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 5 of 11.
“Sir, I wish to speak on the need to integrate communication and response to the public as part of the assessment of civil servants, especially among its elite. In this sense, my remarks follow on what the MP for Marine Parade GRC has spoken. Sir, Singaporeans have come to expect greater consultation and participation in public life. In the 1980s, the then Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Goh Chok Tong, made greater consultation one of the central aspects of the second generation government. Institutions for feedback were created, consultation increased, town councils were used to devolve more authority and participation to the local level. In the decade since Prime Minister Goh has come into office, further steps have been taken. CDCs now try to bring Government even closer to the people. The Singapore 21 initiative set up by Prime Minister Goh aims for the ideal of "active citizens". This vision is not of a strong people and a weak Government. Nor is it a vision of people opposing Government. Singapore 21 envisions the ideal of a society which people and Government work together, and both are strong. When future generations look back on these 10 years, history may well judge that greater consultation and greater participation are part of the legacy left by Prime Minister Goh and his team. On the other hand, Sir, there are some who believe that what we have experienced is more of a function of the present Prime Minister's personal style. Some may point out that Singapore 21 is not explicitly the vision of a third generation of leaders.”
“Mr Speaker, may I look forward to the day of maintenance. May I ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary whether the private estate improvements will be maintained and funded from the general coffers of Government or will there be any special arrangements? Assoc. Prof. Koo Tsai Kee: The funding will come from the Ministry of Finance. So this is Government's money.”
“Sir, I will take up and develop some of the points in my cuts on the estimates for the various Ministries. I hope the Minister will consider and respond to the points that I have made here. Mr Speaker, I support the motion.”
“This is for all resources, but especially those which Singapore has in short supply, such as energy and land. Let me at this juncture return to my concern about energy efficiency as an illustration of this broader point. As I said earlier, oil prices have risen and may well remain high, or go higher. Government and businesses can always do nothing more than just pass on these new and higher costs to their consumers and taxpayers. Or, and this is the alternative, they can seek to be more efficient in their use. This can be done by incentives in our Budget for the private sector. Energy efficiency can also be mandated by new regulations with higher standards. Such measures need not be at the forefront of technology and risk undermining our competitiveness. But they can be usefully benchmarked against what other countries with good records achieve. Additionally, and perhaps most importantly, Government itself can set the tone for energy and other efficiencies in its own practices and principles. In this regard, I would hope that the Government will see fit to release all or part of its own internal interagency report on energy efficiency. At the last sitting of Parliament, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary in the Ministry of National Development, Assoc. Prof. Koo Tsai Kee, said they might do so, under certain conditions and subject to certain caveats that he did not or could not specify. I would ask the Government to consider the need for greater transparency and leadership in this important arena of efficiency and competitiveness. This is a critical aspect of good governance. Not just as it relates to the specific example of energy efficiency, but in all aspects of Government policy making.”
“This could range from Masters courses at the university to language instruction or to computer skills or basic education. Such educational schemes should be recognised as creating assets, just as much (if not more) than buying a house with your CPF money or upgrading flats. This would be a fitting use for the surpluses that the Government has unexpectedly generated in 1999. Perhaps this new fund might be called "EdVenture", as it is like a venture capital for education. Allow me to close, Mr Speaker, by looking at the forward projections for the coming year. One item that stands out to me is the operating revenue of Government. This will go up by some 8.6%. In particular, I note that manpower estimates will increase by some 10.8%. That is to say, Government is costing us more, and civil servants are costing us more. Of course, good governments do not come cheap. But expensive things are not always better. Most Singaporeans like their stuff cheap but good. The increases in operating revenues and in manpower costs are notable in that they outstrip economic growth for 1999, which was 5.4%. They are also larger than the Government's forecasts for 2000, which is between 4.5 and 6.5%. Should these types of expenses grow faster than our economy? Or should they be pegged and made sustainable? It is not my point that we must reduce Government costs at all costs. What I am suggesting is that we should set ourselves the challenge of doing more with less - having a good government, making good government better, but for less. And I am asking the Government to try to do more with less money, people and resources of land, water, and energy. To do so, Government should aim to be competitive, transparent and efficient.”
“Allow me, therefore, to propose a way of spending some of the Minister's money. Globalisation, as I have mentioned briefly, will increase the divisions between sectors in our societies. Some sectors will prosper and others may experience a slowdown. Those with little formal training and education have less chance to participate and benefit from the new knowledge-based economy. This may strain our social cohesion and the Singaporean ideal that all must have a chance to prosper. We should do all we can to increase the capacity of everyone to participate. If not, we are in danger of breeding resentment and our own tribe of Luddites. The Luddites, if you recall, was a movement in the early 19th century that protested against new technology by rioting and breaking the new machines. The use of violence must, of course, be condemned. But what we have to understand today is that the Luddites did not wreck machines for no purpose or because they were against progress. In most cases, it was because they were displaced by machines and given no chance to join in the benefits of the progress. We must, therefore, be inclusive in promoting progress. Thus, while some sectors, such as younger graduates and professionals or even foreign talents, may have advantages in the KBE, we must act so that no sector is completely excluded. Worker retraining, which the Government initiated, is part of that. But I believe we would benefit from greater attempts to bring IT and other new skills to the mass of people. We should in this recognise that Government cannot provide for everyone. I therefore ask the Government to consider giving all Singaporeans a new fund for their own self-improvement. This would be open to a wide range of courses in different skills.”
