Sin Boon Ann
Singapore
“Madam, with growing affluence, rising obesity has also become a national problem. Other than the health risk for the individuals, there are other related problems such as healthcare expenses, loss in productivity and so on.”
“Madam, mental health problems still hold some stigma in the society and will prevent patients from seeking help and professional advice early and impede their re-integration into the workforce and community after treatment.”
“Sir, the silver tsunami is almost upon us and we must be prepared for the transformation of our social landscape. One in every five residents will be above the age of 65 by 2030. Many Singaporeans can expect to live another 20 years more but the quality of life can vary greatly.”
“If they are eligible for HDB concessionary loans, they will not be affected. However, quite a number of HDB upgraders or downgraders do not qualify for such loans. They may be upgrading due to additional children in the family or taking in elderly parents.”
“Sir, rigorous and thorough training for our servicemen is necessary to prepare them adequately for their role as defenders of our country. However, training safety is just as important.”
“But I feel more needs to be done to consolidate the understanding even further. What are MINDEF's action plans with this aspiration in mind? What are the upcoming educational publicity and other programmes MINDEF has planned to enhance the awareness and understanding of our public.”
The complete record
Every one of 965 lines we hold for Sin Boon Ann, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 12 of 20.
“Would the Ministry be prepared to publish specific details about these jobs that are available to the CDCs and advisers on the ground, so that at least they will know where these vacancies are and perhaps write directly to those who are making the offer, rather than cite statistics here of these jobs which are available, which to many Singaporeans are just as elusive as ever?”
“Sir, I was indeed surprised to learn that there are so many job vacancies available. Could I ask the Minister to enlighten this House as to how he has arrived at these numbers and the specific reasons why Singaporeans reject these jobs which are now available?”
“Mr Speaker, I would like to go back to the earlier response by the Minister. I would like to ask the Minister whether or not we are selling the Malaysians, for the amount that is in excess of our obligations under the Water Agreements, treated water at a price of 50 sen per thousand gallons. If we are selling them at 50 sen per thousand gallons for the amount that is in excess of our obligations under the agreements, why are we not selling them at a price which is sufficient for us to cover our cost of treatment?”
“Will the Minister comment on our position in referring the water issue to international arbitration, as has been proposed by some Malaysian leaders?”
“Would the Minister of State not agree that the people who qualify for these Ivy League universities are not necessarily representative of the majority of students in Singapore? Dr Ng Eng Hen: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Member would be pleasantly surprised if he saw the number of Singaporean students that has entered these universities. It is said that for Stanford and UPenn, Raffles College sends the largest number of students in any school across the world. The truth is, even in our other institutions, for example, the polytechnics, tracer surveys showed that as many as 50-60% get degrees five years from the time of graduation. In our educational system, the tide has risen so high that the majority of our students, not only the cream, can enter any educational system in the world and succeed.”
“Point of clarification, Sir. Would the Minister of State not agree with me that our students do well in examinations only because they prepare for examinations and it does not necessarily mean that our students are well-trained and prepared to be analytical and questioning?”
“In this debate, I believe the issue is not whether GLCs should enter into the business of small and medium enterprises. For, if this was the case, the absence of GLCs is not going to prevent other bigger boys from entering the scene. The issue is whether the bigger boys, and in this case the GLCs, are able to dominate the business of the small and medium enterprise simply because of unfair competition. Are the rules and the practices of the market place stacked in favour of the GLCs? Here, I welcome the proposal of the EISC that there should be some form of competition law to ensure that the playing field is a level one, irrespective of whether you are a big or a small player. The point is that the small and medium enterprises should not expect free rides from any quarters. They must earn their spurs by competing in the market place and survive. Only then can they hope to nurture any aspiration of competing on a bigger world stage.”
“There is therefore a general perception that the sale of Government assets, in this case, if it went to the managers, is going to make some Singaporeans very rich. The greatest travesty on enterprise and entrepreneurship will come if the managers are able to asset strip the company for a handsome profit after they have acquired it from the Government. The question then is in selling State assets to the managers, can the Government provide the assurance that these buyers will continue with the business and give comfort to the employees that their jobs will be secure; that the buyers will not asset strip the company; that if asset stripping was the intention, a better way to do it would be for the Government to do it itself; that the sale to the managers is the best way to maximise the value of these assets? In the final analysis, while the Government is intent on divesting non-core assets, it should not do so in a hurry and, in the process, run the risk of selling these assets on the cheap. My final point is on the small and medium enterprises in Singapore. The complaint that one often hears within some circles, and was referred to in this afternoon's debate, is that the presence of GLCs stifles much of the ability of the SMEs to compete and grow their businesses. While there may be some merits to the argument, one must not forget the converse side to the argument, ie, the entry of the GLCs to their business turfs has helped to raise the standard and quality of the business services. Think of what the quality of motor workshops would be like today if a GLC had not entered into the same arena. Small and medium enterprises should not think that it is their God given right not to expect competition from the bigger boys.”
“What it means is that the knowledge of the value of the company is not shared equally between the shareholder and the managers. Logically, it can never be, as who, other than the managers who are engaged in the day-to-day running of the company, are better acquainted with the business and the value of the company. In an MBO, any price that the managers put to the shareholders will always result in a net gain for them. It can never be that, in the case where the company is on the whole generally profitable, the managers are prepared to risk more than $300 million of their own money on a gamble. In the present context, it is arguable that risk money is directly proportional to the returns and inversely proportional to the risk that they assume. The question then is, if the managers are going to make money from the exercise, how much will it be? At best, the potential value of the company can only be an estimate. Of course, it has been said that tenders were called for and the proposals of the various interested were evaluated. However, it should be noted that price fixing in buying and selling is almost as much of an art as it is a science. What parties would typically do in order to ascertain the value of the company is to conduct a due diligence exercise on the company to verify the accounts and the corporate books. Again, anyone who has undertaken work in the area of mergers and acquisitions will readily tell you that no amount of due diligence is going to put an outside party on par with the managers in knowing and understanding the true value of the company. So, the point is while a tender may be called for, it will not always result in the seller ascertaining the correct value of the company.”
