Simon S C Tay
Singapore
“Sir, it is a question that the Minister may have missed. This is a simple question that while I give the benefit of the doubt to the Government's assessment of security, I would like to ask the Minister whether any other changes will be made to security at our overseas embassies, such as the holding of large receptions.”
“Looking further ahead, may I ask the Minister whether we should not look towards secured electronic voting for overseas Singaporeans. Can we not use this time between this coming GE and the next to look into this possibility? This should be good for the ease and security of voting.”
“Sir, may I ask the Minister three questions. The first is, while I commend these extra efforts, may I enquire how much this would cost. The second question is: are there targets? How effective do we hope to be in creating the number of jobs that we hope to create or match?”
“What I am hoping, Sir, is that we should move towards not just allowing political parties and their sites to have a free and fair debate but rather elections must be about people, voters and their opinions, and that these regulations, if anything, must err on the side of freedom in order to give people their say.”
“And if they can establish free trade zones in various parts of the archipelago and create conditions which assure businessmen of stability, I think they can take off. And I was cheered that the US, the EU, Japan, the IMF, have all come up with strong statements in support of President Megawati. We would do our part, but we are small.”
“Sir, I appreciate the Minister of State doing his back-of-envelope work. 10%-20%, if it excludes the very large projects like reclamation, seems a little low, if I may say. Is there any inclination to push it up higher? Is the private sector up to the job? Historically, the Government has had reasons to doubt the private sector.”
The complete record
Every one of 525 lines we hold for Simon S C Tay, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 11.
“Sir, it is a question that the Minister may have missed. This is a simple question that while I give the benefit of the doubt to the Government's assessment of security, I would like to ask the Minister whether any other changes will be made to security at our overseas embassies, such as the holding of large receptions. Second, is a point of clarification. When I mentioned about the prospect of looking into a secured electronic voting for overseas Singaporeans, I did not mean that it is for now, but I meant, prospectively, for the next General Election.”
“Looking further ahead, may I ask the Minister whether we should not look towards secured electronic voting for overseas Singaporeans. Can we not use this time between this coming GE and the next to look into this possibility? This should be good for the ease and security of voting. And secondly, it would be a very good demonstration of the security of electronic commerce. With this, Sir, I support the Bill.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to begin by thanking the Minister for his very full explanation and response to the market talk, or town talk, that there was a connection between the suspension of overseas voting and the talk of an early General Election. I think that Singaporeans should have the reassurance, as the Minister has given us, that this House, after deciding on overseas voting, does value overseas Singaporeans who are working abroad and wish to cast their votes. And I am glad also that the Minister has taken pains to point out, in detail, how the relevant Government agencies were ready to do this in time even if a snap election is called. And I think in this sense, I would agree with him that, having heard him, even if an early General Election is called, it would be coincidence rather than causation. The Minister has shared with us some of his evaluation of risks for our overseas Embassies. Could he tell us what other events might be affected? For example, would it be that events at our Embassies abroad would be cut down or, perhaps, cut out altogether? For example, large public receptions? Secondly, Sir, I would agree with the Minister that it is best to forgo all five cities at one go. There have been some suggestions, I think in the press, that if our Embassy in USA was the chief risk, why not allow voting to carry on in other countries? I would, myself, think that this would be the wrong policy. Firstly, I agree with the Minister that it is not sound in practice because the terrorists could strike anywhere. Secondly, I would further add that it is not sound in principle because it would discriminate amongst our overseas voters; that is, those in America might be deprived whereas those, say, in China will continue.”
“May I just ask the Deputy Prime Minister about the double tax deductions for charities, an idea mentioned by the Prime Minister during his National Day Rally speech? BG Lee Hsien Loong: It is not in this package. But it is not something we have ruled out.”
“And so we could create a market for Internet and companies that use Internet. Two last challenges, Sir, and how we can use this downturn. The first again is a challenge put up by Prime Minister Goh during his National Day Rally speech. This is whether we can improve our service in Singapore. Really, I think that this is a good time for training and that people will suddenly wake up to the idea that their job is something they value and they should be doing much better than they are. And we should take advantage of this to help change attitudes of service staff. There is after all a higher expectation of people who are willing to spend money in times like this. My last point, Sir, which may seem a little light hearted, is how to make productive time of this crisis. This is that we need to cater to leisure in Singapore. With the downturn, people have less money to spend. With the concern about air travel following the events of 11th September, they want to travel less, but there is still need for families, for singles, for everyone, to have a good time. And this time, Sir, is a good opportunity for Government to think of how to synergise and offer Singaporeans to have affordable good times in Singapore. Work with the private sector hotels, with statutory boards like Sentosa, and other things should be undertaken to this end. We should aim to offer Singaporeans, especially in the coming December holidays, special theme promotions, so that we can have some of that good mood at affordable prices and also help our domestic economy. With that, Sir, I would say that I support the off-Budget measures.”
