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 43 of 46.
“Sir, multi-racialism is the cornerstone of Singapore society. We have expressed this credo by striving to forge a common national identity, yet allowing each community the space to maintain and evolve its own identity. But this is certainly a delicate task, especially as some may feel that the two are incompatible. But I think that in an ethnically diverse society like Singapore, it perhaps represents a pragmatic response to the challenge of nation-building. Sir, one of the hallmarks of this Government has been its candid and forthrightness, both in its discussion of and approach to managing ethnic issues. It does not shrink away from saying it as it is, nor does it seek a politically correct veneer. So we publish educational and socio-economic data by ethnic groups, have GRCs and the like, and some find this candour inconvenient, if not a source of discomfort. But putting it out in the open offers our best chance of maintaining a balanced and objective dialogue. Sir, self-help groups are another example of this forthright approach. They have been in existence for 10-20 years and are an essential part of Singapore's landscape. They perform an important function in seeking to raise the educational and socio-economic status of the disadvantaged within their respective communities. It is easy to take them for granted and to overlook the fact however, that they are ethnic in their focus and therefore are an anomaly of sorts within multi-racial Singapore. I was therefore glad that our Prime Minister recently sounded a note of caution lest Singaporeans misconstrue the Government's support for self-help groups as an endorsement for them to retreat into ethnic enclaves.”
“In this regard, police presence and visibility is crucial. The feedback is that residents see less of the men in blue on the ground. They attribute this to closure of NPPs and also perhaps to a greater emphasis on police patrols by cars, rather than by foot or bicycle. Sir, I do not think that this is confined to just the newer estates. In general, I have received this feedback from various quarters. The visibility of the police has an important deterrence value to would-be criminals but perhaps, more importantly, it has an important assurance value for residents, assurance of security and general safety. Sir, I would like to ask the Minister what measures are in place to ensure that the police continue to maintain a certain level of visibility on the ground, particularly in those areas of high human traffic where visibility through foot patrols or bicycle patrols will be much more effective.”
“Sir, the Community Safety and Security Programme (CSSP) was started in 1998, and it brings together the grassroots organisations, the CDCs and residents with the help of the Home Team to address specific areas of concern pertaining to security. I think there are sound principles that underlie this approach. It fundamentally emphasises that safety and security is everyone's responsibility, and it nurtures the spirit of self-help and mutual support within the community. So on all those counts, it is very consistent with Singapore 21 and the idea of active citizenship. Sir, the question I have for the Minister is, given that the programme has been in place for over two years now, how well received is it on the ground, particularly amongst the RCs. Also, last year, there was the suggestion that it was going to be extended to schools, and I would like to know how the schools have responded to this initiative, especially as there were some concerns that schools might be somewhat reluctant because they may be stigmatised as having particular problems and that is why they are participating. Sir, I am also interested to know how the Ministry assesses the effectiveness of the CSSP. Is it purely by input measures, such as the numbers participating, or are there other ways that we can measure the efficacy? For example, the latest crime statistics show that the elderly have been particular targets for cheating offences. Has there been a response through the CSSP to this particular form of problem? Sir, the related issue is police presence which the GPC Chairman, Prof. Chin, has also spoken on. Even as residents come forward to do their bit, they do look to the police to continue to maintain vigilance and protection on the ground.”
“I know that in 1993, the Minister appointed a committee which recommended that, besides NUS law degrees, only law degrees from 15 UK universities be recognised for admission to the Singapore Bar. In addition, the graduates from the UK are required to attain at least a Second Upper Honours degree, while NUS graduates are required to attain at least a Second Lower Honours degree. I believe that the Committee also recommended that the situation be reviewed periodically. 4.00 pm Sir, I gather that the Committee chaired by the Attorney-General has recently reviewed the situation and I understand that the Attorney General's Committee has submitted its report to the Government. May I ask the Minister what the recommendations of that Committee are and whether the Government will accept the recommendations. In particular, given the need for a wide range of expertise and experience in Singapore, can we broaden the pool of universities from which we recognise qualified lawyers? Also, can we exercise greater flexibility in recognising those who do dual degrees, perhaps in Science and Law, Engineering and Law, Accountancy and Law, and the like? Some institutions also offer shorter courses in law, a 2-year course or so, for those who already have a degree and professional experience but wanting to acquire the legal knowledge in order to better apply that in specific context. Would those be recognised? Finally, Sir, recently, Deputy Prime Minister Tony Tan suggested that law could be considered being offered as a post-graduate programme. I would like to know whether there are any developments in that regard.”
“Sir, I find myself in the unusual position of arguing for more lawyers in Singapore. Nevertheless, I think there is a clear need for a sufficient number of lawyers, and of the right quality, to maintain Singapore's position as a premier financial and business hub. And, there is both a quantitative and a qualitative dimension to this need. On the quantitative side, as Mr Chng Hee Kok has also mentioned, media reports would suggest that there is a squeeze on the number of lawyers in Singapore, partly because several young lawyers are leaving the profession and it would also manifest itself in the rising starting pay of lawyers. Meanwhile, the demand for legal services has been rising, in tandem with our growth, both economically and in specific niche areas. These, and also the phenomenon of globalisation, would mean that more lawyers trained in Singapore and practising in Singapore are in demand not just here but elsewhere as well. I believe, with more local firms striking alliances with international law firms, this will further accelerate that demand. Sir, on the qualitative side, we need different types of lawyers. The plain vanilla litigator or corporate finance lawyer is, on one hand, important to the traditional legal businesses. On the other hand, as we go into the new economy, we need lawyers who have the knowledge in specific areas of science, engineering, and also in certain new areas but relating to these disciplines, such as intellectual property rights, those that come under the WTO arrangements, and the like. In that context, Sir, our supply of lawyers in Singapore has been, to some extent, constrained.”
“Sir, the Ministry of Finance has an overview of the entire range of endowments we have set up in Singapore. I think it would be very helpful if the Ministry could, in fact, come out with a communication plan. It is not just about printing brochures but a systematic means of getting the message across to agencies that are interacting on the ground with the average Singaporeans and companies on the whole range of measures in place. And I do not think this is a one-off exercise either because every year we have new developments, and in fact even between budgets we have changes. There is a need to communicate this in a holistic way so that agencies on the ground - for individuals, this could be the CDCs or CCCs even; on the other hand, for corporations, it could be various business groups and so on - understand the total picture and are ready to dispense advice appropriately. I know some of these have already been done, Sir. But I wonder whether the Ministry of Finance could, through its leadership, bring all this together as one key communication device which is managed systematically and regularly, so that all Singaporeans can benefit from the Government's schemes. With that, Sir, I support the Budget.”