“Madam, who is to say that Breadtalk does not have the potential to grow its business internationally? Would McDonald's not qualify as an international brand name? If GLCs were to a priori classify business with potential, it would be in no different position of possibly throwing the baby out with the bath water. I am concerned that by openly expressing their preference for certain types of businesses, the officers of the GLCs at the lower level may have inadvertently turned a blind eye to some businesses with very good overseas potential, and this may have the negative effect of stifling the entrepreneurship potential or initiative. Turning to a more serious issue, I note that the Government is intent on selling or divesting of business that does not fit into its present overall game plan. I am grateful to learn from Prof. Koo earlier that the Government, in its desire to divest, is not about to do a fire sale of its assets. This certainly would not be in our interest. We must remember that some of these non-core assets are precious jewels no less in our collection, even if they are up for sale. There are several methods of disposing and valuing assets. I shall not delay our colleagues here with the different techniques, save to say that in any sale and purchase situation, valuation of assets on a willing buyer and willing seller basis is never easy. I shall just name one example. The subject of management buy-outs featured very prominently recently when Temasek decided to put NatSteel up for sale. In an MBO situation, what is clear is that the information flow between the management and the shareholder is never symmetrical; in other words, it is asymmetrical.”
“The Temasek Charter, as we note, sets out the basic principle that our Government intends to divest investments that are non-core business, in the sense that I understand it, it does not have international growth potential. Such a move is welcomed as it dovetails into the broader plan of successfully creating an external wing for our economy. However, in as much as the intention is easy to spell out, the role to implementing it is not. First, we are not told how businesses are going to be classified into whether or not they have international growth potential. Let me take a simple example of a fish-ball business. I believe that Temasek has already expressed the view that if it is the business of fish ball soup, then they are not interested. One would immediately recognise the practical difficulty of going through such a classification exercise. While the person selling fish ball soup may not, at first glance, seem like a hot candidate for a world-class business, who is to say the fish ball seller does not have the potential if his fish balls are the best in the world, and that he could potentially be a world-class supplier of fish balls and related products. Maybe fish balls are too remote an example. To use a more familiar example, Breadtalk. One would have to admit that, at first blush, it does not seem likely that a bakery is in a position to put itself in a list of companies that Singapore can hold out to the world as successful examples of entrepreneurship. Yet, Breadtalk, and Dr George Quek in particular, is able to overcome the initial prejudices and is in the process of developing a brand name that is not only recognised locally but in the region itself. And to its credit, it has just won an SME award recently as being a well-known brand name in Singapore.”
“Every director who is appointed to the boards of these companies must be able to hold their own appointment to these boards. They must be effective contributors to the business of the company and not just coast along. While Temasek is set about bringing out a charter that will guide its business, it will also be helpful if Temasek could also publish its guidelines on the appointment and remuneration of their directors as well. Mdm Deputy Speaker, our Government has always lamented the fact that there is a dearth of talents for the appointment to the boards. It seems that every time an appointment is considered, the usual list of suspects is taken out and reviewed. It does not seem as if all Government appointed directors have limited tenure of appointment or are replaced by other younger and equally capable persons who may well be qualified to do the job. If the policy on Permanent Secretaries is to limit their term of office, the Government should perhaps consider such a similar policy in respect of appointment of GLC directors. Similarly, when executive appointments have been extended to foreigners, although many, I understand, are presently resigning as fast as they are appointed, GLCs should perhaps, in their internationalisation efforts, consider appointing more experienced foreigners to their boards, or to an international advisory panel set up for the purpose of advising the board. Such a policy, Madam, would give the Government the benefit of adding breadth and depth to the experience and expertise of the boards of GLCs. And I am sure such appointments do not cause as much rift and resentment in our society as the appointment of foreigners to executive offices of our GLCs. Next, divestment of GLCs.”
“If we accept the broad principle that GLCs should concentrate and focus their energies overseas, while leaving the domestic economy to be substantially handled by the small and medium enterprises, it would make more sense if the performance index of GLCs be tweaked to take into account successful investments overseas. And to refine this further, we could base the determination of the EVAs of the respective GLCs on industries that these GLCs belong to. For instance, it does not make sense if SingTel were to go overseas to become the best food court operator. It does not work that way. This brings us to the next point and that is, measuring the performance of the board of GLCs. Under the current proposal, the Corporate Governance Code will be fully implemented in 2003 by the listed companies. Non-listed companies will be encouraged to adopt the same. Under the Code, the Board is expected to set up functional committees such as the Nomination Committee and the Remuneration Committees to determine the nomination and compensation of directors, among other things. The recent disclosure of generous pay-outs to both executive directors and directors of a union linked transportation company has put the spotlight on the issue. On what criteria should directors be appointed and remunerated? Should directors of GLCs be allowed to give themselves generous pay-outs, including stock options? Do Government appointed directors to GLCs operate under any directive or remuneration and standards, and if so, what formula is this based? Should executive directors or Chief Executive Officers of GLCs that are non-performing be asked to go? I have, in my previous speeches, said that the boards of GLCs must and should never be a place where retired civil servants and politicians fade away.”
