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 40 of 46.
“There are hundreds of deaths due to accidents each year, but the average number of kidney transplants under HOTA has been about 13.5 per year. I am not aware of any complaint or allegation in the past 16 years that care to a potential donor was compromised due to interest in conducting a transplant. I believe that the same culture would prevail under the new provisions. The easing up is not drastic. But the Ministry must continuously assure the public that this remains so. I understand that it is envisaged that two doctors certifying brain death for a potential donor must not be in the transplant team or be involved in the selection and care of the recipient. This mechanism removes much of the potential for compromise of medical care to the potential donor under the Bill. Perhaps the Minister could also enlighten us on measures that would ensure that the separation of roles of doctors would be rigorously implemented. Sir, some members of the public questioned whether we should presume consent for cadaveric human organ transplant in the first place. This is a delicate balancing act. On the upside, the Act allows for lives to be saved and lives to be lived better. Here we are not talking about superficial cosmetic changes but we speak of the difference between life and death, and the difference between a reasonably healthy life as against suffering chronic ailments. The downside is whether we compromise the rights of individuals to decide and whether we unwittingly open ourselves to abuse. Sir, it is not right to say that those who oppose the Act in principle even today do not appreciate the good arguments for it. They do appreciate the noble intention to save lives, but they accord more priority to maintaining certain social norms as they understand it.”
“The public debate includes matters such as the definition of "brain dead", society's values on respect for the dead, the possibility that doctors would be more concerned with harvesting the organ of a dying person than with saving his life and so on. These issues were debated when Parliament passed the original Act in 1987, but the public raised them again. While technically Parliament need not deal with such issues again, it is not wise for us to brush them aside. Such concerns are real, important and widespread. Indeed, some of my colleagues before me had raised the same issues. One such issue is whether the Bill, if passed, implies that we lack respect for the dead. The original Act has been around for 16 years. How we respect the dead had not changed significantly. Our funeral rites have not changed much, and even if they do, it is not because of the Act. Except for a very small number, all deceased persons undergo the usual funeral rites and accorded all due respect as dictated by their beliefs and customs. This is mainly because for an organ to be considered suitable for harvesting from a cadaver, there are many conditions. So, the opportunity for transplant is small and rare. Perhaps this best explains why there have been few organ transplants from cadavers each year in spite of the Act. The figures were given by the Acting Minister for Health earlier. But it may be argued that this time the Bill includes other organs, such as the liver, the heart and includes non-accidental deaths as well. Will this open the floodgates? Will this opening up encourage less care be given to potential donors? Looking at our experience thus far, I personally doubt it.”
“Are they informed and, if so, at what point upon getting PR or are there any other reminders to them? I would like to know this because I think it is, potentially, a problematic issue if our practices here vary with the norms or practices in their home countries. I think we need to be sure that foreigners coming to Singapore to live and work are well briefed of our practices under this Act. Sir, I think a lot has been said about this. There is certainly a need to educate the public about the issue of what constitutes "brain death", since that is the key trigger for this Act to come into place for cadaveric donors. The concern I have here is that in talking to professionals and well-educated individuals, there is still a great deal of, first, uncertainty as to what is actually brain death. Is brain death reversible? Are the criteria for defining "brain death" arbitrary, and a whole host of other related questions. These sorts of questions and uncertainties act as an impediment to the effective achievement of the objective of this Bill. So, I think it is critical that the Ministry, together with its agencies, works to communicate the point clearly on what constitutes brain death and why Singaporeans should be assured that these are decisions that will be made after much thought and based on criteria that have been formulated after years of practice and assessment. I think that will go a long way in taking us closer to the objectives of this Bill. Mr Ahmad Khalis Bin Abdul Ghani (Hong Kah): Sir, this Bill does not introduce legislation on human organ transplant for the first time. It is an amendment that seeks to enlarge the scope of the present Act. Since its First Reading, the Bill had attracted or rekindled much public interest.”
“But if we think about it a bit further, what this means is that we could technically have a Transplant Ethics Committee of, say, seven members, of which one is a lay person, one medical professional not linked to the institution, and then five from the institution itself. Then there is the question of how will the decisions made by this Transplant Ethics Committee appear in the eyes of the general public. I think there is a need to ensure certain caps to the size of the overall Transplant Ethics Committee if, in fact, we may say that they should be set up in each hospital. And if they are going to be set up in each hospital, then there should also be an explicit limit on the number of professionals from that particular institution being represented on that committee. I think this is not to cast any doubts on anybody's integrity. This is more about being seen to be doing the right thing as much as doing the right thing. Finally, I have a set of questions on the issue of public education. In preparing for this debate on this Bill, I spoke to several young lawyers, doctors and professionals. And as we know, under HOTA, Singapore citizens and permanent residents turning 21 are to be informed of their coverage under HOTA by the Ministry of Health. All the young people I spoke to, and they are young enough to remember when they turned 21, do not recollect receiving any such notification. I would like to ask the Minister to confirm that, in fact, this is being done and that all Singaporeans and PRs will be told of their coverage under HOTA at the appropriate point in time. A related question is with respect to foreigners who are here under permanent residence or other organisations.”
“From what I know based on the readings I have done on this matter, I think the additional number of organ donations that might arise from this amendment are of the order of magnitude of a few tens in a year. If that is the case, then is this argument of concern over the speed of decision making of the ethics committee really strong enough for us to err in favour of a decentralised model? Or should we really be focusing on creating a centralised body which will respond efficiently if it is given the resources to ensure that matters such as proper counselling of the donors is done, and to build up a body of cases regarding this whole new and untested water of living donors before we, with some level of confidence, decentralise it to the hospitals? I think this is an important issue. My own preference would be to keep it centralised and then, over a period of time, once we are more comfortable with the application of the principles, to decentralise it. I would appreciate the Minister's elaboration on his thinking on this subject. If the plan continues to be to keep the committee decentralised, then the question that I would like to ask is: how do we ensure consistency in practice across medical institutions? Will the Ministry draw up guidelines to ensure that all these ethics committees will operate within certain well-defined boundaries? The issue of the composition of these ethics committees also needs to be addressed more specifically. As it stands, the requirement is that the ethics committee comprises no fewer than three persons, of which one must be a lay person and the other a medical doctor not employed by or related to the hospital in question. It is a good start.”
