Steve Chia Kiah Hong
Singapore
“A similar prohibition would apply to the videocasting, or video streaming of explicitly political content. At this point, the Government has no intention to amend the legislation regulating Internet campaigning during an election.”
“Sir, may I clarify with the Senior Minister of State? He did not answer my question exactly. My question is this. From the "positive list" of the websites that are approved and registered, a concerned citizen downloads all these materials and prints them out on his own, using photostating machine or whatever, and distributes them to the m…”
“Sir, with regard to chicken farms and especially slaughter house workers, I believe they must be well trained and briefed on the precautionary measures to take. But are they insured under the Workmen's Compensation Act or any other kind of insurance in the event that they are afflicted with the bird flu virus?”
“Sir, I hope that the Minister of State understands that suicide is basically an attempt to cry out for help. In that time, if they do not have an easy number to remember, like SOS' 1800-2214444 hotline, can they call 999 or 995 and be redirected to the SOS in the event that they are thinking of suicide?”
“The clarification is that this individual, whom we do not know, is not our election agent or election helper. This is an individual in the constituency who wants to download anything and distributes it to the residents in the contested constituency. Is it an offence?”
“Active political recruitment has been going on inside and outside the RC and PA s organisation and premises. Although grassroots leaders are under no compulsion to join the PAP and can opt out if they want to, Straits Times' Forum writer, Ms Yee, had correctly pointed out that "joining a grassroots organisation seems to be a sure way for…”
The complete record
Every one of 543 lines we hold for Steve Chia Kiah Hong, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 9 of 11.
“To me, Singapore must aim to be a symbol for vibrancy, originality and affluence. It is an ideal end-state that talented mobile citizens can look forward to and be inspired. In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, these are the five points that are important ideas to make and help remake Singapore towards the next level of prosperity. I hope the Government can take up these points and expand from them.”
“Yet, for the male citizens, they need to give up 2 1/2 years of their prime youth to do National Service to defend their country. On top of that, it is up to another 40 days a year, away from building their career to do reservist training. Foreign talents and foreign workers do not. They enjoy the peace and security that Singapore men provide through offering National Service and they get good pay along with building their careers. No wonder many male Singaporeans are talking about migration and giving up their citizenship if they have a choice. Maybe they intend to come back as a foreign talent to work in Singapore, to be better appreciated by the Government, and without the liability. Mr Speaker, Sir, there is something wrong here that this Government has failed to address. Membership in Singapore must have its privileges. Many young and mobile Singaporeans are saying that there is little privilege and more liability, and it is better off without. This is not right and the Government needs to get this corrected. There must be strong economic and social reasons for Singaporeans to be proud to want to remain as a Singapore citizen. The economic reason could be in the form of lower tax rate for working citizens, more so for male citizens still active in serving their NS liability. The social reason could be the concept of what does Singapore stand for. The US stands for freedom and opportunity. China stands for economic progress. India stands for the largest democracy in the world. What does Singapore stand for? Currently, most Singaporeans think that it stands for PAP - poor also pay! Until we can identify and agree on what truly we stand for as a society, we are not going to inspire pride in our citizens.”
“We need to generate good international brand names with good products that citizens of the world are willing to sell their pants - to buy from us. That calls for good marketing and branding - something that is very important, and that the Government has failed to recognise. Fifth, to my last point on benefits of being a Singapore citizen. Mr Speaker, Sir, while the Government seeks to welcome international talents and skilled workers to reinforce our limited pool, and build a critical mass of talents to contribute to our economy, we need to show greater appreciation of our own citizens and offer them something more than what non-citizens in Singapore can get. Membership must have its privileges. Singaporeans must have greater privilege than non-citizens, so much so that highly talented foreigners will queue up to sign up for citizenship. However, at the moment, the Government seems to be taking the support of Singaporeans for granted. Foreigners seem to be wooed with red carpet, open arms and good pay to come to work in Singapore. Singaporeans, on the other hand, are getting retrenched, getting pay cut and told to lower their expectations. Many Singaporeans complain to me that they only see liability in being a citizen. There is no visible benefit. They say they cannot vote because it is always a walkover in their constituencies. They cannot participate in policy making too because the Ministers will not listen to them, ikan bilis. They feel like being forced to live in a five-star hotel with no say in how the hotel is run, while struggling hard to make ends meet. They were told to lower their expectations because the Government invites lower cost skilled foreign workers and talents to come in and compete with them. They asked what are the benefits of citizenship.”
