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 2 of 11.
“If we do leave energy generation to others outside of the Government and, potentially, foreign companies, I think that this idea of consumer rights is the necessary balance we must bring into the creation of the market. The consumer must have a choice, the consumer must have rights. Only then will the markets that we are creating have much chance of being truly efficient.”
“Clearly, Sir, this is going to be a difficult and a new area for Singapore law. It must be tried. Recently, in this House, we have heard that there are international trends that pressure Singapore to take on competition policy. It is a very good attempt, especially to address competition policy from a new and preferably narrow segment of the market, such as the supply of energy. But the question of how is something I hope the Acting Minister will elaborate upon. Who can complain to the Authority if he feels that there is a monopoly or an inefficient market? Is it consumers or only rival power companies? Second, will the duty be questionable in courts that the Authority has not adjudicated properly or will it only be by the Authority? And will there be public hearings? Sir, if we have to have a regulatory authority over competition, there must be a clear structure for different competitors and stakeholders, like the consumers, to be heard on this issue. The fourth issue is on efficiency. The promotion of power energy efficiency is something many of us have emphasised and the move to market is certainly one that can potentially strengthen the link to efficiency. But this is only a possibility. There is the other possibility that competition and competitors may aim only for greater consumption and profit. What safeguards will we have against this danger? The last point I would like to make is the question of consumer choice and rights, because this undergirds a lot of the things that we are doing in liberalisation and marketisation. This Government has been reluctant to give much more strength to consumer movement through a Fair Trading or other Act.”
“Here, it is proposed that the Bill will protect the interests of the public, in respect of the supply and use of electricity and gas and the provision of district cooling services. Sir, there is no statement about reasonable prices. In contrast, if you look at clause 6(c) of the Public Utilities Bill, which we have just passed, there is a clear statement here that one of the duties of the statutory board would be to provide supply at reasonable cost. I think this is something that the Ministry should address to assuage public concerns about cost. Basically, I have got a few points, if I may move on quickly. First, I would like to see a lower threshold for entry by suppliers to bring sufficient players to the market. Many of us have talked about the large players. Additionally, we have got to make accommodation in the grid for micro-power and micro-power suppliers. Every time I pass by the incineration plant or the refinery and I see the flare, I think that is energy we could have tapped. Secondly, the consumer choice is a concern. If we have flexible prices and competitors, this only makes any difference if households know about the differences in price and can switch. I would like to ask the Minister what would be the mechanism for alerting consumers, who is the cheapest producer, supplier, or what are the cheapest times in allowing them to switch between one supplier and another in real time, not just month to month or year to year? The third element I would like to point out is competition policy. Clause 6(1) creates and imposes upon the Authority the duty to regulate the market, make it fair and efficient, that will have effective competition and prevent the misuse of monopoly or market power.”
“I think if we look at the region and the future, we have concerns about energy security, not just our internal grid, but the long-term demand and supply in the region and in the world generally. If the region does go up economically, as we hope, energy needs will go up and supply may go short. Therefore, we have taken steps in the last few months to secure fixed supplies, such as the natural gas from Indonesia. Regional needs and cross-border supply and generation, I think, are the ways of the future. This would require companies in this sector to be both big and think long-term. I wonder, Sir, whether privatisation will really create these companies, or whether Government has actually got the deep pockets and a long-term vision to lead the way. Secondly, on the question of deregulation and restructuring markets, we have to be concerned about efficiencies. The crisis recently in California has been mentioned several times. I would just like to quickly share my view on why this happened. Basically, this is because consumer prices were fixed by the law. As such, when demand rose and prices rose, there was over-demand, which could not be alleviated by rising prices. Obviously, this should be avoided. We should have a market with enough players and consumers, and a sufficient flexibility in prices that will match the supply and demand. However, while I would encourage not having fixed prices, I must recognise there is a concern over rising costs, especially for households. In this light, I would like to point out one shortcoming of the drafting of clause 6 in the Bill. Looking at clause 6, the closest I can get to the question of price is that in clause 6(e).”
“Sir, I support the Bill, subject to some questions which I hope the Acting Minister will answer. Sir, in asking these questions, I also believe this is an important Bill. There is basically a growing belief in markets throughout the world that privatisation has clear benefits. The benefits of privatisation are especially clear when things have been badly run by the Government in countries where either there is no power, no water or if some things are very bad, then you really see that markets and private companies must come in. Fortunately, or unfortunately in that sense, the benefits are not so clear in Singapore. The system is relatively good, the quality at present seems relatively assured, and, therefore, focus has tended to be on prices. A move to privatisation, therefore, has a lot to prove. Basically, we have to ask ourselves, whom do we trust. Do we trust the Government, as a provider, as well as the administrator, or do we provide trust in the markets? Sir, other speakers before me have already talked about cartels. I think there are some bad stories. There are concerns about petrol companies, as well as things like the DBS Bank consolidation with POSBank. But I would like to point out that competition and choice for consumers have worked in some other cases of note recently. Telecommunications is one clear case; similarly, supermarkets. We have gained from having foreign entrants and I would say, perhaps flippantly, on bookstores too. Borders bookstore has made a tremendous difference over Time and MPH before. In this sense, there is both a cautious optimism about allowing in foreigners and allowing more competition. Sir, this caution has to be weighed against the needs.”
“Deposits on cans and bottles are a very small example of the kind of clear incentives we need to create this market, and then create the volume for recycling. Sir, more generally, I think there are many other things we can learn from other societies. We are not the first to face this problem, though it is more acute in Singapore. I would like the Minister to share his thoughts with us about closing the loop on waste.”
“Sir, as I share many of the concerns of the previous speakers, I will try to reduce my points. I share the perception that we have reached a limit to technical solutions. We have built Pulau Semakau, a world's first. We are going to build another incinerator and these are big ticket items in the budget. But beyond solutions, we will need to look at the mindsets and social habits of Singaporeans. Here, I would disagree with Mr Kenneth Chen who spoke just before me. I actually think that the Ministry has done a good job in making citizens generally aware of the problem and aware of the need for recycling. Of course, more can be done for awareness. But the next step we have to take is to move from awareness to action. We have to enable action by making it easy, by allowing enterprise and making our effort effective. What I mean by ease, enterprise and effectiveness goes beyond campaigns or once in a while collecting old phone books or newspapers. We need to have regular projects in each neighbourhood or even in each house. We see in many developed countries blue bins or other systems used to collect bottles, cans and other recyclables. I am afraid I cannot understand why we do not have the same. I believe we should. The second thing about enterprise connects to the privatisation of waste collection. This is going to be difficult because eventually we are going to have to raise prices. We can, however, do this in a way that is sensitive to the needs of people, because we cannot move house, just because one company charges more than the other to collect our rubbish. In that sense, it is a very imperfect market, even if we privatise. What we can do to make the market better is to create more volume, not just by mandating it. We should create a market.”
