S Iswaran
Singapore
“The Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) has incorporated the requirements of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) 2020 regulation in its Prevention of Pollution of the Sea (Air) Regulations 2022. The Regulations are applicable to Singapore-registered ships and all other ships while they are in Singapore waters.”
“The Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) plans to progressively roll out the charging infrastructure for electric harbour craft operations in the Port of Singapore from 2025.”
“Since 2018, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) has imposed minimum bicycle parking provisions covering different types of developments. The requirements are determined by multiple factors, including the developments’ use, location and gross floor area (GFA).”
“I had addressed similar Parliamentary Questions by Mr Gerald Giam on 29 November 2022 and 10 January 2023, as well as in my Ministerial Statement on 8 May 2023. The Member can refer to these past answers and statement as there has been no material change in the allocation of Certificates of Entitlement.”
“To encourage the uptake of electric cars, the Government has rolled out the Electric Vehicle Early Adoption Incentive and enhanced Vehicular Emissions Scheme. When taken together, it provides up to $45,000 off the Additional Registration Fee of an electric car upon registration.”
“The Land Transport Authority studies all potential changes to the Certificate of Entitlement (COE) system carefully, including conducting sensitivity analysis where appropriate.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,300 lines we hold for S Iswaran, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 39 of 46.
“So it is important that, when an appeal is lodged, whether it is to the sectoral body or to the Competition Commission, they are brought together and processed as one appeal and given one outcome. And, thirdly, I would urge the Ministry to review this exclusion and perhaps bring it forward even at a faster pace. I think the Ministry of Trade and Industry has said 18 months or so, and it has given some indication. Sir, I think we are not alone in this, lest I would be interpreted as being too critical. The UK also has got sectoral regulators having concurrent powers with the UK Competition Act, the Director-General of Fair Trading, and they work together and there are arrangements in place to make sure that they are closely coordinated. So it is not without precedent. I think the key element here is execution so that businesses have certainty. Sir, another point I want to raise is the issue of lack of clarity in the meanings and definitions of key terms that are used in the context of this Bill. Sir, the Bill prohibits anti-competitive behaviour and agreements, abuse of dominant positions, M&As that substantially lessen competition, etc. But the key terms need elaboration and definition. For example, dominant position. How is dominant position calibrated? Is it by market share or market power? Are there thresholds? All of these obviously have problems and, clearly, there is an element of subjective outcome and decision-making. And this will reside primarily in the hands of the CEO or Director-General of the Competition Commission. But the players in the market must know when they are approaching the boundaries that are likely to test the limits of what the Competition Commission considers to be acceptable. What constitutes abuse?”
“And clause 61(3) suggests that the Competition Commission can prescribe guidelines applicable to specific regulated industries and sectors. So I think we need greater clarity on this matter. The first question is a question of principle. Should these sectors be excluded in the first place? My own view is that we should not, and the reason is what I have articulated earlier, which is these are common principles, they should hold true regardless of the sector, and they should be applied with consistency across all groups of industries. Given that we have gone for the second best solution, which is that we have existing bodies and we are trying to manage it, then the question is: if they are to be excluded, we should state very clearly which sectors are being excluded and for how long, and what would be the threshold conditions which would compel the Ministry and, subsequently, perhaps Parliament to review these exclusions? Also, given that the Ministry has opted for this intermediate approach where there will be some sectors that are excluded and the rest administered under the Competition Act, I think there must be certain very clear arrangements in place in the interim. These include, one, a harmonisation of the provisions in the sectoral codes vis-a-vis the Competition Act. This is to ensure that there is no gaming in the system and things are clearly established, and it will pave the way towards eventual integration. The second is coordination between the Competition Commission and the sectoral bodies. Why? This is to ensure that businesses do not have to go to two different parties to undertake two parallel processes which might have quite different outcomes.”
“That being the case, if we allow for exclusions of sectors which will have their own bodies administering, their own interpretation of what is fair competition, albeit in the context of technical areas, the scope for inconsistency and differential interpretations is quite significant, and that is going to lead to potential conflicts. Allow me to illustrate just by giving a couple of examples where the Competition Bill and the Telecommunications Code differ. One is in the area of just penalties. The maximum financial penalty of up to 10% of the infringing party's annual turnover in Singapore is what is provided for under the Competition Bill. So if you are found to have fallen afoul of the Act, then that is the maximum penalty. In the Telecommunications Code, the maximum financial penalty is S$1 million per contravention. So the scope for disparity is great. And, naturally, the applicant or the plaintiff might feel aggrieved if the party against whom he is making a claim gets off with a lighter penalty. Similarly, the right or process of appeal differs as well. In the case of the Telecommunications Code, the appeals are to IDA and then to the Minister. In the case of the Competition Bill, the decision of the Commission can be appealed to the Competition Appeal Board. So there is again a different process. So the greyness of the scope is compounded by the fact that certain parts of the Bill appear to suggest that the Competition Bill will still apply to excluded sectors, and I will give you a couple of examples of that. Clause 33(2) suggests that portions of the Bill will apply to industries and sectors which nevertheless have specific competition laws regulating them.”
“The Competition Commission will administer the Act, and it is important that its rulings and decisions are precise, unambiguous and timely, because all this has an impact on the way businesses are run and the costs and uncertainties they have to bear. Otherwise, the very objective of promoting Singapore as an attractive place to do business will be frustrated. From that perspective, Sir, of needing to ensure that businesses have greater certainty, and this Bill does not impose undue costs, I would like to comment on a few aspects of this Bill. The first pertains to the scope of the Bill. Clause 5 of the Third Schedule excludes sectors which are covered by any other written law, or code of practice related to competition and which gives another regulatory authority jurisdiction in the matter. There is a similar provision in the Fourth Schedule. The Schedule, in particular clause 5, does not explicitly state which sectors are, in fact, excluded. But I presume, and I think it can be reasonably inferred, that it applies to sectors such as telecommunications where competition is governed by, I think, the Telecommunications Code (the short form) which IDA administers; electricity and gas where you have the Electricity Act and Gas Act administered by EMA, if I am not mistaken; then the media industry where there is a code which MDA administers, and so on. Sir, the question, in principle, is: should there be exclusions from the Competition Act for any sector? The competition law that we are promulgating here is a generic law. It has principles which are generic in application and these are principles that should apply to all sectors and be applied with consistency.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in this debate. Sir, this Bill is worthy of support from this House. I say that because I think its objectives are laudable. It seeks to protect and promote the competitiveness of the Singapore economy as a whole. This will ensure efficient allocation of resources, productivity and ultimately higher economic growth for Singapore. At the same time, through this process, it will also accrue benefits to the consumers and businesses in Singapore. At the outset, Sir, I think we need to be clear. Competitiveness does not equate with competition. The key element here is in facilitating a competitive economy, the critical ingredient is what some have called "contestability". In other words, whether there is one, a few or many players in a given market, it is the potential and actual competition. In other words, the competition from the existing players in the market and also the potential for new entrants to come in and lead really ensure a competitive framework. And it is important that, in that regard, when we look at any market-related issues and competition, this be borne in mind. Ultimately, the objective is fair competition and it is not to protect individual players or competitors in the market. Therefore, Sir, I support the Bill both in spirit and in principle. However, it is important to ensure that such a Bill, with all its good intentions, does not increase uncertainty and costs to businesses. The Minister has made this point. I wish to elaborate on it. The fact of the matter is the establishment of a Competition Commission, which will administer the Competition Act if this Bill is passed, will create a new regulatory hurdle for all businesses.”
