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 4 of 11.
“May I ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary whether the Government will take the lead in this area and set the example by trying to make sure that public buildings continually become more efficient in use of energy. Assoc. Prof. Koo Tsai Kee: Mr Speaker, Sir, this is indeed one of the recommendations of the report published in May. The public sector is a large sector, and we intend to use the public sector as the leading sector to promote energy efficiency. But having said that, most of the public buildings are quite new and they are really very energy-efficient. So the scope for improvement may be limited. But, nonetheless, we are attempting for a start to band the energy efficiency of all the bigger public buildings. The BCA has compiled an initial list and it would be circulated internally to all the various statutory boards and Ministries. So within the Ministries, they will know which building is more efficient, which is less efficient vis-a-vis the other Ministry's buildings, and this will be compiled on the basis of floor area, usage hours, things like that.”
“I bear in mind what the Senior Minister of State has said, that some parents are well-meaning but may not actually provide well-thought out, well-delivered programmes, not on par with what our schools deliver. But I do think that under this category of home schooling, consideration must be given to options such as Montissori and what is called the Steiner or Waldorf Education schools. These are already in existence in Singapore, especially the Montissori for pre-school. But as the Senior Minister of State well knows, in other countries these are offered for school years. I think this is recognised in many countries and it is something that should be considered seriously in Singapore. The Minister for Education had earlier refused to agree on Compulsory Education but the Government has now reconsidered. Some thought that madrasahs and other religious or particular types of schools would not be exempt from Compulsory Education. But this has not been the case. Again, the Ministry, as guided by the Committee, has listened and allowed diversity. In so doing, it has now created a very broad discretion for the Ministry and the Director-General to exempt or to decide on whether to prosecute in some cases. I ask that discretion be exercised within the principles of valuing diversity in accordance with the Constitution and the best interest of our children.”
“This upholds Article 15 of the Constitution which promises us freedom of religion, Article 152(2), which, as I said, recognizes the indigenous position of the Malays and their religion. While I recognise and welcome the Government's attitude to diversity, I would also ask the Malay community to take that step forward. That is to ask them to recognise not only the leeway given to them to have their religious instruction, but also the responsibility they have to the wider community and to their own children. In many cases, in many countries, where they have tried a separate schooling system, this school system has never become equal. Separate and equal is a principle that has failed too often times. I would then ask them, as an outsider, to seek a balance and I am glad to see that most polls show Malays in Singapore among the most patriotic, most Singaporean segment of the people. Therefore, I have the confidence that they will find this balance. In helping madrasahs meet these benchmarks, there has already been talk that Government will support the madrasahs. There is obviously some need for people to support the community project even from outside that community. But I do want to express a concern about Article 16 of the Constitution. This sets limits to using Government funds for educational institutions that discriminate based on religion. I hope that no unconstitutional and unrealistic expectations are placed on Government coffers to support basically a community project. Let me move on to my last point. This is in regard to home schooling which is to be allowed in principle, according to the report. Again, as I said, this is welcome because it has a sense of diversity based on educational values.”
“We have some way of tracking them at birth. Perhaps some may enrol in pre-school, but perhaps not all. Then we have child doctors who can help track children. But we are talking about some significant numbers, although a very small percentage, who just simply do not register in our system. Though Singapore is often called the "nanny state", we simply do not have a fool-proof net. No one has. That is something we should bear in mind when we talk about compulsion. The Director-General in that sense will need more resources. Let me move on to my second point. This is that the schools and the criteria for allowing exceptions are not in the Bill before us. Much would therefore depend on the discretion of the Ministry and of the Director-General to be appointed. More guidance and principles within the Bill perhaps would have been preferable. I certainly would argue that we have to read in part of the Constitution such as Article 152(2), which recognises the special rights of the Malay-Muslims as the indigenous people of Singapore. I would also urge that the rights of the Child Convention should be read into the criteria for this is the relevant Convention, an international UN Convention, that Singapore has signed. My third point relates to the Government's allowance of diversity. Let me first touch on the point of madrasahs. There was some initial fear that the Government would close down the madrasahs. I am very glad to see that the Government now would allow them to continue with certain provisions and certain benchmarks to be set. In a sense, I am welcoming Government's allowance for other forms of education and the recognition of diversity as an important part of Singapore.”
“Again, it is very important to emphasise how many people already are in the system voluntarily and therefore we are trying to deal with actually a very small number and targeted means may be very necessary to reach these people. When this issue was first raised in the House, I expressed an initial scepticism. Although I am a lawyer, I do not really believe that something really becomes so much better when it is made compulsory by law. It is part of my instinct that it is sometimes wrong that whenever we think something is important but often unpopular we think make it compulsory is the solution. It is like the debate we had about learning literature or history. Making it available, interesting, relevant and appealing, is even more important. While we take the step today to make primary school education entry compulsory, that is the way of making sure that after six years of Compulsory Education, as recommended by the Committee, students can and will want to go on further and their parents will want to support them to go on further. Once they are in the system, this attitude plus counselling and encouragement, can be as effective as legal compulsion. If we do not take this approach, and we just rely on the bare law, we are doing the wrong thing. We may intend to be beneficial and liberal in our aims, but we end up being dictators in our means. I still believe that making it illegal is not enough. Parents need to be informed, tracked and counselled and the cause of the problem, Government and civil society groups should help address those problems. I am glad for the assurance just given by the Senior Minister of State in this regard. I would like some more clarification about how in the first place do we find all the children and all their parents.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am not quite sure what I can add after so many people have spoken and the clarifications by the Senior Minister of State. But I think we all have a great belief in education and this is why so many of us have spoken today. Let me try not to repeat what has been said before and let me try to add what I can. I think our belief in education stems from the fact that we believe that whatever our beginnings, we can improve ourselves and be the best that we can be. Secondly, when we face social problems, we often look to education to address the root problems. How do we promote education in our society? We basically have a system of centralised system of education. This compares to other countries that emphasise more private, family and community-based education. Instead, our state provides the vast majority of education for most people. There is, of course, in any case of state provision, a danger of having one-size fits all. But with the various fine-tunings to our system, we are improving our system, creating a centralised system, but one with enough variety, one with the participation of community and one that emphasises not just the KBE, of raw knowledge and thinking skills, but also citizenship, an attribute of being part of being Singapore. In that sense, despite the many points that have been raised today, this debate reveals that there is actually quite a broad consensus that our education system is on the right track and that we are trying to do what is best for the children and the best in the interest of the child. We then come to this particular question of making this relatively good system compulsory for all.”
