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 8 of 11.
“The public feels more ownership over the problem, can propose solutions, and the polluter feels more strongly the genuine community involvement in asking him to conform to certain standards. The Bill, as it is drafted, leaves it still very much to the Government to bring down the stick on the polluter. And it does not actually help in fostering understanding among the public or a willing compliance from the producer. I think that if we move towards greater transparency, public information and participation, Singapore citizens will more greatly appreciate the hard work and the very necessary work that the Ministry is doing. The third question in terms of approach is that the Bill, except for clause 37, still emphasises command and control, that is, after a certain standard is set, inspectors and other people must be deputised to make sure they are being met. Clause 37 is an exception because it emphasises the need for self-monitoring. I think that command and control methods are expensive and not the best practice. We need to re-emphasise self-monitoring and we need schemes for companies to find it in their interest to bring in the right technology and consultants, if necessary, to improve their processes for both better environmental protection and better efficiency. This is not therefore necessarily a negative game where the Ministry punishes and the producers suffer. Or if not, then the producers pollute and the people suffer. This can be made into a positive game in which companies prosper and the people are spared pollution. But for this game to be put in a win-win situation, there needs to be greater emphasis on technology and consultancy. There are some existing schemes under the Ministry.”
“The other element in which this Bill may not go far enough is that pollution control can sometimes be only an end-of-the-pipe solution, that is, only after the pollution is already generated, do we worry about where it is put. There is a need, therefore, to control production processes further up the chain of production. There is a need to control use and production processes and to integrate land use and planning. Sustained development in the sense requires much more inter-Ministry coordination. My understanding is that there is, in administrative matters, a close coordination between environmental pollution control under the Minister and his Ministry and the land use planning authorities which fall under the Ministry of National Development. I would ask for the Minister's reassurance that this coordination will continue and in fact grow over the next decade. The second question in terms of approach relates to clauses 26 and 36 of the Bill. Under these clauses, as the Minister has said, identified persons can be directed to assess the environmental pollution effects of their activities. This is a welcome step. This takes us in a direction of assessing the environmental impact of projects, or what is known as EIA (Environmental Impact Assessment). However, while this is the right step, my concern is that it does not go far enough in fostering transparency, public information and participation. The trends in international environmental law and in various other documents from other countries suggest that when the public is informed, the public has access to information and the public participates, this helps both the polluter and the public.”
“The second question, in terms of standards, is the need for best practices, given the limited space and a growing population. In other words, it is not just the standard we set, but the practices and methods of production used by industries and by households, by all polluters or would-be polluters. So, in this era, where we are moving from low-end industries and de-emphasising this kind of production to the upper end of industries, such as chemical and pharmaceuticals, this can also be a source of pollution. I would like the assurance of the Minister that, together with the Economic Development Board and other economic agencies, these questions of production and process are being thought of, even as we invite these industries to come to Singapore. Because while the Bill focuses on pollution control, that is, monitoring after the fact, it must be done in an investment friendly way. This comes to my second point, that of the approach of the Bill. As I mentioned, this Bill integrates, but we can question whether it goes far enough. There may be on one hand too much details; on another hand, there may be not enough breadth. In terms of breadth, for example, while the greatest problem that Singapore has faced recurrently over the last decade is the haze from Indonesia, this problem is of such a size that whatever we do about our own vehicular emissions or bak kua sellers, or whatever, these are dwarfed completely by the problem. And if the Minister, I hope, recognises, this Bill does not go any step towards helping us to deal with this problem, such as making the Bill apply to the act, and our regulations apply to whoever pollutes our air, no matter where the pollution comes from.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, like many of the Members who have spoken before me, I share the view that Singapore has generally a good record in environmental pollution control. This is especially so considering we are a very densely built city and a hub of industrial activity. This has not been fortuitous, not an act of fortune. This good record is based on a combination of law, policy, administrative strength, science and engineering. When these come together, then it is possible to have both growth and a good environment record. And the Bill is a further step in making sure this continues even as our economic growth seeks new avenues and industries. In this sense, the Bill is a welcome Bill in an effort to update and consolidate different laws for air, water, hazardous wastes, and to integrate the management under one Act, under one Ministry, and under one approach. I have three basic comments as regards, firstly, standards; secondly, the approach; and thirdly, on some particulars of the Bill. First, on the question of standards. As the Member, Mr Heng, said, the question is in the details. When we set control, we have to ask what standards we are asking the Ministry to enforce. In this regard, I would like the Minister to clarify how Singapore's pollution control standards measure up against other countries, and particularly the developed countries and cities in these developed countries. It is too easy, I think, to look at developing countries to say that they are more polluted than us, and then to feel very self-satisfied. As we upgrade, for Singapore in the 21st century, we will have to pitch the quality of life that can compete with the best. And I would ask the Ministry to constantly review and upgrade the standards when needed.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I quite agree with the Minister of State that this is an important job, especially with the coming elections for the Elected President. Good men and good women must be free to do their job which includes assessing the possible candidates. As the Minister of State has told us, there is a degree of subjectivity in this test to assess possible candidates in terms of integrity, character and good reputation, as well as for ability and experience. And in this subjectivity, people may reasonably disagree, even reasonable people. There is, as such, a possibility of defamation. I think the Minister of State is correct in saying that this should be covered for the sake of the PEC doing its full job free from any hesitation or fear. I want to point out, however, that this is, therefore, a creation by this House of an exception to normal defamation laws. It is this House recognising that in certain circumstances, there is a need for full and free comment and that this need prevails even where someone makes a negligent mistake, even if the PEC would by error of fact say something wrong. The exception we are creating will save them from such mistakes unless there is actual malice. That is my understanding of this Bill. But I concur with this need. And I believe, as I spoke on the motion to look at defamation laws again, that increasingly this House must face the need to provide a full scrutiny of those who seek elected office and allow exceptions for that job to be done. This is despite the fact that, of course, with the Elected President, we wish the best men and women to come forward to serve this country in this important post. With that, I support the Bill.”
“And similarly, that is why I would like my child to learn to speak Chinese. People want to speak Mandarin and Chinese. The rise of China, which is foretold by many people, will not mean just an economic incentive to speak Chinese. The rise of China will lead to a rise in soft power, that is power in terms of the politics and economics will translate to a growing importance attached to the language, to the culture, and not just to the traditional culture, but new popular cultures emerging from East Asia. The social preference in Singapore for bilingualism and for Chinese-speaking exists and should continue. But what I welcome in the new policy is a reduction of compulsion. As for my little son, I want him, like all good Singaporeans, to try to succeed despite whatever disadvantage my unfortunate upbringing has given him. And, therefore, I welcome the new policy. We will reward him for his efforts but I think we will not punish him for his background. We will allow him to try his best but will give him a chance to succeed when he cannot be among the very best in Chinese.”
