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 44 of 46.
“Sir, the recent announcement on the upgrading of private estates has brought cheer to the hearts of many residents who have long felt that they are the forgotten children. Having said that, I think there are some questions that they would like to put to the Minister. First, on the scope of the upgrading of private estates that is being considered - playgrounds, parks, widening of footpaths seem terribly unambitious. The question really is, what more can be done or should be considered. I will put two ideas to the Minister for consideration. The first is access to public transport, be this in the form of additional bus routes, bus stops, or even covered footpaths linking to these facilities. The second, in terms of general community facilities where private estate residents can organise their activities, since this is indeed one of the objectives of organising private estates' association. Secondly, the pace of the project. Two projects in the second half of this year, as a pilot phase, again seems very modest, since the scope of work mainly contemplated is very basic. Why do we need this pilot phase? There is lots of experience out there in terms of upgrading playgrounds and widening of footpaths. So I would like to know why we cannot accelerate the project and actually have several more occurring at the same time in order to broaden the Ministry's own experience with this novel venture. Thirdly, my colleagues have already mentioned the mechanism. First, the criteria for selection of such estates and, second, is there scope for additional projects to be taken on a co-funding basis?”
“So I would like the Minister's assurance that indeed, the CSSP is to complement the existing police activity on the ground and that it does not lead to any scaling back of such activity.”
“Sir, CSSP has been in force for some time now. I would like to ask the Minister what the progress has been, in particular, what the response has been from the grassroots organisations who have been approached to participate in the programme. In particular, I would like to know whether the Ministry adjudges the programme to have been a success so far and how it has measured the success of this programme. Secondly, as Mr Chng has highlighted, the question is whether we can build on this platform and extend the CSSP to other organisations or other areas of concern, and the schools are a logical extension in this respect. However, my concern is also that, if a school participates in a CSSP programme, does it risk attracting an audience that is involved because of a problem, or that it is rife with a crime or criminal elements rather than the fact that it is proactive and forthcoming to participate in this activity. So I would ask the Minister to explain how such programmes, if they intend to be extended to the schools and other agencies, will be done and what criteria and perhaps, more importantly, how the right message can be communicated that this participation is proactive and not because there are problems rife within the organisation. Finally, Sir, with this general effort to involve the community in policing and in the maintenance and enhancement of general security in our communities, the question that is often asked is whether this augments or whether it replaces or is a substitute for activities by the Police on the ground, in particular, patrolling and the manning levels at neighbourhood police posts, etc.”
“In that regard, I would like to know whether the Ministry and the Police Force, in particular, has a PR programme in general with the national level, in order to maintain and sustain the public's confidence and sense of appreciation for the Police Force. Second, whether there are specific programmes that can be put in place in the aftermath of particularly dramatic incidents, so that people in the neighbourhood can rest assured and their confidence can be restored quickly. And, third, what programmes there are at the individual level for particular officers to be trained in order to deal with the general public and also with grassroots leaders?”
“Sir, if I can take it where Mr Chng and Mr Goh have left. It appears from time to time that there is a disjoint between the public perception of the Police Force and the general crime situation on the one hand and the actual state of affairs on the other. If you look at the facts, the Police Force has come a long way in terms of professionalism, in terms of the quality of its manpower and in terms of the general crime situation. Yet, the Police Force comes in for an unfair criticism or a bum rap, as some would say it from time to time. Why is that so? There appear to be several contributory factors. One is occasional media reporting; the other is personal experiences. If I can elaborate, although the general statistics on crime have been improving, occasional crime occurrences, such as some recent ones in Bukit Batok, loom large in the public psyche and fundamentally affect their sense of security. Secondly, personal experiences with the Police. Although, in general, one might be pleased with the state of affairs, a particular episode with an individual officer may leave one with a different impression. And thirdly, a few bad apples in the Force may also give the entire Police Force an unfairly bad image. These occasional episodes can affect adversely the general sense of security and therefore public perception of the Police Force. And this may also hinder public cooperation with the Police's efforts, which I think is fundamental for the success of the Police's efforts. Sir, I would like to ask the Minister what is being done to maintain and enhance the Police Force's standing in the public eye. The Police Force, like any other organisation, public or private, needs strong public relations because it must do a good job and it must be seen to be doing a good job.”
“If they cannot be expanded to other roads, perhaps highways where speeds are very high, should have cats' eyes so that the markings on the roads are particularly clear when we have night driving or driving in adverse weather conditions. Sir, I would like to congratulate the LTA for its proactivity, but I would like to also suggest that the review that it does should not just be on the expressways and major roads. Some minor roads too have got potential problems - the dangerous spots. I could give the Ministry a list of some of these. I hope that these situations can also be addressed. Finally, for better feedback, perhaps LTA could institute some kind of easily used system so that the million of eyes on the road could be your eyes too, they may not necessarily be the experts, but everybody who drives thinks he is an expert anyway. Perhaps they could just call a hotline to report their observations.”
“But the purpose of my raising this question is really to ask: Can we not accommodate some of the public concerns in a visible and tangible way in the process of LTA's activities? Assoc. Prof. Toh See Kiat: Sir, on 27th February this year, the LTA made an announcement which I think passed with too little fanfare. And I believe that it deserves praise because it is one of the most progressive transport administrations in the whole world. The new measures for road safety include making road dividers brighter and expressway exits clearly, and so on. I think these measures are all very good. The promise of this programme, however, is that these changes will be made to major roads eventually and not just to expressways. The LTA staff have reassured the community that they are constantly looking at changes that need to be made, and they have in fact engaged a New Zealand consultant as a "fresh" pair of expert eyes to see what can be improved. Sir, I know that this is not the first time that the LTA has introduced good changes without fanfare and I think they deserve much more praise. For example, I know that they introduced road surfacing material, new material, in the KJE which I have travelled on, and I find it very good because the water is absorbed and drained out by the sides. It gives cars better road holding and it allows for the markings to be seen better because there is no sheen from the road, especially at night and when the roads are wet. And I just hope that the Ministry would look at this and see whether they could be expanded to other roads in Singapore.”
