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 7 of 11.
“Similarly, I have listened, in these past two days, to other MPs attach many different concerns to the broad framework and principles of the S21 Report, from the call to give more money from the Government to the Consumers' Association of Singapore (CASE), to the use of parks. None of this is in the Report, but this is the point. I believe that what can make the Singapore 21 Report truly something, that is, from the people and for the people, is that we talk about the principles and apply them to new policies as they emerge. Not whether we talked to 6,000 or 60,000 or 600,000 or everyone in Singapore twice, but whether this Report will go on to be discussed, debated and accepted, in whole or part, by the people as part of the new and specific different issues they will face in the future. I hope, in this sense, that the S21 Report will be a continuing source of discussion, something of continuing relevance and acceptance, but also of controversy. Because principles are like that. They allow us to constantly question a particular direction of where we are going, and not merely the details of how to get there. Change, as I see it, is a continuing process, especially change that aims at mindsets and key principles. And I hope that the S21 Report will be part of a process of change, and not its end point. Part of this is already happening, I believe. For example, I hope that some of the Singapore 21 discussions on attracting foreign talent and looking after Singaporeans will be of use to the Committee on Manpower 21. When I read DPM Lee Hsien Loong's recent speech to the civil service and his call for them to be more open to views from citizens, I thought it furthered part of the call to enable greater consultation and an active citizenry.”
“If you look at these deliberations, you will see consideration of such ideas as flexible work hours and a 5-day week, dual citizenship, that GPCs should hold public hearings on important issues, and that we need to better distinguish grassroots organisations from the People's Action Party. Such policies have been debated, because they are important and controversial ideas. But they do not form the core of Singapore 21 principles, because they are not settled, and do not yet find consensus, if they ever will. I agree with this approach. This is necessary if the Report is not to become a laundry list of miscellaneous and perhaps conflicting items. I agree because the S21 Report was not set up to look at specific policies, but at the heartware that undergirds all policies. I agree because after all the consultations, someone must decide and act. Perhaps, most importantly, I agree because the Singapore 21 Report is not an end point, not the final word on this policy or that. Rather, what I hope is that this Report is a beginning, a launch pad for future and further review of policies that concern or touch on the principles of the S21 Report. This is what I tried myself to do when, in this House two days ago, I spoke against the Land Titles (Strata) (Amendment) Bill at its Third Reading. It is not that the Singapore 21 Report says that such a Bill is wrong. It is that I fear that it may have consequences that run in tension with some of the principles. Others in this House or in the Singapore 21 Committee, I think, do not agree, and they are free to do so.”
“When I say we consulted 6,000 people, this does not mean, of course, that Singapore 21 Report is a compilation of all the ideas and views we heard, nor does it mean that 6,000 would agree to all of the Report. Consultation does not always mean consensus. Indeed, the more we heard, the more difficult it was to find concurrence and convergence. This was part of one of our stated dilemmas, and we lived, and still live, with the tensions in this process. As a Member of Parliament, Mr S Iswaran, said before me, we can listen, but we have to make decisions. I can tell you all things were debated, or debatable. I can tell you there were differences, big and small. There were differences among the people we spoke to, between the subject committees and the people they heard from, there were differences between one such committee and another, and there were differences even among the main committee themselves. But, indeed, differences and diversity are healthy. It is part of being an open and plural society, and it is part of the process of consultation. I would like to thank, as a member of S21, all those who participated. I learnt much from them, even if I did not include all their ideas. Equally, part of the process of consultation was to find common ground, not to reduce things to the lowest common denominator, but to distil key principles. In this, the S21 Committee exercised judgment. Under the guidance of its Chairman, Minister Teo, some suggestions have been left out, because they found little or no wider agreement. Others, especially those dealing with specific policies, have been surfaced in the subject committee deliberations, but are not part of the main Report.”
“If you use a road map from five years ago, you are bound to get lost. If you look at a road map from the 1970s or the 1960s, you will think that you are in a different country. Road maps go out of date very quickly in Singapore. But the cardinal points of north, south, east and west remain the same. They are what you can navigate with, even as the terrains change. And it is these cardinal points of a compass for the coming century that Singapore 21 offers as guidance. Let me turn to my next point. How do we consult and take decisions? It has already been mentioned that some 6,000 people were consulted and contributed ideas to the S21 Report. Some have questioned if this is enough. Others have wondered how representative these people were, whether the ordinary public were allowed their say. Opposition Members, MP Mr Chiam See Tong and NCMP Mr J B Jeyaretnam, have suggested that they were intentionally left out. They forget that Singapore 21 Chairman, Minister Teo Chee Hean, wrote to all MPs in this House to ask for their views. This is how and why Member of Parliament Mr Low Thia Khiang became one of the 6,000 people consulted. But was 6,000 enough, and how representative and open was the process? This is the important question. 6,000 may seem to be a small percentage of our population. But it represents many hours and much work in both listening and discussing. The Committee could have consulted more people, of course, but if we did so, we may well have delayed the Report on Singapore 21 until it was already the 21st century. More to the point, we were open through the Internet and other fora to all. Also, I would say that we reached a point at which most of the views we received from additional people were things others had previously said.”
“It is part of the difference between mere survival and a rich life here in Singapore. I believe that the Singapore 21 report is based on a realistic assessment of both immediate and longer term trends. We all should be aware of the present economic, social and political uncertainties in the region around us. Amidst these great imponderables, we have very few certainties which the report looks at: (1) that our youth and children are different from us or the preceding generation and will be part of the change that Singapore will experience in the 21st century; (2) that the aged that this report talks about are not those who are aged today, but all of us here, who are in our 30s or 40s or older; and (3) that in a globalised world and the drive towards a knowledge-based economy, one of the few certainties about the future is that it will be different from the present. In this context, how do we think about the future and make plans amidst such uncertainties and changing circumstances? Some have called for implementation, here and now, of particular policies and details. These are in the Singapore 21 Report and deliberations of the subject committees. Many suggestions have been canvassed, separately published and released. But this is not the essence of S21 or how we have tried to think about the future. Singapore 21 offers, in this sense, a compass, and not a blueprint or road map, as the hon. Member, Dr Ong Chit Chung, mentioned. This compass is to better recognise and deal with the uncertainties and rapid change which we will face ahead. [Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair] 4.30 pm Sir, if you look at a road map of Singapore from last year, there is a very real prospect there will be new roads and whole housing estates that you will not find in that map.”