“But I share the concern that the scheme presently works through banks which, in their effort to be prudential, may not understand SMEs fully and therefore there may be a need to have a SME Venture Fund that can give more focus and is willing to take more risks. I believe this is a real need, Sir, because small and medium enterprises are often being a source of new job creation when an economy is restructuring. An example of this, of course, is the USA in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Therefore, the SME Bank can certainly help create jobs, not least for some of the out-of-work bankers. The next thing I would like to make is about export insurance. Some countries, such as USA, do underwrite risks to a much larger degree than Singapore. If in this time of crisis, Singapore companies are to be emboldened to find new markets and find new products and to go out, I think we should go further. The present scheme of ECICS insurance companies, I think, is not enough. We should be prepared not to subsidise them but to share risks with them. And I think a major Government statutory board, such as the Trade Development Board, is better able to do this. Additionally, Sir, if the strategy is to go towards a new economy, this crisis may be a good time to help the new economy and the Internet companies which have been so badly hit. Government has done a very good job in creating an e-Government. I would ask them now whether we should invest in efforts to make an e-private sector for productivity and gains in the long run. Here, Sir, it is beyond infrastructure but rather to underwrite efforts in training as well as to align the Government's procurement and approval systems so that companies which use Internet might get preference.”
“Again, when jobs are scarce, people may take all sorts of criteria into consideration, some of which are relevant and some of which may be irrelevant. Here, I would ask the Government to be prepared again to use moral suasion to change the minds of employers, to monitor complaints and to even, if the problem persists, consider legislation. As for the third item on solidarity, I believe that children should be our focus. I hope, Sir, we are beyond the point where young people will come out of school early in bad times, in order to try to find a job. We should have enough that the young will have enough reserves to really invest in their own education and Singapore's future. And I would call on the Ministry of Education to especially target schools to monitor and recommend special assistance programmes if any child should face problems. Turning, Sir, next to the professionals. I do believe that the professionals need help, and I have mentioned how the private sector should be used for job placement. Additionally, we need training, counselling, and to really recognise the fact that we are going to deal with a whole new category of people who are out of a job. There are people who used to earn, perhaps, I do not know, $10,000 to $20,000, and we need to cater to them in a whole different way to encourage them to take on new roles in society. My last point, Sir, is whether it is now timely to start to fund necessary risks and new directions. Under this broad thrust, I would suggest that one of the things we may need is a Small and Medium Enterprise Bank or Venture Fund. I appreciate that these off-Budget measures have got an item to enlarge the existing scheme.”
“We perhaps need to articulate our social safety net better to understand what it is, what we are trying to do. Otherwise, the Nominated Member of Parliament, Mr Thomas Thomas, suggested that we are actually giving "dole" but by different name. I think we really need to conceptualise what it is we are trying to build. My own instinct is that we are trying to create not a safety net which may entangle people but a sort of trampoline that can help people, down on their luck, bounce up again. Let me, therefore, in this context set out some wishes of what I would like to have seen added to the list and perhaps Government might consider if the recession is prolonged. I do not want to break them out into little bits and pieces but to see them in terms of broader strategy. The first is, I think, the strategy must be for solidarity in our society. And here the first item on my wish list is something that was mentioned by the Prime Minister as a possibility during his National Day speech. This is that he might give double tax deductions for those who give to Institutions of Public Character and charities. Sir, I do believe that it is good to encourage many-helping hands even in this time of crisis. Companies and individuals can, despite the crisis, find it in themselves to give money to charities to help others. If so, I think they should be recognised by the Government doubly, literally doubly. Second, Sir, in terms of solidarity, I do share a concern that race or religious discrimination might rise. Looking back again to the downturn in 1998/1999, there were some concerns that there were some incidents of racial discrimination in hiring.”
“For many social problems, tensions are inescapable. We need to come out of this stronger than we went into it. So I do tend to agree on the danger of welfarism. But, Sir, I would welcome a trust that people in Singapore are now prepared to help themselves. And, in this sense, I do appreciate such measures as the wage support for training being raised from $600 to $2,000. I think this is a good sign of something bigger. Helping Singaporeans is therefore not a question of cost but of getting essential things done, with whatever cost it takes. Let me turn then to what is not here in the off-Budget measures, which I hoped would be there and thought could be helped. Comparing these measures to those taken in 1998, there is an absence of efforts to lower cost of operations in areas such as Telecoms and port charges. Sir, I realise that these are, of course, free markets and players can set their prices. But there are few players in these sectors and I am asking the Deputy Prime Minister if he believes they are competitive enough worldwide or, if not, why were these cost-cutting measures also missing from his package. Secondly, Sir, for the longer term, I would ask the Deputy Prime Minister if it is not timely for Government to take efforts to review various measures such as: (1) Government costs and practices, for example, customs, stamp duties by Government in different agencies; (2) the long-term economic strategy, especially regarding SMEs, the development of services and, of course, strengthening of our domestic economy; and (3) to think consciously of constructing a social safety net, not a traditional welfare scheme nor widespread subsidies, but targeted and sufficient help as we seem to be coming to in these off-Budget measures.”
“They may be the ones who will hold the family and therefore the society together. And they will be the ones, I hope, who make sure that children get to schools. I think in this situation, Sir, if we do not recognise the home-makers, we are doing them and ourselves an injustice. Sir, if I may broaden the points now. I would like to turn to the nature of the response that is revealed in the off-Budget measures announced. In some cases, the measures are largely incremental, adjustments up or down by a few percentage points, and, in other cases, a longer time line is given. The first point about the nature of these measures is that they create more complex rules. I think there may be a need to explain and facilitate the new programmes for those who need them. I am thinking particularly of the small and medium enterprises and the less well-educated. If we make these rules too complex, then only those who can understand and get their act together could apply for them and maybe, Sir, perhaps they do not need our help if they can navigate very complex rules. Sir, putting the package together is one thing. But I would call on the Deputy Prime Minister to muster the civil servants and others and task to bring this to the ground level to make sure that they do effectively reach out. More than this, Sir, I think that the challenge for us is to see that the structural change may need Singapore to take a deeper and longer term look at our strategies. In this sense, it is like the oil crisis of the mid-70s. The USA and USSR had very different reactions. The USA saw the need to cut and prune, not subsidise oil as the USSR did. Of course, we know now who won out in that one. Crisis demands a reaction but it is a vital question how we react and deal with problems.”
