Sylvia Lim
Singapore
“Thank you, Speaker. I have a supplementary question for Senior Minister of State on PF. It was pointed out in the FATF report that representatives of foreign flag states have a very low understanding of their PF obligations.”
“Thank you Speaker. I have noted what the Minister is proposing that the House do. I am not standing up to object to it. But I think it is important for me to also state that my response on some of the issues that she mentioned, I have made them on 14 January during the debate on the Motion of the Leader of the Opposition, and I do not thi…”
“Thank you, Speaker. A clarification for the Minister. I think it is quite clear that we are not denying that services were provided and residents had benefited from the services. I also would say that we do appreciate that MND did this internal review to undercover this problem, if I can say that.”
“Thank you, Speaker. I have one clarification for the Senior Parliamentary Secretary, and that is on the necessity for the retrospective legislation.”
“Sir, regardless of which country may have primary jurisdiction over a particular case, both governments may feel pressured to retain cases involving their own nationals. This could be for various reasons, such as the differences in law and punishments or to give their nationals better access to justice in their home countries.”
“One clarification for the Minister. This is in relation to when Singapore may have to give up its primary jurisdiction to Malaysia to investigate incidents and particularly on clause 39(2).”
The complete record
Every one of 1,794 lines we hold for Sylvia Lim, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 36 of 36.
“As these pay packets are funded from taxes, including poor people paying GST, how far is the Government prepared to go with this? Does it have a threshold of unconscionability? Next, what makes a good Minister? There may be differences of opinion but, fundamentally, political leadership is a different creature from administration. To add value to policy making, the Minister must play the role of politician. He should understand the public sentiments and aspirations and be able to fund policies and explain things plainly to people. He must lead not just with the head but with heart. His ground feel of the need of the people and understanding of their plight distinguishes him from the professional civil servant who usually focuses more on efficiency and expediency in implementation. Indeed, to be effective, a Minister's EQ may be more important than for him to be part of a Mensa club. In fact, he would be better if he was wired differently from the top civil servants, to reduce the mistakes perpetuated by groupthink. Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew previously justified why it was not feasible to have foreign talent in the political leadership. He said that political leadership should "have passion, the commitment and share the same dreams as the people." I agree. The question is: how will two-thirds of M48 affect empathy, the ability of Ministers to share the same dreams as the people? Ministers are currently drawing about $1.2 million annually, which divided by 12 will be about $100,000 a month. How does this compare with the average person? According to a Report of the Labour Force in Singapore 2006, the median gross monthly income of someone in full-time employment is $2,170. In other words, an ordinary person takes a month to earn what a Minister earns in half a day.”
“Secondly, Minister Teo mentioned that it was not right to look at how much political leaders elsewhere earn, because our Ministers cannot become Ministers in other countries. But the comparison is logical because we are comparing similar skill sets and responsibilities, funded by the public. Looking instead at our benchmark of two-thirds of M48, how valid is it as a measure of a Minister's worth? Is it possible that, in fact, some of our Ministers are doing better in Cabinet than they would have done in their previous careers? Can we say that each and every Minister in Cabinet now would have become a top-earning banker, accountant, lawyer, engineer or CEO? We have all seen instances of civil servants and military personnel embark on second careers in the private sector, and find the business world a whole new ball game and some, in fact, flounder. Thirdly, the Minister attempted to show that Cabinet salaries were not in the rarefied zone of high flyers by plotting a graph of 1,000 residents and Malaysians. Even so, l,000 out of the resident workforce of about 1.9 million is less than 0.1%. To be in this group of 1,000 is already to be in a very privileged few and, as far as the public is concerned, is already in the rarefied zone. For the remainder of my speech, I would like to argue why the two-thirds of M48 benchmark may ultimately be against the national interest. Economists have noted that globalisation increases income disparity. As such, the top earners' salaries will, in all likelihood, move up further in the future. A few years from now, two-thirds of M48 may require us to endorse each Cabinet Minister's pay for $3 million or $4 million annually.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in the last two days, Members have covered many aspects of this contentious issue of benchmarking Ministerial pay to the private sector at two-thirds of M48. The Member for Hougang has comprehensively stated the Workers' Party's position on this matter. The gist of our position is that we should instead consider benchmarking based on the remuneration of political office holders in countries which tick. They generally favour a more moderate use of taxpayers' money for political salaries, and they do not seem to have run their countries aground. Today, I would like to examine a few points raised by Minister Teo Chee Hean in his reply speech yesterday, and also to argue why the benchmark of two-thirds of M48 for political office will ultimately be against the national interest. First, the point raised by the Minister yesterday. Mr Teo attempted to rebut the Member for Hougang's contention that this debate was a waste of taxpayers' money. He said instead that this was a hallmark of PAP's commitment to transparency. While I do agree that this is an opportunity to have a public airing, the debate arouses a feeling of deja vu, harking back to the other transparent debate about whether to have casinos in Singapore. This revision is presented to Parliament in the form of a Ministerial Statement under Standing Order where no vote will be taken. Not one thing said by any MP will change the decision of the Government. Personally, I would very much like to hear what each individual Minister feels about taking $2 million of taxpayers' money home each year, while fellow citizens struggle with the rising cost and taxes.”