“But the idea of globalisation or regionalisation took on greater significance in the Next Lap. In 1991, when the goal of Singapore going global or regional was pushed, many had doubts, and few institutions (whether public or private sector) had this as part of their aims and programmes. Globalisation and the desire to be a global city required, in this sense, a change of mindset, a revolution in our expectations. Yet today, some eight years later, global or regional plans figure prominently in the aspirations of most companies, Government agencies and citizens. It is taken for granted that Singapore aims to be a global city and a regional hub. We are not there yet, but we are firmly on that path. The revolution in thinking has been naturalised, so much so that when we look back, it is too easy to think, "what was the fuss about"? We have not experienced such a change suddenly. We have experienced a sea change that is deep and real, but yet subtly realised. Change has been like water on a stone. So, I hope, it will be with the recommendations of the Singapore 21 report. In calling for such a change, do we neglect present realities? Yesterday, Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong, who commissioned this report on Singapore's heartware, cautioned that all Singaporeans should have a realism of where we are today. I agree. I do not take this as a dampener, nor do I believe that it was intended to be. The Prime Minister also held out the prospect of a future in which we can be a nation, a tribe of Singaporeans and this is an important vision. Realism is important to how we think about the future. It is the necessary difference between a vision and a pipe dream. But to have a vision, ideals are also necessary.”
“Sir, I rise in support of the motion standing in the name of the Minister for Education. Many Members have well appreciated, understood and articulated the ideas contained in the report, especially in the last section about active citizens, and especially the last two Members who have spoken. I shall not repeat these ideas. I should like, instead, to focus my remarks on three areas: (1) how do we think of the future and change? (2) how do we consult and take decisions? (3) what do we mean when we call for Singaporeans to be "active people"? I am a member of the Singapore 21 Committee and I hope that I shall answer some of those who doubt this report and who have labelled its recommendations as mere platitudes. I cannot satisfy those who are cynics, who have made up their minds without reading this report or really listening. But I do hope to persuade those who may be skeptical, those who have legitimate doubts but, nevertheless, keep an open mind. My first point is: how do we think of the future and change? Singapore, our country, is driven by its future. We may not have five-year plans, like many other countries, but we are constantly setting ourselves strategic visions and new aspirations such as those in education and technopreneurship. Often we imagine new city scapes, right down to the details of a new city skyline and living areas. We constantly talk and drive towards these futures. In so doing, this change becomes naturalised, taken for granted. What seems incredible today, is possible tomorrow, and then, "of course", the next day. Let me give you one example of our aims to be a global city. This was first, perhaps, articulated by the then Foreign Minister, Mr S Rajaratnam.”
“I am obliged to the Member. A simple clarification.”
“Sir, may I ask the Member if I may have the floor to clarify a point?”
“Thank you, Mr Minister. You said that the minority has the right not to alienate, but the majority wants the right to alienate. They still have the right to alienate, but they must only alienate their own property, their own share value. They never had a right to alienate theirs and their neighbour's property.”
“It seems to me that we cannot take care, I agree with the Minister here, of every situation in writing this Bill. But we can provide general guidelines, general principles, and entrust this to a particular person to administer case by case. Under the existing law, this is entrusted to the Courts under general principles of equity. The Bill seems to me to be different. It seems to be empowering a different person, the Strata Titles Board, and telling it not to look at these non-economic but sometimes very real matters. I would have been much more comfortable with the Bill if the Select Committee had recommended even simple wordings such as, "to consider extenuating circumstance of families and of the elderly", and to look at individual cases in this light. With this, may I ask the Minister's clarifications.”
“But it is possible since prices have come off, that people might make 5% or 1% if they had bought at the top of the market. What of them, as compared to the neighbours who have made much more? Will there be equity in this sense between those who have bought at different prices? Is there even transparency when I purchase a house, to know how much my neighbour has paid for it? Secondly, the non-monetary but real factors must be borne in mind - location, closest to family, cost of moving, condition of the house, whether you have paid a lot of money for renovation. All these, as far as I understand from the Report of the Select Committee, are still not taken into account. Let me then paint a concrete but hypothetical picture and ask the Minister for clarification. If I see a widow in her 60s or 70s living now alone in a flat, it is a familiar neighbourhood, near her family, the sale may proceed but it gives her only a small profit, can the existing safeguards save this widow from the inconvenience of having to move at an old age? Can the guardian, the Strata Titles Board, save this widow from her situation? I would like the Minister to explain this to us. As far as I see it, it cannot. Secondly, the safeguard as regards the developer's blocking vote. Many of the papers focus on the issue of developers' practice, ie, some of them retain units or transfer them to their own holding companies. Then they have a sizeable block, that given the requirements of 80% or 90% agreement, they can either frustrate the deal or try to push the deal, so it goes to them to redevelop. If I could ask the Minister to explain whether this question has been addressed by the Select Committee.”