“And, finally, what mechanism will the Ministry be putting in place - asmy colleague Mr Ahmad Khalis pointed out - to periodically review or, in fact, regularly review, the field and the developments against provisions in this and any other relevant pieces of legislation to ensure that Singapore remains appropriately positioned in this important area of scientific research.”
“Will we consider establishing an authority, as they have in the United Kingdom, for example? The second question I have is a more specific one. It is on why thefine has been kept at S$100,000. Sir, as I elaborated earlier, the monetary rewards in this space are vast. We are talking ofhundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars, and I am talking of US dollars. We have capped our fine at S$100,000. It does not really communicate to me any deterrent value. So I presume it is symbolic in nature, which then begs the question: why do we have such a provision in the Bill at all?If we are serious about this, then we should have a fine, but leave it unlimited and leave it to the discretion of the courts to decide what isappropriate, based on the nature of the act. And I think that would go much further as a way of managing any kind of delinquent behaviour. Sir, finally, I have a couple of operational questions. TheDirector of Medical Services has been tasked, I think, in this Bill with the whole area of enforcement. To the best of my knowledge - the Ministry of Health and the Director of Medical Servicesdo not have resources for such enforcement - I do not know what enforcement capability resides within the Ministry of Health. Andas this is a more technical area, obviously you cannot just sendthe average policeman to a laboratory. He needs to know what he is looking for and needs to be guided by technically trained people. So, I would like to ask the Minister: what resources will be made available to the Director of Medical Services so that he or she can fulfilthe responsibilities as required under this Act.”
“The Bill has categorically made reproductive cloning a crime, and I think there is no dispute over that,but the question is: how will we manage the other tricky area of therapeutic cloning in Singapore? In the United Kingdom, for example, any research in public and private laboratories on embryos is subject to strict licensing requirements and it is overseen by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, which was established in 1990 by theeponymous Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act. This Bill is silent on how we are going to deal with this vast area of therapeutic cloning, and it is not a trivial point, as the Minister would acknowledge, because therapeutic cloning can easily degenerate and become reproductive cloning. It is really the first step. So we have drawn the line at 14 days andwe stop them from implanting the embryo. But the point really is: how do you address the issue of therapeutic cloning? And I believe there are some merits in considering the UK approach and studying it in greater detail. Because it creates a register of bona fide researchers in this field,and any bona fide researcher should have no qualms about seeking licensing approval from the authorities to conduct legitimate research.At the same time, establishing such an authority will create an entity with the capability to monitor specific research projects andkeep track of general trends in this sector, whichare fast evolving and may well require periodic reviews of the legislation and any subsidiary regulation that arises to govern the space. My question to the Minister is: how do we manage therapeutic cloning or any embryo-based research today? And going forward, given the fast-moving nature of this sector, how will we do so?”
“As the Minister says, there is near unanimous support for the banning of reproductive cloning. And, therefore, I support the Bill. It is also consistent with the stance in countries like the United Kingdom and Australia. In the United States, the Bill to ban cloning is still pending approval in the Senate. But at the state level the position varies - some ban cloning entirely and others ban reproductive cloning only. There are some questions however that remain, since we have left the door open for therapeutic cloning and embryonic stem cell research. Many have asked the question: why do we need to use embryonic stem cells? AsDr Amy Khor and Dr Lily Neo pointed out yesterday, there are other sources of stem cells - from adult stem cells, from the cord blood, and so on. I know the technical people talk about pluripotence and multipotence, and so on. The Minister is a doctor and a neurosurgeon at that. I believe he can give a more eloquent exposition, and I think Singaporeans need to hear the justification as to why we have chosen to allow embryonic stem cell research in Singapore. The second question many have asked is: why must there be a need for therapeutic cloning? In other words, even if you accept that embryonic stem cell based research is essential, why must we allow therapeutic cloning? Again, I believe there are sound medical and scientific reasons, but these should be articulated in this House as part of the debate on this Bill. And I would like to hear from the Minister andthe Ministry theirperspectives on the justification for doing so. The concern I have regarding this Bill, in a sense,is more about what the Bill does not talk about.”
“In the United States alone, there are at least four million patients who suffer from Alzheimer's. And that is just talking about one potential area of therapy and the Minister has also talked about other potential areas such as in diabetes and other disease conditions for which stem cell discovery can help. On the other hand, if you look at the concerns from the religious and societal perspectives, I think they stem from - no pun intended - profound views on the sanctity of human life, that the embryo deserves special status as a potential, if not actual, human being. And, therefore, stem cell research and any other research involving embryos must be set within a strict ethical and legal framework acceptable to Singapore society. Only that way can we ensure that human life - and potential human life - is always treated with dignity and respect in Singapore. Sir, even those who support the idea of allowing science greater latitude want tobe assured. How would we ensure that such research will be responsibly and ethically conducted? What safeguards can be put in place to prevent the slide down the slippery moral slope, because the incentives to do so can be quite substantial? And I think how we manage this very delicate area is an essential part of our character as a society. By categorically banning and criminalising reproductive cloning, I think this Bill has, as many speakers have pointed out earlier,drawn a clear line and stated clearly our position on a matter of moral sensitivity and social reprehension. At the same time, the Bill has allowed for therapeutic cloning and with it, all potentially valuable research and work in this field. I believe this balanceis the correct one.”