“Sir, my basic question is this. How does the LTA internalise the social costs of the projects that it plans and implements in the planning process before execution? The LTA is a large organisation. It undertakes major projects. These are not just large projects in terms of the scale, cost or size, but also in terms of the impact it has on the general public. We have large amenities that arise from them in facilities for road users, commuters and the like. But these amenities are also caused by LTA projects - noise pollution. We have instances where inconvenience has caused to some residents because they have to divert the mode of travel and in the extreme, it leads to acquisition of property. So the question then is: How does LTA consult or get feedback or input from residents who are potentially or actually affected by such projects? I know the LTA has extensive consultation with many agencies of Government in planning its projects. But what about the public or the sentiments and interests of the general public? How is that internalised? It seems to me that typically, consultation occurs at a rather late stage when designs have already been drawn, specifications have been made and tenders are about to be called. That is obviously too advance a stage at which to incorporate feedback meaningfully. Is there not a stage between the strategic planning level and the detailed design planning level where some views can be sought and incorporated? The idea here, Sir, is not to fuel not-in-my-backyard kind of sentiments, and accommodate that. I think we recognise that in public policy, we must give priority to the national interests. Neither is it to shackle legitimate pursuit of national interests through large public projects.”
“And I urge the Minister to re-examine the process through which this IT revolution will be brought to the heartlands of Singapore.”
“The People's Association and its grassroots are old hats at communicating sometimes quite complex Government policies to the average Singaporean. And I think they know the tricks of the trade. So, why not let them take the lead? Secondly, Sir, icons. I think we need e-icons, not the type we click on a screen, but the type who can touch our hearts and click our minds, individuals whom we can relate to and who might face the same fears as us when venturing into the e-world. To me, Sir, Liang Po Po and Tan Ah Tek of Under One Roof would be fantastic e-ambassadors. They are well known, they strike a chord with many Singaporeans and, most important of all, they could inspire an attitude of "if they can do it, so can I", amongst the average Singaporeans. And I would urge the Minister to consider this form of mass publicity and sort of attitude-changing effort through e-icons. Thirdly, Sir, I would urge the agencies involved to tread the path of least resistance. It is important because when delivering the e-message, we should do it in bite sizes and in an entertaining manner. There is no point diving into the deep end talking about word processing, web browsing, Windows 2000, Office 2000 and so on. Rather, we should start with what appeals, perhaps with games, Solitaire and the like, just get people comfortable with the mouse and the computer screen, and then graduate from there into other forms of entertainment before going into e-mail for more social purposes, and then web browsing and so on. My point in saying all of this is that these incremental steps will imbue confidence and comfort with what would otherwise be a very alien medium to many Singaporeans.”
“Much obliged, Sir. Sir, the digital divide is already upon us. We have high profile technopreneurs who are making millions from esoteric IT ventures; yet there are many amongst us who remain intimidated by the mere sight of a computer. We have a younger generation of Singaporeans for whom techno-lingo is second nature; yet there are others amongst us who think we are referring to a rodent problem when we talk about a mouse. I welcome the recent announcement by the Minister for Communications and Information Technology that the Ministry will allocate $25 million to bring the IT revolution closer to the heartlands. My concern is how this money will be spent. Because a variety of purposes have been mentioned like training, computer ownership and even Internet access, I think they are important and laudable objectives. But the key challenge, in my view, is psychological. Our task is really to reach out to a large group of predominantly older Singaporeans and to persuade them that they too are a part of this new world of info-communications and it is not just for young techies. Sir, I have three specific proposals for the Minister to consider. The first is on the organisational element. I am glad that IDA will be working closely with community groups and grassroots organisations on this initiative to bring IT and "e" closer to the people. But why not go all the way and let the People's Association drive the project. I say this because the IDA is a new agency with expert domain knowledge, but we do not really need very high-tech knowledge for this effort. Neither can we reasonably expect IDA's young, jeans-clad computer experts to effectively reach out to older, more conservatively dressed Singaporeans.”
“Low Seow Chay: I am pointing out this particular issue because one of the condominium developments would like to build one of the covered linkways. But the linkway is actually on HDB land. In this case, it will be under HDB's CIPC fund, and not under other community improvement funds. Actually, the linkway is only used for the private estate. Could the Senior Parliamentary Secretary clarify whether or not that can be done? Assoc. Prof. Koo Tsai Kee: If the linkway sits on HDB land, then CIPC fund will have to be sought. If the linkway crosses from the HDB land to the private estate land, then you will have to apply for money under the CIPRE fund, and the coordination must be done between the MC and the Town Council.”
“May I urge the Senior Parliamentary Secretary, in contemplating what projects to implement, will high priority be given to the public transportation access elements, including covered linkways? I know he mentioned that LTA will be involved. But I think that would probably redeem all significant value added to private estate residents rather than parks and footpaths. Assoc. Prof. Koo Tsai Kee: I think that suggestion would be taken up. Assoc. Prof. Toh See Kiat: Sir, I go back to my earlier question to the Senior Parliamentary Secretary. Like in my constituency, which is actually older than I am, the housing estate has got old schools that are abandoned, or about to be abandoned, and some of these facilities are too small for any other public use, except perhaps a little clubhouse for the residents. I am just thinking that perhaps the Ministry could look into funding, renovation, and the TOL that we have to pay to the Land Office. Assoc. Prof. Koo Tsai Kee: Mr Speaker, Sir, can I ask the Member to write to me and give me the details of his proposal? Assoc. Prof. Low Seow Chay (Chua Chu Kang): May I ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary what happens if the improvement work is on HDB land because many of the condominiums or private estates are adjoining the HDB estate? Therefore, the improvement work has to be done on HDB land. Under the traditional CIPC grant, if the improvement works are on HDB land, then this grant cannot be used. Could he clarify this matter? Assoc. Prof. Koo Tsai Kee: I think the policy is very clear. If the estate sits on HDB land, in other words, we call it the common area, then we will use CIPC funding. If it sits on private land, then we can consider using the Committee for Improvements to Private Residential Estate (CIPRE) fund. Assoc. Prof.”