“" This is not, in that sense, like communal property. This is private property and when we change this law, we change the meaning of private property. Much has been made of the so-called oppression of the minority, both in the Report and in the Second Reading. I agree with this. No single person or small number should frustrate a basically good deal for no good reasons. However, I would caution that this should not be overstated. No one is stopped from selling his house under the existing law. The right to buy, sell and alienate is preserved. What is stopped by the present law is that one cannot do an en-bloc sale. I can sell my house, but I cannot sell my house in conjunction with everyone else, including those who did not wish to sell. We are moving then to a different balance. This must be recognised. And I am not saying this balance is necessarily wrong, though I think it is. Others may disagree, but the Select Committee has done a good job in bringing together people who disagree with the Bill as well as agree. I am not the person to tell the whole of Singapore what the balance should be. But I wish that, with the passage of this Bill, people do see that we are moving to a different balance and that brings me to the question of safeguards. The Report installs profit as the safeguard and the Strata Titles Board (STB) as the guardian. This is a step forward. In the original Bill, there was no question of this. Now, we have the safeguard that where there is no profit or only an actual loss, then the deal will not go through. Bur we have to ask ourselves: is this still sufficient? What if there is only a marginal profit? Among the papers that were submitted to the Select Committee, some spoke of very high profits, 30%-50%.”
“Perhaps, the Committee was concerned more about legal rules and the definition of the work, as much of the Committee's Report makes it clear that they were not aimed at dealing with the major principles of the Bill, rather the greater details. But paragraph 17 says that it does not recognise the difference between owner-occupiers and those who hold property as investment. That is to say, it refuses to see the difference between people who see their houses as homes and people who see their houses as cash earning profit or holding its value. If we take the idea of Singapore as home seriously, I think that while legal matters must of course be legal matters, we must increasingly take these non-legal, non-economic but very real issues into consideration. And I would urge that this House considers this when we think about the impact of this Bill. The other element I mentioned of - that Singapore 21 may be in tension with the present Bill - is the idea that every Singaporean matters. Normally the majority should prevail but an individual or a minority must have certain rights or place under the sun which cannot be taken from them by the majority. Is private property one of these rights? At this point, I must clarify that condominium living is not communal living. As pointed out in the Report very carefully, one part of condominium living is communal, one part is common property, ie, the share value that accumulates to the condominium in terms of the carpark, the facilities, the common areas. But another part is completely private, and this is the actual delineated airspace or ground space that belongs to that one owner, that is, the person's home. No one can come through the door unless that person says, "Yes, you can come in.”
“First, Sir, let me clarify that I recognise the difference between public good and the importance that public good must be placed over private good. But I want to distinguish the public good from the present Bill. Public good, Sir, that people understand, and I think the Member for Potong Pasir, Mr Chiam, alluded to, is highways, infrastructure, public facilities for the whole populace. Public good is also having Singapore with no slums. But, Sir, while the Bill may indirectly give a higher density and utilisation of land, the primary driving factor behind this Bill will not be public good in the sense I have defined it, but rather, private profit. And that is the essential starting point in recognising the difference between the Land Acquisition Act, which Mr Chiam referred to, and the present Bill. Under the Land Acquisition Act, I think most Singaporeans accept that if a house has to be taken from them, or part of a garden has to be taken from them for public good, they will accept. This Bill, however, is different. The first idea is Singapore as home. Sir, I have to ask: does it strengthen the idea of Singapore as home if we can point not to the city skyline as a whole or to the Padang in the heart of city, but to our own individual home? Does it strengthen our commitment to Singapore when we can do that? I believe it does. Consequently, Sir, I must also ask: does it weaken the idea of Singapore as home if, as this Bill allows, other people can force us to sell our homes against our choice? Sir, I am particularly disturbed by paragraph 17 of the Report by the Select Committee.”
“Sir, I spoke on the Bill at the Second Reading and expressed concerns in four areas. First, the question of public interest as opposed to private profit. Second, the different balance between private property and the idea of communal property or communal living, which is a phrase used by the Minister of State in the Second Reading. Third, the safeguards in the Bill, as it was then. Fourth, it leaves these safeguards to the Strata Titles Board, rather than the court. I would not repeat these points I have made previously. I shall attempt to look at the recommendations of the Select Committee. Some of the concerns that I have expressed and other MPs have expressed have been addressed by the Select Committee. They have gone through a lot of work and I think they have put in more safeguards. This should be acknowledged and people should feel slightly more assured. But still, Sir, I think there are some concerns to be raised. In raising these concerns, I am particularly conscious of the fact that at the same sitting when we are debating this Bill, we will also debate the Singapore 21 Report and the motion that this House endorses the vision of Singapore 21 as the basis for strengthening the heartware of Singapore. I mention this because Singapore 21 asks us to consider the heartware of Singapore and, as part of the heartware, to make Singapore our home, our best home. Singapore 21 also asks us to consider that every Singaporean matters. We will of course have occasion to discuss the Singapore 21 Report and the motion in full later. But it is evident to me at least that some of these ideas may be in tension with some of the ideas in the present Bill.”
“May I ask the Minister how can Singapore be assured that, in giving our assistance and contributions, this assistance will be well spent and spent on the fires and haze for which they are intended, that is to say, has his Indonesian counterpart given his assurance that no corruption, cronyism or nepotism will hinder our help?”
“Sir, Indonesia has made a request for assistance and Malaysia has made a commitment. May I ask the Minister what assistance Singapore has given to-date and what further assistance Singapore might extend in response to this request?”