“My next point, Sir, regards foreign talent. I too welcome the adjustment in policy. I generally believe that we should have an open-door policy for foreign talent but I appreciate the need to tighten the criteria. As far as I understand it, one change is that the employment pass criteria will now be $2,500, up from $2,000 per month. I am not here to debate on the $500 with the Deputy Prime Minister. But the principle of the peg is something that, I think, might be reconsidered. In the Deputy Prime Minister's remarks, he mentioned that the $2,000 figure was approximately the salary of a new graduate. I would put to him that this is probably the wrong peg because this pegs the entry point for foreign talent to exactly the people who are most vulnerable - new graduates. These are people who have spent a lot of money and time to get educated but have no track record to show and they want that first job. So I think, in principle, that peg is wrong. My next disappointment, Sir, is about the New Singapore Shares. I am confused why it should be tied to CPF. While I welcome it so much as a concept, I think that this must go beyond the CPF top-up. This is particularly so because CPF top-up, as at previous sittings of the House, was clearly demonstrated not to have worked for all. There was a sizeable number of CPF account holders who did not do the necessary things that would have availed themselves of this top-up scheme. I think the challenge of the New Singapore Shares as a new idea is to instead value all Singaporeans, and here I join the minorities of Members of the House who have spoken out in favour of home-makers, and I would add retirees too, who contributed to the country in the past. Home-makers really will play an essential role when the breadwinners lose their jobs.”
“Many things have been said. I find it generally good but I have some questions I should like to put to the Deputy Prime Minister. The first of these are rather itty-bitty, specific points. The first is on property market. Of all the anti-speculation measures, it has been chosen that the 80% cap on loans remains. I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether we should not instead trust the market. The banking sector, Sir, has been chastened by what has happened, so have purchasers largely. I think it should be left to them to evaluate risks and that the market and the purchasers have a free play with this. If anything, it should be the capital gains tax that is a better tool to keep. This 80% margin should not, in a sense, be a sacred cow, I hope. The second measure I welcome very much is the People for Jobs Traineeship Programme. When it was first announced, there was a cap on salary assistance of $600 and now it has been moved to $2,000 as the maximum, and I welcome this. This is something really that people in Parliament called for and it has now been reconsidered. And I think the contrast to the first point, Sir, is that here we are willing to reconsider it. The third point is on the mismatch of jobs. Sir, it is true that with structural change, there may be unemployment in some sectors while jobs go wanting in the other. I welcome the Ministry of Manpower in taking a much more proactive role in trying to match people. But I wonder whether we should also think of using the private sector to help us - employment agencies, head-hunters, especially for the managers and professionals who may find themselves unemployed. I think this is not a sector of the market that the Ministry of Manpower has much experience, as compared to the private sector.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Singapore is clearly in crisis. This is largely caused by external factors. But I think besides the cyclical downturn, there are also some structural problems that will need to be addressed. I have read through the materials and after listening to the Deputy Prime Minister, I find the present package to be rational, targeted, realistic and quite substantial. I think it is clearly a sincere attempt to try to help, although there must be recognition that the Government cannot cure all the problems. The first question, therefore, which has been raised in this House, is whether this is a General Election ploy. Speaking as a non-partisan Member of the House, I think there is only one thing that I could see that is potentially and perhaps inadvertently political, and this is in using the CCCs to administer assistance for the lower income. These grassroots organisations, as I understand it, do not come under the Opposition Members of Parliament. But beyond this one point, I really think that the package is not a General Election ploy. In that sense, I would encourage the Opposition not to play political football in this game. Singaporeans, I hope, will vote by conscience, even if they do take money from the CCCs. More than that, I disagree with the hon. Member for Potong Pasir, Mr Chiam. This money would not be easily handed out because it is targeted, it is not something that the CCCs can just give to whoever says, "I would vote PAP." So I do not think we should take too much of this. I do think we should look at the package rationally and see whether it will help people. I also, on the same token, want to say that I acknowledge the effort to lead by example in the political leadership taking a pay cut. Let me then turn to the package.”
“What I am hoping, Sir, is that we should move towards not just allowing political parties and their sites to have a free and fair debate but rather elections must be about people, voters and their opinions, and that these regulations, if anything, must err on the side of freedom in order to give people their say.”
“However, I do think there are many good journalists and there is a new dynamic in the print media as well as television, that the competition the Government has fostered in the last year will, I hope, breed competition, freedom balanced with responsibility. This brings me to my last point. My appeal to the Government and to the Minister would be that elections in Singapore should not be too quiet. There are elections in many one-party states which come and go and no one knows. There is no heat. There is no sense of people really registering their views. I think Singapore, so far, has avoided this. But this Bill, like the Bills on the foreign media before, takes us in little steps towards increasing the regulations that might bring down the temperature. Sir, it is true that we have seen some overheated elections which people maraud, cause damage, even lose lives, and I would not wish that to Singapore. But I think, whether in cyberspace or on the ground, we do need an election period where people feel that they are allowed to discuss issues freely, fairly, whether in person, in print or on the Internet. And there are many difficulties in administrating this new half-way house between print and talk. Internet is bound to have some level of rumour-mongering. That is because it is so accessible to all. But I would ask the Minister to consider whether we really need to go so far. After all, if we have talked mainly about the Internet, how about other forms of communication, such as SMS on the handphone? Would this be another target?”