“If members can take private bank loans, there is no reason why they are not allowed to borrow from their own retirement savings for needy days. This sacred cow needs to be slaughtered. Fourth, go beyond being a factory for others. 80% of our exports are manufactured products. We had done well as a centre for manufacturing excellence. The sad thing is that little of those manufactured products belong to Singaporeans. We do not own the designs, the inventions or the brands. Being efficient and productive is not enough. We must go beyond being a factory for others. We need to be owners of these manufactured products and brands. If we just rely on upgrading our manufacturing with new technologies and capabilities, we will be heading for failure when other low cost countries catch up with advanced technology. We need to celebrate those businessmen who create new products, generate interest, create demands and make good profits along the way. We, as a Singapore society, must generate new brands and repackage old products that we can market to the whole world. So, consumer brands, like Eu Yan Sang, Osim, Tung Lok and BreadTalk must be celebrated, encouraged and expanded. All these companies have one common thread. They have the ability to generate a new marketable brand following from repackaging a stale old product. There are a lot more lesser brands out there that can be helped to expand and grow regionally. MTI and Spring Singapore can take on a more strenuous effort to identify and give them more personalised support. It is stupid of us to expand overseas by building factories and industrial parks alone. Aim higher and get others to work by manufacturing for us.”
“If your current job is going to be gone, you will need to start hunting for the next stockpile of cheese. There is no welfare in Singapore, so stop looking to the Government for handouts. They are not giving us any. Learn new skills while you can - where funds are currently provided by the Government. Make good use of it and do not be resistant to change - for change is going to be a constant in our society. Increase your knowledge, for knowledge increases our economic value. Be gung-ho in trying out new ideas. Who knows, you may be the next Olivia Lum in the making. Now, on my next point. The whole concept of CPF savings for retirement also needs to be changed. The ERC Report has failed to address this foundation stone. Maybe it is too hot for them to handle. Compulsory CPF savings is good. It is a prudent policy to enforce savings on good working days. But what happens when things go bad and there are rainy days for months? Before our citizens can retire to enjoy their retirement savings, they might have died of stress or hunger due to lack of money and job. So let us not begrudge what rightly belongs to our members. With certain safeguards and clear guidelines, the Government should allow our citizens to borrow from their own CPF savings for emergency and rainy days - to tide them over their difficult period. If members can borrow from their own CPF to buy depreciating property and money losing stocks, there is no reason why they are not allowed to borrow from their own CPF to buy their next meal or pay their next bill. And when they return to the job market, they can start to repay back the loan amount over an instalment period.”
“In fact, they are better off than many people in the private sector. They have high wages and a secure income stream. This is not correct. The Budget failed to address high civil service wage cost and this needs to be corrected. Third, the concept of retirement, jobs and the CPF. I am happy to hear that the Deputy Speaker, Mrs Lim Hwee Hua, is in common agreement with me that the concept of retirement needs to be corrected. I will touch on more of it at the coming Committee of Supply debates. Meantime, I want to touch on the CPF. The Government restructured the CPF to focus on the basic retirement needs of Singaporeans. The question is: can Singaporeans afford to retire in Singapore? I do not think so. With such high cost and high standards of living - after deducting medical and housing needs - how many years can the limited amount in the CPF last an employee? If the majority of Singaporeans are not going to be able to retire with the limited savings in the CPF, please tell us so. Stop kidding Singaporeans that they can make use of their CPF to pull through their retirement needs. It is not enough. To all the Singaporeans out there, retirement is only for the rich and financially able. If you do not have money to buy food and pay bills, you will need to work, never mind that you have reached 65. Even begging is a form of work, though non-productive and not allowed in Singapore. This is the reality of life in Singapore. If you do not have money, retirement is not an option. The Government is not going to take care of you. Retirement is a luxury for the rich, and for those who can afford to stay unemployed. So is job choosiness. If you are a responsible person, with responsibility to fulfill and bills to pay, you cannot be that choosy about the next job.”
“However, such tweaking does not solve the fundamental problem of high and non-competitive business cost. Like the recommended CPF wage freeze proposed for workers, Government Ministers and senior civil servants should take a similar 30% wage cut for two years, or until the unemployment rate falls back below 3%. If the Government solves the high unemployment problem, then they deserve every right to the million dollar salary and should get a performance bonus for that. But until that happens, there is no basis for such high salary when unemployment is at a record high. The Government Ministers should be more automatic in this matter. Like in the ERC Report, this will also send a strong signal to all Singaporeans and foreign investors alike - that our Government leaders are taking the personal interest to decisively reduce high wage cost, and strengthen Singapore's competitive position. It will also help a bit in reducing the Government's feared chronic deficit. Civil service employees and Government officials have long enjoyed security of employment. Unlike workers from the private sector, they are less likely to be retrenched. Even if they are retrenched, like recently, they get very good retrenchment benefits that so many actually volunteered to be retrenched. Ever since the 1994 salary revisions, the compensation for the civil service has reached parity with the private sector. Bonuses were paid without the same degree of rigorous benchmarking that is a feature of the commercial world. They can get away with any honest mistake, while a private sector CEO will immediately get the boot. Now, with an insecure and uncertain economy moving forward, the stability of careers for senior public sector employees and Government officials has exceeded parity.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, a lot had been spoken by the 30 speakers before me. I will not belabour some of the positive points mentioned yesterday and today about the Budget, but will instead focus on what I believe is not adequately addressed by the Budget or the Remaking Singapore Committee. These are ideas that should be considered to make Singapore a better society for the longer term. First, budget deficit versus budget surplus. Overall, this is a mildly acceptable budget. There are no surprises and no big deficit planned to help businesses and private individuals to tide over the hard times ahead. Maybe the Minister is planning for another off-budget deficit later in the year when things really get tough. If not, the Government will have lost its moral right to demand and plan for huge surpluses in better years. What is the point for citizens to allow the Government to accumulate huge reserves and surpluses in good years, spend little of those surpluses in difficult years, and not give any report of the investment return on the accumulated surplus? Nobody knows what is the return on investment or the yield till date of the Government reserves. Such figures were not disclosed. It will take many thousand man-years to compile, we were told. This is absurd. The Government can be a lot more transparent to win the people's trust. It can also be more generous by keeping the GST at 4% till the economy has fully recovered. The Government has the political clout to raise the GST if we ever get into a chronic deficit. So, let us not worry too much about a chronic deficit right now. Second, Ministers should lead by example to send a strong signal to investors by cutting their own high wage cost. There is a lot of tweaking to the current system to lower business cost.”