“In enforcing CPF payments from employers, the CPF Board will balance the need for quick action to recover employees' CPF contribution with the flexibility to allow employers to overcome their temporary cash flow difficulties to survive this downturn and to save jobs. For example, the CPF Board will allow employers who are taken to court for defaulting CPF contributions to pay their arrears by monthly instalments if their current contributions are paid on time, on the condition that they must produce evidence of their ability to pay the arrears. The CPF Board also compounds the offences of employers who are able to settle their CPF arrears before the court hearing so that they do not have to appear in court and pay heavier fines. Sir, I would like to assure the Member that the CPF Board will continue to monitor default cases closely, exercise flexibility where arrears could be paid by monthly instalments and take quick action to recover the arrears through Court action if the need arises. TOLL CHARGES AT WOODLANDS CAUSEWAY AND SECOND LINK (Payment by cash cards) 8. Mr R. Ravindran asked the Minister for Communications whether his Ministry will consider allowing motorists to pay the toll charges at the Woodlands Causeway and the Second Link by using cash cards. WOODLANDS ROAD AND BUKIT TIMAH EXPRESSWAY (Measures to alleviate traffic jams) 9. Mr Chiam See Tong asked the Minister for Communications whether some measures can be taken to alleviate the traffic jams which stretch from the junction of Woodlands Road and Bukit Timah Expressway to the Singapore Immigration checkpoint. The Minister of State for Communications (Dr John Chen Seow Phun): Sir, may I have your permission to take Questions 8 and 9 together as they are related?”
“Mr Cyrille Tan asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether there has been an increase in employers defaulting on both their and their employees' Central Provident Fund contributions and (b) what steps are being taken by the CPF Board to safeguard workers' CPF contribution. Encik Othman Bin Haron Eusofe (for the Minister of Manpower): There had been a slight increase in the default cases for 1998 as compared to 1997. In 1998, an average of 1,389 employers per month did not pay their employees' CPF contributions continuously for 2 months. In 1997, the average number of defaulting employers was 1,326. The average two-month default rate (ie, the percentage of employers who have not paid CPF contributions for their employees for 2 months) was 1.47% for 1998, as compared with 1.39% for 1997. I agree with the Member that CPF contributions form an integral part of employees' wages and workers depend on these savings to service their housing loans and to meet medical and retirement needs. The CPF Board, as trustee of CPF members' savings, takes a serious view of such default cases. It was for this reason that the Board amended the CPF Act in 1998 to expedite the recovery of CPF arrears and to ensure that the CPF Board could deal effectively and promptly with employers who failed to pay CPF contributions for their employees within the prescribed periods, and to recover these contributions which were due. Having said that, however, my Ministry is aware that many employers are facing financial difficulty in this economic downturn and the CPF Board will assist them wherever possible.”
“May I ask the Minister, when speaking about standard due diligence, does this mean that the fund will do exactly the same as the banks and other financial institutions do and therefore what advantage is there in Government setting aside a special fund for technopreneurs? BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: It is important we adopt the best practices which obtain in Silicon Valley and in America. The purpose of starting this new fund is to help create an indigenous venture capital sector in Singapore. Mr Inderjit Singh told me that he once had a project which could not be funded in Singapore and that he had to go to Taiwan where there was so much expertise in this area to get the financing. We should have such a developed sector in Singapore so that those who are starting start-ups here would be able to get local financing. MANAGEMENT-LEVEL WORKERS (Number retrenched) 6. Dr Lee Tsao Yuan asked the Minister for Manpower what is the number of management-level workers, particularly the older ones, who have been retrenched as a result of the economic crisis. The Minister of State for Manpower (Encik Othman Bin Haron Eusofe) (for the Minister for Manpower): The Ministry of Manpower's survey on private sector establishments with at least 25 employees showed that a total of 29,086 workers were retrenched in 1998. 5,830 of them were previously holding higher skilled jobs as managers, executives, professionals and technicians, an increase from 1,779 in 1997. About one in every three of the retrenched who were holding higher skilled jobs were at least 40 years old. DEFAULT IN CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND CONTRIBUTIONS 7.”
“In this respect, our rules and regulations will be reviewed under the T21 initiative, with a view to removing the obstacles for risk-taking. A private sector committee has been set up to review our existing rules and regulations in order to facilitate technopreneurship. The initial recommendations of the Committee would be announced by the third quarter of this year.”
“Question No. 5, Sir. The Second Minister for Trade and Industry (BG George Yong-Boon Yeo): Venture capital is smart money. All venture capital funds will subject projects seeking their investment to careful analysis. They will assess the value of the intellectual property, the risk involved and the expected rate of return on investment. Ultimately, the success of the funds will depend on their willingness to assess industry potential and take calculated risks. Government venture capital funds must also be governed by the same principles of risk-return. Through EDB and NSTB, the Government helps to provide seed funding for new start-ups. Projects invested by these funds are subject to standard 'due diligence' analysis. The Technopreneurship 21 Committee will consider other schemes to help technopreneurs gain better access to loans. Our support of technopreneurs should extend beyond financial assistance. It is equally important to give adequate support in other areas, such as providing business guidance and developing market intelligence. To illustrate, NSTB's recently launched $10 million Technology Incubator Programme not only provides seed funding for technopreneurs, it also engages individuals and companies as incubator managers to nurture local start-up companies. Our technopreneurship development strategy must be comprehensive, covering not just financing but also education, facilities and regulation. One of the most important requirements in building up a technopreneurship sector in Singapore is a change in mindset. We need a culture rich in innovation and enterprise. We need to reduce our social cost of failure and encourage those who fail to try again.”
“Sir, can I ask the Minister about the wild boars in Pulau Ubin which have been ordered to be killed? Given that we are taking the approach of testing race-horses, might not the same approach be taken for these wild boars, that they be hunted down, anaesthetized and then tested, rather than being shot on sight?”
“Regional education may not be another subject in our syllabus. But it can be a suitable subject for non-classroom and project learning.”