“Sir, may I ask the Minister of State if, in that sense, the policy has not changed, because Mr Chiam's question here, as posed, the event is organised by his party. Am I correct, therefore, that if this question is still posed today, he will not be allowed? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: As I have said, he has to make an application. It is not for the Ministry to decide. Police will look at the application and see whether or not the considerations in the past that applied will still apply in the context of a big political event. Take Mr Chiam, for example, who held his National Day Dinner in Potong Pasir which he had done in September, he made the application in July. I understand that it was a very big function and outsiders also came. So members of the SPP would also come. The Police would look at it and see whether it is indeed a local community event that falls within the ambit of the relaxation. It is not a consideration that we will make, but Police will make that in the light of why such events were not allowed in the past and why the rule is being relaxed now.”
“I asked whether it makes a difference if an event is organised by a political party. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Again, the context is that it must be a community event, a local event, meant for the residents. I know that some MPs, for example, organise events on the ground through the town council. For the town council, the rule applies and the MP has to make an application. In the past, even for Opposition town councils, speeches have been allowed. If Mr Low Thia Khiang organises an event, for example, and I think he has organised many events in his constituency under the Hougang Constituency Committee, we all know that Mr Low Thia Khiang is behind it. If it is an MP who organises the event for his residents, Police will look at what is the context of the event. The context is important, because when the context is a local community event, the fears of the Police in the past concerning a political rally where potential law and order problems may arise, because disaffection from the crowd may arise, all these considerations are absent.”
“Sir, may I clarify two points? Firstly, if the event is organised by a political party rather than a constituency, does it mean that it will not be allowed? Secondly, is there any duty on the organising people to ensure that constituents from neighbouring constituencies do not come to the event? Obviously, in the second case, it is going to be very difficult to check people if it is a fun fair or an event. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, the intention, as I have said just now, is that it is a local community event, for example, a block party where residents will come down. When you organise the event, your target audience will be residents in the block. And I do know, so also those of us who know the ground, that people from other constituencies would not come and attend such a function. That is my answer to the second question. What is the first question?”
“Sir, the plan to consider giving more data and indicators for the SMEs is welcomed. Can we expect when this will be?”
“Two questions for the Minister. The first is that the Minister has explained the promise that was given of a duopoly to StarHub and the fact that StarHub, based on this, has committed to certain investments. But how does the logic apply to SingTel, given that SingTel was already first a monopoly, and has already made those investments? The second question is more general, regarding duopolies. The Government has also recently announced plans to basically create a duopoly of competition for the newspaper media and television media. Looking forward, is there a danger that we have to liberalise this sector more quickly and we end up in another position where we end up paying compensation?”
“That, in some ways, will be more comfortable for me and some Singaporeans, that Ministers should receive a good salary, one that puts him above the temptations of corruption, one that allows him to worry about the affairs of state without worrying about their own pockets, but perhaps one that is pegged as a high multiple of the median. This is more comfortable because this would actually create the linkage between their performance in bringing everyone up and not allowing just the few top people to fly ahead of everyone else. If the Government will not consider this for the base salary of the top political leadership, I urge them to consider it for the bonuses. As proposed, the bonuses are pegged to GDP and GDP, as we know, is too raw, too global, a figure. We need to target the bottom. We need to target the median. We need political leaders who constantly emphasise their links in both pocket, in compassion, and where they stand with these people at the bottom and middle of Singapore.”
“Another analogy is like doctors. We respect that doctors must earn a good living. In Singapore, they do. But if your doctor tells you that he is interested in your fees and not your health, you know you are in trouble. You want to change your doctor. In fact, the profession I am from, lawyers, is the reverse of this joke. Everyone thinks that lawyers are in for the money, which is why there are all these jokes about lawyers and sharks, paying each other mutual professional respect. Sir, the political dimension should be recognised and handled, not just with appeals to logic but with due recognition for the values of society, of compassion, equity, if not, the sterile hand of equality. If other governments pay too low, or are corrupt, they provide us with very easy targets to say that what we are doing is exactly correct. It is true that others do not have the right approach. If we look at the US, I believe the salary of the President has not been adjusted for about 17 or so years. That is clearly wrong. But we do not need to jump so fast to the reverse. They need not be adjusted automatically every year based on a very small number of top performers when the world is globalising and differences are accelerating. We need to have good Government. We need to have competent bureaucracy. A part of that is to have very strong links to the median of people and even the bottom of people. I would therefore urge the Government to consider at least one proposal. This is that the benchmark should no longer be with those at the very top, whether it is 24 or 48, but aimed to be with the median. In many statistics, one can analyse companies based on how much the CEO is paid as compared to the bottom worker. Sometimes it is a multiple of 20, 30, 40 or more.”