“Sir, in view of the low birth rate in Singapore, would the Ministry consider greater incentives for promoting adoption rather than abortion?”
“Sir, is it a statutory requirement for HDB to borrow funds only from the CPF?”
“1% above the CPF rate in order to cover its administrative cost. With the current CPF Ordinary Account interest rate at 2.5%, HDB's concessionary interest rate is 2.6%. HDB can lower its concessionary interest rate only if the CPF lowers the Ordinary Account rate that it pays its members. HDB, therefore, has no plans to adjust its concessionary interest rate.”
“Sir, is the Minister denying that we are making big losses, as stated? Mr Lim Hng Kiang: Sir, our investments have done well relative to market benchmarks. So, there will be places where we make losses and there will be places where we make gains. But we must look at it in the overall context. We must look at it in the timeframe that we use. We must look at it against the benchmarks. For example, when the market comes down 30%, to say that you do not make losses, you must be very, very good. But if the market loses 30% and you lose 25%, then you have done better than benchmarks. So, you must look at it from that perspective. HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD (Lowering concessionary rates for mortgagors) 11. Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong asked the Minister for National Development if his Ministry will look into ways to lower the concessionary rates charged to Housing and Development Board mortgagors to below 2.6%, without asking them to go for private bank loans. The Minister of State for National Development (Dr Vivian Balakrishnan) (for the Minister for National Development): Sir, the HDB borrows funds from the Government at the CPF Ordinary Account interest rate for its concessionary rate loans to eligible HDB mortgagors. The CPF Ordinary Account rate is computed based on the sum of 80% of the Fixed Deposit rates and 20% of the Savings Deposit rates of the three major local banks, subject to a minimum of 2.5%, as provided for under the CPF Act. By committing to a minimum rate of 2.5%, the Government ensures that CPF members enjoy a good rate of return on their CPF funds. Today, in contrast, the average fixed deposit rate of the three major local banks is only 1.33 % per annum. HDB pegs its concessionary interest rate at 0.”
“Sir, can the Minister clarify Dr Mahathir's comment that from their economic intelligence, Singapore had made big losses from investments? Second question: what is GIC's average investment returns over the past 10 years?”
“Sir, in the naturalisation process, what would be estimated rate of loss due to evaporation in the reservoir when the water has been pumped back in? The second question is: since we are so kiasu in wanting to do so many tests, should we not be also a bit even more kiasu by waiting until the test results are out before we pump the NEWater back into the reservoir, rather than pumping it back in when we are still awaiting the results of the test? This is because the article did say that there is a long-term chronic toxicity and carcinogenic potential of the NEWater, which is an area of concern.”
“Sir, can the Minister explain the rationale by the international panel of experts on the recommendation to pump NEWater back to the reservoir? If it is not a good rationale, would we actually consider merging it after it is being treated so that you actually do not go through a second treatment and you can save cost?”
“Basically, would the Senior Parliamentary Secretary agree that the demand for the clearance is actually more than the supply provided by the Customs Office at the moment?”
“Sir, I am happy to hear that the waiting time has been cut down from one hour to 40 minutes, and I look forward to the department cutting down the time to less than 15 minutes per waiting time. As for the first part of my question about Singapore passport holders, I have the personal experience of reaching the Customs and seeing the car lanes were all empty. We actually wanted to use the car lane but we were told, "No, you cannot." One has to squeeze with the other motorcyclists, even though the car lanes are empty. On such an occasion, would the Customs actually allow Singaporean motorcyclists to use the car lane to be cleared, so as to divert the traffic away?”
“Sir, does the Senior Parliamentary Secretary know that most of the motorcyclists are actually Malaysian workers going back after work and there is no possibility of them actually staggering their working hours, unless their companies agree? In a sense, it takes about one hour for them every day to clear the Customs, and something has to be done. So, would the Ministry actually increase the workforce at peak hours? After monitoring the situation for such a long time, they should actually know when are the peak hours and should have more officers manning more counters.”
“Is having children out of the marriage in this case one of the reasons for the non-approval?”