“Some may otherwise wonder if the compact between the Government and people in facing the crisis of 1999 has been met. This relates to two facts. First, that the Government was supposed to go into deficit, but did not. Second, that the CPF cut is not yet fully reinstated, yet senior civil servants and Government leaders will have their full pay put back. In asking for further explanations, we should acknowledge that citizens were asked to make a sacrifice in their pay, and did, and this was real. In contrast, the Minister announced a surplus, instead of a deficit. This reversed a projected $5.1 billion deficit into a surplus of $3.2 billion. This is a variance of some $8.3 billion in total. In his statement, the Minister explained that, in part, this happy state of affairs was due to lower development project spending, and the rescheduling of some projects. This may seem prudent to some. However, the state of the economy depends on a mix of both public and private consumption. A fall in Government spending may therefore create a surplus, but at the cost of lessening overall demand. In particular, I note that the Minister acknowledged that the construction sector remained in recession, and remains so today. In 1999, this sector contracted a severe 12%, according to the Minister's statement. May I ask him whether, if the Government has not held back its projects, part of this contraction might have been avoided and the construction sector helped? What were the main or main types of projects that were held back by Government? Equally important, how will the unexpected surplus be used? The Minister announced various schemes that add up to some $685 million, but this is well short of the full surplus of $3.2 billion.”
“May I ask the Minister how he thinks this trend may affect our recovery, and what we might do to meet this possibility, as best we can? I myself believe that much more can and should be done to encourage greater energy efficiency in Singapore. I will return to this point when I outline my thoughts on the national economy. But at this juncture, I do wish to emphasise that my call for energy efficiency is not, in this sense, premised solely on environmental and ethical concerns, that I often raised in this House. Energy efficiency, like other forms of efficiency, is primarily a concern about our competitiveness. It is a way to enhance our economic security against sudden shocks and rising energy prices that seem to be on the way. The Singapore Economy Sir, thus far, I have spoken about the place of Singapore and our region in the world economy. Now, allow me to turn to the place of all Singaporeans in our national setting. In doing so, I will touch on three points. The first is whether we can keep the compact of 1999; second, whether we can provide opportunities for all in the new economy; and, third, of increasing the efficiency of government. Sir, on the first point, the crisis saw the ouster of leaders in some countries and, in others, the betrayal of trust that people gave to their governments. The role of Singapore's Government in this context is very difficult. We weathered the crisis and the Government led our recovery, and people should acknowledge the role of the Government with gratitude. Singaporeans have a strong and resilient spirit, but good governance and leadership have been greatly important for our recovery. In this context, while the Government has done well, I believe some further explanation of the Budget Statement is important.”
“This can be in small but significant projects such as the provision of medical care in Bintan, or assisting environmental groups in Indonesia. Tax exemptions for such worthwhile overseas projects would encourage such good works and better recognise the growing interdependence between our society and those of our neighbours. I would also ask the Finance Minister to play his part in continuing and strengthening the new ASEAN system for financial surveillance. Indeed, we might ask the Minister to look forward to a greater system of cooperation and coordination for financial and economic matters in ASEAN and East Asia. We might also hope that the Government will proceed with more bilateral agreements on free trade, investment, taxation and associated matters. Singapore is presently studying a number of these, including those with New Zealand and Japan. With our ASEAN partners, we are also considering an agreement between ASEAN, Australia and New Zealand. We should do all we can to proceed with these with due dispatch. This is especially given that talks in the World Trade Organisation have stalled. Perhaps other regional agreements too might be usefully explored, such as one with China. Let me turn to my third point on the overall context. This is on rising oil prices. Sir, it is observable that there has been a sharp rise in oil prices. This may mark a reversal in the low prices that the world has known in these past years. We will remember how oil prices hiked up by the OPEC cartel in the 1970s caused many economies to slow and stall. This particularly affected economies such as ours which are highly dependent on energy, and yet have little or (in our case) no energy resources.”
“Other positive steps forward taken despite the crisis have been in the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) and ASEAN investment Area (AIA). While these steps have been promised, there seem to be some negative trends. Countries that are newer to ASEAN and the world economy and free market system, such as Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar, may well have doubts about opening up their economies. These concerns are often not confined to economic matters. They also relate to social, cultural and political factors. In this context, I would ask the Finance Minister and his colleagues in Government to do more to assist our neighbours in making the necessary but sometimes daunting transitions for these countries. Singapore is both an open economy and one of the most developed ones in the region. We can and should do more. This should not be as a bandage or charity, but to help build the expertise, capacity, infrastructure, and for us to be true partners with our neighbours. This is as much for our good in the longer term, as for theirs. It would encourage and enable neighbouring countries to undertake the right policy reforms and allow the AFTA and AIA to proceed more smoothly and quickly. I will speak more on this matter when we come to the estimates of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. One related and further question, which is directly under the Minister for Finance's purview, is whether the Minister will consider more generous tax exemptions for foundations and institutions in Singapore who undertake or fund development and training projects abroad, in other ASEAN and Asian countries. Our private sector and civil society can play a significant role in helping our neighbouring countries.”