“Five years ago when we argued the principle of benchmarking salaries, we had the assumption that the whole economy was going to go up, that everyone would benefit from good Government and what Singapore will deliver for them. When we talked about this again in the crisis years, we all felt affected. Of course, looking back now, we know that those in the very top still prospered. But the general sentiment was that we were in it together as one nation, one society. In the context today, as emphasised by many speakers, globalisation will actually increase the differences between the top, the bottom, the top and the middle, and even a handful of the very top, from the next few in the 1%. This new context brings out not just the market forces which everyone has emphasised, but the question the Prime Minister and the Senior Minister put to us: what do we do as a society? Can we keep diverging as a society? The Senior Minister who spoke before me said no. We can hope there must be some balancing point. He pointed to global forces which then speak out against this continuing divergence. In this context, we have to ask ourselves whether this new policy will help or hurt us. This is why the public and this House have been engaged in debate about the true level of the bottom 10% in Singapore, whether it is $133 per month or $530 per month, if we take out the jobless people. Are those still too low? We have, in this context, to ask ourselves whether this new formula is really going to continue to help bind the society together in a deeper way. I emphasise "deeper" because the forces of globalisation are likely to get stronger. I think that many people are concerned that linking the private sector market is imperfect. We are told that Ministers are not priests. Fair enough.”
“He did well serving as Deputy Secretary at the Ministry of Trade and Industry, going through the civil service training, but now has recently left. He has got better pay. But from what I read again, it is not merely the pay that drives his departure. Without over focusing on this one individual, this case raises certain questions. Why is it, despite increasing our pay, the Government still faces difficulty in recruiting people to the top of the civil service and of retaining them thereafter? The same questions apply in that sense to the political leadership because we have not, despite these pay revisions, recruited very widely from the private sector. The new members of Cabinet have come much more from traditional sources of the civil service and statutory bodies and the ranks of the scholars. Let me then turn to the last point and the most controversial. I think it is understood that Singaporeans want a Government of good quality. But quality is not all. Cost is also a question of sensitivity and some degree of subjectivity. The very fact that we are in this House debating how the formula should be re-worked recognises this. The very fact that for the two years of the crisis there was a freeze recognises the sensitivity. So, are the changes that are being suggested enough? In some ways, I am for the changes because they actually try to make it a fairer system, 48 people rather than 24, the median rather than the average. But is that enough of a change? Again, I have to ask the question: what is the mischief? I think we are arguing today in a new context.”
“The second set of questions I have for the Deputy Prime Minister relates to what are the reasons that civil servants cite for leaving, assuming they have this kind of exit interview that asks such questions. I ask this because Deputy Prime Minister Lee's statement itself recognises that pay alone will not keep people in their jobs. The prospects of the new economy are not just financial, but the sense of pioneering, adventure and ownership. If so, then raising pay by itself may not be the right answer. Indeed, if we over argue this and over emphasise this, we may be misleading ourselves. There can be pay differences that do not lead to turnover or there can be high rates of turnover even if there is good pay. Other factors clearly come into play - factors that money itself cannot address. I believe there are some people who have good reasons to want to stay in the civil service to contribute, even if their pay, whilst reasonably good, is not the best in the market. I hope there are such people. In this sense, I actually welcome DPM's other point of his statement about the public sector leadership in allowing more mobility, this flow of people, by requiring fixed tenure of appointments rather than making Permanent Secretaries too permanent. This change in permanence is a good one. But I will put it to Members that in a sense it actually encourages turnover, perhaps of a healthy type. Nevertheless, it is something we need to consider. I move to think about these issues because of some recent publicity regarding a particular civil servant, Dr Finian Tan. From what I read in the papers, Dr Finian Tan was one of the very few, if not the only private sector top performer, to respond to the pay increases and the call of Government to join in the civil service leadership.”
“In that sense, I am urging that the Government take a view of acceptable levels of turnover and monitor trends against this before acting. This is necessary for the bulk of the civil service, but it is especially true for the elite Administrative Service. And with that, let me turn to my second point of the measures concerning this elite. What I am saying is that by looking at turnover, we will avoid the possibility of over reacting, because one or two elite civil servants leave. Allow me to cite some figures published in the Straits Times on Thursday, 29th June, in the article "Fall in Number of People who Quit Jobs". The report cites research by the Manpower Research and Statistics Department. It says that the rate of labour turnover has, in fact, declined in Singapore, following from 4.4% in 1990 to 2.1% in 1998, and then 2.2% last year. Of course, these last two were bad years, and people tend not to move in bad years. In that sense, I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister, in moving these large financial measures to catch up, what is the turnover for the civil service as a whole, and key sections of the civil service. Why are we needing to take care of the turnover problem? Is there a problem? The report I cite also mentions that professionals, managers and others at the higher end of the workforce tend, in fact, to have the lowest resignation rate - 1.6%. In putting these questions to the Government, I also want to emphasise that there is the question of whether there is some sort of pent-up departure, in the sense that people have not left as normal in the last two years. There has been under reporting - 2.1%-2.2% - and therefore there will be a surge quite naturally this year, and then we may again level off.”
“What is the mischief that we are seeking to avoid? Let me begin with the pay increase for the majority of civil servants, which has been less controversial. But the pay increase is nevertheless substantial. In moving it, Deputy Prime Minister Lee has assured the House that the Government is trying to follow the market, but not lead it. I understand that some people in the private sector have some reservations. They think that the wage hikes will undermine some of the cost-cutting measures we took to enhance Singapore's competitiveness last year and, secondly, that they may potentially spark a bidding war for talent. In this context, I would ask the Deputy Prime Minister to address these concerns. Sir, I would like to suggest a new mechanism. In future, when Government decides to go well beyond what the NWC recommends, as in this case, these further adjustments should also be the subject of some consultation with the private sector. In that sense, it is NWC plus. The NWC tripartite system is a model that has served for the basic wage increases, and I do not see why it should not be reasonably successful in negotiating even these further efforts to catch up with the market. Because the Government, put together, is Singapore's largest employer, and what it does, does matter to the private sector. In saying this, I want to emphasise that I do believe that some turnover in the civil service is not a bad thing. There is no harm in having some percentage of people transfer from the public sector to the private sector and, in this way, learn how these two different entities work and perhaps link them better. There is a certain dynamism in this, to create better links and understanding between the sectors.”