“Sir, in addressing the sensitive topic of cloning, I think this Bill underscores the balance that needs to be struck between, on the one hand, religious and societal perspectives on the sanctity of human life and societal concerns about how such new realms of scientific researchare developed and its potential for abuse is curbed, and, on the other hand, managing it against the promise of new therapeutic outcomes which are pathbreaking and the potential economic spin-offs that can emanate from such discoveries, and even the process of research that will create the bedrock for such discoveries. Sir, the potential benefits are considerable.Many speakers before me and the Minister himself have spoken at great length about the wide range of potential therapeutic outcomes that are possible from stem cell research for diseases which are, at least, atthis point seemingly incurable, like Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and so on. So the potential to ease human pain and suffering is great. And stem cell technology and other research in areas like gene therapy and so on are at the forefront of such efforts.Although actual outcomes, in the clinical sense, may be five to 10 years away, the work that is done today will be the foundation for such pathbreaking discoveries; at the same time, the economic benefits are also substantial.Allow me to illustrate. If I just take one particular disease, like Alzheimer's, the worldwide market for Alzheimer's drugs in 2003 was about US$1.3 billion, and it is expected to grow to about US$3 billion by 2008. Some of the key players in this business are, for example, large pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer and Eisai with the drug called Aricept, which has a market value of at least US$700-800 million.”
“Sir, the Minister of State's point is well taken, but the fact remains that this policy has been in force for 15 years. The question is whether MND has actually reviewed to see whether this policy is still necessaryand what are the parameters it would be referring to inevaluating its usefulness going forward because the policy, as Mr Zainudin has pointed out,imposes costs on the HDB minority residents. May I askwhether the Ministry would infact review the need for such a policy?”
“Sir, may I ask the Minister, given the rise in the Indian economy, and to some extent, the other South Asian economies and the linguistic and cultural diversity in that part of the world, what initiatives does the Ministry have to ensure that our students are well positioned to take advantage of those opportunities as well, as we also focus on Northeast Asia and Southeast Asia?”
“Sir, I would like to echo Mr Leong's point on what I suppose would be the 2G SAF NSmen, many of whom are probably in this Chamber. Sir, I would like to know, as we make this transition to a 3G SAF, how will the reservists be prepared for that transition where, I presume, there is going to be a lot of technology input in the way they are trained. In short, what impact would this transition to a 3G SAF have on the nature of reservist training and the duration of reservist obligations?”
“Sir, may I seek a clarification from the Minister? For HDB lessees who are forced to sell their flats due to financial distress, would HDB consider allowing them to rent HDB flats and exercise that policy with flexibility?”
“They are more concerned: can they really feel safe? So, I think there is a need to undertake not just a PR campaign but something that should become part of the protocol of any major construction activity that BCA and other agencies undertake regular inspections of all buildings in the vicinity, submit a report and inform the owners of these buildings and their residents of their regular findings. I think this is an important way to just build confidence, and we see that it has economic consequences as well, for example, for those in the Golden Mile Complex and so on. What we need to ensure is that the public at large, and in particular those who live or work within the vicinity of certain construction sites, are reassured that it is safe and that their safety and the safety of their buildings are being regularly monitored. Sir, with that, I support the motion. 6.07 pm”
“One example is the point that Dr Teo raised earlier: how do we explicitly deal with the issue of the outlier, ie, the unduly or signficantly low tenderer who may be 10-20% lower in his bid compared to the rest? How do we ensure that that price is not unrealistic and likely to lead to greater problems during the construction process? The second question is: how can we incorporate the safety records of the contractor and his safety plan, if you will, for the construction project as a criterion in the award of the contract? Sir, I welcome the announcement that there will be incentive payments for a good safety record during a construction period. But it seems to me that that is after the fact. What we really need to do also is to ensure that, prior to the award of a tender, we do the best we can to ensure that the party who wins the tender is one who is well equipped, both by virtue of experience and his plan for the project, to ensure the highest standards of safety on the site. Sir, the third and final point I wish to raise is on the issue of the safety of buildings and other infrastructure in the vicinity of construction sites and, in particular, we are talking about deep tunnelling works, say, for example, in the context of the MRT projects and so on. These days it is not uncommon for residents or owners of buildings to see cracks in their walls when construction activity occurs in their vicinity. They are usually reassured by being told, after an inspection, that: "These are not structural problems, so do not worry about it. These cracks will not cause any serious damage to your building." However, in the light of incidents like the Nicoll Highway accident, it has clearly raised greater doubts in the minds of residents.”
“These can be undertaken by agents of the BCA and implemented on a regular basis, very transparent, with reports being circulated to all bodies, including the contractors. This is not going to be a foolproof solution to construction site accidents, but it will go a long way towards separating the responsibility for safety on the site from the need for constant monitoring and independent checking, and it will instill greater confidence in our construction industry, if such a measure is put in place. I believe such a measure is justifiable, especially as construction projects in Singapore are increasing in complexity and, if the concern is that such a cost might impair the competitiveness of our contractors, this cost can be a very discrete fixed cost added on to any tender project called for by the Government. The second point I wish to focus on is the tender process. I think the Government tender process is a much maligned process, and some at least have argued that the practice of awarding the tender to the lowest tenderer, unless there are other compelling reasons, leads to a vicious downward spiral in destructive competition and safety standards. My own view is that we should not be in a hurry to throw the baby out with the bath water, simply because I am not convinced that there is a better system to what we already have in the Government tender process. But I agree with my parliamentary colleagues that we need to make sure that we get value for money and not the cheapest price necessarily. And we need to adapt the criteria and the methodology of our tender system to take into account some of these issues that we think are significant enough but they are not necessarily price factors.”
“Sir, I rise in support of the motion. The Nicoll Highway and Fusionpolis incidents were two qualitatively different incidents. But they have both served to draw into sharp focus the need for greater safety at construction sites. May I first join my colleagues who have spoken before me in offering condolences to the families that had been affected and, at the same time, commending the rescue workers, especially the SCDF and the Home Team, for their marvellous efforts. Sir, Dr Teo Ho Pin has outlined very comprehensively a whole range of issues that need to be considered. I would confine myself to two or three key points by reiterating the fact that what this calls for is a system-level response, and not just specific investigations on the incidents that have occurred. Sir, the first point I wish to address is whether current legislative regulatory frameworks are adequate for ensuring safety at our worksites. The worksite is a very busy venue with multiple parties, eg, main contractors and sub-contractors, all attending to a variety of tasks. The process of construction itself is going to be a highly complex coordination task. If we add to this the role of safety responsibility as well, the question then is: can that task be adequately achieved by the main contractor? Is there in fact a conflict when we ask the main contractor to take overall responsibility for safety at the worksite when he has to take care of a very complex array of activities, and also the instinct might well be to cut corners or to take the path of least resistance when under pressure for time or resources? So, the question which others have raised, and I wish to reiterate, is: should we in fact institute a process where independent audits and checks for safety purposes are mandatory?”