“Additionally, if the Government represents the interests of the taxpayers through indirect holdings in these companies, it should be prepared to engage in more Parliamentary debates, as it has done in the past, on some key policies taken by the GLCs. One would suppose that ultimately, the overriding principle should be greater openness on the part of Government as far as possible. With openness, there would be greater accountability, and with greater accountability, one would minimise the possibility of abuse by those on whose shoulders rest the responsibility of being the trustees of the people's assets. Next, performance measures of GLCs and its Board. Currently, the performance of GLCs is partly measured by Economic Value-Add (EVAs). In its application, EVAs seek to determine, as I understand it, the value-add of the enterprise business activities in relation to the capital employed. This yardstick as a measure of the company provides the spurs for these GLCs to perform. However, while the use of EVAs may be well-meaning, the application could perhaps be refined further. At the moment, EVAs do not make any distinction as to whether the value-add to the companies came from domestic business or foreign business. What is important in the final analysis is that EVA is a reflection based on the sum total revenue of the enterprise. As a result, the application is not satisfactory in its present form. GLCs, desperate to perform to improve its performance, may well be forced to unfairly compete head-on with the small and medium enterprises for business or even to acquire them; a complaint that is commonly heard. It is no wonder therefore that the roast meat business was on the menu for GLCs some years back.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, our investments for the moment are safely watched over by Cabinet leaders or ex-Cabinet leaders through Temasek and GIC. We have no doubt that the present leaders are exercising their watchdog function effectively. However, one would say that the present safeguard also depends very much on the honesty, integrity and, to a large extent, the trust which the present leadership enjoys. On the other hand, one would argue that there is very little by way of institutional safeguard, which could serve as a check against abuses and excesses. The question is: who watches over the watchdog? At the moment, the public does not have complete access to the accounts of some Government investment companies; neither does the public have any knowledge of the web of companies that the GLCs control. Mdm Deputy Speaker, while I can understand the need for confidentiality, the absence of an appropriate institution for independent accountability is not acceptable either. Our entire parliamentary system is dedicated to the proposition of accountability of the Government to the people. If public and open accountability is neither feasible nor practical for a variety of reasons, I would strongly suggest and urge the Government to consider setting up a council made up of prominent Singaporeans and parliamentarians to perform the task. The council may be charged by Parliament to perform the task of providing additional comfort to the public so that the business of Government in the private sector is prudently managed to the highest standards. The function of such a council would be no different from the Public Accounts Committee or the Audit Committee in the context of a listed company.”
“GLCs that are engaged in businesses are therefore not only driven by the necessity to ensure that they are not insolvent, but also to ensure that the overall needs of the country are met at the same time; which raises the question of whether GLCs ought to be treated strictly as private sector companies, to be left to shareholders to decide, or be treated as hybrid companies which, because of the public interest that they serve, not only owe a duty to the shareholders, but also a duty of accountability to the wider public. Our Government has in the past consistently maintained that the strict line of accountability of the GLCs should be to the shareholders as these are private sector bodies and Parliament is not the appropriate body to undertake any oversight function. Madam, the time has now come perhaps when we should review the stand taken. Over the years, and much to their credit, the GLCs have successfully transformed our economy and helped build up Singapore, as we know it today. It is for this reason that your typical GLC is not just your mom-and-pop neighbourbood shop but huge conglomerates with interests that span from healthcare and telecommunications to utilities and aviation. These are companies that command very substantial capital resources, a large part of which is the taxpayers' money; your money and my money. These are also companies that have intruded into our lives via the services that they provide; that any adjustment to the rates that they levy, whether it be hospital charges or bank charges, will affect a very wide segment of Singaporeans. Should they therefore be in the private domain or the public domain? Should their concerns be matters which should be left entirely to the shareholders or the wider public?”
“The GLCs, because of their larger capital resource, depth and breadth of experience in various businesses and better command of human talents, are best positioned to lead the charge for Singapore into the world economy. The EISC report and the proposed Charter by Temasek have both taken a step in the right direction when it recognised that increasing focus must be placed on divesting non-key assets and placing our bets on strategic investments overseas. I do not think that anyone in this House will take exception to the stated intention contained in the documents. However, while no one would quarrel with the clarion call to divest and venture overseas, the devil, as they say, is in the details. There are issues and, hopefully, some of these issues will be dealt with in the course of this debate. First, as with the others, the GLCs. Mdm Deputy Speaker, we all know that GLCs here serve the specific purpose of not only providing the appropriate vehicle that allows Government to invest the public funds. It also, and more importantly, serves as tools that allow us to take the economy into strategic areas that are of vital economic interest to Singapore. It is no surprise therefore that the main protagonists in financial services, infrastructure and industrial development, utility services are GLCs.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, I support the Motion. The EISC proposals and the Temasek press release are timely and welcomed by many Singaporeans. GLCs have been a subject of much debate and controversy for sometime now. Among the many issues that have surfaced, there are two that have generated much attention; first, the question of competition that the GLCs provide to local non-GLC enterprises and, secondly, and one which is related to the first, the role and management of the GLCs. I have, in this House, consistently maintained the view that GLCs, if they are worth their salt, should play an active role in helping Singapore develop a strong external economy. A well-established network of successful investments and strategic acquisitions outside Singapore, particularly in areas where GLCs are able to leverage on for the purpose of technology transfer, would help provide the platform for local industries to grow and for local employment to be generated. I agree that GLCs venturing overseas could well partner local enterprises to help them expand beyond local shores. Similarly, where we are able to develop our external wing successfully, we can afford a little inefficiency in our domestic economy without having to worry too much about external competition. Our local workers, for instance, can, through some tax incentives or otherwise, or even indirect subsidies, continue to work in areas traditionally occupied by foreign workers without having to earn their kind of salaries. Madam, we are a small country and our resources are limited. We need to harness every resource we have to ensure our long-term survival.”