“Sir, under HOTA, deceased between the ages of 21 and 60 may be the subject of authorisation for the removal of any organ for transplant purposes unless they have opted out. However, under the Medical (Therapy, Education and Research) Act, anyone of sound mind above the age of 18 can pledge his organs for transplant, education or research. So, the question that begs to be asked is: what is the status of a living donor or any other donor, for example, between the ages of 18 and 21 under this Bill? Can they donate? Certainly, from a public policy perspective, if the intent is to maximise the potential pool of healthy donors, we should allow those between the ages of 18 and 21 to do so. But this matter is again not explicitly addressed, and I would appreciate a clarification from the Minister on this. Sir, given the magnitude and range of issues that need to be contemplated and thought through by the Transplant Ethics Committee, it is important that we also ask the questions on how the Transplant Ethics Committees are structured, what is their composition and how they are going to go about their work. The most basic question that comes to my mind is: should the Transplant Ethics Committee be centralised or decentralised? This Bill envisages that each hospital will have its own committee. In other words, it will be decentralised. I think the key concern here is the trade-off between speed of decision making whereas a more centralised model will give us greater consistency. I think the concern with a decentralised model is: will the guidelines be applied in a consistent manner, meeting not just minimum standards but what we accept as social norms in approaching such thorny issues?”
“If a recipient compensates the living donor for the cost of surgery, post-surgery care and also the treatment of complications that might arise that may require long-term treatment, is that permissible under new section 15 of this Bill? If it is indeed permissible, is there a test as to what is a reasonable level of compensation? And if so, who will verify or audit to ensure that such payments are legitimate and not excessive? We can extend that argument further and Mrs Lim Hwee Hua had talked about it. If the recipient offers to compensate the living donor for loss of income during the period of convalescence after the operation has taken place, is that permissible? What if the post-operative complications diminish the living donor's earning capacity permanently? Can the recipient legitimately make good on that shortfall? There is a whole range of questions we can contemplate in this regard. The Bill itself leaves these matters largely unaddressed. I suspect partly because the Ministry's thinking is that it should be addressed by either the ethics committee's deliberations or in a court of law. But my own view is that we need to have some level of debate and clarity on the intent in this House to guide the committee and any other body that needs to think and address these issues. In general, the key question we need to ask is: are there any guidelines or provisions that are in place as to how remote such expenses or payments need to be before they are deemed not to be consideration for the sale of organs? I would also like to seek a clarification from the Minister on the applicable age of consent under this Human Organ Transplant (Amendment) Bill.”
“The Minister said that the Committee will ensure, through various reports from psychologists, doctors and so on, that the living donor is well-briefed, understands what the impacts of his action are on himself and his long-term health before he comes to a conclusion. Sir, this notion of understanding the nature and the consequences of his action is very important in this context, because the impact of a living donor transplant is quite serious. From what I understand from friends who are in the medical profession, living donor kidney transplants have a mortality rate of less than 0.1%. On the other hand, living donor liver transplants have mortality rates that can range between 1-3%. When we start thinking about chances of complications, post-surgery, the probability increases significantly and as I understand it can be as high as 20-25%. It is critical that whoever is contemplating donating his or her organ is well-briefed of the implications. This briefing must be done by individuals who are well-trained and impartial. This is the part that I am most concerned about. How will the Transplant Ethics Committee ensure that is indeed accomplished, especially when we think in terms of usually these scenarios are charged with emotions and the time pressure on the Transplant Ethics Committee will be significant? The second element that comes up is: how will the Transplant Ethics Committee ensure that the donor is not under duress or donating pursuant to any contractual agreement or other understanding? What criteria will be used to judge what is reasonable compensation as opposed to inducement? Allow me to illustrate.”
“Mr Speaker, thank you for allowing me to join in this debate. I rise in support of this Human Organ Transplant (Amendment) Bill, the intent of which is to enhance quality of life and to save lives. I think on that score, no one in this House can have any quarrels with the Bill. My focus however is on the method and approach that are going to be used to achieve that objective. Like all good intentions, it is the means that need to be examined in closer detail. Sir, the Bill in particular addresses the issue of living donor transplants and that is the specific aspect that I wish to focus the bulk of my comments on, as many of the preceding speakers have covered many other areas. Sir, the Transplant Ethics Committee envisaged by this Bill must be satisfied with three matters before it gives its authorisation for the removal of a specified organ from the living donor. Firstly, a living donor has to give consent. Secondly, the consent has to be informed, in the sense that he is of sound mind, able to understand the nature and the consequences of the procedure he has to undergo. Thirdly, as the Minister puts it, there must be no emotional coercion or financial inducement. These are important considerations for the Transplant Ethics Committee because it must, in its task, be seen to be objective, having the best interest of the living donor and the recipient at heart in coming to a fair and just outcome. The fact that most of these decisions may have to be made under the pressure of time, because lives will be at stake, I think, makes this task all the more difficult. Certain questions arise when one contemplates how the Transplant Ethics Committee is going to go about its work.”
“We will have to work hard in MINDEF and the SAF in the coming days, weeks, months, years, to restore the confidence of the public in the SAF. And that is the reason why I called my commanders in this morning, 400 of them, to speak to them, to tell them that this is a serious matter, pay attention to it, they are responsible personally, and what they do, more than what I say in Parliament today, will affect what the public think of them and the SAF, and I believe that they have got the message.”
“Mr Speaker, I welcome the Minister's assurance and commitment to a thorough inquiry into all three incidents in a transparent manner. But, Sir, my concern is a different one, especially if it is sparked by the tenor of the discussion in Parliament so far, which appears to suggest that we have now got all these very deep concerns about the state of the SAF foremost and the kinds of suggestions that are emerging. I would like to just find out what measures are going to be put in place so that this does not get taken out of context. We should not let the actions of individuals or isolated incidents tarnish the hard-earned reputation of the SAF. We do take pride in the SAF. My concern is that if this becomes a witch-hunt, then we have a different kind of problem. I am also concerned about the impact that it would have on the morale of our SAF men who are going to be called to put their lives on the line, if necessary. I would like to ask the Minister what is the state of the SAF's morale in the wake of these incidents and also what steps will be taken in public communications, both externally and internally within the SAF, to ensure morale remains strong. RAdm Teo Chee Hean: Sir, this incident is a setback and it is a blow for the SAF. And, obviously, it would affect the morale of the SAF, in particular that of the Commandos. But I am confident that the Commandos will rise to the occasion. They are determined to set right what has gone wrong, tighten up their systems, achieve the target of excellence that they set for themselves, look after their commandos, look after their soldiers, look after those who are placed under their charge well, redeem their reputation. That, I know, is the make-up of the commandos. They rise to the challenge.”
