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 13 of 20.
“As it is, even before the announcement of the increase in the GST, there have been constant complaints and grumbling on the ground about the rising cost of living in Singapore. The announcement of the increase therefore could not have, in the minds of many, come at a worse time, when many Singaporeans, especially the middle aged and unemployed Singaporeans, are in a predicament because of the recessionary climate of the economy. To address these concerns, a comprehensive relief and offset package was announced at the same time. The package of GST offsets and reliefs are intended to help those who are in the lower income bands, and the announcements provide some comfort and cheer to many Singaporeans. The reliefs notwithstanding, there are however some issues and concerns that have since surfaced. Sir, if I may, I will just elaborate on some of these. First, GST offsets and relief packages together with economic restructuring shares are temporary, while the increases in GST are permanent. Our Government has given the assurance that the present round of assistance should ensure that those in the lower income group would not be worse off than before the increase. While this is reassuring, the people would like to know whether the Government would be prepared to continue giving similar assistance after the initial five-year period is over and there are no signs of a long term recovery. Secondly, and this relates to the earlier point and echoes the sentiments of many of my colleagues in this House, the Government had previously given utility rebates to lower income households to help defray the likely increases in the cost of living when the GST was first introduced.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the feeling of gloom and doom by many Singaporeans following the recent Address by our President at the Opening of Parliament is to some extent mitigated by the assurance of growth and employment that our Deputy Prime Minister gave on the Budget Statement which I rise in support of. This Budget is constructed on the basis that we would restructure the economy of Singapore in order that we may stay competitive and in the process help to bring about sustainable growth and employment in the longer term. Towards this end, we have what many would consider to be a pro-business Budget that sets about introducing many incentives to induce businesses and even talents here; the key instrument in this statement being the reduction of corporate and personal income taxes. To ensure that the economy is sustainable in the long run, the Budget had to balance and we achieve this by raising indirect taxes in the form of five percentage points for the GST amongst other things. In marginally shifting the centre of gravity from direct to indirect taxation, we are once again faced with the age-old issue of taxation and distributive justice in society. At the risk of over-simplifying matters, the question is: do we or should we continue to tax the rich highly, so that the benefits can be enjoyed more by the poor, or do we make the poor pay more indirectly, since many do not pay taxes, so that we can encourage the rich to remain or even come to us to help us grow the economy? Since the announcement of the increase of the GST rate from 3% to 5%, there has been an understandable concern among Singaporeans about coping with the rising cost of living.”
“The Government of the people must be founded on a cornerstone on what is best for the people, and this must surely include listening to the voice of the people in this land, including the voice of whom the NMPs seek to represent. With that, I support the motion.”
“My colleague has articulated these views rather eloquently when he said that if we look at the past instances of their contributions to the debates, without the presence of these Members, we would not have had such lively debates, we would not have had such a rich diversity of views coming into this House. If I may, Sir, I think we can look at this analogy. An argument that was made earlier is that we have had people of various expertise and therefore, do we need any more of such people? I think essentially, if an analogy can be made here, the question is, you have a 2.1 mega pixel camera, do you therefore need a 3.1 mega pixel camera? In the nature of things and in the nature of human beings, if you can settle for a 3.1 mega pixel camera, why settle for a 2.1 mega pixel camera? Sir, there is also the argument that they are not elected, and therefore, they have no right to speak for Singaporeans. The argument suffers from the flaw that only elected Members have the monopoly to speak for Singaporeans. Let us not forget that Nominated Members are also Singaporeans. We have to move away from the rigid mindset that the elected forum should only comprise elected Members whose sole right is to speak for Singaporeans. Nominated Members, being Singaporeans, also do enjoy the legitimate right to speak for Singapore and they represent the interest of all Singaporeans, not just constituent Singaporeans, but also functional groupings. Therefore, if you look at the Nominated Members, they come across as being non-politically party partisan and I think they perform a useful role here. As I have said before, Sir, a Government for all the people, by the people, is not premised on the functions of the elected representative people alone.”
“Of course, the final argument that is made that I see coming across is that in this new climate, with the partial lifting of the Whip, and the new batch of Members of Parliament with sterling qualities in engaging the rest of the House in eloquent debates, there is really a question as to whether or not you need any more Members to come in to contribute to the cacophony of sounds or as the Prime Minister puts it, the symphony of music that we now seek to generate in this House. Sir, I agree with my colleague, Mr Davinder Singh, that the issue of whether or not we want to bring in Nominated Members of Parliament is not a live issue. We have gone past that. The question that we have to ask ourselves is: going forward, how do you want to see the model of democracy, and in particular, the nature of this House evolving in this country? I do not believe, Sir, that there is a single model of democracy and as such, we should not be so restricted by forms and our fixed views as to what constitutes it, who should have the legitimate right to sit in this House and to participate in the deliberations. We have to ask ourselves this basic question: what exactly is it we want that is in the interest of Singapore? I agree with my colleague earlier that in looking at this question, we have to ask ourselves, looking at the participation of the Nominated Members, is Parliament richer for it with the Nominated Members present or are we poorer? Is Singapore better off with or without the presence of these Members?”
“Sir, as I sat there listening to the speech of the NCMP, I take it that he supports, in principle, the idea of the NMP, save that we should give it some time before we propose to introduce them into this House. That is precisely the nature of this debate now and I rise in support of the motion that we have NMPs in this present term of Parliament. Sir, five years ago, during my first term in Parliament, I have spoken in support of the motion to bring Nominated Members into this House. I am now into my second term of the office and having had the experience and the benefit of engaging the Nominated Members in debates, I can say that I stand by my conviction that I believe that at the end of the day, NMPs do make a positive contribution to this House. I remember then when we debated on this issue, Dr Tan Cheng Bock had then said that I was still fresh, wet behind the ears, still green and, that we would come back to look at the issue five years later and see whether I am still of the same view. I hate to disappoint Dr Tan that unfortunately, I have come back to say that, yes, we were right when we supported the initial motion. Sir, the underlying arguments against the introduction of the Nominated Members essentially run along three grounds. First, they lack moral standing because they were not elected. They did not contest in an election, therefore, because of the absence of a contest in an election, they have no right to represent the people of Singapore in this Chamber. Secondly, the argument was made that there are enough avenues existing in this country to allow for an expression of dissenting opinions and with these avenues available, there is really no need for Nominated Members to then come to this august Chamber to debate and participate in policy deliberation.”