“Indeed, according to Mr Lim Jit Poh, the Comfort Delgro Chairman, the PTO has to constantly balance their duties as a service provider and as a public listed company with responsibilities to shareholders. 3.00 pm Sir, such a dual role has resulted in compromises. For example, to ensure that trains have sufficient riders, operators have to rationalise bus routes, which resulted in longer travelling time for commuters. Those who take public transport during peak hours complain of tight squeezes and their inability to board. The season pass issued by SBS Transit only allows travel on their buses but not even on their trains on the North East Line. Because, according to them, the operator is focused on improving ridership on buses alone and so on. As such, I would be grateful if the Minister could address this question. Does the Minister think that the vision of making public transport a competitor to the car can be achieved with the current dual role of the public transport operators? Public Transport”
“Sir, the Ministry has commissioned consultants to do a comprehensive review of our land transport system. The Minister has indicated that one of the main issues the consultants will look at is how to increase ridership on public transport. The aim is to enhance public transport such that it no longer just caters to those who cannot afford a car. Its vision is one that public transport is so attractive that even car owners will choose to leave their cars behind and hop onto a bus or train. Sir, given the increased road congestion that we have been experiencing over the years, I wholeheartedly agree that reducing car trips will make life better for everyone and hence, I support this bold vision of the Minister to make public transport a competitor to the car. The question is: how can we convince drivers to leave their cars behind? This is a tall order as there would be great inertia and reluctance to give up the independence of private transport. To achieve this, the enhancement to the public transport system should focus on the following. First, it should give people the right to get to where they want to go without too many transfers, ie, there is good connectivity. Second, it gets them there in a reasonable time and does not make them wait for long periods, ie, it is efficient. Third, the ride is reasonably comfortable and there is sufficient breathing space from the next person. Fourth, the savings from using it are sizeable, ie, it is reasonably lowly-priced. To do all these, it seems to me that the public transport operators will need to put the commuters at the forefront of their operational decisions. Sir, our current model requires the public transport operators to run public transport as a business and yet cater to a critical public need.”
“Sir, I just would like to repeat my response to the Minister in the lift actually, that there are still four years to go.”
“Sir, a clarification for the Senior Minister of State. He mentioned that there was this pilot going on where an accused in remand is permitted to see his counsel towards the end of the first week of remand on condition that they do not discuss the case. I wonder if he could clarify what is the purpose of that meeting. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, the pilot is ongoing. I am announcing it now. We expect lawyers whose clients are in police custody to make a request. This will be towards the end of the one week - in other words, those who are remanded for one week beyond the 48 hours. If Police feels that allowing accused persons to see their lawyer will not hinder or hamper investigations, they will do so, even when investigations are not completed. In the past, when investigations were completed, the accused person was released and then, of course, he consulted his lawyer. Now, let us say, towards the end of one week, on the fifth or sixth day, even though Police may say, "I have not completed my case", but it will not hinder investigations, Police can consider letting the lawyer see the accused. When an accused person sees his lawyer, at least he will have some assurance that there is a lawyer out there who represents him. Basically, the lawyer will tell the accused to tell the truth. So, if there is any allegation at that stage of any undue police pressure, the accused person can tell the lawyer that this is so. But we do not wish to complicate matters, because if we start allowing the lawyer to discuss the case - this is the experience of other countries - then it makes it harder to extract the truth. That is my starting point - basically, to get the truth. Really, an innocent person does not need a lawyer to tell the truth.”
“They felt a police officer would have exercised discretion and kept law enforcement reasonable. Lastly, Sir, are there sufficient resources to attend to cases? Recently, a resident called a Neighbourhood Police Centre to request assistance on a case of loud karaoke music coming from a nearby flat. To his surprise, he was told that there were no resources available to attend to his complaint. In yesterday's Straits Times Forum page, a lady recounted her discovery of a dead body in the sea off East Coast Park last week. According to her, the Police took a whole hour to arrive due to other emergencies. Meanwhile, due to the long wait, a crowd, including children attending a birthday party, started coming round to see the body. In a crime situation, a one-hour delay could result in the contamination of a crime scene. Sir, are the above indications of a resource shortage and is there a compromise of the public interest?”