“What new ways, if any, does the Government propose to complement investments and growth overseas so that Singapore might benefit? I would ask the Minister if it is time that we provided better schemes for our businessmen to consolidate and write off losses from their overseas ventures. Or even to enjoy lower tax on profits they may remit from overseas ventures, when they return these profits back to Singapore's economy. After all that has happened in the crisis generally and in Suzhou particularly, we must recognise that going into China and other countries is subject to risk. Yet, we also recognise that these risks must be taken, if our economy is to go regional, global and help sustain growth in Singapore. It may therefore be a strategic step forward for the Budget to provide greater financial incentive for such risks and reward. Sir, some who heeded the Government's call to regionalise have been badly hit by the crisis. We should assist them to renew their commitment to going regional and global. New incentives would set the right signal. Let me turn to my second point on economic cooperation and integration in ASEAN and East Asia. Sir, the Minister's Budget Statement recognises the importance of China and Japan. Additionally, we can and should make more ties with our fellow ASEAN economies, to increase economic cooperation and integration. Despite the crisis, positive steps have been taken. A system of financial surveillance over ASEAN and East Asian economies has begun. There may be a temptation to slacken now the worst of the crisis seems over. Yet, such a system must be continued, the vital alarm bell to signal that danger of any recurrence.”
“Asia's trade, up to the crisis, had been the fastest rate of growth in the world. In contrast, many countries in Latin America and Africa have known years, decades, of slow or no growth. ASEAN countries, with some exceptions, have been relatively open to the world economy. Singapore is the most fully integrated and open of all. Openness has, to date, been part of our formula for success. Minister Hu is right, therefore, in pointing to both the developments in the world that favour our continued recovery, and other events that may de-rail that recovery. With openness comes both opportunity and vulnerability. If others do well, we are most likely to prosper. If others fail and flounder, we may well be affected. This is the nature of the open and inter-dependent world economy. Minister Hu has pointed out some of the major trends, both the upswings and possible downsides. May I ask him to additionally consider three factors? These factors are (1) the need to renew our regionalism; (2) the prospect of increasing economic cooperation and integration in ASEAN and East Asia; and (3) the rising price of oil. Sir, in his Budget Statement, Dr Hu recognised the rising competition with China. He also recognised that China's rise is not all negative for us all. There are also opportunities if we find ways to complement investments and growth there. The Minister also spoke of problems in neighbouring countries and the relative strength of our economy. In this context, may I draw him out on how the Budget might set the context for a renewed wave of regional undertakings in China and elsewhere? I ask this question particularly in the light of our experience in the Suzhou Industrial Park, and of the financial and political fluctuations in other countries during this crisis.”
“Some sectors of our economy and society will prosper and others may experience a slow down or even extinction. As such, the Budget of 2000 is not simply a budget for the new financial year. It may in fact be seen as a Budget for a new era. This is a post-crisis era in which new stresses from worldwide competition and globalisation must be addressed. This is an era in which the recovery would be real for some, uncertain for others, and a missed boat of opportunity for yet others. Much depends on the policies that we adopt. The important policies, moreover, are not just on macro-economic and financial matters. They relate to technology, education, citizenship and foreign talent, rules and social norms that allow and reward risk-taking as well as to community, family and good relations with others in the region. In this, there are special needs for financial and other policies that allow and encourage the new knowledge-based economy to flourish here in Singapore. Yet, there is also a need for measures that reaffirm many important and enduring foundations of our society. In this setting, there are many points we must consider. I can only touch on some of these. Some relate to the general context the Minister has set out. Others relate more specifically to strategies that can be suggested to deal with the challenges of this new era. I shall deal first with the regional setting, and then with policies for Singapore. Singapore, ASEAN and the World Economy When we look at ASEAN and the world economy, we must see that we have generally enjoyed a special place in the world economy, as have others in the region. They have attracted, together with China, the lion's share of foreign direct investment that goes to the developing countries.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Budget Statement by the Minister for Finance, Dr Richard Hu, seems notable to me for at least three reasons. First, it officially marks the turn around that our economy has made in this past year. It is a marker in the change of mood from the doom and gloom of last year, and the fresh hopes of a new year and millennium. Second, the statement recognises how much our continued recovery depends on the region and the wider world. Singapore's open economy can be buoyed or brought down by events in the USA, Japan, Indonesia and other parts of the world. Third, the statement is a budget that seeks to deal with the effects of globalisation. The phenomena of globalisation increase competition between companies and nations. It creates great opportunities for some, with the right skills at the right price. For others, without such skills, it can mean the end of existing jobs and the start of persisting pockets of unemployment or of persistently low wages. Many economic indicators and some stock markets have shown marked improvement since the third quarter of 1999. Some believe the crisis is over. I think that this is not the right way to look at things. I believe instead that we are going to enter a period in which crisis may recur. These may be similar to what we experienced in 1997, or from a wholly new nature and source. There is little guarantee that the long decades of rapid and largely uninterrupted growth that we and much of the East Asian region knew until the crisis will again return, whether for us or for our neighbours. It is likely that we will instead experience a much more patchy pattern. Some years will be better than others. Some countries will surge forward while others in the region will struggle.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think many of us would share an interest in the Minister's exciting vision of the street life. May I move to the question about the principles of consultation. The Minister has said that there seem to be more public sentiments now for preserving the building and, secondly, he has mentioned Mr Tay Kheng Soon, the architect, wrote directly to the Prime Minister's office. May I ask whether there are some general principles or circumstances that his Ministry would look at when considering possible change of plans? And secondly, may I ask whether there is a formal or regular route for any such suggestions from the public rather than everyone writing to the Prime Minister?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I begin by thanking the Minister for his full reply and welcoming the steps in meeting the architect, Mr Tay Kheng Soon. May I ask the Minister: will he not consider further public process and attempt for dialogue with the public in general, in the sense that meeting with an individual architect is not the same as meeting other people who might feel that the Library or the Park is worth saving?”