“As it is said in Chinese, "Honour your own elders and extend it to other people's elders. Love your young and extend the love to other people's young as well." While it is good to look after my own family, we should look beyond that. We should transcend our family to look after and care for other people, beyond our family. We want to promote volunteerism in our society. We must encourage more people to volunteer in social works. We must strengthen our social heartware. A little more courage, a little more magnanimity and a little more care and concern can go a long way in strengthening our social fabric. Start from a little here, a little there and build up our social cohesion. Then, we will be moving in the right direction. We can find inspiration in the Presidential Address. Move forward courageously, and get rid of our kiasu (afraid to lose) and kiasi (afraid to die) mentality. We will be able to be bold and courageous, but with caution and prudence. Then we can reach the state of baijia zhengming (letting a hundred schools of thought contend). We can then lay the strong foundation for our future development in the new century. Some 100 years ago, the founders of Singapore came from various parts of Asia. On the basis of three "little bit more": more courage, more magnanimity and more care and concern for the people, they have built up this miracle in the form of a prosperous Singapore. Let us adopt the same kind of spirit to develop a better Singapore in the new century. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion of Thanks to the President.”
“During the colonial days, the colonial masters did not care much about the life or death of the people under their rule. Yet, this spirit of self-help and self-reliance, enabled our society and the various communities to carry on, to survive and prosper. However, when the Government becomes too successful and too efficient, the people begin to look to the Government for help, and then this spirit of self-help and self-reliance in the community becomes weakened. So I feel that we must rediscover the communal self-help spirit and tradition, so that we could have more care and concern among our people. What we want to see more is problems solved through the care and concern coming from within the community, and not some ad hoc measures dished out by the Government through the civil servants. We must also care for the retrenched, the unemployed and the less fortunate people among us, because they are also part of our community. I remember when I was in Shanghai two weeks ago, I exchanged views with a Chinese unionist on helping the unemployed and retrenched. He told me, "In China, we try to educate the community that a worker has been retrenched not because he is not good enough, but because changes in the labour market has caused his job to be lost. So this can happen to anyone, including you and I. Hence we should not look down on the retrenched and the unemployed. Tomorrow, it may well be us. So, we should help each other. Show some care and concern for them, they will feel they have not been forgotten by society, and they will have the courage to start all over again." I think we can learn from this attitude, and show a little more care and concern for others. We must also not forget our elders.”
“We should go back to our family. But many of us feel that our family structure has been weakened. When the young people are urged to set up their families, they say, "Where do we have time?" These are matters that we must consider seriously. We must strengthen the family fabric. We must not forget that the family is the basic building block of the society's foundation. It is our emotional support and our focus of care. The family is a haven for us in the towering waves of the oceans. So, however strong the ship may be, in the face of the towering waves in a storm, we must find a haven. Next, more care means we must take care of the man-in-the-street, our little men, the ordinary citizens. The inspiration from our popular local song Xiao Ren Wu De Xin Sheng (Voices from the Hearts of the Little People) and the hot-selling local films, Money No Enough and I Not Stupid is that we should not forget the ordinary and less successful compatriots among us. We must remember that the prosperity of our nation and the opportunities that bring up the successful ones among us are actually created through the joint efforts of everyone, including the not so successful. In our society, about 90% of our people are ordinary men-in-the-street, and they contribute very greatly to our society. We must not forget them. We must not forget our roots. We must also propound the fine traditions of self-help - that is, the more successful ones should help the less successful ones to catch up, and cope with the development of the society and the nation. In the traditional societies, this is very important. The places that our ancestors came from, like Indonesia, China, India, have this kind of tradition.”
“If we can learn from other people's good points to strengthen ourselves so that we will have a good team and a strong community. If there are 10 people with the same ability, their combined strength is one multiplied by 10. But, if they have different capabilities, then their combined strength is 10 multiplied by 10, and you have 100 - this is what we call "synergy". When we are magnanimous, we will be able to understand and hence tolerate the different cultures and different religions. We must realise that "all roads lead to Rome", we could reach the same goal by different means. We must mutually respect one another. We must strengthen our mutual trust, and fortify the foundation of racial and religious harmony. We must also esteem the wisdom and strength of the masses and the community. Although not everyone in a community has high education, he or she knows the needs of his or her own community better. We must encourage each community to resolve its own problems using its own ways and means. We must not crave for a new Government ministry to be set up just whenever we are faced with a new problem, and then complain that there is too much bureaucracy. Once we have a new ministry, we must have new procedures. Once we have procedures, we cannot escape having bureaucracy. So if we have too many Government ministries, we are encouraging more bureaucracy. Since we all dislike bureaucracy, we might as well go and solve our problems ourselves rather than asking the Government to set up more ministries and then complain: "Why is there so much bureaucracy?". Next, is to have `a little more care and concern'. We must remember that the new economy is full of roaring waves, and people, including ourselves, will get tired or injured. When this happens, where do we go back to?”
