Raymond Lim Siang Keat
Singapore
“Mr Chairman, Sir, we launched a slew of measures over the past three years to effect a major transformation to our land transport system. These cover not just big projects like our $60 billion investment to double our rail network but also smaller and equally important things like bus route information at every bus stop and parking guidan…”
“I think the better approach to help Singaporeans cope with the cost-of-living pressures is that which has been outlined by the Finance Minister. That is, instead of trying to bring specific costs down, it is better to give help on the income front.”
“From the experiences of these ongoing public education initiatives, CFC is in the midst of developing a set of guidelines on proper cycling behaviour on dedicated cycling paths. Apart from these efforts, TP has been giving customised talks in schools and at community-level events to provide tips on safe cycling.”
“Er Lee Bee Wah: Sir, I would like to thank the Minister for the comprehensive answer. I have four supplementary questions. Since the announcement of the NSE, I have been receiving overwhelming feedback from my residents from three condominium developments.”
“The Member's second question refers to the noise mitigation measures. LTA actually has considerable experience in doing these. This is not the first time that LTA, because of the compact nature of Singapore, has had to build a major road in close proximity to residential areas.”
“Yes, on a weekly basis. The second question is how much have been claimed to date. We started this on 18th December 2010. As at the end of last year 28th December, we have a total of about 169,000 transactions. We have refunded about $46,000. There was $300,000 overcharged and $46,000 refunded.”
The complete record
Every one of 704 lines we hold for Raymond Lim Siang Keat, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 14 of 15.
“If Mr Chiam could give specific examples, we will look into it. But as a matter of principle, when it comes to building an entrepreneurial society for business people to operate, there should be a level playing field.”
“The Economist magazine has long credited us with inventing the MNC export-led model of economic development. This allowed us a headstart in accelerating our industrialisation and linked us rapidly to first-world technologies, expertise and markets. Many developing countries had earlier rejected this strategy as a new form of colonialism but they had since assiduously followed us. Of course, there are always many reasons why we think we cannot do certain things because we do not have the size. But that by itself may be the spur to creativity, to force us to think beyond our current circumstances and leverage our advantages in a different way. That was and I believe still is the spirit that characterises us as a people. We have it in us not just to ride the current difficulties but to build a better future for our children and ourselves. As William Jennings Bryan put it, "Destiny is not a matter of chance. It is a matter of choice. It is not a thing to be waited for, for it is a thing to be achieved."”
“When the analyst was asked whether there was any area of strength that he could see Singapore developing to get out of what he saw as a secular decline, he replied, "I cannot think of any." He had just been to China and was spooked by this vast and rapidly, emerging economy. Mr Speaker, Sir, if this is so, we might as well fold up the tent and give up. But this is nonsense. Yes, China poses serious challenges to not just Singapore but the region. But as any first year student of international trade will tell you, even if China has an absolute advantage in everything, it will still buy from Singapore, as what matters is the comparative rather than absolute advantage of the two countries in the goods and services that they produce. In other words, there are opportunities. It is what we make of them. That he cannot see any future for Singapore is not that there is none, but a failure of his imagination. Thus, we should not feel handicapped by our lack of land mass and natural resources. Countries like Japan and the Nordic states have turned their national constraints into enduring strengths. To illustrate, the lack of living and working space has driven Japan to the frontier of technology in miniaturisation. Similarly, the difficult terrain in the Nordic countries has spurred them to develop great strengths in communications and power transmission. In a knowledge-based economy, it is sometimes not nature's endowment, but nature's deprivation that drives an economy's competencies and comparative advantages. For Singapore, we have never accepted that size is destiny. We are one of the world's leading trading nations despite having a very small population. We are a major petrochemical hub despite having no oil of our own.”
“However, it is not how well we plan that will determine whether we reach this destination. But how we adapt and adjust as circumstances change that will decide our future. And in this, one of our greatest strengths as a Government and a people has been that we are perpetual worriers, never complacent. This manifests itself in a willingness to anticipate and face problems squarely, take difficult decisions and a pervading sense of urgency that there is no permanent advantage in whatever we do in a rapidly changing environment. The year-long ERC process is a testament to this and it underlines that we are not wedded to our past successes and are open to views and fresh ideas from outside the public sector. It was not a public relations exercise but a serious attempt at remaking the Singapore economy. In the EISC that Mr Inderjit Singh sat on, many of the key recommendations, such as the Yellow Pages rule and mandatory periodic review of rules, have been accepted and implemented. In fact, in the area of greater access to finance for SMEs, MTI is looking towards how best to implement the recommendations of a committee chaired by Mr Singh. We thank him for his initiative. It also underscores the seriousness of purpose on the Government's part. Confidence is key to our continued economic growth. Members may want to bear that in mind. Because of the trust reposed on them as Members of this House, what they say will have a bearing on the confidence of Singaporeans. May I suggest that this trust be discharged, in what Mr Yeo Guat Kwang said in the Straits Times today, by the exercise of leadership to give hope rather than to accentuate the anxieties of Singaporeans at this difficult time. Recently, I read a very bearish view on Singapore.”
“Because only when people work for it, is it clear that they really believe in it, and that they are really committed to make it successful. That, which is given free, is seldom valued in life. This is why I think it is important that for most of our Government financing schemes that, whenever possible, there should be some form of market validation before funds are disbursed as the bureaucrats running them are often in no position to evaluate the viability of the business propositions. The people, who criticised this view, often tell me in the same breath that bureaucrats have no idea about business and that they are the best people when it comes to giving out money to business. The point worth emphasising here is that the role of Government in promoting entrepreneurship is not to ensure that entrepreneurs are successful but to create the conditions that enable them to be successful. This is a crucial difference that must be borne in mind. Mr Speaker, Sir, this then is the roadmap towards a more entrepreneurial society. We will know when we have succeeded when Singaporeans increasingly look to the market rather than the Government in making their decisions. However, there are no silver bullets here. This may discomfit some Singaporeans who are used to "instant trees". In fact, critics of the ERC have been disappointed that there have been no dramatic magic formula unveiled in its Report to ease the anxieties in the economy. Yet, there is much in the Report that gives us hope for a better future. At its core is a transformational vision of the economy - of a people intimately connected to a wider world, infused with the spirit of enterprise and where abilities and talents are recognised, celebrated and rewarded. These, in essence, are our ambitions for Singapore.”