“Mr Speaker, I do not understand because, on the one hand, the Government is saying that we want to raise the general standards by way of determining what is a reasonable threshold for the public. On the other hand, I sense that the Government is fighting shy of setting standards and guidelines which need not necessarily be founded in contracts. The Government can unilaterally set certain standards that the Government expects employers to follow and whether or not these employers follow these guidelines is really up to the employers and for the general public to take a different view of it if they fail to follow these standards. But it need not necessarily be enforced as suggested by the Government.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, while I can understand the difficulties of legislating standards as regards the treatment of maids, surely, it will not be asking too much of the Government to set standards which are not necessarily enforceable but are guidelines by which we expect maids to be treated. These guidelines can then set the benchmark as to what is reasonable conduct on the part of the employer and employee.”
“I would just like to ask the Minister of State why he is confining these orientation courses to just first-time employers. Certainly those who have employed maids before ought to be reminded from time to time of their obligations to and of the maid's rights as an employee in their household. Therefore, I would like to know whether or not the Ministry would consider encouraging subsequent employers to refresh themselves on the obligations and the treatment of maids in the future.”
“Would the Minister give this House the assurance that SBS would not withdraw its services, especially for some of the routes which are not lucrative ones, when we allow these private bus operators to operate in competition with SBS?”
“Second, whether or not we can inculcate in our young a greater spirit of volunteerism that goes beyond just the perfunctory community service programmes organised by the schools just to fulfil its curricula requirements. And, lastly, whether we can bring volunteerism down, even further, to the grassroots organisations by organising smaller groups within each block to encourage residents there in community living. Presently, the RCs typically look after 11-12 blocks. It is not possible for them to pay attention to all the residents, in all the blocks, and to be aware of all that is happening within the community. By having a smaller group in each block, it would help the volunteers better able to create a sense of community and a sense of belonging, and thus strengthen community bonding. I hope the Minister can respond to the comments.”
“Sir, the future challenge facing Singapore is not just building more and better hardware, but rather to get Singaporeans in tune with the software that seeks to develop strong community ties. This challenge to build strong community ties is, to my mind, greater than building the infrastructure. For many of the grassroots organisations, the question is how do they get more and better people motivated to volunteer their time and services within the community. This is an essential part of getting people to take greater ownership of the community that they live in. As my colleague before me has said earlier, our participation rate in volunteerism is dismal. If I may just give the figures, in Singapore our volunteerism rate stands at 9.3% compared to 25% for Japan, and 55% for the United States. In the case of volunteers, typically, in Singapore, the volunteers comprise the young and retired Singaporeans. It is difficult to get those in the middle age group to participate. Sir, you will agree with me that at 9.3%, we are a far cry away from the benchmark set by the developed countries elsewhere. I believe that if we want to build our software by increasing community bonding within our society, we must work towards increasing the rate of participation amongst Singaporeans. We know, and we heard earlier, that the National Volunteer Centre was set up for this purpose, and that purpose being to promote volunteerism in Singapore. In this regard, I would like to ask the Minister three questions. First, whether the National Volunteer Centre has made much progress since its formation, in getting more volunteers to come forward to give off their time and energy to serving the community, and to give us an update of its progress.”
“For many Singaporeans who are desperately struggling, the call to put the country before self, somehow rings hollow if the perception exists that the Government is not prepared to do more if it is able to. Can we and should we do more to help these people? Yes, I say we should. My point is, just because there are people who may potentially abuse the system, does not mean that we should not do more to help the genuine poor. For a start, I think we should ensure that all Singaporeans should at least be assured of a minimum standard of living, and this standard should move with the changing standards over time. Secondly, we should set up some kind of unemployment insurance or fund to help families ease into unemployment slowly and cope with the trauma that comes with unemployment. Of course, such assistance should not be given at a level that is a substitute for the full income. Thirdly, families of public assistance should not be made to feel like they are beggars in our society. They should be counselled regularly by social workers to ensure that every cent that will be given will be usefully spent for the benefit of the family. I hope the Minister will comment on the above proposals.”
“Sir, the recent recessionary effect of the economy is affecting the lives of many Singaporeans in more ways than one. To begin with, there are now more Singaporeans who are unemployed, and who may not be employable since for many of them, the restructuring of our economy has resulted in many of the lower-skilled jobs being made permanently redundant. Unemployment is more than 4% and rising. I know that for the unemployed and the needy families in Singapore, we have many public assistance schemes to help them. To mention a few, the CDCs provide financial assistance, utility grants and food allowances for a period of time. There are also a number of those who are given public assistance that is worked out based on the number of persons in the family. The question really is, and which has always been the subject of much debate in this House, how much help should we give before one can in true conscience say that enough has been given. I know we are not a welfare state and that the underlying concern about welfare assistance is a loss of the work ethic if public assistance is so readily available. Sir, I agree that we must not provide help to such an extent that people lose their willingness and desire to work. Yet, we cannot say, at the same time, that those who are unemployed are not willing to work. There are many in our society, who through no fault of their own, are without a job, or are without a job because they are either single parents or are medically unfit. And for many of them, they often have young families. Sadly, Sir, it is often the children who suffer. Sir, we talk about building a compassionate society and asking Singaporeans to give up their lives for the country, if necessary.”
“First, not every school in Singapore has a rich alumni to generously fund such programmes. If such funding was allowed, it would rob the incentive of the other schools, which are not so generously endowed, to compete or participate in competition where they know the playing field is not level. Secondly, if we allow generous funding for selected sports, it would be possible for the schools to bring in top-grade sportsmen or foreign talent, and leverage on these sportsmen to win national glory. A friend of mine once remarked to me that with that level of funding, there is no need for the boys to train hard. All they need to do, for example, is to bring the top Fijian or New Zealand boys team to play for them. If that were so, would our boys and girls find the incentive to want to train hard for competition? Madam, sports in school have the objective of instilling character and discipline in our children. I would, therefore, like to ask the Minister whether the Ministry would consider regulating the extent to which external funding may be provided for sports in schools.”