“There have been concerns that people might think of migration because of the Chinese Language requirements. And there has been concern that the increasing emphasis on Chinese would create some unintended divisions between the Chinese Singaporeans and other non-Chinese or non-Chinese speaking Singaporeans and I think the new policy must be welcomed in attending to these unintended consequences. I think that it is correct also that the Deputy Prime Minister has spoken straightaway of disincentives so that Singaporeans will not opt for soft options. There must be sufficient incentives to study Chinese and sufficient disincentives to make sure none give up without sufficient effort. In other words, I am cognisant, as I am sure the Deputy Prime Minister is, that this is not the start of a monolingual Singapore, which I will not welcome. But I think similarly, it should not be too much on the other side, that it cannot be too hard to opt for the CL `B'. And so, this will require a fine balance by the Government and the Ministry concerned. I think there are two things, if I may suggest. The first is that in CL `B', the question of cultural content must be looked at using English or bilingual text. The second is that this new policy may be a good opportunity to reassure Singaporeans that in the same school, we can cater to different needs, that in addition to the SAP schools, which are predominantly Chinese pupils of Chinese-speaking backgrounds, in the same school, we can accommodate many more Singaporeans of different language abilities. To the Chinese elite, I, as an English-speaking Singaporean, would hold out a reassurance that there are incentives and a growing social importance to speak English, which is why I tried to learn Chinese at my late age.”
“Mr Speaker, I would like to join the debate to welcome the policy, not as the Members who have spoken before me, as a bilingual person, but as, practically, a monolingual Singaporean. I come from a family where for three generations, they have spoken English in the home and this has disarmed me for bilingualism, especially in Chinese. But I had, in my own life time, come to appreciate Chinese literature in translation as well as to feel, over the last years, a certain disadvantage in simply having ordinary discourse and discussions and dealings with my fellow Singaporeans. So I found myself in America trying to learn Chinese because there they start from ground zero. So I welcome the policy, in the sense that the future will be better for people like me. Not that we will take easy options. Recently, my wife and I have had a child and the idea of putting the child through the rigorous Chinese Language, which is now required in school, was of great concern to us as with all parents in Singapore. Coming from a purely English-speaking background, the effort of the child would be quite tremendous as the report suggests sometimes is the case. More than that, we are concerned that the child will be a drag on his fellow students. Being a teacher myself, we know how the slowest child sometimes holds back the whole class. We have also come to find from our friends that parents themselves make an effort, in the sense that they too have to relearn the basic Chinese to pass it on to their children. And after this, we thought perhaps the only happy person in this whole exercise was the private tutor who would be well employed for many years with my child. There have been unintended consequences of a very good bilingual policy.”
“The Minister mentioned a one-month further deadline, after which he presumes Malaysia would not raise the claim again. What is there to prevent Malaysia from raising the claim after this deadline? In the same connection, what is the reassurance that in packaging various issues together, Malaysia would move to the slowest common denominator?”
“I am not sure this is at all the right institution. It is certainly different from what has been done before and I think it is quite different from the nature of most Commissions of Inquiry to investigate a certain, fixed and quite narrow question. But when I think through the motion and whether I should support it, I am reminded that in one of the sittings in this House that I attended, the NCMP said in a rather sarcastic tone that he was not at all surprised that one of the NMPs supported the Government. I then shared my view of the function of NMPs with him and the House. NMPs, to my mind, are neither for the Government nor against it, neither are we for the opposition nor against them. I try to look at the law and policies in a non-partisan light to give what inputs we can, and I have tried to do this today. Despite Mr Jeyaretnam's personal remarks and the cases that he has brought up concerning himself or his fellow opposition candidates, I do believe, for the reasons I have given, the law could stand the question of reform. When we look at this question of reform, we may not in the end decide we do need a reform. If we do decide on a reform, we do not need to decide that it is American or some other western form. We can find our own way. With this hope and with this reservation also about the institution, about some of the arguments that the NCMP has made for the law and for the value of freedom of speech, I support the motion. 7.00 pm”
“It is possible to make this matter of public process in the courts. There are many possibilities of which I have quickly sketched my own inclinations. But the motion today is not about any particular choice and I do not want to over-argue this point. I just want to demonstrate that if a Commission is called for, there is room to work on the law, to refine the law, finding a new balance without abandoning certain cornerstones of our belief, such as democracy, and on the other hand, the need to defend reputations which are falsely accused. My fourth point then is the question of institutions. Courts themselves have regulated defamation. There is a Defamation Act of course passed by this Parliament or its predecessors, but that Act does not really provide the body of defamation law. It provides rather some narrow exceptions to it. The body of defamation law is carried over by Singapore from other precedents in England particularly, and more recently, our own precedent, as one case builds on another. The courts themselves, I believe, are always the first person to turn to, to change their own mistakes. In this House, I have previously spoken and cautioned against over-anxiety of legislation to cure one or two judgments, and I have not shifted my position. That is still my view that the courts themselves should be the primary focus when we think about an evolutionary change in law. How else can the law be changed? Normally, when there is a call for reform, the Government will take it up and the Attorney-General's Chambers will do the work, call in together the various ministries and other agencies that are concerned or involved. The motion standing in the NCMP's name is different from this. It calls for a Commission of Inquiry.”
“I make my statement and fail to check properly; I make some checks, but I do not check properly, and I am negligent. The third: sincere belief or honest mistake is when I have been thorough in my checking, I have already tried exhaustively to check out whether what I am saying is true or not true, and yet it is still possible to make a mistake. As I said, we are talking here about false statements in defamation that lower someone's reputation in the public eye. I myself will stand for the idea that if there is malice, or if it is reckless or negligent, the value of free speech should not cover such sins. We should not excuse such forms of defamation. That leaves me only with the concern about honest mistakes and sincerely held beliefs. The law of defamation, as it stands in Singapore, recognises various defences, one of which is the defence of fair comment. This has to be a question of opinion, of course, rather than a statement of fact. It is of course possible to add other defences, such as honest mistake and it is possible to twin this with other questions and limits, such as to limit this extent of greater freedom to times of political competition in elections, or to limit to politicians or those who run for public office because they put themselves up for public choice and the public should have a right to know. We could also cap damages to a sizeable amount, an amount that has bite, but one that will not necessarily ruin a person for a single mistake. We could institute a formal role to the question of apology. Many of you know that when an apology is given honestly and sincerely and accepted, this defamatory mistake can be forgiven. However, as it stands, this is a matter of negotiation between the wronged party and the person who has wronged them.”
