Sitoh Yih Pin
Singapore
“Madam, apart from a healthy diet and regular preventive health checks, one of the key elements of keeping healthy in our silver years is to pursue an active lifestyle. Playing and participating in sports is a fun and engaging way to do so. Granted that as one ages, we may not be able to participate in intense sports activities.”
“Mr Chairman, as a market-oriented, open economy, there will be, over time, inflows and outflows of foreigners who live and work in our country, alongside fellow Singaporeans. These foreigners come from different backgrounds and cultures and take on work in various forms as PMETs, skilled or manual workers.”
“Madam, many Singaporeans are very excited about the Kallang Alive Masterplan announced at the Prime Minister's National Day Rally last year and are looking forward to how the plans will revitalise the Sports Hub and its surrounding areas.”
“Mdm Chair, Singapore's arts sector has matured over the years with globally recognised artists and companies supported by world class venues. Importantly, local audience support is critical in building a vibrant arts scene engaged with the Community.”
“Yes, Sir, I will keep it very short. I would like to thank the entire MCCY team and all the speakers for their speeches. With that, I ask for leave to withdraw my amendment. [(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of $2,270,827,200 for Head X ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.”
“Sir, I thank the political office holders for their responses. Sir, in the last few hours, several media outlets reported that Lady Gaga will be performing here at the National Stadium. I think four concerts in May this year.”
The complete record
Every one of 337 lines we hold for Sitoh Yih Pin, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 7.
“There is, therefore, a likelihood that further rebuttals and counter-allegations will continue in social media and the press after this debate concludes. Singaporeans are concerned that a further protraction of this saga will harm and detract Singapore from other far more pressing and urgent national and international issues that confront us. We do not want this to happen. Once the allegations against the Prime Minister and the Cabinet have been put to rest after this debate, our Government must press ahead with our national agenda.”
“My sense from speaking with Singaporeans on this issue is that the perception of credibility is higher because of the individuals making the allegations. Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang are children of the late Mr Lee and siblings to the Prime Minister. Being family members to two of our Prime Ministers suggests that they are in a position to know or possess information that ordinary Singaporeans may not. This may not necessarily be true. But there is this public perception, the perception that allegations made by the Prime Minister's siblings or family may be more credible than others. Madam, it is, therefore, imperative that these allegations are addressed head on. A formal national forum, such as a Parliamentary debate, is ideal to address these allegations. It is important because such allegations have far-reaching implications, not only about the decision to demolish a house, but the integrity and reputation of the Singapore Government is at stake at home and abroad. Amidst an uncertain world and a volatile economy, nothing can be more important. The Prime Minister's Statement today provides the answers needed to Singaporeans to clear the allegations of abuse of power and manipulation of State Organs. This is clear. We all hope that this matter will be resolved with finality after this debate. The issues relating to the late Mr Lee's personal wishes regarding 38 Oxley Road, his last will and testament, as well as the dispute between family members, are private personal family matters and should rightly remain so. However, as pointed out by many Singaporeans leading up to the debate, Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang are not present in this House to participate in this debate today.”
“I am sure all Singaporeans agree with me when I say that the ideals of these values associated with Mr Lee should be passed down to latter generations of Singaporeans. Preserving 38 Oxley Road is one way to do so. I grant detractors that it is not the only way or may not be the best way to do so, but I am of the respectful and humble view that it will be a great dereliction of duty of any Singapore government of the day not to even consider the possibility of doing so. This is not an alien concept either. In the United States, their very first President, George Washington's home at Mount Vernon, Virginia, was designated a National Historic Landmark in 1960 and listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Therefore, what we must ask ourselves is this: is it reasonable, logical, legal, that is, 合 情 合 理 合 法, for our Government to set up a Ministerial Committee to consider the possibility of preserving the home of Mr Lee? All things considered, the answer must be yes. Madam, the next question then is: why are we debating this in Parliament? Some Singaporeans say that Parliament is not the place to settle family disputes. Well, they are absolutely right. A simple answer is that we are not doing so today. We are not here to settle family disputes. We are here today to address the serious allegations made against the Prime Minister and Cabinet for abuse of power and manipulation of State Organs for personal needs. We are here because the integrity of the Prime Minister and our Government has been called into question and Singaporeans have a right to know the full details of these allegations. How then is this different from all the other allegations made by many others over the years? Why the different approach, some argue.”
“The allegation made is that steps taken by the Government to consider preserving 38 Oxley Road in any form or manner are invidious, aimed at furthering sinister political ends. Madam, I do not intend to delve into the merits or the lack of merits of the allegation but merely wish to raise a second perspective to this issue. There is a Chinese phrase that I keep in mind whenever a complex conundrum of an ethical nature confronts me and that is "合 情 合 理 合 法". That is, to see if the action taken was reasonable, logical and legal. If any action meets all these three criteria, then more likely than not, it is an ethically sound one. Mr Lee Kuan Yew was the Founding Prime Minister of our country. Our history, the odds and obstacles we faced and how far we have come bears no repeating today. Supporters or detractors alike, there is no one in Singapore who can reasonably deny the crucial role Mr Lee played in bringing Singapore from Third World to First. Mr Lee played the role of a Founding Prime Minister of a country post-Independence, not unlike Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru of India or Chairman Mao Zedong of China. Citizens of these respective countries may not all subscribe to the politics or personalities of these political figures, but they stand for more than just their political or personal beliefs. Their place in a nation's history cannot be replaced and should not be forgotten. Madam, to Singaporeans, Mr Lee stood for far more than just himself. This was clearly evident during his passing and funeral in 2015. Mr Lee stood for the fundamental values of what Singapore represents − multiculturalism, meritocracy, good governance, rule of law, the list goes on.”
“Mdm Speaker, the controversy surrounding 38 Oxley Road, the private home of our Founding Prime Minister, the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew, has been the subject of intense public scrutiny for the past few weeks. At its heart lies the issue of whether the private home of Mr Lee should be demolished in accordance with his personal wishes. Other critical and crucial ancillary issues raised include allegations of abuse of power and the manipulation of our State Organs by our Prime Minister and the Cabinet. On the issue of 38 Oxley Road, public opinion has been deeply divided. Madam, I, therefore, rise to address two main concerns raised by Singaporeans. One, why has the Government set up a Ministerial Committee to consider options that may differ from the personal wishes of the late Mr Lee? Two, why is this issue being debated in Parliament? Madam, in response to the first question, some argue that this is strictly a private battle. They say any dispute over the last will and testament of Mr Lee should be a matter placed for judicial decision between the estate, executors and beneficiaries. Our Government should not interfere. Many of my residents have shared their views with me on whether 38 Oxley Road should be demolished. Opinions are mixed. There is no consensus. Therefore, no view is without merit. Whether one agrees with or is opposed to the demolition of 38 Oxley Road is a matter of opinion, and valid, reasonable arguments prevail on both sides of the aisle. However, whether 38 Oxley Road should be demolished is not up for debate today. We have not convened to decide this. The question is whether the Government should have set up the Ministerial Committee and placed itself in the position to consider options that may not be in line with the late Mr Lee's personal wishes.”