“Of course, everyone will agree that a good living wage, and reward are necessary for political leadership. But very few people in this House have spoken of the reward of other less tangible things. When the Senior Minister was speaking on the founding generation, he made it very clear that they were special, and that events of history had brought them together. He also made it very clear that they were human enough to have some tinge of envy at the present salaries. But I would say to them also that because they were participants in that great history, they have and deserve our respect in a very deep way, and that is what I mean by the reward of less tangible things, of being able to say to their children that "I did this for you and your generation, and your children's generation." Sir, what I am concerned about in bringing this issue up, particularly the rewards for the politicians, is of the unintended consequences of debating this case in a very public, rigorous way. We are in danger of over arguing the case, I believe, that if we do not agree to these salary revisions, then everything we do will fail. I think that is a dangerous argument. And, therefore, I was glad to hear earlier today Prime Minister Goh's assurance of the other five Cs, not the typical 5 Cs of society, of the market place, but these other 5 Cs - qualities such as character and compassion - that he spoke so well about. I want to acknowledge therefore the good that our Government has done and the need for future good government. But I want to question what are the factors that made it good - only money or is there something more? In fact, this recognition of a good government is one of my starting points, because I think one of the questions that has not been asked so far is a very basic one.”
“Thank you, Sir, for allowing me to join in the debate. I am not sure what I can contribute after all that has been said, especially after the last speaker. Let me start by saying that Nominated Members of Parliament such as myself do not enjoy the same allowances as the elected MPs, as reflected in Annex 3 circulated by DPM Lee. I say this not to begrudge them or to claim any moral high ground. I only say that so that all my friends would not try to claim lunch from me next week! The DPM's statement covers three main issues - new approaches for civil service leadership, the civil service salaries as a whole and, third, and most controversially, the salary increases for senior civil servants and Government appointments. These are linked but quite different. I will make just some short points on the first and second issues before moving to the third and more controversial. I would say that this is a very difficult debate to join, in terms of how it is structured. On one hand, clearly in this House, we have emphasised the market and logic. The emphasis has been on the need for good government, ie, this Government which is trusted and has done well. And it is this Government that is asking the public to believe in the steps that it is taking. What do we have, on the other hand? As characterised in this House, we seem to have the politics of envy and emotion, and the danger of bad and corrupt government. My argument is that there is, on this other hand, something more than this, and that we may need to consider. The words "equity", "idealisim" and "moral leadership" have been far less prevalent in this debate in this House. I think all of us would say that maybe this is accepted, understood, as part of the background, but I think they bear re-emphasis.”
“The Minister has spoken of targeting particular assistance to those without jobs right at the bottom. I tend to agree with that. May I ask the Minister how targetted are we right now? Can I assume that each of the jobless in the lowest bottom 10% actually has an individual file with the Ministry or are they actually relatively faceless people? The second and broader question is that I take the Minister's explanation of globalisation and our current policies of many-helping-hands, etc, to basically say nothing needs to be done at present. What is the trigger point of either the bottom 10% or the gini coefficient that will make this Government move? BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Sir, I do not think it is wise for us to open a file on every Singaporean who is unemployed in Singapore. If he needs help, it is for him to ask for help and a file would be opened. But for us to open a file in advance of his asking for help will lead to all kinds of unnecessary problems and it is bad public policy. Mr Tay is wrong to say that our position is that nothing needs to be done. The whole point of my answer earlier was that a lot of things are already being done and our policies are constantly being reviewed to make sure that the problems are attended to.”
“I am not sure that the Minister has answered my question about the fact that I have got a document in front of me without a photograph. But that document does not actually belong to that person who is in front of me. In other words, there is a permit issued in a certain name, but the actual person in front of me is not really that person.”
“A follow-up question, Sir. Even though I may call up SIR and get the assurance that there is such a work permit, there is another step to see that the person I am renting to is actually the person named in the document. Can I have the assurance of the Minister that if these circumstances prevail, the landlord would not be prosecuted? Secondly, on a similar vein, the problem of the procedure of letting landlords know whether they are safe is a real one. If we are not careful, landlords can be very cautious about even renting premises to legal immigrants and surely that will send the wrong signal in our search for foreign talent in Singapore.”
“I will take up the point about duty. May I ask the Minister whether he feels that the landlords and employers are in the same category because it seems to me that a person who may be a landlord for his home is not in the business of renting out his house. There may be differences in education, background, knowledge and language abilities. The documents which the Minister referred to may many a time be in English, which are harder to understand for some people from foreign countries. Should there not therefore be a difference in the kind of duty we impose as between an employer whose business is to have employees and the landlord whose business may be otherwise? Secondly, may I get the Minister's assurance that where a landlord has seen the original documents, he will not face prosecution where these documents are actually faked because there are very good fakes running around. And, thirdly, may I ask the Minister whether he will consider some sort of administrative procedure to give assurance, a safe harbour to landlords, such as, for example, whether the landlords and the tenants could go down with the proper documents to a neighbourhood police post and have the police witness the process of verification?”
“Even if they cover part of the cost of the Giro transfer - every Giro transfer costs money - DBS told me that it costs about 40 cents to make a salary transaction and more than that to make a water or electricity transaction. Even if they do that, there is still the cost of maintaining an account, of providing the ATM service for the salary earner to withdraw the money, of printing the statements, calculating the statements and mailing the statements. That alone costs 50 cents a month. So there are basic costs which cannot be avoided. The third point as to whether this would lead to a situation where some people will not be able to afford bank accounts at all, as I have explained, because of Singapore's unique circumstances, that is not likely to happen and nearly everybody will be able to afford a bank account. It is not unaffordable. If there is a very small minority who really has a problem, then we can treat it in the same way as we treat assistance from the CDCs or the MCDS's public assistance cases to subvent those target groups, rather in general to say, "Since there are a few people who cannot afford it, I make it free for everybody." I think that is a wrong approach. There are a lot of people who are quite emotionally enraged or upset, perhaps out of sympathy, but certainly not because they themselves cannot afford it. They can afford, but they feel that somebody else cannot. If there is a small group which cannot pay, we look after that small group. Let us not all get agitated and particularly let us not get agitated to the extent of thinking that most people cannot pay, because that is not true.”