“I would therefore ask the Ministry concerned how we can proactively try to avoid the next El Nino occurrence by addressing these fundamental commercial causes. 6.15 pm”
“Recently, Indonesia has passed wide-reaching laws to devolve more authority in many matters from Jakarta to the provinces. These provinces, however may lack the capacity and attention to problems such as the environment and fires. I would ask the Ministry to look towards working more with them, especially provinces in Riau and Sumatra, which are so near us. Secondly, I would ask, now that Indonesia has passed laws for the prevention of fires, whether we could consider making these laws enforceable in our courts. Many Indonesian companies trade through Singapore or have assets and offices here. Many Indonesian businessmen pass through our airport. It is therefore not impossible that some of the guilty parties come to or through Singapore. If we can therefore identify and prosecute them, we would help supplement the efforts of the Indonesian government against these law breakers. Finally, Sir, I would encourage a prudential approach to lending and trading from Singapore. We are a financial hub and a trading centre for many of the industries involved, including oil palm and timber. It is the commercial undertakings that use fire to clear land because it is cheaper. Would the Ministry advise Singapore-based lenders and traders to make due enquiries of their Indonesian clients and partners? Where they demonstrably do not cause fires, we should prefer these Indonesian clients. Where they have, on the reverse, broken laws against the use of fire, is it not incumbent on our lenders and Singapore business community not to be complicit in these crimes and observe Indonesian law? I make these suggestions because it is not just Singapore that suffers, but the first victims are indeed Indonesians who live much nearer and amidst the fire and smoke.”
“Sir, I rise to ask the Ministry on our efforts to address future Indonesian fires and haze pollution. I want to make some suggestions on what we might do. Sir, you would remember that in 1997 and 1998, Singapore and the region experienced a very dense and prolonged haze pollution, resulting from fires mostly in Indonesia. What is of more concern for the present and future is that some scientists predict that we will experience another dry spell, another El Nino, in 2001 or perhaps 2002. I think it is therefore timely to ask the Ministry what steps have been taken since 1997 and 1998, and whether what has been done is enough to prevent another terrible time of smoke and fire where we can hardly see the sun. Indonesia has agreed to many action plans to address the issue. But it is not clear to me whether these actions have actually been taken or whether they just remain as plans. Action plans are often more plans than actions. Recent reports are that Indonesian laws are now placing a burden on landowners to quell fires. This is hoped to help prove that they started the fire. But will the Minister give his opinion on the chances of successful implementation of these plans? I ask because there are a few reports of successful prosecutions of fire-starters and the companies they work for. I also ask because I realise the many problems the Indonesians today face in their country, and that they may lack attention and resources to deal with the problems. Sir, I have three suggestions on what we might do to help Indonesia. First, I know that we presently offer satellite images. I wish us to go beyond this. I wish us to encourage Indonesia to do more. First, by working with provincial and local authorities.”
“We believe that by putting our heads together and working together, we can not only protect our environment for today, make it better for tomorrow, but also sustain it for generations to come.”
“We will encourage the active citizenry and strengthen the 3P partnership - the people, public and private sector partnership, including mothers, as suggested by Mr Heng Chiang Meng, so as to make "keeping Singapore clean and green" our daily habit, our daily desire and our way of life. Our target, over the next 10 years, is that we want to be a clean, green and fine city, but not a city of fines. To achieve these outcomes in environmental sustainability, ENV will reinvent itself. We will build on our current strength and, at the same time, strive to do even better by being more innovative, more responsive and better in learning in a fast changing world. Our intention is to restructure ENV into a Ministry with a very lean headquarters, with possibly three statutory boards. These are, firstly, the new PUB, which is effectively the national water authority to take charge of clean water. The second statutory board will be the Environmental Health Agency to take charge of safe food, vector control and public health relating to infectious diseases. And thirdly, the Environmental Protection Agency which will take charge of clean air and clean land. This will not happen overnight. Our aim is to achieve this over the next 18-24 months. Sir, what I have outlined this evening is a broad framework, aimed at enhancing our performance in environmental protection in the short term and, at the same time, sustaining our environment to support the long-term development of our economy and society. This is version 1.0. This is not cast in concrete. We will continue the process of consultation with the 3P sectors.”
“In the area of infectious diseases, we see recent emergence of infectious diseases in other parts of the world, for example, Avian flu, Hantavirus and so on. We also see the re-emergence of diseases such as malaria, dengue and Legionnaires' disease. Coupled with the greater cross border movement of people for employment, holidays, business, etc, we have come to the conclusion that we could only keep the risk of infectious diseases low in Singapore, firstly, by upgrading our local capabilities to deal with these diseases and, secondly, to strengthen regional cooperation as well as to forge closer international collaboration because diseases know no national boundary. Sir, today, we are the World Health Organisation's Collaborating Centre for Environmental Epidemiology in the Western Pacific region. We are also recognised as a leading country in vector control by the World Health Organisation. Our target over the next 10 years is to become a leading research and management centre for communicable disease in the Asia-Pacific. On living environment, we have kept Singapore clean and green by spending a lot of money and employing a lot of cleaners and, at the same time, issuing a lot of fines, as mentioned by one of the Members. Looking ahead towards sustainability, I agree fully with the Member that we should strive to become a country where every citizen and resident will play his or her part to care for, and to take pride in, our living environment. We will step up public education to instill civic-mindedness in our people.”