“Given that the scope of works contemplated is relatively modest, can we envisage an early start date for the project and faster implementation because we are only talking about things like landscaping and footpath widening? I do not see this as being terribly complicated. Assoc. Prof. Koo Tsai Kee: We will try to start one or two by the second half of this year. We are already in March. So the second half can be a few months away. Mr Simon S C Tay (Nominated Member): The Senior Parliamentary Secretary has said that, for condominiums, they will probably do it on public land. May I take it that it is a principle of private estate upgrading that no private land will be taken? Assoc. Prof. Koo Tsai Kee: Yes. Assoc. Prof. Toh See Kiat (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, Sir, could I ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary this question? He talks about one of the factors being community bonding. Will it be possible for communities that are found to be quite well bonded to be helped along with the provision of facilities like the RC centre or clubhouse? Assoc. Prof. Koo Tsai Kee: That depends on the number of houses or condominium units in that precinct. The funding will be based on X dollars per household within that precinct. So if there is enough money to do something big, I think we can consider. But bear in mind that private estates are not like HDB estates. The total number of household size will be small. So we do not envisage a big project to be in place.”
“I urge the Minister to consider this change.”
“I therefore urge the Minister that, when making the announcement in May, he extends the enhanced tax treatment to all sectors of the economy. Finally, Sir, allocative efficiency. Sir, we would like to think that, when Government earmarks expenditure to benefit particular segments of our population, it indeed reaches that segment of the population. In this regard, I have raised this question before and wish to put it to the Minister again, whether the use of HDB flat size as a proxy to distribute HDB service and conservancy charges and rental rebates, GST offsets and rebates, and a whole slew of other rebates - I did a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation and it is about $73 million this year - is an appropriate proxy. Would we be channelling these resources to individuals who need not receive such largesse? And would we be depriving others who would benefit more from the additional dollar? Sir, individually, these amounts are very small per household, and it is likely to be like manna from heaven for many of them. It is just another thing and makes little impact on them. If we can aggregate some of these and give it to particular households judged to be needy, I think the impact would be far greater, psychologically, and also in terms of the social impact on their lives. I would ask the Minister to consider a two-tier system, if not for this year, then in the forthcoming financial year. One, where we can adhere to this HDB proxy-based allocative system. But the second tier can be channelled through Town Councils and Community Development Councils. They are closer to the ground. They are in a better position to judge which households need this form of assistance and which do not, and they would be able to administer the funds entrusted to them.”
“The business sector sees it as a bellwether of economic health and for the country as a whole, it is an important tool for shaping expectations and behaviour. Sir, the greater the divergence between our forecast and the actuals, the weaker this instrument will be as a tool of economic policy, or social and national policy. I therefore urge the Minister to review this process in order to ensure that these divergences are minimised in future Budgets. Sir, the second aspect is on distortionary effects. As far as possible, we would like fiscal policy to leave market forces untrammelled in order to pursue their self-interest, except where the desired effect is to change such market behaviour. In this Budget, one example where I feel, or fear, that a distortionary effect is likely is in the tax treatment of ESOPs. I welcome the Minister's announcement that more will be done. But I ask why the focus on the high-tech start-ups in particular. I raise this question for two reasons. Firstly, the principles underlying ESOPs are applicable to all aspects of business endeavour and not confined to the high-tech sector. The knowledge-based economy, as the Minister himself has said, emphasises comparative advantage through the use of knowledge. That is applicable whether a company is in the high-tech sector or in the traditional sector. Secondly, this favourable treatment of ESOPs for the high-tech sector will distort market forces and lead to a further diversion of talent to the high-tech start-ups. The problem is already pronounced on the ground with many traditional companies and SMEs struggling to keep their talent, let alone attract new talent. If we have this asymmetric arrangement, then I think we will accentuate the problem on the ground.”
“More importantly, should there be safeguards against such needless reservation of scarce resources, particularly in a year when there were other compelling needs? Otherwise, departments will continue to over-budget with impunity, secure in the knowledge that any residual that is unutilised can be rolled over to the next financial year. On the revenue side, Sir, there has been a 20% increase, or $4.8 billion from the forecast of $24.1 billion. The V-shaped recovery has been assigned responsibility. Sir, in February 1999, the Government's forecast for growth was between -1% and 1%. The final figure was 5.4% and there were regular updates along the year. The question I have is whether we have sufficient instruments in our forecasting methods to anticipate some of these changes. For example, the Minister has mentioned in his speech the composite of leading indicators which is supposed to lead economic growth by up to nine months. That would mean that, in February, we should have a reasonable indication of what the economic scenario should be towards the end of the year. Similarly, we also use other proxies like the non-oil retained imports. One reason often given for variability in forecast, especially in Singapore's context, is that we are an open economy and that there are several exogenous factors beyond our control. So the question then is whether we can in fact separate out what the impact of those exogenous uncontrollable factors are as opposed to what is within our control. Sir, these are not mere academic questions. The Government's budget and the premises on which it is built are of great political and economic consequence.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, for allowing me to join in the debate. Sir, the Budget has generally been welcomed on the ground. In particular, its focus on the family, on retirement planning and also the high-tech sectors has been commended. The man-in-the-street of course feels that there are slim pickings, but of course the optimists will argue that slim pickings are better than no pickings. Sir, I would like to comment on the Budget from the perspective of three tenets of fiscal policy. First, data reliability; second, distortionary effects of some of the policies; and, third, allocative efficiency. Sir, the motion seeks this House's support for the Government's financial policy. Public policy must be predicated on reliable data, and that is especially so for financial policy. Robust forecasts of GDP growth rates, revenue and expenditure engender confidence in the Government's financial programme. It also reassures Singaporeans that the choices implicit in the Government's taxation and spending programme are indeed necessary. Sir, in this light, the $8 billion turnaround Budget has raised many eyebrows. Many have already commented in this House on the sheer magnitude of this change. Allow me, Sir, to focus instead on the contributory factors and the nature of this change which, I believe, paints a revealing picture. The key question is whether this could have been anticipated, if not to the full extent, then at least partially. Firstly, expenditure was lower by 10%, or $3.4 billion, compared to the forecast of $29.4 billion, and it was attributed to two factors - lower cost and the rescheduling of some development expenditure. Sir, could the relevant agencies who forecast this development expenditure, in the first place, have anticipated this delay?”