“Sir, the Cartegena Treaty is very recent. I would urge the Senior Parliamentary Secretary to conduct a review. Will the Ministry consider involving both public officials as well as private sector experts, given the possible impacts on human safety? Assoc. Prof. Koo Tsai Kee: Sir, the National Parks Board is calling for an urgent meeting on 6th March to discuss the implications of this Protocol and the different agencies are invited, including the experts from the National University of Singapore. The Protocol deals with very technical issues like LMOs, GMOs, things like that, which are over most of our heads, and if the public needs to be involved, we will certainly involve the public. But these are very, very technical issues. NATIONAL SKILLS RECOGNITION SYSTEM (Progress) 15. Mr Seng Han Thong asked the Minister for Manpower if he will state what progress the National Skills Recognition System has made.”
“One more question, Sir. Can I ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary, when he says that they may or may not release the goals which may or may not have been set, may I know what sort of factors we are looking for, whether we have set such goals, and whether we will release them? Assoc. Prof. Koo Tsai Kee: Sir, I cannot speak on behalf of the other Ministries but, as far as my Ministry is concerned, the BCA is looking into various building standards. It may revise the existing Overall Thermal Transfer Value (OTTV). We may look at means to do energy audits of some buildings, for example. These are in the exploratory stage. BIOSAFETY PROTOCOL TO THE CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY (Acceptance) 14. Mr Simon S. C. Tay asked the Minister for National Development if Singapore has accepted the Biosafety Protocol to the Convention on Biological Diversity or will study the Protocol with a view of doing so. Assoc. Prof. Koo Tsai Kee (for the Minister for National Development): Sir, the Biosafety Protocol, or Cartegena Protocol on biosafety, addresses the environmental concern over the potential negative impact of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) on biological diversity; and the Protocol prescribes the procedures for the safe transfer, handling and use of such organisms. The Protocol was only concluded on 28th January last month in Montreal after many years of negotiations. We will be studying the Protocol in detail in relation to its aim of protecting the environment and its implications on trade and related activities before we decide whether to accept the Protocol.”
“May I also ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary whether there are goals set out in the report for increasing efficiency such as reduction in the use of Government utilities? Assoc. Prof. Koo Tsai Kee: Sir, yes, indeed the Committee looked into such goals and at the right time, we may or may not release these findings.”
“Sir, can I know if there are plans to release the report to the public or to at least the various professions and other people directly affected? Assoc. Prof. Koo Tsai Kee: Sir, when the Committee was first conceived, the intention was for the findings to be an internal working paper. Nonetheless, the Ministry is looking into the merits of releasing part or all of the findings at some point or over a period of time.”
“Sir, if I understand correctly, the Minister of State has said that there are no accidents involving handphone use, but there are new laws in place. May I ask the Minister of State, if there are no accidents, why do we have to have these new laws? Does this seem strange as compared to the safety factor of young children, which we have just discussed? In that case, we are also assured that there is no safety problem because there is no accident, but we do not want to legislate on that. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Of course, the tougher laws have deterred people from using handphones. But no accident relating to handphone driving does not mean handphone driving is not dangerous. When you use a handphone, it results in dangerous behaviour on the road. So a person using a handphone, for example, can be charged for inconsiderate driving. In fact, unlike other countries, like Japan, where the rates are very high, I think we nipped the problem in the bud. From a high of 3,200 summonses in 1996, it has come down to 1,200 last year. Our approach is a good approach - public education, tough laws and effective enforcement.”
“If I may ask the Minister for a clarification. The Minister, in reply to me, has pointed out why clauses 4 and 5 are necessary to retain public accountability. But the other end of my question was: how does this allow SMU to indeed be autonomous, have a lighter touch and be a private university? How is it different from NUS and NTU? RAdm Teo Chee Hean: It is different from NUS and NTU in the sense that it is operating in a company framework and company environment rather than in the environment of an Act of Parliament. So they have quite a lot more flexibility to manage the company in the way that they deem fit, and also it is easier to change the M&A of the company. Even though I have to approve, it is easier to change the M&A of the company than it would be to change the Act where we have to come to Parliament. So there will be considerably more autonomy and freedom of action and flexibility on the part of the Board of Trustees of the SMU than there will be for the Board of Governors or the Council of NTU and NUS. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [RAdm Teo Chee Hean]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. PRISONS (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 4.18 pm”
“Mr Lim has enjoyed a tremendous reputation in Singapore, not only in the public sector but also in the governance of large public companies. However, I would like to remind us again that this is going to be a private university, and if it is truly to be private, I hope the Minister will clarify that the role of the Chancellor is clearly non-executive. The running of the SMU must be with its professional staff, such as the President and those under the Provost. I am reminded of this particularly because when the NUS started and, of course, the NUS is a state university, the then Minister and now Deputy Prime Minister Tony Tan was the first Vice Chancellor. Let me move on to my last point, Mr Speaker, and this is in regard to the funding of the SMU. I take it seriously that the SMU is to be a private institution. And as a private institution focusing on business, it should be able, after a while, if it has enough reputation, to become privatised and more or less self-sufficient in terms of its funding. I would like to ask the Minister whether there are plans over time to reduce the amount of funding given to SMU and, with that, to reduce the amount of Government supervision over this new entity.”