“At the same time, and this is a point that Mrs Lim Hwee Hua alluded to, I would like to reinforce this with some specific proposals. I think the Budget is a very imposing document and it is a budget certainly at the macro level. But it is micro in its impact on individuals and companies. There is a need to be able to communicate the effect of the Budget and the slew of Government measures that have been set up time and again to help individuals and companies effectively to the target audience. I have two specific requests which the Minister if he could consider them, I would be grateful. The first is whether, either as part of any Budget presentation or perhaps as a separate exercise, together with the media or other communication channels, the Government can demonstrate the net effect of various transfers, etc, on the average Singaporean earner. For example, we could define that as a 4-room flat resident with a median income of about $1,500 a month. But the key point here really is bringing the Budget down to the average man's level. Many fail to grasp the significance of various measures. And I feel that this would be one way of getting the message across, that indeed if they look at the totality of what is being offered, that the Government is being fair and channelling the incentives to targeted areas. The other aspect is in terms of communication on this whole range of endowments that have been created. Each Ministry or statutory board is charged with the responsibility for a particular endowment under its care and manages its own communication. But I think it would be fair to say that on the ground, the information is certainly not perfect and many would still be quite confused or at least unaware of the various schemes and what is required.”
“The second device the Government has used is direct transfers. The examples are the CPF top-up or the SC/CC rebates and the like. And in these instances, there is an element of progressivity, because the quantum is pegged to the housing type and the number of rooms in an HDB flat is used as an indicator of the level of wealth or socio-economic standing of the family or an income earner. While this has its limitations, I understand that it is not perfect but probably one of the most practical proxies, and I accept that. But we have to bear in mind therefore that this too has its limitations, as a device to redistribute income and wealth within Singapore. The third device has been endowments. We have set up numerous endowment funds, as and when our budget surpluses allow for it. These have been the Edusave Endowment, the Medical Endowment Fund, the ElderCare Fund, the Lifelong Learning Fund and so on and so forth. There is a whole range of these endowments. They each serve specific purposes, but the general principle in setting aside an endowment is that the income will be used to meet particular policy objectives. Sir, all these measures have advantages and disadvantages and, collectively, they do serve a purpose in redistributing and sharing wealth in Singapore. But having said that, I would like to ask the Minister whether, given that fewer Singaporeans will be paying income tax in the years ahead, there is, as part of the Government's financial policy, an effort to perhaps transfer more of the income redistribution through direct transfers as opposed to tax rebates and the endowments. I would like to get some clarification on that from the Minister.”
“In these instances, the 50% requirement, it seems to me, will pose quite a problem for the company to structure a meaningful stock option scheme for those working in China, in order to meet the 50% threshold. So without knowing the full details of the scheme, I would urge the Minister to consider a more flexible application of this requirement. In the limit, it would be best if the requirement could be eliminated altogether. But if that is not the case, then certainly lowering the threshold, I think, would be very helpful for such companies. Sir, on the matter of systems and structures, may I just turn my focus now to transfers and income redistribution. First, I would like to add my voice to the chorus of those who have asked for a more generous - if I may use that term - treatment of pensioners. I heard feedback from many pensioners that a $10 increment in the Singapore Allowance is by all means not the best that the Government can do, and they ask that they be treated with greater consideration. Having said that, Sir, in more general terms, the Government has used three main devices to effect some form of wealth sharing or income redistribution and transfers. The first device has been tax rebates and reductions in tax for individual income. The fact that more than two-thirds of Singaporeans, and I believe the proportion will rise with recent measures, I think the first $7,500 of chargeable income will now be tax exempt as well, so the proportion of Singaporeans who do not pay income tax will certainly be above 70%. The effectiveness of tax rebates and tax rates reduction as a means of redistributing wealth or sharing wealth is limited. It is more, I think, correctly regarded as a device to incentivise those who are productively contributing to the economy.”
“Secondly, one could also argue quite persuasively that the scope for upside in a start-up is significantly greater provided it succeeds. Given those scenarios, I would imagine that even if the tax regime for stock options is the same for all companies, it should not adversely affect the ability of start-ups to attract talent. So I would appreciate it if the Minister could explain why there is this differentiation and whether there is scope to harmonise this. The other aspect of this CSOP scheme is the requirement that 50% of employees must have stock options before the company can qualify. Sir, I understand the motivation behind it and I fully appreciate the intent. But I would like to pose two questions: one, which I think is a problem in principle, is stock options in general are targeted as incentive devices for the senior management of an organisation. It is debatable how valuable it is as a device to motivate lower down the ranks, because the quantum given to them would be relatively small. And, secondly, there are other devices such as variable bonuses and other performance-linked incentives, which can take its place. That being the case, I think it poses a problem in principle why we need to insist on this 50% minimum allocation. The other is the problem in practice. Sir, today, in Singapore, there are many corporations which will use Singapore as a HQ for R&D and certain core types of activities, but it is not uncommon to find that the bulk of their manufacturing operations and other activities may well be conducted outside the country. It is not uncommon to find companies which have got the bulk of their manpower living and working in countries outside Singapore, in ASEAN, China, etc. These are subsidiaries or wholly-owned.”