“Yes, Madam. I would like to thank MOT staff for their hard work and Members for their contributions. Further, on behalf of Members, I extend our gratitude and appreciation to Mr Khaw Boon Wan, Second Minister Ng Chee Meng and Senior Minister of State Mrs Josephine Teo for answering our questions and sharing with us MOT's plans for the future. On that note, Madam, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. [(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of $1,541,987,600 for Head W ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. (proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of $8,680,257,000 for Head W ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. (proc text)]”
“I do not advocate protectionist policies for our taxis. However, in a reasonably short period of time, three events and their corresponding policies are likely to have repercussions on the livelihoods of taxi drivers. They are: firstly, the entry of private hire cars into the point-to-point transportation industry; secondly, the restructuring of the diesel tax; and thirdly, the push for automated, driverless cars. These policies have objectives designed for the collective good. They are important for Singapore and will ensure that we maintain our competitive edge globally. And yet, all three together are likely to simultaneously cause specific groups of individuals, such as taxi drivers, frustration, worry and concern. We should be mindful of that. How do we take full advantage of new technologies in order to ensure that our economy remains nimble, vibrant and on the cutting-edge and still ensure that no one is left behind? This is where policy-makers and public managers need to strike a fine balance between the two. I, therefore, invite the Minister to share with us any of the Ministry's current and/or future plans to address the issues arising out of new technologies disrupting the transportation sector. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)] Train Reliability and Maintenance”
“In fact, recent trends suggest that the industry, on the whole, may have benefited from the disruption. Minister Khaw had, in his reply to a Parliamentary Question on 20 February 2017, revealed that the total number of taxi trips remained relatively stable, with only a slight drop from 967,000 trips in 2013 to 954,000 trips in 2016. With private hire cars tripling in numbers since 2013, the statistics suggest that the "pie" for point-to-point transport has grown larger. A larger "pie" means that the industry can sustain both taxis and private hire cars, while consumers continue to enjoy the best of both worlds at better value. Everybody wins. The competition provided by private hire cars has now forced traditional taxi operators, who have been slow to change without competition, to consider revamping their pricing models in order to remain competitive and relevant. There was news last week that several taxi operators, including ComfortDelgro, Trans Cab and Premier Taxi, were all considering implementing the surge pricing model used by private hire cars. This is a positive sign for commuters and the industry. New technologies will always disrupt stable, entrenched industries. This is clear from past and present examples. No industry will remain relevant in perpetuity. Stifling new innovative technology can only end in a negative outcome for the overall Singapore economy. Madam, however, as I had raised in my Budget Debate speech, it is extremely important that we do not lose sight of the perspective of the individual Singaporean; the issues and difficulties that each Singaporean and their families face in their day-to-day lives. I use a simple example. I had said in my Budget Debate speech that I empathised with taxi drivers. Why did I say that?”
“No mandatory background checks were required. Private hire car drivers were not required to apply for or take any tests to obtain a vocational licence. Uber and Grab used technology as leverage to match demand with supply and reduced transaction costs considerably to capture a significant portion of the point-to-point transportation market. Private hire cars tripled its numbers on our roads in as many years. Private hire car drivers, on the other hand, point to exclusive advantages that taxis enjoy. Taxis are allowed to pick up passengers who hail them on the streets. Taxis also enjoy exemption from the child seat rule, which mandates that all children under 1.35 metres in height are required to be in a child seat when travelling in a car. All the above issues have been well-aired in the mass media. Madam, perhaps the pertinent question to ask is this: what is the Government's stand on this? Should the Government support the plea from some taxi drivers to ban private hire cars in Singapore? Or should the Government adopt a laissez-faire approach and allow the free market to regulate itself? The Government picked an answer somewhere in between. Private hire car drivers are now subject to regulatory requirements. They, too, need to apply for a vocational licence which subjects them to screening and training. This not only levelled the playing field with taxi drivers but, more importantly, addressed the safety and competency concerns of commuters. However, the Government did not step in nor interfered directly with the disruption that technology has caused in the point-to-point transportation industry. Uber and Grab were filling a demand and consumers were, ultimately, benefiting from wider choices at better value.”
“While it is too early to tell what will happen next in the movie/TV entertainment industry, what we do know is that business can no longer be conducted "as usual" in the industry. Netflix's entry into the movie/TV entertainment industry is not unlike the entry of private hire cars into the point-to-point transportation industry. Private hire car companies made their foray into Singapore in 2013. Of these, Uber and Grab now constitute the largest market share. A key reason for the rapid growth of private hire car services in Singapore is their ability to address the perennial complaint of Singapore commuters − the difficulty of getting taxis during peak hours, in remote areas and during inclement weather. This is despite Singapore having one of the highest taxis-to-population ratios in the world. 11.45 am Private hire car companies are able to plug this service gap through their mobile apps which provide a platform to efficiently match private hire car drivers and passengers directly in real time and space. Acting as a marginal supplier, private hire car drivers come onto the road readily to soak up latent demand as and when required. This significantly shrinks transaction costs, giving passengers greater choices and value. Taxi drivers facing increased competition were naturally displeased. They argue that taxis have to adhere to a fixed schedule of charges and comply with availability requirements. There was a daily minimum mileage that taxi drivers needed to clock and a specified number of taxis need to ply the streets during peak periods. This makes them inflexible in pricing and uncompetitive against private hire cars. There were, initially, also no regulatory requirements for anyone to be an Uber or Grab driver. All you needed was a driving licence and a car.”
“Mdm Chairman, I beg to move, "That the total sum to be allocated to Head W of the Estimates be reduced by $100." Madam, there are many who say that we live in an era where fast-developing technologies are disrupting businesses and industries at an extremely fast pace. This is, however, not historically unprecedented. Trains reigned supreme until the emergence of automobiles and airplanes. Electricity replaced kerosene as our energy source for light. Steel outmuscled iron, bricks and mortar to allow us to build superstructures such as skyscrapers and bridges over large bodies of water. Each and every time this happened, incumbent industries suffered and new ones boomed. This is the cycle of technology and business. Just the other day, I read of Netflix's US$105 million purchase of Martin Scorsese's new gangster film starring Robert De Niro named "The Irishman". I must confess that I did not know what Netflix was. As usual, when it comes to technology, my daughters had to educate their father about how I can now watch award-winning TV shows, movies and documentaries, on-demand, via streaming through the Internet for a reasonably small subscription fee. Through large volume subscriptions, Netflix now has the resources to compete with traditional movie production houses and even begin production of movies and shows of their own. Locally, I understand that Netflix is fast gaining popularity amongst Singaporeans. What does this mean for cable television providers, such as StarHub and Singtel? How about movie theatres? Netflix has the latest content, with easy on-demand access, at a cost lower than cable television or movie theatres.”