“In other words, there is always someone from whom we can learn something. So we can talk, we can debate, we can discuss, and from all these we will all learn something from one another. So long as we are magnanimous, listen to and willing to accept the views of others, then we will be able to find order in chaos. Even in a chaotic state, we can learn a lot of things. We must not judge a person by his success or failure alone. We should not reckon the person by the clothes he puts on. Today, we are successful, we wear branded clothes and drive a luxury car. But, you cannot guarantee to have all these luxuries forever. Many of our fellow citizens argue in forum page that we must have broader yardsticks to measure success or failure, and not by money alone. And success or failure is not permanent. Many of us like to sing. There are two lines in a very popular song by the name of Gujue zhao Jin Chen (Ancient Moon Shining on Today's Dust) which says, "Victory and defeat cannot last very long; rise or fall happens in a flash." So we are successful today, but tomorrow we may fail. So this is the turn of tide. When you see somebody fails, do not say that he is finished, because tomorrow he may rise up again. So we must be more magnanimous in this sense. At the same time, we must dare to accept talents from other places who can contribute different styles and ideas, and who can supplement our shortcomings with their strong points. We must be able to leverage on their greater abilities to our benefit. But we normally look only for their shortcomings, and say, "Look, we are better than they are." But, few would recognise others' strength and learn from them.”
“We must remember that failure is the mother of success. So when we start a business, we may make some mistakes and lose some money. So long as we learn from these we can treat the losses as though you are paying the tuition fees to learn. So, when we fall down, pick yourself up, lift up your head and try again. Hongkongers are full of such adventurous spirit. So they have a proverb: `A great gentleman can bend and can be straight'. To them, there are only temporary set-backs but no permanent failures. Take one step backwards, and you get more space in front of you. So, taking a step backward today may mean few steps forward in the days to come. You can start all over again. We must also dare to learn new skills, to go into new industries, new ventures. We must be able to turn quickly. You must remember that heaven never seals off all the exits. Every cloud has a silver lining. There is always a way out. Opportunities and success are out there waiting for you. Next is not to be too agitated by noises or the comments from our neighbours. We must not be unduly troubled by what they say. We must put the truth in perspective. We must remember that important issues must be solved with reason and enlightenment. So if we all have a little more courage and can do all these things that I have suggested, then I think we will have more confidence in ourselves. Of course, we must have `a little bit more magnanimity'. With a little bit more magnanimity, we shall be able to accept divergent views from other people. This may be difficult. As it is often said that too many people generate too much noise, it becomes chaotic. But, remember, there is also this saying that "among three people walking together, there will be one who is good enough to be my teacher".”
“So, the moment the fog is dispersed, you must immediately seize the opportunity to take in the magnificent view, otherwise you may just miss the most fantastic scenery you could see in your life. But, in Singapore, there is no thick fog. We see the same scenery day in and day out. Seizing an opportunity to view certain scenic spot does not seem to be that important. We must also dare to venture, dare to adjust, dare to advance and dare to retreat. We must never be too swayed by considerations of minor gain and loss, and hesitate over what move to make or shilly-shally. We must remember that paths are made by men walking over them. If we want to go somewhere and there is no access road, create your own way. So, if we want to start a business, use the road that we have created for it. There is of course a cost to it, but then this is what entrepreneurship is all about. You can recover the cost by charging others who use the road started by you. Next, we must dare to express ourselves. We must also dare to take responsibility for what we say. Whenever we tell our young professionals that the Government is asking people to make suggestions and contribute ideas, their first response is inevitably, "Where are the OB markers?" Are there any out-of-bound areas? When we keep thinking about the out-of-bound areas, then we might just as well shut up and do not talk. So in that way, we would not be able to have a good exchange of ideas. In my view and experience, so long as we speak according to our conscience, in the interest of the nation and our fellow citizens, it should not be deemed to be out-of-bound even if we hold views different from the government. That is my experience as a civil servant for more than 20 years. Next, we must dare to face failure.”
“In order to continue with our success, we must change this mentality of relying and depending on the Government to solve all problems. The President's address devoted much of its volume on the people factor. We are reminded that if we want to succeed, we must struggle and fight. In Singapore, opportunities are still abundant and everywhere. So long as we are prepared to work hard, there will be achievements. I feel that, in order to tackle these new challenges in a new economic and political situation, all of us in Singapore, from the top to the bottom, should make some adjustments to our mindset and mentality. My colleagues here have already made some suggestions. Allow me to summarise these adjustments as three kinds of "a bit more", namely, a bit more courage, a bit more magnanimity and a bit more care and concern. Let me start with `a bit more courage'. This means that we must dare to innovate, dare to lead. We must decisively seize opportunities that come along, and be courageous and resolute in whatever we do. Otherwise, you will lose your opportunity. This is a big problem for Singapore, because we are blessed with a good natural environment. For example, our temperature here is quite constant. The weather will be the same as today, and so will the day after. There are no natural disasters to worry about. As a result, there may be a sense that if we do not work today, we can always work tomorrow, and if not, we can always wait until the day after tomorrow. This is not so elsewhere. In China, if you go to Huang Shan (the Yellow Mountain), today, you see the peak and you might see sunrise. But just a while later you may not see them because they are covered by the fog and clouds.”
“Of course, we must reassure them that the Government has been thinking of ways and means, all the time, to solve the problems of its people. If they do not believe, then they should listen to what Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong had said yesterday about the measures to be taken to restructure and reform. They would know that the Government had put in a lot of thought. The Government has also set up a few high-level committees to look for solutions, in consultation with private and people sectors. However, the challenges we are facing are really very tough ones. These are very arduous and formidable challenges that cannot be solved by the Government alone. Therefore, my parliamentary colleagues here have suggested that all of us, from the top to the bottom, must be united and strive for self reliance, so that we will be able to cross this sea of roaring waves. If we are not willing to help ourselves, then no matter what the Government provides, in the end it will be of no avail. I remember a story about a man who was so lazy that the only thing he was willing to do was to open his mouth to be fed and to hold out his hands to be dressed. One day, his wife had to go back to her own village to visit her parents. Before she left home, she made a big biscuit and tied it with a string around the neck of her husband. She told the lazy man, "If you are hungry, just open your mouth and bite on the biscuit." A week later, she returned home to find her husband dead. He had only managed to eat the part of the biscuit nearer to his mouth. He was too lazy even to use his hands to reach for the part of the biscuit farther away from his mouth. As a result, he died of starvation. So, if we do not help ourselves, whatever the Government does, it will be quite useless in the end.”