“And I would be grateful if the Minister could share with this House the Government's thinking on its longer-term target for the corporate tax, and what will be the parameters that it will use in determining that policy. Sir, I also welcome the introduction of preferential tax treatment for the first $100,000 of the chargeable income of corporations. This has introduced, I think, as a matter of principle for the first time, an element of progressivity in the corporate tax regime in Singapore. I think this is a very welcome development and certainly SMEs who are profitable will be thankful for it. And I do hope that this is a principle that the Government will apply with greater flexibility in the years ahead in response to scenarios. I would like to focus on the company stock option plan (CSOP). Sir, the move to extend the preferential tax treatment to established companies is a welcome one. Last year, when it was first introduced for the start-ups, the question was when will it be extended to other companies, since the principles underlying stock options are general in nature. Having introduced the scheme, I would like to ask the Minister two specific questions. The first, why is there a difference in the tax treatment between start-ups on the one hand and established companies on the other? The motivation for a stock option scheme is the same. The Minister has, in the past, argued that it is because start-ups have greater difficulty in attracting talent. But I would ask the Minister to consider this. In the case of start-ups, those who join the start-ups tend to get much larger quantities of stock options. So there is a quantitative element in the attractiveness of start-ups and the option schemes therein.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, for allowing me to join in this debate. I rise in support of Budget FY2001 and the financial policies that underpin it. Sir, by all accounts, this is a Budget that is generous and many speakers have already alluded to that. But, to me, I think this Budget is significant for one particular reason and, that is, it is introducing not just a series of one-off transfers, but also systemic and structural changes to our fiscal regime. I think that is important because it has the effect of translating one-off gains in our surpluses into a stream of incentives, a flow of benefits, for both individuals and corporations. And I welcome that because I think it will serve our long-term goals. As a case in point, I would like to focus on corporate tax. I think lowering the corporate tax by 1%, to 24.5%, is a good gesture, and it is certainly in keeping with the times. Avowedly socialist regimes like Sweden have aggressively reduced their corporate tax, and it is good to see that Singapore is not sitting by waiting to be competitively outflanked by these countries. But having said that, Sir, and I think the previous speaker Mrs Lim Hwee Hua mentioned this and I would like to bring up this point again, the Minister has previously mentioned that the long-term target was 25% for the corporate tax. And one of the reasons he cited was concern about Singapore becoming a tax haven, and I believe this, in particular, was linked to concerns from certain countries which are big investors here. I would like to know how has this scenario changed and perhaps, more importantly, since this threshold has now been breached and we have gone below 25%, the question is: what next?”
“Sir, may I ask the Minister of State what is the frequency at which HDB revises its flat prices?”
“Sir, some neighbouring countries have expressed the concern that should Singapore conclude a bilateral FTA, this will, in effect, grant backdoor entry for these partners into AFTA. Can I ask the Minister to comment on that proposition and whether there are any safeguards to reassure our neighbours? BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Mr Speaker, Sir, I was puzzled by the report of an Australian newspaper that Minister Rafidah of Malaysia had given Singapore warnings against allowing Singapore becoming a backdoor entrance for Australia and New Zealand to AFTA. I doubt the veracity of the report because my discussions with Minister Rafidah and the other Ministers of ASEAN had been friendly and entirely professional. There are clear rules of origin governing how much local content there must be before companies or goods qualify for the privileges of AFTA.”
“Sir, I welcome the gesture from the Government. May I just ask whether there would be any specific message targeted at particularly the 1- to 3-room HDB flat residents who may perhaps have not met the criteria out of ignorance or lack of capacity?”
“May I ask the Senior Minister of State whether there is any training given to teachers to detect unusual behaviour or other symptoms that might be indicative of such grave problems in school?”
“15 cents per kilowatt hour on average. However, in view of Power Supply's substantial under-collection from domestic and small non-domestic consumers, there is still a need for an upward adjustment of 1.41 cts/kwh for these consumers until April this year. If not for the easing of fuel oil price, this increase for them would have been even more. But if fuel oil price continues to fall, electricity tariffs will eventually fall.”
“The last tariff adjustment was made in August last year based on fuel oil price of US$24 per barrel. To reduce the impact of last August's tariff increase, Power Supply had agreed to recover its under-collected revenue over a longer period than the usual three months. For large non-domestic consumers, the collection was made over five months, ie, by end of last year. For residential and small non-domestic consumers, it was made over eight months, ie, the recovery of the under-collection would only be completed by March this year. If Power Supply had been allowed to recover its under-collected revenue over the usual 3-month period, the tariff increases in August last year would have been much higher and more severe. Fuel oil prices had subsequently increased to a high of US$28 per barrel in October 2000. Fuel price averaged US$25 per barrel in November 2000 before easing to US$21 per barrel in December 2000. As a result, Power Supply, which had kept the electricity tariffs unchanged since August 2000, has continued to under-collect. The revenue under-collected from residential and small non-domestic consumers is larger than that from large non-domestic consumers because the tariff increase in August 2000 was lower for residential and small non-domestic consumers. In other words, we had chosen to smoothen the volatility over a longer period. In November last year, Power Supply had applied to raise the electricity tariffs further based on the high fuel oil price in October 2000 which was US$28 per barrel. Power Supply subsequently revised the tariff adjustment with the easing fuel price. PUB has assessed and accepted the revised adjustment. With effect from February 2001, electricity tariffs for large non-domestic consumers will be reduced by 0.”
“It is not that it is a straight line going upwards, Mr Speaker, Sir, but more that it is a relatively less volatile line. If I look at the chart, it is quite evident that it has been quite flat, notwithstanding the movement upwards. And the greatest movement seems to be when price moves up at retail petrol pumps. The key question is: will there be a timeframe for this review to introduce greater competition at the retail level? BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Mr Speaker, Sir, our statisticians have looked at the charts and have not found, on the basis of the charts, the conclusion which Mr Iswaran has drawn, that the charts only move up and are sticky downwards. In fact, they reflect a certain evening out of the volatility. We are looking at the possibility of introducing more players into the market by studying whether we can introduce "white pumps" into Singapore without compromising on safety. ELECTRICITY TARIFFS (Lowering) 4. Mr Leong Horn Kee asked the Minister for Trade and Industry whether his Ministry will take immediate action to lower electricity tariffs for industrial, commercial and domestic consumers as international crude oil prices have fallen substantially in the recent months. BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Mr Speaker, Sir, in August last year, I explained in Parliament that our electricity tariffs are reviewed quarterly based on fuel oil price at the time of review. Changes in fuel oil prices are passed through to consumers. If oil price increases after the review, Power Supply would have under-collected. If, on the other hand, oil price decreases, Power Supply would then have over-collected. Power Supply is allowed to recover its under-collected revenue or, alternatively, is required to return over-collected revenue to consumers in subsequent quarters.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the Minister, based on the charts, it does not seem so much that the petrol pump price lags behind movement in crude oil prices. It is just that it has been static and moves upwards when the prices go up. That appears to be the pattern anyway. So what would be the timeframe for any study that the Ministry undertakes to introduce greater competition in the industry structure at the retail level? BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may draw Members' attention to the charts, it is not true that it is a straight line going upwards. There are ups and downs.”