“With the current challenges the world is facing, how are we positioning and preparing ourselves and consistently maintaining high alert on the "goings on"? Are we reviewing our bilateral, multilateral, regional and global relationships and contributions? Consular Support”
“Senior Minister of State for Foreign Affairs and Defence Dr Maliki Osman followed this up with a working visit to the Palestinian Territories in November 2016, during which he informed the Palestinian leadership about the Government's appointment of Mr Hawazi Daipi as Singapore's Representative to the Palestinian National Authority to coordinate Singapore's enhanced technical assistance package for the Palestinians. Mr Hawazi has since made his first visit, as Singapore's Representative, to the West Bank in January 2017. Internationally, a Conference for Peace in the Middle East was also held in Paris, France, in January 2017 where there were also calls for Israel and Palestine to embrace the two-state solution. I invite the Minister to share with us on: the impact of international conferences, such as the Conference for Peace in the Middles held in Paris earlier this year; Singapore's position on the issue and the reasons behind it; and any updates and outcomes of Senior Minister of State Dr Maliki Osman and Mr Hawazi Daipi's working visits to the Palestinian Territories. Challenges in Security Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef: Singapore is one of the smallest nations of the world. Many, however, have described us as "punching well above our weight" in terms of economic, political, foreign policies and security relevance. Making friends and influencing others require us to be tactful and move with the highest level of diplomacy. Our location at the crossroads of the west and the east, and the north and south also plays a strategic role. But that leaves us open to a variety of potential threats. We keep cordial relations with other nations and, especially our regional neighbours and partners, and, at the same time, we have to look after our own interests and existence.”
“Chairman, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a deeply complex issue that has confronted the Middle East for decades. The international community has tried to assist in resolving the question but with limited success. It is an emotive and complex issue, not only in the Middle East, but also here in Singapore and the Southeast Asia region. Despite the difficulties, it is important to find a solution, one that can help achieve a just and durable peace, with Israelis and Palestinians living side-by-side in security. It is clear that there is no straight-forward solution to this longstanding conflict. Building trust and confidence between parties is the key building block towards a solution. However, this is easier said than done. Singapore, on our part, has friendly ties with both Israel and the Palestinian National Authority. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited Singapore in February 2017. During the visit, Prime Minister Lee reiterated Singapore's longstanding and consistent position that a two-state solution is the only way to bring peace and security to the Israeli and Palestinian peoples and to the Middle East. Earlier in April 2016, Prime Minister Lee had visited Israel, the Palestinian Territories and Jordan. During his visit to the Palestinian Territories, Prime Minister Lee had announced a doubling of our enhanced technical assistance package to $10 million to support the Palestinians in building up their capacity and skills.”
“International Organisations, such as the UN, WTO, IMF, ICAO, IMO, G20 and APEC, are, therefore, critical multilateral platforms that will allow small states, such as Singapore, to engage the international community and contribute to possible solutions. These forums are vital platforms that can assist in the creation of global norms or rules in areas, such as international trade, finance, health and the environment. It is, therefore, imperative that Singapore continues to engage deeply and participate actively in such multilateral organisations. If we fail to do so, our views will not be taken into account and this will be detrimental to our long-term strategic interests. In the premises, I invite the Minister to share with us on: (a) Singapore's position as a small state in the international order and multilateral system; and (b) how Singapore can help to strengthen the multilateral system. 6.15 pm Engaging the Public on Foreign Policy”
“Sir, in the premises, I invite the Minister to share with us on: (a) any update on the implementation of the CSP; and (b) the practical benefits that Singaporeans can expect to benefit from its implementation. Singapore and the International Community As a small state, Singapore has a vital interest in advocating for and maintaining a rules-based international order. As an open economy with our key focus on free trade, Singapore's external environment plays an important role in ensuring our continued development and success. International rules bring greater predictability and, more crucially, form the basis for international cooperation. There is a shift in the international geopolitical landscape. The rise in the economic might of China has made some question the sustainability of the US as the world's pre-eminent superpower. There is, however, no consensus on how this will affect the international order. Vital issues, such as terrorism, cyber threats, climate change and pandemics, present new perspectives on global challenges that have shifted the traditional paradigm of solutions. These are issues that are transboundary in nature and require the collective efforts of the entire international community as a whole in search of effective solutions. Closer to home, in the Asia Pacific region, countries are developing fast and growing rapidly. In time to come, the interests of these countries will come to the fore as their ability to defend their interests grows. This will significantly change the geopolitical dynamics in the region.”
“Mr Chairman, Singapore and Australia share an extremely strong bilateral relationship. Our people-to-people ties are deep and well-connected. Australia is a popular destination for many Singaporeans on holiday. Its universities are internationally renowned and highly regarded. They are a top choice of many of our Singapore youths who seek to pursue a tertiary education overseas. Singapore and Australia also share many bilateral and international platforms which allow for close government-to-government communication and cooperation. The 9th Singapore-Australia Joint Ministerial Committee held on 18 March 2016 in Sydney, led by Minister for Foreign Affairs Vivian Balakrishnan and Ministers Lim Hng Kiang and Ng Eng Hen, is a good example of this. Separately, Australia is also a key strategic partner of Singapore in the region. Australia participates actively in regional forums, such as the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) and the East Asia Summit (EAS). In 2015, Singapore and Australia celebrated 50 years of diplomatic relations. We can all recollect Prime Minister Lee enjoying an outdoor BBQ session with then-Prime Minister Tony Abbot in celebrating the landmark occasion. This culminated in May 2016 when we concluded a landmark agreement to deepen economic integration, expand defence cooperation, jointly promote innovation and entrepreneurship and further strengthen our people-to-people ties by facilitating tourism, cultural exchanges and educational opportunities. This agreement builds on the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership (CSP) adopted in June 2015 by the Prime Ministers of Singapore and Australia.”
“The entry of private hire cars in the point-to-point transport industry and the possible emergence of the automated self-driving cars in the not-too-distant future may give many taxi drivers in Singapore sleepless nights. These new technologies have disrupted the transport industry considerably and it is important that the Government should manage the concerns of stakeholders affected by the disruption in order to assist in any transition that is necessary. I shall address this further at the Committee of Supply Debate. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, with that, I support the Budget.”
“COE prices have risen from $889 in January 2010 to $6,412 in February 2017, a multiple of more than six times in seven years. Owners of smaller motorcycles, who often use their motorcycles as a low-cost mode of transport for work or essential travel, are being made to pay higher COEs because of the increased demand for expensive motorcycles. The revised ARF, therefore, serves this further purpose ‒ to reduce the demand for expensive motorcycles and, consequently, to lower motorcycle COE prices and lower cost for purchasers of smaller motorcycles. Sir, the restructuring of the diesel tax is another controversial item for transport in this year's Budget Statement. Reducing reliance on diesel fuel to reduce pollution is an admirable objective. However, this policy has drawn considerable concern from some quarters. The loudest voice amongst them belongs to the class who consumes automotive diesel to make a living. Taxi drivers make up a significant group in this class. Taxi drivers consume a larger quantity of diesel fuel than all other diesel-run automotive because they travel around continuously to pick up customers. A volume-based tax, therefore, implies that their overheads are likely to increase significantly. The Government has offset this with a permanent reduction of the Special Tax for taxis. If taxi companies pass this cost saving to taxi drivers, it will go some way to allay their concerns of an increase in overhead costs. However, if one is to stop and examine the pressures faced by a modern-day taxi driver in Singapore, one can perhaps appreciate their frustrations better.”