“To enhance sustainability in the supply of clean water, we will continue to tap on existing sources of supply, such as rainfall collection, water from Malaysia and, at the same time, look for new supplies, for example, from Indonesia, through desalination and so on. We will also pursue the core concept of closing the water loop. This means that we will reclaim used water to produce high grade clean water, known as the Newater. This is why we have decided to merge the Water Department, the Drainage Department and the Sewerage Department to form the new PUB. This is, of course, subject to legislative approval by this House tomorrow. Our target over the next 10 years is to increase the rate of recycling of used water from the present 5% to 20% through the use of Newater. In the area of safe food, we are seeing the re-emergence of diseases that could affect food supply, for example, Nipah virus, mad cow disease, foot and mouth disease. At the same time, the world is also facing new uncertainty brought about by advances in life sciences, for example, genetically modified food. To ensure food safety, we need to monitor and manage the entire food value chain. This means having to monitor development in external farms and controlling imports when necessary. At the same time, we have to ensure proper processing, handling, storage, distribution and consumption of these foods in Singapore. We also need to forge closer collaboration between ENV and AVA and relevant agencies. At the same time, closer collaboration between Singapore and the various regional and international agencies. Our target, over the next 10 years, is to avoid any massive food-borne disease outbreaks in Singapore.”
“Let me highlight some of the concepts in the tying of this environmental loop. Take, for example, clean air. We recognise that more energy will be consumed by factories, offices and households. At the same time, we recognise that there will be more vehicles on the road. For sustainability, we can close the energy loop, and this means that we will continue to tighten control on emission but, at the same time, we also switch faster to cleaner energy and step up energy conservation, a point made by Prof. Low Seow Chay. 5.30 pm Our long-term target, over the next 10 years at least, is to ensure that the air quality in Singapore will continue to stay within the US EPA and the World Health Organisation's clean air standards. In the area of clean land, based on current trend, we need to build a new incineration plant every five years. Every 30 years, we need to find a place the size of Sentosa Island for landfill. To achieve sustainability, we have decided to close the solid waste loop. This means that we will ensure the proper collection and disposal of waste but, at the same time, we will pursue the 4Rs more pro-actively, as recommended by Prof. Low Seow Chay. These 4Rs are reuse, reduce, recycle and recover. We will also give higher priority to the development of the recycling industry. Our aim is to make Singapore a centre of excellence in 4Rs in the Asia Pacific. Right now, 40% of the solid waste generated in Singapore every day is being recycled. Over the next 10 years, our target is to increase it to 50%. On clean water, today we supply about 300 mgd of clean water for a population of about four million. In the future, we will need to supply more clean water to meet the need of a growing population and a growing economy.”
“This is to ensure that our continued economic growth and improvement in standard of living are not achieved at the expense of the environment. Our twin objectives, basically, are to continue to enhance performance in the short term and, at the same time, strengthen the sustainability for the long term. Prof. Low Seow Chay and Mr Heng Chiang Meng asked what our strategies for sustainability are, and whether we are doing enough, have we taken stock and what more will be done. Sir, I am pleased to report to the House that we have reviewed our current strategies. We have also met with many of our partners in the past few months, including the GPC members who are here today, the Environmental Management Association of Singapore (EMAS), professional associations such as SIA and IES, staff unions, the Singapore Confederation of Industries, the Association of Lorry Owners, Bus Owners and Travel Agents, the recyclers, the Pest Control Association of Singapore, the Singapore Sanitary and Plumbing Association, as well as the GMs of the Town Councils. After taking into account their feedback and suggestions, we have updated the overall framework for performance and sustainability. I have asked the Clerk to distribute a table. I am not sure whether you have it. If not, I will make sure you have it after this. I will highlight some of the key features in this particular table. Sir, the environment is a closed loop. What goes up must come down, and what goes in must come out. In the new economy, we talk about end-to-end. In the case of environment management, we have decided to go one step further. We are not just talking about end-to-end, but also tying the two ends together, what we call "closing the environmental loop".”
“As mentioned by some Members, if we were to look at the issue of sustainability from a natural endowment point of view, obviously, Singapore would be ranked lowly because we are a small country with no natural endowment. We have conveyed to ESI of the World Economic Forum that the sustainability of any environment goes far beyond natural endowment. We conveyed to them that with creativity, commitment and the use of technology, we can push back the threshold of environmental disaster, as in the case of Singapore. ESI, in response, recognised our performance up to now. In their reply, they said that in terms of environmental regulation and management, they rank Singapore as the 5th best in the world. In the area of global cooperation, activeness in participation in global movements and so on, they rank us among the top 25% in the world. In the area of environmental health, they rank us as amongst the top 33%. In the first final report published early this year, they have reviewed the position of Singapore. Instead of No. 9 from the bottom, they have moved us up to 65th position, somewhere in the middle. Obviously, this is not good enough. We will continue to work on our strategy for sustainability, and continue to explain to the global community, including ESI, so that they can understand better what we have done and what we will continue to do. Looking ahead, our challenge in environmental management is to protect and enhance our living environment, not by slowing down economic growth to reduce energy and resource consumption. If we do that, we may well be living in a cleaner environment, but we will all be poorer off. Rather, we are going to do it by maximising efficiency and minimising wastage, as commented by some Members.”
“At the same time, we have implemented a network of 21 stations to monitor ambient noise in Singapore. Sir, on the whole, we have made good progress in the last 10 years, but we will not stop there. Next year, we will be publishing the SGP for the next 10 years. Mr Simon Tay asked whether we will continue to involve the civic organisations and so on. I assure him that in the review of the SGP, we will invite the private and public sectors, and NGOs, to be jointly involved in the review of the SGP. Our aim is to get it ready in time for release at the Rio+10, so that, as Mr Simon Tay has mentioned, we can keep the international community up-to-date on what we have done in Singapore. At the same time, to share with them our plan and vision for the next 10 years and beyond. Mr Simon Tay also suggested that Singapore should participate actively in the Rio+10 Summit, and that a national committee should be formed, to make sure that we will come up with an appropriate response to capitalise on the Rio+10 Summit as an opportunity. Sir, I fully agree with Mr Simon Tay. In fact, we did participate very actively in the 1992 Rio Summit, and we intend to continue to be very active in Rio+10. Just like what we did for the Rio Summit, we intend to set up an Inter-Ministerial committee to prepare for Rio+10. At the same time, we will involve the private and public sectors and the NGOs in the whole process, so that by the time of the Rio+10 meeting in South Africa, we will be able to present a concerted response from Singapore. Sir, Mr Heng Chiang Meng and Mr Kenneth Chen asked what are ENV's views on the various rankings, and whether we have sought clarification from the World Economic Forum.”