“Over the past few days of debate in this Chamber, I have heard remarks and pleas that our Government and indeed our civil servants listen and not just hear the comments and suggestions on how we can better position Singapore for a better future. I sincerely hope that this time round, we will come out of this crisis stronger and better, with our bearings and policies enjoying the full confidence of the people, because our Government has taken serious account of the concerns of the silent majority. On that note, Sir, I support the motion. The Minister of State, Prime Minister's Office and Ministry of Community Development and Sports (Mr Chan Soo Sen) (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion of Thanks to the President moved by Mrs Lim Hwee Hua. Two days ago, I discussed with my grassroots leaders the President's Address and the debates in Parliament so far on the motion of thanks to the President. These grassroots leaders told me that having heard the President's Speech, they were a bit worried. And having heard the views expressed by the various MPs, they felt somewhat disappointed. Because the President's Speech sketched a scenario of a sea of roaring waves beset with crises. Subsequently, when they read the reports in the press, it appeared as though all the MPs were suggesting that everyone should be self-reliant. They felt that the Government seemed to have flinched. They asked me whether the Government had forgotten the strong mandate given to them by the voters some five months ago, with the understanding that the Government would bring them through the crisis. These grassroots leaders were very close to me, and that was why they were so candid in telling me their real feelings. This might well be the voice from the heart of many fellow Singaporeans.”
“Our difficulty here is the assumption that the talent pool is limited in Singapore and, therefore, if the civil servant has proven himself to be good at running a Ministry, he should, at the same time, be good at running a large corporation. There is a common perception that in Singapore, it is the same group of men circulating amongst the various corporations. And unlike the civil service, they could well be there for the long haul. Many have commented to me that the GLCs may turn in bad results, but for the senior management, life goes on. If the perception is true, is this how we want to run these corporations and expect them to be world-class companies? Sir, if part of the problem lies in our policy of keeping the civil service young and, of course, the uniformed services young, we should perhaps now begin to review this problem to see if we should extend the retirement age of senior officers, whether they be in the uniformed services or the civil service. Not all of the developed countries subscribe to this policy. Embarrassingly enough, at international conferences, we often find our civil servants amongst the youngest in the crowd, and sometimes by a margin of more than 10 years. Something must be said of experience and age. No amount of brilliance can be an adequate substitute for experience. By pushing back the retirement age for these very capable officers, I think we would have taken away the pressure to provide for their retirement in the private sector. Sir, there is no denying that we are at the most important crossroads of our nation's history. It is not an exaggeration to say that our future destiny will depend very much on how we are able to resolve the present crisis.”
“Long after the rumblings and grumblings in Parliament are over, there is still this rather common perception that GLCs could have been better run and should preferably not be staffed by senior managers who had spent the better of their careers in the public service. There is a common perception that part of our problem has to do with the policy of keeping our civil service young. What do we do with bright young senior army officers who we retire at 45 or, for that matter, young Permanent Secretaries who have served their time in service? It has been said that for many, they find their second careers in the GLCs. Sir, I have no doubt as to the mental ability and the integrity of civil servants who are seconded or chosen to spend their second career, or some say retirement years, in the GLCs. However, one wonders whether the skill sets involved in running a public organisation are the same as that of running an organisation that is oriented towards making money. Can we effectively move from the role of being a guardian to being an entrepreneur whose sole objective is to go out and earn more money for the company? It would be to our good fortune if they are able to make the mental switch. But then again, what if they are not able to and are just content to coast along? Typically, in the West, if a large public listed company goes through a bad patch, the CEO and the senior management run the risk of losing their jobs. They are assessed by their current performance. It does not matter whether they had been good in the past. What should matter is how they are currently fairing compared to CEOs elsewhere of similar companies.”
“It is widely known that amongst companies and businesses, there is one stumbling block in sending staff members overseas, and that has to be with the education of their children. Every parent in Singapore knows how important the second language is, and how important it is that they must do well in the second language if they are to do well overall in school. No serious parent will disagree that taking a child out of Singapore and placing him in an environment where the second language is hardly spoken or written, will have a major impact on his second language ability. Hence, for parents with school going children, it would almost be impossible to send them overseas, unless the centres of posting have Singapore style schools, or unless they can be assured that their children will not be severely disavantaged when they return. Sir, I know that the Ministry of Education has a policy of providing dispensation with the second language for the child for a year, if he went overseas and did some time there. However, for many parents, that may not be enough. The time has now come when the Ministry should perhaps review to see if they should be more flexible on the second language in order to ease at least one worry amongst Singaporeans who may choose to answer the call of the Government to work overseas. Sir, in overcoming the challenges ahead, we will have to rely on the larger home grown corporations since it is these corporations that will have the wherewithal to meet the demands that these challenges bring. Here, the GLCs, with their resources and close proximity to the Government, could well be suited for the work. Much has been said in this House about the role and performance of the GLCs.”
“Increasingly, we have to ask ourselves whether there is a continuing need to ensure that companies be rooted here to serve the economic interests of Singapore. In looking at the model that I have proposed earlier, we could perhaps own or control a Fortune 500 company, headquartered in the US or Europe, but allow it to be an outpost for Singaporeans to gain the relevant experience needed to keep Singapore in tune with the demands of the international market place. In this regard, we should perhaps take a leaf from the NUS, where we learned recently that they have, presumably to stay relevant, taken to setting up outposts outside of Singapore. Sir, if we are able to externalise our economy substantially and draw our revenue from this second wing, there will be less pressure on us if the Singapore economy is not doing as well. In fact, a thriving second wing derived through prudent investments and acquisitions could well allow us to have some inefficiency within our own economic sector. We do not, for instance, have to be so ruthless in making that segment of our workforce, the uneducated and middle-aged workers, redundant because they are not able to compete with their counterparts in India, China or Indochina. That way, we can keep a healthy balance between the need to stay competitive to make a living, which our investments and our stakeholdings outside of Singapore can provide, and the need to provide employment and to carry those Singaporeans who may not be able to look after themselves, without having to worry about cost efficiency. Sir, if we are serious about pushing our people to consider the world as our workplace, wherein to live and to work, I think we must be prepared to make some adjustments. I shall dwell on one, ie, education.”
