recognises different talents, abilities and needs, where we will all have a place. Possible lessons from Nordic economies In this regard, I believe the Nordic economies and Switzerland offer interesting lessons. They are, like us, small countries with small population: Sweden, 9 million; Norway, 4.6 million; Finland, 5.2 million; Denmark, 5.4 million; and Switzerland, 7.5 million. I think the annexures have been circulated for easy reference. They may have bigger land area but they also have harsh climatic conditions. It is true that Norway has struck oil but it appears that the reserves may last them, at best, another 20 years. They are all highly developed countries in terms of physical infrastructure. Their people enjoy high standard of living. Their per capita GDP ranges between US$26,800 (Sweden) and US$32,700 (Switzerland).”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate on the Motion of Thanks on the President's Address at the Opening of this Session of Parliament. In his Address, the President said, "We must strengthen our economy. A thriving economy will provide us the resources to tackle all other challenges." I support this policy direction and commend the Government's intention to maintain a pro business strategy, keeping taxes low and Government trim. I agree that, in this way, we will encourage more Singaporeans to become entrepreneurs, to dream dreams, develop new ideas and pursue their passion. When they succeed, they will create more jobs for other Singaporeans and add to the wealth of our nation. More conducive environment for entrepreneurship I am glad to note that we are moving away from our old habit of "picking winners". Singapore needs entrepreneurs of all types, big ones, small ones, low tech as well as high tech. Studies have shown that economies with greater entrepreneurship experience higher growth rates, greater job creation and less severe boom and bust economic cycles. Entrepreneurship in Singapore is generally not entrepreneurship of necessity, but entrepreneurship of creativity and innovation. As the environment becomes more conducive, the threshold will be lowered for people to strike out on their own, try their hands at business. Our society will in the process also become enlivened and more vibrant. I believe that Singapore is becoming more entrepreneurial as a society because both the people and the Government have made the necessary mindset shift. Although these are early days, the situation looks promising. I hope we will be able to have some measurable outcome in due course.”