“For example, should Government housing really be focused in providing 4-room and especially 5-room housing? Should we not just focus Government housing at the entry level, or even slightly below for those who cannot afford it, so that we focus on 4-room for those who can afford to buy it and review the issue of 1-, 2- and 3-room flats? The need for rental housing is growing, not just because of an economic downturn, but I think there will be those who may not want to lock up so much of their wealth in a house. But the rental market is relatively tight because of the supply being relatively small. Can we look at freeing up that component of HDB housing so that more can make the choice, instead of buying, to rent? Tied to that is the issue of whether Government should revisit its policy of not building any further 1-, 2- and 3-room flats. I think we need to calibrate this. Obviously, we do not want to have an over-supply situation for 1-, 2- and 3-room flats when the economy recovers. But we need to look at the longer-term position, in terms of what percentage of the public housing market should really be at this level of rental and 3-room type housing. So I hope the Government would use this opportunity, not just to stop at the CPF system, but also to re-examine some of these other core policies which have guided us over the last 38 years but, going forward, would need to be re-examined and, where necessary, fundamentally repositioned. And I hope this is an opportunity that the Government will seize.”
“Sir, these are not recalcitrants looking for a free ride, people who come with their cap in hand at the first sign of trouble. They are honourable Singaporeans. Many of us have seen them at our meet-the-people sessions and other contacts. They believe in hard work and they swallow their pride when they come and ask for help, not because their work ethic has been eroded but because they have fallen on hard times, and it is beyond their control and they are unable to manage the consequences. I think the Government must be prepared in this context to come out with both short-term measures aimed at those who need relief during this cyclical period so that they can withstand the pain and when the recovery comes, benefit from it. At the same time, the Government must set in place measures to help the structurally unemployed or those who are going to have long-term issues adjusting to the economy, as it comes out of this downturn. I think DPM's speech later today would be an important one in that regard. Sir, there is also the issue of another core policy, housing. We have always espoused the goal of universal home ownership, and I think about 90% of Singaporeans own their homes. The question is whether this policy tends to result in an over-consumption of housing among Singaporeans. Do we put too much of our wealth into housing? Do we seek to continue to invest in housing as a form of upgrading? And to what extent is this a result of our general policy to promote home ownership in Singapore? I think the goal of universal home ownership is valid. It gives a stake in Singapore and we should continue to hold that close to our heart. But how we get there and how we facilitate that is an entirely different question.”
“But I think this is also a time for us to review some other core policies or philosophies that underpin our policy approach in Singapore. One example is our attitude towards financial assistance to individuals. Our philosophy has, for the longest time, been underpinned by the desire not to breed a crutch mentality among Singaporeans, not to have the welfare state, and to focus instead very tightly on those who are in real need. So our criteria have been very tightly defined, the processes have been stringently administered so that Singaporeans have to try very hard before they can achieve some level of relief through these measures. We are in a situation today where I think a review of our approach and a broadening of the group that we seek to help is justified. For example, we have a class of Singaporeans, older but less educated, who are not likely to be re-employed easily when the economy recovers. They are the structurally unemployable, or unemployed. Yet, these are the individuals who made many sacrifices in the early years in building up the country but they may have little savings, both in the CPF and in the discretionary accounts. Another group is the so-called sandwiched group whose incomes are too high for welfare but too low to be able to absorb the shocks through discretionary savings. They are the ones who probably may be earning just over $1,500 a month so that they cannot participate or benefit from the HOPE scheme. They are the ones who may be earning more than $800 a month so they cannot rent an HDB flat. They are the ones who live in 4-room flats with two children going to school who, on a month-to-month cashflow basis, are just barely meeting it so that one adjustment like this would cost them considerable adjustment pains.”
“Last night, I met an individual who works two jobs. He works part time in a printing company and he earns $500 there. He works as a car park attendant and he earns another $500 there. I happened to bump into him in the car park and he said to me, "I heard the Prime Minister's speech and I fully support it. Because I know that when the Prime Minister and the Government do this, they are thinking of the long-term interests of the country and they are trying to look after us." And it is not just one individual's comment, it also came from a dialogue I had chaired two nights ago where the issue was not so much a lack of confidence in the Government or loss of trust, but it was more about, after this, what else can we do in order to achieve growth and bring back the jobs. That is really the quid pro quo that Singaporeans are looking at. They are prepared to take the sacrifice. They are prepared to absorb the pain. But, in return, they would like to know when would the jobs come back. How would they be created? And what else would be done to lower the business costs so that more businesses would stay in Singapore or come to Singapore. For example, will the reduction be passed through the civil service system to achieve lower costs or charges, or will it be passed on as well to civil servants so that they have their pay increase in order to compensate for the loss of the CPF contribution? I think, ultimately, the trade-off here that we are looking for is also jobs and, in the meantime, measures to help them ride through the difficulty. The Prime Minister said that these are extraordinary times that require extraordinary measures, and I agree. And the review of one of the core policies, like CPF, clearly indicates the gravity of the situation.”
“So there is a mismatch in tenure because, in that timeframe, you go through many business cycles, at least three or four. So there is going to be this variation in the contribution rate and it is going to create uncertainty. So the question is of course why the Government did not prescribe one long-term CPF contribution rate based on its assessment of current economic environment and competitive challenges. I know this is not an easy task, given the dynamic environment we live in and certainly Opposition Members, like Mr Low, would make political capital out of it. But this Government has never shied away from making tough decisions, and particularly on this one, I thought the benefit of coming out with a clear reference point for CPF contribution would give a lot of certainty to employers and businesses, on the one hand, and also a clear signal to our workforce, in terms of what they should be expecting. This would also allow us to take a very definitive position on constraining the CPF to its core purposes - superannuation, medical benefits and only the residual should be used for housing and allow the adjustments, if any, according to the business cycle, to be from variable wages and discretionary savings that individuals have. So I did feel that the Government could have been more specific in its recommendation of the long-term CPF contribution rate and hope that we will get some clarification on the rationale behind the range approach. Sir, there is also this question of trust. Has the people's trust in the Government been lost because of this exercise? And I heard Mr Low Thia Khiang speak earlier that this is a breach. I tend to take a different point of view and this is not hypothetical. It is based on empirical data.”
“In the case of the business community, some preliminary feedback I get is that while they appreciate the 3% reduction they see this as a short-term reduction in cost because the Government has retained the option to go up to a statutory rate of as high as 36%. So for long-term business planning purposes, they will continue to use the 36% number as their reference point. So if our intent was to signal to businesses there is a lower rate and that should affect their business decisions in the margin, then this may not have been convincingly or clearly conveyed. At the same time, for individual workers, I think our intent was to say we need to adjust, we need to refocus on the basics of how we can compete. That being the case, clearly we did not want them to have an expectation or build their lifestyle on a higher rate of CPF contribution. But the focus now is that, yes, we are at 33% today but, when times are good, it will go back to 36%. And I think that might have an unintended effect in the way they plan their decisions or make their decisions. Sir, this approach of defining a range for CPF contribution also reinforces the perception of CPF as a tool of economic policy for the Government. As Dr Jennifer Lee and others have pointed out, the CPF scheme has been loaded with many objectives, superannuation, the core, and then home ownership, medical benefits. And it has also been used as a tool to reduce business costs. The new scheme varies the contribution rate from 30% to 36%, and that variation will depend on the business cycle. Yet, our CPF scheme is designed to help Singaporeans cope with long-term requirements, like retirement, housing where you may take 25-30-year loans, and medical costs in the long run.”
“Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the policies that had been announced by the Prime Minister to retune the CPF system. Sir, for the longest time the CPF system has fostered a high compulsory saving regime in Singapore, probably the highest in the world and this policy adjustment that we are going through now, while it is difficult and comes at a time when we could do without it at the individual level, I think it is an opportunity for us at the system level to recalibrate and reposition for the long term. The first question I wanted to address was what signal this set of measures has sent out to the market in general. It is quite clear that the Government's move from a 40% contribution rate to a 36% contribution rate has been unambiguously understood and received by the market. Businesses see this as a clear signal from the Government that it recognises the competitive pressures that businesses are under in Singapore and they appreciate the readiness of the Government to undertake some painful and tough measures in order to sustain competitiveness. At the level of the individual Singaporean and the worker, that move from 40% to 36% has also communicated the radically different economic environment we are in and the need to moderate our wage expectations, and with it, in a sense to recalibrate our lifestyles. So that move from the 40% to 36% has been communicated and received with relative clarity. However, the 33% peg for the revised contribution rate and the range the Prime Minister has announced from 30-36% has given rise to some mixed signals.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am following up on my previous question to the Minister. On data disclosure, my point really is, why not take the guesswork out of this? Because the Minister's point was that data is available in different forms and different contexts and if you had induced or done extrapolation on the information to get the numbers, my point is, given the level of public interest in this matter and the Government's clear position that, in fact, the foreign worker policy is a very defensible one, why not come out with the data and publish it openly? The second point on services industry, just to clarify, the services sector is a very diverse sector. What I want to understand better was since there is so much job creation, is it in the higher-end in terms of professional services, which would make it difficult for those displaced from the manufacturing sector, for example, to retrain themselves, or is there greater job creation at the middle to lower-end, where perhaps this kind of transition is more easily accomplished?”
“Mr Speaker, it seems to me that on this matter there are two aspects - the facts and the perception. The Minister has gone to some length to explain and lay out the facts clearly to us. Unfortunately, the outcome of this whole episode is that it has created a perception in the minds of many Singaporeans that the Government data in the public domain may not be giving the full picture, or the picture is not complete, and I agree with the Minister that this is an unhelpful perception, especially at a time when we should be focusing on the jobs and the economy and not on data and its interpretation as such. So I would like to ask the Minister in that spirit. First of all, the data as presented in these tables are very compelling, but the Minister has said that only the top line is available in the public domain. So the question is, going forward, will the Ministry make available the additional lines which appear to make the case moot? That is the first question I have. The second is, in the job creation data that is in Table 2, broken up by sectors, it is clear that the services industry, particularly, has been a very strong engine of job creation. The services industry is a very diverse industry and I would like some clarity or granularity on these statistics here. Would the Minister be able to tell us at which part of the services industry is the greatest job creation because that might give us a sense as to how easily Singaporeans who are displaced from, for example, the manufacturing sector, can retrain and adapt themselves to the new opportunities?”
“Sir, there are examples of individuals who, because of changes in their employment situation, may subsequently want to either withdraw their application for a flat or to change it to a smaller flat type. Can this be done? Would HDB allow this without any penalty being imposed on the individuals?”
“Mr Speaker, may I ask the DPM two questions? The first pertains to the Pasir Panjang Wholesale Centre. The livelihood of the wholesalers and the workers there has been quite badly hit by the shutdown. I would like to know whether, in addition to the Home Quarantine Order allowance and some of the other measures, there is specific assistance available for these wholesalers and their workers. The second question pertains to the broader economic impact. The DPM has announced the revised growth estimates and there has been a package of measures that has been announced. This is obviously premised on certain assumptions of the intensity and duration of the SARS virus impact on the economy. May I ask, especially in the light of some of the announcements from Hong Kong on their measures which appear to be of far greater assistance, when or at what point would the Government deem it appropriate to revisit the issue of further Government assistance for the economy?”
“I understand from the media that two charges have been brought against the PhD student for causing grievous hurt and cheating. I just want to seek confirmation whether that is indeed the case, and whether similar charges are being brought against the lead investigator, Dr Shorvon.”
“And my sense of it is that there is an element of uncertainty and disquiet amongst the faculty staff. I think the key issues that they have expressed are that, first, they are not really clear of the rationale behind this move. Is there a cost cutting exercise, or are there other more fundamental objectives in play? And, secondly, whether this is actually a decision that has been taken and has been communicated to them at this point, or is this a feedback exercise which would then be factored into the final decision. I would appreciate it if a clarification from the Minister as to the intent and the rationale behind this exercise, and to also let us know when a decision, if it has not been taken already, will be taken and implemented. I think this would go a long way in at least dispelling the uncertainty in the minds of many of the university staff. I think that, in turn, it will have a positive effect on the learning environment in the university.”
“Madam, I have two points to raise on the matter of university education. The first pertains to the recently announced decision to go in favour of a multi-campus model through the National University of Singapore, as opposed to the introduction and establishment of a fourth university. I appreciate the model of a multi-campus university and I think there are some excellent examples around the world. For example, the University of California where this has been quite successful in offering a high standard of education to a broad spectrum of students. Having said that, it is a little lamentable that we appear to have lost an opportunity to establish a new institution of higher learning with its own character, culture, mission, perhaps, even pedagogic methods and subjects focus. And the question is whether within the model of a multi-campus institution, such diversity can be achieved. This is particularly the case because when we discussed the fourth university idea some time back, one of the motivations was to try and broaden the offering at the tertiary level to all students. So I would appreciate a clarification as to why the Ministry has chosen this path and how NUS and the other institutions we have at the higher learning level in Singapore will offer the variety that we are talking about and we see diversity at the tertiary level for our students. Secondly, it is a matter of most specific operational detail. Recently, the National University of Singapore has announced various trends to redefine the terms of employment for the lecturers at the university. And there has been a range of consultation sessions that have occurred. I have received feedback from numerous sources on this matter.”
“It is quite essential that the Ministry formulate a cohesive and focused strategy in getting the private and people sectors to buy into its broad environmental roadmap. I would appreciate a clarification and explanation from the Minister on this score.”