“Motorcycles with an Open Market Value (OMV) in excess of $10,000 are liable to pay additional ARF on a 100% basis for every dollar above $10,000. This is in addition to the $3,250 that is now payable on the first $10,000. This represents a significant increase in price for higher end motorcycles. There have already been media reports that estimate that this will put prices of higher end motorcycles close to that of small cars. Motorcycle enthusiasts say that they have been unfairly "targeted" by the revised ARF regime. Some argue that super cars, such as Ferraris, Lamborghinis or Porsches, should have been at the receiving end of such an increased ARF regime, instead of higher end motorcycles. The gist of their argument is clear. Motorcyclists who purchase higher end motorcycles come from all walks of life with varying financial means. Owners of super cars, however, belong to the top 0.1% of income earners in Singapore. As such, why not increase the ARF regime on consumers who can better afford to pay? On its face, this is not an unreasonable perspective to take. But a closer look at the Budget Statement suggests that the position is misunderstood. Minister Heng alluded to two reasons in his Budget Statement for the revised ARF regime for motorcycles. First, that there is a small but rising number of motorcyclists buying expensive motorcycles, and second, after the change in the ARF regime, more than half of motorcycle buyers will continue to pay the current ARF rate of 15%. The inference is clear. The rising number of motorcyclists buying expensive motorcycles is pushing up the overall costs of all motorcycles. The rising trend of Certificate of Entitlement (COE) prices for motorcycles bear this out.”
“Sir, I concur with Minister Heng when he said in his Budget Statement that we are in a time of change. There is geopolitical turbulence in the international order. New technologies are disrupting the economies of many countries, including Singapore. Protectionist sentiments in advanced economies threaten the sanctity of Singapore's central economic strategy, that is, free trade. The Government and our policymakers are very much aware of these macro, seismic global changes and are working tirelessly to ensure that Singapore continues to succeed and progress as a country. However, it is extremely important that we do not lose sight of the perspective of the individual Singaporean; the issues and difficulties that each Singaporean and their families face in their day-to-day lives. Sir, how does a policy translate on the ground? Will an overall strategy aimed at the collective good result in unintended consequences for individuals? In fact, this is often the greatest complaint amongst Singaporeans, that the Government is too concerned with the big picture and often neglects the perspective of the individual. Is this true? It is in this context that I rise to address two issues within the Budget Statement. As I am the Government Parliamentary Committee Chair for Transport, I will look at issues that relate to transport specifically. They are (a) the Tiered Additional Registration Fees (ARF) for motorcycles; and (b) the restructuring of the diesel tax. Sir, at first glance, the new Additional Registration Fee (ARF) regime for motorcycles appears to be an additional tax imposed by the Government on higher end, more expensive motorcycles.”
“Doing so will also allow the Traffic Police to monitor irresponsible, reckless and sometimes recalcitrant riders of power-assisted bicycles and take the appropriate action against them, when necessary. Mdm Speaker, accidents involving power-assisted bicycles appear to be on the rise. As we encourage more Singaporeans to make use of such modes of transport in our vision for a car-lite Singapore, we can expect such numbers to increase further. I, therefore, urge the Government to take any further steps as reasonably practical to ensure that we minimise the risks of unfortunate road traffic accidents involving power-assisted bicycles from occurring and to enhance the safety and well-being of all other road users. Mdm Speaker, I support this Bill. 5.38 pm”
“In the article, it was reported that the learned State Coroner expressed his concern that riders of power-assisted bicycles do not receive any formal training. He was also noted to have observed that "users of motorised bicycles are subject to particular risks, as these vehicles are capable of attaining high speeds and present a low profile." The Coroner's Court had dealt with a few cases of fatalities resulting from accidents involving power-assisted bicycles and the learned State Coroner would have made his observations based on the facts presented in those cases he presided over. His observations and views on this issue are in line with mine. Unlike motorcycles, riders of power-assisted bicycles are not required to receive any formal training prior to operating the bicycles on our roads. Any person above the age of 16 is allowed to do so. I am of the respectful and humble view that more can and should be done to rectify this. While I agree that power-assisted bicycles are not as powerful in engine capacity as motorcycles, they are, in all reality, low-powered motorcycles. When allowed to operate on roads, they carry the same risk profile as other motorcycle riders. If these power-assisted bicycle riders do not have formal training on road traffic rules and other common road traffic etiquette, the risk and likelihood of accident involving power-assisted bicycles on our roads increase. I applaud the move taken by the Government to register and license all power-assisted bicycles. But, having done so, why not take the next step in ensuring that all riders of such bicycles be adequately trained, not only in using them, but also on the basic road traffic rules that all other road users, such as drivers and motorcyclists are made to do?”
“I do, however, fully agree and appreciate Second Minister for Transport Mr Ng Chee Meng's position in his Second Reading of the Bill that the Government will be adopting "a balanced, light-touch, regulatory stance that protects the safety of Singaporeans and yet ensures that these technologies can flourish." It is important that Singapore remain in the forefront of cutting-edge technology and not shy away from taking the lead. AVs, when realised, will bring much efficiency and convenience to Singaporeans. The potential benefits are clear for all to see. Be that as it may, however, I hope that any eventual implementation of ground-breaking technology, such as AVs, could be done gradually in phases. This is not only to allow for answers to questions, such as those I have raised, but also to manage how such disruptive technologies can affect Singaporeans currently working in transportation industries, such as our taxi drivers and others who drive for a living. Mdm Speaker, the second issue I wish to raise is one I also spoke about during the Active Mobility Bill debate last month. I had raised several concerns I had about power-assisted bicycles and PMDs and I shall not repeat them here. I am in full support of the amendments proposed in this Bill to regulate power-assisted bicycles and PMDs. Harsh penalties and strict rules are important to deter irresponsible and reckless users of power-assisted bicycles and PMDs from causing danger not only to themselves, but their fellow road users. I decided to raise this issue again, this time solely on power-assisted bicycles, primarily because of a recent Straits Times article on certain astute observations that our learned State Coroner made while presiding over fatal accidents involving power-assisted bicycles.”
“This was followed a month later by another announcement of nuTonomy's partnership with Grab, one of Southeast Asia's leading ride-hailing app, to expand its public trial. I remember following the news with great excitement and anticipation. I felt that this was one of those moments when technology was on the cusp of changing the entire face of transportation, as we knew it. I still do. This, however, was quickly followed by the first accident involving one of nuTonomy's driverless cars that was on trial. Thankfully, it was a minor accident where no one was injured. Separately, a driver of a Tesla car, in the US, driving with its autopilot feature was more unfortunate as he died as a result of an accident with a truck. Accidents, such as these, will inevitably raise the following questions. Can we trust technology to make the best decision to protect the safety of passengers in AVs? How will our infrastructure, roads and transportation networks, which rely primarily on human judgement and decision, assimilate the entrance of such AVs? What are the legal implications and liability issues when such AVs are involved in road traffic accidents? We do have time to answer most of these questions. The technology for AVs remains far from finished. It will require a significant period of time before AVs become part and parcel of Singapore's transportation landscape. However, as we allow companies, such as nuTonomy, to begin conducting trials on our roads, it is imperative that we take all precautions to ensure that the safety and well-being of all other road users are adequately provided for and protected.”