“Sir, since 2004, Ministries, except Defence, have been required to cut their manpower over three years. Saving public money is prudent but are there compromises to the public interest? There appears to be a shortfall of about one thousand between the establishment and actual headcount for MHA for FY 2005. In particular, there seems to be a shortage of police officers. Previous sessions of Parliament had discussed the public unhappiness over the shortening of Neighbourhood Police Post hours due to the conversion to the Neighbourhood Police Centre system. People lamented seeing less officers doing foot and bicycle patrols. In response to this, the Police further shortened NPP hours in 2004. As reported in the Straits Times of 31st March 2004, the NPPs would only open between noon and 10 pm. This was to free up the one officer manning the post so that he could walk the streets. It was reported that Budget constraints prevented the Police from hiring more officers, forcing the change in NPP operations. After 10 pm, anyone needing help has to call the Police and wait or to go to the closed NPP, press the red button and wait for the call to be answered. I wonder about the effectiveness of that red button when faced with an immediate confrontational crime. Though the Ministry may cite statistics showing under-utilisation of the NPPs now, they being open clearly reduces public fear of crime in the heartlands. Secondly, the Police have outsourced some of their functions over the years. Presumably, Budget considerations were behind these moves. How far will such outsourcing go and what are the downsides? Last year, many motorists booked for parking and bus lane violations noted that the outsourced agents appeared overzealous.”
“MinLaw has stated that if all the information gathered by the police had to be revealed, then the public cannot provide important information to the police in confidence and this may compromise the investigations. To me, there is a higher cost in wrongful convictions by the suppression of evidence helpful to the accused. To balance things out, we could consider allowing the prosecution to get a court order not to disclose any statement if there are special public interest concerns. And I believe it is the UK model. Could the Ministry relook at this issue? Secondly, Sir, appeals against sentences. Both the prosecution and the accused can appeal against a sentence. The prosecution will appeal if it considers the sentence to be too light and, conversely, the accused may appeal if he feels his sentence is too harsh. Under the current law, if there is an appeal against a sentence by either party, the judge hearing an appeal can either reduce or enhance the sentence or alter the nature of the sentence. This has led to many cases in the past where the accused appeals against a sentence which instead becomes harsher. Such risks have led people not exercising their right of appeal for fear that their sentences would be enhanced. Sir, if we pride ourselves in the quality of our judicial system, then we must ensure that nobody fears exercising their rights of appeal. Accordingly, my suggestion is that the Ministry consider amending section 256 of the Criminal Procedure Code and that the section should provide that when an accused appeals against a sentence, the court may only reduce the sentence or retain the same sentence. If there is a concern that the sentence was too light, the Attorney-General's Chambers would still have the right to appeal to enhance the sentence.”
“For a long time, there was no requirement for the prosecution and the defence to disclose evidence to each other in the stages before the trial itself. This was not conducive to a fair result and contrasts sharply with civil cases where there is a process called discovery. Sometime in October 2006, the Ministry of Law announced that they had finally agreed to a framework on pre-trial exchange of evidence. While this is certainly welcome, the MinLaw spokesman clarified that the framework would require the prosecution to disclose only the evidence it intended to use against the accused. Thus, evidence gathered by the police which they did not intend to use in the case would not be revealed to the defence. Sir, I believe this would be a shortcoming with the potential to perpetuate injustice. Evidence gathered by the police is very valuable. First, the police are often the first ones at the crime scene. The evidence and witness reactions then are contemporaneous with the crime and likely to be reliable. Secondly, the police have powers to compel witnesses to come to assist investigations. In contrast, the defence has no special powers to investigate cases. The lawyer is also brought in after police investigations have concluded, sometimes several weeks later. Sir, United Kingdom law requires the prosecution to reveal evidence they have gathered even if they do not intend to use it, for example, witnesses who may strengthen the defence's case. This is seen as essential to a fair trial as the desired outcome of any investigation is to arrive as close as possible to the truth.”