“Mr Ong Kian Min asked the Minister for Communications and Information Technology, in view of the fact that electronic navigation mapping software and positioning systems have been commercially available in other developed countries for a number of years, (a) what are the factors hindering the commercial development and deployment of such systems in Singapore; and (b) whether one of the factors is the lack of accurate mapping data and, if so, whether his Ministry will consider compelling agencies that possess such information to make such data commercially available. Assoc. Prof. Yaacob Ibrahim (for the Minister for Communications and Information Technology): Mr Speaker, Sir, there are companies that are already providing routing information services such as digitised maps over the Internet. There are also some companies in Singapore developing GPS-based navigation systems for use on board vehicles. Companies which intend to also develop such systems can purchase accurate digital mapping data of Singapore from the Land Systems Support Unit (LSSU) of the Ministry of Law. On Government's part, the Land Transport Authority has implemented the traffic.smart system which provides real time traffic information over the Internet. The information from this system can also be integrated into current and future GPS-based navigation systems. The LTA welcomes companies to collaborate with it as they develop such systems. 2.00 pm”
“To minimise the bird nuisance problems more effectively in the long run, we will also need the cooperation of the public. The Town Councils have made concerted efforts to educate residents not to feed the pest birds such as pigeons or leave food scraps lying around. The community, as well as owners of eating establishments, should help to ensure that food wastes are properly disposed. SPORTS (Blueprint) 25. Mr Noris Ong Chin Guan asked the Minister for Community Development and Sports, in the light of growing expectation and impatience with the situation where we excel in many areas such as economic performance and total defence but have not been able to deliver in the sporting arena, whether his Ministry has an overall blueprint to breed and cultivate Singaporean champions in international sporting meets, such as the Olympics. The Minister for Community Development and Sports (Mr Abdullah Tarmug): Sir, our national table tennis player, Jing Jun Hong, reached the last four in women's table tennis at the recent Sydney Olympics. This is no small feat, considering that she was competing against the top players in the world. In the 1998 Asian Games, we garnered a total of 14 medals. At the 1999 SEA Games in Brunei, Singapore won altogether 96 medals. So I think it will be unfair to say that our national athletes have not been able to deliver. However, Mr Ong is right that there is growing public expectation for Singapore to pay more attention to sports. As already announced, I am chairing a Committee on Sporting Singapore to take stock of the current sports scene in Singapore, and study how we can further develop and enhance our achievements in sports. ELECTRONIC NAVIGATION AND POSITIONING SYSTEMS 26.”
“Sir, may I ask the Parliamentary Secretary when the Ministry anticipates the technology might stabilise and when, as a minimum, we can expect at least parity in the cost of owning and operating eco-friendly vehicles versus conventional vehicles? Assoc. Prof. Yaacob Ibrahim: Sir, at this point in time, we really do not have the answer because it depends on the people who are researching and manufacturing eco-friendly vehicles. At this point in time, our review was based on demands of the market. As and when there are other developments, we will review it. BIRD NUISANCE 24. Mr Ang Mong Seng asked the Minister for National Development whether there are any practical and effective solutions to resolve the bird nuisance faced by residents at the older and established Housing and Development Board estates. Dr John Chen Seow Phun (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, Sir, the main factors behind the bird nuisance problem are the easy availability of roosting places and food sources. The National Parks Board (NParks) and the Town Councils regularly prune dense foliage to reduce roosting places. Bird nests found are also removed during pruning activity. The Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA), with the assistance of the Singapore Gun Club and SAFRA Shooting Club, will cull the pest birds wherever possible and safe to do so. However, these are short-term measures. The pest birds would return to the roost when the trees regain their foliage. A more long-term and effective solution is to reduce the easy availability of food sources. The Ministry of the Environment has taken measures to require food stalls, shops and households to store their refuse in covered bins to keep them away from birds.”
“If the Compulsory Education Board is to do a proper job, and by that I mean making a concerted effort to investigate thoroughly into the circumstances of the families referred to it, then it needs resources - social workers, educationists, and maybe psychologists to counsel the family, etc. That is the very minimum we must ensure that this Board has so that it is able to come out with robust and worthwhile recommendations. I would therefore ask the Minister to assure this House that that indeed would be the case, that first the provisions of this Bill will be implemented with a deft touch and sensitivity. Secondly, that the Compulsory Education Board and the related authorities that will enforce this Bill would be given adequate resources to ensure its intent is fully realised in practice. EXEMPTED BUSINESS (Motion) Resolved, That the proceedings on the item of business under discussion be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1. - [Dr Lee Boon Yang]. COMPULSORY EDUCATION BILL Debate resumed.”
“No one involved in this endeavour should go away with the wrong impression. The Compulsory Education Board must therefore exercise great flexibility and restraint in carrying out its duties. The Committee under Senior Minister of State for Education, Dr Aline Wong, has already exercised considerable restraint and flexibility and that is evident in the manner in which it has dealt with specific issues such as those to do with madrasahs and home schooling. And also in wanting to approach this very new element of our society in an incremental manner by addressing primary education first. But all said and done, we still need safeguards to make sure that this process does not run awry. We must ensure that the imposition of the penalties that are provided for in this Bill are used only as a last resort and only after all other avenues have been exhausted. In the Bill itself, there is a two-stage process. The Compulsory Education Board can investigate and then make recommendations on what ought to be done in a particular case to the Director-General of Education. He or she in turn would then be the arbiter, as it were, for the final course of action. This two-stage process has its merits. Certainly, Sir, I would go one step further and say that we need to ensure that even for the manner in which the Compulsory Education Board carries out its duties, there are adequate provisions and protocol, if necessary, to make sure that they do not go about this in a manner that might create more problems than it solves. I for one would certainly not be unhappy if the provisions of this Bill, particularly those pertaining to the extreme penalties, are observed more in their breach than in their practice. The other level, Sir, is resources.”
