Low Thia Khiang
Singapore
“Mr Speaker, my question is for the Minister for Health. The official communication channel to the people who subscribe to the WhatsApp group quoted the Prime Minister saying that "Experts think that the Wuhan virus may be less deadlier than SARS". So, can we have some verification whether this is true so far?”
“In Mandarin, Sir. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] So, Member Mr Gan Thiam Poh meant to say that although the Minister has the decision-making power under this Bill, you can still go to Court to challenge the decision.”
“Mr Speaker, clarification in Mandarin. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I have stated clearly that the Government already has a lot of power under existing legislation. They can even shut down websites.”
“(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] First and foremost, you must follow the Minister's decision to take down the message, you cannot go to Court. According to this Bill, you must comply with the Minister's order. Otherwise, you will be charged.”
“In Mandarin, Sir. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Our Secretary-General is in the Committee. He told us about the contents of the Committee's discussion, so we know what was discussed in the Committee.”
“(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] You assume that the Minister will not do this, but is your assumption correct? It may be correct now, but will it be correct in the future? Even the Minister cannot guarantee that, he said he cannot be sure that future governments will not abuse their power. Can you be sure?”
The complete record
Every one of 2,669 lines we hold for Low Thia Khiang, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 12 of 54.
“Thank you, Sir. How does the Minister know that by bringing the issue up to an international forum, as what Er Lee Bee Wah suggested, it will not be effective? Has he tried to do that?”
“Supplementary question, Sir. The Minister, in his reply, said that the haze is over for this year. My question is: how about next year or the year after? Despite the efforts and the Minister talking to his counterpart in Indonesia, it seems to me that the haze remains and the situation does not improve. So, does the Minister not think that this is a diplomatic failure on the part of Singapore as well as ASEAN as a group, and how does this reflect on ASEAN as a group in the international community?”
“I would like to ask about safety emergency procedures for a fighter aircraft and pilot training aircraft flying over Singapore.”
“Sir, I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether Mas Selamat is likely to escape again. Secondly, what has ISD learnt from the last episode of this escape?”
“I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State, up to now, how much has the two IRs contributed to the tourism industry in Singapore. Secondly, there is a report that most visitors to the casinos are actually Singaporeans. Is that a concern to the Government?”
“Thank you, Sir. I welcome the Minister's positive response to my statement made in the press, except one point on the time allocated to teaching MTL. The Minister replied to say that probably some students will require more time so there will be some flexibility, but I suppose he was referring to remedial lessons. What I was asking was whether or not the time allocated to teaching Mother Tongue in the school timetable would be cut in the future. Sir, the Minister, in his answer, also said that we have to set realistic standards, probably pegged to the changing language environment and also students' exposure to Mother Tongue. Would he not agree that the language environment for Mother Tongue, especially Chinese, is going to be weaker? Generation after generation will be adverse to the learning of the language. So if the standard is pegged to that, would we, one day, realise that the realistic standard is only to require the students to be able to write their own names in Chinese?”
“Sir, the Senior Minister of State mentioned in his speech about the Cheng San Election and the near-riot tension that he described as a phenomenon. I would like to ask him to clarify whether he knows what is the cause of this near-riot tension, and what caused the Workers' Party supporters such anger? And whether or not he would agree that the then Asset Enhancement scheme and upgrading programme that the PAP pressed during the election to deny Opposition voters that programme, was the main major cause of the tension that is divisive?”
“There is a difference between the Party and myself as an individual. I have made it very clear to my Party and I think they understood it. So let us make it very clear between an individual and Party. Of course, if my Party insists I have to take it up, I will have to resign. That is all.”
“Is he asking whether I would take up the seat? No. I would not take up the NCMP seat. Let us make it very clear.”
“Sir, as I have explained, yes, we will vote against it in-principle because that is not a system we should entrench as a political system. But, as a matter of fact, in reality, this is a situation that we have to face. It is the same as us opposing the GRC system, but it does not mean that we do not field candidates in GRCs. That is the same situation. There is no contradiction.”
“Clarification, Sir. I thought it was very clear that there are two separate things. One is the system that you have envisaged and wanted to legislate, and the other is the mechanism. Sir, I do not understand what the Minister is talking about.”
“Sir, I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his encouragement to the Workers' Party to try to form an alternative government. But what he is saying is to make the cake bigger, but do not forget your cake remains the same because the elected Members remain at the same number. What you are trying to do is probably to add some dressing, but the Workers' Party does not look at dressing.”
“That is the very basis in which the government should function. So for the Workers' Party, if they think upon an alternative system in case one day the PAP turns corrupt, then it is time for them to start looking out for enough candidates to contest elections and challenge the Government in position to say that they can make a better government. I think that is the basis on which to try to convince the voters. It does not matter how the constituencies are carved out. If there is bad ground sentiment, you can have one constituency, 10 different constituencies into one or the whole of 84 becoming one constituency, people will still vote out the PAP. So, ultimately, it depends on the candidates and, at the same time, the party platform. Most importantly is the party that will form the government. Either the Workers' Party is against the NCMP system or supports the NCMP system, I think the line is very clear. You cannot have, on the one hand, "In principle, I object"; on the other hand, "I am quite happy to sit here and debate". There may be nine of them or two of them or whatever it is. What the Government tries to do in this situation is not to have the cake and eat it. We are trying to make the cake bigger and give you a piece of it.”