“Sir, may I ask the DPM about his point on the gain of the society as a whole and who pays? We focus so far on the idea that either DBS absorbs the cost or the bank account holders do. But there seems to me to be a benefit to the whole society in having these accounts. Should not serious consideration be given to support Giro schemes by having Government target subsidies for low income people who cannot afford it? My second question is: given that employers and people who take out money from accounts also benefit by having Giro schemes, such as telecommunications, PUB bills, etc, should not they contribute to the cost of maintaining low accounts? Thirdly, is it the Government's policy to avoid a sector of population not having bank accounts which could be a fallout of this? BG Lee Hsien Loong: First of all, the question that somebody must pay, why should it not be the Government? If it is desirable, yes, we want to have a charge and we also want to have cash-free payments. Is it affordable for most of the population? Candidly, yes. $2 is not going to bust you. Is it necessary for the Government to subsidise in the same way as it subsidises education or basic healthcare? Is it different from water or electricity or rubbish collection? I would say no, it is not different from water, electricity or rubbish collection. That is your first point. On your second point that employers should pay, I fully agree. Whether it is Singapore Telecom or PUB, if they are using the Giro services, they benefit, then they should cover the cost rather the banks covering the cost. I understand that this has not been the practice in the past but it will have to be the practice in the future.”
“Sir, may I ask the Minister of State about the timing of the increases? He mentioned that the last review was in 1997 before the crisis started. Given that the crisis started in 1999 and the crisis seems to be over, do these increases signal that public transport as a whole is expected to go up as the economy goes up?”
“And if cats are tagged with proper information about who they belong to, who to contact, they can still be rounded up and taken off and eventually gassed, without reference back to the owner who is the person identified on the tag. I think that this might show a little too much efficiency in trying to keep the streets free of stray animals. While I agree with the goal, our efforts should be conducted quite humanely. There should be reference back to the owners when cats are taken off the street. After all, while animals and pets may seem a small thing to us, for many people they are a source of very domestic pleasure of having these animals in their households. This particularly, Sir, is when the cats have been sterilised and tagged and I think they pose very little risk of creating a large and disproportionate stray population. When we make a Government department to a statutory body, we often wish to give it more greater flexibility. In many cases, profit making or cost recovery is also emphasised, with the promotion of commercial aspects. There is nothing wrong with this. But in the case of the AVA, they will have to deal with safety and public health, what we eat, how we connect to the land, and how we relate to animals and pets. These are aspects of humanity that I hope would be observed and strengthened in the new entity.”
“I think, in this sense, it fits more into our strategy of protecting the environment while seeking economic gain. Reliable certification is also very hard to ensure, and here Singapore's reputation of being a hard-task master of certificates you can rely on, will come into play. This would allow a balance against this promotion of GM foods. When there is uncertainty, as it is now, the urge should be to diversify our approaches. It is observable that America while it is, on the one hand, promoting genetically modified food, it is also setting standards for organic food certification. The third suggestion I have to make is that in deciding what to do with some agricultural land, we should revisit the idea of encouraging some level of citizen farming. Systems of allotment in other cities and countries are quite common. And I think it may be important to help city dwellers relax and connect to the land, and this has a value, in addition to dollars for Singapore. My last point, Sir, is on animal control and welfare, which is part of the PPD's mission. It is often said that a mark of a civilised life is not only how we treat our fellow citizens but how we treat our pets. There have been recent reports of animal abandonment and abuse in Singapore. This has been brought to court and cases have led to a very strong signal that animal abuse in Singapore would not be tolerated. Control of stray population of animals is, of course, an important goal that PPD has been pursuing. However, the question is how we try to achieve that goal and how we balance this with allowing ownership and responsibility. In this regard, I understand that the PPD's existing policies are quite unfavourable to household cats. For example, compared to dogs, cats cannot be licensed.”
“Due precaution and prudence in importing and exporting food is really primary to Singapore's health and safety record, and the fact that other parts of our industries are developing life sciences should not obscure this first and primary concern. The second point I wish to make is that I have noticed in the press and from the statement of Mr Lew Syn Pau, Member of Parliament for Tanglin-Kreta Ayer, before this, that PPD might be taking initiatives to increase agro-technology. This is with the aim of intensifying farming. This may possibly involve the high level use of chemicals. The aim is to supply them to our own local market. If we want to compete in this local market, I would imagine that this would be at fairly low prices, that is, Singapore would try to use technology rather than land space, but to enable it to sell fairly low price goods that would compete with others in the region. So we can produce some of its own products. I think it is right to secure our food sources. But I am not sure it is right to take this approach of high technology and, possibly, high chemicals. After all, we are a very small and densely populated country. Our water sources are very important. For this reason, we should always be very careful in protecting our environment. We should also try, on the other hand, to produce higher value-added goods, rather than to try and match Indonesia, Malaysia or Thailand for low price market value. Accordingly, my suggestion is that the AVA should consider encouraging and promoting organic food production rather than agro-technology. Organic food production involves no chemicals and therefore no danger to the environment. It is also, by and large, higher value-added. Organic vegetables fetch relatively high prices.”