“Sir, the Minister has outlined eloquently the alternatives available to Singaporeans who wish to gamble. Given these readily available alternatives, with the indications that there may a different treatment of Singaporeans versus non-Singaporeans in terms of access to this casino that has aroused a lot of passion among several groups of Singaporeans, it is the principle, not the effect, as it were, I would like to ask the Minister, in the examples he has cited, like in London, etc, are these decisions made by the private operators in the interest of their business in terms of controlling access, or are they licensing conditions imposed by the authorities?”
“But I would urge that, if future adjustments of this nature, if any, are being contemplated, we should do so with a great deal of care and ensure that if we are going to make such a change, it is done with a view to maintaining it for the medium to long term. The second is on the sole issue of whether we should, in fact, decentralise the admission criteria, a point that Dr Wang has raised. My own view is that we ought to consider increasingly decentralising these criteria. The Ministry has already taken several steps in this respect, and I welcome that. But we could do more, for example, individual faculties, like the medical faculty should be more flexible in the way they admit students, and not go purely on academic criteria. The reason is because we get a lot of feedback from people in the profession saying that younger doctors seem to come in and treat it more as a career rather than as a vocation, as a calling, which means that, maybe, some X factors are lacking in the way we choose people to go into the medical profession, as an example. And similar arguments can be made across the line for different faculties. Also, there is an obligation on the Ministry because public funds are being used for universities to set a certain minimum standards. So, surely, the model could be one where the Ministry defines certain minimum academic standards and the principle of meritocracy, and then allow the universities, the tertiary institutions, to set their criteria at the university level and for individual faculties, in fact, to have greater flexibility in the way they choose students to be admitted to their courses. I would like to ask for greater elaboration from the Minister on the Ministry's thinking on this whole policy towards university admission.”
“Sir, my comments pertain to the whole approach towards the setting and modification of admission criteria for universities. It is quite clear that, in Singapore, a university degree is a coveted attainment and it is seen as a pinnacle of educational achievement and a foundation for a successful career and future by most Singaporean families. That combined with the fact that an overseas education option is very expensive, many young people and their parents are trying very hard to adjust themselves to the needs on the prerequisites to attain admission to the universities. That being the case, any changes to the admission criteria, especially changes that increase the requirements or impose an additional burden on the qualification on students, must be done with care. And a case in point is this whole exercise with the SATs. When it was introduced a couple of years ago, we had quite an extensive debate in this House. At that point, it was raised repeatedly by many Members that, first, whether the SATs were appropriate and, second, that even the SAT system itself was under review at that point in time when we were choosing to adopt it for our own university admission system. That being the case, when we went into this adoption of the SATs, the question was: were we prepared to commit to it for the medium to long term? I am not suggesting that we get locked into some kind of a permanent arrangement, and we should be flexible. And I applaud the Ministry, like other speakers, for having decided now to do away with the SATs, given the changed circumstances.”
“Sir, from the time I came into this Chamber, I have been advocating smaller class sizes, and the Ministry's response has been the limited resources, especially in terms of quality teachers. Then I was suggesting incremental steps, and was very heartened last year when the announcement was made to introduce smaller class sizes, at least at the P1 and P2 levels. But the catch was that it is going to be left to individual schools to decide, based on their own resource constraints. In other words, they would have to adjust their scheduling, maybe have P1 and P2 in the afternoon session, and then P3 to P6 in the morning, and have no change therefore in the overall resource allocation but juggling it within what they already have. I have a few questions that I would like the Minister to respond to. The first is: how many schools have actually adopted smaller class sizes for P1 and P2? Although this has been made available as a policy statement, I would like to know what is the experience on the ground. The reason I ask this in particular is because, for the more popular primary schools, there is the tension that, without additional resources, they cannot maintain their enrolment and still have smaller class sizes. There is a tradeoff between the two. So, if they adopt smaller class sizes, they may end up actually denying their old boys, old girls, alumni school community, additional places at P1 for registration purposes. I would like to know what is the adoption rate and what the feedback has been, in terms of any problems and pedadogic-related issues, and whether the Ministry has specific plans to enhance the resources available so that the adoption of these smaller class sizes, at least at the initial stage at P1 and P2 levels, can be more widespread. Teachers”
“I know that the Minister of State straddles two Ministries, MCDS and MOE, but I presume the burden does not fall on his shoulders alone. So I would like to know whether there are institutional arrangements or other means for the lessons to be shared. I would also like to reiterate the question raised by Mr Sin Boon Ann on the admission criteria for the Sports School itself. I think it is important that we allow for a largercatchment of students to benefit from this facility that we have created, not just because we want to create champion sports people. But, also, I think we want to send a signal out there in terms of having a place for all and of realising the potential through our educational system.”
“Sir, may I first congratulate the Minister, his officials and all those involved in setting up the school. Recently, several of us had the privilege of visiting the Sports School. It strikes me as a very impressive institution, not just because of the hardware, which is self-evident, but also the software – the "soft" culture that pervades there. Let me illustrate that. One of the examples is that the principal told me that one of the problems he has is that the students are reluctant to go home during weekends because they enjoy their school environment so much and they find the whole experience very enriching. Another example is the case of some of the students who are actively involved in sailing. Their feedback was that whenever they go sailing, they find their mind more at ease because they do not have to worry about what they are missing out in school, what their friends might be doing but, instead, concentrate on their sailing and then go back and do their studies later. 4.00 pm Sir, it would appear that the Ministry has succeeded in creating a rare breed – Singapore students who are actually totally at ease and happy in the school environment. I must commend them for that. My only question then is: how can this experience be extended and generalised to the broader school environment in Singapore? Whilst we cannot be replicating the Sports School all over Singapore and it may not even be desirable to do so, I would like to know how can the elements that pervade this school environment, which allow for a better balance between sports and co-curriculum activities with the core academic curriculum, and the lessons be generalised to most schools in Singapore?”