“EXEMPTED BUSINESS (Motion) Resolved, That the proceedings on the item of business under discussion and item 3 on the Order Paper for today be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1. - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. SINGAPORE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY BILL Debate resumed.”
“Sir, moving on from these general public policy questions, I have some specific questions pertaining to the funding for the SMU which is mentioned in clause 6 of this Bill. I welcome the Minister's statement that SMU would be given considerable autonomy and flexibility in order to provide management training and education creatively. But it still begs the question of accountability, given that public funds would be deployed. And the questions I have on the funding principles are, first, I presume the funding formula would be pegged to that used for the Business Faculties of NUS or NTU in order to ensure some degree of a level playing field. Second, as I listened to my colleague, Dr Tan talk about the competition for talent to teach management courses, my immediate concern is one of an inflationary spiral. We are privatising the wage rates for those faculty staff for whom there is a reasonably comparable market equivalent and if we also add on to that the notion that there is going to be competition across institutions for limited talent, then some degree of wage increases is inevitable. The question then is: would funding to SMU be somehow capped, or would it rise in tandem with any projected wage increase that we can anticipate or not anticipate? The final question I have is whether, in the spirit of keeping SMU a private institution with considerable flexibility and autonomy, there is a timeframe after which such funding from the public sector would be phased out so that the institution can indeed function, as it should, as an independent, autonomous and flexible institution providing quality management education in Singapore. I support the Bill, Sir.”
“As was mentioned earlier in this debate, at one point in the deliberations leading to the establishment of the SMU, it was suggested that in fact undergraduate business education may be discontinued in some of the state institutions. Second, if indeed that is not the case, then is there going to be a policy to help NUS and NTU differentiate themselves from SMU? One thought that comes to mind is whether NUS and NTU could provide business degree programmes in conjunction with a content-based programme leading to twin degrees, in other words, a business degree would not stand on its own but together with a content degree, such as in engineering or in science, and bio-chemistry. This would naturally contribute to creating the kind of technopreneurship that we are talking about and these individuals would have both core skills that we deem necessary. Third, if that is not the case, could greater emphasis instead be placed on post-graduate management training, particularly in our state universities, allowing for undergraduate training where it occurs to be largely taken up at the SMU level? Fourth, this is a point that my colleague, Dr Wang, has raised and I would like to reinforce. If we believe that the private company model might better serve the development of university institutions like SMU, then perhaps we should go further down that path with other business faculties in Singapore. If we take the analogy of the United States, the business course is probably one of the few courses where you can put almost at the start of the course the value you would accrue as a student or as a graduate of the programme. It is one of the most likely courses to be provided on a private basis because students can do their numbers at the outset.”
“The attendant concern that I have is that pertaining to the allocation of scarce talent, a perennial question that this House and, in general, Singapore policymakers address. If we have three credible institutions with resources competing aggressively, then it is undeniable that the quality of the faculty and the quality of the courses must rise and with it, their ability to attract talented students to their courses. So, will we end up with a disproportionate number of young, talented Singapore students being drawn to undergraduate management degree programmes? Sir, I have in principle no problem with a management degree but I have always felt, and I believe that many others in this House would agree, that a management degree is perhaps best applied when it is accompanied with another degree or some other foundation in a core science, engineering or other content-based subject. Especially in this era where we emphasise a knowledge-based economy and the need to acquire core knowledge in areas that would generate creativity and innovation in the future, would our resources be better applied to create additional opportunities in engineering, in the sciences and in other basic core content subject areas and allowing more private sector provision of management courses? In the light of these issues, I have a few questions to raise. The first, as I have already alluded to, is whether there is a plan for the Ministry to scale back the provision of undergraduate business programmes, if not in SMU, since it is a new institution with this stated objective, then certainly the so-called state universities, NTU and NUS.”
“Sir, the advent of the Singapore Management University augurs well for university education in Singapore. It adds an additional dimension to the landscape of management training and education in Singapore. As the Minister has said, it expands university opportunities and no doubt the collaboration with renowned institutions from abroad will act as an additional spur to domestic competition in the area and that should lead to higher quality all round. Sir, for all these reasons and many others, the Bill is worthy of this House's support and I fully endorse it. Sir, the Explanatory Statement that accompanies this Bill asserts that the main object of the SMU is to provide undergraduate business education in Singapore and it is with regard to this objective that I have certain issues of public policy to raise. The fundamental question that I have is whether we indeed might be over-providing or over-allocating public resources in the provision of business education at the undergraduate level. It is a point that my colleague, Dr Wang Kai Yuen, has also alluded to, but allow me to elaborate. Sir, the SMU would be the third institution with public funding to provide such undergraduate business education in Singapore. NUS has traditionally done so and NTU is already doing so. This, in addition to the plethora of private outfits that provide the same courses of a range in quality, also in collaboration with overseas universities, and in addition, Singapore students are known to go abroad to take up post-graduate management courses. So, one could infer that both in absolute and, most probably, in relative terms, the number of places available for university education in management has increased.”
“Police is mindful that there is a need for them to be aware professionally of areas in the park that need patrol and yet, at the same time, the call is to all Singaporeans to also take this call to heart not, for example, as I have said, to be alone in secluded places or at night. At the same time, on the ground, under the CSSP programme, if community leaders like yourselves, working with your grassroots, feel that certain parks need more patrols, you can also, working with the police, work out arrangements which will benefit park users.”