“This is particularly as regards to the proposed amendment in section 78B(f) which would allow for exceptions to be made, not only as to (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) which are all quite specific, but (f), an exception to be made to election is banned on "such other circumstances or activities as may be prescribed by the Minister by order in the Gazette." It is not at all apparent to me what these other circumstances or activities may be. We are looking for transparency and even-handedness. I think there needs to be some clearer projection of what this might be. Sir, I also want to pause here to disagree with two other things that Mr Chiam had said. First, if I understood Mr Chiam See Tong correctly, he is in favour of multi-candidature, that is to say, a candidate could stand in more than one constituency, hope to win perhaps in a GRC and a single seat, and then give up his GRC seat and leave it to the rest of the team. From my reading of this, Mr Chiam has exposed his election strategy, moving from by-election to two elections. But as a citizen, I do not think this serves the voters or electorate well. It cannot be in the citizens' interest to have somebody run for two seats, win one and give one up, and hope that the rest of the team can make up for the lost man. I beg to disagree with Mr Chiam there. The second point is that Mr Chiam and Mr Low, in their speeches, have made very easy targets of the local press. However, it is true that surveys do show public opinion, among Singaporeans, believes that the media is not fully impartial.”
“The devil will be in the details. In the same breath, there have been many questions raised by MPs before me and I believe Mr Ravindran himself asked them. There are the details because the making of legislation creates more intricacies. Before Nomination Day, clearly things would be allowed and after that, not so. The question of the timeline and what is allowed by whom are increasingly complex. Let me move on to my next point and that is to seek some clarifications. I am sorry, but I do not think it is clear whether the very basic point if I, as an individual, write an e-mail to one or even a thousand friends with my political opinion, I am not sure that the Bill could not catch me if I were to endorse one candidate or one party. This is particularly because of the definition of political advertising that Mr Low Thia Khiang has pointed to. Secondly, I am not clear as to the ability of non-party sites to allow for debate, to host letters or even to positively endorse one candidate or one party, that is to say, the political party's site obviously can do so. I am not sure what the non-party sites can do. In the real world of real print, I am reminded that the Straits Times, quite traditionally, does endorse one party, the PAP. The question is whether new sites on the website can do the same thing. Let me move on to my next point of even-handedness. Mr Speaker, it does disturb me that the regulations will be made by the Minister because during the campaigning period there is a question of even-handedness when the Minister is to be contested as well.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate on this Bill. I have some sympathy for this Bill and I have more questions than protests or answers. I have sympathy for the Bill because it clearly is a new kid in town, a new medium, the Internet, which is potentially destabilising. I also sympathise in the sense that, at this point, with elections looming and talked about, any change or any new rules would be scrutinised very heavily, especially by the Opposition which has been patently clear from their speeches, believes that the existing media is very much skewed against them. In looking through the nature of the changes, I have looked for some ideas of trying to be balanced about it, trying to have rules that help more and more rational discussions of politics and a maturing of Singapore's young electorate, while avoiding the dangers of, frankly, rules being made to suit the ruling party. Firstly, I would disagree with Mr Chew Heng Ching that I do not think this Bill liberalises the rules. I do not think the positive set of what a political party can put on the website is actually a step in the right direction. I would have much preferred a short, specific negative list. This would then allow much more creativity between the different political parties in dressing up their websites, in doing many more things. In this sense, this positive list, which the Minister has told us, is perhaps the wrong approach. Secondly, I also cannot agree with Mr Chew that it is all clear and transparent. As the Minister himself has noted and the Bill states, there are many more regulations that would be made. Some of the details that the Minister has given are clearly not in the Bill and we will have to wait for a later date to find out what these regulations are.”
“Sir, may I ask the Minister three questions. The first is, while I commend these extra efforts, may I enquire how much this would cost. The second question is: are there targets? How effective do we hope to be in creating the number of jobs that we hope to create or match? And thirdly, can I ask the Minister if there will be a special effort to target or differentiate the higher educated, the white-collar and managerial people who will lose jobs?”
“And if they can establish free trade zones in various parts of the archipelago and create conditions which assure businessmen of stability, I think they can take off. And I was cheered that the US, the EU, Japan, the IMF, have all come up with strong statements in support of President Megawati. We would do our part, but we are small. We can only play a catalytic role. If the situation in Indonesia does improve, that is one bright spot for Singapore.”