“Whether they become entrepreneurs or not, will depend on their own choices, but we would have done our part by widening their career horizons. Besides culture, cutting red-tape, and better access to finance are also important enabling conditions for enterprise development. We need to aggressively cut red-tape. It may be one licence requirement for one agency but, when we add them all up, we may have death by a thousand cuts. This was why the EISC had suggested that rules and regulations be date-stamped. Having sunset clauses will ensure that there is a mandatory periodic review of regulations to ensure their relevance. We are glad that the Government has accepted the spirit of this recommendation by mandating a thorough house-cleaning of rules and regulations of all Ministries every five years. In the meantime, if there are any rules and regulations that are stifling businesses, entrepreneurs can and should bring this up to the Pro-Enterprise Panel. Access to capital is another area, which is often cited by entrepreneurs as key not just to starting a business but for it to grow. We want as many modes as possible, so that there is a market for the commercialisation of ideas. But here the entrepreneurs also tell me that we should not throw money at the problem. I have had quite a number of suggestions that recommend that the Government give money freely to Singaporeans who want to start a business. It is like having an ATM machine in which when you key in the word "entrepreneurs", out comes a stash of money. These successful businessmen tell me that we should not do the work for entrepreneurs. Yes, a spectrum of risk capital is vital for entrepreneurship and we want to promote and develop that to support them. However, they stressed that people must work for this.”
“It also means that the Government would need to gradually scale back its role in the lives of Singaporeans to allow greater room for entrepreneurship to develop. I say "gradually" as this has to be well-calibrated, so that even as Singaporeans have greater freedom, the corresponding greater responsibility that comes with it is done without upsetting the social cohesion that is underpinned by the safety nets in our society. Finally, to make this cultural shift to a more entrepreneurial society, our education system is vital. In this, things are underway, and our schools are seeking to create a more open, innovative and creative learning culture. Some schools have also introduced programmes to expose their students to the world of business and entrepreneurship. The ERC sub-committee on Entrepreneurship and Internationalisation (EISC) that I chair had suggested that we take it further by making it compulsory that every child be asked to do a business project, in the same way that they do science projects in schools. The aim here is not, as some critics have said, that the Government is trying to fix this problem by teaching "entrepreneurship", much in the same way that if we need more engineers, we simply produce more. Instead, it is to imbue in our young a different worldview. It is not a world where everything must have its place and nothing left to chance. In such a world, there can be little out-of-the-box thinking. Nor is it a world where we wipe off every speck of dust and, in the process, we may well be getting rid of stardust as well. Rather, we want our young to grow up in a world where they are comfortable with diversity and where their opportunities are limited not by the prevailing wisdom and strictures of the day, but by the extent of their imagination.”
“Some Silicon Valley types might be dismissive of any role for the Government, but the fact is that one of the key reasons for the Valley's success has been the huge federal defence spendings in the high-tech sector. The Government, as customer, as against being a direct player in the market, is one of the most important roles that it can play to promote entrepreneurship. The Government should outsource its requirements whenever the market can provide them, rather than produce them in-house. By doing so, it creates new opportunities for entrepreneurs and space for innovation. This is the basis of the ERC Yellow Pages rule, which the Government has accepted. It is one of the most far-reaching of the ERC recommendations, as it envisions a world where the boundary between the State and the market shifts in favour of the market. Its criticality lies in the fact that, by giving institutional expression to a market-driven public policy stance, it will change the way in which bureaucrats interact with private players in the economic sphere. Consequently, just as the Government wants Singaporeans to be risk-takers, it should set an example by being willing not just to oursource its requirements, but to take a chance by accepting innovative solutions from private firms. The impact of the Government on the operating culture cannot be over-emphasised, as its interactions with Singaporeans affect the way in which people behave. This was why I had argued that to shift mindsets, which is our paramount challenge, the Government should set its default key at "Yes" rather than "No" in its dealings with business. If we want Singaporeans to reach for a new frontier, to establish leadership in unknown future markets, then regulating them by what is known is not the way to go.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, since the Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister announced my appointment as Minister of State in charge of entrepreneurship, I have been inundated with emails from the public. There have been many suggestions on what needs to be done to further the cause of entrepreneurship in Singapore. I will take these and those that are being raised in this House in the course of this debate into serious consideration. Some of these I will answer in the Committee of Supply, and others I may need to get back to Members later, as it may require further thought on my part. But whatever it is, I see this sudden deluge of advice as a big positive, as it means that there is an increasing constituency in our society to embrace an entrepreneurial, go-getting culture, where opportunities are seized and risks taken to create something different in whatever we do. In fact, some email writers, after sending me one advice after another, told me that, for a suitable fee, this arrangement could be made permanent! So, I think that there are good grounds for hope that we will indeed successfully foster an entrepreneurial society. But let us be clear right from the outset that we are not here trying to manufacture entrepreneurs - that, I think, is not possible - but rather to create the enabling conditions for entrepreneurs to emerge and grow. This is an important role for the Government to play, and this is not, as some had suggested, unique to Singapore, the so-called "nanny state", but undertaken actively by many others, including the United States, Ireland and Taiwan.”
“Without the Bill, these companies may find it difficult, as the supplier countries may be concerned that the shared technologies may inadvertently fall into the wrong hands. The Bill, therefore, contributes, rather than detracts, from the competitiveness of our defence and technology companies. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Raymond Lim Siang Keat]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.”
“My Ministry is mindful that any export control regime would impose some costs to businesses. What we have decided to do is to take a practical approach. There is no point in afflicting upon ourselves an onerous system, if it is not effective. It neither benefits Singapore, nor the international community. Indeed the goal of enhancing our security would be severely undermined if shippers were put off by our strict controls and chose to divert their cargoes to ports with weaker control systems. Therefore, the key lies in establishing an effective system at a reasonable cost. To achieve this, we are building on the strengths of our current system. First, we will tap on our already highly efficient TradeNet system to process applications for controlled goods. This electronic submission process will ensure that traders continue to enjoy the expeditious processing of the permits as before. Second, we are enhancing our intelligence gathering capabilities. With its risk-profiling mechanism and provisions for intelligence sharing, the proposed export control regime will ensure that the efficient and smooth operation of the port will not be compromised. Third, the list of controlled items has been carefully scrutinised to ensure that the level of regulation is not more onerous than what is necessary to achieve our policy objective. The result is a control list that is not excessively long. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to make a final point here that beyond this limited cost, there are also benefits to Singapore. One is that it enhances the reputation of Singapore as a secure international trading hub. Two, it would actually help our defence technology and software companies by facilitating their access to technologies in developed economies.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank Mr Leong for his helpful comments and for his support of the Bill. I think we need to put this Bill in perspective. It does not deal solely with security issues in isolation, but the security aspects of a particular category of international trade - strategic goods. In so far as it impinges on international trade of goods and services, the economic considerations in the implementation of this Bill are just as important. This is of course what the second part of Mr Leong's question relates to. So we need to see which is the best agency, the most appropriate ministry, in striking this balance between our economic and security interests. We studied what had been the practice in other jurisdictions that have export controls. In the United States and in Hong Kong, they are vested in economic agencies. We have decided, after careful consideration, that we will vest this in the Ministry of Trade and Industry, and that the national authority for the administration of export control scheme should be IE Singapore. As the national authority, IE Singapore would be the main point of contact for the proposed export controls scheme. But it would coordinate with the other relevant agencies, including the security agencies. It would coordinate with the Customs and Excise Department, with the Police and the DSTA Technical Advisory Office. The second part of Mr Leong's question is just as important. He asked what are the economic and business implications of having an export control regime scheme. This concern, which he raised, applies not just to defence software technology companies, but to all businesses in Singapore that deal with the movement or trade of goods and services.”