“With those thoughts, may I turn to the particular clauses of the Bill. My first concern is clause 4. Here, the Minister has powers to appoint the entire Board. To me, this is quite a sweeping power if we are trying to keep this a private university, in the sense of understanding it to be driven not only by the Government but by its founder members and by the community as a whole. And here, I think the role of the Minister would then obviate the role of the founder members of this institution. Secondly, when I turn to clause 5(1)(d), I am also concerned. Here, the Ministry must approve of any change to a constituent document of the SMU. For the earlier parts, (a), (b), (c), I am quite agreeable. If the company is wound up, or if the company has disposed of its properties or other major assets, I think the Government, having given it its land and money, needs to know this. But I think it is too wide indeed to require that any change receives the Minister's approval. It makes it just like a statutory body. It makes it just like amending the statute of the NUS or NTU and I think this moves away from the idea of a lighter touch that we seem to be looking for. My third concern is clause 8 and this comes to the activities of the student bodies. And here again, the activities of the student bodies in the SMU are subject to the Societies Act and the Societies Act would allow the right to refuse certain applications and the right to view accounts, etc. Why is this needed if we want to give this body a greater autonomy? The Minister has mentioned that a former Minister, Mr Lim Kim San, has accepted the appointment of Chancellor of the new SMU. I welcome this move.”
“Mr Speaker, I rise to support the Bill. I, like many of the colleagues who had spoken before me, believe that the SMU can and will have a place in Singapore's education landscape. Before I proceed further, let me declare that I am an employee of the National University of Singapore. Mr Speaker, much has been made of the idea that the SMU is to be a private university, different from the National University of Singapore and the Nanyang Technological University. Much has also been talked about the fact that it is a public company limited by guarantee. Let me briefly explain this concept. Unlike its name, public company, whenever you mention that idea, it immediately invokes the idea that it is a listed company for private gain. A public company limited by guarantee is quite different. It is for public purpose, but in some ways, it is not part of the Government and it is ruled by the Companies Act. And in this form of structure, there are founder members who give a nominal guarantee for the financial credibility of the company. This form of incorporation has been used for several institutions such as the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS), the Singapore International Foundation (SIF) and a number of other entities which are clear public in character, but for some reasons, wish to have much more flexibility and freedom. This is important in thinking about how the light management of the SMU can be done. I take the Minister seriously when he talks about this need for a lighter touch. There is a need therefore for a balance between the autonomy of this body, which by its constitution is governed by a Committee and the founder members and the accountability that might come to anybody that receives public money.”
“Sir, as we know, powers to procure for defence mean large sums of money and we have all heard nightmare stories of procurement for research in other countries where the system had led to overpriced procurement of what seems to be everyday goods. I want to be reassured that the Agency will continue to follow Singapore's system of prudence and scrutiny. What then may I ask the Minister, would the changes be to Government procedures for tendering and accountability? What are the likely increased financial costs? The Bill says that we would likely incur some additional financial expenditure. We do not know how much. Particularly, may I ask the Minister whether Government will, even with the creation of the Agency, stay within the existing guidelines on our military expenditure as part of the GDP? In this regard, I too share a concern that the lack of accountability to Parliament and the Minister's powers to declare certain things to be a secret must be broadly shared by a Committee of Parliament such as the GPC or other Ministers.”
“In clause 6(3), we go much more broader as "such other functions as the Minister himself may assign" and does not even say in writing. But yet, while the power is so wide, I do not understand why the Agency may take up such an instruction from the Minister rather than "shall". Perhaps, the Minister can clarify that as well. A third point I share with many of the speakers before me is with regard to clause 11(2) and (4). I think I cannot improve on what Mr Thomas, the NMP, has said on clause 11(4) with regard to the impact on trade unions and labour law in Singapore. Let me then focus on clause 11(2). Here, as Members have said before me, this provision is for enforced employment. I would like to remind the Minister that Article 10 of the Constitution actually prohibits forced labour. If I may read Article 10: "(1) No person shall be held in slavery. (2) All forms of forced labour are prohibited, but Parliament may by law provide for compulsory service for national purposes." I understand, of course, that the second part "Parliament may by law provide" is probably where we are coming to now. But I would like to ask the Minister to recognise that this should be a power that is exceptionally used. Why is it such an exception? It could be that this is an essential service such as police, fire protection and other matters. May I ask the Minister's assurance that this clause is in line with those other essential services. Because we are in a bit of conundrum here. If the service is so essential, why should it be under an Agency rather than directly under the Ministry? My last point relates to the powers of the Agency to procure.”
“Mr Speaker, I share the recognition of the importance of science and technology to defence and I also think that it is important to see that there can be spin-offs from such research which may have value-added for development of Singapore's technology and economy. Generally, I support the Bill. And if the Minister says that it is for flexibility, I also think that starting an Agency to deal with the subject matter is also worthy of support. My concern then is, like the others, more on the effects of creating such an agency quite independent of the Ministry and scrutiny of Parliament, and of the effects of the Bill before us. My first point, Mr Speaker, is about something that I was a bit puzzled by and which perhaps the Minister can explain. Of the departments that are to be incorporated within the Agency, looking at clause 2, I notice that one of the Agencies is Lands and Estates. I am a little puzzled. Perhaps I do not understand the functions of this department why this should be part of our Defence Science and Technology Agency, rather than part of the Ministry. Secondly, I return my concern to clause 6(3) of the Bill. Clause 6(3) permits the Agency to undertake certain functions as the Minister may assign. The Agency may undertake and, in so doing, the Agency shall be deemed to be fulfilling the purposes of this Act. This power to me is a little too wide and yet, at the same time, a little too loose. It may be too wide in the sense that in comparison with this, clause 6(2) constrains the Agency much more to the purposes that the Minister has explained. Even clause 6(2)(l), which is the general one, allows the Ministry to perform such other functions as are conferred on the Agency by any other written law.”