“Sir, earlier on we heard a very colourful speech by the Minister outlining the state of the environment in Singapore, and also his Ministry's broad objectives. It was a very inspiring image of where we are going with the Ministry of the Environment's work. At the same time, many Members have raised a whole range of questions on some specific aspects, whether it is energy or water conservation, recycling, etc. The Minister is an avid promoter of the 3P concept, ie, people, private and public sector collaboration in all ventures. That being the case, one area where I would really seek greater clarification and explanation from the Minister is the aspect of public education on the Ministry's various initiatives and endeavours. I say this because perhaps the most famous and enduring campaigns we have had in Singapore on public education messages is keeping Singapore clean and green. This is one of the core thrusts of the Ministry of the Environment. Although we can argue about how effective it is in modifying behaviour, the fact remains that, for most, if not all Singaporeans, this occupies a big part of their mind's space so that, even if they do litter, they do it guiltily. That being the case, and given the variety of new environmental challenges that Singapore faces, I would like to ask the Minister how intensive is our public education campaign going to be to get the people sector and the private sector to buy into this whole slew of objectives and environmental targets that the Ministry has outlined. What would be the indicators of success in these campaigns, because the fact remains that there may be an element of campaign fatigue among Singaporeans? So, the Ministry will have to choose its strategy carefully and keep it focused.”
“Sir, based on the Ministry's projections on its current waste generation and recycling rates, a new landfill is required once in every 25-30 years. That would mean that our current landfill at Pulau Semakau will probably last us till, say, 2030. From that point of view, this is a deadline that is far more imminent than our second Water Agreement with Malaysia which expires in 2061. It is more critical in the sense that land is not a renewable source unless we count reclamation. We really need to address this issue in a hurry, it seems to me, to ensure that landfill life is extended for as long as possible. I would like to raise the question from both the supply and demand side. From the supply side, clearly, this is not sustainable but it seems to me that we would need plans for at least one or two more landfills for the foreseeable future. The question that I have for the Minister is: what are the plans in that regard? But perhaps, more importantly, on the demand side, many speakers have alluded to the point on recycling. It seems to me that land is a strategic resource and providing additional landfill sites is going to be extremely costly for Singapore. Should we not be involved in a very intensive way in educating Singaporeans on the need to recycle and creating the right incentives and, dare I say it, disincentives, so that the behaviour adjusts to this reality?”
“Sir, I welcome the various initiatives that the Ministry has taken to diversify and sustain Singapore's future water supply, and I think this has been a source of great reassurance to all Singaporeans. The Minister has used the vivid analogy of four taps, primarily the catchment water supply, Johor water, desalinated water and NEWater. The point that I wish to raise here is that the newer taps, specifically desalinated water and NEWater, are more energy-intensive sources of water supply. If we look at the new water process, in particular the aspects of ultra-filtration, reverse osmosis and ultra-violet treatment, as well as the desalination process, they entail a greater need for energy in order to generate the potable water supply. So, the question I have is whether we are substituting our reliance on imported water with a new dependence on imported oil or other sources of energy. Does this raise the question of a new vulnerability for Singapore, in the sense that our new source of water supply is now going to be dependent on the global oil market conditions? This point is particularly pertinent at this stage where there is considerable volatility in the global energy market. I would like to ask the Minister for his assessment of the new reliance on energy for our water supply, and whether there is a need to diversify, away from this vulnerability, through new technologies and, perhaps, new sources of energy as well. If so, what measures are being taken by the Ministry for that purpose?”
“The question is particularly pertinent because having come out with a fair package, which is equivalent to a retrenchment package, the position of an early retirement scheme, we are now endowing the newly established HDB Corporation with the flexibility to set terms and establish itself in a manner that it deems fit in order to compete in the new environment. I would appreciate it if the Minister could clarify this point.”
“Madam, as one of the advisors to the HDB Staff Union, I know the HDB's corporatisation process has created a lot of uncertainty and angst amongst the staff. Having said that, I think the management of HDB and the Ministry have been very fair in their treatment of the staff affected, and I would like to record my appreciation on that score. Having said that, I think the core issue today is: what is the nature of the relationship between HDB and the newly established HDB Corporation? As I understand it, based on the releases made to the media, it is a wholly owned subsidiary of HDB. What that means is that HDB Corporation's financial performance will have a direct bearing on HDB's financial performance. Then, can we expect the relationship between HDB and HDB Corporation to be one at arm's length? The nature of the outsourcing programme also creates additional questions on this score. For the first three years, all HDB projects will be given to HDB Corporation; thereafter, 10% and then I understand it is 30% in the fifth year and 50% in the sixth year. And the pace of outsourcing, thereafter, will be reviewed at the end of year six. There are naturally questions in the minds of those in the private sector as to how transparent and level the playing field will be in this regard. Many of the staff in HDB Building Development Division today will be divided. Some will be in the HDB at the parent level, and some will be at the subsidiary level. Can these relationships truly be at arm's length? Should we not accelerate the process of outsourcing and decoupling the relationship between HDB Corporation and HDB?”
“Madam, just a few quick points. Firstly, I would say that I welcome the move to corporatise some aspects of HDB's functions, which I believe will contribute to a leaner and more focused HDB, allowing other aspects of its work to be run on a more commercial and private sector basis. Having said that, the questions that I would like to pose are these: Firstly, the residual HDB, which is the core organisation, continues to have certain aspects of its functions, which, it seems to me, logically belong more to the private sector as well. This includes, as Dr Amy Khor has also mentioned, the areas of industrial properties and commercial properties, for example. The question then is: are there plans to also corporatise these and subject them to private sector discipline? Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, is the question of what will shape HDB's focus in the years ahead. There are many imperatives and driving forces that are going to reformulate the challenge that HDB faces. These include not just the reduced volume of development of public housing, but also changing demographics, and also the proportion of private developments is increasing. So is there a case for HDB's focus to be sharpened, perhaps, to focus its planning and development efforts primarily on those Singaporeans who need their first home, or those Singaporeans who are in financial need of a loan, and allowing the private sector to take up the slack in other aspects of public housing demands in Singapore? Madam, I would appreciate it if the Minister could clarify.”
“By normal criteria of wealth measures, such as assets owned and so on, they would actually be deemed to be quite well-off, but, from a cash flow point of view, they are hard pressed. The response of asking them to liquidate some assets would be a lot more credible if the market was indeed a liquid market. But in many instances today, where some are in housing loans with negative equities and so on, this might actually be a difficult scenario. I am not suggesting we therefore swing to a welfare state, with a lot of unemployment benefits and a plethora of other assistance schemes. But whilst I subscribe to tough love - which was a point that Ms Indranee Rajah was making in talking about us being more self-reliant - I do think that there is a process to be managed here. When my daughter was learning to ride the bicycle, I gave her trainer wheels first. Then, when she was a little bit more confident, I kinked it up, removed the trainer wheels, held the seat, and then let her go! I do not think we need to go through such an arduous process in this philosophical shift. But there is a case to be made for some short-term forms of assistance which will deliver some relief to those who have worked very hard in Singapore over the years, but due to the circumstances shifting quite suddenly in some cases, they are caught in a difficult spot. This may not require a large resource allocation, but perhaps more a tweaking of existing rules in terms of how they can in fact tap their own resources, whether it is through CPF or other means, such as reverse mortgages, and special schemes for them. And I do hope that the Government will consider that seriously in the next year as a means of helping those in this sandwich class.”