“Clarification, Sir. I believe it is quite clear in the Party Chairman's speech that we oppose this Bill on the fundamental principle of how a political system should work. So, there is difference between how a political system work in principle and the NCMP as a scheme. I think I made it very clear here. And by introducing NCMP scheme, the PAP is trying to have their cake and eat it to tell Singaporeans, "Look – let us vote for PAP, as the Government, and we will provide you with NCMPs." But that is not how a healthy political system should work. If you want to have a robust political system, to have checks and balance, to have a proper safeguard for the rights of Singaporeans and, in case the PAP become corrupt one day, there is some form of alternative and some form of mechanism to check, then you really have to build up a system in which the Opposition can be elected and can be properly represented in this House rather than a system encouraging or incentivising Singaporeans to vote for the PAP, who will provide you with NCMPs. The NCMP scheme does not strengthen the muscle of the Opposition. An elected MP in the Opposition having the ground, could have a better assessment of the situation, will give you a better rationale, a better argument in Parliament than just an NCMP. Mr Wong Kan Seng: I think, first, let us not forget why we need a government. We need a government to run the country, create a better society. And how do you get a better government? You get a better government by having political parties that set themselves out to form the government. We do not, just because we are individual MPs, get our people to elect us because we serve their individual interests. We elect MPs as a group, as a party, so that they can form the government.”
“Now he says that the Workers' Party got to make a bad situation good by accepting the NCMP system even though they oppose it in principle, against his own personal belief and conviction. If you remember, Mr Jeyaretnam contested the election in 1984. He won. Mr Chiam See Tong also won and there was, therefore, a seat for an NCMP. Mr Jeyaretnam's Party colleague, Mr M P D Nair became the best loser in Jalan Kayu. He lost to Mr Heng Chiang Meng by a few hundred votes but Mr Jeyaretnam, as Party leader, decided that Mr M P D Nair cannot take up that seat. Now, for Mr Low Thia Khiang he says he will not take up the seat, he has allowed Ms Sylvia Lim to take up the seat. Well, for Ms Sylvia Lim she said she also opposes the Bill and also does not like this idea of the NCMP, then why is she here or even speaking on this Bill? Maybe I would like to hear from Ms Sylvia Lim.”
“Sir, the Workers' Party Chairman has put our position very clearly across to the House why the Workers' Party is not supporting the amendment to the Constitution and why the Workers' Party accepted NCMP seats after 1984, which was when the electoral system changed from a single constituency to a GRC system. It is suffice to state that we are helping, in fact, the situation created by the PAP to make Parliament more representative. And I think some Members suggested, perhaps, Ms Sylvia Lim may have contradicted herself because she said earlier in this House, that the increase in number of NCMPs was supportable. No, there is no contradiction. She had said very clearly in her speech, the PAP is trying to make a bad situation better. The increase to nine NCMPs is an improvement. But, fundamentally, it does not make it better because a political system should be robust enough through the electoral system to have proper representation of different views, different sectors of society in Parliament rather than the NCMP scheme. Yes, it is through a back door but that is the situation, that is not a system which we should support. The Deputy Prime Minister wanted to know whether or not the Workers' Party will take up the NCMP seat after the next election if not elected. I can tell him categorically that I will not take up the NCMP seat if I am not elected at the next election. I believe in the principle and I think all this while, this is what we have been doing. As to whether or not other candidates in the Party, after the next election, will take up the NCMP seat, that has to be decided by the Party. So that is the position. Mr Wong Kan Seng: I really do not know what is his real position.”
“Can I ask the Minister to widen the definition of literary arts in Singapore? This is now very limited to creative work, fictional work and poetry. In the US and UK, which is at the forefront of literary arts, they include non-fictional work as well. So by widening it, we can allow MICA to support and promote good writers from different fields. So, can MICA consider this? RAdm [NS] Lui Tuck Yew: Certainly, we will be happy to do so.”
“My clarification relates to SingPost. The Minister had, in his reply, cited quality of service figures. He said that 98% of the mail were delivered the next working day in CBD, and 95% to the rest of the area. I would like to ask him: How sure is he that these mail delivered are being delivered correctly to the addressees? Secondly, the Minister replied that if there is any problem then people might want to complain individually to SingPost for it to tackle these specific issues. I want to ask: What is his Ministry's responsibility in ensuring a reliable postal service? Does MICA conduct any audit on how reliable the service is? And whether or not MICA has any benchmark for the service standard? I wonder whether has MICA also outsourced its regulatory functions to SingPost? RAdm [NS] Lui Tuck Yew: First of all, the quality of service standards, in terms of delivery of mail: it is 99% by the next working day to areas within the CBD, and 98% by the next working day to areas outside of the CBD. This is comparable to countries around the world that we benchmark ourselves against. And these are, I think, high enough standards. Frankly, I do not have data as to how many letters are misdelivered. I suspect not significantly so otherwise we would be hearing a lot more comments. I am sure that there must be some misdelivery. It is helpful for individuals to approach SingPost, and when they cannot get a reply that is sufficiently robust, for them to approach IDA. IDA has not outsourced its regulatory functions, let me assure the Member. It will continue to take this seriously. Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong: Thank you, Sir. I thank the Minister for the good news that more will be given to the literary arts in terms of funding, and that it is an important focus for MICA this year.”