“Yes, greenhouse gases. BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: We observe all international regulations on this and whatever we do, we will conform to international standards and we will play our part as part of our international responsibility but within those constraints, let the market operate.”
“May I clarify myself? In the generation of power, there would be release of climate-change gases and other pollutants which would affect both the global climate as well as our local environment. BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: You are referring to greenhouse gases?”
“Perhaps I was misunderstood. What I mean is that Singapore has one of the highest climate-change gases already and that in creating a market for energy generation, we run the danger of creating a market where you use more power, you get more profits. I am wondering whether these dangers will overall affect Singapore's standing in such community as well as our efficiency. Would these factors be taken into consideration in creating this market for competition? BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: I am sorry. I did not quite catch what you said earlier.”
“Sir, can I ask whether, in the review of the market, will the study include the desire for greater efficiency in order to curb excessive use of power and to encourage greater efficiency in the use by industry as well as households? BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: I do not think we should put ourselves in the position of deciding who has a greater need for power. From our perspective, the best way is to use the market mechanism to decide who has a greater need for power according to what he is prepared to pay. In other words, to let the market mechanism operate rather than to impose additional considerations as to who should get power at what prices, depending on whether they undertake activities which are socially worthy.”
“Sir, in this sense, has packaging them together actually helped us resolve these issues more speedily or should we relook at unbundling the package or packing them in slightly smaller parcels? Is there issue overload instead?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the Deputy Prime Minister, while I recognise that there is no need for public deadlines, it may not be in our interest, will the Government at least set itself an internal deadline? Can we be assured of that? Secondly, given that the WTO remains a matter of recourse, the Deputy Prime Minister must be aware that the first complaint filed with WTO was between Singapore and Malaysia regarding petrochemicals. Why is this so different? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, if I tell him that I have an internal deadline, it becomes a public one. As for WTO, I am aware that the first complaint at the WTO was filed by Singapore with the Malaysian authorities and the matter was entirely and satisfactorily resolved within a reasonable period of the complaint being filed. If you ask why is this different, my answer is, this is not different.”
“I have mentioned, and I think the Minister of State has also mentioned, that it is quite clear that our courts also deserve to be commended for the good work that it has done in ensuring the Rule of Law in Singapore. But if you look at the original motion, the emphasis is on the public servants and the public officers, and that is why the amended motion follows very closely that aspect. As to your second point ---”
“That is why I argued about my own experience in recognising some of the realities. And I must point out to the NCMP, Mr Jeyaretnam, that his position is inconsistent, because while he says he is against the ISA on a principle of the Rule of Law, he has not recommended, in his speech, the abandonment of the Misuse of Drugs Act, simply some more safeguards. And that is inconsistent. It is only consistent if he looked at the realities, which means to say case by case. Let me turn to the amendment to the motion. May I just ask two points of clarification from the Member for Sembawang GRC, Prof. Chin. This is with regard to the second leg of the amendment. In commending the Government for upholding the Rule of Law, does this amendment suggest that the courts have had no or very limited role in holding the Rule of Law? Secondly, in suggesting that the Rule of Law is fully observed by all, is this amendment suggesting that Singapore is somehow perfect? Because, if either of these suggestions are there, which I hope they are not, then I am afraid I cannot agree with this motion. While Singapore has a good record, it is by no means perfect and can be improved upon further. Secondly, if we do have a good record, it is not only the Government that has observed this and made it possible. They have had a role but it is also the role of the courts and other institutions of this country. Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung: Sir, since Mr Tay has asked about the amended motion, may I just make a couple of points. Commending the Government in relation to that aspect of the Rule of Law which relates to the importance of public servants abiding by rationality, following proper legislation and orders, it is, as I have said just now, not the only aspect of the Rule of Law that exists.”
“Sir, may I speak very briefly on the amendment to the motion. In prefacing my remarks, may I just reply perhaps to the rhetorical question Mr Jeyaretnam asked me. Yes, I do understand what the amendments to the ISA have done. In my remarks earlier, I said that I saw this therefore as an exception to the rule of law.”
“I am really surprised that Mr Chiam does not understand judicial review. Of course, it is the decision of the official in charge, but if the official transgresses certain parameters of the law, if he is acting unreasonably, if he is acting unfairly without due cause, if he has favoured a PAP official and not Mr Chiam, these are all subject to judicial review. In this sense, while many of our laws do not have appeal to the courts, the courts use judicial review to ensure that things observe the Rule of Law. Is that clear enough, Mr Chiam?”
“Of course, Singapore is different - size, heritage, a Government that has been clean and not corrupt, and I do not say that we are perfect. But my point today is that if this motion was about the importance of the Rule of Law and how, without being perfect, our Government has tried to observe it and how if Government does not observe it, then the courts will fill that gap, I would have agreed with the motion. But as has been argued by the two speakers before me, I regret I cannot support the motion.”