“Who in their right mind can justifiably oppose a Bill that says every child should be given a chance to be educated and realise his full potential? The challenge in this Bill, in my opinion, is in its implementation and the enforcement of its provisions. As the proverbial saying goes, the devil is in the details. Sir, the Compulsory Education Board has an unenviable task. It must steadfastly uphold the spirit and intent of this legislation and yet it must adopt a deft and sensitive touch in its enforcement. Why? The family is central to a child's development. Parental involvement and support is key to a child's educational advancement. In my years as CEO of SINDA, there is one thing that I have learnt and it is that state or institutional support can never replace the role of the parents or the family in the child's development. Yet the Bill allows for quite severe penalties to be imposed on parents if they do not comply with the provisions of this Bill - a fine of up to $5,000 and up to 12 months' imprisonment. Mr Chiam argued earlier that there should be no imprisonment and that the fine should be reduced. I find that odd because if an Act is to be effective, then the enforcement and the penalties that go with the enforcement must be of sufficient deterrent quality. This is where the catch of this Bill lies: vigorous and assiduous enforcement of this Bill will, in my opinion, undermine the very intent of the Bill. It could lead to non-cooperation, resentment and even family breakdown. Certainly, Sir, a dysfunctional family is not a conducive backdrop for academic or educational pursuits. Sir, the Compulsory Education Bill cannot be a panacea for deep-seated problems that might lie within a family.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to join in this debate on the Compulsory Education Bill. Sir, at first glance, this Bill would appear to be something of an anomaly. We live in a society which holds educational achievement in high esteem and as a core value. We have an economy which attaches significant and tangible premium to education and skills. We have a Government which not only devotes significant resources to education but also constantly encourages, cajoles and even admonishes its people to train, retrain and pursue lifelong education. The Minister has given us empirical evidence previously in this House that this has worked with 97% to 98% of each cohort enrolling for primary one. The question that begs to be asked is why do we need this Bill to make education at the primary level compulsory. Perhaps the answer lies to some extent in the fact that in each cohort there are several hundred students who do not enrol for primary education. Many of them, as we are aware, do have perfectly good reasons. But there would be a minority for whom this is not the case and it is for them that we should be acting, and acting decisively. This Bill would be a worthwhile addition to our statutes if it is able to help this small group of young Singaporeans acquire the education that they are indeed entitled to. Sir, the Bill is worthy of support because it makes a statement on the importance that we in Singapore attach to education. It does underscore the responsibility of parents in this very important endeavour and it does endow the Ministry with the authority and the wherewithal to ensure that no child misses out on education due to parental neglect. Indeed, Sir, it is difficult to quarrel with this Bill at the level of its ideals and principles which underpin it.”
“But I think it would be a very strong effective signal if the public is told that the range and performance bonuses earned by the Ministers is X to Y. That would tell them, first, that the variability is genuine and it will be effected at the top levels, and secondly, that the Ministers are subjecting themselves to the very discipline that they expect of top civil servants as well, in terms of pay variability. Sir, the final comment I have is on the issue of timing and sensitivity. This pay rise comes, and there is no denying this, at an awkward time, because CPF cuts have not been fully restored and there have been recent increases in transportation costs and other charges. One could argue that there is never a good time for such pay rises. But the quantum is significant and for many, they would find it difficult to fathom. I think it is very laudable that in this exercise there has been a concerted effort to space out the increase and minimise the upfront increase. It demonstrates that a lot of thought has gone into being sensitive to average Singaporeans and their perception. But I wonder whether an additional step in terms of accelerating the CPF cut restoration could be considered. I think that would demonstrate to Singaporeans that the leaders are in it with them and that when things get better, it gets better for all.”
“I think these are important steps to address some of the questions in the minds of the public. But I do have some specific questions on this benchmark and its application. One question really is the net effect of the entire benchmark and the discounting has been to peg the Ministers' pay at 200, if you take the full amount of $1.21 million, or 360, I think, if it was taken at a discounted level of $900,000. So the question that begs to be asked is: could an alternative formulation be considered, or maybe it has been discarded, which is to consider a broader pool at the top of, let us say, the top 400, and then taking the median of 200? The reason I say this, Sir, is in any statistical analysis, a small sample tends to have greater volatility and variability. To use that as a base to compute a benchmark and then to apply a discount is probably going to raise more questions. And perhaps if the net effect of all of these is to peg the Ministers' pay at 200, then why not do that and, say, take 400, and take the median. I think this is something I would just like to hear some clarification on, whether this has been considered and why it has been discarded, if so. The other issue is the question of transparency. The sceptics will say that this large variable component of 40% is merely a device to camouflage the true extent of the pay rise accruing to the top civil servants and Ministers, and I think this needs to be addressed head on. One way to do that is to be transparent about the range and performance bonuses given to Ministers. I do not mean by this that individual Ministers' names be put and the bonuses be stated next to them.”
“More recent examples of that will be the manner in which the economic challenges of the recent crisis were managed, the drive into a knowledge-based economy and the initiatives in e-government. Not many countries have set the pace. And we have to see what has all this cost us. If I recall correctly, with all these pay adjustments, the DPM has said the total cost will increase to $34 million. This is less than 0.01% of our GDP. If you call it an investment, I think it is reaping good returns. If you want to call it insurance, it is a very low premium to pay. Sir, I think the need for such competitive pay is equally obvious if we contemplate the alternatives. We should not measure the cost of public leadership in terms of just the salaries that the leaders earn but of the total cost they could cost the nation, in terms of poor decisions or in terms of other unsavoury tendencies. Sir, I would like to focus on some aspects of this review for further comment. The benchmark that has been used to compute civil servants and Ministers' pay has been the object of much confusion and even mythology. Does it include foreigners? Does it include stock options? Is there a discount? How big a discount is it? And does it include the wages or the earnings of banker entrepreneurs? It has also been the object of criticism that the base that has been chosen has been too narrow and that Ministers and the top civil servants are therefore not subjecting themselves to adequate risk in their earnings. In that regard, I welcome the broadening of the base from 24 to 48 for the higher benchmark and the 50% discount from stock options. It is also laudable that most of these increases are going to be channelled to the variable component and to increase it to as much as 40% of the total wage.”
“Charity and sacrifice is best left to the individual to decide for himself or herself. Sir, I think back to the time when I joined the Administrative Service in 1987. Over a period of six to seven years, three-quarters of my cohort resigned and left for the private sector. This was before the civil service pay adjustments were introduced in 1994. These are good friends and they are no less loyal to Singapore than anybody in this Chamber or any other Singaporean. But they left because of the economic realities. They too had needs. They had families. They had children. They had mortgages to pay and they had expectations and aspirations commensurate with their talent. It was quite unrealistic to expect them to take a substantial reduction in pay when they could see what they could command out there. So they left. And they felt that they could continue to contribute to Singapore in other ways, and many of them still do. But the bottomline again is that the civil service and the public sector was the poorer for their departure. The question then is how much is enough. Sir, this is subjective. We have a formula. Is it too high? Is it too low? Or is it right? We could perhaps look at it from some angles. The first question to ask is really: have they delivered? And I think it is generally acknowledged not just by Singaporeans or Members of this House, but globally, that we have a public sector that is amongst the best in the world. The PERC survey that many Members have cited is just one in a series of examples. In the World Competitiveness Reports, we have consistently been rated high and one of the critical factors has been governance. It is not just the quality of the leadership but also the fact that it has been able to stay ahead of the curve and not just keep up.”