“Mr Speaker, I do not think the Minister has answered my questions on the CPF top-up and the robustness of the economy. BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: On direct income support, as I said earlier, if we need to do more, because of widespread unemployment, we will do so. That I am sure will be announced either during the Budget or earlier or later if the situation warrants it. On the robustness of the economy, it is a big question. Our economy is quite diversified, both in terms of the balance between services and manufacturing, within manufacturing itself, and in our geographical dependence. Our strategy has always been not to be completely dependent upon one market or one country. And that is one reason why, when negotiating all these free trade agreements, we make sure that we have broadband economic connectivity with all parts of the world. What is unfortunate is that all the planets are now in the wrong alignment simultaneously. If you do a regression analysis of the Singapore economy with the key variables, although the variables are connected, these three variables stand out - the US economy, the semiconductor cycle, Malaysia and Indonesia. The US economy is down, semiconductor is down, Malaysia and Indonesia are not in the best position. Maybe, and this is a prayer, with the opening of a new chapter in Indonesia under President Megawati, one planet has moved out of this misalignment. We had a meeting in MTI yesterday, we are quietly hopeful. Indonesia is a major trading partner of Singapore. It brings opportunities to many little businessmen all over the island. If Indonesia can restore political stability, the rupiah, as it is, makes Indonesia highly competitive even vis-a-vis China.”
“BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Mr Speaker, Sir, much as I would like to answer many of Mr Simon Tay's questions, I cannot do so because they are really the prerogative of the Finance Minister. You know it is very easy to achieve a budget deficit. In most countries, they achieve it without difficulty. And I do not think we should set that as a target at all. If we need to spend on a particular programme because we are in difficulty, if it improves our capacity, we will do so, but not in order to spend money for its own sake. I think that will be a disaster. The reason why we have survived previous crises and emerged stronger from each of them is because we have been disciplined, and we should continue to be so. And if we do not make major mistakes this time round, we will not emerge worse off. I think it is important not to lose sight of the importance of that disciplined response to problems. Mr Simon Tay asked whether the allowance can become a dole and, if it is not a dole, why can it not be increased. But one shades off into the other. And if you put yourself into the mind of the individual, beyond a point, he will attend any course because it pays him well. So we have got to be mindful. There is a trade-off. There is an optimal point to be struck and we should strike it carefully, and not blithely take the position that the more the better. It need not be. It can lead to a lot of other problems, maybe not for the individual himself, but for other people.”
“Mr Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister questions in three areas. First, the overall strategy. I agree that globalisation is the only way to go. But does the Minister think our economy is as robust as it should be? In 1998, we seemed to be one of the last one to enter the recession and now we seem to be one of the first. Is that a misperception? Secondly, pump priming. With these measures, will the Government be in deficit? And if it is going to be projecting a deficit, will it actually achieve one? Because, again, in the past, we projected a deficit, but we did not achieve it. Perhaps, we under spent. In respect of the pump priming of infrastructure projects, I agree it is not a question of quantum, but actually achieving it. And in this respect, the role of the PWD, which we talked about earlier in this House, has to be really looked at, with the moratorium of five years. The third area is the Government's help for the individuals. Sir, I would like to ask the Minister again about the training allowance brought up by my colleague, the MP for Tanjong Pagar GRC Dr Vasoo. If this is the training allowance for programmes which we believe truly provide training, why does the Minister believe that it might be a "disguised dole" or is in danger of being so? And if it is a true training programme, why should our allowance be $600 which is not a living wage? And in connection with individuals again, the question of keeping enough savings in the CPF and keeping costs down low for the company to survive is very real. Can I then ask the Minister, if we do generate budget surpluses, whether we anticipate a larger top-up in order to meet the shortfall?”
“Sir, I appreciate the Minister of State doing his back-of-envelope work. 10%-20%, if it excludes the very large projects like reclamation, seems a little low, if I may say. Is there any inclination to push it up higher? Is the private sector up to the job? Historically, the Government has had reasons to doubt the private sector. But for capacity growth in this sector, could this not be fostered?”
“Sir, I believe the Minister of State mentioned $450 million worth of contracts. Could I know how much this is as a percentage of the works given out by the Government?”
“Yes, Sir. May I ask the Minister whether they will move towards an index - trying to bring together things like the volunteerism index he mentioned - and other factors and somehow, although imperfectly, reflect the trends, because when the Minister said they are doing "fairly well", I would like to know how he thinks we are doing fairly well, why does he think we are doing fairly well.”
“Sir, may I commend the Minister of State for the work that he is doing in the Facilitation Committee and the recognition that there needs to be some monitoring or tracking. While I recognise the problems of trying to use ---”
“Sir, could I ask what the penalties are if one continues to fly the flag after 31st August, and how many people have actually been found for committing the offence?”
“Sir, would the Minister of State not agree that the Singapore flag, in that sense, belongs to Singaporeans and therefore should we not be encouraging them to display the Singapore flag as part of their citizenship?”
“Sir, given that the Government wishes to promote loyalty in Singapore and affinity in Singapore, would it not be natural to have more rules about how the flag can be displayed, and what would be constituted undignified use of the flag rather than just simply prohibit use of the flag?”
“Sir, I do not mean to belabour the point. But I am asking the Government not to fix the price as Malaysia does, but rather to fix the market. The market that Government has created, first, by setting the three-quarter tank rule (raising it from the half-tank rule), from limiting the number of sites which petrol pumps can be situated and by licensing of petrol pumps, has led to a situation where there is a near cartel which has proven that prices have been sticky upwards.”
“Mr Speaker, may I ask the Minister: would he not accept that if there was no rule at all regarding filling up your car in Malaysia, there would be more competition, especially for the petrol stations in the northern part of the country? Assuming that is the case, the Government actually helps structure the market for competition for Singapore petrol pumps vis-a-vis Malaysian petrol pumps by this rule.”