“Madam, I read with interest recently that the old boys of Raffles Institution are going to invest more than a million dollars in the school's rugby programme. They want to recapture RI's past glory as the leading rugby school in Singapore. In recent years, RI is not the school we used to fear in the 1970s, when I was a school boy, and they have since lost the crown to ACS, which has not only consistently won the school's championship for all divisions, but has moved on to international competitions and won those competitions as well. Madam, I am not raising this because as an ex-ACS boy I am afraid that we will lose the crown to RI, although I do not think it is likely, not in the next few years at least. I feel that this report touches on an even deeper issue on hand, ie, how much money should we allow schools to invest for the sake of medals and glory? Should there be a limit? The school's sports scene, I believe, is premised on the principle of bringing out the best endeavours of our school boys and girls through amateur sports. It is founded on the spirit competition that seeks to rely as much as possible on their own ability and resources in order to achieve sporting glory. This spirit of self-reliance is important in that it helps to build and bring out the character and determination of the sportsmen and sportswomen through hard work and training. This spirit is in keeping with the ideals of education, of which sports is a necessary part. With limited resources in our schools, we have a level playing field. Hard work and training will allow every school to stand a chance of attaining national glory through sporting achievement. Madam, enlisting outside help for massive resources may lead to adverse consequences.”
“I believe that, to deal with the competing demands of second language and the need to send Singaporeans with young families overseas, we need not solve this by doing away with the requirement to learn the second language altogether. However, if the Government can be flexible in its demands and is prepared to invest more in Internet technology to assist in the learning of the language, I am sure it will go a long way towards encouraging Singaporeans to go overseas.”
“While the Ministry has been flexible in its second language policy, I feel that it does not go far enough. To begin with, it does not completely exempt the child from the requirements of the second language altogether. There could be situations where the child may be away too long for him to catch up with his language to a point where he is at a complete disadvantage to his peers. Does this mean therefore that he will perpetually labour under this disadvantage? Perhaps, the Government can do more. First, our Government should be prepared to be more flexible in the second language requirements if it is clear that the child is unlikely to, within the duration of his school career, effectively attain a measure of competence in the second language that will not put him at a distinct disadvantage with the rest. In such cases, the Ministry should allow perhaps the children the option of doing the second language at a more basic level, such as the CL 'B', as a way of easing the children into the language. Additionally, the Government should be prepared to back its high demands on the language requirements, by investing more resources in the teaching of the second language through the Internet. Sir, using the Internet has the distinct advantage of allowing people to log on to the site wherever they are. It is a virtual classroom that is not constrained by space and perhaps time. With multi-media capability, it would not be difficult for the child to pick up the language skills even in the spoken aspect of it. The Internet may therefore be used to update also the parents on the latest syllabus requirements.”
“Sir, I will save my question for another day. Sir, the learning of mother tongue as a second language in our schools has been the subject of much contention, both within and outside this House. Presumably, the underlying principle of our second language policy is, among other things, to preserve our cultural heritage, since language is the vehicle by which values are transmitted from one generation to another. Sir, in my response during the debate on the President's Address earlier this year in this House, I had said that one major limitation of sending Singaporeans overseas lies in education. In particular, I believe that it is the learning of the second language that discourages many from going overseas to work. There is a genuine concern that when they return from their overseas posting or assignment, their children, having spent time overseas, may not be able to cope with the second language, especially if the posting is to a country that does not provide a proper environment for the learning of the second language. The consequence then is that for Singaporeans who invest overseas, it is difficult for them to find middle or top management to these places, usually it is these people who are the ones with school-going children. 2.15 pm To a point, the Government recognises this problem. I understand that the children of school-going age who spent sometime overseas are given some dispensation from learning the second language. For instance, a child who is absent from Singapore for some time need not offer a second language if he or she returns to Singapore in his PSLE year. Sir, in an extremely competitive environment, such as ours, I am not sure if such policies are sufficient to induce Singaporeans to go overseas.”
“I will ask a question. I am coming to my question soon. Is the Government prepared to set the example ---”
“Should we now define more clearly the situations in which the Government can act without the consultation of Parliament, and those that require consultation with Parliament? I hope the Minister can enlighten this House on the matter.”
“Madam, in recent years, the Singapore Armed Forces have participated in a number of overseas operations that are not necessarily of a training nature. Members will recall that we had a team in the early 1990s to help with the peacekeeping efforts in Namibia and, more recently, in East Timor, where we not only provided peacekeeping troops there but also logistics support that the international troops require. Such participation, one would suppose, is necessary and even welcomed, as Singapore takes its place in the international community and plays its responsible part. Madam, not all of our participation, unfortunately, is peacekeeping in nature. There were times when the SAF had to undertake missions that could well put our soldiers' lives and military assets at risk. This took place when we flew our soldiers into Cambodia in 1994 to rescue Singaporeans who were stranded there in the aftermath of a coup. While one would not have any objection in principle to the participation of our armed forces in humanitarian missions, one would wonder whether some parliamentary oversight in this regard is necessary, especially if our armed forces are committed to undertaking dangerous missions. I can accept that there could well be missions where secrecy, in the interest of the state, ought to be preserved and, accordingly, are not open to any form of public debate or discussion. On the other hand, there could well be missions that are not time-sensitive and that could well involve commitment of our resources on an extended basis. In such a situation, therefore, the question is whether or not Parliament should be the appropriate forum to discuss the merits of our country's participation.”
“DPM Tony Tan said recently that the demand for security agencies and the terrorists are not equally balanced. We require our security agencies to succeed in looking and neutralising these terrorist groups all the time. However, all it takes is for these groups to succeed only once for a high profile statement of their intent to create chaos and to instill fear and anxiety in our population. Against these challenges, I would like to ask whether the SAF is in the process of broadening its spectrum of capability to respond to such low intensity threats and challenges, and whether or not we will be working closely with the other security agencies, such as the Malaysians, the Filipinos and the Indonesians have done recently to share intelligence and information in order that we can more effectively deal with such threats.”