“In the area of environmental technology, in fact, Singapore has played host to many regional forums, workshops, and exhibitions on environmental technology. We send and receive many trade missions. At the same time, we have set up the Environmental Technology Institute (ETI) at the NTU, to support and help start-up ET companies. In the area of resource conservation, we introduced the accelerated depreciation scheme for energy-efficient technology. We promoted recyling of wastes. At the same time, our power plant implemented the combined cycle technology. In the area of environmental audit, mentioned by Dr Teo Ho Pin, I am pleased to say that, of the 930 companies which have a potential to pollute the environment, in fact, 230 of them have gained the certification of ISO 14001. This is up from 14 before 1992. So we see a marked increase in the number of companies putting in place the environmental technology management system. In the area of clean technology, we saw the additional supply of natural gas into Singapore; the introduction of unleaded petrol for all vehicles since July 1998; the introduction of lower sulphur diesel of 0.05% by weight in March 1999; and the tightening of emission standards for industries and vehicles. In the area of nature conservation mentioned by Mr Simon Tay, I believe the Minister for National Development has mentioned in the Committee of Supply that MND is now studying the recommendations supported by the focus group. I think he also said that nature sites will be preserved for as long as they are not needed for development. In the area of noise control, in fact, ENV has introduced new regulations to control noise from industrial premises.”
“Sir, the reality is that today, in Singapore, we still enjoy clean air, water and living environment. With 100% modern sanitation for every household, refuse collected and disposed of daily, the incidence of food-borne, water-borne and vector-borne disease is low. We are able to stay away from the threshold of environmental disaster because, all these years, we have been able to harness technology creatively and effectively. At the same time, we have applied our minds innovatively to protect our living environment with a great sense of commitment, responsibility and social discipline. Take the last 10 years, for example. As Dr Teo Ho Pin has mentioned, we published the Singapore Green Plan (SGP), and this is our blueprint for a "model green city". Dr Teo asked for the progress of the SGP. Six working committees were formed to implement six areas of action. They formulated 133 action programmes, which were published in November 1993, and they have been implemented over the last 8-9 years. Sir, due to time constraints, I will not go into the details of all aspects of progress. I will just highlight some of them as an illustration of the kind of progress we have made. For example, in the area of environmental education, we started a Council for the Environment for Tertiary Institutions. There are now Environmental Clubs and environmental educational advisors in schools, and the media continue to give publicity and coverage to issues relating to the environment. Last year, the Clean and Green Week received the support of 28 private sector organisations, 71 GROs, 14 NGOs and more than 125,000 Singaporeans took part in the various activities.”
“Rather, we should use this opportunity to reach out to the international community. A national committee can be formed for this purpose, and it could serve to communicate and cooperate with other countries on these areas of common concern. I would like to ask the Minister if he would seize these opportunities to reach out to explain to the international community, and fully participate in the efforts to make the world a better place. The Acting Minister for the Environment (Mr Lim Swee Say): Sir, first of all, I would like to thank the Members for addressing the issues of environmental sustainability and the Singapore Green Plan. In my response, I will touch on the broader aspect of sustainability. I will not go into the details in some specific areas, so as not to pre-empt Members who will be speaking on these specific areas in the remaining cuts. Sir, Prof. Low Seow Chay, Mr Kenneth Chen and Mr Heng Chiang Meng mentioned the ranking in the Environmental Sustainability Index (ESI). As Mr Heng has said, Singapore is a city-state, a country with a small land area, a city that is densely populated, and we live in a highly urbanised environment. We see busy traffic every day. We also have industries which are highly competitive and export-oriented, accounting for more than 20% of our GDP. Some people, who are not familiar with developments in Singapore, expect Singapore to face problems of polluted air, water and land. At the same time, they expect Singapore to face a serious threat, of living near the threshold of environmental disaster. Indeed, this is the assessment of the ESI, ranking Singapore as the 9th worst in the world, in terms of the danger of living near the threshold of environmental disaster, as mentioned by Mr Kenneth Chen.”
“The new meeting will be held in South Africa. Singapore has agreed to a Green Plan and is now coming up to a review of that Plan, and I would like to ask the Acting Minister what is the progress of that review. My third point is that I hope that, against this background, in undertaking this review, the Government would be open and self-critical. There are some suggestions in the 1992 Green Plan that have not been fully taken up, and they deserve to be considered anew. There are also areas we can improve upon. In some cases, technologies, like power generation, waste treatment, and alternative energy sources like solar power, have improved considerably in the last 10 years, and we have to ask if we are making full optimal use of these improvements. My next point is that, in coming up to this review and a review of our national Green Plan, I would ask the Ministry to make a concerted effort to engage civic groups and experts in the process. Many have already served in drawing up our draft recommendations, but more can be involved when the plans are openly reviewed, if indeed they will be openly reviewed. Consultation and participation are good ways not only to get citizen feedback, they also help them to understand the constraints and concerns the Government feels. My last point, Sir, is that I would ask Singapore to participate early and strongly in the global review of the Rio+10 process. We are a small island and vulnerable to changes in the environment of our neighbours, or the world as a whole. We should, therefore, pay attention not just to our environmental record here in Singapore, but the world's, and play our part as a steward of the common environmental heritage of the world. This should involve not just our Government agencies or civic groups and experts.”
“Sir, I rise to speak on the review of the Green Plan and the Rio+10 process. If I may, though, can my first point be to confess that I was identified by the World Economic Forum as a Global Leader of Tomorrow. I am a member of the task force that produced the environmental sustainability index that other Members have referred to. I joined this task force late and I, too, was surprised at its conclusions. I have given my inputs to the committee by email but I have been unable to attend their meetings and full deliberations because of other commitments, including the sitting of this House. Sir, in that sense, I start off by saying I believe that Singapore has a generally good record in environmental protection. This is especially in the case of pollution control, the so-called "brown" issues, which explains the PERC report Mr Heng Chiang Meng referred to. In nature conservation, though, on the "green" issues, some believe there are shortcomings, and many of these result from the intensity of population and land use in Singapore which are inescapable, given our size. In this sense, my own belief is that some environmental studies will always rank us lower than we think, because of this question of sustainability, the peculiar circumstances of Singapore and its geography, and of population density. But, Sir, let me come to my second point. This is that we have to look forward to opportunities to engage the international community, to explain to them our strong points and, also, to accept their criticism of some of our shortcomings, and learn to improve. That is why I bring up the review of the Green Plan and the Rio+10 process because, in the coming year, 2002, there will be an international review of the 1992 Earth Summit that was held in Rio.”