“We also want to engender a greater sense of familiarity and instil confidence so that the affected industries can adjust and ease into the changes as soon as possible. We have launched a website to provide detailed information. Prior to actual implementation, we will also conduct trial runs of the enhanced TradeNet system. Mr Speaker, Sir, we cannot take peace for granted. The recent attacks in Bali are fresh reminders of how fragile peace and security can be. The proliferation of dangerous weapons threatens all countries. We need greater international cooperation to safeguard our local security. The proposed Bill strengthens Singapore as a strong link in the global chain of anti-terrorism and non-proliferation measures. It will also serve to safeguard the reputation and integrity of Singapore's status as a major international shipping hub. By securing our trading channels, our cargoes can clear our partners' ports faster. We would also generate greater confidence in our system, and secure greater access to high-tech equipment and technology from more advanced economies. The enhanced controls are in our national, economic and security interests. The proposed Bill is both timely and necessary. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in drafting the Bill, the Ministry is very conscious that we must minimise the potential impact on businesses. Hence, over the last two years, we have conducted extensive consultations with several hundred companies representing the key industries that may be potentially affected by the proposed controls. Our industry has expressed understanding and support for the need for such enhanced security. But they ask that we implement these measures in a cost-effective and sensible way, and not erode the efficiency of our transportation and logistics infrastructure. Otherwise, our competitiveness will suffer. Sir, let me assure the House that we have taken, therefore, all necessary steps to address their concerns. Let me elaborate. First, the permit application procedures will be simple, convenient and business-friendly. We have upgraded the TradeNet system to accept all permit applications. We will process all applications electronically. This will reduce processing time and allow for permits to be granted more expeditiously. Second, we will not impose any additional charges for these permit applications. Third, ground enforcement will be largely based on intelligence and risk profiling. This ensures that cargo flows will not be impeded by unnecessary checks. Our risk profiling system will be similar to those adopted by key ports, such as Rotterdam and Hong Kong. As our risk-profiling databases develop over time, the accuracy and speed with which high-risk cargoes are identified will increase. This will allow legitimate traders to enjoy even swifter clearances. Finally, our outreach programme is currently ongoing. We want to allay any concerns that may be generated by these proposed controls.”
“Second, beyond the control of physical goods, we will also regulate the electronic transmissions of military, encryption and WMD end-use technology. This feature recognises the realities of the information-communications age where the most sensitive part of a product may lie in its software. The provision deters all irresponsible handling as well as illicit transfers that may potentially undermine our security and defence interests. Third, we will also regulate all brokering activities directly related to WMD and offensive categories of conventional arms, such as small arms and light weapons. The controls apply to all Singapore entities regardless of whether the goods were physically transferred through Singapore. We want to send a strong signal that we do not condone the conduct of any such clandestine activity within our territories. Fourth, to ensure the continued relevance of our enhanced controls to evolving technologies and weapons development programmes, we have incorporated a blanket control, or `catch-all' on all goods that are likely to be used for WMD purposes. This ensures that even where the item does not fall on the control list, it will still be subject to the controls under this Bill. Fifth, we have proposed stiff penalties for non-compliance. The penalties of a maximum $100,000 fine or 3 times the value of the goods, and/or 2 years' jail for first offenders, and a maximum $200,000 fine or 4 times the value of the goods, and/or 3 years' jail for subsequent offenders, are in line with the Regulation of Imports and Exports Act. On a case by case basis, we will be prepared to compound minor offences. Let me turn now to an important issue - addressing business concerns.”
“These recent developments lent greater impetus to our efforts to take proactive measures. Singapore will be the first country in Southeast Asia to enhance our controls on strategic goods. This is a strong deterrent measure to prevent rogue traders from using Singapore to conduct illicit activities. This is also a pre-emptive measure to tighten our domestic security. It will also contribute to enhanced regional security. A volatile and insecure neighbourhood undermines investor confidence. This will have an adverse impact on our regional stability and will dampen our prospects for growth. Apart from enhancing our security, our export control system can become a source of competitive advantage for our industries. With a robust and credible system in place, our trading partners will have greater confidence in granting us access to their high-end technology and equipment because they know that any shared technologies will remain in safe hands. Mr Speaker, Sir, let me now turn to the salient features of the Bill. First, we will require all traders to apply for a permit before they are allowed to export, tranship or bring into transit strategic goods as listed in the Schedule to the Bill. The list comprises about 600 items by broad categories. It includes munitions, chemical and biological items, as well as nuclear-related materials and equipment. These have been carefully selected mainly for their direct military and nuclear applications, as well as their dual-use nature (ie, they are items which can be used for both military and civilian purposes). In drawing up the list of goods under control, we have also referred to practices of other reputable export control regimes in the US, EU, Japan and Hong Kong.”
“Their use makes clear that the threat and risk are real and not just hypothetical. Global trade is growing, and the conduits which carry these huge global flows of goods have been exploited by rogue traders to smuggle a variety of weapons, including those of mass destruction. The methods used by them to illicitly divert sensitive strategic goods to proscribed entities have also become more sophisticated. There is growing international concern in recent years that such sensitive goods and weapons could fall into the hands of terrorists. No country alone can tackle this problem. Nor can any country isolate herself from the dangers of the proliferation of such weapons and components. More than ever before, countries need to work in close partnership to build a tight, effective and efficient system of controls. As a major trading and logistics centre, Singapore may be used as a potential conduit for such illicit activities. It is in our interest to enhance security of our ports' operations and to step up vigilance. It is also our responsibility, as a member of the international community, to play our part in building an effective global system. This Bill represents a comprehensive effort by Singapore to plug into international efforts to curb the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Work on the proposed Bill began more than two and a half years ago, as we had assessed that proactive, preventive actions were necessary. This was well before the world was shaken by the September 11 attacks. The September 11 attacks brought to the fore the urgency of dealing with terrorists threats. In recent months, we arrested a total of 36 members of the Jemaah Islamiyah network. These members were plotting to attack strategic locations in Singapore.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill puts in place an enhanced system to regulate trade in strategic goods. In broad terms, strategic goods comprise munitions and sensitive dual use items, as well as goods used for the development or production of weapons of mass destruction. Singapore supports the global efforts to curb the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and has always maintained high standards in controlling trade in strategic goods. Since the 1970s, we have been state parties to the Biological Weapons Convention (1975) and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (1976). In recent years, we have ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. This Bill strengthens existing controls to keep pace with recent international developments. What is the imperative for the Strategic Goods (Control) Bill? Mr Speaker, Sir, let me elaborate. Rapid globalisation and technological advancements have spurred economic growth, and stimulated much greater cross border flow of goods and people. But these same forces driving global growth have also thrown up new security challenges. Technological advances have spawned a range of highly advanced products. Properly deployed for civilian use, these can improve productivity and promote new industries. But some of these products and technology can also be deployed for building deadly weapons. There is also the risk of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons falling into the wrong hands. History has provided us with cases on the use of sarin gas and anthrax, and they are a sobering confirmation of the physical and psychological damage that such chemical and biological weapons can cause.”