“Sir, as a small country, we have never taken our defence for granted. Since independence, we have relied on the twin policy of deterrence and diplomacy as the foundation of our defence policy. One cannot deny that, if not for a strong and capable SAF, Singapore's standing and profile in the region would have been very different, and it is because of our strong and capable SAF that we are able to conduct our diplomatic relations with much confidence and assurance. We have not only relied on deterrence as a means of securing peace and stability for Singapore, but we have also invested heavily in maintaining strong ties with our neighbours and friendly big powers. These investments have paid off substantially for Singapore as we now are able to overcome the limitations of space by training overseas in the friendly countries. [Mdm Deputy Speaker (Mrs Lim Hwee Hua) in the Chair] 5.10 pm September 11 has sharpened the way in which we look at security threats in this country. We are coming to realise that apart from dealing with conventional threats, we now have to deal with terrorism that, in itself, is a more subtle and insidious form of challenge. Terrorism is a non-conventional threat, ie, low in intensity in nature. The assault not only can come in the form of flying jetliners into high-rise buildings, but can also take the form, as we all know, of biochemical and cyberspace attacks. In this regard, security requirements call not only for SAF to deal with these challenges alone but on a comprehensive basis involving other agencies like the Police Force and SCDF to counter such threats. Indeed, the recent arrest of "Jemaah Islamiyah" terrorists and the neutralisation of these cells only serve to remind us that such threats are real and are not confined to distant lands.”
“I would, therefore, appreciate it if the Minister can give us an update on the existing relationship between the two countries.”
“And, as I was preparing to come into this Chamber, my GPC Chairman, Dr Ong, remarked that I have a sombre-looking tie and asked whether this reflected the tone of our relations with Malaysia. Well, I thought perhaps it might. We have lost much ground in our ties with the Malaysians, and this is evident by the Freudian slip which the Malaysian Prime Minister made recently when he alluded to the fact that there are many ways to skin the Singapore cat. The Malaysians have called for sensitivity in our relationship with them. If, as in the case of our ties, sensitivity is to be applied, I wonder whether this sensitivity should also be mutually applied. Where, if I may ask, is the sensitivity when the Malaysian Prime Minister alludes to the fact that there are many ways to skin us? Such words, unfortunately, and sadly, are not words that will help strengthen our bilateral ties. On the contrary, it weakens and undermines the goodwill that we have put in so much effort to build up in the past. Sir, let it be known that Singaporeans expect the conduct of our bilateral ties with the Malaysians to be on equal footing and between two sovereign states enjoying equal status and standing in the international community. If the Malaysians think that ours is an "abang-adek" relationship, then I am sorry to say they are sadly mistaken. Again, I should have guessed that perhaps the Malaysian general election is coming, and this is the usual time of the year or the season to take out the bogeyman from the cupboard to win popular support. If such was the intention of the leaders, then one wonders how it is possible for the outside world to have much admiration for their system.”
“Sir, I agree with my colleague before me in his choice of the metaphor to describe our relationship with the Malaysians, ie, it is like a roller-coaster, it has its ups and it has its downs. Just last year, in this House, it was reported that our bilateral ties with the Malaysians were improving. This arises from Senior Minister Lee's visit to Malaysia, when we thought we had an agreement in principle to settle all outstanding issues with a certain measure of urgency. Unfortunately, after more than a year, it does not seem as if we are anywhere closer to resolving these outstanding issues. Not only that, we have new issues emerging, such as the issue on our land reclamation works at the Singapore straits which is now a bone of contention between the two countries. Honestly, Sir, I cannot see how the conduct of legitimate activities within our territorial waters can be seen as an interference with the rights of the Malaysians. My understanding is that the land reclamation is well within the bounds of international law and is within our legitimate right so to undertake. Sir, it seems that in recent months, it is not uncommon for the Malaysian media to allow itself to be used as a forum to conduct international relations. The exploitation of the media has caught the attention of a Straits Times cartoonist in a recent publication, where there was a cartoon which depicted the removal of the Merlion from one side of the road to the other with a caption which said: "Let's better check with the Malaysian media before we move the Merlion to see whether they approve of it." We can all laugh at this little joke. Unfortunately, it is a sad reflection of how we have allowed our foreign relations with the Malaysians to be played out.”
“Unless we begin to deal with this perception, Sir, our dialogue partners and international investors may perceive ASEAN as ineffective and may, in the longer term, marginalise us. We have to move towards greater integration, especially with our newer members and to work more closely on the projects that we have started in order to help all ASEAN members to engage in the economy. It is important if we want to raise the status, the credibility and the standing of ASEAN as a regional organisation. In that light, Sir, the friendly dialogues that we have among members of the ASEAN states must continue to prevail. In this regard, Sir, I would like to ask the Minister whether we are making active progress on the projects that we started out with and active progress in further integrating the various economies within ASEAN.”