“Sir, the nature of this crime, and perhaps the nature and manner in which it has been reported by the media, has left an indelible impression in the minds of the public with respect to the general security, notwithstanding the recent crime statistics and their improvement. The question is this: can the Ministry and the police do more to reassure the public that matters are indeed under control? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, certainly, police on the ground in the various divisions know where patrols need to be done. Indeed, with the new Neighbourhood Police Centre (NPC) set up, more patrols have been projected on the ground. Police's estimation is that last year about 4% more in terms of police projection was on the ground. We should leave it to the police to exercise professional judgment where the patrols should be mounted. As I have said, I am sure they do regularly patrol parks. If there are parks out there which are secluded, police presence will be felt. I have been told that, in fact, at the particular park in question, ie, the Bukit Batok Nature Park, police patrols are mounted there. Having said this, let me also say that while police will certainly do its part, the community can also do its part. For example, under the CSSP, there is a park, ie, the Bukit Purmei Park, where the community has also mounted patrols. Overall, our parks are safe. But, as in anywhere, if a person is not aware of the risk and danger, even walking at night - of course, we are very safe here - if it so happens that you are at the wrong place at the wrong time, a heinous crime can also take place. Our parks are safe. Let me give that assurance.”
“For example, labour groups and NGOs in the US have publicly stated that their next target is to block the granting of permanent Normal Trade Relations with China when the issue comes up before the US Congress this year. Singapore will work with other like-minded countries towards the expeditious resumption of negotiations at Geneva. A New Round which takes into account the interests of all WTO members would be important in ensuring that the world does not slip into protectionism. There is a danger that if we do not push forward on trade liberalisation, then we will gradually move back. In parallel, Singapore will pursue complementary regional and bilateral initiatives, especially within APEC, to further the cause of multilateral trade liberalisation. ALTERNATIVE MEDICAL BENEFITS SYSTEM 8. Mr Ahmad Mohd Magad asked the Minister for Manpower what is the progress in the implementation of the Alternative Medical Benefits System, which was proposed by the Tripartite Committee on the Extension of Retirement Age in 1995.”
“Would the Minister say that our efforts on these bilateral fronts are actually a reflection of our dissatisfaction with the rate at which trade liberalisation and facilitation has taken place at the ASEAN, APEC or WTO levels? BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: To some extent, yes. We see ourselves as a catalyst spurring on others towards liberalising their economic framework. When we embark on an FTA discussion with New Zealand, neither side would benefit greatly from such an FTA, but we thought that someone should initiate the process and encourage others to go along. After that, we were able to get ASEAN and the CER countries, Australia and New Zealand, to convene a high level task force to look into establishing an FTA between ASEAN and CER economies by 2010. So there is a catalytic effect which such FTAs can help bring about. WTO MEETING IN SEATTLE (Impact on Singapore economy and workers) 7. Mr Thomas Thomas asked the Minister for Trade and Industry what will be the impact of the failed World Trade Organisation (WTO) meeting in Seattle on the Singapore economy and the Singapore worker. BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Mr Speaker, Sir, the failure of the Seattle WTO Ministerial Conference to launch a New Round of multilateral negotiations is a great disappointment to us. Although it has no immediate impact on the Singapore economy, as a trading nation, we are naturally concerned that the momentum of multilateral trade liberalisation could falter as enthusiasm wanes in the wake of Seattle. We are also concerned about the systemic implications, in particular political support for the institution of the WTO in various countries. Already, protectionist forces, emboldened by their perceived victory in Seattle, are now on the offensive.”
“Would the Minister comment if such bilateral FTAs initiated by Singapore would increase the probability that other countries within ASEAN and APEC would also embark on similar bilateral FTA efforts if they are major traders? If that is the case, then would that in fact be detrimental to the regional and multilateral trade liberalisation talks that are taking place? BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: The FTAs, Sir, would have to be WTO-consistent and within what is allowed by WTO, and this has always been our pledge. We are working towards the APEC Bogor goals of open trade and investment regime in the Asia-Pacific by 2010 for developed economies, and by 2020 for all economies. So what we are doing is entirely consistent and beneficial to the cause of free trade in the world.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, last year when the Government introduced the economic stimulus measures, it was felt that some of them, particularly the lumpy pump-priming type of measures, would take effect over a two-year period. I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister, since the recovery at this point appears to be driven more by external demand, whether we envisage greater cost pressures in the year ahead from the follow-through effects of the Government's stimulus measures.”
“If I understand the Minister correctly, he is saying that the number of small cars registered has declined because of the inability of the small car dealers to compete but, on average, if competition is on the basis of price, then one would argue that that should not be the case. Could the Minister elaborate what in practice, other than price, have affected the ability of small car dealers to compete in the sale of cars in the market?”
“Would the Minister elaborate, since the introduction of Category A, what proportion of the COE entitlements have been used for cars of 1,000 cc or less? And how does that compare with the allocation under Category 1 previously?”
“The first is on curriculum design and teacher training in order to ensure that a certain minimum acceptable standard of education is provided across the country in our pre-school system and, secondly, to consider, and I know this may be anathema for some involved, some kind of certification so that parents who go to these centres have some assurance that they have passed a quality control test. With that, Sir, I support the motion.”
“In particular, I am pleased that there is going to be increasing emphasis on not just the products of the output of the system but also on the system of education, the practices and processes that are employed within our schools. That is a welcome initiative and I hope we would hear more in greater detail from the Minister. I would like to highlight one particular aspect of the education service, ie, the pre-primary education. When we survey pre-school education in Singapore, the terrain is a stark contrast to the organised and structured world of primary and secondary education in Singapore. In pre-school education, we have a plethora of options, full-day care to two- and four-hour kindergarten classes. We have a range of methodology employed from Montessori to other more curriculum-based efforts. We have a range in fees from a few tens of dollars to several hundred per month. Parents have to choose from this sometimes bewildering array of choices but are often unsure or unclear about the standards, the teaching methods and whether they are in fact appropriate for their children and whether their children in turn will be adequately prepared for primary school. I therefore welcome the Ministry's announcement that it will be more involved in pre-school education and that it intends to undertake research to see how the Ministry of Education can work with pre-school centres. I would offer two particular areas for the Ministry's active consideration.”