“The two extreme positions, as I see them, is first the USA, and second, ours. I mean there are positions beyond ours, but for the spectrum I wish to sketch, I will take these two ends. In America, as regards politicians, you cannot defame them, even if you are completely and utterly false without basis, only if you can prove actual malice, that is, out of a vendetta, a hate, a personal vindictiveness, you have said what you know to be false, and obviously, this is very hard to prove. So, the American political figures live with all sorts of slander. In Singapore, at this end of the spectrum, there is no difference between politicians and private individuals. Whether you are running for office or whether you choose to lead a quiet, private life, the rule is the same for you. It is important to see therefore when we think about law reform, that there can be places in between these two positions. But even if we choose to reform, we need not open up the box to be exactly like America. That may be fine for Americans but it may not suit our temper and tenor of our society. This position in between can try to make a distinction where a false statement is made recklessly, or a false statement is made negligently, or a false statement is made out of some sincere belief or honest mistake. Let me quickly sketch the differences between these three intermediate positions. "Recklessly" might mean I heard some rumour about Mr X and I just simply blurt it out publicly. I make no attempt to find out whether it is true. Second, negligently, I heard the same rumour. Perhaps I am a more careful man, I call up the newspaper or somebody who is supposed to be the authority, his boss, his subordinate, and I check. But somehow, that same mistake is duplicated. It is not cured.”
“It can prevent some good and honest citizens from speaking up in case they make a false slip. And I want to emphasise "in case" because we recognise that Singaporeans, as a generic quality, are somewhat "kiasu", too careful. We would also have to think about the law of defamation that exists and the unintended consequences because of two things. The first is the privilege that all of us in this House enjoy as Members. In this House, we are free from civil suits, including suits for defamation. Why do we enjoy this freedom? It is because this House should have the freest debate possible. We may be brought up for parliamentary processes, but we are free from civil action while we speak in this House. The second reason I can think of to re-look at defamation law at this point in time is the example set by our own Prime Minister, Mr Goh Chok Tong. In the recent suit with the NCMP, Mr Jeyaretnam, I, and I think, many Singaporeans, were heartened by PM Goh's offer to forgo a certain amount of damages if Mr Jeyaretnam was to publicly accept the judgment of the Court of Appeal and to apologise in certain terms set by the Prime Minister's lawyers. This offer did not come to pass but the Prime Minister's offer itself makes it clear that he is cognizant of an unintended consequence that might otherwise have come to pass. That, in the legitimate interest of protecting his reputation, he might unintentionally knock out a Member of Parliament, an NCMP, which he said was not his intention. Let me turn then to the next question. Having said that there is a reason for balance, what is the right balance? I do not want to guess what Mr Jeyaretnam will bring up as examples. Let me just quickly sketch two extreme positions and some places in between.”
“This helps make consultation work, and Singapore is a better place rather than a more fragile place. In this context, the law of defamation concerns me because it is not about all forms of speech. Defamation, as any law student will tell you, is about false statements. If you are saying the truth, you cannot be found guilty of defamation. You must first be saying something that is false. There are other elements such as, secondly, that false statement then injures the reputation of the person you refer to. That is the first distinction I want to make about the broader question of free speech and the narrower question on defamation. While we value free speech, should we value it so much that we want to protect false statements that harm reputation? This question is an important one because it leads me to my second, the question of balance. Having said that free speech has a value and is recognised in the Constitution under Article 14, we have to recognise that there are concerns that the politicians, or those who would be politicians, would have their reputations injured falsely, or ordinary citizens would. This might lead to the lack of good people to volunteer themselves for public office and to have their reputation scrutinised and publicly criticised. This exception of question of defamation is also in the Constitution. So, if on one hand, the freedom of speech is in the Constitution, so is the exception of defamation, and we have to recognise that that is the substance of our Constitution. We cannot on one hand inflate the value of free speech, and pretend the exception does not exist in our Constitution. But I still think that there is room to recognise that the law of defamation, as it exists today, can have unintended consequences that it can chill free speech.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, in the earlier motion that Mr Jeyaretnam referred to, I was concerned about the rules of preventive detention. But I did not support that motion because I felt that there were smaller concerns that might limit free speech in our society. I turn then to this motion to think whether our defamation laws are one of those concerns. In speaking today, I must say that while some sectors of Singaporeans have sympathy for Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam for the various suits that he has fought and lost, I would wish to make my remarks less personal and avoid the cases he has referred to which have already been decided by the courts and which stand today as the law in Singapore as decided by our highest courts. Let me then turn to four questions. The first is the importance of free speech. The second is whether this important free speech needs to be balanced in some way. The third is what is that right balance. And the fourth is how do we change the law. Is a Commission, as proposed by the motion, the best way to go about it? On the first question, the importance of free speech. I have served this year, and I am still serving, as a member of the Singapore 21 Committee. In this context, I co-chair a committee concerning the search for consensus and consultation on one hand against decisiveness and quick action on the other. In our meetings with many people, we have emphasised that, for consultation to happen in Singapore, there must be free speech, there must also be a sense of participation and there must be a recognition of our national interests and the harmony that underpins our society. Only when we accept on one hand the right to speak and, on the other, recognise the due limitations to those who speak.”
“Parliament then plays its role by retaining the power to question Ministers over their use of the delegated power to hold them accountable to the House. This is possible because our Ministers are also Members of Parliament. The constitutional principle is that delegated legislation should be in the hands of the Executives who are accountable to Parliament. If we put the power in the hands of the President or Chief Justice, I wish to point out that the House cannot hold them accountable in the same way as Ministers. Sir, this problem can, of course, be circumvented. The amendment can provide for the Minister for Law to act, after consulting the Chief Justice. This will accord the constitutional principles and accountability of this House, while achieving the wish to take into account the Chief Justice's views and to amend as necessary. This is a small change, but it is one that may be necessary to clearly observe the Constitution. I would urge the Minister to clarify these concerns before passing the amendments.”
“I assume the Minister will clarify at the end and I shall therefore proceed with the question that arises if no ministerial advice is required and the concerns that therefore arise. If no ministerial advice is required, this raises the concern that it might be against constitutional principle. In raising this concern, allow me to make it plain that I do not question the august judgment of the Chief Justice and the President. Rather, it is question of the constitutional arrangements of power. The Constitution gives separate and different powers to the Executive, the legislature and the judiciary. One institution should not intrude on another's domain. Sir, the judicial power in Article 93 is to interpret law as applied in individual cases. The Chief Justice also has the power to supervise administration of the courts that the Constitution provides or this House creates by legislation. This House cannot make laws that are designed to apply specifically and specially to decide any singular or particular case. This would intrude on the judicial power as shown in the Privy Council case of Liyange. Judicial power, however, is set within its own limits. Judicial power is not a power to make law or to decide general rules on what kind of cases to hear by quantum or other general characteristics as these intended amendments provide. This is the power of the legislation and that power belongs rightly to the legislature and this Parliament. The power to make laws such as the SCJA belongs to this House. So does the power to vary it. It does not belong to either the Chief Justice or the President. The power to make law can be, of course, delegated for subsidiary legislation. The power can be delegated to the Executive, Ministers.”