“Sir, this is not an easy matter to debate. Salaries of Ministers and civil servants are a matter of intense public scrutiny. Public funds are involved. Many perceive Members of this House as being judge, jury and beneficiary and ultimately it is an extremely emotive issue. I am therefore glad that the Government has chosen to adopt an open and transparent approach to this debate. One would imagine for a matter which is fraught with such problems, the instinct would be to shirk away from debate. But this Government has not done that and it has placed all the facts on the table for Singaporeans to look at openly and consider. It is typical of this Government's style and I welcome it. Sir, the need for top talent in the public sector is, in my mind, very obvious. The public and private sectors are twin engines of growth. Public sector capacity is critical for the growth of our nation. It is difficult to think of any country where the public sector has been weak or slovenly in its response to challenges and which has yet managed to maintain and sustain consistent growth and economic and developmental success. There are a few where there is this asymmetry and in those cases the benefits have been in very narrow pockets and not sustainable. The public sector is a key determinant of the enabling conditions for economic growth and broad-based development. These include not just physical infrastructure but the laws and policies, education system, law and order, etc. Sir, the bottomline is we cannot fly as high or as fast with only one engine firing. If we accept the need for top talent in the public sector, we must be ready and willing to pay competitively. Only then can we hire the best, demand the best, and make no apologies for it.”
“I do share some of the concerns about the implications for common property which my colleague, Dr Teo Ho Pin, has raised. But there is a spectrum of works involved in any upgrading, from those at one end which are very clearly of general value to all residents, to the other extreme where there are those which are of specific value to individual units or blocks. This lies somewhere in between and I think we have to make some pragmatic choices in this regard. I do have one concern for the Minister to address, ie, how do we safeguard against frivolous proposals with regard to these special upgrading works? The provision of lifts on every floor is a serious matter. With an ageing population, the need is obvious and we ought to make our best effort to deliver this. But one can imagine that there might be other less important and more frivolous requests coming from a sub-set of residents in a particular block. How does the HDB and the Ministry of National Development propose to deal with this? Should there be some form of criteria, at least requiring a certain minimum percentage or proportion of units in a block to be beneficiaries of a project before it can be considered under this special provision, or should it be confined to certain types of works? I know the Minister has considerable discretion based on the way the Bill is worded, but I would appreciate it if he could shed some light on how these safeguards can be put in place. With that, I support the Bill, Sir.”
“Essentially, if I take a 100-unit block, there will be 30 or so units who are already benefiting from some form of direct lift access, either because the lift stops on their floor in front of their doorstep or they are served by a common corridor. It is the remaining 70-odd units who need this facility but are deprived of it. But if you put it to a vote and subject it to a 75% test, I think it is obvious that the odds are stacked against this project being carried through. The question really is this: how can such improvement works be carried out? The options are, first, as has been suggested by some Members, a generalised Government programme for lift upgrading fully funded by Government. That would be like manna from heaven and nobody would object to that. But in the absence of such largesse, I think we have to look at the next most pragmatic option, and that really is the nub of this special upgrading works that are being proposed. The Bill enhances flexibility. It means that, when implementing the project, we can now look at some worthwhile projects which might benefit a sub-set of a particular block but we still deem it to be worthwhile to endeavour to deliver. Second, it offers choice. The direct beneficiaries can decide for themselves: is the price worth the benefit and they vote for it. If they want it, and enough of them vote for it, it will be delivered. If not, it will not be done. That really leads on to the point of equity, ie, only those who benefit will have to pay. I think it is a reasonable proposal and it has the added advantage that such projects can be bundled into a larger scale MUP project which will achieve economies of scale and a lowering of cost.”
“Sir, this has been a very pragmatic and balanced approach to our upgrading projects, but the key limitation of this really is when we want to consider a project at the sub-block level, ie, where we want a project which will benefit a substantial but not necessarily all units in a block. The implementation of such projects will be stymied and I think this is not a hypothetical exercise. As my colleague, Mr Seng Han Thong, has pointed out, a case in point is the provision of lifts for segmented 4-room blocks. Sir, the inclusion of such lift provisions in the main or general programme of HDB which everybody votes on has been suggested by some of the Members, but I would like to point out that, in practice, this is not going to work out for two reasons. Firstly, the cost of such projects is unusually high, unlike risers or roof repair works, etc. I have been told that each new lift well - and I speak with some degree of experience, although I am not a man of the industry, because I have been involved in some of these projects - can cost anything from $1/2-$1 million. And if you have that three-fold, that is a substantial cost. And if you are to argue that this substantial cost of a particular block's benefit is to be borne by the whole, the argument may be untenable and that may result in the entire project being defeated unnecessarily. It is also difficult, from what I can see, to conduct a vote for this special item like a lift upgrading at the block level in the way it is carried out for, say, the space adding items. Because even within a block, there are only specific beneficiaries who directly derive benefit from it. For those who know the topography of a 4-room segmented block, you would understand what I am getting at.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to focus my comments on what I deem to be the main aspect of this Bill, ie, pertaining to special upgrading works. I believe this Bill is worthy of support because of three essential principles that underpin it. The first is the flexibility it endows the HDB with in the implementation of upgrading projects. The second is the choice it will give Singaporeans so that more Singaporeans can benefit from upgrading works. And the third is the principle of equity, to ensure a certain degree of matching or congruence between those who benefit and those who bear the cost. Sir, the MUP projects that we have seen so far implemented attempt to strike a balance between these three principles of flexibility, choice and equity, by adopting a layered approach. In a typical MUP project, we have, at the first tier, precinct works which, it could be argued reasonably, are of benefit to all residents, and therefore all should bear the cost and all should have the right to vote. At the second tier, we have block works. They are specific to the block but of general benefit to all the residents in the block. And in these instances, because all blocks in the precincts are given the same form of privileges and benefits, it could also be argued that there is a general benefit that stems from them and therefore all should vote and all should pay. We then have a third tier of what are called space adding items which give specific additional space to individual units, and here the voting is done separately at the block level and the residents of each block can decide whether they wish it, and if they meet a threshold, they can have that item.”