“I would like to know the role of the Government in regulating postal service and the benchmark it uses to assess the service standard delivered to the public. Live football coverage”
“Chairman, Sir, visiting the post office now can be quite an experience ever since the privatisation and subsequent listing of SingPost on the Singapore Exchange. Over the years, SingPost has transformed itself into a multi-service centre instead of just providing postal service. To those who have not visited a post office lately, let me give them a quick tour. Apart from postal service, you can buy software, computers, cameras, household appliances, and insurance. You can do remittance, get ezyCash, and borrow money from a "guy" named "James". SingPost is even into pawn broking. You can get "Speedcash" by pawning your gold jewellery. If you have no gold jewellery, you can try the outlets in Geylang and Chinatown Point. These outlets accept branded watches. I understand the need for SingPost to move with the times to go beyond providing postal service. I also understand the listed company needs to be proactive in its commercial activities to remain viable and to create value for its shareholders, of which the Government, through Temasek Holdings, is a substantial shareholder. However, Sir, my concern is whether SingPost is distracted by all these "high value" services and has forgotten its Pledge of Service of providing reliable, on-time, and value-for-money postal service. I received feedback of long waiting time at some post offices for simple transaction of posting a registered mail or even buying stamps. I have also received feedback that letters were not delivered to the correct addresses but to a neighbour's home instead. Such incidents are not uncommon and we cannot always depend on the goodwill of our neighbours to return the wrongly delivered mail. Recently, to my surprise, even mail posted to a PO box can be delayed by a month or two.”
“Thank you, Sir. In Mandarin. (In Mandarin): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A*.] Just now I heard the Minister clarifying Ms Jessica Tan and Mr Ang Mong Seng's questions on foreign worker levy. I was a bit puzzled. The Minister said that he wants companies to raise productivity of foreign workers and upgrade their technology to be productive. He said that replacing 10 foreign workers with 10 local workers is not increasing productivity. I thought that the main purpose of this productivity drive and raising foreign worker levy is to enhance the productivity of Singapore workers so they can earn more. Can the Minister clarify please?”
“Madam, any provision in our labour laws to reduce the wages of older workers upon reaching re-employment age will dampen the zeal of an ageing society to continue working beyond retirement age. Opportunities for older workers”
“Madam, by 2012, the re-employment legislation will require employers to offer re-employment to workers reaching 62 years of age, up to age 65, and eventually to age 67. However, the re-employment legislation will not replace the Retirement Act of 1999. The Retirement Act allows an employer to reduce the wages of older employees up to 10% on or at any time after the employee attains 60 years of age. The 10% pay cut at age 60 was recommended by the Tripartite Committee on the Extension of Retirement and the justification then was to address the problem of the seniority-based wage system. With the Government's call to increase productivity and the progress made in wage restructuring from a seniority-based wage system to a performance-based wage system, I would like to call upon the Government to review the Retirement Act of 1999 by removing the wage reduction option given to employers. A wage system that moves away from seniority elements and towards job worth and performance is more than adequate to ensure an older worker is paid based on the value of the job and his contribution, instead of his seniority. Given that the performance-based wage system will improve the cost competitiveness and employability of older workers, we should remove the wage reduction anomaly from the Retirement Act as older workers would have been paid market rate in the run-up to age 62. Moreover, the Tripartite Committee's recommendation that employer's CPF contribution rate for employees aged 60-65 years be reduced from 7.5% to 4% and from 5% to 4% for employees aged above 65 years is sufficient to make re-employment worthwhile for employers.”
“Next, with the likely trend of short-term contract and part-time workers to increase in the future, I would like to know whether the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) will develop a strategy to include such employees in the productivity upgrading process. 4.45 pm CET innovation”
“Madam, as at June 2009, there were 87,400 resident employees on short-term contracts of less than three months and 156,200 residents on part-time employment. About half of these employees are in the older age group and a majority of them have lower educational qualification with a gross monthly income of below $1,000. I am of the view that the number under this category of employees would increase over time, because companies want flexible manpower and being able to respond faster to changing demand and cost variation as business environment changes. Secondly, as our society matures with an increased number of ageing employees, more people may prefer such mode of employment as seniors may not want to work full time. Contract and part-time workers may not necessarily be low wage and low productivity. Some studies have shown that part-time workers can be as productive as full-time workers and companies employing part-timers do not necessary suffer low productivity. I understand that in Netherlands, a relatively large share of the workforce works part time, achieves high labour productivity. Hence, I believe that there is much room for improvement in productivity and income of our contract and part-time workers. Madam, given the current educational profile of the employees in this group, a targeted approach is needed to improve the productivity and income. The ESC proposes to introduce a broad-based incentive scheme to encourage employers to send their workers for training and develop structured programmes to train and place low-wage workers in better jobs. I would like to know what are the detailed mechanisms and new initiatives to work in line with ESC's recommendations and to raise the productivity of this group of workers.”