“The Senior Minister of State said that it is likely that these children could have gone overseas. Has any effort been made to counter-check with the Immigration Department to see whether these children have actually gone overseas?”
“We would also urge the Government not to exploit the current situation to its own advantage, but to move on to tackle the equally important problem of rising unemployment. We trust that the Government may handle this economic problem with the same zeal and efficiency, because a discontented populace may also disrupt peace and security within the country. Sir, I support the motion.”
“They cannot want to, because they are not communicating and not understanding each other well enough. Other than through the newly set up IRCC, there is minimal discussion at the inter-racial or inter-religious levels. The Government should not be afraid that such discussions will lead to heightened tensions or racial disharmony, because it would not. If we dare not discuss tough issues, we will be none the poorer as a society. If there are no discussions, no opportunity to speak up, heard and be heard, and not being able to raise one's concerns to public consciousness, how can Singaporeans learn of each other's aspirations and support each other to build a more cohesive society. The answer towards greater social cohesion is not to segregate the different communities, but to get them to integrate more closely and frequently. I hope this episode is the beginning of more dialogues, more discussions and more interactions to come between the various communities at the constituency level. [Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Chew Heng Ching) in the Chair] 5.00 pm Fourth, the Government should practise what it preaches. If it truly believes in the freedom of religion, it should seriously consider allowing the practice of some religious obligations in schools and the civil service. This is especially relevant as our society matures, and greater diversity and non-uniformity results. The Government must encourage and help to build unity in the midst of diversity and make it one of our core strengths of our society. As a responsible Opposition, we do not want to be seen politicising national and internal security issues. What is needed is to instill trust in one and all, at a time that is most needed for nation building and social cohesion.”
“As Minister Wong said earlier and quoted from page 11 of the paper, which states that "Hambali's plan was to attack key Singapore installations and to represent them as acts of aggression by the Malaysian government." We must not fall into the trap of the terrorists. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would now like to touch on the recommendations put forth by the paper. The three broad recommendations are sensible and practical approach to minimise the problems of terrorism associated with religion. It should be supported and endorsed. However, it is not enough to will this problem away and there is more the Government can and should do to help. First, the Government should learn to listen to the wishes and aspirations of the people. Stop pretending to listen when policy decisions are already made and justified. It is time for the Government to drop the "We know better than you" kind of attitude. Such Government and civil service attitude results in frustrations and resentments, and does not help to build a more cohesive society. Second, the Government should encourage greater transparency in its discourse. Keeping the lid on public discussion of any issues serves only to perpetuate a socially and politically immature populace. What fear is there in finding a can of worms if the Government has been fair and vigilant in performing its duties? Third, I am very happy that this whole episode is brought into spotlight by the issuance of the White Paper and this thorough debate in this House. We have a very fragile society, bound together, not by acceptance, but by tolerance. Singaporeans tolerate each other not because they want to, but because they need to, and are required by the Government.”
“On another note, I would like to express three concerns that I have learnt from the White Paper. First, page 26 of the Paper states that the first specific lead came from a concerned Singaporean after the September 11 attacks, after which the investigation and operation against the JI started. Had that particular Singaporean been less discerning, less wise or less proactive, the Government, the ISD and all Singaporeans would probably have been none the wiser until after an actual attack had materialised at the Yishun MRT station. On that note, that Singaporean should be rewarded for providing that vital information. However, other than relying on concerned citizens to provide the leads, or information exchanges between the other security agencies, can the Minister assure us that there are other means in place to track the plans and happenings of these known and other unidentified terrorist groups. And that such means are not used as a tool by "big brother" to watch its peace-loving citizens. Second, Singapore is a very small and vulnerable city surrounded by water. The Government should focus more resources in making sure that external elements are not able to create havoc in Singapore by staging an attack from countries nearby. As we stand here condemning the terrorists, what assurance is there from the Minister that there is no plane, hijacked from airports nearby and flown towards this Parliament House? Third, I urge the Government not to jump to any hasty conclusions if our installations overseas are under attack or destroyed, no matter the current state of our relationship. There could be malicious elements out to sour our ties with our neighbours and create unrest.”