“Sir, I welcome the Minister's announcement that the scheme will be applied to all sectors without constraints. But I would like to explore further with the Minister why the limit to companies if its assets are less than $100 million. In the market, there is already a migration of talent from the old economy as it were to the new economy and typically, new economy companies tend to fit this less than $100 million gross asset test and the old economy may be less so. I am not just talking about the large companies, but even some of the medium size companies. Sir, it would appear that any differential tax treatment for ESOP of these two categories will exacerbate the migration and make it even harder for the old economy companies to retain talent. So the question I really have for the Minister is: why can the scheme not be open to all companies in the first instance or, if not, at least if he could share with us why or how this $100 million figure was arrived at? What is the thinking behind it and how soon can that be reviewed? Does it have to wait for the full five years?”
“These issues come to the heart of one main problem that a lot of parents face, which is, the contrast is stark in the terrain between pre-primary education and primary education. Once we enter primary school, the choice is quite simple. You choose the school, but you know in general that they are within certain boundaries and your child is being prepared for the Primary School Leaving Examinations. But when you enter pre-primary education, it is not very clear what you are preparing the child for. You know that there is this P1 hurdle but we do not know what exactly it represents. I would be grateful if the Ministry could comment further on how it proposes to assist parents in this regard.”
“My purpose here is not to absolve parents of decision-making on the all important choice of where to send their child for pre-school or, for that matter, primary or secondary school education. My purpose is more to ask whether the Ministry can be more proactive and helpful to parents in making those choices. My colleagues, who have spoken before me, have highlighted several of these points. I wish to add a few key points. First, basically, to know what is the desired outcome of pre-primary education. If we know what the hurdle is, then we know how hard to train to clear the hurdle. Second, can the Ministry be less reticent about what form of curriculum it thinks will best serve that desired outcome? I think it would not be unappreciated by parents if they have an idea from the Ministry of Education on what curriculum structure it thinks will meet the basic requirements in preparation for P1. Could the Ministry go a little bit further and in fact undertake certification to reassure parents that regardless of where the school or the kindergarten resides, regardless of the teacher-pupil ratio and regardless of the pedagogic method, a certain minimum standard is being met and that parents can confidently enrol the child there without concern that the child may not be getting what is appropriate? Finally, can the Ministry allocate more resources towards research in this area, in order to ascertain clearly in our minds the value of pre-primary education and if it is found to be valuable, then let us take a step further and say we will accord adequate public funding to ensure that this is done properly. In relation to that is the question of the training of our teachers. The quality of pre-school teachers is extremely wide.”
“Sir, allow me to share my experience as the father of a child about to enter pre-school education. There is literally a bewildering array of options open to parents. There is something for every budget, from a few tens of dollar a month up to a thousand dollars or more a month and, at the higher end, it is, in fact, more expensive than university education in some cases. There is something for every form of pedagogic persuasion. There are some who emphasise the traditional 3Rs, that is, reading, writing and arithmetic. There are others who propose and propagate self-directed learning. Some emphasise more on the mother tongue. Others emphasise more on the English language. In terms of facilities, the array is again quite vast. You have kindergartens in void decks, you have them in converted landed properties and you have some customised facilities. Such diversity is desirable for it gives parents a choice. But the process of analysing this information and making informed decisions is worthy of a thesis in my view. Because parents in general have some difficulty in ascertaining what exactly is desired in pre-school education. I for one do not want to subject my child to the rigours of writing book reviews, if that is not necessary, and indeed that is something that the child will acquire in the fullness of time. On the other hand, if this is a requirement or there is some expectation from the primary 1 school level that the child should have certain minimum capabilities in this area, I would wish to know about it because that would be a criterion in deciding which centre I choose for my child.”
“We are compelled to ask and raise these questions because they are receiving public funds and entrusted with proper usage of them. The SMU appears to offer a different model, in terms of being a private company. The question then is: could this be used as a model for other faculties in the universities, if not for the entire university itself? It seems to me, other than the greater flexibility it would afford the institutions, in terms of how they manage their resources, it can also allow them to be closer to the private sector, both in terms of cooperation with corporations, as well as in rewarding their staff at market rates. We could start with the faculties that are most amenable to privatisation, such as the business faculty, where students who go in, for example, for MBAs will be in a reasonably good position to ascertain the potential economic value of their degree. I would appreciate it if the Minister could address those questions.”
“Sir, yesterday, the Straits Times reported that the National University of Singapore would be investing an estimated $200 million in an office building in downtown Raffles Place, Hitachi Tower. This decision of the university has raised some eyebrows. The question is: why is NUS taking on such a high exposure to a single piece of property for which it appears to have no direct use for its pedagogic purposes? The NUS should be commended for being proactive in wanting to obtain greater returns for the excess funds that it has. Indeed, if it is successful in its endeavour, it will help reduce fees and make available more resources for better programmes and facilities in the university. But the question really is the method used by the university in this regard. Could the university administration have chosen to deploy these funds in investment assets through fund managers? Alternatively, if the university's finance committee felt that the property sector offers attractive investment asset classes, why not do so through property funds or real estate investment, investment trusts or other investments in property counters themselves to allow itself a greater spread, in terms of risk and diversification? This investment decision certainly is unorthodox and the question may particularly be pertinent because the university does receive public funds for operating expenditure, development expenditure and also has matching grants for its endowment fund. May I therefore ask the Minister whether there are any policies or guidelines that govern the deployment of investible funds, which our universities have? Sir, this also raises a broader question of whether our universities might be better off if they were truly private institutions.”
“Secondly, whether there are plans to introduce Tamil education or training in Tamil language teaching at the tertiary level at our NIE?”
“In particular, three out of four primary schools offer Tamil during curriculum hours and more than half of the secondary schools, I believe 53%, offer Tamil during curriculum hours as well. In addition, the Ministry will be enhancing this availability at the secondary level through cluster schools. These are all very welcome initiatives on this score because this has been the bane of many students and, for that matter, their parents, who are taking Tamil because they have to miss out on the core curriculum opportunities as well as remedial opportunities that might have occurred outside curriculum time because they have to go for classes in Tamil as well. With the review complete, the key aspect is implementation and ultimately the success, it would seem, resides with whether the policy objectives are realised in the syllabus, the textbooks and in the classrooms. In that regard, I would like to ask the Minister how the implementation of these initiatives will be managed and whether there would be scope for continual input from the community or, at least, certain parts of the community which may have knowledge that would be of value to the Ministry. Secondly, the teachers would be the key agents of this change, not just because they are teaching the syllabus but also because they are the embodiment of the language and would therefore be a model for these students in terms of what teaching and learning the language is about. What opportunities will be made available for TL teachers to enhance their own training and development? I would like to ask the Minister, in particular, two questions. Firstly, what proportion of Tamil teachers have tertiary education?”