“To work, we need every Singaporean to put his or her best foot forward to realise that dream. I urge all Singaporeans to shed such inhibitions and doubts, discard such negativism and instead give the system, the idea, a fair chance. It does not mean you have to confine your energies to Government and Government-related efforts, but certainly it also does not mean that you have to exclude them from your domain of possibilities. Sir, the Government perhaps has the most difficult task in guiding this evolutionary process with a deft touch, and not a heavy hand. It has to cast an eye to the aspirations of Singaporeans who wish to be more involved and at the same time on the need for effective, efficient and responsive governance. In this process, the Government will have to constantly review, as Mr Davinder Singh has said, not just where such OB markers should lie, but even whether they are necessary in certain context. Sir, I am heartened by the Addendum to the President's Address from the Prime Minister's Office which stresses that the public sector will do more to consult the people and private sectors, seek their active involvement as partners in implementing policies and be more open, transparent and adept at explaining Government policies to Singaporeans. I look forward to the specific initiatives from the public service in this regard. Sir, active citizenship and civil society also require a people who have the creativity and the wherewithal to be engaged in a meaningful and productive manner. In that regard, I welcome the emphasis on people development and, in particular, the many initiatives outlined in the Addendum from the Minister for Education.”
“This should be systematically extended to the people sector, and this should be not as a mere swop to the cries for additional involvement in policy formulation but as part of a genuine effort to integrate the people sector in our efforts to serve the best interests of our country and to build a nation. Sir, the people sector has equally important responsibilities if this work in progress is to succeed. It has often struck me that not many people appreciate that contributions to civil society can occur at different levels, that it can be not just at the lofty policy debate level but also in the more mundane and equally important municipal or community issues. For example, I think management of the neighbourhood park is as important as any debate on environment policy. Management of the neighbourhood school is certainly fundamental to the neighbourhood's interests, and is equally important to any debate on streaming and other education policies. So I would hope that Singaporeans regard contributions at the community level or the municipal level with equal respect and dignity, and not think it beneath them and only confine their energies to lofty policy debates. At the same time, Sir, I am struck that some Singaporeans exclude Community Development Councils, Town Councils and other Government-related or, in some instances, agencies that enjoy some degree of Government support, from the domain of civil society. I cannot fathom why this attitude has come about. Are the efforts of these organisations any less noble just because they enjoy some degree of Government support? Or are they any less important because they do not adopt an adversarial stance vis-a-vis Government? I do not think there is any room for such cynicism in our Vision of Singapore 21.”
“Inevitably, a more vibrant civil society is the corollary of active citizenship, and the evolution of such a people sector has implications for all. Allow me to just address the impact, I think, it will have for the public sector and for the people sector. We have a capable and efficient civil service. It has a noted ability to discern long-term needs of the nation, formulate appropriate policy responses and action plans and effectively implement them. In fact, one could argue that that has indeed been one of the key plans for our economic growth and development. But there is a need to adjust this modus operandi - to involve more Singaporeans in the policy process. And it arises from a recognition of the fact that problems are now more complex, knowledge and information is not concentrated but quite distributed and there is no monopoly on wisdom. And Government or the public sector on its own cannot address all these issues comprehensively. Sir, I was recently in Japan and I was struck by what I sense to be a shift in the attitude of the people towards the Japanese bureaucracy, which has been shrouded in a veil of infallibility for a long time, but because of the Japanese economic experience of the last decade, public confidence in the bureaucracy has been shaken. And many are now no longer prepared to accept the bureaucratic centred approach to governance in Japan. Sir, we need to have avenues for Singaporeans to contribute ideas. The process, in many ways, is as important as the output and in many ways, will also qualitatively affect the nature of the output. We already have a culture of tapping the private sector for its views.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in this debate. I rise in support of the motion standing in the name of the Member for Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC, Mr Davinder Singh. Sir, allow me, first, to thank the President for his Address which painted a cogent vision and comprehensive action plan for our country and nation, as we are poised to enter into a new millennium. The President remarked that the economic crisis of the past two years has tested the sturdiness and resilience of our society. Indeed, Sir, the past two years have been a watershed experience for all Singaporeans, but particularly so for young Singaporeans, those under the age of 30. We saw it as a fundamental test of not just our economic, social and political fabric but also our character as a nation. For many, it was an intense personal experience. Some lost their jobs, others had family members who lost their jobs. And it brought home the cruel vagaries of the economic cycle and how big an impact it can have on individuals and their dreams. It has also underscored in the minds of many young Singaporeans the value of good governance, as attested to by surveys conducted by the Feedback group in the minds of a whole new generation of Singaporeans. In short, it has been a unifying experience and I think it has helped gel our society and provided a firm foundation with which we can contemplate Singapore 21. Sir, active citizenship lies at the heart of the President's Address and also Singapore 21. For me, it is a call to Singaporeans to take greater responsibility for their lives, a call to come forward and serve their neighbourhood, their community and their country, and it is a call not just to ponder and pontificate but also to act. It is a call that I hope many Singaporeans will heed.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, with the move of this House to its new premises, I wish to place on record, on behalf of all Singaporeans, our deep appreciation of our founding fathers and past Members' steadfast adherence and defence of these fundamental tenets of meritocracy and multi-racialism. I also hope that current and future Members of this House would be equally firm in their commitment to these principles and resolute in its defence. Sir, I support the motion.”