“I am referring to, as I have alluded to earlier, investments into the new areas such as the life sciences and info-communications technologies. We have, over the years, built up a substantial amount of reserves. Our budget surplus between FY96 and FY2000 was in the region of $17.535 billion. Like a prudent farmer, we intend that these reserves be stored for use in difficult times when the harvest is not so plentiful. Again, like the prudent farmer, we should also consider using these reserves and husbanding our resources to look to new sources of revenue if what we bring in from the field is not enough to provide for the family. With an accumulated surplus of approximately $17.535 billion, that is, in the last term of Parliament, we could use some of that money to buy a substantial stake, if not, a controlling stake in some of these carefully chosen world-class companies or companies with world-class potential. We could then leverage on our ownership of these companies by tapping on their management and technology know-how and in particular, their ability in brand management and promotion to give us a headstart in the new growth areas that we have identified. In other words, Sir, besides developing our bio-medical expertise, we should perhaps acquire leading bio-medical companies and be plugged in immediately into the world bio-medical grid. We could use this opportunity to send our best and brightest to learn from them, and hopefully, from this experience, we could build on a new generation of young Singaporeans who are savvy about the ways of international marketing and investments. Sir, at the present time, where the flow of information and mode of doing business is substantially different from the pre-Internet era, we must learn to think out of the box.”
“We have four million. Sir, how can we effectively compete in number with human talent? Thirdly, looking primarily internally, as our Government's approach seems to suggest, for new initiatives to re-orientate our economy may inadvertently cause us to lose our broad focus. Let me illustrate. We have identified the life sciences as the next wave for our economy. In this regard, we are committing much of our resources towards preparing our people for this undertaking. We are also spending much time and effort building up infrastructure for research and development in life sciences in Singapore. Yet, we know that the centres for cutting edge research in life sciences are to be found in the west. Brave as our attempts may be, it will be many more years, Sir, before Singapore's research and development centres in the life sciences can come up to the standards of the west, if at all we get there. Sir, there are many who have asked the question of whether or not, we are better off if we had just leveraged on the more developed science industry of the west, either by more intensive collaboration or direct investment overseas, than try to establish a separate physical base in Singapore. My fear is identifying new growth areas for our country may well embark us on a physical expansion of resources that will give us a very limited outcome, when we may be better off building up our R&D industries overseas. Sir, some years ago in this Chamber, I had suggested that for us to survive in this country into the next millennium, we must increasingly look overseas for opportunities. Here, I am not just referring to industrial park developments or investment into areas that we are comfortable with.”
“The fact remains that economic outlook for the region will continue to remain weak in the next few years. We are, as they say, a good house in a bad neighbourhood. As long as there is no obvious upside in the outlook for the region, any further improvement to the infrastructure is going to only provide us with limited gains. Secondly, to foster a strong spirit of enterprise amongst Singaporeans requires a milieu that supports it. I am not that optimistic, Sir, in this regard. Over the years, we have not actively nurtured the growth of a strong body of small and medium enterprises. Instead, we have chosen to focus strongly on the GLCs as providing the engine of growth of our industry. For many of these GLCs, it is said that they have an unfair advantage on our local turf. It was not too long ago only that we learn of a GLC going into roast meat business here as well. It is arguable that for the GLCs, the yearning for contracts and business to stay alive is not of the same extent as the small and medium enterprises. The relative weakness of these desires should also arguably mean that our instinct, at least for the GLCs, for enterprise and business will not be as well-honed as it should have been. Additionally, when you have the best of brightest brought up in an environment that looks down at failures, whose primary pursuit of university education is to get well-paying secure jobs, and to avoid taking risk, one is not too hopeful that you can raise from this rank of Singaporeans many more successful entrepreneurs. Besides, even if we try to nurture in our young the spirit of enterprise, our ability to raise them in sufficient numbers is largely constrained by our lack of critical mass. Both China and India have population sizes that exceed a billion each.”
“Rather than to resist it, we open up our market to outside competition. From finance to manufacturing and services, there is nothing here that is protected from competition. Foreign parties who feel that they can produce cheaper and perform better can expect to do business here. For many, the process has been painful. The consolidation of financial services to brace itself for competition from foreign banks will see more than 2,000 jobs being lost in the process. Sir, we are not talking of some statistics here. We are talking here of fathers and mothers without a job and an income to bring home so that there will be food on the table and the bills will be paid. Not only that, with the hollowing out of our industries, more jobs will be lost. Indeed, even if we are able to hunker down and wait through the present storm of economic recession, there is no assurance that life, as we know it, will be the same again. Sir, in his Address, the President did reiterate that in order for us to stay competitive, our business environment must be highly conducive. In keeping with this objective, we have stated that our infrastructure must continue to be world-class at competitive cost and our spirit of enterprise must be strong. I have no problems with the broadly stated intention of our Government. However, I do have some reservations about how far a focus on continuing to improve our business environment is going to take us. In the present climate, I see that there are three major considerations in this approach. Firstly, I believe we are at the present level of development of our infrastructure where any further improvements would only bring about a diminishing return on our investments.”