“The proposed amendment might be justified perhaps if there were a backlog of cases caused by a flood of appeals. This, however, is not the case at present, as I understand it. Our courts have shown world class efficiency. This, we can be proud of. We should value the efficiency in the dispensation of justice. But we should pause and question before efficiency gives way to haste or expediency. My second point refers to amendments to section 21(b) and section 34(b). These intend to allow the amounts to be varied by the President after consulting the Chief Justice. I wish to ask the Minister to clarify if the Cabinet or the Minister-in-charge, Minister for Law, is to first advise the President of the matter, or it would be left to the President to act after consulting the Chief Justice. This is not clear to me. The plain wording of the amendment suggests the latter, that it would be left to the President after consulting the Chief Justice. Article 21(5) of the Constitution of Singapore allows for legislation such as this to require the President to consult with any person, other than the Cabinet or Minister. However, Article 21(1) of the Constitution says that generally, unless otherwise provided, the President acts on ministerial advice. My concern is that if the President acts in consultation with the Chief Justice only and without ministerial advice, this raises a constitutional question. Will the Minister please clarify if the Cabinet or Minister will advise the President of any change, and by "advise" I mean in the constitutional sense of putting the question outside the discretion of the President.”
“Sir, two intended amendments in the Bill are of concern to me. One is, I believe, something you can question in principle; and the second may in fact raise a constitutional question. The first relates to the access to the courts. I wish to associate my arguments to that of the speaker before me, Mr Ravindran. I share many of the concerns he has expressed about the intended limits of access to appeal. If the amendments are passed, some cases would have no right of appeal. There would be a single tier only and this is something we should question in principle. The right to appeal to the Supreme Court is important. With respect, as compared to judges of the High Court, many judges in the Subordinate Courts are relatively inexperienced and they do not have security of tenure. Moreover, the nature of the Subordinate Courts is that written judgements are not normally issued with full grounds of decision, unless an appeal is pending. Therefore, if we limit the right to appeal, we limit the transparency and accountability of these courts, and the use of their decisions as precedents. The focus on the quantum in each case is of concern. The new sums to be set are high, Sir. I believe that justice is about questions of principle, not quantum. Just because a case is worth less does not automatically mean that it is less important to those involved. One example illustrates this starkly. In the Small Claims Tribunals Act, the sums involved are well below $50,000. Yet section 35 of the Small Claims Tribunals Act (Chapter 308) states that any party may appeal to the High Court on any point of law or questions for jurisdiction. This is of right. To limit access now, as proposed, would seem inconsistent.”
“Our Singapore spirit of success but in harmony. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion.”
“Yes, there are enough employers who have shown that they too are responsible. Compliments are also due to those who have shown their care for the workers, for example, Creative Technology, which has promised to return the CPF savings when the company does well. But I hope that there would not be those which are only too eager to exploit, or worse, to abuse the situation. For the latter, I think we should expose them. The Government, together with the NTUC, should monitor the private sector to ferret out such abuses and expose them. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sure pragmatic Singaporeans will agree that the cost cutting measures recommended in the CSC Report and those presented by the Government yesterday are necessary. And so are the numerous other strategic measures recommended by the CSC to overcome the crisis. In other words, there is no short cut to staying competitive. Our companies, employers and workers realise that we must be a cut above the others in order to compete. But we have to do it with a collective sense of purpose. Show and convince our workers that the measures taken are equitable and fair. It may be a painstaking exercise but it has to be done patiently. The problems faced by those workers who are retrenched and terminated are real. While there are ample training and retraining opportunities, the process will take time and there may be practical problems faced by the workers and their families which need careful handling. In short, while the CSC Report and the Government statement yesterday say a lot about what must be done, let us do it with care, with a heart. It is not just a matter of dollars and cents, but a human face too. Equally important to the nuts and bolts of the recommendations and the action lines, is the right spirit to make it work.”
“This modest fishing boat is the saving grace for the Maldivians who know what it means to survive in the atols of the Indian Ocean. I was there earlier this month for the Inauguration of the President, President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, and I have learnt how they, a population of about 260,000, have transformed the seafaring nation to that of a niche tourist destination known the world over. I think we have two of our companies, Banyan Tree and HPL, having their own very exclusive tourist resorts there. Without even fresh water, each of the major Maldivian tourist island resort has its own desalination facilities to make the industry succeed. Yes, most of them still turn to the dhoni, their own traditional boat, and the sea to earn a living but they also know that those skills alone will not suffice. Air travel and speedboats now rule the waters of the tourist lanes of the Maldives. Mr Speaker, Sir, many of the proud Maldivians see Singapore's drive and competitive instincts as a source of inspiration. They know what survival means. Our Singapore workers too know what survival means. When sacrifices are needed, they would not hesitate to rally to the call. And this is not the first time the workers have shown their mettle. Yes, to quote DPM BG Lee again, "tough times put our mettle to the test" and our workers were and are the first to show it. Whether it is the cut in employers' CPF contributions, other wage costs and training and retraining, the NTUC and the unions are with the Government and the Singapore people. Difficult as they may be, the workers know the realities, for the alternatives, more retrenchment and unemployment, would even be more painful. Sir, while acknowledging the workers' sacrifice, I hope the employers would also do their part.”
“I remember, earlier this year, when some of us in this House were pushing for the Government to do more to assist the ailing economy, the latter initially resisted for fear of over-alarming the people. Confidence was and is a premium in difficult and turbulent times. Even when the $2 billion off-Budget measures were announced, some felt that they could be "too little too late". However, this time around, when the CSC proposed a cost-cutting package of $10 billion, the Government went a step further with another $500 million cut. This must be for good reasons. This will in no doubt emphasise the gravity of the challenge, but not without the `cushion effect' for those that need help most, especially the lower income groups. This is commendable. It is also interesting to note that the CSC was in fact established in May last year before the July regional meltdown. Here, I am reminded of a Malay saying, "sediakan payung sebelum hujan" (or have your umbrella ready before it rains). This, after all, is true to what Singapore is well-known for: to be forward looking and we always have to be a few steps ahead. We certainly would not want to be caught flat footed. Especially when the thunderstorm clouds (not just rain clouds) were already gathering over the horizon. And if I may add, ordinary umbrellas will not do. Mr Speaker, Sir, the challenges facing us call for a concerted effort by all parties concerned. I am glad to see, Sir, that it even moved your Deputy and Member for Marine Parade GRC, Mr Eugene Yap, to speak. Almost lyrical, on Monday Mr Yap spoke of the dangers of complacency and endorsed what he called worthy kiasuism. While he used `the infamous Titanic' to illustrate, allow me to use the Maldivian `dhoni' or boat to make my point.”