“Sir, the integrated childcare centre programme provides childcare options for parents who have young children with special needs. There are two aspects to this in terms of how it benefits the family. One is for the parents. It gives them some relief and enables, in most cases, the mother to also find productive employment if she so desires. On the other hand, for the children, it provides a conducive developmental environment in which to realise his or her potential. I would like to find out from the Minister how many such integrated childcare centres we have today, and what the take-up rate has been. And, importantly, I would also like to like to know how these integrated childcare centres dovetail into the mainstream education system, especially in schools, since the intentmust be for these children to be part of integrated childcare centres with a view to entering into mainstream schools. I would like to know how that connectivity has been established and how it is working in practice. Family Support”
“Sir, I believe that in the area of services to support the disabled, there is considerable scope for intermediation. What do I mean by that? On the demand side, as it were, there are people with disabilities in a wide range of categories. These are physical disabilities, intellectual disabilities and, often, a combination of these. The parents and the family members of these individuals need to be able to diagnose their needs, and to be able to come up with some kind of customised response to their educational development and, ultimately, some kind of social integration needs of these individuals. On the supply side, we have a whole range of voluntary welfare organisations who have come up with various programmes with the support of MCDS in many instances. The Ministry has also come up with various programmes of its own to support the disabled. The clear need here is for the parents and care givers of the disabled to be fully informed first on what resources are available in the general community in Singapore to help them in their efforts to help their own disabled member of the family. At the same time, the earlier that they are able to access such resources in order to diagnose or assess the needs and involve that individual in an appropriate programme, I think the better the chances that that individual will be able to realise his or her full potential. Sir, I would like to ask what programme or plan the Ministry has to provide such an intermediation service, so that it serves as a national or central information and referral resource, not just for individual families but also for agencies that are involved in helping the disabled.”
“Sir, on industry development, I have two aspects that I would like to raise with the Minister. Clearly, the environmental sector is an area for opportunity for industry development in our part of the world. I would like to know what measures the Ministry has undertaken to promote the sector as a business, using Singapore as a launch pad for the region and beyond. The second pertains more specifically to installation plants. I recall that the Ministry had undertaken some steps previously to privatise the plants, in total, including the assets and the operation. There is this particular industry that has two aspects to it which are important considerations when deciding on privatisation strategy. The first is that it is an extremely asset heavy and, in particular, because capacity is being determined by the Ministry. The impact on the private operator, if there were to be any, on planning for capacity would be quite substantial. The second is that measures like the recycling policy of the Ministry will also have an impact on the operations and the viability of such businesses. I think this has a substantial bearing on whether there should be privatisation and, if so, what modality it should take. Sir, I would like to ask the Minister for the status on the Ministry’s privatisation plans for the installation plants, and what approach they would be taking in this regard.”
“Sir, as the preceding speakers have mentioned, the dengue problem was raised again last year, and I think it was higher than the previous year, as the Minister mentioned earlier in his speech. In addition to that, we heard the news of a particularly severe outbreak in Indonesia and the possibility that this is a new strain. The concern here really, Sir, is that the Minister said it is endemic, which we all know, but how much can we contain the problem through the combination of public education and enforcement to minimise its incidence in Singapore. When I think in terms of the breeding areas in the public, in particular, private housing, surely we can do more to minimise the availability of such breeding grounds for the Aedes mosquitoes. I would like to know from the Minister what is the status of our enforcement measures and education campaigns in order to contain the problem. Pest Control”
“Sir, diesel engine driven trucks, taxis and buses are more energey efficient than similar vehicles powered by petrol engines. The diesel-driven vehicles running on Singapore roads help our nation in saving millions of dollars, in terms of the import of fuel every year. This is because diesel engines burn less quantity of fuel. The trouble with diesel vehicles is the particulate matter in its emission, in particular, the particulate matter, PM 2.5, which is classified as a carcinogen. It is a particulate which is smaller than 2.5 micron. In the current vehicle emission standards, there is no control of such matter. Ideally, this PM 2.5 could be easily removed by a particulate trap. In my view, we should push for a higher standard to protect our people against such a carcinogen. By implementing such a new requirement, it means an increase in the cost of vehicles and also an increase in transportation cost in doing business in Singapore. One of the ways to strike a good balance between the cost of transportation and a good clean environment is to push for a higher standard but exempt the taxes on anti-pollution and energy efficient equipment on the vehicles. We would not only want to achieve a world-class economic standard, we also aim to achieve world-class air quality standards. I urge the Government to increase the vehicle emission standards and exempt the tax on all the anti-pollution equipment to make Singapore a cleaner place and that the cost of transportation even more affordable. Diesel Engines”
“Sir, my question pertains to the quality of air in the western part of Singapore as well. Sir, many residents have approached me with the question whether the air quality in the western part is safe for general inhalation, especially at certain times, because of the concentration of petrochemicals and chemical industries in that part of the island. In particular, Sir, the question also arises as to how the Ministry is monitoring the air quality since the PSI that it announces is the average for the whole island, whereas the question is whether there may be variations across the island in terms of air quality in any particular point in time. The questions I have for the Minister are these: The first is whether there is, in fact, any variation in air quality across the island, based on the various monitoring stations that are positioned by the National Environment Agency. The second question I have is regarding the Pollution Standard Index itself, which I believe takes into account both particulate matter and certain types of gases in the air in arriving at an index. The question is whether for areas where there are petrochemical or chemical industries, in particular, residents find that there is a dissonance when they are told that the air quality is good but they can detect certain odours or other sorts of interference in the air. The question is whether there needs to be some kind of modification or augmentation of the PSI for areas around the petrochemical or chemical industries. The third question, which is quite simple, is: is the air in west coast good? [Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Chew Heng Ching) in the Chair] 4.22 pm Air Pollution Assoc. Prof. Low Seow Chay: Sir, I am going to talk about air pollution derived from diesel-driven vehicles.”
“Madam, the most pressing need in the entire upgrading programme is really with respect to lift upgrading. Many Members of this House, and I can attest to this personally, those of us whose constituencies have a large number of older flats especially, we see this request repeatedly from the older residents. They bought their flats at a time when there was more spring in their stride, and not having a lift on every floor was not as big an issue. But, today, it has become a major problem. And it is small comfort to them to say: "Wait your turn, bide your time, lift upgrading will come to you in due course." Neither is it satisfactory or reasonable, in my opinion, to tell them, "Why do you not sell your flat and find another that is on a floor with a lift?", one particular reason being that they have lived there for the last 20 to 30 years, this is part of their community. To ask them to upheave and relocate because of a simple matter of a lift seems quite unnecessary and also not consistent with our own policy of trying to preserve communities. I would like to ask the Minister: can we not re-allocate resources away from the more grandiose MUP and IUP-type projects towards these basic upgrading programmes like the Lift Upgrading Programme? This way, we can broaden the scale, accelerate the pace and, I think, bring benefit to those who really need it most when we are trying to rejuvenate these older HDB estates in our area. Madam, I would also like the Minister to respond to a point I raised under the housing policy section on whether in fact the Government would consider decoupling the subsidy to housing from the purchase of public housing itself. That is one means of discouraging over-consumption of public housing.”