“Sir, my clarification is on Chinese Language. I would like to thank Senior Minister of State, Ms Grace Fu, for providing a sample of the Chinese "B" "O" levels examinations, I think it is useful. But I would like to seek clarifications from her in regard to Chinese "B". What is the number of characters that the student is supposed to learn? In her earlier reply, she said that, "the student will probably be able to use the language later in life and that would give them a foundation". But I would like to ask her, with the scope of the curriculum standard and the number of characters learnt, does she seriously think that the student will be able to retain the language after they have left school and continue to be able to learn through reading or speaking? I would also like the Ministry to respond to the Chinese community's concern that the standard of Chinese Language has been dropping over the years.”
“[For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A*.] The Chinese "B" curriculum was implemented in 2001. It was subsequently modified in 2004 after taking into account suggestions made by the Chinese Curriculum and Pedagogy Reform Report. When the Government announced the Chinese "B" curriculum in 1999, it was aimed at students who had difficulties in studying Chinese. This was to prevent the students from developing detestation towards the Chinese culture simply because they were being compelled to learn Chinese. I would like to ask the Ministry: has Chinese "B" achieved its intended target? How many students have studied Chinese "B" since 2001 and what is the passing rate? I am concerned that Chinese "B" might be abused under certain circumstances. For example, students who are not weak in Chinese may choose to study Chinese "B" as an easy way out because they do not want to study hard due to psychological rejection in learning the language. The school might also suggest to students with lower Chinese score to take Chinese "B" so that the school's Chinese Language passing rate will not be lowered. I would like to know from MOE whether it has examined the possibility of loophole in the offering of Chinese "B" curriculum.”
“Sir, the Minister referred to the two books that she had. If I am not wrong, one of which is called Budget Highlights. She referred to the annexure. But the figures in the annexure were global figures. What I am asking for are figures which could provide certain depth so that we can understand the expenditure at a certain level. She refers also to the budget control document. Yes, I have seen it. This thick – two volumes and the words are very small, and I think it is too much to chew. I would expect and I hope MOF can provide a budget book which is, at least, with certain depth, rather than superficial information like what the annexure provides. She also said that there is a Public Accounts Committee which would look at the Ministry of Finance's expenditure. I would like to say that, so far, I have not been a Member of the Committee, and I believe that the Committee, most of the time, comprised PAP Members.”
“There should be a balance between flexibility and accountability for the financial resources entrusted to the Ministry. I would like to know how MOF ensure accountability and transparency of Government expenditure to the public. Sovereign Wealth Fund management”
“Sir, the Budget Book serves as a public document on the proposed Government revenue and expenditure for each financial year. It provides accountability to MPs and members of the public in the usage of Government funds. However, the information provided in the Budget Book seems to be getting lesser with each financial year. For example, there were 728 pages in tbe Budget Book for FY1994/1995 and only 593 pages for FY2000/2001. For this year, the Budget Book has 417 pages. I am not suggesting that the more pages in the Budget Book, the better it is, but I find the current Budget Book not useful enough for one to understand the individual programme function and major changes in expenditure, if any, or major items of our Ministries. For instance, in the old Budget Book, under the Ministry of Health, I can see specific subventions given to each restructured hospital. Under hospital Services Programme, I can see some detailed expenditure such as rental, utility, official celebration and mass media expenses, etc, and also under new OOE. But in the current year's Budget Book, under Services Programme of MOH, I see one consolidated amount list like subventions and the breakdown under OOE is rather brief. Some of the expenditure listed are simply classified as running costs without details provided. I understand the Ministry of Finance (MOF) has been innovative over the years to allow each Ministry the flexibility to spend public money efficiently. One of the initiatives is to allow each Ministry to have budgetary discretion by block budgeting. While this flexibility may be good for the Ministry, more transparency on expenditure is needed to assure accountability.”