“Sir, the Chairman of the CSC, Minister for Trade and Industry, Mr Lee Yock Suan, who is also my chief at Cheng San GRC, is very well known for his soft- spokenness. Mr Lee is also a man of few words. He believes in gentle but firm diplomacy. But the CSC Report by him and his respected Committee speaks volumes, and `loud and clear' of what Singapore needs to do to remain competitive. We all know that the challenges Singapore faces in the immediate and longer term future are formidable but if the well-thought-out recommendations were to be implemented, and implemented fast, they should stand us in good stead. PM Goh Chok Tong's positive response to the Report to "ask the relevant Ministries to follow up promptly on these recommendations" is also worth highlighting. The comprehensive recommendations for the short and longer term notwithstanding, we have already heard voices asking whether the Report had gone far enough to prepare us for the real challenges. Some, as reflected in the media, have even expressed disappointment. These sentiments are not necessarily bad. There will always be those who will want Singaporeans to be pushed to the limits. Such are the demands of the times, especially in this highly competitive world. An example will be the concern whether enough will be done to produce Singapore's own world class players and corporations. I think PSA is a good example of a corporation which is pushing hard to be one and is making good progress, but can we really see more? More therefore could be done to help produce our world class corporations to compete in this highly competitive world. Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not intend to go into the nuts and bolts of the Report nor the package presented by DPM BG Lee yesterday, but instead go to the spirit of the matter.”
“And I think that is the competitiveness that Singapore should seek - to be competitive but to be different and to add value. With these comments and qualifications, I support the motion. The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak on the motion. Sir, speaking on the CSC Report after the grand and masterly intervention by DPM BG Lee yesterday, it is like an anti-climax. It is like coming to a cinema show soon after the hero has swiftly moved in to save the heroine in distress. The saving grace, however, is that after `the hero lai-lo' scene, we can at least still say, "Some money back, please." What I mean is that, yes, this is a major exercise at cost cutting, as it should be, if we are serious about retaining our competitiveness, but the Government has shown enough care to provide sufficient rebates and reductions in taxes and levies to give Singaporeans the cushion they deserve for their collective sense of sacrifice and effort at overcoming the challenge. Of course, we all know that this is no laughing matter. In short, this is no wayang. The stakes are high. Our continued prosperity and social well being as a cohesive multi-racial nation depend on whether we can pull our economic strings together. Mr Speaker, Sir, the CSC understands this fully, as reflected in its approach, strategies and recommendations for both the short and longer term. Competition will grow and we Singaporeans have a lot to lose in terms of our standard of living and quality of life if we were not prepared to face this, in the words of DPM Lee, "gravest challenge since independence" squarely.”
“We need to facilitate foreign talent to come into Singapore, by easing bureaucratic impediments, and should increase interaction and understanding between Singaporeans and foreign talents that come. A second aspect of heartware is how we, as a people, strengthen the external wing of globalisation while remaining Singaporean. This requires a sense of rootedness. It requires us to develop a sense of being Singaporean and yet also being "world ready" so that we can go out and compete to "plug-and-play" on any stage in the world. Our companies and families must accept and even promote overseas stints as a feather in the cap of workers and family members. Government should remove hindrances to going overseas, such as the lack of double taxation agreements and concerns over children's schooling. Government agencies should keep in touch with those abroad and foster their knowledge and stake in what happens here at home. If we develop a Singapore heartbeat, a sense of belonging, no matter where we find ourselves, this will strengthen our economic external wing. Third, the question of heartware is important to competitiveness because it includes fostering creativity and resourcefulness among our people. We need to be a society in which there is a second chance for people, and in which everyone counts. Only then will people be entrepreneurial, and be willing to take risks, and to be different. And only then can we be truly competitive. Differentiation is important. As one entrepreneur, Y Y Wong, reminded me recently, competitiveness on price matters most when you have the same product. But if you are different, and people recognise your product is different, you can command that extra dollar. You then compete, but with an edge.”
“I call on the Government to re-emphasise our commitment to cooperation and to a win-win relationship with our friends in the region by increasing this amount. We should not look to our immediate self-interests in doing this. We need to focus on the longer term interests inherent to win-win policies, and try to truly prosper our neighbours. We need to marry our sense of being competitive with our willingness to be cooperative. If we are tough enough to take a cut during these bad times, we should also be caring enough to give more during these tough times, and this will send a strong signal of our cooperation, and our neighbourliness. The third and final point I turn to is that of heartware. Last year, PM Goh spoke about the need to develop heartware. The Singapore 21 Committee, of which I am a member, has spent this last year consulting the citizens and thinking about the questions of heartware. Some have wondered why this work should concern Singaporeans now when the crisis makes us worry about the here and now, rather than 21st century. Yet I do not think the question of heartware is important, despite the crisis. Heartware is important because of the crisis. When I look at the longer term strategies in the Report, I see areas in which heartware is the critical component. One aspect is how we attract foreign talents, while taking care of Singaporeans. To do this, we must help Singaporeans excel and compete. We must also attract talent from abroad, by being an open and cosmopolitan city-society. By "cosmopolitan", I do not mean we should read Cosmopolitan magazine, but rather that we allow an active engagement and interaction of people and values.”
“Rather, I urge the Government to send a strong signal that our global diversification is not a retreat from regionalisation, but an addition and complement to that thrust. The crisis has also caused some other countries in the region to doubt whether they will prosper from being open to the world economy, trade and investment. There are rumblings of autarchy and narrow nationalism in different countries. This is especially the case in some countries that were newly opening themselves when the crisis hit. It is well known that we stand for the belief that free trade and a connection to the world economy can help, rather than hurt. Sir, it is timely for us to act on what we believe. We should help steady other countries in the region against those who would close their economies and borders. We can and should do this by helping them better understand economics and the ways of business, and increasing their capacity to cope. We should share our experiences with them, and help train and orientate them. We should also help these countries to deal with more immediate dislocations caused by the crisis. If asked, we should help our neighbours with problems among their poorer and less well-off. There is just so much a little red dot can do, as our Prime Minister has aptly said, but what we can do, we should do. In this respect, I have asked from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs how much development assistance Singapore had given to its ASEAN neighbours in the last 18 months, that is, since the crisis began. The figure given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was some S$11.5 million, under the Singapore Cooperation Programme.”
“The second thing that we need to ally competitiveness to is to increase our cooperation. The thrust of the Report is on Singapore's internal factors of competitiveness. We must not forget, however, the Report is coming amidst a crisis of the region. In fact, it is this regional dimension that has delayed the Report and forced it to focus on reducing costs vis-a-vis other countries. While it is Singapore's right to cut costs, we must guard against an intended perception. This is that we are trying to out-compete other countries in a negative manner. That is to say, we are cutting costs, so that we will steal investments from our neighbours and force them to lower their costs, or to devalue their currencies again. I do not believe this is our intention. Nor do I believe it is in our interest to do so. We cannot be seen to create a race to the bottom. Our cost-cutting should not be seen as a policy to beggar our neighbours. I therefore call upon our Government to now re-emphasise Singapore's cooperation, in tandem with the Report on our competitiveness. This aspect of cooperation is a theme in the Report. It recognises the external wing and the need to go global, as well as regional. At pages 62 and 63 of the Report, it recommends the continuation of strategic flagship projects, promoting tripartite cooperation to attract third countries to invest, and using Singapore as a centre for training. These are important points that bear emphasis in the present times. The crisis has caused many Singaporean companies to lose money in the region. When we talk of going global, some may fear that this displaces our regional interest and focus.”