“The NCMP drew a lot of precedents from England. Can I point out that while England has had a very good record in talking about principles, of Rule of Law and living up to many of them, there are also shortcomings in their court, as in every country - emergency laws in Ireland to deal with the emergency there. Many of the precedents that our courts follow in accepting the subjective discretion of the Minister come from English precedents. So I would not think that any society has all the answers. I think of this particularly, because I thought this motion should be understood in the context not so much of the past, which NCMP Jeyaretnam has tried to re-establish for us, but in the context of the present crisis in our region. This crisis has been one that has also raised many questions about good governance, and one of the elements of good governance is the Rule of Law. The Transparency International, an NGO, has named Singapore the highest ranked country in Asia against corruption. I think it is the seventh or eighth in the world. When you look at the region around us, you have to understand that there are many realities which do not measure up to the benchmarks of Transparency International. I was in Indonesia last week and I met with various officials there. They have a severe task in front of them. An old acquaintance, Marzuki Darusman, is now Attorney-General. He, I think, and this is my personal belief, is a man who would try to make a difference, to try to establish the Rule of Law, but the institutions, the officials, some are good and some are not so good. There has been a systemic problem, which we do not have in Singapore. The answers, in this context, are much more complex and difficult than ours.”
“It does not fulfill the concept of the Rule of Law in the sense that there are only very limited grounds on which a court can review the decision of the Minister. It is in that sense a subjective discretion. Mr Jeyaretnam then shared his idea on whether there was a need for amendment, and called for the abolition of the ISA. When I first became an NMP, I was asked about this. My view was that the time has come to seriously re-look at the ISA. I still think we should re-look at it. But, in asking for this, I have had to re-look at some of my premises too, because in the last year, I asked in this House, and I was told that we do have present detainees under the Internal Security Act. And why? These are not political detainees. There are some allegations of espionage and other things. This was all released to the public after the question I asked in this House. The point is that, in that sense, we are not arguing about preventive detention in abstract anymore. It is not perfect abstraction. There was no public furore or upset about these recent ISA cases when they were announced publicly. As far as I know, the human rights Non-governmental Organisations (NGOs) are not more upset than they have been with Singapore before. The NGOs have also never raised their hand against the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act which NCMP Mr Jeyaretnam has mentioned today. I like to point out that the NCMP himself has not completely questioned the basis of the Misuse of Drugs Act. It also has preventive detention powers. This is therefore an inconsistency in his stand. So my point is that none of these are we really arguing on principle, Rule of Law, yes or no, black or white. It is a case-by-case decision, because that is how we live our lives in a real society.”
“If they are instances, there is recourse to the Rule of Law itself, ie, the Government of the day or certain officials are not fulfilling the Rule of Law, there are other ways of getting the Rule of Law done and observed, and this is to go to the courts. And on this, I found the MP for Potong Pasir, Mr Chiam See Tong's argument is of dual-headed. He says he trusts the courts. He himself pointed out that our courts are one of the most respected. Yet, he complained about certain systems of unfairness. The answer must be, if the courts are fair, but there are instances of difficulty in his view, he must go to the courts. I would like to point out that in recent years, there have been a number of cases in which people have done exactly that. They have taken hard cases to the courts and they have won against the Government. There was the Eddie Taw's case on the constitutionality of Prevention of Corruption Act. There was the Christopher's Bridges' case on the Official Secrets Act. There was a recent decision against the Ministry of Manpower on certain actions they took in arbitrating between employer and employee in which the courts felt that they have over-exceeded their powers. Looking further back, the courts have also struck down decisions by the Housing and Development Board, which Mr Jeyaretnam mentioned, as well as the Registry of Companies and Businesses. My point is, if our system is endemically weak, the whole system is bad, then we really have to call for this motion. But if there are only limited instances, the very courts which Mr Chiam mentioned are the upholder of the Rule of Law. The one exception I think that NCMP Mr Jeyaretnam had on his cards was the Internal Security Act (ISA). That, as a law, the ISA fulfills the Constitution as an exception.”
“Mr Speaker, in this motion there is much to agree with. But in the arguments put forward, there is much I find that I cannot agree with. Let me begin with what I do agree with. I agree that Rule of Law is very important and I think all of us would. I also agree that the Rule of Law takes us beyond a very narrow legalism, but that law is more than what we put on a piece of paper and pass in this House. There are certain natural attributes to law. That I agree. When you agree that law is more than legalism, you look for some idea of fairness. But there, we can disagree. What may seem fair to me may not seem fair to another person or to NCMP, Mr Jeyaretnam, who moved this motion. In this sense, we must quickly distinguish between the fair procedure of law and the fairness in substance of law. For procedure, we find it easier to agree. In moving this motion and his arguments, I tried to listen to NCMP Jeyaretnam carefully. I think there are some problems in his arguments in terms not so much of this broad idea of the Rule of Law but in his complaints and instances. This relates specifically to certain dichotomies, the first of these is an abstract perfection of what is Rule of Law, against the reality of a working system, the society in motion, in action. When we compare any society to those abstract perfections, there are shortcomings, instances of weakness or areas of improvements. I then have to ask myself, when I listened to the instances brought forward by the NCMP, whether this speaks of a systemic abuse and failure of the Rule of Law, or whether these instances are just that, instances.”
“Mr Speaker, may I ask three points of clarification briefly. The first was that in the Minister of State's reply, he suggested there was a division between registered owners and drivers. I understand the general position. May I ask the Minister of State whether this will also apply for parking offences. In other words, if a vehicle XYZ is parked in a certain spot but the offender is not the owner, does it mean that that car will not be seized, detained and auctioned under the powers so long as the driver is different from the registered owner? The second clarification I wanted to make was that I am gratified by the assurances about the auction. But does it mean that the Ministry and the Authority are taking on a duty to have an open and fair auction? I mention this because in certain US cases, from all these advertisements you can buy a Porsche for $50. It may not be true. But what they mean is that these auctions are so badly attended that the price drops dramatically. Is there a duty on the Authority to ensure a fair market price if there is an auction? The third point of clarification is simply on my point about the Causeway problems. I do take the Minister of State's assurance that they will improve things in the long term. My point was simply more about the short term implementation. Will we ensure and, I think we always do, give sufficient notice to the other side?”