“Thus, it is wise of us to differentiate this JI group - with its extremist ideology, willing to espouse violence to achieve their desired ends - from the friendly and peace-loving Muslim community that we have come to know and regard. It is unfortunate that such threats are coming from deviant groups claiming to act in the name of religion. We must also acknowledge the considerable contributions made by the mainstream Muslim community towards nation building and the sacrifices that they have made - living as a minority in our community. With many Muslim religious and community leaders coming out to denounce the JI and pledge allegiance to Singapore, the non-Muslim community cannot, but be assured that the JI is an extreme group - rejected by their peers at large, and that Islam itself it not the cause of these problems. It is the extreme radicals behind this group. Every Singaporean - whether Muslim or non-Muslim, whether pro-Government or pro-Opposition - must come together in this to support the Government and its agencies in keeping peace, law and order. In return, the Government should start paying more attention to the wishes and concerns of the various communities and not dismiss their concerns as slight. To quote Pergas in their press release, "we (Pergas) are worried that side issues, important to a particular group because of their religion, are not receiving due attention." In particular, the Government should stop questioning the loyalty of the Malays in Singapore. It should move beyond race and help all citizens to focus and build on the Singaporean identity. With a strong Singapore identity, there is less likelihood of our citizens being hijacked to cause harm to our society - by people, groups or governments with a hidden agenda.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in this debate. Like Mr Chiam before me, I would like to state our party's position on this matter. We share the nation's concern on the threat to our security posed by the terrorist groups like the Jemaah Islamiyah. We recognise this as a very serious threat to our social and economic well being, and support the Government's efforts to contain them. In this respect, may I take the opportunity to applaud the ISD on a job well done. For once, I am beginning to feel a bit more confident about the ISD - that is not used as a political tool. I am happy to see that the ISA is used in its proper intent, arresting those who are out to harm the security and stability of our beloved country, and those who are bent on using violence as a means to achieve their ideological objectives. We recognise that, as long as we take the constitutional approach to challenge the PAP Government, there should be no fear of such arrests. I also want to take this opportunity to express my support for the publication of this detailed and almost-comprehensive White Paper. In future, the Government should make it a practice to issue a White Paper following every major arrest using the ISA. My only regret is that, when reading through the Report, I find missing were copies of the Detention Orders issued by the Home Affairs Minister. They should be included in the White Paper to convince the more skeptical people around, the reasons for these arrests. The arrests were of a very small group of extremist and malevolent radicals. Although some were psychologically pressured into participation, they are not representative or symptomatic of the Muslim community at large.”
“5%, the CPF is paying higher than what the banks are able to pay. In this way, we ensure that the CPF savings of our citizens actually yield a good return in order to allow them to have sufficient funds for their retirement. Why do I explain all this? Because HDB borrows its funds for the concessionary rate from the CPF. Whatever it pays the CPF for this concessionary rate, it will then pass on to flat lessees, plus a small margin of 0.1% for administrative cost. So, if the CPF rate is 2.5%, HDB will borrow from CPF at 2.5%, add 0.1% and charge the HDB lessee 2.6%. That is the reason why HDB cannot lower its concessionary rate, unless CPF also lowers the rate that it pays out to its depositors. I think that is not something that Singaporeans would like to see, because we want to see our CPF money enjoying a good rate of return. And currently it is enjoying a very good rate of return, much higher than what we can get from the banks. For that reason, although the bank interest rates at the moment are lower than the concessionary rate, I am afraid that HDB is not in a position to be able to match the banks' rates. Indeed, for many years, when the bank rates were very high, the HDB concessionary rate was actually a very attractive rate, way below the banks' interest rate at that time. So we cannot have a situation when the HDB concessionary rates are low and the bank rates are high, to enjoy that concessionary rate and then, when the reverse situation is true, to require the HDB to lower its rates. I think that is not possible, because HDB is not in a position to do that for the reasons that I have cited earlier.”
“Sir, can the Minister explain why the HDB concessionary interest rate is higher than the private-sector bank interest rate, and why is the concessionary rate pegged above the minimum interest rate from the CPF Board at 2.5%, and how can it be considered concessionary when it is higher than the market rate? Mr Mah Bow Tan: This has got nothing to do with the use of HDB flats, but I will answer the question. First of all, what is a HDB concessionary interest rate? It is an interest rate which is available to those groups of HDB flat lessees who are first-time buyers, those who are not private property owners, are not breaching the income ceiling and so on. In other words, the HDB concessionary rate is a rate which will allow such buyers to own their first HDB flat or to own a second HDB flat as a result of upgrading, ie, it is meant to facilitate their ownership of a HDB flat. For many years, the HDB concessionary rate has been below the private-sector rate. HDB's concessionary rate is independent of what the private property charges, and it has always been low. Why? Because it is pegged to the CPF rate. The CPF rate, as the hon. Member may know, is the average of the rates that the various banks charge their customers, but with a floor. In other words, if we take all the bank deposit rates and we average them out, that is the rate which the Government promises to pay to CPF account-holders, with one caveat: if the rate goes below 2.5%, the CPF, will still pay 2.5%. So, if the bank rates go up, CPF will pay a higher interest rate. If the bank rates go down, the CPF will pay a lower interest rate, but with a floor of 2.5%. It is an all-win and no-lose kind of a game, if hon. Members know what I mean, because with the guarantee of 2.”
“Does the Minister of State agree that one of the reasons younger persons generally experience higher unemployment is because of competition from the employment pass holders?”
“It is expansionary and will help to boost the economy. The priority in this uncertain time should be, first, saving existing jobs and then creating more of others. I thank the Government for not forgetting that this is what it pledged to the people at the November elections last year. It does not help that the economic tax restructuring may create some new high-tech jobs but, in the process, cause many more traditional jobs especially in retail, to be lost. As it is, there is already a high job/skill mismatch in Singapore. Let us not make it worse by causing more traditional jobs to be lost for Singaporeans, while more foreign workers are employed to fill the high-tech new jobs. Sir, though not completely satisfied or ideal, I will reluctantly support the Government in phasing in this GST increase and hope that it will be reviewed after one year.”