“Mdm Speaker, the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill proposes many substantive amendments to its principal, the Road Traffic Act. A key reason why these amendments are needed is because of the fast-changing landscape of transportation in Singapore. Breakthrough technology has now made autonomous, or driverless, motor vehicles possible in the not-too-distant future. This House had just last month debated and passed the Active Mobility Bill as we begin to make provisions for the proliferated use of power-assisted bicycles and personal mobility devices (PMDs) on our roads and pathways. We also have to contend with new private hire car services, such as Grab and Uber, who have entered the point-to-point transportation industry in Singapore. This changing transportation landscape requires the Government to review and reconsider our laws and regulations to ensure that they remain relevant. The aim of this Bill is to do exactly that. Madam, while the proposed amendments cover a wide range of issues, I shall take this opportunity to speak on two main ones. They are: (a) the amendments relating to the trial and use of AVs; and (b) those that relate to power-assisted bicycles and PMDs. The possibility of autonomous or driverless vehicles plying Singapore's roads was raised as early as 2014 when the Committee on Autonomous Road Transport for Singapore (CARTS) was formed. But it was when LTA announced in August last year that it was launching autonomous mobility-on-demand trials that really caught the imagination of many Singaporeans. I recall that this was followed by an announcement by nuTonomy, one of the companies that LTA was in collaboration with under the Singapore Autonomous Vehicle Initiative, that it was launching the world's first-ever public trial of a "robo-taxi" service.”
“This will need further in-depth discussions and consideration, but it is definitely an issue that needs to be urgently addressed as the use of PMDs become more and more prevalent in Singapore. Mdm Speaker, I support this Bill.”
“If the intention is to proliferate the use of PMDs in conjunction with the Public Transportation System to reduce our reliance on cars, this will mean that the use of PMDs is likely to increase significantly as more Singaporeans learn and accept the use of PMDs as an alternative mode of transport. If this happens, our pathways are likely to get more crowded with PMD users and more accidents involving PMDs may happen. Commencing a civil suit costs money. This is not something that every individual or family can afford. Even if a civil suit is won, there are instances where a plaintiff could only obtain a paper judgment when the defendant has no means to pay the sum awarded by the Court. Further, it is not unforeseeable to surmise that "hit and run" cases involving PMD users could potentially be higher than motor vehicles. Motor vehicles are large and carry licence plates which can be identified by witnesses of motor accidents. Irresponsible and reckless PMD users could hit other PMD users or pedestrians and run off before anyone can react. This could potentially leave us with many unwitting accident victims involving PMDs with no recourse to seek compensation for any personal injury suffered. Madam, the factors that led us to conceive the compensation regime for Motor Vehicles do not differ when applied to PMDs. As such, I am of the humble and respectful view that effort and cost should not be the impediments for the provision of a compensation scheme for PMD accident victims. Indeed, if the provision of third-party insurance is too onerous and costly on PMD users, perhaps a fund, not unlike how the Motor Insurers' Bureau of Singapore (MIB) deals with motor vehicles, could be set up to compensate victims who have no recourse to seek the compensation they need.”
“Financial aid and social welfare can only go so far. Keeping this in mind, our injury compensation scheme must, therefore, be a robust one that can adequately and fairly compensate accident victims who suffer personal injuries. This is true for motor vehicles. For motor vehicles, we have the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Risks and Compensation) Act. The Act makes it mandatory for all motor vehicles to have compulsory third-party insurance. In cases where it is a hit and run or if there is no insurer concerned, where there is no identifiable insurer, the Motor Insurance Bureau (MIB) steps in by arrangement to bridge the gap. In other words, motor accident victims who suffer personal injury are fully assured of receiving some form of compensation for their personal injuries. This offers consolation and financial protection to families, especially when it is the breadwinners who are involved in an unfortunate and tragic motor accident. We do not have similar protection for accident victims involving PMDs. On this issue, several Members of this House, myself included, have asked if a similar form of third-party insurance could be mandated for PMD users. Senior Minister of State Mrs Josephine Teo had in her oral reply in Parliament on 10 October 2016 replied that it will be "too onerous and costly for the vast majority of cyclists and PMD users who behave responsibly and safely". She further added that "pedestrians in Singapore who are injured in accidents can obtain compensation by initiating civil lawsuits or through private settlements". Madam, on this issue, I will have to respectfully disagree with the Senor Minister of State.”
“Can we consider imposing a mandatory minimum age for the use of PMDs? Or at least vary the age limits for different types of PMDs depending on the technical requirements of operation? Can penalties for recalcitrant or repeat offenders be increased to serve as a deterrent to irresponsible PMD users? Is it feasible to impose a ban on such recalcitrant or repeat offenders from using PMDs in the future? These suggestions are not meant as a criticism of the Active Mobility Bill but an illustration on the possibility of doing more. As the Bill stands, the proposed regulation is robust and sufficiently addresses our current situational needs. However, as the use of PMDs proliferate and our situational needs change, we must ensure that we do more to protect the safety and well-being of responsible and considerate PMD users and pedestrians alike. Mdm Speaker, perhaps the most controversial aspect of allowing PMDs on our pathways is the lack of a mandatory compensatory scheme for innocent victims involving PMDs who suffer personal injury. Mdm Ang Liu Kiow is an unfortunate example of this, as reported in The Straits Times. Mdm Ang was allegedly hit by a 17-year-old e-scooter rider and sustained serious head injuries in September last year. Fortunately for Mdm Ang and her family, she has since recovered well enough to return home. This is extremely heart-warming news and I am sure this House will join me in wishing Mdm Ang a full and complete recovery from her injuries. But Mdm Ang's gradual recovery from her injuries comes with significant financial and medical costs. In this case, Mdm Ang is a housewife while her husband is the breadwinner for the family. What if the accident victim was the sole breadwinner of his or her family?”
“This means that PMD users in Singapore are likely to vary greatly in terms of maturity and competency levels when operating PMDs. Second, Singapore is ranked as one of the densest cities in the world. Our residential towns or suburban areas, which centre around high-rise public housing, accentuates this. This is unlike other cities which may have dense city centres but less dense suburban residential areas. It is also important to note that our dense residential towns are also where more vulnerable classes of Singaporeans, such as the less mobile elderly and young children, are likely to share pathways with PMD users. Third, the aim of the Active Mobility Bill is to encourage more Singaporeans to consider the use of PMDs as an alternative to driving. If this vision succeeds, we would expect a significant increase in PMD users on our pathways from the numbers we see now. Such increased numbers, coupled with varying competency levels of PMD users, raise the risk factors and the likelihood of unfortunate accidents involving PMDs. Senior Minister of State Josephine Teo had said in her reply to various Parliamentary Questions raised by Members on 10 October 2016 that "the careless behaviour of a small minority of users has caused accidents and led to some members of the public to oppose their (the PMD) proliferation. It would be unfortunate if we allowed the careless behaviour of this small minority to prevent the larger majority of responsible and considerate cyclists and PMD users from enjoying the benefits of such travel modes". I agree with the Senior Minister of State. I do not suggest that PMDs be banned. However, as the situational context is likely to cause the number of unfortunate accidents involving PMDs to rise, I ask if we can do more.”