“Sir, the age of majority in Singapore is 21. Once a young person turns 21, parents cannot by law make decisions on his or her behalf. The 21-year-old can sign contracts and vote in a public election. However, we require those under 21 to engage in some very serious undertakings already. Boys are enlisted into National Service at 18 years, required to carry weapons and may have to defend Singapore with their lives. If a young adult above 18 commits a capital crime, he will be hanged. Thus, even within the Singapore context itself, there seems to be anomalies about whether we consider those between 18 and 21 years as adults or not. What have other countries done? Since World War II, the majority of countries have lowered their ages of majority and voting from 21 to 18. Even many Asian countries use 18 as the voting age, including China, India, Pakistan, Thailand and the Philippines. We are one of the remaining few using 21. Are our young people somehow less mature than their peers elsewhere? In respect of voting, one compelling argument relates to compulsory military service. The United States went through this experience in the 1970s. Young men under 21 were drafted to fight in Vietnam. The public sentiment there was basically that if they were old enough to do that, they should be old enough to vote. Sir, if young Singaporeans aged between 18 and 21 years are entitled to vote, I believe that this would have a tsunami effect in making them interested in national affairs which in turn will make our national debate more holistic and inclusive. Criminal Procedure Sir, I would like to address two aspects of criminal procedures. The first is disclosure of evidence before trial and, secondly, appeals against sentence.”
“I hope the Prime Minister's Office will consider my suggestions.”
“So we have a few years before the next Elections, and I believe that there is ample time, if we are minded, to extend overseas voting centres to include all our overseas missions. Sir, at the last Elections, the overseas votes were counted separately four days after Polling Day. Since there were only about 335 votes, the results, when split by constituencies, involved very small numbers. In the single-member seats especially, the numbers for the constituencies were tiny, down to two voters at MacPherson and three for Nee Soon Central. The reporting of the overseas results separately raises concerns about confidentiality. For instance, in MacPherson, both voters voted for the People's Action Party. For Nee Soon Central, there were three voters; two voted for the Worker's Party and one for the PAP. These persons' votes, while secret, are thrown into the spotlight and they are obviously much less anonymous than local voters who are one vote among thousands. To prevent this from recurring, I would like to suggest that the overseas voting at our missions take place early enough so that the overseas votes can be mixed with the local votes and counted together on Polling Day. This way, overseas votes would be as anonymous as local votes. According to press reports, the overseas votes last year arrived only one day after Polling Day. As such, I feel confident that we can make it in time for Polling Day with a little adjustment. If needed, the Returning Officer can gazette Polling Day to be more than nine days after Nomination Day, say, 11 or 12 days later, to allow for the overseas votes to be couriered back in time for Polling Day. Sir, we should not underestimate the effect of facilitating overseas voting if we are serious about keeping our diaspora connected to Singapore.”
“Sir, the first attempt at overseas voting was carried out last May. A total of 1,017 voters registered to vote at the eight overseas missions gazetted. After Nomination Day, the number of those eligible to vote in contested seats was 553 and the number of valid overseas votes eventually cast was 335. Sir, the very small numbers must be a disappointment. The Government estimates that there are about 145,000 Singaporeans working or studying overseas and 1,017 out of 145,000 is less than 1%. Has the Prime Minister's Office assessed why the catchment was so low? Secondly, Sir, we should review the strict qualifying criteria under the Parliamentary Elections Act, in particular, the requirement of living for at least two out of the five years preceding the cut-off date of the Register of Electors. I shall call this the residency requirement which is waived if one is abroad for a longer time on Government business or with approved international organisations. Sir, the globalised world may require entrepreneurs to be away for several years and I do see a contradiction in the Government lavishing praise on Singaporeans who have ventured abroad on their own and broken new ground, and yet, restricting them from voting. These are the very people we risk losing. We should do away with the residency requirement so long as the overseas voter has a local address. Sir, it is also timely to consider increasing the number of overseas missions which accept overseas voter registration. Can we not prepare to use all our overseas missions and consular offices and not just the eight which are restricted to the five countries - China, USA, Australia, UK and Japan? The Ministry of Foreign Affairs' website currently lists missions in 38 cities across 28 countries.”