“Mr Raymond Lim made a very eloquent statement on what he thinks his role will be and will not be, and the example of the Silicon Valley is a case in point. Silicon Valley thrived, in my view, despite government, although government expenditure fuelled it. But there was not the rules-bound and regulation-bound mentality that hamstrung Silicon Valley. So, perhaps the key role for the Minister of State for Entrepreneurship and the Government in general in this area is to focus, primarily, on the mindset, ie, promote a risk-taking mindset and, secondly, to focus on the environment, so as to remove impediments whilst reinforcing any enabling criteria or factors we have in our environment to promote entrepreneurship and, ultimately, to have a champion for the cause. Unless you have a champion, this message may be lost. We need it to be reiterated time and again, so that it resonates everywhere in Singapore. The last point I want to make is that having established some positive areas where more will be done and can be done for Singaporeans in terms of opportunities, I do feel that, in the short term, perhaps we could consider additional assistance for those who are in difficulty. Most of our measures in the helping Singaporeans aspect of this Budget are targeted at those who are at the lower strata in terms of income. It is right that our resources be targeted at this group who are in greatest need. But, like the hon. Member for Ang Mo Kio, Mr Inderjit Singh, I do believe that because of the nature and scale of the retrenchments we are seeing today, there is a sandwich class of Singaporeans who are hurting.”
“Some companies know how to use these to their advantage, but many would need to be helped. And this is an area where I hope the Ministry of Trade and Industry and others involved in the process would be actively disseminating information on the FTAs and trying to get businesses to understand how they can turn these to their advantage. The other major initiative that has been announced is this thrust and emphasis on entrepreneurship. Again, I approach this with some trepidation, because it is not as if entrepreneurship is the panacea for our problems. It is one plank in the bridge over this difficult time and, if it is done well, it might indeed become - to use a different analogy - the engine that will really boost the rocket. But it would be unrealistic and unwise for us to put all our bets in this one basket and say that this is going to be the solution to all our problems. On this, I would also like to echo the point raised by the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar, Ms Indranee Rajah, because I think we do have an element of schizophrenia in Singapore. Entrepreneurs will, on the one hand, say, "The Government should leave the private sector alone. Let us charge out there. Let us do our things ourselves." But they will also, on the other hand, say, "But we need you to help us. We need you to do this, that, and so on" - whether it is a subsidy, a grant, or whatever. To some extent, that schizophrenia is quite understandable: you want to have your cake and eat it, and that is fine. But from the Government's perspective - and this is where I come to the policy proposal - having appointed a Minister of State for Entrepreneurship, I think the expectations are there in the market as to what the Government will be able to do to effectively promote entrepreneurship in Singapore.”
“If we do not do these things, or if these companies do not take the action, then it could be argued that the viability of the whole company and its business is at stake. And we are not talking about 10% or 15% of the workforce; we are talking about everybody. That is a consequence that is far graver. In the case of public-sector organisations, such as HDB, whilst it is painful for the individuals affected, it could be argued that it is far better to take the bitter pill now, focus on the core issues, and find ways to help those affected through the transition, because Mr Chiam himself will argue later why we are raising taxes or why the Government is spending so much. Measures like these do help the public sector to become leaner and, as a result, reduce the pressure on tax rates, allowing us to put more back into the economy. Sir, having said that, there are elements in this Budget which give Singaporeans cause for a lot of hope. It is not a cause for euphoria, and anyone who is unrealistically optimistic has to really be challenged. But I think there is a cause for measured optimism. And that is not only because of the many reasons that have been discussed in this House, including the intrinsic strength of Singapore financially, but also in other measures in terms of our social cohesion, etc, and other initiatives that are being taken up at quite a rapid pace. External opportunities through bilateral and regional Free Trade Agreements and multilateral arrangements, all of these have a significant impact on expanding the space for Singaporean companies and, therefore, opportunities for Singaporeans. What we might not have today is an effective means of communicating the value of such macro initiatives to the micro level.”
“Without a lot of detailed information, but having looked at many companies that have gone through these exercises in the last few years, cost reduction, in terms of cutting across-the-board wages, might relieve the company's pressure on the bottomline for the short term, but it will have a debilitating effect on its ability to manage its talent, because we are cutting the wages of all, regardless of performance. At the same time, it does not necessarily address the root causes of the problems which compel the company to take the actions that it is taking. The causes could be many. It could be that there is a need to reorganise to focus on core business. It could be because of renewed competition which has structurally occurred in recent times and therefore compelled a reassessment of the whole environment. Ultimately, one could argue that there is no such thing as a good time for retrenchments. Even in the best of times, we have a problem. Mr Chiam brought up examples of companies like CSM and so on, and I can understand that, as a Member of the Opposition, he wishes to make political capital out of unemployment. But my concern is that at a time like this - and I think Mr Chiam himself has said - many come with real problems - we need to give them real solutions, not political rhetoric in trying to deal with the issues of the day. In that context, the starting point must be to see why this is happening and whether there is a way to avoid it. Or, if we do it, is it just an anaesthetic which dulls the pain, delays the inevitable and, when the inevitable comes, it would be far sharper and graver? And let us contemplate the cost of inaction.”
“Sir, there is certainly an air of uncertainty that pervades the economy and, in general, all Singaporeans, and there are many reasons for this which have been well canvassed here - the political uncertainties, the looming possibility of a war in Iraq and also the general economic outlook which is not so bright. But I think key developments in recent times which have had a profound impact on Singaporeans' sense of optimism or hope have been the reorganisation that has occurred in the public sector through the HDB and, to some extent, also in the sector that is deemed to be linked to the Government through the PSA. Some have spoken to me and they see this as a breach of an article of faith - the iron rice bowl - the expectation that when you work for the Government or a large organisation, although it is private but linked to the Government, there is a certain expectation that you will be cared for or that there will be a certain long-term commitment to keep you employed. Clearly, the recent developments have fundamentally changed that perception. And the question is: has the Government lost touch with the plight of the average man in Singapore? Put another way, for example, the question is: can we cut wages? Why must we cut jobs? That is the question that is raised time and again. And I think that those who raised this question perhaps have failed to understand the difference between an anaesthetic and a medicine. Cutting cost, in my view, is really the equivalent of an anaesthetic in this environment.”