“Yes, safeguards are necessary and risks should be minimised. But some risk is inevitable and indeed, I would argue, must therefore be acceptable. There is wisdom in the old saying, "Nothing ventured, nothing gained; no risk, no gain." I would therefore urge the Ministry to steer a consistent and continued path in this regard and continue with non-classroom learning, despite these incidents or other controversies that may arise in the future. On project learning, I too welcome the move. More, I hope the Ministry will encourage such forms of learning to be done by teams of students and for areas that are beyond their curriculum. Sir, in the real world, we are constantly challenged in areas and subjects that we are not experts in or have not previously studied or prepared for. When we face these challenges, we are most often in teams in the workplace. In this way, project learning and teamwork would help prepare our students, our youths, for the real world that they will emerge into. It would encourage them to teach themselves both as individuals and within the team in areas that are relevant but that cannot be covered in a limited syllabus. One example of such an area for team and project learning is about the region and the countries around us. Sir, while we have a National Education, I think that regional education is also a worthwhile arena for our students to learn. This crisis has taught us how interconnected we are as economies and indeed societies. This lesson needs to be learnt, not just by the Government or adults in our society, but also by our youths and students. There is a power in first-hand knowledge that might be gained from students' visits, non-classroom learning and their own research and exchanges with our neighbouring countries.”
“Sir, let me declare my interest. I teach at the NUS and I am also a parent. The second factor, parenthood, clearly makes me an expert on education, like so many of us. And I am sure it is a factor that makes the work of the Ministry more interesting, not to say difficult, having so many "experts" to answer to. But seriously, Sir, I move my cut on non-classroom and project learning in the context of concern to many parents. This arises because of two recent events. First, the tragic and accidental drowning of two students while on a school-organised outing to Pulau Ubin. Second, the injuries and indignation suffered by students at Jin Tai when a live re-creation of national education in history went awry. I do not wish to discuss the particulars of these cases. I am sure the Ministry and the school concerned will carry out a full investigation. I wish instead to point to a more general concern. Both incidents are instances of non-classroom based learning, of new efforts to let our students learn beyond traditional reading and writing. Experience instead is the tool to educate these young minds. This, I believe, is a newer emphasis. Given these recent and unfortunate incidents, there may be some, both in the public and in the schools themselves, who might question if these forms of non-classroom learning should continue. Are they worth the risk, some may ask? The safest and easiest answer will be to go back to the classroom, the books, reading and writing, and to stop these newer forms of non-classroom teaching. But, Sir, I would urge the Ministry and the schools and parents not to take this option. Non-classroom learning has a continued place among the tools of the educator. A policy that turns away from the newer forms of learning would not be desirable to my mind.”
“Does the increase in the diesel price add any burden to the fleet operators during this economic downturn? Sir, there are many diesel engine technologies aimed at the post-treatment of the diesel engine exhausts to reduce pollution. This includes the diesel particulate traps and the diesel catalytic converter. The petrol car owner has been asked to compulsorily install the 3-way catalytic converter and also use unleaded petrol in lowering exhaust pollutants. However, diesel cars and truck owners are quite favourably treated by the Ministry for continuing to emit the much higher level of pollutants into our environment. In view of the available technology, would the Government consider a stricter emission standard for diesel vehicles, like the implementation of the compulsory catalytic converter and diesel particulate trap for all newly registered diesel vehicles in the future?”
“By these, I do not mean just United Nations Environment Programme we have worked with before, but also the World Bank and the IMF to tie together the change in the economics of Indonesia together with the environment to genuinely search for sustainable development. Otherwise, Sir, I think we will see the return of the fires with the economic changes and the environmental changes. Sir, the disaster is not just for Singaporeans or Malaysians affected by the haze. This has been disaster for the Indonesian themselves. It is moreover not a natural disaster, but a man-made one. Disasters can spur action to prevent future recurrence. Or when the skies are clear, we and our neighbours may forget. I therefore ask the Minister to look to the long term and to continue and indeed strengthen and widen our efforts in this regard. Assoc. Prof. Low Seow Chay: Sir, I am speaking on the topic of diesel vehicle pollution. Sir, the diesel technology has advanced, and all well-maintained diesel vehicles should not emit any visible diesel smoke from the exhaust. Every now and then, when we travel on our roads, smoky exhausts from lorries could be easily spotted. If one is a bit more observant, he should be able to spot one or two of such cases on every trip when he goes to work. I would like to ask the Minister whether we have relaxed the vehicle emission standard for diesel smoke in this period of economic downturn. Lately, the oil companies announced an increase in the diesel price. The reason given was that the sulphur content in the diesel had been further reduced. I would like to ask the Minister what is the impact on the improvement in the environment when the sulphur content in the diesel fuel is reduced.”
“Sir, like Mr Heng, I am speaking about the haze. It is clearly a problem that is not within Singapore's exclusive control. This demonstrates the interdependence of the environment. This also becomes a larger problem because our neighbour, Indonesia, is implicated in this. The problem has gone for now. The skies are blue. But the roots of the problem remain. And as indicated by the return of the fires at the end of November/December, the problem at root is still there. This problem at root is the incapacity or unwillingness to enforce laws made by Indonesia in Indonesia. It is tied not just to the air but to forestry and to agriculture, and to the profit motive that those who clear the land for forestry or agriculture save money by using fire and this, of course, is tied up to the problem of KKN - corruption, cronyism and nepotism in Indonesia. And it may indeed worsen given the lack of controls in Indonesia today. I would ask the Minister to advise the House on how we are working with the Indonesian authorities to-date, and how we are engaging the Indonesian government to give attention to this problem; even today, given the other challenges Indonesia faces. I would ask the Minister particularly to consider that we need to work with whatever and whoever rises in Indonesia after the coming elections. Whoever they may be, we should work with them as long as they are genuine in the desire for change and to tackle the challenge of the haze. On the other hand, I think that we should do more to hold responsible those who are indeed guilty and relentless in flouting the Indonesian laws. More specifically, I would suggest to the Minister that in the coming year, we should continue to work to strengthen ASEAN as well as to work with international agencies.”
“Briefly, Sir. A few days ago, the hon. NCMP, Mr Jeyaretnam, suggested that Singapore did not need a defence force, and that it could rely on the UN. The answer by almost all Members was that this was not possible. I too concur that defence by the UN collective security is insufficient. A first-line defence is always necessary. May I invite the Minister to share his thoughts on what then, if it is not defence, do we seek as a member of the UN? Do we seek a layer of peaceful existence and cooperation?”