“In the course of the recent convulsions, we have seen countries compelled to re-examine their core beliefs and principles by both external forces and internal developments. In observing these transitions, young Singaporeans have learnt one important lesson. It requires moral courage and commitment to adopt and defend core principles such as meritocracy and multi-racialism - even when we know these principles to be self-evident. It is not easy even in the best of times, what more at the birth of a nation. Therefore, Sir, Singapore and Singaporeans are indebted to our forefathers and past Members of this House for looking beyond the pressing challenges of a newly independent country to focus on the key organising principles of our nation, for their steadfast commitment to meritocracy and multi-racialism even during the toughest of times. They have also put in place several institutions and processes to uphold these principles in practice. The Public Service Commission selects recruits for the civil service on the basis of merit. We have transparent criteria for admission into our schools and tertiary education institutions. The Presidential Council on Minority Rights and the GRC system emphasise the need to ensure that all Singaporeans are engaged in the mainstream of our country, and that all their concerns are also addressed. Furthermore, this House has not shied away from open and vigorous debates when it was felt that these principles might perhaps be compromised. Neither has the Government shirked its responsibility to act. The recent debate on bias in the labour market based on gender, ethnicity or age comes to mind. Another was the vigorous debate on SAP schools.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, for this rather unexpected honour of being the first to resume the debate here in this new House. Sir, I fully support the motion standing in the name of the Prime Minister, and I would like to focus on the key contribution of our founding fathers and past Members of this House, our unwavering commitment to the principles of meritocracy and multi-racialism. In doing so, I draw on my experience as a young parliamentarian and also on my discussions with young Singaporeans. For young Singaporeans, the events of the past two years have been a crash course in politics, governance and economics. It has had a profound impact on young Singaporeans. It has vividly imparted lessons that no lecture or textbook on politics or economics can. For many, it caused intense emotional and financial strain at the personal and family levels. Sir, the crisis has also had a salutary effect on our youth. Singapore youth have acquired a deeper appreciation of the need for good governance. In a recent survey conducted by the Feedback Unit, more than 85% of our youth felt that our Government's performance in helping Singaporeans affected by the economic crisis has been good or very good, and more than 90% felt that the Government-people relationship has remained strong, if not going stronger. These results are comparable to those for older Singaporeans and indicate that our young Singaporeans, like their elders, appreciate the value of good government, especially in a crisis. Sir, the crisis has imbued young Singaporeans, in my view, with the renewed respect for commitment to multi-racialism and meritocracy.”
“Weighty words like "knowledge-based economy", "active citizenship" and "Singapore heartbeat" have been used in this report. But the Singapore heartbeat pulsates not just in Shenton Way and Raffles Place, but also in Chinatown, Geylang Serai, Serangoon Road and Ang Mo Kio. I do not know this report will make good copy in the various languages, but whatever the case, we must ensure that a concerted effort is made to ensure that the message reaches all quarters, so that S21 remains a living document in the hearts and minds of all Singaporeans. I support the motion, Sir.”
“But if we can strike a balance between efficient policy formulation and a Singapore 21 compliant approach from time to time, then I think we will be better off as a country. With respect to people, a lot has been said about the people sector and its active citizenship and involvement in contributing ideas. One observation I would like to make is that we should not be deterred if our ideas do not automatically get absorbed in the policy process. Indeed, one should expect that more often than not, the ideas may not find such support. But we must have the maturity and the tenacity to both understand the mechanics of the process and, at the same time, to persevere in order to get our point of view across. That, I think, is the mark of a truly active citizen who has his eye on the ball. Sir, a point on our leaders. We certainly want leaders who will listen and actively seek opinions. In fact, we certainly want leaders who would even make themselves available through radio chat shows to us. But we also want leaders who, having listened all those points of view, will make a decision that is in the long-term interest of this country, not leaders who will slavishly follow a majority point of view. That is not why the people of Singapore elected leaders. We have been elected and the Ministers have been there in office because we have faith in their judgement, and it is important that that judgement be exercised. Finally, Sir, a point on the communication of this very important report. S21, in my view, is quite fundamental and it should not reach a point where it does not get absorbed by its total audience, all Singaporeans, a point that my colleague, Dr Ong Chit Chung, also stressed. One perception of this report is that it is the work of an English-educated intelligentsia.”
“What surprised me most in the course of the discussion was the suspicion that some of the panelists had about being associated with Government-related entities, be they town councils, CDCs or feedback groups. They felt that their civil society credentials might somehow be tarnished if they got involved in such organisations. I cannot understand why they have such distrust. If an organisation serves worthwhile, social and community objectives that we can identify with, then should we not feel moved to participate in its activities and support it? Or is the mere fact that it enjoys some form of Government blessing a turn-off? A lot has been said about how active citizenship can be facilitated. As an ex-civil servant, I think one area is surely in the civil service. The civil service can undertake measures to create more opportunities for Singaporeans to give their views in the course of policy formulation. One trick could be to define the problem and issue first, and wait for a while later before we come up with the solutions, allowing the intervening time for individuals with the knowledge and interest to contribute their point of view. It would also be helpful, as many others in this House have said, when contributions are received, even if they have already been thought of by the Government agencies, it will still be worth our while to acknowledge the value of these contributions. At the same time, occasionally, at least, it would be helpful to explain why certain ideas cannot be accommodated. I know that all this would probably spell much hard work, a very circuitous route in the way policy is formulated in Government.”
“The citizen who participates in a Neighbourhood Watch Group is as worthy of our recognition as another who is a member of the National Crime Prevention Council. No contribution can be too small, no matter at what level it is made. I also feel that active citizenship is about commitment. A regular lament in Singapore is the lack of time, and I think this is a legitimate grouse and one that cannot be taken lightly, given the genuine time pressure that Singaporeans face in our daily grind. Yet, what I find ironic is that some of the most active citizens I have had the pleasure of meeting are those who are also involved in numerous other activities and this is in addition to juggling their family and work commitments. They are truly an inspiration to all of us and they teach us an important lesson that we can all contribute if we choose to make active citizenship an integral part of our lives. To do so, we need to be creative and perhaps find one area of interest in which to participate in tandem with our interests at the different phases of our lives. For example, one could contemplate the life cycle of an active citizen as commencing at the student stage in social service, moving on into young adulthood in youth groups, and then going on as a young parent into parenting organisations, as an older parent in school management, and ultimately, as an older Singaporean in senior citizen groups and counselling. It is a matter of will. The opportunities will always be there. Finally, I do believe active citizenship requires a positive mindset. Last year, I was involved in a forum on civil society.”