“While we can better publicise existing incentives, we may actually need to have better incentives to publicise. We also need to re-look at the policy of pushing up the price. Price can encourage greater efficiencies but only if it is undertaken in a context that increases awareness and capacity, and encourages innovation and investment. Otherwise, a price increase on its own simply leads to a price increase, and that will diminish competitiveness. The same is true of electricity. The cost is of real concern to businesses and households alike. This is especially given the eventual privatisation of Singapore Power. With privatisation, there may come a need to increase profits. If profits are tied solely to the selling of electricity, then there is no incentive for Singapore Power or any other supplier to be concerned about efficiency, productivity and competitiveness. It will simply try to sell more power for more money and profit. This will lead to a less competitive Singapore. Sir, there are many reasons to embrace policies that will encourage greater efficiency in the use of natural resources. Part of these reasons are environmental. But part of the reasons are also economic. Using off-the-shelf technology, some companies are now reporting that they have achieved what they call, "Factor Four", that is, they double income, while halving resource use. These private sector innovations need to be studied and understood. They can then serve as best practices that we should encourage others to adopt. The Government has an inter-agency committee to examine energy use in Singapore. I hope that they will have one on water. And I hope that the Government will task this agency to look particularly at the question of competitiveness and efficiency.”
“What I want to ask is more a question of the system itself. Is the system we have of fixing ministerial salaries working? I ask this bearing in mind that this is the second year running in which we have departed from the system. DPM Lee yesterday suggested that it was a problem of time lag. If so, I suppose we can fix by using more "real time" information about wages. But I would like the Government to consider an entire re-thinking of the system. Perhaps instead of pegging to a handful, an elite, should the approach be to broad band? This could be to a larger percentile of wage earners and it could well be more robust and politically acceptable. Having outlined my concerns with unintended consequences and equity, let me turn finally to other concerns. I wish to outline three concerns that, in my opinion, must be allied to the question of competitiveness. The first is to improve on natural resource efficiency. Sir, an important strategy in competitiveness is to be watchful over resource input. If you can produce more from less, you are more efficient, productive and competitive. This is particularly true when you do not own or have automatic and guaranteed access to those inputs and resources. There are sound reasons to be watchful over the use of natural resources in Singapore, such as electricity and, especially, water. The Report mentions both. The Report sees water and electricity as utilities that must be optimally managed. For water, the Report calls for Government incentives to be publicised. As regards electricity, the Report addresses the question of charges for stand-by purposes. For water, there are a few other strategies mentioned such as reducing wastage. But more can and should be done.”
“Rather, the surpluses may represent costs extracted from businesses and individuals who have little choice but to pay the sums charged. For Government to be a truly good business facilitator, the policy should prefer cost recovery, rather than generating surpluses. We need to ensure that our Government agencies are benchmarked to the best practices. I agree with that. But Government agencies need to add value, not add costs. My last point on equity concerns the wage cut taken by our political leaders and top civil servants. There is a joke about political leadership and sacrifice. There is a plane with three politicians on board - Gandhi, Churchill and a third leader, Mr X. There are also a number of ordinary citizens on board. The plane is coming to a range of very high mountains, but the plane is struggling to climb high enough to pass safely. The pilot informs everyone that they may crash unless the load is lightened. They dump all the bags and cargo, but the plane is still too heavy. In this crisis, Gandhi opens the airplane door, shouts, "For My People" and jumps out. With his sacrifice, the plane lightens a bit and climbs a little. But not enough. So, Churchill looks around and goes to the door. He shouts, "For My People" and jumps out. Again, the plane climbs, but still it is not enough. Finally, there is only the third leader and a number of ordinary citizens. The third leader goes to the door, opens it, shouts, "For My People" and throws all the ordinary citizens out. DPM Lee announced yesterday a 10% cut. I think that this is enough to show that Singapore does not have leaders like the third man in the joke. Still, many will ask, "Is 10% enough?" Percentages do matter and the public will judge for themselves.”
“Monopolies always have the temptation to extract the maximum amount from their captive audience. We are opening up these sectors eventually to competition. DPM Lee said yesterday, as regards SingTel, Government must honour its commitment for its monopoly licence. Fair enough. But until the day the competition comes, the regulation of these monopolies must serve to bring the costs to competitive levels. This, in the longer run, is for the good of these companies themselves if they are truly to be world class companies, as the Report aspires to. I can make a more general point from this. How do we grow the world class companies? Our strategy cannot be to grant GLCs or any one else fat monopolies in Singapore, so that they can extract excessive profits here, and then venture overseas with deep pockets drawn from our money. We must ask the companies that wish to be world class to be lean and competitive, so that both their operations here and abroad are world class and give value for money. A third point is about Government statutory boards. I understand some statutory boards are in the habit of running up surpluses and yesterday I asked DPM Lee if these could be reviewed and cut. He explained that some statutory boards, like the JTC, must make surpluses because they need to get the best value for state assets that they alienate. I agree with him. But there are other boards that are different, and I think DPM also recognised this. I would ask that for such different statutory boards, the surpluses be reviewed. This is particularly for those who are supposed to facilitate business. For such business facilitation, surpluses do not always mean efficiency.”
“We need to have talented and knowledgeable professionals, for these would be the foundation of a knowledge-based economy, and this will mean paying them world class wages. Let me turn to the second question of equity. Many are concerned about how the cuts and sacrifices are distributed. The statistics show that Government charges are smaller than the wage component, only some 10%. But perceptions differ. The old joke is that the PAP Government means Pay-And-Pay. This demonstrates the strength of that perception. Unless we deal with this perception, people will not willingly accept their share of the sacrifice. Instead, there may be a palpable resentment among some sectors about what they see, rightly or wrongly, as an iron rice bowl in the civil service and in Government. How do we tackle this perception? Ideally, we need institutionalised monitoring. Unlike the wage cut, there is less immediate impact from other cost-saving measures. This is particularly where measures are given indirectly. For example, where relief is given to landlords, we should know how much of this is eventually passed on to the tenants and others. Second, we need to check Government influence on costs. Many others have spoken about GST, maid levy, ERP, etc. I will not add to the wish list, since all the goodies we are going to get have already been handed out by DPM Lee. I may want to raise more general concerns. It is a good and timely move that JTC and HDB will re-look at industrial land costs. But what about other types of land, such as offices, retail and even residential property costs? We should benchmark all these against global competition, of course accepting our constraints. Other areas the Government must look into are telecommunications and electricity.”