“This additional cost of doing business will have to be absorbed most likely by the small businesses that are not GST-registered. This may cause some of these small businesses, especially some of the new businesses which are already suffering, to consider closing down and cause higher unemployment. I appreciate DPM Lee's understanding of the problems in the retail sector. The retail sector is very fragile. Consumer confidence is very fragile. There are many retailers still struggling to survive and many are seriously thinking of closing shop. If forced to survive in this harsh environment, many will be forced to review the one area of expenditure over which they have some measure of control, and that is labour cost. With the retail sector employing more than 75,000 workers, any untimely increase of the GST to 2% during this period of economic recession will definitely lead to further job losses and cause more unemployment. Maybe to the Government and civil servants, this is just an increase in the statistics. But to the person who is retrenched, it means job loss, financial insecurity and lots of bills will go unpaid. It affects not just the employee but his immediate family and friends who will then pull back and tighten their belts even further. And, irrationally, the retrenched worker will remember that he is jobless because the company is forced to cut costs, because times are bad and GST is still increased. But, now, I am happy to say that the Government has listened to the cries of the people. My only hope is that the GST rate will stay at the 4% level. To help the economy and save jobs, demand should be stimulated in this difficult time. Thus, keeping the offset packages and giving out the ERS shares is one step in this right direction.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have said earlier, I applaud DPM Lee for the steps taken to phase in this GST increase. However, I would like to state again that I still believe that the GST should not be increased totally, not even by 1%. But, as I said, it is still better than a 2% increase. Sir, I applaud the efforts and plans to cut Government expenditure and spend wisely. I think this is a very good move and a great emphasis has to be done. As DPM Lee had said earlier, the economic recovery outlook was fair when this idea was first proposed and debated in May. The assumption was that the ERS and offset packages will more than neutralise this GST increase of 2%. However, instead of looking brighter, the economy may be turning for the worse and getting uncertain. This is probably the worst economic period we are going to see since independence. Everyone is affected by this economic slowdown. But, like what Mdm Halimah said earlier, the groups that are most affected are the SMEs, the retailers and the small business owners, and their continued survival will impact on the level of unemployment and wealth creation in this society. With a drastic decline in consumption power and still very high business cost, the retail industry is the worst off and hardest hit in this instance. Therefore, I appreciate the Government's plan not to increase the GST fully to 5% now. The upturn in the NODEX does not indicate a change of business sentiment for the better. Even as we speak, the economic indicators in the US are beginning to turn down again. On balance, the Government has not put additional and undue burden of 2% increase at this difficult time on our small retailers. I can only hope that this 1% increase in GST will not be the straw that breaks the camel's back.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, I would like to take the opportunity to applaud the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Lee, for this phased increase in GST. I had actually hoped for a full deferment until the economy recovers or for at least one year but, as the saying goes, "if you cannot get a big fish, at least ikan bilis is still better than nothing." In a sense, it is better than a full increase of 2%, and I think many Singaporeans will appreciate that, especially those from the retail sector. However, I want to say also that we from the Opposition do not mean that we are always opposing for the sake of opposing, and in this case if the Government had actually listened to the people and deferred it, we would be very appreciative and support it. If the economy turns for the worse next year, and if things become worse, I hope that the Minister would consider cutting the increase back to 3% or even lower, or to have additional off-budget measures to help Singaporeans to tide over the difficult period next year. Mr Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would just thank Mr Steve Chia for his support for my $650 million ikan bilis.”
“As it is, I have come across very bright scholars and very brilliant individuals - the elite among their cohort - who lack the values of integrity and honesty; who behave condescendingly to their peers and think themselves a class above the rest. If such is the end result of these Integrated Programmes, we would have failed in our education process and as a society in teaching our young the values of our society. It is useless to train our students to be the best and brightest in the world if these common values like patience, kindness, gentleness, compassion, integrity and respect for others are not internalised into the character building process. Mr Speaker, Sir, while I support the Education Ministry in these proposed changes, I hope the Education Ministry will also give greater emphasis to the character building process of the individual. Let us not build a city without a soul, nor develop a person without a strong character. 2.00 pm”
“Sir, there is room for genuine concern. While I applaud this move to open up more pathways, I hope the new privately-run schools will not be a gathering place for the average sons of the rich, famous or connected. I hope the Ministry will put sufficient checks in place to ensure that only the top per cent in each cohort will be admitted - based on intelligence and academic ability, and not on family backgrounds, links or contributions. Also, with the introduction of the Integrated Programmes in selected schools, I expect greater emphasis to be given in the area of co-curricular activities, values upbringing, character building and leadership training. It is one thing to channel our best resources to train our brightest students for their future. It is another when the desired outcomes of such specialised training fail to deliver a future generation of leaders who are committed to Singapore, and improving our Singaporean society. It will be a failure of our education system if we are to train our best and brightest with our best resources only to be told that they are going to be quitters of our society; or that they lack the compassion for the weak and the down; or that they behave in a snobbish class of their own; or behave condescendingly to their peers and followers; or that the elites only care about their own self-interests. The elites in our society must appreciate the opportunity and resources given to train and develop them, and seek to return back to society - more than what they have taken from it. This will be the way for our society to grow. Thus, values of integrity and character building should be a key emphasis in these IP schools.”