“Chairman, Sir, I understand that myopia is the leading eye disease in Singapore. We have among the highest cases of myopia in the world. There is a growing concern that blindness from myopia would become a substantial public health problem in the near future. It was projected that more than 80% of the entire adult population could be myopic within two to three decades. I would like the Minister to share his view on the problem and whether it is indeed a public health concern. It is observed that increasing myopia is related to the heavy amount of reading and near-work that the children are exposed to in school and at home. Such activities are definitely on the rise with advent of the Internet. I would like to know what new initiatives the Ministry of Health (MOH) has embarked on to prevent the onset of myopia on the younger generation and what is the outcome of the vision care programme? Although laser surgery has been performed to correct myopia in adults in Singapore since 1992, the results have generally been very good. However, SNEC does not believe that it is safe and advisable for children to undergo this surgery currently. Intense medical research in recent years has led to new discovery on treatment of various diseases. I would like to know whether the National Medical Research Council has committed funds for research related to myopia and if so, whether there is any discovery of new effective treatment or clinically proven method of preventing the onset of myopia. Assessment of special needs of children”
“In the case of the karang guni men, for example, would they be prepared to do recycling from HDB flats, which is very tedious and very onerous? But the waste collecting companies are obligated to do so to provide a scheme to collect recyclables from HDB flats. As you know, it is very tedious to go house to house, door to door, floor to floor, to collect the recyclables, but our waste companies are doing that. So, from the Government's point of view, we have to find an efficient overall recycling structure that can meet our needs. At the moment, the National Recycling Programme (NRP), which involves our waste collection companies, they are doing the job of collecting recyclables. But we are reviewing that and we are open to any suggestions on how best we can improve that. It is up to the industry to sort out how best they make use of the current existing players. If the karang guni men want to work together with some of the waste collection companies, which they can do, there is nothing to prevent them from doing so. In our case, under the NRP, the waste collection companies are obligated to collect the recyclables from households on specific dates, either the first Monday or first Thursday of every two weeks or whatever, is left to them. And as I said the programme has worked, but I mentioned in my reply that there is room for us to improve in terms of some waste streams such as food waste. So we are looking into that. My response to Mr Low is that I think it is best for the industry to sort out itself and if there are ways in which the existing players are prepared to work with new players such as the waste collection companies, we should leave to the industry to sort that out.”
“I believe that it deserves the Minister's attention to see how he can improve and upgrade the trade by giving them some incentives to improve. Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: Sir, on the issue of location, as I mentioned in my reply, Sarimbun is actually fully leased out. So location is not an issue to the industry. They have been able to locate themselves in Sarimbun and operate quite effectively. At the moment, because there is a lack of space in Sarimbun, we are exploring with JTC and other Government land authorities to explore other options. In fact, companies at the moment, as mentioned in my reply, can write directly to the various Government agencies to get industrial land for that purpose. On the issue of the karang guni men, I think we have to look at our recycling programme in its overall structure. We do have companies that collect waste, which are licensed by the Government and, therefore, we integrated the recycling programme with the waste collection companies so that they can do these things better. It does not mean there is no role for what you called the karang guni men. In fact, we have been told that some companies do work together with some of these operators. I am not sure whether the karang guni men are licensed, to begin with. If they are licensed, therefore, the appropriate industry sector will probably have to be addressed in terms of how to improve their productivity. They are definitely not licensed by NEA or MEWR. But the point is, we leave it to the industry to sort out on how best they can work together to achieve our goal. In terms of the waste collectors, because we licensed them and we have a plan where Singapore is broken up into nine sectors to ensure that there is sufficient coverage of waste collectors who can also do recycling.”
“Sir, in the earlier answer to my cut, the Minister said that land is allocated at Sarimbun Recycling Park. Would the Minister not agree with me that the land allocated at Sarimbun Park, first of all, is remote? Secondly, the nature of the trade which I mentioned, basically the karang guni who do collection, sorting and packing, is quite different from the recycling factory that is set up there. Therefore, would he not agree that this company, with the nature of the trade, would need a different kind of allocation of land, and the location of the land is important because of the nature of the trade? Second clarification, Sir. I would like to ask the Minister, since the Ministry has to do with sustainable environmental development and in which recycling is a main programme of the Ministry, would he not appreciate and recognise the efforts of these karang guni traders, who have played an important part, I believe, and also in the chain of the recycling industry since many years ago? If so, would the Ministry, in appreciation of them, have some programmes of funding to upgrade the industry and make the industry more productive? And the third clarification is whether the Minister is aware that such karang guni trade, though it does not look like a proper trade, has actually helped many people to survive, in terms of giving some financial help to them on their own effort. I am sure many people will notice that there are a lot of senior citizens who go to the hawker centres to collect cans as their past time, and at the same time they have some income. So the industry is actually serving quite a lot of people, and it serves a purpose of financial help on their own effort.”
“Towards this end, the PUB will continue to work with community and grassroots organisations to form water volunteer groups which will then conduct house visits to educate home owners on water conservation practices and assist in the installation of water-saving devices. Dengue”
“The second RFP was launched in January to fund research in improving the efficiency of incineration plants and extending the lifespan of the one and only landfill that we have in Singapore which is the Semakau Landfill. This attracted 27 proposals and the results will be announced in June. And Mdm Ho has asked about Semakau landfill. At the current rate of use, Semakau landfill is expected to last another 25 to 30 years. NEA is proceeding with plans to turn Semakau landfill into an eco-park to allow companies to conduct field testing of renewable and clean technologies, and is currently exploring possible pilot projects for implementation. 6.00 pm Sir, we are also working closely with the IHLs and other agencies to build up Singapore's environment capabilities through research. As a start, NEA collaborated with NTU to secure $7 million from the NRF to develop sustainable urban waste management solutions. The research aims to harness waste streams for energy production. We have made a good start in waste management research. Looking ahead, Sir, we will continue to identify new areas where investments in research and technology can develop fresh solutions to overcome Singapore's constraints, and help our companies tap the growing global demand for sustainable development solutions. Sir, Mdm Ho had made a remark on how we can encourage home owners to use less water especially in the way we wash our cars and water our gardens. Sir, we recognise that engaging different groups within the community is important to raise and sustain awareness on the need to conserve water.”