“I believe this proposed cut to wages may unintentionally do the opposite. It is not a question of "either or". We can do both. We can have the cuts to wages as well as a package to stimulate demand. We can lower cost of living or income tax through rebates. Lowering the cost of living in tandem with lower wages will lessen the pain people will feel. It will leave some spare cash in their pockets. This would feel good for the people and be good for the economy. The second unintended consequence of the cut that I fear may be our ability to attract and retain talent. Much attention has been given to the cost of manufacturing as compared to other countries in the region. But the Report itself calls for services to be a twin engine of growth. For services, other comparisons may be more appropriate. It is common talk that wages are higher in Hong Kong for some professionals, that the maximum on personal income tax is lower, and the corporate tax is lower. For research and development, another area that the Report recommends, there are other comparisons. I would like to ask the Minister whether Singapore is competing with the right countries for the right kinds of jobs and the right sectors. Our competitive position should take into account not only the economy as a whole, but the benefit of individuals living here. After all, it is not only investments that can move from one country to another, but also people. Therefore, it is my concern that with the cut, our ability to attract foreign talents here, which the Report calls for, will be unintentionally eroded. Worse, our ability to retain our existing talents may also weaken.”
“Third, other concerns: what else do we need to do to complement the strategies in the Report for increasing competitiveness? The cut to wages will make people feel poorer. They would be even more reluctant to spend. Domestic demand may well go down. When our shops are empty, or filled only with window-shoppers, our business confidence will be affected. As such, there is a danger of a deflationary spiral. Not so long ago, our Senior Minister Lee warned against us over-reacting to the crisis by saving too much and cutting all our expenditure. In the same vein, at the off-Budget measures, a number of us called for greater efforts to stimulate demand. The cut to wages does the opposite. It is akin to an austerity measure for every citizen and wage earner. Even the IMF is now re-thinking of austerity measures. Economists tell us that Singapore depends two-thirds on external demand and only one-third on local demand. Therefore, they do not advise pump-priming. But even so, it seems to me that many small businesses depend largely or almost wholly on domestic demand - our shops in HDB estates and Orchard Road, our hairdressers and barbers, our professionals and car mechanics, our restaurants and food courts. As such, while the absolute effect may be one-third, it can spread across many sectors and many people and smaller businesses. If so, pump-priming our domestic demand will not help a large amount, but it can help quite a number of people. I would like the Minister's clarification on this point. We should act to keep people in our shopping centres and restaurants. We should act to keep a bounce in their step. We should keep Singapore a city with a buzz, confident that we will continue to be a centre of opportunity.”
“Mr Speaker, thank you for allowing me to join in this debate on the motion. Much has been clarified by DPM Lee's response to the CSC Report yesterday. What the Government will do now, very shortly, is quite clear. Other points, however, remain for consideration - especially with regard to the medium to longer term view, but also on the possible effects of what Government will do. This is necessary because, as DPM reminded us, competitiveness is much more than cost-cutting. It is not a single attribute, but a combination of different elements. It is not only a question of economics or infrastructure, but it has human dimensions, such as education, skill and know-how, the flexibility of our system and the quality of life and the environment in our city. Competitiveness is not an absolute characteristic but a comparative one. In this debate, one detail will tend to dominate discussion, whether in this House or in the coffeeshops. This is the CPF and wage cut. The cut will touch us all. It is here and now, whereas many of the recommendations of the Report are for the longer term, and therefore more abstract. In this context, the CPF cut and wage cut may seem like a magic bullet. I doubt this is the intention and I am sure it will not be the effect. I am glad therefore that DPM Lee has put the cut and other cost-cutting measures in proper perspective. They give our companies breathing space, but only a regional and global recovery will ensure our future growth and development. As such, in making my comments on the Report, I wish to focus on three main areas. Two are more immediate, while the third is for the medium to longer term. First, the effect of the cut: can it have unintended consequences? Second, the question of equity: how are the sacrifices distributed?”
“As for electricity, it is not yet a competitive market but it will be a competitive market with Tuas Power coming on-line. But, already, even within Singapore Power, there is competition between Seraya and Senoko because we set up two companies with non-overlapping boards and independent directors, and they compete against each other. If you look at electricity tariffs, the cost of electricity now varies by about a factor of two between the day time and night time. For some of that, we are going to reflect to consumers in this package so that the consumers will have the right incentives to operate, for example, three shifts, do more at night, and pay electricity at a lower price. As for telecommunications, it is still a monopoly, but the monopoly is running out because we have decided that come April 2000, a second operator is going to provide basic telephony services, fixed line including IDD, and that prospect of competition is a strong reason why Telecom is now bringing their prices down. There is some further distance to go compared to what prices will prevail in a completely competitive telecommunications market. We have to respect Telecom's monopoly until April 2000 because this was the undertaking we gave when we corportised and privatised the company and we have to honour and live up to our bargain with the Telecom shareholders, which include people other than the Government.”
“Mr Simon Tay asked about statutory boards and whether they need to make profits. The answer is, it depends on which statutory boards. A statutory board fulfilling an economic function has to function on economic principles. JTC cannot give its land away for free because there is a value to the land and it has to price the land properly, not just to protect the reserves and satisfy the Elected President, but because if you misprice the land, you will have misallocation of resources and all sorts of industries built here which should not be here. Other statutory boards like EDB and NPB, of course you will have to develop other measures. Because if EDB decides to make money, we will get no investments. It is a cost centre. NPB should break even because we want to know that the training skills and projects they are doing are viable, and there is a demand for it. It varies from company to company and statutory board to statutory board. But I think where there is an economic function, then we must take that into account. It is not just an arbitrary matter of dividing numbers by two. As for monopoly of GLCs, he mentioned telecommunications, water and electricity. Are we sure that it has gone far enough? We have to separate them into different categories. Water is not a matter of reducing prices in order to match costs. In fact, we are raising water rates. We did this year, and we will do it again next year. It is for strategic reasons, and we are not going to change that because we have to encourage Singaporeans to conserve water and to realise that the cost of that incremental drop of water is not just collecting it from the sky. We have already collected all we can. But distilling it that is very expensive. Water is a different matter.”
“But this is the first time the NWC has to come out with the recommendation to tighten wages rather than to increase wages. We are working this because of our flexi-wage scheme which we have operated since the last recession. Are you sure that if we left it to companies and unions to say, "Please do your best and if need be, cut wages." they will be able to resolve the matter quickly and expeditiously? I doubt. Because every union leader will feel under pressure from his members to do the best he can for them at the negotiating table. If we have this NWC guideline, it does not constrain the company to have to go between 5% and 8%. But it sets expectations and therefore I think makes it easier for the two sides to converge on a solution which would take into account the conditions in the company. Some will be making money and want to have bigger bonuses. Some already have got formulas by which bonuses go up and down with business and they should stick to those formulas. Some may be making greater losses than this and may need to make even deeper cuts. Those flexibilities, we allow. But I think it is useful to set a clear signal nationally that this is a general direction, and around that thrust, we allow some freedom of manoeuvre. Mr Sin Boon Ann asked about rebates for worker training. I think there is a recommendation in the CSC Report for Skillsave. It is one of the recommendations which we will be studying. It is an area which we are sympathetic to. The problem is not finding the money really. The problem is making sure that the projects are viable and effective. And we have already given $100 million this year for the Skills Redevelopment Programme. If that is not sufficient, we will look for more.”