“Sir, the recent initiatives announced by the Ministry of Education arising from the review of the Tamil language teaching and education in our schools has been welcomed by the community. I have had the privilege of being a member of the Committee that the Minister chaired to review the education of Tamil language and also chaired an Advisory Committee to obtain feedback from the community on this matter. I must say that in general the recommendations accord well with the feedback we received from the community, in particular, the observations pertaining to the standard of the language as it is taught in our schools and the methodology used in the teaching of the language. In particular, the community welcomes the Minister's assurance and commitment on two counts. The first was that the standard of Tamil language would be set at a level appropriate to our circumstances in Singapore and at a level which would also enable reasonable students with reasonable effort to achieve reasonable results. Sir, there are two reasons why this is important. Firstly, a growing proportion of students from Tamil homes speak English as the main language. In fact, more than 50% use English predominantly in their home and this proportion is likely to increase as the trend suggests. Secondly, the social and cultural context in Singapore is different to that in India or, in particular, Tamil Nadu, which would be used as a benchmark for Tamil. Therefore, any standard that we derive from such external sources must be suitably adjusted for our local context. The second aspect of the Minister's assurance pertains to the accessibility to Tamil language during curriculum hours in our schools and there the Minister stated that it would be maintained at the present levels.”
“It does not represent a new paradigm for the way we organise ourselves, or the way we govern ourselves, or the way we relate to each other. And I think this is the point that must be communicated effectively to our students, through national education, and other measures, that we must be fast but not hasty in decision making, particularly when it comes to policy that affects millions of Singaporeans; that we must be connected but not confuse connectivity with being involved with everything, everywhere, all the time; that we must be informed, especially when making important decisions, but that we should not be overwhelmed by this information that is available out there, to be able to sieve out what is important and what is not. Sir, ultimately, the so-called Internet speed has its limits, particularly in terms of in what context it can be applied. You cannot have family relations at Internet speed, you cannot parent your child at Internet speed and certainly, you cannot build a nation at Internet speed, with the values of multi-racialism, meritocracy, integrity and diligence, the values on which Singapore was built. Sir, I think national education is the key to maintaining that balance in our education system and I would urge the Minister to pay particular attention to how this balance is brought about in the message we give our young so that they do not get so enamoured of the wild wild west of the Internet that they forget the old home with its yellow brick road.”
“Sir, over the last few years, there have been several significant changes in our education system. We have moved from an emphasis on rote learning towards greater creative thinking, away from an academic orientation towards a wider scope of methods through which students can express themselves and be assessed. Curriculum has been reduced in favour of that objective and we also have improved infrastructure and facilities. And perhaps, most important of all, we also have developed IT teaching in schools and used it as a vehicle for creative expression. All these are very important changes in keeping with the times and they prepare us for the so-called new economy. But, Sir, a certain bias appears to have crept into our vernacular. We appear to talk of the old economy in somewhat disparaging terms and the new economy in somewhat glowing terms. If I may illustrate. In this House, we have numerous references on the need to work at Internet speed, the need to embrace the new economy, otherwise we risk being left behind. The suggestion is also that if we do not do so, then we might be somewhat remiss in the task of governance. In the media, we find front page coverage to young junior college students who have become entrepreneurs or technopreneurs, as the new vernacular will suggest, taking risks and being prepared to fail and wear failure as a badge of honour. We also have less than complimentary references in the media to the old world economy veterans, like Warren Buffet that he has not embraced the new changes with as much speed as he should have. Sir, these are important messages in their own right. But they should be kept in their context. Ultimately, the Internet and the new economy is just another way to create wealth.”
“This could be a variation of what we already have, in the form of the NYC or the PAYM or it could be something entirely new and it need not encroach into the areas that are traditionally the responsibility of MOE or the Ministry of Home Affairs. But certainly, on the social aspects of youth matters, this can be addressed. There have been calls for a Youth Ministry but I suspect the arguments there are not strong enough or compelling enough, but there is a reasonable case to be made for a more centralised approach to coordinate certain efforts targeted at the youth. I would appreciate it if the Minister could give us a response on this.”
“Sir, I would like to ask the Minister to comment on how youth affairs are managed in Singapore. To the best of my knowledge, there are a whole range of organisations that deal with matters of interest and importance to youth. We have the People's Association Youth Movement, which is involved through its multi-various agencies in the community centres, the Youth Executive Committees. We have the National Youth Council, which is also involved in youth-related affairs but largely working through VWOs. The Ministry of Community Development itself has some degree of focus on youth-related matters through its division, and other Ministries, such as the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Home Affairs, for example, deal with certain aspects of their work which pertain to the youth. It will not be far-fetched to argue that there would be significant scope for synergy in bringing some of the issues together in dealing with matters that affect the youth. In particular, Sir, about a week or so ago, the National Youth Council held a seminar with young Singaporeans in which many voiced out this concern, that is, whether the interests of the youth are well-taken care of, especially when we have an ageing population which will appear, at least, in theory, to compete with the interest of the young and also as many other social pressures are brought to bear on our young Singaporeans. The question I have for the Minister then is whether there is scope to establish a focused central body, perhaps a statutory board, or a department under the aegis of the Ministry of Community Development, to address youth matters on a holistic basis.”
“Before the Senior Parliamentary Secretary resumes his seat, just a clarification. Is the $10 million allocation for upgrading of private estates for a particular duration or period? And, secondly, when it comes to the implementation aspects of this, will the scope be broadened and will he be considering more than two pilot projects for this year? Assoc. Prof. Koo Tsai Kee: The $10 million global budget for this upgrading of private estates will be for next year; in other words, for the financial year 2001/2002. But we will start the programme in the later half of this year. Because if we start the programme this year, the payment will be made next year. So the money will be available after April next year, and we will pay the contractors after April. We can start the project in the later half of this year. We will start with two because we want to test out the projects. This is something that is new that we are going in, unlike the MUP and IUP which have gone on for about 10 years now. The $10 million is over and above what the other agencies are doing. Next year, if the budget surplus is healthy, we will go to Finance Ministry and ask for more money to provide more upgrading projects for more private estates.”