“This concerns the ARF. Very briefly, again, Singapore as Chairman of the ASEAN Standing Committee finds itself chairing the ASEAN Regional Forum. This forum allows ASEAN and Singapore to engage with a much larger Asia-Pacific footprint and with many of the major powers. ASEAN in this forum is meant to be in the driver's seat. Yet, many commentators have been concerned that tensions and differences between ASEAN have disabled ASEAN from being truly the driver. I will ask the Minister to share his thoughts about using the ASEAN Regional Forum to continue to engage USA, China, Japan and indeed Europe which are all members of the ARF. Also, on the ARF, Sir, if I may ask the Minister to concern himself with the ideas of confidence building and preventive diplomacy as new stages of the ASEAN Regional Forum. Sir, in my main speech on the finance policy of this Government, I was concerned about the defence spending, not simply as a matter of a military build-up. I do not think that is our intention. My concern then was much more the perception of our neighbours and the wider region. Would the Minister consider using the ASEAN Regional Forum for confidence building measures (CBMs), dialogue and transparency in this regard?”
“And in this context, I would encourage us to see our assistance as having to increase, but not just in terms of money but in terms of technical cooperation, training and assisting in dialogue as a bridge between our ASEAN members and the wider world. In this, I think Singapore, despite whatever criticisms may come our way, must not be silent nor be too sensitive but should lead quietly and effectively. In particular, I am looking to the Minister for his thoughts on his plan of action and taking a longer term about the ASEAN 20-20 Vision, working not just with the older ASEAN members but, particularly, with the new ASEAN members of Indochina and Myanmar in the ASEAN's enlargement. I would call on the Minister to think not only of the shorter term but also the longer term policies to help this region deal with what is potentially a lost generation of youth and to think of things that may not be so realistic like now, but to lay the groundwork for future developments, such as an ASEAN university. Sir, may I take the next cut?”
“Sir, Singaporeans should understand that foreign policy in ASEAN is not irrelevant in this time of crisis. Our economy is in recession not because of our internal factors but largely because of the knock-on effects of the crisis around us. Our foreign policy, therefore, becomes all the more important in our response. Like the Members who spoke before me, I would ask the Minister to share his thoughts on assuming the chairmanship of the ASEAN Standing Committee and the ASEAN Regional Forum. ASEAN is the core group for many international and inter-regional institutions concerning investments, trade and security. In this sense, I would like the Minister to share with us his thoughts on AFTA and AIA, not only as goods in themselves, but rather what this may signal for our relationships with other regions. Secondly, Sir, ASEAN has been a grouping not only of disparate and very different countries, but within the diversity, ASEAN has worked as an institution to build norms, discourage conflicts and the use of force in our region with great success. We try to encourage cooperation and to minimise bilateral problems within the context of wider relations. In this sense, I would ask the Minister to share his perspectives on how ASEAN might deal or help us deal with various bilateral concerns we may have. 5.30 pm In particular, Sir, I am concerned that some are now talking about a century of ACE (America, China and Europe), ie, a future century which would not include ASEAN. What are the Minister's thoughts as Singapore continues its chairmanship? In particular, I am concerned that Singapore leadership be not seen as a self-appointed and loud captain, but rather as a leadership of service.”
“There will be a significant cost saving also if we consider this kind of system. Sir, based on the significant price reduction in both the water cost per cubic metre and the construction cost of the internationally called project, we should not rule out the sea water reverse osmosis as a cost-effective alternative to desalination for Singapore. We should consider the reverse osmosis system seriously.”
“Low Seow Chay: Sir, the desalination technology development is, as what the Prime Minister mentioned in his speech to the grassroots leaders during the Chinese New Year reception, that it is a progress towards our advantage. True enough, the cost of desalination of water has fallen tremendously in the recent year. According to a recent tender called for building an operation by the State of Florida in the US, the water from the sea water reverse osmosis system was offered at a price as low as US67 cents per cubic metre, which is about S$1.17 cents per cubic metre for the next 30 years. We could see that from this tender in the US, the cost of water production by the sea water reverse osmosis is reduced significantly. It is reduced from what people believe to be about US$1.15 cents per cubic metre to as low as US67 cents per cubic metre. From a study reported by Desalination, the water reuse magazine, in March 1998, the estimated cost of water from a multi-stage fresh desalination system, like the one that we are going to build, will be about 39% higher than the unit water cost from the reverse osmosis system. Sir, one may like to ask why the reverse osmosis water is so cheap and yet, we are not so keen in that particular system. I think the main concern may be the quality of water because the salinity of the water product would be about 200 parts per million. Since we are self-sufficient for almost half of the water that we need, the blending of the water from the reverse osmosis with the fresh water supply would reduce the salinity of the water to an extent which is not so objectionable to our people. Based on the construction cost of less than US$5 per gallon per day, the 30 million gallons per day system we would like to build would cost around S$260 million.”
“Sir, I move this amendment, not so much on energy conservation but rather on energy efficiency. The difference is that efficiency is doing more with less, whereas conservation suggests that we do nothing or do without. There is a great difference between the two terms: energy efficiency is an achievement in competitiveness. It is this change of mindset that I wish to encourage the Minister to consider fostering. Not with specific technology. It is not a question of hardware or gadgets at this stage, it is a question of mindset change in the Government, first and foremost, and then in the private sector. In the Government, when it comes to its own projects, its own buildings, and then in the Government's role as regulator and standard setter for the private sector. There are reasons of competitiveness, as I have said, to do this. There is also a coming reason in terms of international law and the climate change convention, which will eventually set the limits to how much each country can emit in terms of carbon emissions and other things that relate to energy production. One of the primary concerns, besides the change of mindset, is the coming privatisation of Singapore Power. In privatising Singapore's power companies in future, I would ask the Minister to adopt policies that would encourage these power companies to promote efficiency rather than the sale of more power, more energy, at more costs and more profits. In this sense, Sir, I am asking the Minister to consider incentives for efficiency. I understand there is a coming inter-agency report on energy efficiency and I think in this light it would be a very important document to set about the change of mindset. 5.30 pm Assoc. Prof.”