“I said to "set standards, foster and certify organic farming". He only answers the first question. Does he mean he will not foster and will not certify?”
“Sir, can I ask the Minister whether he will set standards, foster and certify organic farming in Singapore and supplying countries for vegetables?”
“I mention these focus groups because they are one of the first structured steps in involving citizens more. I hope the Ministry will continue to involve citizens in these issues. More than that, a very strong suggestion by the groups was for a Heritage Conservation Trust. It is hoped that a new entity will be created that improves transparency, increases accountability and involves the public more in development planning, and that this Trust should stand both independent and equal to the relevant Government agencies. I hope the Minister will share his response to this suggestion, as well as to many of the issues raised here in the House and in the report.”
“Obviously, we have to make the choices of what we conserve. So many of the speakers before me have emphasised other needs too. We cannot conserve everything. I think Singaporeans, as a whole, have a good sense to recognise there are trade-offs that are going to be necessary over time between conservation and economic development. But almost all felt that more can and should be conserved. Not just the famous national heritage like the Padang, Istana, the Old Parliament Building, but also regional landmarks in different areas of Singapore, and everyday places where people congregate to eat, work and play. Not just colonial buildings, but also aspects of post-World World II Singapore. But, Sir, I think that we need to think more about how we conserve, because conservation is not a question of freezing things and time. It is not a museum idea. We should allow sensitive redevelopment while ensuring the cultures and lifestyles are considered alongside urban design. Katong was picked up as an example by the group of an area of living interest and innovative re-use can also be encouraged. As we see the change of life along Waterloo Street, I am not sure you can eat Indian rojak there anymore, but art groups flourish there and life has come back. Similarly, on a slightly higher scale, you have the Far East Square and the hotel at Fullerton. Diversity and uniqueness, in a sense, Sir, should be strongly encouraged for the Concept Plan. For this, both environmental and social impact should be assessed carefully before decisions are made. This brings me to my most important point, which I hope the Ministry will consider. Who will conserve? Who will assess? Who will take part in the process? At present, Sir, decisions are made almost solely by Government.”
“Sir, it was my privilege to serve as one of the co-chairs of the two focus groups to the Concept Plan that the members before me have mentioned. I, first, want to start by commending the Ministry for listening to people. Some of you may recollect that I engaged the Minister and questioned his Ministry about consultation over the issue of the National Library building. And he took us up on that and he created a structure that tried to reach out to both grassroots as well as to experts. Of the many points raised by the two reports, I want to only share my hopes on one, and this is on the issue of conservation of nature and built heritage. Sir, the greenery and conserved buildings are sometimes viewed as marginal interests only, and the belief is that there are only a few Singaporeans who are interested in. However, I think the Concept Plan Focus Group challenged us to see its connection to - the vital question of Singaporeans' identity which is debated many times. Clearly, they found that it is not so that these issues are marginal. Rather, both grassroots leaders, professionals and all those we spoke to were unanimous in supporting the conservation of both nature and built heritage. Public feedback has been largely supportive. I was quite surprised to hear that even avid golfers, like Mr Sinnakaruppan, say that they were supportive of the idea that there should be no more golf courses. Why? Not because suddenly they become anti-golf, but because there is a recognition that our built national heritage makes Singapore distinctive and anchors our self-identity and belonging to this place. Our Garden City concept, the fact that we are an island, all this appeals to both citizens as well as foreigners who visit, work and stay here.”
“Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $196,936,200 for Head O ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $76,249,000 for Head O ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head U -”
“Sir, the next cut relates to the future of ASEAN+3 and ASEAN itself. We have heard in this House and outside, many have emphasised, that Northeast Asia has come up dramatically, and that is true. Of course, Northeast Asian countries have always been the bigger economies since China's opening. The relativity has shifted, but those three up north have always been bigger. There are many good reasons to engage Northeast Asia and I think we are doing the right thing with ASEAN+3. However, Sir, I think there are two main dangers that I hope the Ministry will address. The first is that ASEAN+3 should not be an exclusive and closed group. It should not be a bloc which is self-confining. The USA and other partners remain important to the Asia Pacific and, while increasing our cooperation with Northeast Asia, we should not ignore these other ties. Secondly, Singapore should avoid the danger of neglecting ASEAN or of being perceived as doing so. So, I would ask the Minister to share his thinking about how to balance these different needs of strengthening ASEAN, ASEAN+3, and the broader Asia-Pacific framework. 4.45 pm”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head O of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code OA 1500. I have heard the Minister about the efforts to assist and integrate newer ASEAN member states in his earlier reply on ASEAN. I accept that there are limits to what we can do and that we are best placed to serve as a catalyst. But I think that we should really be trying to do more. If I remember the answer correctly, the number of scholarships to be given to the new ASEAN members is 60. Sir, I think there is a place for highly specialised elite scholarships, eg, the Lee Kuan Yew Exchange Fellowship for ASEAN is a good one. But, more broadly, there is a need to reach out more deeply to help these newer members integrate and upgrade themselves. I would put it that 60 may be too few. We should be aiming, within our capacity, to be serving somewhat like a Fulbright Exchange Programme, through which many people have benefited. So, over time, many people would have come to Singapore, gained from studying here, and gone back with both skills and good memories of Singapore, particularly when the National University of Singapore has an enrolment of about, if I remember correctly, 16,000. In this sense, 60 is perhaps too few, considering how much capacity we have, not just with this university, but with three universities now on line. Sir, may I take the next cut?”
“I would like us, having signed these treaties, to ensure that all our laws and policies comply. The second point, Sir, is that having signed on to these treaties, I would encourage the Ministry to make Singapore citizens and civil society groups more aware and have a better understanding of these Conventions. Some are somehow under the impression that we do not observe human rights conventions at all and this clearly should be changed. As I said at the start, we generally have a good human rights record and should help our citizens understand it. My third and final point, Sir, is that I hope our Government would seriously consider other major human rights treaties and consider acceding to them in future. Two examples that come to my mind are the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and, secondly, the Convention against Torture. On the first, particularly on eliminating racial discrimination, that is something Singapore should be proud of and should aim to set world standard. And we should consider joining in the international community's effort in upholding these human rights.”