“Mdm Speaker, the Active Mobility Bill is an important piece of legislation that will allow us to take another positive step towards achieving the vision of a car-lite Singapore. Our Government has worked hard to achieve a sustainable public transportation system that is affordable, convenient and efficient for Singaporeans. Active Mobility, which includes walking, cycling and the use of personal mobility devices (PMDs) will support this system. The Active Mobility Bill seeks to regulate the use of PMDs and it is imperative that this is done. There are, however, two questions which I wish to raise. One, is the regulation contained in the Active Mobility Bill sufficient to protect the safety and well-being of other pathway users? Secondly, can we do more for unwitting victims of accidents involving PMDs who suffer personal injury as a result? Mdm Speaker, the Active Mobility Bill is a comprehensive one. It includes regulation which prohibits modifications of PMDs beyond what is allowed by law, speeding offences, dangerous and/or reckless riding offences and also mandates that users of PMDs do not leave the scene in the case of an accident and render assistance. To a large degree, these mirror those regulations for motor vehicles codified under the Road Traffic Act. The question, as I alluded to earlier, is whether more can and should be done to protect the safety and well-being of other pathway users. I would respectfully argue in the affirmative. First, unlike drivers of motor vehicles, PMD users will not be licensed. There is no minimum age requirement for PMD users and they are not required to attain any minimum level of competency before being allowed to operate PMDs.”
“Madam, I thank the Minister for his response. I would like to ask two questions. Firstly, does this series of events, in any way, affect our plans to increase our capacity on the North-South East-West lines? Secondly, it was reported in The Straits Times that there was a freon gas leak yesterday in one of our trains. Can the Minister provide more information to the House, please?”
“Madam, I would like to thank Members for their insightful and thoughtful contributions. Further, on behalf of Members, I extend our appreciation to our officers from MOT and our Ministers for answering our questions, as well as sharing with us the future of transportation in Singapore. On that note, Madam, I beg to withdraw my amendment. [(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of $1,346,786,800 for Head W ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. (proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of $9,459,952,200 for Head W ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. (proc text)] Page: 45”
“These stations are spacious and brightly lit with futuristic designs and decorated with artwork. Some of the larger stations house a generous array of shops and eateries. By contrast, older MRT stations like Khatib are comparatively shabby and look worn out after years of heavy usage by an increasing number of commuters. I am pleased to note that there are plans to upgrade 17 stations by 2018 and to find Khatib among the list. I would like to ask the Minister what my residents can look forward to after the upgrading. Will the overcrowding at the platform be resolved? Will it shield my residents from the hot morning sun? Will it cover my residents' bicycles from rain and shine? Will it be more elderly-friendly with the provision of more seats, brighter and bigger signages? Will there be beautiful artwork displays perhaps to cool them down when they cannot squeeze into the overcrowded train and have to wait for the next train? Will it be more friendly for handicapped residents, especially the visually handicapped? Perhaps numbering of bays with protruded numbers or letters will help tremendously. I am sure my favourite compassionate and Mr-Fix-It Minister will help us. MRT Breakdowns”
“But for an elderly person, this extra 10 minutes of walking can be a torturous and excruciating exercise. I raise the example to show that a truly efficient and effective transportation model must be convenient and accessible to all Singaporeans and not just the able-bodied majority. I therefore read with great pleasure LTA's recent plans to introduce priority queues for the elderly, disabled and others at MRT stations and bus interchanges. This is exactly the type of programme we need to make our transportation model a successful one. Third and lastly, reliability. Reliability of our public transport system, especially of our MRT system, has been an issue raised on many occasions. Improvements have clearly been done. But with the rapid expansion of the MRT lines or of a new line or extension every year for the next five years, is this a case of biting off more than we can chew? Are we equipped to ensure reliability across the entire MRT system while expanding its capacity at the same time? Sir, a majority of Singaporeans take one form of public transport or another in their daily lives. We hope that more will do so. MOT has an impressive plan and is building a transportation model to facilitate and allow more Singaporeans to do so. However, as we efficiently go about planning and implementing this model, we should keep in mind other factors that could affect the ultimate effectiveness of the model. I invite Minister to share with us any of the Ministry's current and/or future plans to address these issues. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)] Upgrading of Existing MRT Stations Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Chairman, the expansion of the MRT network in recent years has brought about many spanking and beautifully designed stations.”
“First, are Singaporeans adequately prepared to accept this changing transportation model? The ownership of cars is a norm in many countries. In Singapore, this is clearly unsustainable. Our population has grown significantly over the years and we expect it to grow more. Similarly, the number of vehicles has also grown. But the land we live on cannot. We have tried with land reclamation but we are clearly limited by what we can do. The transport infrastructure model that is before us is clearly an efficient solution to this problem. It makes the best use of what we have, the best use of what modern technology can give us and plan it in the best way we know how. But to make this transport infrastructure model also the most effective solution, the population that lives in this model must also participate actively and make the best use of it. Second, we are an ageing population. This is an issue close to my heart. In Potong Pasir, a significant proportion of my residents are elderly. The elderly are physically more constrained than the young. As such, we must be sensitive and aware of their travel needs. I explain with an example. There is a new housing development now being built in Potong Pasir. The land it is on is directly next to Potong Pasir MRT station. During construction, the developer blocked off the most direct walking route that my residents take to the MRT station. The developer was required to build sheltered walkways along the perimeter of the land to facilitate our residents' needs. I remained deeply concerned. Yes, sheltered walkways are good but it is now a more circuitous route. A five-minute walk has become 15 minutes. For a young adult or even a not-so-young adult like me, we can manage.”
“A quick look at key upcoming projects reveals the reason why. Changi Airport Terminal 4 and Jewel Changi Airport are on track to commence operations soon. Terminal 5 and our third runway are off the mark. Pasir Panjang Terminal Phases 3 and 4 will grow our seaport capacity by more than 40%, come end-2017. There will be an MRT extension or new line open almost every year for the next five years, adding 30 more stations to our MRT network. The Bus Service Enhancement Programme will continue. The Walk Cycle Ride SG initiative and the proposed North-South Corridor for commuters, cyclists and pedestrians will change the transportation lifestyle mindset of Singaporeans. Amid this backdrop, however, is also the Land Transport Authority’s (LTA) and Intelligent Transportation Society Singapore's (ITSS) Smart Mobility 2030, which maps out Singapore's Intelligent Transport System Strategic Plan. The plan is to leverage technological advances to improve connectivity and efficiency in our transport system. Sir, there is no doubt that these are must-haves and the changes are necessary. 7.15 pm Locally, Singapore is restricted by its physical size. The demographic and size of our population are changing. The transportation industry is changing. There is a new emphasis on green technology which includes vehicles with less carbon emissions, hybrid and electric cars, even driverless cars. I spoke earlier of the dichotomy of being efficient and effective. I explain. Being efficient is about doing things right. Being effective, however, is about doing the right things. Singapore is renowned for being efficient. We plan, execute and implement projects and plans exceedingly well. But let us pause and consider if we do it in an effective way. I raise three points for discussion.”