“Sir, would the Minister appreciate that we are actually setting up a market in the sense that every rule we create structures the ability of the oil companies to fix their prices? I would suggest to the Minister that if the half-tank rule was reinvoked, actually the margin of their price being higher would be narrowed and, therefore, there would be more competition in the market that Government has created.”
“Sir, does the Minister appreciate that the rule used to be a half-tank rule and, secondly, in that sense, we have increased the margin of protection that the local oil companies have in refusing to lower their prices?”
“Sir, given that these are Government-linked companies and Government holds controlling shares, may I ask the Minister for Finance whether Government will reassure their counterparts that this is a private sector deal and not versus their own national interest, given that these are relatively sensitive sectors, ie, telecommunications and banking?”
“I do not see why we should not in the same spirit have a system for pre-voting for those people who live here, but just happen to be abroad on that particular day. Those are my comments about overseas voting. On electronic voting, there has been a lot of debate here in this House, and I would only say that when I look at other countries, I see systems that are either incompetent and some which are just outrageously corrupt. I think, in general, in Singapore, we avoided both these problems. But still I do take the Minister's point that in our commitment to e-government, in our crunch on manpower, and in our wish to avoid the kind of embarrassing problems we saw in the US Presidential Election, there is a sense in moving towards direct recording electronic voting. And here, I just want to share the views of a number of other MPs, including the Member for Sembawang GRC, Prof. Chin, and the Member for West Coast GRC, Mr Iswaran, that a new system can have glitches and that effort must be made to educate voters, especially those who are uncomfortable with the e-world. In this sense, I would not ask for a Select Committee but rather I would ask the Government to reassure us that our system will actually somehow be improved, and that we implement the feedback, not so much from the voters themselves and the computer experts, but rather from grassroots organisations and, yes, even some elected Opposition MPs. I think they should help in the implementation of this programme so that they can see it up close and be reassured that we are substituting a more efficient, better system for one that has been so far fundamentally sound.”
“If I am correct - I stand for correction here - in the Minister's preparatory remarks, but not in the Bill, there is a sense that we will apply this overseas voting only to some embassies abroad where there are concentrations of Singaporeans and our embassy staff are sufficient to support this. At first glance, this makes some sense. But with this idea of equality, one may come back and say, "Well, how come if I choose to be in Finland, I am unequal to somebody who is in Australia?" Secondly, looking at all things practical, we must recognise that there are limitations. Even if you have an embassy in Canberra, this does not make it easier to reach out to people in Sydney. We have an embassy in Washington, but you could be in Seattle, which is half way home already. So in all these processes of how to reach out, I think we have to come to the idea that beyond actually turning up at the embassy, there has to be an idea of some verified form of voting by mail. And if this is done for big countries, there is no reason why it cannot be done in smaller countries allover the world, so all those Singaporeans who are dispersed in small communities abroad might also be allowed to vote (provided, of course, they pass the other qualification of who can vote). The second point I would like to bring up about voting overseas is - perhaps because I do not understand the Bill fully - I do not see how this Bill helps those Singaporeans who happen to go abroad during election day. That is, I am normally resident here but because of work commitments and I cannot be in Singapore physically on voting day, I may have planned my work commitments, say, three or six months ahead, and voting (Election day) in Singapore is more a mystery than that.”
“As others have said, the rationale here is to make sure that those abroad who vote are those who have some connection and stake here. I do not want to quarrel then about this two-out-of-five years criterion, or whatever. But I do share the concern that an exception is made to the rule for those who are in Government service. We can see that the line between them and other Singaporeans overseas is narrow. Singapore Airlines is clearly, in sentiment, part of Singapore. If you have to serve as an SIA Station Manager or whatever for more than three years out of five, I will be at a loss to explain to somebody why a Singapore Airlines' Station Manager could not vote when he is serving Singapore, in that sense, abroad. But yet, because it is a GLC and not a Singapore Government statutory board, he would not qualify. So I think we need to think this through and perhaps expand it to include all Singapore-based companies and perhaps even multi-nationals here, which do business in Singapore and find it invaluable to take our Singaporeans abroad with them. On the reverse side, I think we should be very open, in fact, about disallowing Singaporeans with permanent residency in other countries and dual citizenship. We have already talked about this in a previous Bill about leaving the engagement of Singapore politics to Singaporeans, and I think we should equally be frank that if you are a Singaporean citizen but have decided to formally take up permanent residence abroad or dual citizenship, which our laws do not recognise, we should say this would not do for voting. With these two ideas, I agree with the idea that we need some pre-qualification. The second issue is the effort of how to reach out.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Bill. Sir, I think I will limit myself to comments on the Bill rather than to elections or, more generally, democracy. Firstly, I would like to say, in my view, that voting is not a privilege for Singaporean citizens. It is clearly a right. Even if it is not in the Constitution itself, because we uphold the idea of a voting democracy, it is a right. Secondly, I would also say it is a duty, because in Singapore if you do not vote, you have to explain yourself or pay a fine. So it is a right and a duty, and not a privilege. Looking at the Bill, I would, first, very strongly welcome the move towards overseas voting. This is an effort really that symbolises a transformation in thinking about Singapore and who are fully Singaporeans. We have come to recognise that globalisation and our own attempts to engage with the international economy require Singaporeans to work, study and live abroad. If 10 or 15 years ago, Singaporeans who lived abroad somehow were less-Singaporeans, I think, today increasingly, we see that we are linked to them. In some ways they help us and they are part of those who live here. And I think this is a profoundly important gesture, given what we have said in Singapore 21 about also encouraging Singaporeans to work abroad, and yet to remain Singaporean. The question then I have heard in this House is really a question of "how". How do we qualify people? And, then, how do we reach out to them? In thinking about the qualifications of who abroad should be allowed to vote, I think an important premise, first, is Article 12 of the Constitution. This promises an equality among people. This equality is not absolute but must be rational and linked to an objective.”