“Sir, I rise to ask the Ministry to consider a review of major human rights treaties and to consider Singapore's accession. Sir, Singapore aims to be a democratic society based on justice and equality. That is part of our pledge. Our judicial system is highly rated. Some Government leaders have from time to time spoken on Asian values and how an Asian approach to human rights might defer from Western values. They have however acknowledged that some human rights are universal, such as the protection against slavery or against genocide. [Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair] 4.20 pm Today, Singapore has acceded to three human rights treaties. They are the Convention for the Elimination/Protection against Genocide, Convention on the Rights of the Child and Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. First, I would like to ask the Minister what the experience has been in undertaking these Conventions. Second, Sir, I would like to encourage the Government to change laws and policies to give these Conventions full effect. We have generally done so whenever we have taken on an international commitment, for example, WTO commitments. We changed our intellectual property laws to keep in touch with the trade-related property regime under WTO. Similarly, Sir, it concerns me that we have not fully acceded to some of the things required by the Convention against Genocide. In particular, Article 5 of the Genocide Convention requires that genocide be made a crime under Singapore law. Clearly, Sir, murder is a crime in Singapore. But that is not the same crime as genocide and it is not clear today whether Singapore courts would enforce the international crime of genocide. I use that simply as an example.”
“This is that as we are pursuing so many different tracks or this variable geometry, I must wonder whether the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has sufficient resources. This keeps people very busy. From the budget, I see that the Ministry is relatively small. And I want the Minister to consider whether more resources will be needed. I think many Singaporeans, at the ordinary level, do not fully appreciate the importance of the work that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs does. I think the crisis has shown us however that relations and security and good comity between nations are important.”
“And I think this is an important step to try and include them with as many people as possible. Other things can be done too when we work to integrate the new ASEAN members. Perhaps Singapore, working as a catalyst, can work with Australia and New Zealand to give assistance to some of these new members. Or as DPM Tony Tan said, in the debate on the Ministry of Defence, that if we want to contribute to peace-keeping training, we should do so with Australia and New Zealand, and other like-minded countries in ASEAN and in North East Asia. My third suggestion relates to the ASEAN+3 process. Clearly, Sir, this is an important process. North East Asia are important partners. But I think creative efforts should be made to link this to Australia and New Zealand. They do not have to become part of the ASEAN+3 process, but they have to be part of what I would call "variable geometry", the way of looking at the whole region into various sub-groups which can overlap at times. I think this is very important because the functionality of our economics and security and our interdependence is linked to Australia and New Zealand. And I also believe that the inclusion of Australia and New Zealand in some of these different groupings would better recognise them as part of the region, and rescue and save us from any hint that ASEAN+3 is basically a form of racism, in that we are all non-white somehow. And I think that this idea of variable geometry is an important one. The Minister, in his earlier remarks, referred to the two track approach. Perhaps we are talking about the same thing. In this, we look at ASEAN, ASEAN+3, APEC, more broadly, but then we come back to a network of other relationships. I would like to close these three suggestions just on a very simple point, Sir.”
“Sir, I rise to speak on relations with Australia and New Zealand. If I may, I would like to place in the context of much of the foregoing conversation. Obviously, our focus is on ASEAN and our immediate neighbours. And as we look across the Asia Pacific, we look more at America and to North East Asia in the ASEAN+3. But I believe that relations with Australia and New Zealand do require emphasis. This is not to say that we have bad ties. In fact, we have good ties with these two countries. But I would encourage the Ministry not to over focus on our problems and forget our friends. We have a multi-Ministerial exchange with Australia, and we have already concluded a bilateral free trade agreement with New Zealand, and both these countries are part of the Five Power Defence Arrangements (FPDA). They are ASEAN dialogue partners too. But, lately, there have been some concerns. There was an attempt for consideration to link the ASEAN Free Trade Agreement to the Australia-New Zealand CER. However, this was rebuffed by some ASEAN members, not Singapore, but we were unable to change the minds of some others. I think that we on our part must do what we can to strengthen and deepen our ties with these two countries. My first suggestion is that we should build on the foundation of good inter-governmental ties, to include ties outside of the government, such as universities, think tanks, youth and sports. We should deepen the interaction between our two societies. Second, beyond deepening, we should also widen the circle. Sir, Singapore sometimes takes a lead in inter-regional discussions, such as the East Asia-Latin America Forum, which the Minister will go to in March. On this occasion, we will include Australia and New Zealand with the so-called East Asian lot.”
“Sir, I rise to speak on entrenching the Elected Presidency. This is an important issue, but as you have instructed, I shall try to keep it very brief. Sir, Singaporeans have voted for the Elected Presidency and more now understand the scheme. Yet, the Elected President is not entrenched in our Constitution. Article 5(2A) would potentially make the Elected President's office powers subject to a public referendum, if it is to be removed or reduced, unless the Elected President agrees. But this provision is still not in force. It has been suspended and at present, Parliament could remove the Elected Presidency by simply amending the Constitution by two-thirds majority, which is quite easily obtainable by the Government. My second point, Sir, is that we have fine-tuned the Elected Presidency in this last year. We have come to agreement on a White Paper on the reserves. We have also now come to an understanding about the Net Investment Income (NII). As all this has been done, it is not clear to me what else would need to be done to complete the fine-tuning of the Elected Presidency. It is now some 10 years and we are now having the second Elected President in that office. My third point is, with the coming of general elections in the next year or so, this would be a timely moment to consider entrenching the Elected Presidency and I hope that the Prime Minister's Office will study the issue fully and consider it before the general elections.”
“Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head F of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100. Sir, having suffered the guillotine yesterday, let me speak in "CNN style" and give three brief points on the Nominated Members of Parliament. The criteria for NMPs are settled by the Constitution, and interpreted by the Special Select Committee of the House that sits to decide who should be NMPs. I believe, Sir, there is one important criterion which is not set out in the Constitution that should be. This important criterion is that NMPs should be non-partisan, that is, not a member of any political party, whether of the PAP or of an opposition party. In contrast, this criterion is especially set out for the Elected President. Sir, my second point is that, I believe, this criterion is actually a very important one. This is the best way to ensure that NMPs do indeed represent a wide diversity of views as the scheme intends. It is also a safeguard against the NMP scheme becoming a backdoor to Parliament, as expressed by some concerned MPs when the scheme was first set up. My third point, Sir, is that I would urge Parliament, and especially the committee, to require that all candidates for NMPship declare whether they are members of political parties. They should weigh very heavily against anyone who is. More when a candidate has been a member of a political party but has since resigned, they should favour those who have resigned some time ago, rather than those who resign on the eve of nomination. There should, in a sense, be a cooling-off period. Those who belong to a political party, Sir, should seek elected office. NMPs should not be a training ground for MPs. They should be non-partisan and seek to represent independent views from diverse sectors.”
“Singapore also organised many conferences and forums, some of them under ARF auspices, such as the Combined Humanitarian Assistance Response Training course which was attended by defence, civil affairs and foreign affairs officials from 17 ARF countries. Then, there were events such as the Millennium Air Power Conference, which was attended by air force chiefs from countries all over the world. Those defence interactions help participating armed forces to learn more about one another, thereby contributing to mutual understanding. In short, MINDEF and the SAF have taken practical steps to promote transparency and confidence-building in the region. The success of such efforts depends on the contributions of all regional countries and not just Singapore alone. And we will continue to do our part at a pace that others are also comfortable with.”
“Indeed, we have organised activities and participated in initiatives by the ARF and various regional countries that help promote dialogue, understanding and cooperation among regional armed forces and defence establishments. Just last year, as Mr Tay has said, we published "Defending Singapore in the 21st Century" which sets out our defence policy in some detail. There are also initiatives under ARF auspices to exchange information among member countries as a form of confidence-building. Besides this, we also take the opportunity to explain our defence policy at various bilateral conferences and seminars. However, transparency is not only about what is published, what we say, but, more importantly, what we do. The most effective way to promote transparency is to encourage more interactions among regional armed forces. MINDEF and the SAF hosted about 120 visits by senior military and defence officials of a large number of foreign countries last year, that is more than two visits a week. So at any one time, somebody is visiting us and we brief them and also find out more about them. Many of these were visits to SAF units and bases by armed forces and service chiefs. We participated in about 80 bilateral and multilateral military exercises, that is about one-and-a-half a week on average. So we are always participating and working with armed forces of different countries all the time. For instance, we hosted Exercise Pacific Reach 2000, a submarine rescue exercise that brought together more than 600 participants and observers and several navies in the Asia-Pacific region.”
“Sir, I rise to encourage the Ministry to increase transparency in defence policies as a confidence-building measure. I do so because some mistakenly believe that defence policies should be shrouded in absolute secrecy. I believe history shows that to the contrary. Conflict often resulted because one side did not know or understand what the other side was doing or intended to do, and therefore the lack of understanding and transparency could lead to conflict. Knowledge, understanding and exchange can therefore help to lessen the chances of conflict. The ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) to which the Minister has referred is now the leading multilateral security dialogue for our region. The ARF has suggested that defence White Papers and security outlooks be published and exchanged. In this way, I hope that we will play our part in developing defence diplomacy and its regional institutions a step further. The Singapore Armed Forces has already taken a commendable step in this direction - a publication last year. More, however, can and should be done. No state secrets of course need to be given away. However, reliable international reports and publications that are openly available, such as Jane's, already give more than the MINDEF publication has done. I would ask MINDEF to participate fully and enthusiastically in these initiatives and to help set the highest possible benchmarks for defence White Papers as well as other confidence-building measures. The Second Minister for Defence (RAdm Teo Chee Hean): Sir, Singapore actively participates in efforts to promote transparency and confidence-building.”
“We participated in peace-keeping efforts in such places as Kuwait, Cambodia and, most recently, in East Timor. In all these places, our people on duty have done us proud. This has enabled us to fly our flags high. Each peace-keeping mission is different and missions vary in form and content. In some cases, UN Forces are constantly caught up in a cross-fire in the front line. In others, they are kept in the rear to maintain law and order. Singapore's participation in international peace-keeping efforts has to date been confined largely to relatively low-risk operations. However, I do envisage that there would be a time when we may be involved in operations that are high-risk in nature. I would like to ask the Minister the following question: what is the experience that we have learnt from our participation in peacekeeping efforts overseas and whether we are ready to participate in high-risk peacekeeping operations should the need arise?”
“This is because of the complex nature of peace operations that often involve reconstruction and administration, as we see in East Timor. Additionally, they can benefit from preventive actions. In these cases, civilian administrators, special envoys, election monitors and others play important roles. Singapore has a good Administrative Service and a large civilian reservist population. It is well-suited therefore to help provide such participants from the civilian side for UN peace operations. Sir, there would always be a limit as to how much we can help but I hope in terms of speed, preparation and training and civilian integration, we can help make a quality contribution to UN efforts. Mr Sin Boon Ann: I rise to share the similar concerns of my colleagues, Mr Hawazi Daipi and Mr Simon Tay. Singapore became a non-permanent member of the United Nations Security Council in October last year for a three-year term. As a non-permanent member of the Council, Singapore shoulders the expectations of one who occupies the centre stage in the international scene. Singapore is therefore expected to conduct itself in a manner that befits itself as a member of the Council. One such expectation, whether rightly or wrongly perceived, is that Singapore should also play a bigger role in peace-keeping. This expectation is in keeping with the increasing numbers of peacekeeping missions that the United Nations has been undertaking. In the last ten years, the United Nations has never been busier. From Balkans to Cambodia and East Timor, UN forces have been asked to monitor and maintain the fragile peace that was brokered under its auspices. In this regard, Singapore has played its part as a member of the international community in contributing to the peace-keeping efforts of the UN.”
“I rise on the same point on Singapore's participation in UN peace operations. We have participated in a number of these operations including those in East Timor and, where we have served, our personnel have received high marks for their preparation and professionalism. On Singapore's part, those who have served do us proud and also gained valuable experience. I believe that we should build on the experiences to do more for UN peace operations. We cannot contribute much in absolute numbers compared to larger armies like those in India and Pakistan. I believe, however, we could add values in three ways and I encourage the Minister to consider these. First, it is the speed of our response. The United Nations sometimes experiences long delays in getting firm commitments from countries and further delays in getting people to the ground. Singapore can be a small but rapid and effective force in peace-keeping. Second, in our training. We should work with others to share in training military, police and other uniformed personnel for UN peace operations. Africa has a regional institute for training in peace-keeping. Asians should consider starting one too. Singapore's ASEAN neighbours, like Malaysia, the Philippines and Thailand, have also served in UN peace operations. We should train together with them and others still further away, like Australia, New Zealand and Japan. Sir, I want to emphasise here that I am not talking about military exercises but training and exercises for peace-keeping. The third point I would like the Minister to consider is in our ability to integrate civilian participation. In addition to uniformed personnel, UN peace operations increasingly require civilian participants.”