“But I am not convinced that we will be closer to an ideal society by merely dissolving or merging these organisations today. Ultimately, the challenge for Singapore is to maintain racial and religious harmony within a society that is changing and is facing new constraints all the time. We need pragmatic and dynamic responses to these challenges. But we do not have a consensus on what model or what modality we should use. What it calls for is a practical mind to respond as we see appropriate at that time to these challenges, without undermining our fundamental beliefs, but making sure that it contributes to the overall growth of our society. And it is in this context, with the on-going endeavour as the basis, that an effort like Singapore 21 will also thrive. That, to me, Sir, was the import of the Prime Minister's message yesterday, and a message which I feel all Singaporeans would do well to bear in mind. The idea of active citizenship is an attractive and compelling one. To me, it is an invitation to each citizen to be actively engaged at all levels in this endeavour called Singapore, in order to make a difference to society. I would like to share some observations I have about active citizenship based on my experience with NGOs, VWOs, etc. For one, active citizenship will start from the bottom up. Some may think that being an active citizen means participating in policy discussions and formulation at the highest level of Government. While this is an important contribution, active citizenship cannot just be about sitting at a round table, debating the relative merits of various policy options. There are other more earthly matters that are equally worthy of our attention and energy. These include municipal issues and also social concerns within our neighbourhood.”
“But once I took on the job, I was surprised and, I must say, relieved to find that there were no teeming hordes of parochialists waiting to engage in a game of one-upmanship with other communities. Instead, to my pleasure, what I did find were individuals who were eager to contribute within the context of the community. They had recognised a need within the community and had been seeking resources and opportunity to do so. The self-help group gave them an opportunity to be active citizens, in the parlance of Singapore 21. And I am sure other colleagues who are in Parliament today like Mr Chan Soo Sen and Mr Zainul Abidin could attest to similar experiences in CDAC and Mendaki. Sir, to me, the self-help groups are very much like a paint brush. In the hands of an artist, it is a tool of creation. In the hands of a tradesman, it is a tool of utility. But in the hands of a vandal, it is a tool of destruction. It is very much the intent of the user and how we manage its use. Self-help groups are a response to a challenge within the context and constraints of present day realities. And I believe a similar argument can be made for other ethnic based policies in Singapore. It is for this reason that I believe such endeavours deserve continued support from the people and the Government. But it is precisely because that in the wrong hands, they can also go tragically astray that we must also be vigilant. We must encourage CDAC, Mendaki, AMP, Sinda and the Eurasian Association to find common ground to work together. But we must also be willing to blow the whistle if we feel they are going astray. Are self-help groups an ideal solution? Probably not. But then again, I do not think we live in utopia. Are there risks? I think so.”
“Others feel that some policies, especially those that segregate like the self-help groups, should be reviewed. Indeed, this was the thrust of the Straits Times commentary today on yesterday's proceedings in Parliament. Yet, others have absolutely no problems with any of these policies. Sir, to me, it is clear from this debate, be it on self-help groups, SAP schools, or any of the other ethnic based issues, that we Singaporeans, all of us, attach paramount importance to multi-racial harmony. It is also equally clear to me from this debate that we do not all agree on what form, direction or, indeed, the paradigm we should adopt in moving forward as a society to maintain that harmony. One view is that the four circles, which the Prime Minister described yesterday, should progressively migrate closer together and, ultimately, be perfectly aligned, creating one circle, one homogeneous and unified society. An alternative perspective is that whilst the overlap should be maximised, a certain variegation is unavoidable, indeed, it may be necessary, creating a clover-like mosaic where there is common ground and yet there are distinct areas as well. Sir, I have listened to these alternative points of view with much attention, not just in the course of this debate but over the years. I too have had my doubts, especially when I was asked to take up the assignment as the first CEO, Sinda. It was with considerable trepidation that I accepted the responsibility. I was concerned that I might unwittingly be part of an endeavour that might undo a lot of good work that had been done over the last decades, that it would set us back in our efforts to build a multi-racial society, and that is an ideal I hold very close to my heart.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, for allowing me to join in this debate. I rise in support of the motion standing in the name of the Minister for Education. Sir, at the outset, I would like to congratulate the S21 Committee on an effort that has been quite sincere to canvass a wide spectrum of views in order to forge this vision of Singapore in the next century. The process has been bipartisan and exhaustive, if not exhausting, given the Committee's desire to reach out to as many Singaporeans as possible. The result is certainly a compelling vision that embraces our collective aspirations as a people. Sir, an important point made in the S21 Report is that the five key ideas complement those that have already served us well - clean government, meritocracy, and racial and religious harmony. Yesterday, our Prime Minister made a passionate case why these ideals, particularly our multi-racial harmony, should not be taken for granted. To me, it was a timely and sobering reminder to keep our feet firmly planted on the ground even as we reach for the stars. I was not puzzled by the Prime Minister's speech or the import of his message. In fact, it struck a chord. So I do not think it is a generational issue. But I do think it is a matter of perspective. Sir, there is a concern among some Singaporeans that we may be becoming more ethnocentric at the expense of our national identity. Some Government policies like the advent of self-help groups, the establishment of SAP schools or the introduction of ethnic quotas in HDB estates may have accentuated these anxieties. While each of these policies has its own forceful rationale, each also has an inescapable ethnic dimension. And some have argued that all such policies should be dismantled because of their ethnic hue.”
“Sir, the Indian community welcomes the recent announcement by the Ministry of Education of a review of the teaching and learning of Tamil. In recent times, the Indian students, parents as well as Tamil teachers, have expressed much concern over this matter. The feedback is that the standard and content of Tamil language should reflect the fact that it is being taught and learned as a second language within the Singaporean context. Otherwise, students would lose the interest in their mother tongue and culture. I would like to ask for the Minister's response to some key questions that are being raised at this early stage of the review. Firstly, will the review be completed in time for implementation in the year 2000 so that another academic year is not lost? Secondly, will the eligibility criteria to do Higher Tamil at the primary and secondary levels be broadened as it has been for Mandarin and Malay? Thirdly, will the scope of the review cover the recruitment, deployment and development of Tamil teachers? In particular, will the Ministry be considering initiatives to enable students to learn Tamil in their school during curriculum time rather than having to go to Tamil centres after school? I would like to ask the Minister for an update on the establishment of a Department for South-Asian Studies at the tertiary level. When will it start offering courses and will a Tamil module be included?”