“Mr Chairman, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head W of the Estimates be reduced by $100. Sir, before I begin my speech as the mover of the amendment for the Committee of Supply (COS) for the Ministry of Transport (MOT), I wish to extend, on behalf of myself and all hon Members of this House, our most heartfelt and deepest condolences to the families of Mr Nasrulhudin Najumudin and Mr Muhammad Asyraf Ahmad Buhari. Our hearts, sympathies and thoughts go out to their respective families in their grief during this difficult period. Sir, the tragic loss of lives in the SMRT accident provides us with a stark reminder that the safety and well-being of both the employees and consumers of our public transport system are paramount. This is especially so, as MOT embarks on a comprehensive and ambitious plan to achieve the vision of providing Singaporeans with a modern, state-of-the-art, efficient and effective public transport system. As we set out to achieve this, we should be mindful that necessary safety precautions and protocols are considered and implemented in tandem. We must ensure that all safety protocols are followed and strictly adhered to. If there is a lapse in any way or form, immediate corrective measures must be taken with utmost priority. Only then, can we have a 21st century public transport system we can truly be proud of. As the accident remains the subject of investigations, I shall not comment on it any further. Sir, I move on. As I alluded to earlier, MOT has a comprehensive and ambitious plan to transform Singapore's transportation sector. Minister Heng Swee Keat had said in his Budget Statement that our estimated expenditure for MOT in 2016, at $10.1 billion, is approximately five times more than what it was 10 years ago.”
“Exceptions to be found are in the traditional professions of medicine, law and accounting where training is still considered very much a part of the apprenticeship process. It is no surprise that these examples are considered highly skilled professions. 6.15 pm Our SMEs hire two-thirds of the workforce and produce 50% of our GDP. That is not a very encouraging statistic in terms of productivity. And I suspect this is due to the fact that our SMEs do not have a robust apprenticeship system that engenders the development of deep skills. Job-hopping between companies and sectors almost certainly does not lead to deep skills. Deep skills are needed not just for productivity but for innovation as well. Innovation is not about sitting around and having a "Eureka" moment. Innovation also requires deep skills and mastery. The beautiful fonts we associate today with Apple computers and iPhones were due to the fact that Steve Jobs attended calligraphy classes in college conducted by a former Trappist Monk called Robert Palladino who had mastery of calligraphy and fonts. Locally, the salted egg yolk croissant which has become very popular lately is also a result of deep skills. If you cannot make a decent croissant, you certainly cannot make a good salted egg version. So, I would like to ask the Minister what measures are in place to encourage SMEs to give apprenticeships and what incentives are there to engender the spirit of apprenticeship among our workforce. Our workers must look at apprenticeship as a necessary step to developing deep skills and, hence, excellence. Productivity Growth”
“Mr Chairman, I am heartened by the Minister for Finance's emphasis on fostering innovation and improving productivity in the latest Budget. Targeted support for hiring of older workers, as well as automation efforts, are steps in the right direction as our workforce matures and we face constraints with the number of foreign workers. There are also measures in this Budget that help SMEs to embrace innovation and improve productivity. ITP and TechSkills Accelerator are exciting initiatives that help our companies and workers adapt to rapidly changing economic realities. Change is the only constant in life. Sir, but while business cycles shrink and we must embrace change, I hope that the Government, especially MTI and MOF, can help our workers develop deep skills in their chosen fields. Deputy Prime Minister Tharman has also said on several occasions that our workers need to develop deep skills, in particular, in the finance and logistics sectors. He used the term "deep mastery" and referred to the German model of Mittelstand companies. I cannot agree more. The Mittelstand companies are the rough equivalent of our SMEs but they are also quite different. They are very focused on doing something really well, are very nimble and customer-centric. But what really differentiates the Mittelstand companies from Singapore SMEs is that they have a very strong system of apprenticeship that helps their workers develop deep skills. It is these deep skills, developed over time and generations, that give Mittelstand and, indeed, German Industry, their competitive edge in the world. Sir, I think the idea and value of apprenticeship are under-appreciated in Singapore.”
“Mr Chairman, for those of us familiar with football, what Singapore has achieved in the world of diplomacy and international relations since Indepedence is akin to Leicester City's exploits in the English Premier League this season. We may not have the size or resources of others, but we always punch well above our weight. Jokes aside, Sir, I had the privilege of being Chairman of the Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) for Foreign Affairs during the previous term of Parliament. As such, I had the opportunity of seeing Foreign Service Officers (FSOs) in their element. I participated in overseas trips which were supported by the FSOs. They work efficiently and round-the-clock. By my estimate, they hardly slept for three hours per night during the trips. Singapore needs such talented and highly-motivated FSOs. Our FSOs are often at the frontline of crises, dealing with them and being our eyes and ears on the ground. It is, therefore, crucial that we not only do our utmost to recruit top talent, but also to retain the experienced ones. As an FSO, Page: 115 there are also sacrifices to be made. The cyclical posting regime is one in which families of FSOs need to relocate on a three- to four-year cycle as a result of an overseas posting. I, therefore, invite the Minister to share with us on whether: (a) MFA's current resources are adequate to meet the demands of an increasingly complex global environment; and (b) what is MFA doing to attract, develop and retain talented FSOs.”
“This means that the Government will help firms and industries to transform, innovate and grow. This is, again, a future-centric development programme, beneficial to the long-term development of our economy. However, with limited resources, the transformation programme will encounter some difficulties. During the transformation process, pain brought about by change and trimming excesses should be expected. In the end, not all firms will survive and firms should not expect such support programmes to be permanent. After all, the Government's role is to help industries and firms to grow steadily. Whether they can succeed in the future will depend on their individual efforts. (In English): Folded into this is our Government's assistance to our SMEs. Higher corporate income tax rebate, SEC and the SME Working Capital Loan Scheme are further initiatives aimed at helping our SMEs succeed amid tough economic conditions and tight labour constraints. Again, these policies have been tailored with an eye for the future, to provide a helping hand to our SMEs gain a foothold in their respective industries on their own steam. This will ensure sustainability and longevity. Page: 29 Mdm Speaker, this Budget aims to provide and implement long-term solutions to long-term issues. It does not look for short-term fixes. It aims to help those who need it the most but also assists us all in working towards a bright and sustainable and secure future for Singapore. Times will change. Context and circumstances will change. Our needs and wants as a country will change. Our principle of fiscal prudence should not. This is a principle that has been handed down to us by our founding leaders, and I urge all successive generations of leaders to keep to the same. Mdm Speaker, I support the Budget.”
“The recent bombings in Jakarta, Paris, Lahore and Brussels reinforce this. We also want a better and more efficient public transport system. We want the convenience of public transport at our doorstep. We want sheltered walkways to take us from our towns to the various transport nubs. The list goes on. Mdm Speaker, it is clearly not an easy task to draw a line between what is a "good to have" and what is a "must have". But looking at the heart of this Budget gives us an indication of a possible yardstick. The yardstick being that any decision must centre around whether something is good for the long-term benefit of Singapore − to ensure that it not only benefits us but is enduring enough to benefit successive generations of Singaporeans − our children and grandchildren. This is further accentuated by the fact that a significant portion of our Budget initiatives goes to "training or upgrading" schemes, such as SkillsFuture, the Adapt and Grow initiative and the Tech Accelerator programme. This Budget also launches a new Industry Transformation Programme. This is meant to help firms and industries restructure, create new value and drive growth. This is, again, a future-centric programme for the long-term benefit of our economy. But as with all restructuring exercises, we must expect pain when excess is trimmed. Not all firms will survive. Firms should also not expect such grants to be permanent. The Government's role, after all, is to assist industries and firms to grow sustainably and succeed on their own accord in the future. Madam, in Mandarin, please. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] In this Budget, the Government also launched the Industry Transformation Programme.”