“The Biosafety Protocol of the Convention of Biological Diversity has been passed in Cartagena after various discussions in Montreal and elsewhere. And this sets up an international framework with very important principles for us. One of the principles was of advance informed agreement. That is to say, not that you ban the import but simply that you are told what it is that you may be importing. The second principle is something called the precautionary principle. I do not want to go into all the details of this concept after so many days of debate in this House, but basically this puts the onus on safety. It asks us to act prudently rather than to wait for the last bit of scientific evidence to be in place. This is important because, as I have said, it would be in the interest of certain countries to pooh-pooh questions of safety and security. It is a bit like, again, the mad cow disease. In that case, the British scientists were the last to see any problem. Similarly, in the Nipah virus, the problem was probably detected for some time or observable for some time before authorities in that country finally acted. So it is important to note that international standards are coming to place which suggest a certain level of prudence. This, I should tell the Minister, is congruent with our existing trade rules. We want to observe international trade regime. It is therefore important to note that the WTO agreement on sanitary and phyto-sanitary standards does allow a country to take provisional measures, if there are possible dangers to public health. So I respect the Government's position that we should wait for scientists to set heart on this point, but I would urge prudence, as has befitted the PPD's past, and I hope the AVA's future.”
“I also believe the Ministry of the Environment will be better plugged into the international community and steps in the direction of international standards of environment and health. This brings me to my next point. And this is that the international community is moving quite rapidly in certain areas. One of them is the question of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) or GM foods. This has been brought up several times in the debate in the Committee of Supply, and I would not actually repeat the arguments already made. A number of PAP Backbenchers have called for labelling. I think the Government's response can be summed up as being, "we should not panic the public and we will however follow international standards." And I applaud this approach. Certainly, Singapore, as a country that does not produce our own food, should not create a stampede mentality that suspects that perhaps everything is tainted. That is not our intention. And certainly, it is good to reassure ourselves that we will follow, as we have before, the highest possible international standards. There is uncertainty at present, and therefore there is no need to actually move. And there is also the possibility of protectionism. Countries that develop GMOs, like the USA, have tended to be quite reluctant to see labelling or other measures. Countries that do not produce these GMOs take reverse position. The dispute between the US and the European Union over the Bee-hormone case is typical of this; that your science follows your political and economic interests. Nevertheless, I think Singapore must note that there are emerging international standards that we can follow.”
“I would like to support the Bill. In doing so, I acknowledge the importance of the work performed by the PPD in its past incarnation, and look forward to this new statutory body. The supply and safety of food in Singapore is, of course, very important. If Singaporeans enjoy their food, as we all know they do, the fact that they can enjoy with safety and health is a testimony to the PPD's hard work. This is particularly because of the surrounding circumstances. When we take food from other places, whether it is the Nipah virus or whether it is the Mad Cow diseases, there are increasing strains on the global system of supplying safe and healthy food. The new agency, therefore, is very welcomed in being able to be more autonomous and, hopefully, more efficient and effective in its functions. However, when I look through the functions in clause 11 and the powers of the Authority in clause 12 of the Bill, my first thought is that we should take this occasion to make this new agency no longer under the MND but, with due respect, under his colleague, the Minister for the Environment. Because when I look at this Bill, I understand that the powers of the Agri-food and Veterinary Authority will increasingly be about public health and safety. This ties in very much with the Ministry of the Environment's own concern of hawkers and other suppliers of food to the consumer. The present arrangement of having it under MND has been, according to my research, more a historical accident of where the Ministers were in the former Cabinet than a matter of administrative logic. I think that the public health expertise and focus of the Ministry of the Environment will actually make a better context for this new entity.”
“Sir, may I ask the Minister two further questions? First, given that the emphasis is on the need for law enforcement, is there some room to focus work not only at the Ministry of the Environment between our countries, but also with the Attorney-General and law enforcement agencies? My second question is that since large companies are involved, and some of these companies trade or may have Singaporean, Malaysian or other regional investments, is it timely to consider a code of conduct for Singapore companies who invest, trade and lend monies to companies in Indonesia, in relation to fires?”
“Sir, given that the fires have recurred, does the Minister believe that the new Indonesian government understands the need for urgency, and the fact that there is a question of credibility of the new reform government at stake?”
“Sir, I am urging the Government to provide a systematic review of documents and information that it holds, with a view to releasing as much as possible to the public. Why? I make this suggestion because (1) information is the life blood of the knowledge economy; (2) people need to have better information in order to evaluate decisions and Government actions; (3) there is a danger otherwise that we breed a culture of suspicion and secrecy; (4) there is a cost in keeping too much information secret; and (5) timely release will help foster greater understanding, transparency and accountability. I recognise that something will always need to be kept secret. But we cannot reach the situation in which the only Government department paper that is not secret is the toilet paper. I would be grateful if the Government will consider setting up such a system of review and release.”
“Parliament is a public forum and we should use these means to let the public see and understand more of our proceedings.”
“Sir, I would like to ask the Minister to find ways to increase the time allocated to the broadcast of parliamentary debates. I do so because, first, Parliament is a key institution in debating the important issues of the day. Second, many MPs, including PAP backbenchers, make good speeches and deserve to be heard and they play a role in raising important questions and suggestions. And thirdly, in the making and understanding of public policy and law, it is important not only to know the final results but also the discussion, and even what has not been fully accepted. The present coverage gives too little time for this. All we get are the answers. It is like watching a football match with just the goals. Recently, a Straits Times' journalist pondered whether 10 days were necessary for this Budget debate. I believe it is. And as we all know, we move at a very brisk pace to keep it to 10 days. Many other parliaments take much longer. But I cannot help but consider whether the public understands. Can they understand why we take a whole day or afternoon for a sitting, when all they get is 15 minutes of the compressed answers? I would ask the Minister to consider more air time. It should not be live; it should be edited down. But it should be substantial enough to capture the exchanges, the mood and the discussions. Of course, this may be a minority interest. But it is an important minority of open and active citizens concerned about public issues. The means for this can differ. We now have a full time news channel, Channel NewsAsia, with a one-hour news. There is increasing penetration of cable and this gives many more channels. There is also now web-casting of what could otherwise be televised.”