“In fact, from that perspective, if we look at the last three years, what we have seen is that first there was a deficit year; last year was somewhat of a balanced year; and now we are forecasting a deficit year again, which really is not that alarming and which has therefore given rise to questions as to whether Government can do more to give a boost, especially when we look at the situation in last year's budget as well as the comparison with Hong Kong. We have had many debates in this House against the notion of deficit funding or pump priming the economy. Some of those include the fact that ours is a small economy which has a substantial reliance on external demand. And the flip side of the coin is that efforts to boost domestic demand, whether it is consumption expenditure or Government spending, will have a limited impact, and we also allow for the fact that there will be substantial leakages from our spending. But given that, I think it would still be useful for all in this House and Singaporeans in general to better understand what would be the actual quantitative impact of such elements. Because the question is: could we not afford such leakages or such less than complete effectiveness in pump priming, and still consider additional spending in a time of some uncertainty where a boost is required in the economy, bearing in mind that overall in the business cycle, we could still achieve a surplus or a balanced budget? I would appreciate it if the Finance Minister could clarify these elements, because this is a repeated comment that emerges from the business sector and other quarters as well.”
“For the next financial year, the forecast is for a HK$68 billion deficit, ie, S$15-16 billion. In the subsequent two years, Antony Leung continues to expect that there will be deficits in Hong Kong. There is a lot of speculation about the robustness of the peg of the Hong Kong dollar as a result of these forecast deficits and, more fundamentally, the question is: is this a structural problem for Hong Kong or something cyclical, as they assert, which they can come out of in the medium term? Sir, if we contrast that with Singapore, although much has been said about a third year of deficit and some have actually asked whether this is a departure from the history of fiscal prudence that we have had, clearly, the answer is no. And one need go no further than refer to the Finance Minister's speech itself where he made the assertion that fiscal prudence remains a cornerstone and over a cycle of business, the objective is still to achieve a balanced, if not modest surplus, budget. In fact, if we look at FY 2002, if we exclude the transfers to the endowment items like the Lifelong Learning Fund which is about half a billion dollars, and the Medical Endowment Fund which is about $100 million, there was in fact a modest surplus in the last financial year of about $1/2 billion. And for this financial year that we are now debating, the deficit is about $0.9 billion.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to join in this debate. Sir, allow me to start by saying that I think the Finance Minister has strived to come out with what I think is a very prudent and balanced Budget in a time of great challenge. I say "balanced" because there is clearly an attempt to reconcile some short-term imperatives with the longer-term competitive challenges that Singapore faces. I say "prudent" because it is also trying to position Singapore for the long haul and trying to educate Singaporeans on the need, and all this whilst we have a modest deficit. Sir, I think many people have commented that this Budget lacks the silver bullet, lacks the path breaking recommendations which are going to deliver us to the new land of opportunity and prosperity. I think it was Aristotle who said excellence is a habit. And I think we should be in the habit of looking for consistent, good budgets and policies which will get us to our final goal, and not look for the magic bullet, because sometimes a magic bullet may not be so magical and it may come back at us. I think a measure of the challenges we face in this environment today is perhaps best understood if we look at the budget that was announced by the Hong Kong government recently as well. Their corporate tax was increased by 1.5%; personal tax and property tax were also increased by 1%. I think it is going to be phased in over two years. So, they have gone up to 171/2% and 16% respectively for corporate and personal taxes. Levies, including the foreign maid levy, have been introduced in Hong Kong at the expense of the pay of the foreign maids in Hong Kong. And perhaps most significant is the deficit forecast. For the year ending March 2003, the forecast is for a HK$70 billion deficit, ie, S$16 billion.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, the Minister has taken a somewhat unprecedented move in releasing correspondence between the leaders of Singapore and Malaysia, as well as other communiques at the diplomatic level. His reason has been that the hope for a win-win outcome on the issue of water, in particular, is now not realistic. May I ask why he has come to this conclusion at this stage, because most Singaporeans and this House certainly are very familiar with the rhetoric coming from across the Causeway on the issue of water, and the noise levels have a cyclical nature? This time, the noise levels have gone up again. But we have arrived at a very major decision, it would appear, on this matter, in wanting to set the record straight publicly, and I would appreciate it if the Minister could clarify the thinking behind such a move. Secondly, we have taken a move of great gravity on a matter that has been at the centre of bilateral ties between Singapore and Malaysia for some time. I think Singaporeans would want to know and appreciate how is this going to repercuss on the broader bilateral ties between our two countries. Because we have stated that we want to move on from the issue of water on to other matters, and find resolution. I would appreciate some clarifications from the Minister on that.”
“That being the case, I would like to ask and urge the Minister to see how quickly at least core elements of the proposal that have been laid out before us can be extended to the broader education system in Singapore, so that all students and, in particular, those who might be weaker have the opportunity to benefit from such multiple pathways - pathways that will enable them perhaps to find their strengths much earlier and capitalise on them. Today, we have a system where after 10 years they go to ITE or, beyond that, to polytechnic, JC or university and so on. But in the secondary school itself, giving them those opportunities to discover their strengths and to capitalise on them earlier is critical. I think we have the seeds of such a possible system in what has been recommended today. The other aspect I would urge the Minister to consider - and this is a point that Dr Jennifer Lee made yesterday and which I want to echo - is that whilst we focus at the upper secondary and junior college levels, it would be a natural progression - some might argue, as Dr Lee did, it might be an inverse progression - for us to consider what can be done at the primary level, maybe even pre-primary. I know the Ministry is already doing a review for pre-primary education, but for primary education we have used our core subjects - Mathematics, Mother Tongue and English - and, I think, Science after Primary 4. The question is: is there scope to do more to create greater latitude within the primary school system? That, I know, is an open-ended challenge. I do not have a specific proposal for the Minister but I do ask that he and his team commit to finding a broader-based primary school education system for Singaporeans as well. Sir, I support the motion. 2.00 pm”
“But I am saying this because, first, the same curriculum time under this equation does actually mean a heavier workload for the students. So, we would be disingenuous if we say that as a result of these changes the students have the same workload. The answer is that it is not. The reality is that they will have a higher workload. So, let us face up to it and let us all be prepared for that. Secondly, I do believe that a certain amount of downtime, especially from such diverse educational opportunities, is necessary to allow the student to reflect, to synthesise - whether it is through project work or other activities - in order to allow the different educational disciplines that he or she is exposed to, to have an impact on him or her. After all, Sir, we have to let the land lie fallow for a while before we seed it for the next cycle. In the same way, it may be useful to give our students a little bit more time to pursue something in greater depth or to look at the inter-linkages or through other measures, and not look at it as a container or a vat that needs to be constantly topped up for fear that any vacancy will be misused or mis-spent. The second point, on doing more, Sir, I am convinced of the benefits that a system embedded with the principles of flexibility and diversity will bring to our students as well as our general system. My lament is that the proposals here are confined primarily to the top quartile of our cohorts. It can be argued that, actually, the top quartile are the most resilient of any cohort, and perhaps the most flexible in a cohort because, presumably, they have the turn of mind to be able to adapt themselves to different challenges more readily than the next quartile or two in a cohort.”