“Individuals who, in the normal course of their decision making, would probably opt for different types of housing, today artificially go and buy a 5-room flat, hold it for five years or whatever in order to realise the capital gain. If we could change that methodology to say that public housing is priced at market or at the cost that is required to build it, and then provide a stream of benefits through a voucher scheme or some other loan subsidy by a stream of financial benefits, then individual Singaporeans can make the choice whether they want to buy a smaller flat built by the Government or best outsourced to the private sector, or to go into the private sector and buy a home of their choice. In that sense, the Government would also have discharged its obligation or promise to Singaporeans in terms of assisting them with their first home purchase. So, I would like to ask the Minister for clarification and expansion on what the Ministry's thinking is on housing policy, going forward in this regard.”
“Sir, public housing policy has three dimensions. The policy function is to determine what type, how much and where to build in response to demographic and social trends. Then there is the development function and there is the financing function which is pertaining to the subsidies and so on. Sir, the key issue is the separation of the policy and the development function. I think last year, through the major restructuring and the setting up of HDB Corp, the Government has taken steps, with the Ministry in particular, to separate the policy function from the development function. Sir, the second aspect pertains to the focus of public housing policy. In particular, what I would like to ask is whether in fact public housing should be focused on smaller and entry level flat types and not span the whole spectrum, as it does today, right up to 5-room and even larger flats sometimes. In particular, Sir, should public housing be confined to 4-room flats and 3-room flats, as many of my colleagues have indicated, and to ensuring that there is an adequate stock of rental housing to cater to the needs of those who are perhaps in the lower income groups and are unable to afford their own homes? 3.15 pm The third key issue I would like to raise is whether in fact we can decouple the subsidy that the Government gives for public housing from the purchase of HDB flats. This sounds like a contradiction in terms. What I mean by this is that the only way you can enjoy your subsidy today from the Government for housing is if you go and buy an HDB flat, and that encourages an over-consumption of public housing.”
“Part of this is borne out of ignorance, not understanding the overall needs of their workers and the community in general, but we cannot leave it as a fiscal incentive, we must work with the employers to educate them, to help them understand why such policies are not just in the national interest, but ultimately even for them as an employer, their ability to attract good people to come and work for them and to have workers who are motivated and productive, these measures would help them. So on that note, Sir, I would like to support the Budget.”
“So the multiplier for the local economy is also likely to be far greater than in some other fiscal policies. Where should the money be spent? First, a plea. Please do not distinguish between the first, second or third child. Neither should the parents of children of multiple births be penalised. Every child is precious, not just to the parents, but to all of us. For the parents, each additional child adds to their responsibilities and challenges, almost exponentially. I speak from very recent personal experience when I just have my third child. And, whoever coined the phrase, "sleeping like a baby", clearly had no idea what he is talking about. So what more when you have multiple births! When they have two or three children of the same age, demanding their attention, I think we should empathise with those parents and make it easier for them. Another point is whatever policies we announce in August at National Day, I would hope that we can backdate those policies so that we do not penalise the people who act in good faith and respond to the Government's plea today. I think we should also spend where it counts. Spending in the early months after a child is born is probably the most challenging. Whether the father or mother, they would all agree with this readily. So, if we can help out in terms of whether it is maternity leave, which is fully covered, or paternity leave, and also the infant and childcare elements, I think all of these should be considered quite seriously. But I would just like to make one comment on this point of maternity leave. I have heard in different feedback from some employers in terms of their attitudes towards employing women, if maternity leave of up to 6 months is contemplated.”
“Fortunately, we only have to wait six months, till August, not the usual nine months, before the delivery of the full package. But, Sir, I fully support the principle that the Finance Minister has underlined and, in particular, the policy of aiming to produce the next generation of Singaporeans is vital because ultimately the thing will serve us not so well to have generated a whole group of young generation Singaporeans unless they have a deep commitment to this country and our future, which is collectively held. But I do have some thoughts on what can be done in this respect. Mr David Lim said that it is an emotional, not an economic issue. I agree. But this is the Budget, and since we are talking about dollars and cents, let me just share with you a quick back of the envelope calculation. If our procreation policy is able to generate 5,000 more births a year, and each of these children goes on to contribute to the economy at the average GDP per capita, let us say, S$20,000 a year, that is quite conservative, in fact, the number is higher. And, let us say their working life is 30 years, a quick ballpark calculation, that cohort would contribute something like S$3 billion to our economy over a 30-year life-span. I think this is a conservative number. So investing about 10-15% of that future benefit in a generation of young Singaporeans today is not bad mathematics and I would, therefore, urge the Finance Minister to give the Minister-in-charge maximum latitude to exercise his discretion in this respect. Quite apart from the future benefits, the other point to note is spending in this particular sector is likely to be more domestically oriented because a lot of services are generated within the economy here.”
“When we consider some of the past Government assistance measures that have come in place, like CPF top-ups and so on, we have used housing type as the proxy for one's economic well-being and so the smaller your housing type, the greater the top-up you receive, or no top-up depending on how high the housing type is. That is at best a crude measure and certainly when we are looking at it in the context of things like healthcare we should be very careful how we administer such criteria. Specifically, I would say that we should not be looking just at assets, we should be looking at flows of income that people have, in deciding what category they fall into in terms of socio-economic groups. A good example would be older generation Singaporeans who might be living in landed property, but old landed property in some of the older estates in Singapore. For these individuals, to make an argument that they are asset rich and they could also sell their house and pay for their medical cost - economically rational, but I think socially quite difficult to communicate and convince people. So I would say that we need to strike a balance between the two, not totally disregard one's asset holdings, but find the way to strike a balance between that and the real income flows that individuals have, so that whatever means test we ultimately administer, will be seen as one that is fair. Sir, if I can just move to the point on building the next generation and procreation policies. By outlining the Government's thinking on some underlying principles, but leaving out the details or specifics for later, the Finance Minister has, in the manner of speaking, left us all with a pregnant pause.”