“In an editorial on 23rd October 2002 entitled "Thank You", the paper extended, and I quote, "deepest gratitude for what Singaporeans have done for Indonesians, on a voluntary basis". As this latest tragedy in Bali - for the victims of all nationalities - has shown, it is not always the Government that has to initiate voluntary aid missions abroad. Singaporeans will spontaneously give generously of their time, expertise and money when there are others in need. Their voluntary efforts have helped to further strengthen the good people-to-people ties between the two countries. C AND B2 CLASSES IN PRIVATE HOSPITALS 18. Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong asked the Minister for Health if his Ministry will accept the private hospitals' offer to treat subsidised C class and B2 class patients.”
“Sir, the Singapore Government did offer assistance to the Indonesian Government following the tragic events in Bali. Our Ambassador in Jakarta did approach both the Indonesian Co-ordinating Minister for Social Welfare Yusuf Kalla and Foreign Minister Hassan Wirajuda to make these offers. The Indonesian leaders expressed appreciation for our offer but replied that the situation was under control. Let me add that, working closely with our Embassy in Jakarta, the Singapore Association in Indonesia (SAI) and the Singapore Women's Group (SWG) raised Rp 163 million (S$32,000) at its annual Charity Ball for the hospitals in Bali that have worked tirelessly on the ground to treat the victims. The guest at the ball was Her Excellency Ibu Herawati, wife of Foreign Minister Hassan Wirajuda, and she helped raise a significant portion of the proceeds for the Bali victims by her own impromptu song performance. Furthermore, Singaporeans spontaneously found ways to extend help to those in need. Gleneagles Hospital sent a five-member medical team to Bali to offer medical assistance and supplies. The team treated 30 Indonesian patients, including 20 burn victims, during their stay in Bali. This team was replaced by a six-member medical relief team from Singapore Red Cross. Other Singaporeans also chipped in to raise funds. As you would have read in the Straits Times, a Bali-based Singaporean couple Shaharin Abas Koh and Joyce Tan collected over S$3,000 for the Bali victims by sending out e-mail messages and SMS messages to friends and relatives. The efforts of these Singaporeans were recognised last week by the Jakarta Post, an Indonesian newspaper.”
“The Senior Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam) (for the Minister for Trade and Industry): Mr Speaker, could I have your permission to take Question Nos. 4, 5 and 6 together as they are related?”
“As I said, they have taken note of our concern. What is important is for us to continue to press our concerns and to make it public that we think their assessment of the security situation in Singapore is unwarranted. I think there are two metrics here in which we can assess the security situation in a country. One is whether or not the security agencies are on top of it. And in our case, we believe that our security agencies have severely disrupted the JI network in Singapore. The other metric is the extent of the resident terrorist asset in Singapore, whether it is high or whether it is low, and this is related to the first metric. Our security agencies are effective and they have severely disrupted and crippled the terrorist network. And I would think that it is much safer than in a place which has not done so. SINGAPORE ECONOMY (Status and outlook) 4. Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan asked the Minister for Trade and Industry on the Ministry's assessment of (I) the impact of the Bali bomb blast on South-east Asian economies in general and the Singapore economy in particular; and (ii) the outlook for the Singapore economy in the next six to twelve months. 5. Mr Leong Horn Kee asked the Minister for Trade and Industry, in view of the weak flash estimates of the gross domestic product (GDP) figures for the third quarter, whether he will give an update on the status and outlook of the Singapore economy and what measures are being undertaken or considered to stimulate the economy. 6. Mdm Halimah Yacob asked the Minister for Trade and Industry what is the Ministry's projection of the economic outlook for the fourth quarter of this year as well as for next year.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in terms of the economic impact, I will leave it to Senior Minister of State Tharman as he will be answering after this and he will go into greater detail. The short answer is that it is unhelpful. It creates greater uncertainty in the region. I think the war against terrorism is one that should be fought not just through guns but through butter. And it is important that one does not over-react and be alarmist about it, because it erodes confidence in the region. What is critical for the economy is confidence. And having an alarmist assessment of the security situation in this part of the world is, as I said, unhelpful.”
“Though the evidence may be slight when it comes to whether privatisation alone makes a difference to GLCs' performance, it is unambiguous that a comprehensive strategy of divestiture, competition, hard budgets and commitment, pursued as a whole, will help create the conditions necessary for growth and performance. Thus, to those who argue single-mindedly for a "Great GLC Sale", they may wish to note that "there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in their philosophy." 4.52 pm”
“It is in this context that we recommend that Temasek divests its non-strategic assets so that it can concentrate its resources in areas where it can make the most difference. However, the key, we believe, to pressure GLCs to perform is competition. It is telling that our two Government-owned world-beaters - SIA and CAAS - operate in a globally competitive environment since their inception. Hence, we started our report by recommending a competition law. Competition provides the incentives for individuals and companies to perform. It allows a benchmark to assess performance so that proper rewards and penalties can be instituted. But competition will only pressure GLCs if they face a hard budget constraint. This was why we argue that there should not be subsidies, privileges or other forms of soft capital that will enable them to compete without improving efficiency. A hard budget will also address the oft-repeated concerns of private firms that they face unfair competition from the GLCs. Now, competition and hard budgets will only work if there is a Government commitment that the GLCs are to be run strictly as commercial entities. This means that the Government must not interfere with the operations of the GLCs such as hiring and firing managers and workers and stopping money-losing services. Social and political goals that the Government might have should not be part of the objectives of the GLCs. These are the enabling conditions that the EISC felt would help enhance the performance of our GLCs.”
“This means that statutory boards should not set up enterprises when there are private sector players that are providing or able to provide the service. In fact, statutory boards should seize such opportunities to provide business to the private sector. It may well be that companies owned by statutory boards, with proper incentive structures, could provide the service as efficiently as the private sector but the issue is what should be the role of these boards. Our view is that if the market can provide it, then these Government bodies should concentrate on regulation and promotion of business activities rather than be in business themselves. Some have criticised this Yellow Pages rule on the ground that some of these statutory board-owned companies fulfill social goals. Like all rules, there can be exceptions to it but I would be slow to make them as even when there are social objectives, this can be written into the contract for the provision of these goods or services by the private producer. For example, take broadcasting. If it is deemed desirable that all television stations must have a news segment, this can be written as a condition of the licence. If additional public service broadcast programmes are deemed desirable, then rather than for the Singapore Broadcasting Authority to produce them, it can provide for them by paying the broadcasters to do these. This is, in fact, what the SBA is doing, rather than going into the business of public broadcasting itself. In the case of the GLCs, it does not make sense for the EISC to recommend that they abide by the Yellow Pages rule. As Mr Leong has said, the horse has already bolted from the stable.”