“Second, I would ask the Minister to comment on newer issues coming into the WTO. This includes the connection between trade and the protection of the environment as well as the connection between trade and the protection of labour rights. These issues are being put on the table by many developed countries in the west, including the USA, for the new so-called millennium round of trade negotiations. Many developing countries, especially those in our region, have been sceptical about the initiatives. There are grounds, indeed, to believe that these are disguised attempts at protectionism. We should guard against such disguised protectionism. But, Sir, I ask the Minister to consider that Singapore has a good record on both the environment and on labour rights judged against many other countries. In this sense, I would agree we have to guard against protectionism. But I would ask the Minister and his Ministry not to shy away from the valid discussion of such issues. I believe that we should not be a nay sayer in the coming rounds of negotiations whose only role is to say "No". Together with others, I would encourage Singapore and the Minister to engage with Europe and the USA on these issues to develop an international approach in the WTO that is fair and agreeable to both developed and developing countries. May I ask the Minister to outline our policy in these areas for the coming rounds. Sir, the WTO and international trade are vital to Singapore's present and future interest. The WTO is a rule-based regime that affords a degree of fairness amongst countries both big and small. I hope the Minister will elucidate our policies.”
“Sir, few Singaporeans fully understand the impact the World Trade Organisation has on our economy. The World Trade regime is increasingly not only about trade. It includes and influences Singapore's domestic policies and laws on such matters as intellectual property, investment incentives, rules for industry, government procurement and the opening of financial services and other factors of our economy to foreign competition. In this, I believe Singapore has been an active participant in the WTO policy. In fact, we are perhaps among the chief proponents of free trade. Other countries, however, may have doubts, especially in this time of crisis. There are a growing rumbles of autarchy and narrow nationalism among our neighbours. There are some who wish to withdraw from the global markets and international trade. Such impulses would not be to our interest in my belief, nor are they in the long term interest of our region. There are such implications for Singapore and I would ask the Minister to comment on two areas of trade policy and the WTO. First, Singapore should continue to play a strong role in working with our ASEAN neighbours in initiatives such as the ASEAN Free Trade Area. In doing so, we will need to make sure if regional efforts are compatible with the WTO as a form of open regionalisation rather than closed regionalisation. We should also assist our neighbours in making transitions to freer trade. This is especially so for newer ASEAN members in Indochina. In this regard, our Prime Minister made a call at the 1996 WTO Ministerial Meeting to give assistance to the least developed countries. I would ask the Minister what steps Singapore has taken in this direction and whether consistent and sufficient assistance has been given.”
“In some countries, citizens end up using the court legal system to challenge the Government for breach of what they think of as the public trust in the use of land. This is not good. Even though I am a lawyer, I would not encourage such litigious practice. But just as the Government has a land bank, the Government has a bank of trust. If it is an urgent matter, it can draw on the bank of trust and use it without consultation. But where land use is important but not urgent, I would encourage the Minister to consider a full public consultation on land use where land policy is changed.”
“First, the Strata Titles Act allowing for private redevelopment and the second, HDB powers to acquire a property while upgrading. The second change has been public acquisition for private redevelopment and use. And there is an on-going controversy over the Dawson Road properties. The third is that there has been use of nature reserves for other uses. Here, there was some use of nature reserves for water storage tanks. And second, a decision not to follow through on some aspects of the Green Plan that the Government adopted in the early 1990s. Sir, I am not arguing that all these changes are wrong. In this House and in the media, I have expressed my views on these and on other matters. I will not repeat my points. But I think that in sum, we are pointing to a more general need to enhance public consultation. This is especially when Government changes the law or policy or goes against its original statement, such as the Green Plan, or changes the use, which has already been identified under the land use plan, such as the use of nature reserves for other purposes. The Government, of course, may have its reasons for these changes. But I ask the Minister to consider that people too have concerns and perspectives and they have their interests arising from what Government has already said and planned. Thus, when changes are made, I will encourage the Minister and his agencies to engage in a full, rational discussion and consultation to explain and also to listen. I believe that where the Government is rational and has good reasons, Singaporeans can be convinced. Some may not, but others will understand and respect the Government's views. Trust, transparency and accountability are not only terms we should use for financial matters, but also about land use.”
“Sir, I think I must be the first speaker today on land that does not talk about sales or price but about use and ownership. In calling for this cut to enhance public consultation on land use, perhaps some context may be useful. First, as publicly noted, Singapore's population is increasing. We are close to four million now. This is earlier than projected. We are reaching our year X scenario. With this greater population of both Singaporeans and foreigners, there are even more demands on Singapore's land space. There are different wishes and priorities and there is a need for balance. The aim, moreover, is not just to squeeze everyone in in as tight a space as possible, to make do, anyhow. Rather, our aim is to build a world class city of many amenities, physical and mental, with a good environment, to make this our best home, both physically and psychically. In this sense, ownership, familiarity of surroundings, conservation, and a good environment, are all key attributes of land use. The context of today is also that a current review of the master plan is on-going. In this, the main tool is what we call the Development Plan Guidelines (DPG). These are detailed specifications on land use. Often, it has been said that these are effective rather than the use of environmental impact assessments. There are some existing forms for consultation on land use today. Elaborate models are sometimes developed by the Ministry or its agencies, open to the public for discussion. But, Sir, events in the last year have been of concern. The first has been that this House has made some changes in property rights. I can think of two issues which have detained this House.”