“A clarification, Sir. Can I understand from the Minister that his policy in implementing this law would be, first, to seek a right of reply; second, to explain and justify; and, third, that he would tend to limit viewership, rather than a full black-out.”
“I cannot really remember its name, but I remember vividly a visual of HDB flats with a voice-over that said that these were slums in the sky. At first I felt very angry, and then I just laughed. I think any Singaporean who saw such a documentary, who hears such wild lies about Singapore, would not think less of Singapore, because they know Singapore. They will think less of the documentary. And I would urge the Minister to narrow these laws and, more, have faith in Singaporeans to judge for themselves.”
“But I think what we need to do is something quite different. We have shifted policies before. In the 1970s and 80s, we used to throw out journalists - revoked their licences and told them to go away - and they went away yelling to everyone that they were heroes for having taken on Singapore. Now it seems that we want to de-license them and, I am afraid, the same thing will happen. I would encourage us to do internationally what we do in this House, which is to debate. There is increasingly a media that will cover our Government's side of the story. Our Government leaders, Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong and Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew, are well-known international figures. If they wish to speak, people will listen. Our own media, like Channel NewsAsia and Radio Singapore International, these have regional ambitions and can help us project our voice in addition to the international media that will listen to us. If anything, Sir, I would encourage the Minister and the Government to legislate a right of reply. This can be equal in airtime. And this is done, as far as I understand it, in some federal laws in the USA for radio and other new media, although not newspapers. In this light, Sir, in the emphasis on debate, it troubles me that the proposed section 42A(3)(c) reads that the Minister may revoke a licence "without assigning any reason". Sir, if we ever want to revoke a licence, it should be with reason. We should go out to defend our position and not be thought of being too over-sensitive or protecting our own narrow self-interests. Sir, as a Singaporean, I do resent unfounded ignorant commentary about our country. I remember in the early 1990s, there was an Australian documentary.”
“I do not see how this is going to work with SCV. It is like a tap. It is going to be either on or off. We are, in that sense, doing something quite different from the print media. We are going to turn off that tap. The second level of the debate is, frankly, I am not convinced that we should be expanding this law to cover a new area of media. Nor am I when the Minister says that when there is a convergence of other media like the Internet, we might consider expanding it even further. I really think we should be thinking about going the other way. We should be reconsidering whether we really need anymore to control foreign print media against engaging in our domestic politics because, Sir, I think our policies have stood us well. A lot of the print media have already understood the lesson. I think Singapore today enjoys a much more favourable press than before. And my concern is that these laws would stand to damage that increased enhanced international reputation, reduce our standing as a hub for media of all types and with economic impact on competition with Hong Kong and other players. I would also like to point out that, over time, there has crept in a redundancy in many of the ways our laws are administered. If I understand correctly, sometimes when we limit circulation on the print media, we still are above what their subscription rate is anyway, ie, if our limit is 6,000, their active subscribers in Singapore may be 5,000. And so we pay the penalty for having these laws on the books and having these rubber stamps on the print media, when we really are not achieving anything by it. What should we do then? I do not think that we should, of course, leave foreigners to run Singapore politics. That is the prerogative of Singaporeans.”
“I would say also I remain to be convinced as to this question: why SCV? It seems to me that is only because we can do it. It is as simple as turning off a tap. It seems to me that, really, the penetration through airwaves of Malaysian TV is as pervasive, and we are not doing it because it is harder to do, or politically harder to do. But it smacks of inequality, if we really are concerned about so-called foreigners. And that comes back to my point: what is the mischief? In his introductory remarks, the Minister has not mentioned any particular case or instance of recent recollection that triggers off our concern in introducing these wider powers, and I encourage him to do so, perhaps in his closing remarks. Let me go on, Sir, to two other levels of the debate. I think the first of the levels is, how are we going to make this consistent with the print media? The Minister has pointed out that we already have laws that give similar powers over print media. They do have similar problems. What is the scope of engaging in domestic politics? I think that has been a troubling issue for both print and broadcast media. There are also, however, additional problems. In the written media, when we proscribe circulation, we still allow limited copies, say, 1,000 copies, libraries only. So we can face the world which will ask about these laws. We can face the world and say, "We are not about circumscribing entirely the freedom of information. We are about trying to hit you in the pocket place so you cannot make money and lie about us at the same time." That was what I understood to be our policy about the print media. And, therefore, when we see the measure imposed on print media, it is a limited circulation. Sometimes it is 6,000 copies.”