“When that is successfully done, there will be more hope for our future. In order to facilitate greater interactions between students and teachers, the class size needs to be cut. A big class is useful for the one-way impartation of knowledge. However, it is not going to be effective if we are going to encourage more speaking up and more interactions. When classes are too big, there is no way a teacher can handle a class of 40 talkative students. The only way to control such a big class is to order everyone to keep quiet, and punish those that do not. This is not going to help in teaching our students communicative skills later on in life. From a young age, the students will have internalised into their sub-conscious that speaking up will bring about negative consequences and punishment, and will resist all attempts in speaking up. This is operant conditioning at work. The Education Ministry needs to recognise this aspect and work hard to eradicate it. Our children and future leaders must be equipped with the right thinking skills to reinvent themselves and acquire specific work skills to stay relevant. There is no job security these days. The fact is that, globally, we are moving towards a free agent nation - towards contract and self-employment. Having a degree or even a scholarship is only useful for those who want an easy and well-paved life, and may even be a psychological barrier towards greater personal achievement in life. Mr Speaker, Sir, I will now touch on the second part of the motion - having greater diversity and the opening of new pathways to cater to the different strengths of students. As several MPs before me have raised, there is concern about these new pathways becoming another form of streaming and a higher form of elitism.”
“But at the very least, the teachers should encourage these questions, and force the students to go home and think about it for the next few days, and ask their parents or their friends. We will be surprised by the range of replies that could be thrown up by the children in their search for answers. Participation and answers with wit or originality should be given greater assessment credits. Such processes will also build up the communicative skills in our young children to communicate their thinking and ideas to the class and authorities in a benign setting. This will be the key to their future success, and has to be done starting from primary level. It will be too late to turn the engine of thinking on only when they reach the JC level. Sir, as I see it now, if there is one skill that international talents have in abundance over Singaporeans, it is their ability to talk their way out and argue convincingly. Singaporeans are often tongue-tied and stuck when confronted. And this has nothing to do with genetics, mind you, but how we were brought up in our education system. When young, students are constantly told to shut up and do not make too much noise, nor to ask too many questions in class. This suppression has become so strongly internalised in our young, so much so that they grow up learning to keep quiet and shut their mouth - to the detriment of a creative society at large. The Education Ministry needs to break this bad practice. Stop stopping the asking of questions by our children in primary and lower secondary level. Instead, make them ask questions, and force them to think and search for their own answers. Then, when they reach the upper secondary and JC level, encourage them to articulate it out and defend their answers.”
“It is no longer what degrees or scholarships you have that are important, but what innovative ideas and patents you own that make your future. We need to be creative and to be spontaneous at that too. When the proposed Junior College and Upper Secondary education review is fully implemented across all schools, I hope this new cohort will be the generation that will bring about more buzz and vibrancy into our Singaporean society. Sir, as I first mentioned in the debate on the Budget Statement in May, there is a great need to develop "thinking creativity" in our young. We need to inculcate the inquisitive spirit in them. They need to learn to ask tough questions like "why" and "why not", and develop the courage and tenacity to explore and give it many tries. By asking "why", they learn to explore the fundamental concerns surrounding that issue, and develop their own justification that they will internalise into their being. So, questions asked by Senior Minister of State Dr Vivian Balakrishnan's son like, "Why must I die for Singapore?" is highly relevant and important to the psychological and character development of the child. To survive and prosper in this knowledge economy, we need to free our minds. The revised JC emphasis on thinking and communication skills is a good start, but it is not enough. Like what Dr Jennifer Lee mentioned the day before, the Education Ministry needs to bring it all the way down to pre-primary and primary level. The children in the schools need to be encouraged to ask questions, and tough questions too. The teachers need not have all the answers to these tough questions like "why" or "why not".”