“What results then is a steady flight of capital or a continuing relocation of operations to other venues which are cheaper to operate. When this happens, it is often the workers of closed down offices or factories who suffer. We see this when the labour-intensive industries here started to relocate to cheaper production centres in Indonesia, Malaysia and, in recent years, in China. Those of us who have had the good fortune of visiting China recently will attest to the rising and growing Chinese industrial might. This newfound confidence among the Chinese that comes with the rising level of wealth and the opening of the country is something which is self-evident. And greater still will be the confidence of the Chinese as China integrates itself further into the international trade through the WTO in the hope of becoming a first-world economy. The China that we know of today is a very different China that we knew of when our pioneers first stepped foot into that country 20 years ago or perhaps earlier. Then they were eager to learn from us and looked upon us for guidance and investment capital. We know that they have since moved on to become like a giant vacuum that sucks up new investment capital in Asia. With a critical mass of more than one billion people and offering cheap labour in a huge market, it becomes increasingly difficult to justify why investors should choose Singapore as a preferred choice of investment. China has now become our most awesome competitor in the marketplace for investments. Sir, how should we deal with global competition and its effects? For many, the natural instinct is to fight it by shutting out foreign import. We have, in Singapore, chosen the path of riding the wave of globalisation.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on the motion which I rise in support of. Sir, the President's Address is a timely and sobering reminder of the most serious challenge that confronts Singapore since independence. Rarely have we been faced with an uncertain future that requires the complete resolve and single-minded determination of the nation to overcome. Why are we so despondent about the future? It does not take much to see why. At the moment, unemployment is hovering around 5% and rising. Many of those who are unemployed are the middle aged and not very highly educated. Neither are they in tune with the demands of the knowledge economy. Even as I am speaking now, I know for a fact that there are many, including those in the GLCs, who are now being retrenched or about to be retrenched because of the present state of the economy. We are speaking here of workers who are robbed of their dignity and pride to earn a decent living, not by circumstances of their own choosing, but by forces beyond their control. Sir, we are speaking here of the ineluctable sweep of the forces of globalisation that have taken many countries by storm. The breaking down of trade barriers would mean that for many, the goods and services that are now being produced, can be produced cheaper elsewhere. For many of the emerging economies with their teeming masses to feed, this would be a welcome opportunity indeed to provide cheap labour and to offer lower cost centres of production. On the other hand, for others, the availability of alternative venues of operation would mean that they no longer appear as attractive to foreign investors or as competitive as the foreign rivals.”
“If the family of a comatose patient insists that the patient be kept in the hospital, will this patient then be subjected to the policy of full charge?”
“Sir, will the Minister of State tell whether a comatose patient is ever fit enough for discharge from the hospital?”
“The Government has announced a series of measures that seek to help Singaporeans stay the course for the moment. No doubt, we will have to restructure the economy to deal with the challenges of the future and, no doubt, our people will have to be retooled to meet the demands of tomorrow's economy. But for the moment, against a bleak economic landscape, we will have to dig in and stay united as a people, believing as always that we will ride through the rough economic weather together. We have done this before, in 1968, in 1973, in 1985 and, more recently, in 1998. Now, more than ever, we face the biggest challenge yet. I have no doubt that if the people's confidence remains reposed in the Government, as they have done in the past, we will ride through this stormy weather together.”
“We must realise that Singapore has a narrow export base that is concentrated on electronics manufacturing. Over the years, our global share of the electronics market has been dwindling because of keen competition from emerging economies. Both India and China and other emerging economies are increasingly competing directly in our export turf. Our present cost structure makes it difficult for us to compete effectively. The result, as we are beginning to see, and we are seeing elsewhere, is a hollowing out of our manufacturing industry. With the hollowing out of our manufacturing industry, there will be a greater displacement of jobs. How do we ensure that our people can continue to stay employed in a meaningful manner in the face of these challenges ahead of us? Unless we succeed in economic restructuring, our very own economic survival may be at stake. When we are confronted with questions like our long-term survival, the other questions relating to civil liberties and human rights pale by comparison. Just so that I will not be misunderstood, Sir, I am not saying that these issues are unimportant. Indeed they are. What I am saying is that we need to maintain a proper perspective and balance to the issues at hand. The reality is that no one speaks philosophy on an empty stomach. The basic physical needs must be provided for now and secured for the future. There is a choice to be made. We can either close ranks in uncertain times and collectively seek to bring in more grains for the family or we can choose to bicker and stay divided, while the result is the family goes hungry. We can either choose to be grateful for what we have and treasure the present for the future, or we can gripe about what we do not have and gamble the future with what we have for the present.”
“And beyond that, many have their doubts as to whether or not there will be any signs of recovery if the global situation remains unchanged. Beyond these figures, for the people of Singapore, the teeth of recession will begin to bite when people get retrenched and when there is less money to bring home. These are real concerns, as with unemployment and salary cuts, the pressures of paying their bills will surely mount. How will the utilities bills be paid? Will there be money to pay for conservancy charges? How will the fees for the children's school and tuition be provided for? Against this backdrop, Sir, I am gratified that the Government has come up with a second round of off-Budget measures. The series of measures are clearly aimed at providing relief for the individuals and businesses. What Singaporeans must know and realise is that the Government cares. Earlier this year, when the first round of measures was introduced by Minister George Yeo, he mentioned then, if I may paraphrase, that there was a drizzle, but we should nonetheless have our umbrella ready in case there is a shower. Now that the shower is upon us, the umbrella, represented by these measures, should provide Singaporeans with much relief and protection from the rain. Have we done enough? Should we do more and can we give more? Are all Singaporeans covered by these measures? There are no doubt questions that have been asked and no doubt will be asked by many Singaporeans. These are legitimate questions. However, even before we begin to ponder on these questions, we should sit back and appreciate what the Government has done, ponder on the greater challenge and the greater worries ahead of us, and think of our response as a people. In accepting these measures, we must look at the horizon and beyond.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, for this opportunity. Sir, we are faced with the worst recession this country has seen in more than 30 years. With unemployment now hovering at about 4% and potentially rising, there is an air of uncertainty that hangs over us. For the many who are employed, they are now less confident that their jobs will remain for the future; and for those who have recently lost their jobs, there is less certainty that their jobs will return when the shower of recession passes. We know that this recession did not come about from within, but from without. Economic forces not within our control have buffeted us since last year, beginning with the slowdown of the US economy. And it did not help that the September 11 terror attacks on America accelerated and deepened the recession. Indeed, one would say that the September 11 attacks had hastened the slide of the world economy. For Singapore whose economic well being is much dependent on exports to the US and the other developed countries, this is bad news indeed. I was not surprised therefore when Ministers George Yeo and Richard Hu informed the people that the economy would shrink by perhaps more than 3% this year. This is perhaps unprecedented as our people cannot remember a time, since independence, when the economy did so poorly. For the post-65 generation, accustomed to robust growth, these figures bring home the reality of our vulnerability - a vulnerability that tells us that we too can be as badly affected as our neighbours were in the last Asian financial crisis of 1998. We have been told to be prepared for the long haul. The economy does not look like it is going to recover before the second half of next year.”