“In particular, I am thinking of budgets that are culled from each individual budget to create a pool of resources. Say, take 20% off each self-help group's budget as Government support, and put it to a common pool. Where there are collaborative projects between two or more of these groups, this pool can be called on, but not if the projects involve only to one ethnic group. Additionally, another step that might help is to have a multi-cultural day to promote understanding and awareness of the important value of multi-culturalism in our multi-racial and multi-cultural society.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head V of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100. Sir, in moving this cut on the Prime Minister's Office, I am concerned about our policies regarding development of a harmonious multi-racial society. May I begin, first, Sir, by saying that I believe we have had and enjoyed a good record to date. I think Singaporeans have matured in time to accept a multi-racial society as a cornerstone of Singapore. My concern is that this should not be taken for granted, especially in this time of crisis. In this regard, I wish to raise two points for the Prime Minister's Office. The first is that it should be our policy to monitor discrimination in all matters, especially in terms of jobs. This is an issue that has arisen recently in private sector hiring, not in the Government. But if this is not addressed, the economic crisis would indeed test our social cohesion. The Government to-date has responded by saying that it would discourage discrimination and offer advice and moral leadership. I think this is correct, as a first step, and that legislation is not presently warranted. However, I would urge the Prime Minister's Office and the Government to monitor the situation as it unfolds and, if necessary, look to legislation. The second point I wish to make on this cut is that I hope the Prime Minister's Office would foster collaboration between various self-help groups. In a previous speech in this Parliament, I have given my thoughts on possible but unintended consequences of having separate ethnic self-help groups. I shall not repeat myself, but I do hope the Prime Minister's Office would consider ways to encourage greater collaboration between these different self-help groups.”
“What is the Government's position as regards youths and others who acquire citizenship abroad by birth, in that sense, they are given dual citizenship? I am thinking here primarily of Singaporeans who go to work or live abroad for long periods and their children acquire citizenship by birth or other reasons under those countries' laws. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, for cases like that, children who are born overseas to Singapore parents, they hold dual citizenship until they have reached 21 years old and they are required to affirm an oath of loyalty before their 22nd birthday. BILL INTRODUCED ENVIRONMENTAL PUBLIC HEALTH (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Environmental Public Health Act (Chapter 95 of the 1988 Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for the Environment (Mr Yeo Cheow Tong); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament; and to be printed. ANNUAL BUDGET STATEMENT Resumption of Debate on Question (26th February, 1999). "That Parliament approves the financial policy of the Government for the financial year 1st April, 1999 to 31st March, 2000.". - [Minister for Finance]. Question again proposed. 12.34 pm”
“May I just ask one further clarification? Does it mean that the Ministry does not intend to use these powers retrospectively to meet new standards?”
“This is a new area of legislation where we are only saying that we will have regulations to be made. Read in combination with clause 18 it suggests that the Director can order a clean up. My question to the Minister is whether, read in combination, this might mean actually the power to clean up post facto, ie, where no standards existed before, or relatively low standards existed, we impose new standards or higher standards, we can retrospectively ask the landowners or the occupiers of the land to clean up to the higher standard and to meet the cost.”
“But I would urge the Minister to consider, as Mr Heng also said, that the devil is in the details. And as such, when the regulations come out and specific incidents come out, I would urge the Ministry to consider having a much greater public access and a dialogue over these specific regulations and incidences, rather than have a Select Committee. With that, I support the Bill.”
“But subsequently when standards had been raised, they had to come back and clean up and to bear the costs of the clean up which were not factored into their equations of production. It seems to me that clause 18 could be read in such a way that where present regulations do not set standards or standards are relatively low, clause 18 might actually allow the Director to go back and require the producer or occupier of that land to clean up to a new and higher standard and impose cost on production, post facto. As regards clause 20 of the Bill, it is quite similar. This relates to land pollution. Some Members might recall there have been some controversies in the past about land pollution. This relates mainly to disused petrol station or chemical plants or other store houses of this kind of substances. There was a perceived gap in legislation in the sense that the pollutants that went into the land were not necessarily infringing so long as they did not then impact on water or other areas. Given this gap, clause 20 promises that there will be new regulations. However, if we read clause 20, it is really just an indication that the Minister will make regulations. There are no details. I would like to ask the Minister whether he is able to share with us some idea of the details to forecast, for both land users as well as banks who hold mortgages over this land, their possible liabilities. Sir, I do support this Bill. An earlier Member, I think it was Mr Heng, suggested that this Bill should be sent to a Select Committee. I do not share that view. I believe this Bill is largely well-drafted and I have, from past acquaintance, confidence the regulations of the Ministry have been generally well-balanced.”
“I would urge the Ministry to review these schemes and, if necessary, to ask for greater financial incentives to be put to this good use. These financial incentives I realise might not be under the Minister but under his colleague, the Minister for Finance, or MTI. My third point relates to specifics of the Bill. Clause 15 of the Bill controls trade effluents. I would like the Minister's clarification whether this relates only to industrial or whether it extends to non-industrial activity. Particularly, I would like the Minister to answer whether this would cover run-off problems of fertilizers and pesticides from land. I am thinking particularly of the special problem posed by the heavy rain, given our climate in Singapore, on golf courses which use chemical fertilizers and pesticides very near to the catchment areas and reservoirs. Additionally, in terms of that provision of water pollution, I would like the Minister to reconsider the penalties presently imposed on trade effluents. These are set, I believe, at $5,000. I think that trade effluent problems are often infringed and $5,000 may be too low. This is particularly so given the importance of potable water in Singapore. Secondly, as regards to clause 18, I commend the Bill in wanting to make sure that the power always exists for the Director to require the removal and clean up of toxic substances or other pollutants. I want to ask the Minister, however, of the scope of this clause. Because it seems to me the clause can be read quite sweepingly. There is in America a very controversial law called the Superfund. This requires polluters to clean up after the fact, that is to say, what they did was not a problem at the time they did it.”