“Such programmes complement the existing courses offered by our Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs), and together with our scholarships, ensure a pipeline of qualified manpower to support Singapore's water industry. Singapore is providing platforms for the international sharing of ideas and best practices. Our second annual Singapore International Water Week (SIWW) was held in June 2009 and brought together more than 10,000 participants from over 80 countries. Looking ahead, SIWW 2010 is set to be another milestone as Singapore will also be concurrently hosting the inaugural "Asia Pacific Water Ministers Forum", which will highlight the importance of good governance and solutions to water sustainability. As for other efforts to grow the Clean Environment sector, the Jalan Bahar CleanTech Park is being jointly developed by JTC and EDB. The development of the Park will be carried out in three phases over 20 years with Phase 1 commencing in July 2010. NTU will be the first anchor tenant and will help to seed R&D activities. NEA also launched the $15 million Environment Technology Research Programme (ETRP) last year to focus on developing waste management solutions for Singapore which also have export potential. The first request-for-proposal (RFP) saw good response with 67 proposals received. Many interesting ideas were raised. For instance, one proposal aims to reduce the time needed for landfill stabilisation from the existing norm of around 30 to 40 years, to between 10 and 15 years. This proposal and four others received a total ETRP funding of about $4.8 million.”
“The demonstration project at Chua Chu Kang proves it and that is why HDB is now considering it for some of the new estates. Sir, let me now move on to the question of our R&D and manpower capabilities. Singapore's good track record in environment and water management puts us in a strong footing to develop new solutions that are exportable to the world. I am pleased to inform Mdm Ho Geok Choo that we have been making good progress on this front. We have been building new capabilities in sustainable water solutions for several years, supported by the Clean Water Programme launched in 2006 with $330 million in funding from the National Research Foundation (NRF). The Clean Water sector now contributes over $800 million in value add (VA) and supports about 9,000 jobs, and we are on track to meet our target of $1.7 billion in VA and 11,000 jobs in 2015. In 2009, six research projects amounting to $13 million received funding from the Clean Water programme. Two of these projects focus on developing the next generation of water membranes by mimicking nature, for example, the mechanism utilised by mangroves to purify brackish water. These bio-mimetic membranes have the potential to significantly lower the energy used in water purification. We have a vibrant community of R&D centres in Singapore which also serve as manpower receptacles to train specialised R&D manpower for the industry, a point raised by Mdm Ho. For example, the Singapore-Delft Water Alliance launched its Double M.Sc. Degree in Hydraulic Engineering and Water Resources Engineering in 2009. This is a joint programme between NUS and the Delft University of Technology, and provides an ideal platform for the students to draw from the expertise of both universities.”
“The SRP is now fully leased out to 13 companies recycling waste items such as wood, horticultural waste, and construction and demolition waste. NEA is exploring other areas where recycling industries can be sited. Companies, in fact, can also apply to JTC for industrial land to set up recycling facilities. Mr Low raised the question about some companies having to move out of Defu Lane. To the best of our knowledge, that has not happened. But housekeeping is now being enforced in the Defu industrial estate because now it is part of the Marina-Punggol Reservoir Water Catchment and therefore we have to ensure that the companies there meet environmental pollution standards. Sir, NEA also has various funding schemes to incentivise and develop the waste management and recycling industry. These schemes include the 3R Fund, which I touched on earlier, the Innovation for Environmental Sustainability Fund as well as the Environment Technology Research Programme. SPRING Singapore also has assistance schemes targeted at SMEs, including loan schemes and capability upgrading programmes. Mr Cedric Foo raised the possibility of introducing recycling chutes in HDB estates. Let me just give him an example. A trial was undertaken at Chua Chu Kang to retrofit and convert unused refuse chute into chute for recycles. And it shows that recycling participation rate of the households in the block increased from 67% in December 2006 to 93% in July 2007. Currently, several chutes for recyclables will also be provided at four new HDB blocks at Fernvale at Sengkang and at the new eco-precincts at Punggol and at the regenerated Dawson estate. We have looked at the first experience and we will implement this progressively to see whether it will help in terms of our recycling rate.”