“Sir, I stand to express some misgivings about the Bill. Let me first consider some of the statements made by the Minister in his explanatory remarks introducing the Bill for Second Reading. The Minister, if I remember correctly, gave examples of laws in Canada and the UK. I would like to point out though that our laws are, I think, much broader than the two examples he has given. First, as far as I understand those laws - I do not have them in front of me - they deal with foreign broadcasts, ie, broadcasting from outside the country and that then penetrates inside, a bit like what Voice of America does, or a bit like what most of us can receive from stations in Malaysia. Here, however, the Minister wants to target people who are, with our consent, accessing our cable, and who may have, in many cases, started up Singapore subsidiaries. And the law actually is crafted so broadly it would cover these companies which are Singapore companies, branch offices and other businesses in Singapore, so long as, according to new section 42A(6), they would be considered to be owned, controlled or managed by somebody outside Singapore. The second way in which the laws proposed are broader, as compared to the two examples he brought up, was that, if I again recollect what the Minister said, those laws targeted influence during the time of election, whereas this Bill would seem to cover media reports year-long, any time, anything. So, if those two examples are the ones that really concerned our Government, we should be targeting much more narrowly because, otherwise, we do risk overshooting the mark and having unforeseen circumstances, such as the erosion of our ability to be a credible media centre, not just for our own media, but for the media we wish to attract to us.”
“While this does justice to some individual cases, this may lead to untidiness, because why do some cases get ex-gratia payments, and why not others. Sir, I wonder whether it is now timely to relook at the policy as a whole.”
“Sir, I am, generally, in support of the Bill. I think it is timely and welcome to bring the different functions under different Ministries under a central authority for efficiency and consistency, as a manager. And, of course, there must be a close linkage, as the Minister has emphasised, of the planning agencies and Concept Plan under the URA. Sir, my point though relates mainly to one thing, and this is the power to act as an agent of Government for land acquisition. I believe the power is set out under clause 6(1)(e). I want to ask the Minister whether the new Authority will be able to consider policies for acquisition and compensation to private owners. Basically, my point of contention is whether it is now timely that our policy of compulsory acquisition should now be a policy of compulsory purchase. What I mean by this, Sir, is that in some countries, private owners have a right to say no to the government. And this, of course, is different in Singapore, because of our national need to develop public goods, highways, etc. I think, in this sense, where there is a national good at stake, compulsion should still be there. However, there is a question of price, and the cost imposed on private owners. Sir, our policy today is that we pay a historically-based price. In the past, this has led to some loss for private owners. Clearly, today, the Government has strong financial reserves. And should we not then acquire compulsorily but at market rates? This is what I mean by compulsory purchase, rather than compulsory acquisition. Sir, I am moved to ask this question because, in recent times, Government has increasingly given out ex-gratia payments where there are certain special circumstances.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I just clarify briefly? That is correct, Sir. But, on the other hand, if you look at the First Schedule, the savings and transitional provisions on the repeal of the Control of Rent Act, clauses 3 and 4 provide for the discontinuance of proceedings for the Rent Conciliation Board, and for the discontinuation of certain proceedings for the High Court. Sir, perhaps I can raise this issue separately with the Minister.”
“For businesses, I believe we cannot save them by special privilege, by freezing them in time. We can at best prevent sudden changes, unexpected upheavals. But in the end, we should foster them to change over time to meet changing times. This, of course, is not easy for businesses. That is why there is such a thing called the free market. Some of these traditional businesses will go out of business. But when you look around us, sometimes there are stories which heartened us, for example, the Killiney Road Kopi Tiam. The fact that they have continued, the fact that they have got branches, shows them competing in a sense with the coffee clubs of today. And those were the things those of us who are conservationists, but yet who want to see a bubbling vibrant modern Singapore, have to think about. There is one point, Sir, that continues to have some difficulty for me. It only occurred to me when the Minister was reading the Bill. This is part of the Schedule that provides for the discontinuance of proceedings before the courts and tribunals. These courts and tribunals are already seized of the matter. They are hearing the issues. We seem to be actually pre-empting their decision. In comparison to that, if I am correct, the Minister has said that the Tenants Compensation Board will have a right to continue to look over the issues already before them. Could I understand from the Minister why is the difference and whether we should be discontinuing these proceedings? Sir, I support the Bill because conservation is not about freezing areas or people in time but encouraging them to move forward at a pace acceptable to all.”
“Sir, a number of media reports have focused on the effects of the intention to remove rent control on some tenants, especially those with vanishing trades. Conservation of buildings and of traditional trades is a concern. A recent survey has shown that while we have been relatively successful at saving the buildings, there are gaps in trying to make sure that traditional trades continue. Like many Singaporeans, we were disturbed. But when we think about it more carefully, there are reasons to see that the Control of Rent Act has been a bit of an anomaly for which perhaps the time has passed. Because even if we are concerned about the conservation of buildings and traditional trades, we must be fair. We must recognise that there are also rights of the owners and that we must actually create incentives for the owners to value the properties, to perhaps restore the properties and we can only do so if they know that they will get some fair return. Sir, in fact, though I am for conservation, I am not for the freezing of time, like a magic wand, where the sleeping beauty is supposed to keep sleeping for 100 years. Rather, this kind of approach of freezing things, making people sleep, will tend to lead to distortion of markets, and I do share Dr Teo Ho Pin's point on the problem about subletting and profiteering by some tenants. In a sense, Sir, I was assured to hear that there will be special schemes for some of the tenants who are affected, the elderly tenants who have little choice. More than that, more generally, I would say that the phasing-in over a long transition period of four years shows that while Government sees that something needs to be done, they have sent a signal to those tenants to please do something to accommodate the changing times.”