“For many ASEAN economies, the hollowing out of manufacturing and service industries to cheaper cost centres in China is a serious problem and threatens to derail the process of economic recovery within ASEAN. The fact that China has joined the WTO does not give Southeast Asian countries much comfort and in fact would increase the competitive pressure for us. Unless the growth engines of ASEAN economies, such as the US, Japan and the EU continue to power its way to recovery, it does not look as if ASEAN economies are likely to emerge from the doldrums and this will continue to be a drag factor for us here in Singapore. Sir, I know from a recent publication that ASEAN, with its teeming population of 500 million people, is not punching at its strategic weight in relation to other regions and also regional organisations. For example, APEC accounts for 56% of the world's GDP; the EU is almost 30% of the world's GDP; NAFTA is 33% and the South Asian Organisation for Regional Cooperation alone is 19%. In the case of ASEAN, it is a dismal 1.5% of the world's GDP and if it gives us any cheer, we are only about marginally better than the Organisation of African Unity, which contributes 1.4% of the world's GDP. Sir, these statistics are stark by comparison and obviously, there is much that we have to do if we want to bring ASEAN, and together with it, the people, to a higher standard and quality of life. I know that Singapore's position towards ASEAN is that it plays a significant role as a regional organisation. We have sought to impress on our ASEAN colleagues to pull together and to deal with the perception that ASEAN now suffers from.”
“Sir, I agree largely with the sentiments of my colleague before me on the challenges that ASEAN faces today. Indeed, ASEAN has seen many challenges that could have an impact on its status and standing as a regional organisation. You will recall at the height of the Cold War, ASEAN was seen as a regional bloc that was capable of dealing with the advancement of communism in Southeast Asia. It had assumed a profile that quickly earned the respect of members of the international community. However, Sir, in recent years, the economic crisis and the resultant political unrest and instability within the region have quite substantially affected the image of ASEAN. These events, coupled with the inability of ASEAN to pull itself together quickly on major trade and economic issues, have raised concerns about the continuing effectiveness of ASEAN's existence. Indeed, these negative perceptions have, to a large extent, been compounded by the emergence of such other issues such as the rampant burning of forest which contributes to the haze, the emergence of terrorists cells and the inability of some countries to deal with these problems without requiring assistance from outsiders and the internal political instability that still exists in many countries within ASEAN. To be sure, the strength of the spirit of ASEAN which seeks to arrive at decisions through consensus is presently also its weakness, now that ASEAN has become a 10-member organisation. Coupled with this negative perception, the economic challenges facing ASEAN in the coming years do not look positive either. We have just heard the eloquent exposition of Minister George Yeo on the challenges coming from North Asia, especially from China and Korea, and these challenges are real.”
“I believe that any body of people would, over time, produce a set of shared values and practices that forms the basis of the group's identity that need not be determined extraneously. In our case, we could perhaps use proper Singapore English as a basis for the new Singaporean identity that transcends all individual cultural barriers. Sir, if we accept this suggestion as the way forward, we have to fundamentally redefine the way in which our Government takes the initiative in preserving our cultural heritage. For instance, the Speak Mandarin Campaign should be left entirely to the community groups to promote. Secondly, the various community self-help organisations, as my two colleagues had advocated eloquently earlier, should be reorganised into one large self-help organisation that is independent of race, language or religion. The Government, on the other hand, could well just allow and focus on the natural development of the proper Singapore English. Over time, it is hoped that a common language will be the social glue that binds the people together and, over time, it is hoped that our people should not feel that they have lost their cultural heritage simply because they do not speak the language. What matters most, as I have said earlier, is that they must feel that they are still who they are ethnically and yet, at the same time, be bonded by a stronger common identity which they feel in common with those of the other ethnic groups.”
“In our official media, for example, we pay formal recognition to the four major languages that we identify as official. In many public functions that are organised by State agencies and community based organisations, the organisers are required to pay the obligatory lip service by ensuring that the dances of the four major ethnic groups are represented. I am quite sure that this phenomenon takes place across the island. While pursuing this separate and distinct cultural identity to a fault, the question that we have to ask is whether such policies will help to promote and reinforce community bonding here. My suspicion is that it does not. 12.45 pm Far from witnessing more cross-cultural exchanges, my own observation and experience is that ethnic groups are becoming more insular and inward-looking in their daily lives. Is it any wonder that when RCs organise educational visits, it is mainly the Chinese who attend these tours, perhaps because temple visits are a part of the itinerary? Is it any wonder also that Malays also prefer the comfort of interacting within the extended family and the confines of the mosques? And is it any wonder that most CCs often find it difficult to have more members for the IAECs because there are not enough of such volunteers around? Sir, the retreat to their comfort zones is no doubt spurred on by the greater familiarity of the respective languages. Unless such tendencies are checked, it would be difficult indeed to see how greater community bonding across races can be achieved. Sir, society and cultural values and practices have a way of evolving naturally that is not necessarily defined by the state.”
“Sir, the September 11 incident has given us an occasion to examine our multi-racial policy. After 35 years of independence, we have to ask ourselves whether we want our society to continue in its plural form where the State continues to accept and work with the various ethnic groups or do we want to allow society to evolve naturally with the effluxion of time so that, with it, we have a common cultural identity emerging that is characterised to a large extent by cross cultural influences. Sir, this point may well be illustrated by looking at the American society. We all know that the United States is characterised largely by a society that is made up of migrant people, it is cosmopolitan in nature. But, however, if you look at the third and fourth generations, it would be very difficult for them to continue with their cultural practices and native language. Many American-born Chinese, for example, grow up in the US without speaking the Chinese language properly. And yet, in America, you find that there is an emerging distinct identity of Americans who see themselves as a new American that is divorced almost entirely from their ethnic origins. This is the kind of new American that has created a separate and distinct identity that the world can identify with. Now, we may well ask whether the United States' model has any relevance for us here. I would say yes, when you look at it from the perspective of community bonding. Sir, by community bonding, one would suppose a sense of feeling as one, united by a common cultural experience and founded in a common language. The Singapore model, for want of a better word, arguably works towards the reinforcement of different cultural identities.”