“I, too, was disturbed by reactions by our neighbours regarding the possibility of a backdoor, but my understanding is that we will negotiate rules of origin. In the ASEAN Free Trade Agreement (AFTA), it is 40% of local manufacture. In this sense, I would ask the Minister to confirm that this is the agreed front door. There is no backdoor entrance in this sense, to AFTA. We should not let any possible envy slow us down, Sir. But we should pause to help clear up any genuine doubts or misunderstandings and, if our neighbours need our help, we should increase our assistance to them, to help them adjust to AFTA and to the WTO. For those who are not members, such as Vietnam, we should encourage them to understand and cooperate with them, to help them prepare for WTO accession. In this sense, Sir, I am asking our policy to be one of training and dialogue, not just among governments, but also the academics and think-tanks, so that our neighbours can take part with us in moving the region and, indeed, the world, forward for more free trade.”
“Sir, I rise to talk about the same issue - the bilateral free trade initiatives taken by Singapore - and as to how we should look at the picture in toto and encourage our neighbours to do so. I would encourage the Minister to consistently promote the idea that these bilateral free trade initiatives really are a response to the stall in the World Trade Organisation negotiations, and a kind of competitive reinsurance against the free trade initiatives happening in the Americas and in Europe. Clearly, there have been limits to what the ASEAN Free Trade Area has done, and these have not been on Singapore's part, but those of our neighbours. But our goal must be to reassure our neighbours and bring them along, and, in this sense, I would actually disagree with the hon. Member, Mr Leong Horn Kee, that we should not be leapfrogging the region. Rather, we might want to bring the region along with us; we are not leaving any one behind. Sir, in this sense, I am encouraging the Minister's policy to be one of reconfirming our priority to the multilateral framework, even as we pursue our bilateral initiatives. We should help our neighbours to understand how we see these connections, the links, from the bilateral level to the regional level, to the international level, and, therefore, pay due attention to both the levels below and above us. In this sense, I would like to ask the Minister to reassure this House and our neighbours that we would be WTO-consistent in our approach, paying heed to Article 24 of the GATT, and that we will try to be inventive in seeking out new areas which WTO, as yet, does not encompass, and that we will also try to egg on a faster pace of liberalisation, to build up momentum for the WTO round.”
“Many were hit by the crisis and they will be hit by future ones, as they go out again to the region and the wider world. Given this, I would ask the Government to consider underwriting part of that risk. Government should allow companies that go out to set off overseas losses, if any, against Singapore-based profits. This, I understand, is already allowed in some cases where there is a double taxation agreement, but not in all countries and, certainly, not enough of them for Singapore to go global and truly regional. If certain conditions set in to ensure the validity of these losses, the principle should be carried out to more overseas ventures in new countries and perhaps these can be linked to the bilateral trade and economic agreements that we are negotiating. Sir, we are entering a world of greater risk and diversity. The Government's role is no longer to drive the engine, fuel the tanks as well as steer the ship. It is more a matter now of stewardship and of empowering others to take the lead. The Government is wise in saying we can no longer ensure that we pick all the right winners. The question now is how we enable our people, our SMEs, our private sector and how we enable and create an environment that can support change, their striving and their thriving.”
“After this sitting, we will have a large debate about the deregulation of power and, of course, that, until very recently, was thought to be a Government natural monopoly. Markets are fine things, but markets need to be designed. Markets depend on free and fair competition with sufficient players. Unless Government ensures that markets are open and that the thresholds to entry are not too high and do not block out SMEs, we will create not markets that are free and fair but, unwittingly, we may create cartels. The stickiness of fuel prices in the present climate is an example of this that consumers feel every day. There is supposed to be fair competition in this area but we have trouble if we try to actually find fair prices to reflect the lessening of fuel prices world wide. Government, as a major shareholder, should rein in GLCs who compete in areas where SMEs and start-ups are coming up. These GLCs should stay within their key focus areas, assuming they have thought about these areas, and they should think long term and big. One additional point, Sir, this time about larger companies. The Minister's Budget Statement has emphasised the growing diversification of the Singapore market. In terms of its markets and products, the USA and disk drives remain important to Singapore, but now less so in proportion to other markets and other products. Such diversification is very much needed. Europe, including Eastern Europe, Latin America and Asia, especially Korea and Japan, will be important to emphasise on the way ahead. The way ahead will be paved by Government, as we negotiate bilateral trade and other economic treaties, but the risks remain, and the risks will remain for the private sector to take. Companies that go out will have to take these risks.”
“Secondly, beyond the individual, I join the call of many MPs that Government can and should do more to help small and medium enterprises. Government agencies that deal with SMEs should be strengthened and, in some ways, be retooled. Many of the Government agencies, such as the Economic Development Board, are very used to working with multi-national corporations and big companies. They are good at it, but this is what they are used to and there is a temptation to measure their success by the number of big deals they do with even bigger figures. It must be, however, more difficult and every bit as important to help smaller companies even if the figures are not so impressive. In this, specifically, I want to mention the super business Chamber that the Government is promoting. I believe that when this is set up, this must have a due place for SMEs and local non-Government linked companies. Otherwise, this super Chamber will risk simply reinforcing some of the concerns that people have about SMEs and private businesses in Singapore. This leads me to my third point, Sir. The perception continues that multi-nationals and GLCs unfairly crowd out Singapore businesses. These perceptions should be addressed if untrue, as the Minister for Trade and Industry has said in a recent sitting of Parliament. If there is any element of truth in some sectors or in particular cases, this should be redressed. We have to ensure a playing field for small and medium enterprises that is level and fair and that, in some ways, understands their limitations and accepts their potential as their entry point. This is also important because we are increasingly moving away from Government regulation to Government's dependence on markets.”