“We need look no further for evidence of this than in the corporate scandals that are now rocking Wall Street. Has there been, in recent times, any destruction of the public interest greater than that by the senior executives of Enron of their shareholders? Yet Enron was a company that was owned by private shareholders, not the US government. If we were tomorrow to divest completely the Government's stakes by issuing shares in GLCs to all Singaporeans, this will not lead to enhanced performance of these companies. People's capitalism, as some Eastern European countries had practised since the wall came down in Berlin, suffers from the fact that there are few shareholders with sufficient amounts invested in the companies so that they have a strong enough economic interest to ensure that the firm is well-managed. This was why the EISC did not recommend a "Great GLC Sale" as some had hoped. Privatisation may have the edge in raising efficiency but it is not a given and it raises the question as to who the GLCs should be sold to, so as to ensure direction and control. In any case, as Mr Inderjit Singh has said, the way we saw it, the central issue was the proper role of Government in business in this innovation-driven world. In the early post-independence years, the Government was the entrepreneur as it took entrepreneurial risk by investing in companies such as Singapore Airlines, Neptune Orient Lines and the shipyards. There was then a dearth of private capital to embark on these kinds of project. As both Mr Leong and Mr Singh have said, today, with well-developed markets, the case for direct Government involvement in business is much less compelling. This was the basis on which we recommended that statutory boards should adopt a Yellow Pages rule.”
“I have plowed through the literature and the bottom-line is that there is no conclusive finding that this is indeed the case. The World Bank commissioned a study which was released in 1995, "Bureaucrats in Business" and it said that in competitive markets, there was an edge to private ownership. "An edge", not a mountain of evidence that private ownership would indeed enhance efficiency in state-owned enterprises. Why is it not more decisive? The reason lies with the basis of the argument for privatisation. At its heart, the privatisation argument posits that private owners, unlike Government owners, have a greater economic incentive to maximise shareholder value, as they would benefit more directly from such actions. Unfortunately, this is not necessarily the case with large enterprises. Large enterprises - private or Government-owned - suffer from the same incentive problems. In a large private company, the separation of owners and control leads to substantial management autonomy that allows managers the discretion to act in their own rather than shareholders' interest. To begin with, there is a significant information asymmetry between the owners and the managers. The managers will be able to run circles round the shareholders as they have the information advantage. The acquisition of the requisite information incurs economic costs. This problem is then compounded by the fact that good management is a public good. If one shareholder acts, then all benefit. And in the nature of such a good, this free rider problem would negate the incentive for a small shareholder to monitor the firm's executives. To ignore information costs in an analysis of organisational behaviour is like having Hamlet without the Prince.”
“For instance, the argument here is that there is something inherent in Government ownership which causes state-owned enterprises to under-perform. Singapore Airlines is a company with substantial Government ownership but, as we all know, it is one of the best airlines in the world. Then, there is Changi Airport, which is wholly owned by the Government, but that has not stopped it from being consistently voted by business travellers as the best of the breed. Anecdotes often reflect the fashion of the times. When I was a student in the 1970s and 1980s, the prevailing school of thought then was that the state should play a leading role in the market. It was called "governing the market", and Japan and Korea were cited as stellar examples of this. Lester Thurow wrote a book "Head to Head" in which he predicted that unless America took a leaf out of Japan Inc's strategy book, it would be cleaned out by the Japanese in the global marketplace. That book topped the best-seller list and, for an economics book, that was really quite an achievement. Today, if we were to suggest this, we would be dismissed by derisive laughter. The fashion of the 1990s had been privatisation and market liberalisation. This Washington Consensus has led the IMF and the World Bank to urge developing countries to privatise rapidly, privatise even when critical complementary conditions are not present - competition, hard budgets and commitment. The result is not pretty. So, before we rush off and join the chorus that "Government ownership invariably leads to inefficiency, and private ownership is the way to raise the performance of the GLCs", we better ask ourselves what is the empirical evidence to support this policy recommendation.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have listened with great interest to the speakers before me. I guess nothing more wonderfully concentrates the mind than to have a Motion that debates the recommendations of a sub-committee in which the paternity ultimately lies with oneself. I would however like to thank but not implicate Mr Inderjit Singh for the work that he did as Chairman of the Focus Group on Government in Business. The EISC released the part of its report dealing with Government in Business on 30th May this year. The Temasek Charter took this into account. The full report of the EISC recommending ways to strengthen the spirit of entrepreneurship and innovation in Singapore and to foster the growth and internationalisation of Singapore-based companies will be released in September. Sir, I thought it would be useful to give Members some perspectives on the thinking that went into the EISC's recommendations. But, first, let me deal with one recommendation that was strongly urged on the sub-committee but which we did not adopt. This was to recommend a huge sell-off of the GLCs to the private sector, or what the press has dubbed a "Great GLC Sale". If we had done that, then we would have gone far enough and bold enough, I think, in their view. The principal case for rapid privatisation is that it will significantly improve the performance of the GLCs. To support this contention, its proponents often cite anecdotes of under-performing state-owned enterprises, rather than systematic studies. Anecdotes are, of course, better than nothing, but they are weak foundations to base economic policy prescriptions. The problem with anecdotes is that the contrary case can always be cited.”
“Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. SINGAPORE PRODUCTIVITY AND STANDARDS BOARD (AMENDMENT) BILL”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Andy Gan brought up two points, ie, in terms of capability development and cluster developments. I would address the first one, which is on capability development. IE Singapore would groom ISCs by offering customised assistance at each stage of the internationalisation process. IE Singapore has created a new department known as the Capability Development Group which will focus on the following areas. Firstly, building up companies' business capabilities. This is to support companies in developing market entry strategies, marketing techniques, appropriate product designs and manpower development programmes. Secondly, international partnership. To support the internationalisation of companies to successful partners, IE Singapore would create and facilitate on-line and off-line international networking platforms. IE Singapore would also encourage foreign enterprises to locate in Singapore for business partnerships with Singapore companies. Thirdly, helping companies to raise funds for overseas ventures and manage the financial risks. IE Singapore would provide programmes to raise awareness on various financing options and help companies develop financial strategies to venture abroad. On the clusters specifically, in terms of industry clusters, IE Singapore is currently focusing on the following six technology business: lifestyle business, infrastructure business, business services, international trading and trade logistics. I would stress however that this list is not exhaustive and will be periodically reviewed. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Raymond Lim Siang Keat].”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the proposed amendments to the TDB Act will allow IE Singapore to expand its work beyond trade promotion, and to focus on the three Cs - Competency, Connections and Capital needed by companies. IE Singapore will help companies build competencies in business processes like strategy and planning, international marketing, manpower development, financial management, as well as market information and analysis. IE Singapore will provide companies the business opportunities through its extensive network of international connections. It will also help companies gain access to a wider range of financing options for them to venture abroad. Through all these initiatives, IE Singapore aims to help many of our promising local companies become tomorrow's world-class champions, so that they can contribute to a strong and sustainable growth in the next phase of our economic development. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“However, as trading is the first step towards internationalisation, IE Singapore will continue to promote and develop the trade sector, including hub services like shipping, marketing and distribution. The amendments to the TDB Act thus reflect the new name, and the enlargement of the mandate, powers and functions of IE Singapore. Let me now move on to the key aspects of the Bill. Clause 5 of the Bill renames the Trade Development Board as the International Enterprise Singapore Board, and enables it to carry out its functions under the business name of "IE Singapore", or any other business name as the Minister may specify. This will give the Board the flexibility to change its business name as and when circumstances require, without having to change its legal name - International Enterprise Singapore Board. Clause 6 expands the functions and duties of IE Singapore. The new functions include: i) promoting or developing a business environment in Singapore that makes Singapore a preferred centre from which ISCs can create, develop or expand their business in foreign markets; ii) developing programmes and activities to assist ISCs to do so; and iii) fostering and developing business networks and linkages between ISCs and foreign businesses. Clause 7 empowers IE Singapore to collect, compile and analyse information or commission surveys, research or studies, relating to Singapore-based enterprises conducting business in foreign markets. It also allows IE Singapore to enter into memoranda of understanding and other similar arrangements with foreign partners. This will enable the Board to gather and share valuable information about overseas markets with the ISCs, which is crucial to aiding their expansion abroad.”