“I would just like to ask the Minister of State whether in the short term at least, there are ways to ensure that the shift to the new system would not add to the Causeway jams and will not affect the ease at which our Malaysian neighbours can visit us and our tourism. I mention this because obviously we do not like the same thing when we go to visit Malaysia. When there are new notices and new forms to fill, and we do not get them, we feel very inconvenienced, and I would not like the same to happen to our Malaysian neighbours.”
“People who do not pay their fines should not get away scot-free. But I would argue that there needs to be a balance between the legitimate interest of the State and the sanctions we wish to enforce. There needs to be a balance between the quantum of the fines, just still relatively small though, they keep going up all the time, and the values of the cars which are one of the largest assets any Singaporean can claim. My next concern on the same issue is on the effect of third parties. Here I do not mean the families so much, but people with a legitimate commercial interest in the car. Because car prices are so high, most of us owe tonnes of money to the bank or the hire purchase company. They take the car as a security for their repayment. May I ask the Ministry whether these rights would be preserved if there was an auction? And if there is a shortfall, because the auction price is low, and the company is short of money to recoup its loan, what happens then? I would ask the Minister to reconsider the provisions of penalties, first, to have a higher threshold before these detentions and auctions are exercised. Let us use it only for those who are really recalcitrant. Secondly, to reserve a price for the vehicle. This need not be done by amendment but can be done by practice in the auction. So at least it ensures that a fair market value, par values and years of depreciation, etc, are taken into account. Let me move on to my second concern. This is for the automated system for cars that come across the Causeway.”
“Mr Speaker, may I raise two concerns for the Minister of State. The first relates to the new penal powers under the Act, and the second relates to the automated system for Causeway traffic. The first concerns the penal powers under clause 9. Singaporeans, as we know, are very attached to their cars. No matter how much we raise the prices, etc, they want them, and the car prices therefore have raised themselves. And we should be very concerned about powers that use the cars as pressure points to solicit the payment of fines. Let me turn my attention particularly to the new section 95A, subsections (9) and (10). As I read them, these clauses would actually allow the Police to detain and then auction a vehicle for failure to pay fines. A further understanding is that these powers would be invoked once there is a warrant of arrest. The threshold for this warrant of arrest may be as low as a single parking offence. And as the Minister of State himself has mentioned, there are currently 54,000 warrants of arrest. That is a lot of cars to auction. This is a very serious power to punish and it can be, I would argue, onerous and unjust. This is primarily because under the new subsections 95A(9) and (10), the notice of auction is merely in the Gazette. The Gazette, of course, is a formal official way of giving notice of things, but it is not read very commonly. In other words, the fact of an auction may not be well known, and this might lead to a paucity of people who would bid for the car, and this might drop the value below what is a fair and market rate. This is certainly the experience in other countries, and in other forms of execution of court processes in Singapore. I understand, of course, that these matters must be taken seriously.”
“I would like to thank the Minister for his clarifications. I would seek further clarification on only one point. It is regarding the release of decisions to the public. I agree with the Minister that where it is commercially sensitive, it should be withheld. But can I take it that the Minister is reassuring us that where it is not commercially sensitive and where there are principles that apply to other companies or the public, these will be released because there have been controversies before.”
“Mr Speaker, I have not intended to speak on the Bill which I generally support. I would like, however, to raise three points for the Minister's clarification. The first two relate to the Minister's comments on the need for transparency to ensure that anti-competitive measures are struck down and that the new authority will regulate with a lighter touch. In this regard, my first two points relate to the right of appeal and to the question of transparency. It seems to me that the rights of appeal are limited to the Minister. Then, obviously, the reasons for the Minister's decision and the hearings will not be public, and this may not be best practice as regards transparency. Public hearings might be better. The second relates to clause 28(3)(b). Clause 28(3)(b) allows in respect of advisory guideline wherein the authority simply must "publish each advisory guideline in the way it thinks fit". Again, if we are to take best practice transparency seriously, surely public publication either in the Gazette, as with all other laws or regulations, should be the bare minimum and not "in the way it thinks fit". My third point relates to a different issue, and this of course is the relation of international rights to the right of the licensees. Sir, this Bill is taking part in a very dynamic situation in which international negotiations under the umbrella of WTO are opening up and other sectors. There will be an effect on licences. It could be a question of vested rights, a licence already given is then in some way compromised. I would like the Minister's assurance that consultations will be held with licensees prior to these international negotiations that might affect them.”
“Sir, in the past package, many of the costs that were to be saved were potential. Do we have an assessment of how much was actually saved in the period that the measures have been in force? Secondly, in announcing the earlier package of measures, there was a lot of consideration of the external cost factors and competitiveness. Do we have an indication now whether other countries' costs have also risen and that it is safe for us now to increase our costs? Thirdly, the Deputy Prime Minister has mentioned that certain sectors remain weak and there are restructuring and retrenchments in some. However, the measures he proposes are across the board. Will there be any undue effects on the sectors that remain weak and are experiencing retrenchments?”