“But when I look at the Report, I felt that, yet again perhaps, we seem to want to have our cake and eat it. With the new system at the JC level, students will take at least seven subjects - Project Work, General Paper, Knowledge and Inquiry, Mother Tongue - at least three core subjects and a contrasting subject. That compares with the minimum of three "A"s and two "O"s in the current system or, if you are a student doing a full load, then it is four "A"s and two "O"s. In terms of curriculum time, we are told that for the Science students, there may be a 10% reduction and, for Arts students, there may be no reduction. My concern is this: curriculum time represents the front end of any education process in the schools. It is a measure of the direct contact time that the student has in his classroom or in the lecture theatre in the junior college. But there is a lot that happens outside curriculum time and that indeed ought to happen outside curriculum time which, in a sense, we cannot capture with this arithmetic. There is a multiplier that we will need to factor in, whether it is in self-study, research or any other endeavour that is related, peripherally or otherwise to the subject at hand. So, I would like to urge the Minister to do less, ie, having taken the bold step of creating these differentiated pathways in the secondary, upper secondary and junior college system, and acknowledging the need for diversity, why not go a step further and ensure a more substantial reduction in the curriculum time, say, by 20%? I am not saying this because it is going to be a solution to the question of stress. I think stress has many sources. The time spent on curriculum is but one, and I do not think any amount of reduction will necessarily solve that.”
“Does it enhance our system as a whole, providing benefits to all? I believe the answer would be an unequivocal yes, especially if the Government - which I believe the Minister has already given some level of undertaking - will address some of the issues pertaining to the negative aspects that might arise from such differentiation, eg, enhancing access to these schemes, so that one's socio-economic background is not a factor, but rather meritocracy. I think that is a fundamental principle that needs to be upheld throughout. At the same time, the benefits that accrue from such flexibility - and the Report here focuses primarily at the top tier - must percolate to all levels of the education system. These are the ways we can ensure greater equity and broader benefit from what I consider to be such path-breaking moves in the education system. Sir, I do not think this Report and its recommendations are a panacea, and this should be obvious from the debate so far. There still remain many issues in people's minds. And it is by no means the end of the debate on education. But I think it sets a firm foundation upon which we can build the future of our education system to meet the challenges ahead. I would like to ask the Minister to consider doing two things. One is to do more; the other is to do less. Let me take the do-less first. Sir, as with any change in the curriculum, we are faced with the tension between breadth and depth. I readily concede this is not an easy trade-off. After all, we do not want to have students skimming the surface for a whole range of subjects without really having a deep appreciation of any one of them. Neither do we want boffins who drill so deep in one particular area that they are lost to the world when it comes to other aspects.”
“I believe that when we have greater flexibility and diversity in the education system, we are now seeing that the equilibrium, in terms of the responsibility for education, shifts towards parents and students, and away from the Ministry of Education and the school system. And I think that is a shift that is in the right direction. What it means is, for example, when we have greater flexibility in our system, it allows an individual to explore his interests and discover his strengths. But what it also means is that that individual has the onus upon himself or herself to make the most of what is presented to him or her. There is no one-track cookie-cutter approach which is going to deliver a definitive outcome. It is now a lot more variable and we have to take responsibility for it - the parents and the students together. The same could be argued for the point about diversity. The Report outlines numerous initiatives on how the educational landscape in Singapore will or can be different. If you contemplate it, it is, as the previous speaker, the hon. Member Ms Irene Ng put it, quite exciting. We would have a range of schools, all of good quality, some within the public system who will be outstanding in certain areas, whether it is in Science, Mathematics or others; there will be private schools with foreign students making up to 50%; and there will be schools that offer integrated programmes and a variety of other choices. In a sense, the mind boggles at the kind of options that will be presented to parents and students. But the flip side of such diversity or differentiation in the system is that there is the risk of elitism. And we cannot run away from that. What we have to ask ourselves is: on balance, is it a good or a bad thing?”
“We say the system is rigid, it does not have enough flexibility or give enough choice, and that it does not cater to those who have specific strengths, whether it is in one or two particular academic subjects or to those who may excel in sports or the arts. Hitherto, many of the Ministry of Education's initiatives, I felt, addressed these criticisms in incremental steps. But the Report and its recommendations represent a systemic review and an overhaul of the upper secondary and JC education system that substantially address these points. In terms of the curriculum, as the Report says, it is broader and more flexible. We talk about breadth through this Knowledge and Inquiry component or Project Work. We talk about variation or diversity in the education landscape through specialised independent schools and integrated programmes. I believe these will go a long way in addressing many of the concerns that we have had and will continue to have. Secondly, Sir, I believe these changes are profound because of the principles that are embedded in the recommendations, specifically, the principles of flexibility and diversity. I believe they provide a foundation upon which we can build an even better education system for - as the Minister put it - an innovation-driven future which, by implication, is going to be less deterministic. But these principles are two sides of the same coin. Many of us have argued, in this House and outside, for flexibility and diversity. But when these are in the offing now, we need to also squarely face up to the challenge they pose to all of us who are part of the Singapore system. What do I mean by that?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I first say what a pleasure it is to be able to rise in support of a motion on education in this House. I say this with a lot of feeling because, in this House, over the last five or six years, I have witnessed numerous debates on education policy, some of which had been quite pungent, all motivated by very fundamental concerns for our educational system and our children. But this is the first time I find myself heartened by what I see as a broad-based systemic response from the Ministry of Education to a long-term challenge that we face. It was therefore with some concern that I listened to some of the speeches we heard yesterday, where a lot of focus and attention were drawn to various concerns and aspects of these recommendations which are likely to be problematic. I fully agree that there is a whole range of concerns to be addressed, and one could argue that no debate on education would be complete without such concerns. But the key point really is that we should not lose sight of the bigger picture, as Dr Wang put it yesterday, not lose sight of the wood for the trees. To me, Sir, this Report and the changes it recommends represent a watershed in our education system. Why? Because, over the years, the education system has had a host of criticisms levelled at it, and I believe that we have here, after several decades, a robust systemic response to such criticisms. What were these criticisms which still continue to occupy a big part of our discussion? We say that our students are too narrowly or academically focused. We say they lack creativity and thinking skills.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, we seem to have accepted the unilateral decision by the Malaysians to discontinue the package negotiations, and the Minister's account of the negotiation on the water issue individually appears to sound intractable. The question is: is it worth our while perhaps to have a cooling-off period, giving the Malaysians time to reflect on the value of the package negotiations and the merits of that, and then to revisit the matter?”