“In other words, our aim should be to develop a corps of enterprising, competitive International Singapore Companies (ISCs) who will have their home bases and core capabilities in Singapore, while expanding and establishing a strong presence in the region and beyond. To achieve this objective, TDB has been given a new mission to help Singapore-based companies grow and internationalise successfully. To reflect this new mission, it has been renamed International Enterprise Singapore or "IE Singapore", since 1st April 2002. IE Singapore is now the primary economic agency overseeing the growth of our external wing. It will help our local enterprises upgrade their capabilities to compete internationally, develop their access to marketing and distribution networks, and help them gain deep knowledge and intelligence about overseas markets. It will re-engineer its major activities, from offering basic-level market information to providing value-adding intelligence and capability development programmes; from organising broad-based programmes to providing customised help to enterprises; and from generating trade volume to strengthening enterprises' home bases in Singapore while they develop their overseas markets. IE Singapore has also taken over from SPRING Singapore the responsibility of helping our SMEs expand overseas. As part of this effort, it will promote Singapore as an SME-hub by attracting enterprises from the US, European Union, Japan and other countries to be based here, so that they can collaborate with Singapore's ISCs to venture into the region. These new functions go beyond the former TDB's traditional role in trade promotion.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Trade Development Board (TDB) was established in 1983, with the mission of promoting and developing Singapore's international trade. TDB fulfills its mission primarily through broad-based programmes, such as organising trade missions and fairs, and helping companies navigate through foreign bureaucracies via its overseas trade offices. Today, Singapore is the 16th largest trading nation in the world. Our exports have quadrupled from S$50 billion in 1985 to S$218 billion in 2001. Our external trade is three times the size of our GDP. We have successfully evolved from an entrepot base serving the region, to an international hub for trade and commerce. As Singapore embarks on a new phase of economic development, we can no longer rely solely on inward foreign investments to propel our economic growth. Many of our competitors have begun adopting the same strategies to attract investments, and they are fast narrowing the lead we enjoy. At the same time, we are encumbered by the tarnishing of Southeast Asia's image as an attractive investment destination, and its loss of investor mind-share to the economies of Northeast Asia. To overcome these challenges, we need to broaden and strengthen our base of local enterprises, to provide added ballast to our economy. We need to build vibrant and robust local companies which can serve as our additional engines of growth. In order to grow, our companies must venture overseas, given our small domestic market. We should therefore help them develop the capabilities, connections and access to capital that they need to spread their wings overseas.”
“Sir, the answer is yes, Power Supply has been conducting educational programmes to educate consumers on how best to use electricity. SCHOLASTIC ASSESSMENT TEST (SAT) (Criterion for admission into universities) 11. Mdm Ho Geok Choo asked the Minister for Education in view of the Ministry's proposal to use Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT) scores besides the traditional "A" level grades as an additional measure of eligibility for admission into the universities (a) what is the weightage being given to SAT scores relative to entry requirements, (b) what are the admission criteria of our local universities; and (c) what is the rationale for instituting SAT. 12. Mdm Ho Geok Choo asked the Minister for Education in light of the fact that several prominent American universities are doing away with SAT as a criterion for admission into their universities, has the Ministry (a) given second thought about the adoption of SAT as a measure of a student's potential and abilities, (b) obtained any information why these universities are doing away with SAT and (c) consider whether their concerns are also our concerns.”
“Sir, short answer to Dr Warren Lee is, yes, we will try to do more. We are already doing that. We have collaboration not just with governments but with institutions, such as the World Bank, ADB and the IMF. I think it would be useful here to draw Members' attention to what Dr Lee has alluded to, which is the long history of Singapore's technical assistance. We have, since its inception 10 years ago, trained more than 20,000 participants from 147 developing countries. Last year alone, we trained 4,187 participants from 113 countries. We should do more to publicise and profile what we have done because, if properly managed, this will help enhance a positive international image of Singapore and help us win friends abroad and, just as important, make Singaporeans proud of their country.”
“I think passionate entrepreneurs will not be deterred by the cost of failure. The worst downside to failure is generally the same in any country - bankruptcy. Whether in Singapore or any other country, a bankrupt is unlikely to afford a car or house. To make it easier for entrepreneurs to start afresh, this House has passed amendments to the Bankruptcy Act in 1999 to address some of these issues. How our society views risk-taking and failures, as both Dr John Chen and Mr Inderjit Singh said, will affect to some degree the quality of entrepreneurship but, ultimately, it is passion and conviction of entrepreneurs that will make the difference. Sir, in conclusion, may I make some remarks on remaking Singapore? Much has been made of the Remaking of Singapore Committees. Let me give my perspectives on this. There are no quick fixes here. I sense that some feel that we should wrap up quickly, have less discussions and debate, and come out with the magic formula, so that we can get on with it. Aladdin's lamps are as rare in Singapore as in Arabia. Remaking Singapore is a process. The Economic Review Committee and the Government are setting the strategic architecture to achieve our vision of an entrepreneurship and knowledge-driven economy with globally competitive manufacturing and service sectors. Debate and discussion are critical, so that our strategic intent is understood by all Singaporeans, without which we will fail. To intercept this future, I believe requires a process of successive approximations of what needs to be done, rather than a new detailed blueprint that is cast in stone. As the famous Spanish poet, Antonio Machado said: "Pilgrims, ask not where the road is. The road is made by walking."”