“But for a young university student, at the age of, say, 20-21, taking out a loan, even if it is for a few tens of thousands of dollars, is a huge ball and chain around his or her neck and it can affect morale and perhaps even the choice of whether to go ahead with tertiary education. The question is whether there are alternatives we can examine. And what I would like to ask the Government to consider is the model that the Australians have adopted, which is to impose a tertiary tax on those who go through the university system so that for a period of time after they have graduated and when their earnings are about certain levels, they will pay a tax until they are deemed to have fulfilled their own financial obligation to the university education that they received. That might achieve the twin objectives of, on the one hand, imposing greater financial ownership on individuals for their tertiary education and, at the same time not over-burdening the individual student, psychologically or financially, at the very outset of his or her tertiary education. The third aspect, Sir, I would like to highlight is, keeping it simple and fair. We have a system which is quite complex. Buying a car in Singapore involves, for some people, quite complex econometric modelling - trying to anticipate COE prices, their movements, and how various Government policies will have an impact on these. And, really these are very simple choices we should be allowed to make in our daily lives. From that context, when we talk about the means test, it should also be simple, but fair. What do I mean by that?”
“But there are a few key concerns that I have because we are managing a transition from an economy in a high-growth phase with Government playing a very dominant role to an economy in a more challenging phase, and Government empowering individuals and corporations more to chart their destiny. In that context, one key element in all this change must be the preservation of choice. Singaporeans must be free to choose. If we take healthcare as an example, what level of healthcare do they want so that they can decide on how to spend their dollar? Whether it is full cost, private, "A" class in our Government hospitals or subsidised healthcare at "C" class or some intermediate arrangement, all these options must be available to Singaporeans. Then they can make rational choices as to how they want to allocate their budgets. In that context, I was quite heartened to hear that the Government will ensure that even the well-off can use C-class wards or will access to C-class wards, although they may not perhaps enjoy the same level of subsidy. The second dimension is providing support. When we make changes of this nature, asking individuals to take more ownership and responsibility, it is inevitable that some will fall through the cracks, and this is not because of any lack of trying or ill-intent on their part. It could just be the result of the circumstances that they find themselves in. It is important, for example, in the context of university education, that we have adequate measures in place to help those who are going to have difficulties meeting their financial obligations, especially if they have to bear a higher portion of the cost. We have talked a lot about loans and bursaries.”
“We are at an important juncture where there has been a great deal of presumptions on the part of many Singaporeans where the State will intervene, and intervene in many cases quite quickly, in order to look after their interests. In an environment which imposes greater onus on the individual, not just take responsibility for himself, but also in terms of going out and creating wealth and opportunities in our country and beyond, that model is not relevant. Indeed, we must expect that the centre of gravity must shift from the State to the individual, not precipitously, but in gradual measured steps, but certainly the direction must be clear. I think that has become quite evident in the slew of underlying principles that the Finance Minister has announced in the course of this Budget debate. The second aspect is where does State funding go? The key point is that State funding should go where there is greatest benefit for Singapore as a whole. In economic terms, it will be called the positive externality, meaning there are benefits that go beyond just the individuals, but to society in general. A good example of that is primary and secondary education and basic healthcare. Continued expenditure in this area and even increasing expenditure in this area is an important plank for the Government in its future policies. The third theme that ran through is helping those who are in greatest need. Hence, the discussion on the healthcare system and, in particular, means testing to decide whether and how much an individual should be entitled to in terms of subsidies from the Government. These are all sound underlying principles to achieve social equity and economic efficiency in public finance.”
“He has stressed the sound public finances which underpin Singapore's economic growth and resilience. He has also highlighted the Government's willingness, in a sense, to have temporary deficits, as it has been the case in the last few years, without falling into the trap of permanent structural deficits. These are sound principles which I fully support. They are going to become even more important, especially the aspect of maintaining balanced budgets in an environment where competition is going to get more intense, having downward impact and pressure on the Government's revenue whilst expenditure needs are going to continously increase with an aging population and other social needs in the country. Is a $0.7 billion deficit, which is about 0.4% of GDP 2004, extreme conservatism or is it a cautious first step with additional spending due with procreation-oriented measures and other policies that will be unfolding in the course of the year? My own view is that it is better to be cautious. But I would like to hear the Finance Minister's elaboration on the Government's policy of fiscal prudence, and especially in managing it at a time when the economy is at the turning point and rising for growth. In the Finance Minister's outline of the policy on building a strong society, there were a few key themes which ran through all aspects that he addressed - education, healthcare, building the next generation and also on the aspect of saving for retirement. I thought one of the key themes was the balance between the State and the individual in taking responsibility for one's own affairs.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in this debate. Sir, I rise in support of the Budget for FY04. To me, this Budget is significant not so much for its specific announcements on expenditure and taxation policies, but more on the Finance Minister's outline of some core fiscal policies which will underpin the Government's public finance approach going forward in its stage of new development and competition that Singapore will face. In the course of the next few minutes, I hope to address some of those underlying principles. Sir, a recent report by a Morgan Stanley economist was headlined, "The FY 2004 Budget - extreme conservatism is puzzling". I can understand that analyst's puzzle if you will, because he compares the surpluses that the Government has accumulated over a period of growth to the deficits that it has run in the last three or so years, and draws the conclusion that the Government can spend more from its reserves and other sources in order to create more of a domestic economy. Some data that have been cited include the average surplus for the period FY1993 to FY2003, has been in the order of magnitude of about 13% of GDP for 2004, compared to the average deficit for the period FY2001 to FY2004 which is about 3.5% of 2004 GDP. Put in another way, accumulated surplus was in the order of magnitude of about $130 billion, whereas the deficit was only in the order of magnitude of about $6 billion. So why can the Government not spend more? Sir, I think there is some sympathy for that perspective both within this House and also in the general economy. The Finance Minister himself has made an eloquent case as to why fiscal prudence has been the hallmark of this Government.”
“If they make decisions that are quite unreasonable, then the Ministry will intervene. But in this instance, the decision was not unreasonable, and that is why the Ministry supported the decision of the principal.”
“Sir, I accept the Minister's explanation that we entrust considerable discretion and responsibility in the hands of our principals. That is quite correct. But the corollary is that there will be some variability in the way that discretion is exercised across schools and we can accept that to a limit. But on matters as serious as Police reports, can the Ministry perhaps be more prescriptive as to the steps that the principals must take before taking such a serious decision which can have a lifelong impact on the students? Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam: Variability is what is to be expected because, as Mr Khaw Boon Wan says, every birth is different. Every school is different. Student population is different, the history of the problem is different and each instance is different. So I would not want to constrain schools with too prescriptive an approach. We already provide very useful guidelines, with lots of illustrations on how to handle the problems. But the principal is the person on the ground and he or she has to decide. The Ministry is not in a position to prescribe how each and every situation should be decided upon. It is just not possible. Not only is it not possible, it is not desirable either. If we want strong schools with strong leaders, we cannot have them referring to a detailed rule book each and every time something happens, we cannot have them second guessing the Ministry, we cannot have them calling up the Ministry to ask: what should I do in this instance? We do not get strong schools and strong principals if we do that. We now have strong schools and, by and large, we have very good principals. I think to keep it that way, we have got to leave the decisions on these matters with them. These are the ground decisions they are in the best position to make.”