“We have reached a First World economy and no longer in the league of those cheap manufacturing bases. The road ahead is unclear and paved with stiff competition. Singapore businesses must compete on ideas, innovation and originality. The quality and standards of our future workforce to be churned out through our current education system is no longer going to be adequate. We need more thinkers, creators and innovators. We do not need more order-takers. We need them to be spontaneous and gung-ho in spirit and in action. We also need to remove the standard pathways for future generations. As what Mr Chan Soo Sen said yesterday, there is more than one road that leads to Rome. And the road less travelled may bring more meaning and fulfilment to life than the congested highways that every graduate seems to be scrambling to get on. It must be clear also in the minds of the students and their parents that having a degree or even a Government scholarship may not be the best career path for them anymore. If they are that good, they do not need a scholarship to chart a future for them. To be very successful, they may even need to follow the footsteps of Bill Gates - leave school and follow their dreams. The nature of careers has evolved so radically and dramatically that there is no longer one standard career pathway. For example, a person can be very highly paid just by playing and testing computer games. Let it also be clear in our young children's minds and their parents' that they do not need a degree or scholarship to be successful in society and in life. What they need is this ability to free their minds from the standard pathways set by the Government and society, and take the gung-ho spirit of "can-do, just-do-it and never-say-die" spirit.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, although the 30 MPs before me have touched on most of the topics concerned, it is still my duty to rise and address these changes, especially from the non-PAP perspective. Sir, I speak in support of this motion in principle. Although more can and should be done to make education a learning and enjoyable experience, the proposed changes are a good start and a good sign of more positive changes to come, especially and hopefully for the lower secondary and primary levels. To that, I credit the Education Ministry and the Senior Minister of State, Mr Tharman and his Committee, for taking the effort to identify the shortcomings of our education system and make the necessary changes to make learning more relevant and enjoyable. Singapore has built its reputation on an open economy and free trade. To that, let us work towards a third reputation, and that is "creative spontaneity". Senior Minister Lee had said that there is something in Hong Kong that causes it to have more "buzz", and that something missing in our Singapore society to give it more buzz is this element that I term "creative spontaneity". We need to reduce the number of rules in our society and allow our citizens and our young to generate greater spontaneity in their actions. We also need to free the minds of our young and give them lots of room to explore; to allow them to think out of the box and identify other dimensions and angles to a problem. That is creative thinking at work. Together with the spontaneous action to experiment and try, it will create greater buzz as our society develops. Our current education system churns out a production line of workers, managers and instruction takers. This used to satisfy the needs of our industries during our development years, but not anymore.”
“Sir, if the Minister of State is concerned about the number of maids in Singapore, would he also consider limiting the number of maids per family?”
“May I ask the Minister of State, for every family that has a maid, there is only one maid in a family. So what kind of social concern is the Minister worried about by having more maids in the country?”
“Sir, based on the Senior Minister of State's explanation earlier, how can we take the assurance that the LRT is safe when they cannot actually predict that it will not break down? They cannot predict that it is actually safe. How can we take the assurance that it is safe?”
“Can the Minister of State give the assurance that after the extensive testing of the Sengkang and North-East MRT lines there would be no teething problems and service disruptions when the lines are operational?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, can the Minister clarify and explain how the individual third-time flat buyer can factor in factors like economic recession, retrenchments and sudden job loss in the planning process? In his negotiations to buy a property and take a loan from the bank, he cannot factor in all these factors of retrenchments and job loss.”
“Sir, what kind of professional training and specialist skills are the nurses and caregivers given in the mental institutes to provide for the care of mental patients?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am referring to one national number that most people can recognise and remember. For example, if we need to call the police, it is 999; if it is the fire brigade, it is 995. Is there a national number like these that we can actually identify and call in case we need help? Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: There is no one national number that one can use in case one needs financial help, but there are numbers which are available for them with respect to the FSCs and the CDCs. We have found that such a scheme is adequate. PETTY CRIMES (Profile of offenders) 9. Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong asked the Minister for Home Affairs in view of the rise in petty crimes during this period of economic difficulties (a) what actions are being taken by his Ministry to tackle this problem; and (b) whether his Ministry has undertaken any study recently to understand the profile of these petty crime offenders.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to know whether there is a 1800 hotline number that members of the public who are at a loss can turn to and call for help, if required, and if there is, whether the number is well publicised. Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: Sir, I know that some of the FSCs have such hotlines. The CDCs also have such hotline numbers. Even Town Councils have such a service. These are made available in a variety of places, such as community clubs and Residents Committee Centres. I am not sure whether they are on the websites, but if the Member is interested I could provide the information.”
“Sir, does such monitoring services have the power to cover the TLCs, the GLCs and the statutory boards that provide public services too?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to touch on clause 3 of the proposed amendment which concerns Members of the House. A Member of the House adjudged or otherwise declared a bankrupt (Article 46(4)(a)) should have the same opportunities as any other citizens and be able to pursue avenues of compromise or settlement without any additional added pressure. This is particularly so in view of the high incidence of politicians being sued for defamation in Singapore. The Courts in Singapore are reasonably efficient, and there are procedures in our legal system to ensure that matters are dealt with expeditiously. In the circumstances, the proposed amendment to force a said Member to vacate his seat after 180 days, despite pending appeals open to the Member, makes a mockery of the legal system. Furthermore, Sir, when all attempts to appeal have failed, and the said Member is so disqualified from his seat, then the said vacant seat should immediately be put up for contest in a by-election. This should be done irregardless of whether the vacant seat is in a single constituency or GRC. After all, the constituents are citizens and taxpayers and they should be fairly treated and not stayed on as orphaned electorates, and especially not with step-MPs from other constituencies assigned to look after them. The choice of the constituents should be respected and every opportunity given to elect a new representative. Thus, Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not support the Bill in its current state.”