“I do not know whether entrepreneurs are made or born. But I do know that many attributes associated with entrepreneurs: the "dare to experiment", "dare to fail" spirit, can possibly be cultivated from young. So I agree with Mr Zainul Abidin, Mr Inderjit Singh and Mr Steve Chia's call for education in entrepreneurship in schools and at the community level. MOE has cut curriculum content by up to 30% in some subjects, to allow the schools and their students more time to question, explore and experiment. Several of our schools already have specific programmes to nurture in our pupils an enterprising spirit. Cooperative societies, which are recognised CCAs, have been formed in some schools. Some of our junior colleges have started Young Enterprise Clubs to develop and nurture future entrepreneurs. Schools on their own have collaborated with CDCs and business corporations to solicit grants to fund their various business projects. In March this year, Deputy Prime Minister Tony Tan launched Bizworld, a not-for-profit programme that brings real-world business experiences to children between Primary 5 and Secondary 2. It is a business simulation programme created by Tim Draper, the Managing Director and Co-Founder of Draper Fisher, to help students in the US learn about entrepreneurship. Its success has prompted DFJ to replicate the programme in Singapore. With the help of EDB, Bizworld was successfully introduced to Anglo-Chinese (Independent) School. Another 39 schools have signed up their teachers to be trained to teach this programme. We will do more to widen the access for the young and adults to entrepreneurship education. What I think, however, is hard to teach is the passion that Mr Inderjit Singh spoke about.”
“We have separated the competitive parts of the business, namely, power generation and retail, from the natural monopoly, which is the operation of the power grid. This was effected when the new Electricity Act was passed in this House in March last year. Since then, we have seven new players in retailing and two new firms in generation. The market rules to further improve the energy market are going into its final tests. As for the retail sector, we will liberalise that in stages. Since July 2001, we extended contestability from 100 large customers to 200. This means that for these 200 consumers, they can choose which retailer they want to purchase their energy from. An Energy Market Authority survey of some of these consumers revealed that 86% of them enjoyed lower electricity costs after the restructuring exercise. For example, in September last year, the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) managed to cut electricity cost by 30%. CAAS will pass these savings on to its tenants and private developers. By the middle of next year, we plan to extend contestability to another 10,500 large consumers. The rest of the consumers, totalling about a million household accounts, will be opened in phases, starting towards the end of 2003. Mr Gan Kim Yong suggested yesterday that the Government should defray part of the costs of companies going abroad. IE Singapore has certain schemes that help companies in skills upgrading and marketing for internationalisation. These schemes are rightly to help in capacity-building, rather than pure cost subsidies. In the larger scheme of things, however, the basic enabling business structure must be the general fiscal regime that has been enunciated in this Budget. A few Members have spoken about building an entrepreneurial culture.”
“By putting licence applications for starting a business online, we aim to reduce the number of such licences by 10% and average processing time from three weeks to 10 days by the middle of next year. Mr Inderjit Singh suggested also that we allow HDB shophouses to be used for technology start-ups. We agree. Since 1999, HDB has revised its rules to allow shopkeepers to use their shophouses for non-retail purposes, including as offices, showrooms and food shops. HDB went a step further to liberalise the use of the living quarters above the shops in March 2001. Now, shopkeepers can use or sublet the living quarters above shophouses for all commercial purposes. Mr Singh has also suggested that we make it easier to register as well as to shut down companies and streamline the procedures for maintaining a company. The Ministry of Finance set up the Company Legislation and Regulatory Framework Committee (CLRFC) in December 1999 to undertake a comprehensive review of our company law and regulatory framework. The Committee recognised the need to streamline and simplify incorporation and compliance requirements for small companies. It has just released its draft recommendations on 9th May 2002 for public comment. I urge Mr Singh and interested parties to give their feedback to the Committee on its recommendations. The draft report is available at the MOF website at www.mof.gov.sg. 2.15 pm Beyond rules and regulations, we should study ways to liberalise our markets to enlarge the private sector space. At the same time, it will ensure that our business costs are market-driven and competitive, which is a point made by Mr Leong Horn Kee and Mr Inderjit Singh. Mr Leong also asked for an update on energy deregulation. Much of this has been done.”
“Futuristic as Star Wars is, even Yoda, the sage in the series, could not foresee that an illegal clone of Episode II of Star Wars could be circulating over the Internet a week before its grand premiere. So at the Ministry, we say, may the force be with the creators of intellectual property. To bring that about, my Ministry is working with the Ministry of Law to review our intellectual property protection laws comprehensively to further strengthen our regime and encourage innovation. Many Members have spoken on rules. Rules provide business certainty and a transparent, corrupt-free environment. But we must be careful not to stifle creativity and innovation with unnecessary rules. Mr Inderjit Singh suggested that the Government streamline rules and regulations and to incorporate sunset clauses so that rules have expiry dates. The Entrepreneurship and International Sub-committee of the ERC, which Mr Inderjit Singh is a member, has proposed that there be a mandatory periodic review of rules by a high-powered Rules Review Panel comprising senior civil servants and private sector representatives. The matter is under consideration by the Government. Members, however, would be pleased to know that we already have a headstart in rules. As Mr Singh said, since September 2000, the Head of the civil service has been chairing a Pro-Enterprise Panel. Mr Singh has been a dedicated member of the Panel, bringing fresh perspectives and ideas for the review. Since its set-up, the Panel has received 344 suggestions, of which 145 have been accepted and 59 pending review. The Panel will continue to be proactive in cutting red tape. There is also the OASIS project under MTI and MOF, which stands for Online Application System for Integrated Services.”
“If they meet with MAS' regulations, SPRING can then accord them PFI status to allow them to offer loans to their SME partners or members with the Government bearing a portion of the risk which is currently 80:20. This will give SMEs a wider choice of loan providers with varying thresholds of risk. Mr Ong Kian Min made an important observation on innovation. He said that good business ideas need at some stage to be commercialised and how do we capture this. As Tharman mentioned earlier there are various assistance schemes to help not just technology but non-technology companies to actually expand their businesses. He gave the example of BreadTalk. Recently, A*STAR created "Exploit Technologies" to centrally manage the intellectual property created by research institutes and to facilitate the efficient transfer of technology to industry. Through this mechanism, we foster healthy collaboration between Research Institutes and businesses. To illustrate, the Singapore Institute of Manufacturing Technology collaborated with a local SME, Prime Electrical Products, to develop a lifestyle water heater which is now selling regionally. Another example, the Institute for Communications Research has licensed two patents to a company called iDetect Technology to help it develop the Microwave-Guard. This is a credit-card size device that measures radiation leakage from microwave ovens and warns the user if the leakage exceeds safety levels. The company has plans to sell the product into Australia, Europe, Japan and the US. To support these efforts, it is critical, as Minister George Yeo said, that we protect intellectual property. It takes years of painstaking hard work to come up with an invention and to apply it commercially.”