“I understand, Sir, that our Muslim scholars are also mindful of the view of their counterparts in other parts of the Muslim world. At the same time, I believe they are aware of the views of fellow Singaporeans with whom they interact every day. I have no doubt that Islam, like other religions, promotes the saving of lives, granted that saving lives is not at all costs. I do hope that in due course the Muslim scholars and the Muslim community would advance a solution which would enable the community to partake in HOTA while not undermining its principles in other areas such as the rights of the waris and respect for the deceased. In conclusion, Sir, it seems to me, on balance, the Bill is better for Singapore. And if I may borrow a quote from an anonymous writer: "Is life worth living? It depends on the quality of the liver." I support the Bill.”
“Thus, as regards the 1987 HOTA, MUIS advised the Government that it was better that Muslims be excluded from the HOTA but they were allowed to opt in. This advice, I reckon, was in consideration of the need to recognise the rights of the waris. It was also felt that the Muslim community at that time would be more prepared to accept the opt-in scheme rather than the main regime where consent of the waris would be presumed. There were other developments. In 1995, MUIS issued a ruling that living cornea transplant was within prescribed circumstances permissible. Earlier this year, MUIS also ruled that donation of other organs such as the liver and the heart is similarly permissible as donation of kidneys. I understand, Sir, that MUIS had also ruled that organ transplants from non-accidental deaths are, in principle, permissible. Further, MUIS recently ruled that for Muslims to opt into HOTA, it is sufficient that they obtain the consent of one waris and one witness, as opposed to the requirement for consent of two waris in 1986. Sir, the developments mentioned show that the Muslim community in general, and MUIS in particular, are willing to relook at stated positions. They do so in the light of advances made in medicine and the changing needs of society. But they are also careful in reinterpreting established principles so as to minimise uncertainty and confusion among the adherents. I would urge the Minister and the Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs as well to see whether MUIS could suitably review the position as regards how the consent of the waris has to be expressed, to see whether we could bring its position closer to that of mainstream Singapore society without undermining established principles.”
“Getting people to opt in proved to be no straightforward task. The position of the Muslims, Sir, is expressed by rulings issued by the Muslim Religious Council (MUIS). In principle, the rulings are based on the concept that the corpse of a Muslim belongs to his estate. As such, the waris (or the heirs) of the deceased have rights over the cadaver. Thus, nothing should be taken from the cadaver unless it is with the consent of the waris. So even if a Muslim wishes to opt into HOTA, the Muslim person has to obtain the consent of two of his waris. This was the position in 1987. Look in another way, the position of MUIS seems to be founded on the view that, firstly, the public interest to cure diseases has to be balanced against the rights of the waris over a cadaver; and, secondly, that the consent of the waris cannot be presumed by legislation, but instead such consent must be expressed in individual cases. This Bill does not change this position. But a closer look, Sir, would show some interesting developments. In 1973, MUIS issued a ruling that if a Muslim made a will to the effect that his kidneys be donated on his demise, such a will would be considered void. However, this issue underwent not a transplant but a review in the 1980s. Based on the reinterpretation of religious principles and based on prevailing medical knowledge then, MUIS issued a new ruling to the effect that kidney transplant arising from accidental deaths, such as those envisaged by the original HOTA, was permissible. This ruling made in 1986 superseded the 1973 position. However, the 1986 ruling contained a proviso. The proviso related to the rights of the waris which I had mentioned earlier.”
“Already, Sir, there have been news reports of people in desperate conditions offering their organs for money. This problem is exacerbated with great improvements in communication. If unchecked, transnational transactions in organs could raise even more difficult issues. It is therefore very useful that the legislature expresses its clear position on this issue. I think the Government has correctly identified the considerations in this regard - medical risk to the donor, genuine and informed consent, exclusion of children from being donors and motivation of the donor. The overarching concern is the ethical issue - whether it is right to mutilate one living person so as to benefit another. We say it should be permissible in genuine cases. So the Bill seeks to prescribe the conditions and processes to ensure that only genuine cases are permitted. Sir, the final aspect that I wish to touch on is with regard to the position of the Muslim community as regards HOTA and the Bill. Presently, Muslims are excluded from the Act. They can, however, opt in. Those Muslims who opt in would qualify for the benefits under HOTA as do their non-Muslim counterparts. Such benefits include the right to receive organ donation and subsidised treatment. Those Muslims who do not opt in would not be eligible for such benefits. At the end of 2000, Muslims formed about 20% of Singaporeans who suffered from kidney failure and among new cases of end-stage renal failure each year. The MKAC (Muslim Kidney Action Committee) was then formed to encourage Muslims to opt in. After about 10 years of tireless effort and $7 million spent, the number of Muslim pledges increased 33-fold, from 400 in 1990 to 13,000 in the year 2000. However, this constituted only about 4.2% of the eligible Muslim population.”
“Conversely, it is not right to say that those who support the Act or this Bill do not care about social norms. They do appreciate the need to uphold norms but they see the Act as a humane way of manifesting equally compelling values where society, as a whole, decides that some sacrifice is justifiable. These arguments, Sir, and I believe many more eloquent ones, were made when the original Act was passed. But they are as relevant and applicable today as they were then. They deal with very important issues. It is not therefore surprising that the issues raised in 1987 were raised again recently. It is incumbent that this House and the Government in due course continue to handle these concerns appropriately. That said, Sir, I see no reason for us to review the Act as such. Indeed, as our experience has shown, there is cause for us to improve on it. The thrust of the Bill is two-fold. The first is to expand on the types of organs and to include non-accidental deaths. The second is to regulate living transplant. Over the years, we have accumulated enough knowledge and experience to have the confidence that an expanded HOTA would not be harmful but instead be helpful to society. The figures provided by the Ministry support this contention. As such, I support the expansion envisaged by the Bill. The intention is to save lives, and our experience shows that the Bill, if passed, is likely to do just that. Currently, there is no legislation regulating living organ donor transplantation, although the Ministry of Health has issued professional guidelines to doctors and hospitals. There is thus a level of uncertainty. It is bound to cause confusion among doctors, patients and potential donors.”