“Democracy is not only about individual rights but also about respect for the others. To suggest that the law should be removed to allow people complete liberty to say whatever they want without having to identify themselves with it, is to bring about anarchy and not the rule of law. Sir, I therefore support this Bill and in particular the attempts of the Government to regulate election advertising on the Internet.”
“However, democracy is also as much about responsibility as it is about right. Therefore, if somebody were to defame another person's name or someone who were to make seditious statements, he must take responsibility for his action. Why should anyone be less deserving of protection of the law simply because he is in the public limelight? What the Opposition is asking for is to give people the liberty to say whatever they want without taking responsibility for it. Sir, I do not find this acceptable neither do I think the rest of Singaporeans necessarily find this acceptable. The Internet is a new frontier that we are still trying to grapple with. The latest edition of The Economist dated 11th-17th August 2001 recognises that the imposition of local rules may be better than the alternative of having no regulation at all. It further states that a complete lack of regulation gives a free hand to cheats and criminals. It generally recognises that the Internet, like all new frontiers, will be wild for a while and eventually the policemen and the law will come round to enforce law and order. The regulation of publications on the Internet is consistent with the policies that we have taken over the years with respect to printed documents. These policies apply equally to all, including the PAP. If the PAP has done such a lousy job in running this country, then no amount of regulation, whether on the Internet or otherwise, is going to prevent people from spreading their views to members of the public. In looking at this Bill before us, Sir, let us take a proper perspective on the issue. This Bill is not so much about regulating the content as it is about prescribing the manner and form in which the content is disseminated to the public at large.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to join in the debate on this Bill on which I rise to support. Sir, the introduction of this Bill has generated much interest and debate in the public forum, not least of which is the issue of political campaigning on the Internet. As you are aware, Sir, the Bill, in principle, broadens the scope of election advertising to include publications on the Internet. What the Bill tries to do is to regulate such form of publication by requiring to make known the names and addresses of the publisher and the person for whom or at whose direction the election advertising is published. It does not in any way seek to prevent anyone from publishing his political views or inclinations so long as it is in compliance with the prescriptions of the law. It therefore surprises me, Sir, that the Opposition party should be so quick to jump at this new Bill to make wild allegations that the Bill is yet, to quote, "another sorry attempt by the PAP to prevent the Opposition from effectively reaching out to voters during elections". In making this comment, Sir, the Opposition has failed to see the real issue. We are not afraid of criticisms or comments, no matter what these comments may be. There is nothing in law at the moment to prevent one from harshly criticising, in the open, Government's policies. What we do require, however, is that the people who are willing to criticise must be prepared to come forward, to come out in the open, to stand by their statements. Nothing can be more cowardly than for one to take potshots at another and choose to remain anonymous for fear of shouldering the responsibilities that come with the public statement. It is true that democracy protects and upholds the freedom of expression.”
“Sir, would the Minister not agree with me that it is precisely for the bottom 50% of Singaporeans who cannot afford the cash outlay that they need to use these Medisave resources, which is their own money, for the purpose of this health screening?”
“Is the Minister suggesting therefore that the annual executive health screening programme that some of us go through is not really an effective form of medical detection?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I can think of one example of screening that would help manage the patients' medical resources in the long term. For instance, if we can scope Singaporeans intensively and aggressively, we can help detect some form of stomach cancer and colorectal cancer. And early detection in these areas of cancer would be useful for the patients concerned.”
“Sir, I would like to ask the Minister whether he will consider reviewing the various types of medical screening that are available, because we all know that with advancements in technology, certain kinds of test can actually help one detect serious illness early enough and, with early detection, it will help Singaporeans manage their Medisave savings better in the long term. So I would like to ask the Minister whether he will consider looking at the various kinds of screening again to see whether these can be introduced at some point of time in the future.”
“Mr Goh Chong Chia asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence in the past 10 years, how many full-time National Servicemen per intake have been admitted to hospital and what has been the number of fatalities.”
“Sir, will the Minister be able to give me an indication of the number of complaints made by parents against the quality of teachers in schools over the years, and whether this number has gone down or has remained the same? RAdm Teo Chee Hean: Sir, I am not able to give Mr Sin statistics on this, because complaints can be defined in many different ways. So we do not keep statistics of this nature. My sense is that, yes, parents do take a greater interest today in the education of their children, and they do come into contact with the teachers more often to discuss about their children. I think this is something positive and to be welcomed, and I would encourage both parents and teachers to take part in this kind of discussion in a positive and constructive way for the benefit of students. I would like to say though that the young teachers are doing very well. I have met many young teachers in my visits to schools and also to the National Institute of Education. They are enthusiastic, energetic and able. In fact, their senior colleagues in schools are also impressed with them. The combination of experience and youth is good for our schools and our students. I visited a primary school yesterday and, in fact, one of the senior teachers told me that I should go to Parliament and tell the Members here that the young teachers are good, so that the public do not keep beating up on them. I hope that this House, the public and parents will join me in encouraging and cheering our young teachers on, so that they will continue to do even better for their students. They need your encouragement. FULL-TIME NATIONAL SERVICEMEN (Hospital admissions and fatalities) 12.”