“We should never deviate from our fundamental principle of "living within our means" and being financially prudent, no matter how tempting it might be to simply use money to solve problems that we are facing or will face. In a recent interview with Channel News Asia, I highlighted the distinction between items that are "good to have" and "must have", the point being that the items that fall into the former category can wait while we allocate resources to achieve the latter first. I said it because I believe in it. But it was also a good soundbite for television. But carrying out the proposition is certainly more complex than delivering it on television. In this, I do not envy the job of Minister Heng or any of our Ministers for Finance preceding him. How does one decide the arbitrary line that distinguishes the "good to have" from the "must have"? As Singapore became more successful through the years, naturally, Singaporeans want more. The concept of wanting more is understandable. It is part of achievement and the fruit of hard work and ambition; key attributes to success. The question is: how much more? Time changes. Context and circumstances change. What is a "good to have" in the 1970s may very well be a "must have" today. Terminals 4 and 5 of our airport and their construction costs may seem extravagant to some, but is crucial when looked at in the strategic light of how Singapore Page: 28 hopes to position itself as a hub in this region. Our passenger numbers are increasing. Between 2011 and 2015, they have gone up by almost 10 million. We want it to grow more. It has direct and indirect consequences for our economy. Security is also a key "must have". I am sure we all agree, without it, everything else really does not matter. The world is getting more chaotic.”
“This is, however, a good thing, something we should be rightfully proud of. But this has led to calls from some quarters for the Government to spend more. Calls for more subsidies and Budget goodies. Calls for short-term fixes to stimulate the economy and to make the lives of Singaporeans easier and more comfortable. First Deputy Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Mr David Lipton, warned last month that the global risk of "economic derailment" has grown. If true, this will certainly affect Singapore and calls for our Government to do more, spend more and help more will inevitably get louder and louder. To be fair, the argument to assist those less privileged or to share some of our successes is not an unjust one and our Government has acknowledged this. ComCare, Workfare, MediShield Life, the Pioneer Generation Package, SkillsFuture, Silver Support Scheme are just a few examples of what the Government has done over the years. Any further calls for more liberal spending by the Government, however, should be carefully considered and treated with great caution. Madam, the US, Europe and other countries have taught us from recent history that no country, no matter how developed or advanced its economy, is immune to slowdowns or the vagaries of the global economy. Singapore is no exception. If we think we are safe and invulnerable because of the size of our bank balance and, therefore, can and should draw down on it to make our lives "easier" and "better", we are simply deluding ourselves. History is there for us to learn from, not to repeat its mistakes.”
“Mdm Speaker, I rise to congratulate Minister Heng Swee Keat on his first Budget Statement as Finance Minister. Minister Heng is Singapore's eighth Finance Minister and is Singapore's first Finance Minister who was born after our very first Finance Minister took office in 1959. Our very first Finance Minister needs no introduction in this House. Anecdotes of Dr Goh Keng Swee's frugality and thriftiness are legendary. His penny-pinching habits, including the state of disrepair of his car, have all been well-chronicled. In the context of Singapore today, our younger Singaporeans may not be able to relate to these stories personally and some may even find them laughable or ridiculous. But thriftiness was the hallmark of our founding leaders. Not only Dr Goh, but then Prime Minister Mr Lee Kuan Yew and each and every one of our founding leaders. No exception. Not surprisingly, this sense of thriftiness laid the cornerstone of Singapore's fiscal policy for the past 57 years. This translated into a fiscal policy where we always live within our means and put away as much as we can for a "rainy day". We do so to secure the future of our children and grandchildren, just like the Pioneer Generation had secured for us what we have today. Page: 27 Mdm Speaker, this represented one of our core values and was also a reflection of Singapore's early history. The odds were stacked against us then. So, we took nothing for granted. Times have changed. Singapore has done reasonably well. Our fiscal prudence has put us in good stead. Educated guesses on the state of our reserves often arrive at a figure few could fathom or ascertain in an instance, the actual number of numerals involved. I am a chartered accountant by profession and I struggle also!”
“We must not let them down. We must maintain the trust. Page: 14 At the same time, we must put out our hands to the people to travel with us together, as without them, we are nothing and will likely become another footnote in the history books. With that, Mdm Speaker, I support the Motion. 2.08 pm”
“There will be teething and difficult times. There will be times when the very foundations of our country will be severely tested. The Chinese characters for the word "Country" is 国家. 所谓，先有国才有家. It means, not literally, that for family units to exist, there must first be a stable country. So, to all Singaporeans, I urge you to back the Government fully. In 2015, your votes show your trust for this Government to lead you moving forward. Our country did not arrive at what it is in 2016 by accident. It was only through the sheer hard work and commitment of the Government and the people, with and to each other. We must build on it, people and Government, hand in hand together, in order to ensure that our future generations can enjoy the same fruits that we now enjoy. On the other hand, the Government needs to reciprocate and do its utmost to maintain this trust. It is a solemn duty and burden. To continue to build and re-build its relationship with the people, as we embark on a journey that is likely to be fraught with difficulties and many unknown challenges. But more, importantly, not only to concentrate on winning the trust of the people, but also to trust the people. Trust that the people will fully support the Government even when things are imperfect or when times are difficult. Trust that good communication is the key. That Singaporeans are discerning and able to accept the good, the bad and the ugly news. Mdm Speaker, there are very many examples around the world of the consequences of a breakdown in trust. There have been systems of government that are based on the absence of trust and they frequently result in deadlock. This is not the system for us. The people have voted for us. They have reposed their trust in us to help lead them through good and bad times.”
“Page: 13 I believe, Mdm Speaker, that this is what makes us special. The resilience of our founding leaders and our Pioneer Generation overcoming the impossible odds together since 1965. We built a formidable modern defence force with National Service. We developed and used technology to reclaim waste water and turned it into potable drinking water. During tough times, our people rolled up their sleeves, sweat and put their shoulders together with the Government to grind it out and make it work. Ordinary Singaporeans who make extraordinary contributions. We do it on the basis that we will never allow anyone to trod on us or take us for granted simply because of our size. We never give up. We need to maintain this core fibre of resilience that made Singapore so successful for the past 50 years. The single-minded desire running through the Government and our people as one to make our little red dot a safe and successful harbour and home for each and every Singaporean. A place to live and grow old in and see our children grow up and live on. If we lose this desire, we are but a tray of loose sand and will achieve nothing and most certainly regress from what our forefathers have built for ourselves. But, Mdm Speaker, the Government cannot do this on its own. Former United States President John F Kennedy famously asked of his fellow Americans at his inauguration, "Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country". We are a different people and these are different times. But this statement continues to resonate. Government and people are a partnership and the glue is trust. Singaporeans need to accept that new times will bring new challenges. It was not plain sailing for the past 50 years. It will not be plain sailing for the next 50 years.”