“I assure Dr Lim that NEA will continue with efforts to educate the public on the importance of recycling and waste minimisation as well as the proper use of recycling facilities. To support new waste minimisation and recycling projects, NEA launched an $8 million 3R Fund last year. To date, we have received 43 applications, of which nine were approved with grants amounting to $137,000, and 18 are still being evaluated. One of the applications approved is the National University of Singapore's Recycling Master Plan to improve the recycling infrastructure and enhance the 3R culture in the University. The project is expected to reduce or recycle 540 tons of waste over three years. Sir, to reduce waste at source, NEA has collaborated with the food and beverage industry on the voluntary Singapore Packaging Agreement since July 2007. This Agreement demonstrates that environmentally friendly practices make sound business sense – the participating companies saved $4.4 million from a reduction of 2,500 tons of packaging waste over the last two years. For example, F&N Coca-Cola you see on the screen shortened the neck closure and reduced the weight of their plastic bottles, saving about 200 tonnes of materials a year. Tetra Pak Jurong introduced a process to recover and reuse waste plastic packaging materials, saving about 380 tonnes of packaging a year. Following the extension of the Agreement to cover all types of product packaging since October 2009, we can expect to see avoided waste and reduced packaging in other sectors as well. Sir, Mr Low Thia Khiang asked how we are developing the recycling industry. Since 1995, land has been set aside for the recycling industry at the Sarimbun Recycling Park (SRP).”
“I suggest the Government consider setting up a recycle "Collection Hub" perhaps at Lorong Halus. By better tapping on the SMEs other than just the Public Waste Collectors, the many hands approach can improve recycling outreach to help improve the overall recycling rate. Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: Mr Chairman, I thank the three speakers. Let me start with recycling and waste minimisation. Our overall recycling rate has increased from 40% in 2000 to 57% in 2009 and we are on track to meet the target of 60% by 2012. We are studying how we can enhance the effectiveness of our existing recycling efforts. For instance, there is scope to reduce the amount of domestic waste disposed and we are working with the public waste collectors to review the National Recycling Programme. This includes studying the provision of more recycling bins in HDB estates and the collection and recycling of other waste streams such as garden waste from landed homes and food waste from markets. Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked about reducing plastic bag usage. Sir, we limit the environmental impact of disused plastic bags by incinerating them in our waste-to-energy incineration plants, rather than landfilling them. Many households also re-use plastic bags to bag their refuse. The focus of efforts like the "Bring Your Own Bag Day" was launched by the Singapore Environment Council (SEC) in April 2007 is therefore to discourage the excessive use of plastic bags via public education, and to foster a more conservation-oriented mindset. I understand that close to 300 retail outlets now participate in this effort. And I think this is encouraging.”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, the Singapore Sustainable Development Blueprint sets an overall recycling target of 70% by 2030, the overall recycling rate in 2008 is at 53%. NEA's major initiatives like National Recycling Programme is to have the recycled material collected by the four licensed Public Waste Collectors. However, the "Karung Guni " trade, which also collects the bulk of recycled material from households, seems to be forgotten in such initiatives. Small "Karung Guni" are usually OMO and send their collections to SME waste collection companies, known as the bigger "Karung Guni ". If the collection company is too far away, it will not be cost effective for the small players. These recycled material collection companies need a more centralised location to perform collection and sorting. I understand that approved land and industrial property for such trades are in short supply. I know some companies currently at Defu Lane in Hougang are asked to vacate the premises. To move out of convenient locations like this means almost certain death for the trade and many will become unemployed. The current land approved for the recycling industry are at remote areas like Tuas and Sarimbun Recycling Park. These areas are too far and more meant for factories processing the recycled material into useable form. Next, it seems that there is no holistic approach from various Government agencies such as NEA, PUB, HDB, etc, on the guideline to regulate the recycle collection industry. While NEA issues licence to the company, PUB will have another set of requirement due to concern of water pollution. Although these companies are prepared to invest to meet the required environmental standard, the uncertainty of land use makes it difficult for them to commit such an investment.”
“If not, are there plans to invite successful business founders or venture capitalists from places like the Silicon Valley to provide sound advice to these start-ups and evaluate their business plans? Shared resources”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, the ESC and the Budget seem to focus heavily on helping companies which are already successful to become globally competitive companies. In its drive to identify and assist these promising medium-sized companies, has the Government forgotten about local small businesses like sundry shops and car workshops? Would such small enterprises have a place in the new economic landscape, or will they be crowded out or gobbled up by bigger fish? What is the Government doing to help local small businesses, especially those in sunset industries, to become more competitive and viable in the new economy? Secondly, is the Government providing the right environment and support for entrepreneurship to flourish in Singapore? We must not lose the spirit of enterprise in Singapore, keeping in mind that many global companies today started from very humble beginnings. Last year, a survey of 2,300 students from local universities and polytechnics found that less than two in 10 of them considered starting their own businesses after graduating, compared to almost seven in 10 who planned to take up salaried jobs. Is the Minister concerned that so few of our brightest students aspire to be entrepreneurs? Are our schools helping their students to develop more of the traits necessary to be successful entrepreneurs? For example, risk-taking, initiative and agility. I understand that SPRING Singapore has a number of schemes that provide funding to start-ups. Can the Minister provide an update on how effective these schemes have been in nurturing successful entrepreneurs? While financing is important, access to good mentors is equally key to help these entrepreneurs succeed. Are there sufficient experienced mentors available to advise our entrepreneurs?”