“May I seek clarification from the Senior Parliamentary Secretary on his response on the technical and developmental assistance. First of all, on the attachments. Clearly these training institutes, as I understand them, are run by the statutory boards which he has named. I take it also that his comment that the experts cannot be away for long would mean that we are on the same manpower. Some of the institute people are also from the agencies that run the institutes. Am I correct on that? Secondly, while I accept his reassurance, this arrangement means that most of the money we are spending is based in Singapore and most of the training happens here. Am I correct on that? Thirdly, I am gratified again that the Ministry is willing to consider the policy again, as it always does. May I ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary, in this ongoing review, will the Ministry take into consideration the Minister's own remarks that there is a newly recognised danger of a two-tier ASEAN, and will, in this sense, this new recognition of a development since 1992 spurs us to do more?”
“Therefore, there is resistance to these policies which will benefit them in the longer run. So Singapore should do what we can to encourage and enable our neighbours to undertake the right policy reforms. There are many innovations that other countries are reviewing. Sweden, for example, has only recently gone through this process, to develop new policies for their assistance overseas. Our own country has been encouraging assistance to the less developed countries, both in ASEAN as well as in the WTO. Sir, a bit like NMP Dr Jennifer Lee earlier, I am not asking the Minister to say yes or no at this point in time. What I am asking is for a study and that we re-look at this policy. This is particularly so because it has been about a decade since we stepped up our programme for technical cooperation and establish a directorate in his Ministry for this purpose. Much has changed in the world in the last 10 years. Among these are new initiatives such as AFTA and AIA, as well as the enlargement of ASEAN itself to include newer and much less developed members. Singapore too has taken on a new profile, a higher profile in the UN and the WTO. I hope for these reasons the Minister will consider undertaking a fuller review of our existing policy.”
“This is open to criticism by others as "tied aid", that is to say, we are helping our own economy when we help others. This is, of course, not our intention, I believe. It is the nature of training, but it can be misunderstood. There are good reasons for us to consider new and additional ways of providing assistance. In making this call, I am, of course, mindful of the interdependencies between our country and others, as certainly it was featured in the Finance Minister's Budget Statement. From the crisis, all Singaporeans understand that when Indonesia or others in the region do poorly, we will also be affected. We can also see that positive steps are taken forward, such as the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) and ASEAN Investment Area (AIA) agreement, and we should also benefit. When we recognise interdependencies, we would stand to gain more by doing more to help others. I do not mean we should throw money at these problems, Sir. The world has come a long way in rethinking the way richer countries help. But we should not think in terms of bandage or charity. We should do more so that we serve as true partners to our neighbours. There is much for our good in the longer term, as for theirs. In this partnership, we have to ask our partners to see the need to help themselves, even as we do what we can to help them. Targeting assistance to specific areas is important. Trade and investment too are important. Private capital flows today are much larger than government to government assistance. So we should encourage the right economic policies and put them in place. But in the shorter term, I hope the Minister will see that some of these countries will lose revenues when they try to put the right policy in place.”
“Sir, I wish to speak on the need to review Singapore's policy in providing technical and development assistance to other countries. Sir, many of us are aware that as Singapore's income has increased, so have calls to increase our donations to multilateral financial institutions and development agencies. Our Government has generally not done so. We have taken a different approach. Instead of money, Singapore has in recent years increased our efforts to make greater contributions to the community through training and capacity building. In particular, our programme to provide technical cooperation and assistance to other countries has grown. I understand some 1,200 foreigners or so have come to Singapore under this scheme of late. This scheme should continue and grow. I do, however, urge the Ministry to consider other and additional ways of providing technical and development assistance. There are several reasons for this. Let me just touch on two. The first is that our training programmes are very labour intensive. Quite typically, we attach these trainees to a Government department, such as the HDB or the port authorities, in order for them to observe. This is, of course, an important approach. It is practical but very labour intensive. The effort made is considerable and can sometimes distract the operations of these very important agencies. As such, there are limits on how many we can train in this way. The second reason we should do things differently is that our present policy is open to misunderstanding. This is because the training tends to happen here in Singapore. Thus, the funds that we do provide are largely spent here in Singapore for lodging, and for other costs.”
“Will we take the principle, the moral stand, or will we tend to go along with the bigger powers, because they are after all the bigger powers with the veto?”
“Sir, in talking about the United Nations, it is well known that we are attempting to secure a non-Permanent seat in the Security Council for the year 2000/2001. In previous sittings, the Minister has reported and updated us on the progress in achieving the necessary political support for the achievement of this voted seat. It will be the first time if we succeed that we are on the Security Council. The Security Council is, of course, a very important body in the United Nations. At this point, I would like the Minister to go beyond politically forecasting whether we will or will not get the seat. I want to draw the Minister out on what it is that Singapore can contribute, if and when it becomes a member of the Security Council. I ask this particularly because the importance of the Security Council relates chiefly to the ability of the states to contribute towards the maintenance of international peace and security, as the name "Security Council" implies. In this context, does a small state like Singapore have a role to play? I myself think we can do so. We have a role in peace-keeping, we have standby arrangements. I would like the Minister to spend some time telling us how it is that a small state like Singapore can play in such an important role. The second issue relates to the role of the Security Council in making law. Decisions of the Security Council under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter can be binding on all nations. Sir, in the thaw after the Cold War, the Security Council has actually produced many more resolutions than in the past. These resolutions have been criticised often for being partial, selective and sometimes not thought out enough and given enough resources to be actually effective on the ground. Will Singapore take on these resolutions?”