“"T" means the treasury bills interest rate, plus 15 percentage points. That means it may cost you 20% to borrow. It is even more than sepuluh dua. So now, it is T+9. But there is a tremendous shrinking back of willingness to venture for funds. The whole landscape has changed. We are an emerging market trying to persuade investors that we are different from other emerging markets, and that is why we must have one package, not little items, non-wage components first, let us give it a try, does not work, another little bit of component. We have taken some time to sit together, assemble our ammunition and one bang. And now we will have to see how the medicine works. You cannot do these things by little trickles here and there, and hope by fine-tuning to avoid hard decisions, that is disastrous. The Japanese have tried that. Little bangs every now and again. They have had seven or eight fiscal stimulation packages. They just had another big one, and the Nikkei dropped because people have lost confidence in the Japanese government. The Japanese people have lost confidence in their own government. So if we are going to have a decisive measure, let us decide what needs to be done, and do it. And that is what we have done. As to why the Government needs to mandate the cut in wages, that is also a good question from Mr Low. For many years now, we have moved away from that in the NWC recommendations and given qualitative recommendations. In other words, we just make an assessment of the situation, give a sense of how tight or slack the market is, but leave maximum room for companies to discuss and to settle on their own without constraining them with a guideline.”
“But there was no basic problem and the whole system had been stress-tested and it was all right. But, today, in Malaysia, it is in a different situation. They have Danamodal to recapitalise the banks. They have Danaharta to take over the bad loans and they are looking for large amounts of money to be raised overseas. They have imposed exchange controls. The Deputy Prime Minister, who was also Finance Minister, has been dismissed and arrested, and the situation is quite a lot more complicated than it used to be. We did not foresee all this. On a broader landscape what used to be an Asian problem and was still an Asian problem in February, became an emerging markets problem. In August, Russia defaulted and a chill went through financial markets. Dow Jones dropped drastically. Then people focused attention on Brazil and countries have now scrambled and cobbled together a $41 billion package to rescue Brazil. Brazil has promised on oath to adhere to fiscal austerity and not to spend money which they have not earned and to bring their budget in balance. Even then, people are not sure whether this is going to solve the Brazilian problem. Because if the Brazilian problem does not get solved, then the impact on Europe and America will be very substantial. In America, and around the world, as a result of this, there has been a tremendous shrinking back of investors. They call it flight to quality, that means they only want to invest their money in the very safest and most liquid assets like US treasury bills and even then, the most current US treasury bills, and away from emerging markets. So the emerging markets spread has gone up. If a developing country wants to borrow money, it is T+. At one stage, it was T+15%.”
“I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister to clarify his point about statutory boards. I can understand why GLCs must try to make a profit. But I am not sure why statutory boards must be inclined to generate surpluses. Surely, you can benchmark them to best practices rather than most profits. Secondly, I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister about the performance of GLCs and their reductions, especially those which are monopolies or quasi-monopolies, especially as regards telecommunications, water and electricity. Can the Deputy Prime Minister reassure us that the cuts they are agreeing to are the deepest they can cut, given that monopolies tend to extract excessive profits? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Lew Syn Pau asked how much GST we will be collecting from the tighter limits. My answer is, I really do not know. It depends how much less frequently he shops overseas. But I imagine it will be a few million dollars a year. Will it cause a reappearance of the Causeway jam? I hope not, because our Customs will be doing their best in order to clear the cases efficiently. Mr Low Thia Khiang has asked several very pertinent questions. First, what has changed since February when I said our costs were in line and we did not need a wage cut, unlike in 1985. I think the answer is, the world has changed. The whole situation has changed. In February, we did not see so many clouds on the horizon. Since February, Indonesia has had a revolution and there is still a political transition in process and riots from time to time, and no signs of being completed yet. In Malaysia, in February, the news was that the banking system was sound, the companies were sound, a few needed marginal top-ups in capital really as a voluntary, discretionary gesture.”
“The Senior Minister of State has my sympathies. I think the Medical Council has powers and therefore needs good officers and therefore responsible voting. May I ask the Senior Minister of State how many practitioners, in fact, have been knocked off and what serious obstacles, if any, are there to voting?”
“May I ask the Senior Minister of State, if Singapore is supportive of the Climate Change Convention, what is our position as regards adopting voluntary limits as a more advanced developed country?”
“Sir, given that our Government's figures show a relatively lower emission per capita for Singapore, will our Government take steps to release these figures widely and the efforts we are making, especially to rebut those who believe Singapore emits a much higher figure?”
“May I ask the Prime Minister, given that there is a possibility of obtaining water more cheaply than desalination, does this mean that if the deal is signed, desalination would not go ahead, and that pending negotiations, there will be no progress on desalination?”
“Sir, if a work permit is now cancelled in this present economic downturn, is there any grace period allowed at all for the person who turns himself in? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Let me inform Mr Tay that since he filed the Question in July for the August sitting - I think there was a spate of publicity about workers whose employers no longer require them to work in Singapore and their work permits were cancelled; some of the workers did not know; they had accommodation problems and workers were on the streets - the Ministry of Manpower together with the Ministry of Home Affairs and other agencies have worked together to tighten up the procedures, so that the workflow is now better. If a worker is no longer needed in Singapore, steps are taken to repatriate him as expeditiously as possible.”
“In this regard, I think the best safeguard would be to require a double majority; that is, the existing 75% of all occupants to agree to upgrading and a certain percentage of those affected. Some might say those affected will, of course, not agree, but as the Minister says, if the compensation is fair and attractive, then perhaps a certain percentage would. This percentage could be lower than 75% of course. The compensation quantum needs also to be thought through more carefully. I think that, given the context of upgrading, the first question must be whether this compensation would be on pre-upgrading criteria or post-upgrading criteria. After all, the purpose of the upgrading is to increase the value of the assets. Those stripped of an asset before upgrading will then be double losers - they lose the asset as it is and they lose the chance to upgrade the asset. And surely, Sir, that cannot be a point of upgrading. Sir, a few months ago, we looked at a very similar law as regards the Land Titles (Strata) (Amendment) Bill. Very briefly, one of the key differences between that provision and this is of a reference to a third party for mediation or otherwise to try to settle the matter. I would encourage the Ministry to think of including such third-party measures, if not as law, then, again, as a matter of policy.”