“As SMS Tharman said, recognising this, EDB has launched the Startup Enterprise Development Scheme (SEEDS) last year. Mr Singh suggested that SEEDS also matches the investment of the entrepreneur. However, the Government, as Members have said, may not be the best judge of private sector initiatives. So it is essential that it remains driven by private sector evaluation with the Government matching the investment of the third party investor. Many businessmen have told me that our financial institutions tend to give loans only if these are backed by tangible assets. Other forms of credit assessment, such as those based on cash flow projections, have yet to take off. Some have suggested why do we not have something similar to what the US have, which is the Small Business Association. Now the approach which SPRING Singapore has taken is that instead of concentrating SME financing in a single institution, such as a Small Business Association, it spreads it to more than 20 participating financial institutions (PFIs) under LEFS. These PFIs are a good mix of both local and foreign financial institutions with some focusing on SME lending, such as Heller Financial, Sing Investment and Hong Leong Finance. SMEs can thus choose from a range of PFIs in the pool. To further ensure that access to financing for small businesses is not hampered by lack of industry knowledge, SPRING Singapore would welcome private sector initiative - be it from the Singapore Business Federation, TiE, or any other chamber or industry association, who is willing to come forward and provide more of such financing.”
“Sir, I thank Members for their useful comments on encouraging entrepreneurship in Singapore. These are very relevant as a vibrant enterprise system will help drive our future economic growth. Let me touch on some of the issues that they have raised. Yesterday, Dr John Chen suggested that we should encourage bright business ideas from anywhere in the world to take root here. We agree. This was why in 1999, DPM Tony Tan launched and led the Technopreneurship 21 programme. Its aim was to foster the growth of start-ups, especially those which build on high technology, innovation and the creation of intellectual property. Mr Ong Kian Min made a good point when he said that we should not confine ourselves just to this area. Recognising that start-ups are not just in high technology areas, T21 will be broadened into Enterprise 21, to develop in a holistic manner an enterprise ecosystem that would make Singapore a compelling base for all enterprises - local or foreign. I agree with Members - that access to capital, availability of capital is a key factor to develop enterprise in Singapore. What we need is a deep and sophisticated capital market that caters to a spectrum of risk appetite for enterprises at all stages of their growth. At the same time, in the last few days, many Members have cautioned against too much direct Government involvement in business. Along the same line, our approach to enterprise financing should be to let the market allocate capital to companies with the best ideas, business plans and execution skills. Government should step in to help catalyse this only when there is a market gap, a market failure. Dr John Chen had highlighted that there may be just such a gap for companies at the early start-up stage.”
“We should teach them its genesis, its significance and its meaning to us as a people. We should strongly encourage our children to give life to it, to live their lives by these founding ideals so that generations to come would understand when they put fist to heart what it means to be a Singaporean. Mr Speaker, Sir, just as the Pledge was conceived at a time of immense turbulence, the challenges of the future, as the President said, are equally as formidable. That founding generation which led us from Third World to First was truly a gutsy, extraordinary and exceptional generation. My generation has the privilege and good fortune to stand on the shoulders of these giants. Our covenant to them and to the people of Singapore is that we will ensure that this improbable nation created by the indomitable will of these men and women, will continue not just to be a robust reality but a scintillating success. That is our mission. We intend to fulfil it.”
“Perhaps we need to start at the basics and begin at the beginning, which is how Singapore, as we know it today, was born. Every nation has its point of origin and enshrines its birth pangs in a "myth of creation". This basic identity founded on consensus is critical to every society's sense of origin and pride in itself. Why not make the Pledge do this? Yesterday, it was not surprising that when three naturalised citizens spoke in this House - Ms Irene Ng, Dr Amy Khor, Mr Khaw Boon Wan, and they were talking about core values that underpin Singapore - they used the language of the Pledge. I firmly believe that who we are and what we stand for as a people are well encapsulated by the Pledge. The Pledge was written at the time of our nation's birth. This gives it a special, haloed significance. It was the founding compact which our leaders and people made with destiny. A destiny which at that time was fraught with huge uncertainties. It was not clear then that the founding values of multi-racialism and meritocracy as enshrined in the Pledge would survive this fledging nation. We had to leave Malaysia because we rejected race-based politics. It brought out the best in us, in the worst of times. Singapore 21 and the 1988 Five Shared Values do not quite have the same weight as the Pledge. They can help instead to inform the Pledge as guiding principles to realise these founding ideals of our nation at birth. Ours is a small house and we have a tendency at times to rearrange the furniture somewhat. But some things, such as the essence of what we are as a people, we should be very slow to change. The Pledge is our anthem in prose. We should not just get our young to recite it in mind numbing fashion.”
“The danger is not what they say about their cause but what they say about their opponents. Take the case of Zulkifli Baharudin, a former Nominated Member of this House. He told me that after he had spoken up against Zulfikar, he had to endure vicious personal attacks, not just on himself but members of his family, on the Fateha website. Zulkifli had the courage to speak up even though he knew he would be vilified. Many more I felt should have spoken up. For those who think that it is safer not to take sides, they will do well to note this - people who stay in the middle of the road, simply get run over. We should never allow the extremists to set the agenda of our society. This is especially so when the extremists come garbed in religious or ethnic clothings. Ours is a young nation where the primordial pull of race, religion and culture remains potent. Potent enough to shatter the internal social cohesion that we currently enjoy. This is the reality. Sir, what we need to balance the pull of religion, race and culture is a strong sense of who we are as a people. When we speak of a lively civic society as being vital towards developing a strong emotional attachment to Singapore, we need to ask what are we attached to. Exactly, who are we and what do we stand for? As a young society, we have no deep roots or traditions. To maintain our cohesiveness as a society, we need to develop a national identity which all communities can relate to and which will guide our national life. This will serve to anchor Singaporeans to the country and ensure that our society is more resilient to the natural rifts that run in it. Singapore 21 and the 1988 Five Shared Values are attempts in this direction.”
“If we say we are grown up and should have a say in matters that affect our future, then I think we should look things in the eye, exercise our rights and take things as they come. Public debate is seldom like a tea party where we politely discuss the cakes and drinks. The responses sometimes not just from the Government but others that disagree from us will be robust. Let me give an example. In the PAP Convention in November last year, I argued that, to effectively govern the country, the PAP must widen the circle of political participation. A day after that, an irate Singaporean sent me an e-mail, attacking me personally and attributed what he sees as the contentiousness of the young to people like me who support the Prime Minister's policy of greater openness and consultation. I took this as par for the course in public life. It is far better to have a response even when it is unpleasant than to have no reaction at all. At least you know then that not everyone was asleep while you were speaking. It should not be important to us whether we get a purr or roar from those who engage us. What is vital is that the Government and us - the citizens of this country - work together to nurture a political culture that not just tolerates but respects differing points of views. In such a culture, people will learn to appreciate that just as they have a right to their views, others do too and the eventual outcome may thus be different from what they desire. A reporter asked me recently, that given this view of mine, how do I reconcile this with the Government's attacks on former Fateha chief, Zulfikar Mohamad Shariff. I told him there is nothing to reconcile. The problem with Zulfikar is not so much his opinions as his extremism. What is wrong with extremists is their intolerance.”