“More recently, I was glad to observe our support, much more fulsome support, for our multilateral force in East Timor. I would encourage the Minister to do more. Together with our ASEAN partners, though we are mainly small and medium sized states, we can take positive and proactive steps to prevent the outbreak of violence and to police the peace. We are not a great power, Sir. There are things that we can do in concert with others. Indeed, in many cases, small and medium sized states are able to do better in prevention because, by our nature, when such smaller states offer to mediate or undertake fact-finding missions, we are hard to accuse of having ulterior motives or to try to exercise undue pressures on other states. Preventive diplomacy, as such, is suitable for the small and the neutral, and we should take up this role where we can in the ARF, be willing to prepare and provide support for institutions and practices and do what we can for our region, and therefore ourselves.”
“It would be an important step forward generally in our favour, as a small state in a world of much bigger states. I would ask the Minister, therefore, to commit our country to making progress on this issue. We should support preventive diplomacy in principle, and more can and should be done. We should support the development of preventive diplomacy by helping initiate the necessary institutions. There are two of these that deserve early attention. First, would be an effort to build systems and programmes that examine the roots of conflict and look out into the future for flash points, like a satellite looking out over the earth below. Second, is a system of consulting fellow ARF members in between annual meeting, as and when danger signs rise. Together, early warning and consultation would help us look forward ahead and try to gain consensus on what can and should be done. To do this, Sir, will take considerable effort and some funding. But they are, I believe, worth doing. Additionally, Sir, I hope the Minister will consider that Singapore should set an example. It should show a willingness to undertake the practice of preventive diplomacy when appropriate. We cannot in this regard stand by the sidelines when problems arise. We should show commitment to helping within the constraints of our human resources and numbers. Our commitment should be exemplary. The Minister may recall that in 1998, on a previous occasion in this House, I debated on the issue of Cambodia with him. I called on the Minister to send a larger contingent to observe and help ensure the safe and fair conduct of the Cambodian elections. Singapore met with the minimum number suggested by the UN. But the Minister declined my suggestion to do more in that case.”
“Sir, I wish to focus on the progress in developing the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) and the practice of preventive diplomacy, suggestions which I hope the Minister will consider. The Minister has already said how important it is for Singapore to have a peaceful region. When there was peace there were long uninterrupted years of rapid growth. In the crisis, there was greater instability and uncertainty. Economics and security go together. As a small state, there are limits to what we can do on our own. Multilateralism is therefore very important, and so is the ARF. It complements but does not replace bilateral security arrangements. Nor is the ARF a military alliance like NATO in Europe. It uses discussion and dialogue instead. The aim is to deepen understanding and ties between the nations, and to reinforce the habit of settling disputes peaceably, and of managing disputes so they do not in the first place erupt into violence. Others have already asked about the ARF last year. I hope the Minister will share his thoughts. I want to propose something to the Minister and consider the practice of preventive diplomacy and how Singapore can play its role in pushing this forward. Preventive diplomacy is a set of diplomatic measures that, without the use of force, seeks to prevent conflicts from turning violent, or incidents of violence from escalating further. The practices of preventive diplomacy include early detection and warning of rising conflict and tensions, the use of fact-finding missions and the offer of good offices and mediation by third parties. Sir, I believe the Minister will agree these are laudable aims. If the ARF can take up the practice of preventive diplomacy, it would be a great step forward to a new stage in this young institution.”
“Sir, I can understand the reasoning behind the settlement. You pay 1 1/2% to them or you pay more to the lawyer anyway. I say that as a lawyer. But I think that the point DPM made about moral wrong must be emphasised. The satisfaction of going to court sometimes is to say to the other side that you have done wrong. And even if we do not go to court, I think that point must be made clear, from the people of Singapore to the authorities in Malaysia. We may pay 1 1/2% to get rid of a thug, just as I, in a New York park, gave my wallet to a mugger, but I have been mugged. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Sir, Mr Tay may have been mugged, but we made a deal.”
“In this regard, we must accept that consultation is a complex quality to measure. But the effort must be made. A partial analogy can be drawn to the efforts already undertaken by the Government in improving service quality. This has focused on over-the-counter services such as reducing queues in various departments. Such services are important, and improvements are relatively easy to measure. While consultation engagements are more complex to measure, they are no less important qualities. In fact, I believe that they will be increasingly demanded by an increasingly educated and cosmopolitan Singapore. Because public consultation is more complex, and because it would be increasingly demanded, the process should therefore begin now. Let greater public consultation and participation go from a promise to a basic premise of Government in Singapore. Let public consultation and participation be institutionalised for the future. I hope in this way, the present Government will lay a foundation stone upon which succeeding governments and generations of citizens can build their home.”
“Many hope that they will come to embrace this vision, but there is no guarantee at present, and this is why I turn to the question of the civil service and institutionalising their ability and willingness to communicate and respond to the public. There was a recent debate in the public press which I shall not touch on. However, it is clear that the questions raised were not simply about the National Library or the Bras Basah Park, but broader issues, such as whether there should be benchmarks for the civil service in dealing with public consultation or whether the examples touched upon in this debate can and should be improved in the future. Sir, I personally remain optimistic. Promises made are genuinely meant and the change and improvements will come. But I would urge the processes that promote change should be institutionalised. They should be made part of a permanent way of how we do things and how we assess the performance of our civil servants. One very important step in this direction would be to integrate this aspect of communication and response to the public in the assessment of civil servants, especially the elite. If we do this, we are setting the right signal that consultation is vital. By including communication and response to the public, we will be moving beyond exhortation. The process of consultation will increasingly be part of the criteria for success. It will no longer be sufficient to ask, "Is the job done, and how well?" It will also be asked, "How was it done?" Of course, not all decisions can be consulted. Some are market sensitive. Others may touch on security secrets. Exceptions can be justified. Nor of course does consultation mean that public suggestions will always be adopted.”