“Sir, will the Ministry consider actively helping these workers who have undergone SRP training? I am speaking of the 30% who have not been able to find employment despite having gone through SRP training. Essentially, can the Ministry set up a bureau to actively seek job placements for them upon completion of such training so as to achieve 100% employment upon taking up training?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, will the MAS consider allowing finance companies to assume a wider range of services such as corporate advisory and financial advisory services, something which the banks are undertaking at the moment but which they may not be inclined to extend to small and medium enterprises on account of the lack of economy of scale in respect of these enterprises? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, we have not considered this. We will have to look at it very carefully because advisory services are different from lending. One is commercial banking where you assess credit risk; the other one is advisory service which is merchant banking where you have to judge the market and advise how to restructure a deal in order to bring it to market and find investors who are willing to invest in it. So I think I would be careful about that. As I have explained in this House previously, I do not believe that the banks will now neglect the SMEs because they have consolidated. The SMEs are an important part of their customer base and they will want to keep them. PRIVATE BUS OPERATORS (Operation of feeder bus services) 2. Mr Goh Choon Kang asked the Minister for Communications and Information Technology if his Ministry will consider allowing private bus operators or a consortium of such operators to operate intra new towns feeder bus services on a throughout-the-day basis. 3. Dr S. Vasoo asked the Minister for Communications and Information Technology when his Ministry will complete the review on introducing private bus operators to further improve bus services.”
“Question No. 15, Sir. 16. Mr Goh Choon Kang asked the Minister for Communications and Information Technology if his Ministry will consider allowing private bus operators to operate feeder services in housing estates. 17. Mr Low Thia Khiang asked the Minister for Communications and Information Technology what is the objection to allowing private bus operators to operate a lower-cost service to supplement the feeder bus service and whether there is a need to introduce more competition in public bus services. 18. Mr Chiam See Tong asked the Minister for Communications and Information Technology whether he will allow private bus companies to operate more feeder bus service routes in competition with existing bus companies. 19. Dr S. Vasoo asked the Minister for Communications and Information Technology what measures will be taken to ease commuter overcrowding in buses during peak hours.”
“WOODBRIDGE HOSPITAL (Shortage of nurses) 16. Mr Low Thia Khiang asked the Minister for Health whether there is a serious shortage of nurses at Woodbridge Hospital and what is the ratio of nurses to patients in the wards of the hospital.”
“Sir, the question was raised as to whether or not it would be more efficient for town councils to manage the upgrading of private estates and, therefore, for this purpose, whether or not the Town Councils Act should be amended at least to the extent of allowing town councils to coordinate and manage these improvement programmes. Assoc. Prof. Koo Tsai Kee: Sir, the EUP is offered to the CCCs. The Advisers have been invited recently to nominate precincts for EUP upgrading. The CCCs can then nominate the town councils to act as their professional agency to improve these private estates. Indeed, in the case of the Serangoon Gardens EUP Committee, the CCC has nominated the town council to be the professional agency. So, yes, that arrangement is possible. But town councils do not have the mandate to manage private estates. They act on somebody's behalf, in this case, Serangoon Gardens EUP Committee. Assoc. Prof. Toh See Kiat: Sir, I think the Senior Parliamentary Secretary also missed the point in my question. I was not talking about routine maintenance, because that has to be done before things go bad. Sir, the EUP is a limited programme, and not all estates are chosen. But some old estates may have certain areas that need to be improved, eg, drains that are collapsing or things like that. Would that kind of programme be slowed down because the focus is now on EUP? Assoc. Prof. Koo Tsai Kee: Mr Speaker, Sir, that is not the case. To be fair, LTA and ENV look at the routine maintenance programme seriously and they will step in before these things happen. And EUP is something over and above that. We should not confuse the two. If the Member knows of any dilapidated drains or parks, maybe he could let me or the relevant Ministries know.”
“Sir, I think the Senior Parliamentary Secretary may have missed the point raised earlier. A suggestion was made as to whether or not the Government would consider amending legislation to expand the scope of the Town Councils Act so that the private estates would also come under the management of the town councils. Assoc. Prof. Koo Tsai Kee: Sir, I am not sure if the private estate residents would welcome that, because it is a different issue altogether. Town councils were specifically created to manage common areas. In many constituencies like Tanglin, for example - Mr Lew Syn Pau is not here - he hardly has any HDB blocks. I think there are only two HDB blocks, and his town council may not be welcomed in Nassim Park, Holland or Queen Astrid Park.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask the Minister of State what proportion of those fatalities involved riders who are below 20 years of age and, if a substantial number of those fatalities really involved those who are below 20 years of age, whether or not the Government would consider raising the qualifying age for a motorcycle licence. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, as I have given in my main answer, I do not have the numbers for under 20 years but, for the past two years, about 57% of the motorcyclists and pillion riders who died in road accidents were below 30 years. As to the point whether we should raise the age limit, in fact the age limit for motorcyclists was raised from 16 to 18 on 1st of May 1996. It was felt that 18 is a good age, in terms of body size, maturity, etc, and we should keep it at that. In fact, 18 is also the age in most countries. Sir, we should continue to monitor and basically target education at these people, which is being done, because the Traffic Police has targeted public education programmes in the army camps, for example, when riders do National Service, or in tertiary institutions. So let us continue with this approach.”
“Sir, point of clarification. I had earlier asked the Minister on the criteria in which Public Assistance is given to needy families. The underlying principle in respect of extending Public Assistance to needy families is one of basic necessity. I have made the point earlier that the definition of basic necessity may change over time. Is the acquisition of IT equipment, IT lessons, music lessons or dance lessons a luxury or a basic necessity? Parents these days would want to enrich their children's lives as much as possible. Is it unreasonable for a family from a lower income group to want to extend these benefits to their children? Can they rely on Public Assistance to help their children attain these skill sets?”
“Sir, I note that the amount of money we give to needy families is a subject of review from time to time. However, with the changing demands and requirements of the people, the categories, by which we use to assess what is adequate for families, may well have to change. I would like to ask the Minister whether in the light of the changing needs of Singaporeans today, and taking into account the higher cost of living, the assistance given to needy families properly reflects these changes. Secondly, I would also like to know whether our means test should be reviewed, in the light of the fact that the cost of living is now higher in Singapore and the general wage level has gone up. Thirdly, is the Ministry working closely with the Ministry of Manpower to work on the prospect of employability for those who are on public assistance?”