“Sir, I want to clarify. For hawker centres and wet markets, will the Government consider direct development, instead of tendering out the land for private developers to develop? Secondly, I would like to ask whether the Government is concerned with the competitive bidding system of tendering out the land. It will, in time to come, jack up the price of food at the hawker centres and wet markets as well.”
“Today, I want to highlight the plight of the residents in my constituency living in blocks 858 to 864 in Nee Soon South who are confronted with hindrances as soon as they step out of their homes. Yes, these seven blocks are linked to one another. However, they are separated by a temple and a petrol kiosk. And hence, while they enjoy the convenience of living near amenities like the Khatib MRT station, coffeeshops and NTUC Fairprice, there are no shelter linkways from their flats to these amenities. This makes walking difficult for them, especially when it rains. I brought up this issue in Parliament at last year's COS and the Minister told me then that there were such things as umbrellas. Yes, there are such things as umbrellas but it does not mean that when we need them, we have them. Not only the old but also the young who come back from schools and from the MRT stations get caught in the rain. May I ask the Minister to reconsider allocating some funds to construct linkways from the above mentioned blocks to the nearest HDB block – I am not asking to link to the MRT station – so that they can walk home even in the rain. Let us link them with the heart.”
“Essentially, youths feel disconnected to these centres and hope that it can be remade to enhance its relevance in connecting the generations who live there, as well as provide a space for them to be engaged at their neighbourhood. Other Singaporeans feel that the retail space provided at few of these neighbourhood centres far exceeds the demand of the residents today, thus, resulting in vacant retail shops, which sometimes results in below optimal and inappropriate uses. There are also arguments which direct the problem to the shopowners who are not able to keep up with the changes in the expectation of the shoppers. Residents are surprised to observe that a few of these shopowners are operating the same way they used to operate a few decades ago. I am aware that that there have been some improvement and restructuring works at some of these traditional neighbourhood centres. However, there are still others which are grappling to survive in this changing retail climate. Therefore, I would like to call for an urgent need for a re-look at the relevance of these centres in our society today. I feel that these centres do not reflect the highest and best use of the sites, thus, not resulting in an optimal use of space in our land scarce city-state. Finally, we need to refine the current ownership and management structures to ensure its continuous relevance in today's fast changing world. Linkway Er Lee Bee Wah: Sir, many of you may be surprised that I am speaking on this topic – "linkway." I know that linkway is a common structure linking one HDB block to another. However, not every resident enjoys the comfort of a linkway.”
“The Government should continue the practice of building markets and cooked food centres at new locations for NEA to operate to ensure Singapore remains a liveable and at the same time affordable city. Future of HDB neighbourhood shops Assoc. Prof. Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, since the 1970s, the developments of our first few satellite towns witnessed the emergence of planned retail facilities in new towns which aimed to provide residents with self-sufficient daily and essential needs. Many Singaporeans saw the developments of traditional HDB Neighbourhood Centres in housing estates, such as Toa Payoh, Queenstown, Ang Mo Kio, Bedok and Clementi. These centres were the shopping haven and meeting points of our residents in the 1970s, 1980s and possibly in 1990s. Today, with better connections via an efficient transport system, the attraction of newer, bigger and up-to-date retail centres which are easily accessible by public and private transport are likely to dominate the shoppers' choice of retail destinations. Shoppers may give their shops at the neighbourhood centre a miss for other retail centres which are able to provide a large variety of goods and services, as well as a more entertaining shopping experience. In addition, quite a number of the housing estates which these neighbourhood centres are located have seen a change in the demographic structure of the residents, which implies the change in the purchasing power and shopping patterns of the residents. Knowing that I will be making this cut, I made a conscious effort to gather feedback relating to this issue.”
“Sir, the Economic Strategies Committee (ESC) calls for "bold steps to enhance land activity, so as to gain the greatest economic benefits from land", but in land scarce Singapore, we cannot use land solely for economic benefits. We should guard against looking at all available resources from the economic benefit perspective. We must not forget the ultimate aim of any economic benefit derived from our policies will only be meaningful if the outcome is a better society with happier citizens. Land is needed to provide for necessary social activities that carry low or no economic value. It provides community space for social interaction. One such example is wet markets and hawker centres. Hawker centres have become a feature of Singapore and provided fairly inexpensive food for the people due to the relatively low rental. If we apply the principle of maximising economic benefit from the land occupied by hawker centres and wet markets, these iconic features of Singapore would become supermarkets and food courts in no time. The current trend of the Government to release land for tender by private developers to build and operate markets and hawker centres is worrying. When private developers bid for the land for wet markets and hawker centres, they are out to maximise profits. In a competitive bidding exercise, especially during times of economic growth, private developers compete against one another to secure the tender. The highest bidder who is successful would need to recover their investments and recoup their returns through higher rentals charged to individual stall lessees. In the end, these high rentals tend to translate into higher prices which consumer would have to pay for their cooked food and market produce.”
“Sir, how can we aspire to be a first world country with a world class public housing programme if we have homeless citizens camped out in public parks? Lease Buyback Scheme”