“Indeed, while China is powering ahead with its economic boom, there are on-going reports of its systemic weakness that may well in the long run hinder its growth. Much concern has been raised about the weakness of its financial institutions, the state-owned enterprises, and the extent of corruption within the system. We will have to continue to find new niches that enable us to take our place in the world economy. Our present strategy is right. While industries may continue to hollow out, there will be other industries that will replace it. New activities such as pharmaceuticals, chemicals, wafer fabs and high-end electronic manufacturing should continue to be encouraged to move here. There will be some pains initially in the process as we move higher up the value chain; however, this is a necessary step. While it is unfortunate that our service sector has been dealt a major blow with the departure of two large customers, we should not lose heart, as we firmly believe that with new pricing and other strategies, we will be able to compete even more effectively. Indeed, the recent liberalisation moves have sparked off growth in several service industries. Many segments of financial services, telecommunications and media have picked up as a result. I am certain that the new moves to reduce income taxes will continue to make us attractive to foreign investment capital. Sir, in the final analysis, will we survive in the middle term? I am under no illusion that we will have no difficulty surviving for the next five years. In fact, generating annual growth rates of between 2% and 3% should not be a problem for us. For the longer term, I believe we should have a new social compact with our people; we need to get everyone to pull the gravy train in the same direction.”
“Sir, in the earlier debate on the Presidential Address, I had advocated a central tenet that we should continue to use our reserves to explore acquisitions in world class companies or companies with world class potential and then leverage on these companies to help bring our people up to speed on the demands of international business. With a successful external economy, we could then afford to have a little slack or inefficiency in our domestic economy in order to keep our people employed. We are a very small economy and for us to compete effectively, we must learn to think of the world as our hunting ground. Next, while there is some measure of hollowing out, I do not think that there will be a complete hollowing out of our manufacturing industries. It has often been said that Singapore is a country that runs like a well-oiled machinery. Everything here works. And this will surely be our advantage. I have often said that while Singapore may lack the critical mass to produce world-class talents, but when you take everything in its totality, Singapore can present quite a formidable challenge even to China. Yes, we may not have the most brilliant surgeon compared to China. However, I know that if a Singapore surgeon operates on me, the blood that the hospital here supplies me is safe, the operating theatre is clinical and I will not get secondary infections in the process. I also know that the intensive care unit will be well run and their staff will be competent. In other words, it is not the surgeon's skill alone that will ensure my survival, but rather the entire system that works to support him. I am sure that many foreigners see this and share the confidence that we have in our system.”
“However, with the increases in GST and in the climate of extreme competition, the manufacturer or the service provider may well absorb increases in GST. If the party concerned is profitable, the reduction in income tax payment could well be offset, or used to offset the absorption. On the other hand, if the business of the manufacturer or the service provider is poor, the increases in GST may well add to his woes. Sir, we accept and recognise that SMEs play a pivotal role in reshaping our economy. SMEs are essentially homegrown industries and are largely owned by Singaporeans. While we would in the longer term have to rely on the GLCs with their resources to provide the charge in creating world-class companies, that charge alone would not be sufficient if it were not supported by the SMEs. Indeed, many of the SMEs have the potential to become world leaders in their own field if only they were properly funded and supported. And it would not be asking too much of the Government at this time to constantly remember them when looking at the slew of incentives to improve the business environment here; and I would say that we should constantly be looking at finding out who the promising SMEs are that we can nurture into world-class companies. Sir, many Singaporeans have asked whether by going along with the increase in the GST, there is any assurance that the economy will turn around. I started my speech by saying that this Budget serves to mitigate the climate of doom and gloom that has brought about a climate of pessimism all round. I must reiterate that I am confident that it will. However, much has to be done.”
“While this may work in the case of blatant and outright shameless overpricing, it would be difficult to monitor in situations where price increases have been incremental and progressive over a period of time. How will the Committee deal with such a situation? It may be better perhaps if the Government could consider providing enabling legislation to allow the Committee the ability to deal with profiteers during this period of time. Fourthly, many Singaporeans do not understand why it is necessary for the Government, on the one hand, to give out Singapore Shares and, on the other hand, take back such handouts through increases in the GST. There are many Singaporeans, especially those whose annual property value exceeds $10,000 who feel that they do not need such shares and it may be better if such resources are channelled to those Singaporeans who are in need of assistance during this period. This can take the form of a gradual increase in GST or that a fund can be set up to be given to the really poor through the grassroots organisations like the CCCs or the CDCs. Over and above the concerns over the GST, there are many who feel that more should be done for the SMEs and these sentiments have been reflected early in this House. The reduction in income tax and the provision of group relief may give businesses much encouragement and incentive. However, there is some disappointment as nothing was specifically targeted at the SMEs. To begin with, there are many SMEs who are not GST registered. Sir, we know that the operating principle of GST is to pass tax down the value chain so that the goods and services do not technically end up having a compounded payment of GST.”
“Why cannot the Government now introduce a similar rebate since for many of the lower income households, utilities constitute a substantial part of the household expenditure? I understand that utilities are a precious resource in Singapore, and giving utilities rebates may send the wrong signals to the public on consumption habits. While I can understand where the concern is coming from, I wonder whether this suspicion or concern was borne out the last time when such rebates were given. In other words, did the Government look into the consumption pattern when such rebates were given? My view is that rebates of this nature provide relief and I doubt very much if the majority of households would consciously or unconsciously increase spending on utilities simply because of the rebates. On the other hand, for the majority of the lower income households, such rebates and relief by the Government would be a welcome assistance indeed. Thirdly, the Government has also given the assurance that increases in the GST would result in business operators taking advantage by profiteering. In this regard, we are told that a Committee has been set up under the leadership of my honourable colleague to deal with such problems. Sir, there are some reservations to this approach. To begin with, the Committee lacks teeth in the sense that it has no power to bring those guilty of profiteering to court and charge them with such excesses. All that the Committee can do for now is to work with the merchants to persuade them not to take advantage. This approach is what others would consider as moral suasion. In the worst-case scenario, the Committee may just shame the profiteers publicly through the media.”