“I have two clarifications. The first one is actually a clarification of what I said in my speech which the Minister quoted. In terms of the expected gaming taxes from the IR casinos, these are not figures which I dream up myself, but they were based on the estimates of an economist from a leading bank which was reported in the newspapers in December last year. That is to clarify the first point. Secondly, Sir, I wonder if the Minister could clarify or respond to the international criticism about our budgeting principles being overly conservative, in particular items which we have excluded from the definition of operating revenue. Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam: I am sorry that the economist from the leading bank got his figures wrong. That's on the first question. On the second question, the Member did note that the IMF and OECD had comments on our treatment of land sales and some of our other fiscal accounting practices. Neither the IMF nor the OECD told us that we should use land sales for current spending. They were commenting on our method of accounting. They want to know the size of our reserves. It is as simple as that. And we see no reason why we should, in fact, let them know the size of our reserves. It is not in Singapore's interest. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That Parliament approves the financial policy of the Government for the financial year 1st April, 2007 to 31st March, 2008. ADJOURNMENT Resolved, That Parliament do now adjourn. - [Mr Mah Bow Tan]. Adjourned accordingly at Thirteen Minutes past Five o'clock pm. APPENDICES Section Name: BUDGET Title: DEBATE ON ANNUAL BUDGET STATEMENT Filename : Appendixes to Speech by the Second Minister for Finance MP Name: Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam”
“In November, the Prime Minister rightly asked about whether we should increase GST now or wait. He was worried then that Hong Kong might reduce its tax rates further and introduce a consumption tax themselves. That is now proven to be unfounded as the Hong Kong government decided to hit the public backlash and find other funding for its budget. Singaporeans have noted that the announcement of the GST increase came at the first Parliamentary sitting after the May General Election. They have also noted that the ruling Party did not forewarn Singaporeans at the polls that this might be one of the first items on its agenda, if re-elected. According to Senior Minister, he told the press later that when the ruling Party goes to the polls, it will concentrate on telling the people just the good parts and think about how to fund its promises later. In the same vein, is the Government planning its agenda around the Election cycle once again, ie, increase GST now, manage the fallout and assess the situation before holding the next GE? Based on the additional revenues from other sources, I do not believe that the GST increase is needed now. So why is the Government doing this? The GST increase is a convenient way to tax the people to have a broad-based revenue source. The Government wants to be in a comfortable fiscal position and has decided that the people will pay. Sir, exactly one month ago, I met a man aged about 60 at Ang Mo Kio. He was telling me about his disillusionment with the Government and the sequence of events leading to the GST hike. And as a feedback of ground sentiment, I would like to just tell the House his message to the Government and it was this, "Love people, not things; use things, don't use people." 4.09 pm”
“Sir, since this is clearly the goal of the Government as well, does the Government not expect that the cut will stimulate growth and compensate for the people's loss in tax revenue? Will the corporate tax reduction reduce the corporate tax collected? The data suggests that the Government may end up better off. Impending revenue from casinos Sir, next is the question of the Integrated Resorts. How much will these contribute to the tax man's coffers? The IRs, we are told, will be operational in 2009. Under the Casino Control Act, the casino operators will need to pay a tax of 5% of gross gaming revenue from premium players and 15% of gross gaming revenue from non-premium players. Casino memberships will also generate turnover which will be taxed. This is not to mention the collateral businesses the Government expects to be boosted in the accommodation, food and beverage and retail sectors. How much tax revenue can the Government expect from the IRs? This remains to be seen, of course. Nevertheless, if the expectation of analysts is accurate, the annual casino taxes could reap between US$1 billion and US$2.5 billion a year which in Singapore dollars is between $1.5 billion and $3.8 billion. These amounts are equivalent to a GST hike of between 2%-5%. If the Government were willing, it could manage its existing revenues prudently without increasing GST and then wait till the casino taxes kick in around 2010 to assess the position again. This is only three years away. According to Government expectations, Singapore will continue to do well in the next five years. If so, we should be able to manage for the next three years till the casino revenues come in. Timing Lastly, Sir, I would like to touch on the timing of the announcement of the GST hike.”
“3 billion in stamp duty collections was about half a billion dollars more than the average stamp duty collected annually in the preceding five years. Of course, a reasonable question for us to ask is whether the uptrend in these revenues will continue. I have also noted that there is a possibility of a reduction in personal income tax rates in the future. However, the Government prognosis for Singapore is high growth in the next five years, growth which, to quote Minister Mentor, "would take us from being in the lower half of the First World to the upper half". Accordingly, Sir, I believe it is reasonable for us to expect increased revenues from these sources as well. Effect of corporate tax rate cut Sir, the next question is what is the likely effect of the corporate tax rate cut. Will the Government revenues suffer because of this? We have been told that the corporate tax cut will cost the Government $800 million per year. However, a Business Times' report of 12th February noted that the buoyant economy last saw corporate tax revenue increased by 17% to $8.3 billion. Analysts noted that if companies continue to do well, then the tax collections, even under the reduced rate, will not suffer. I accept the Government's point that there is a worldwide trend of reducing corporate tax. KPMG conducted a tax survey covering 86 countries which noted that corporate income taxes across these countries had fallen between 1993 and 2006. However, the same study noted that the corporate tax cut, more often than not, pays for itself. Citing Ireland as an example, it noted that the tax cut stimulated growth which in turn enabled Ireland's GDP to go into double digits and attract foreign capital and talent.”
“But how are we to assess whether that statement is valid or not, if we have no idea about the formula to be used and some ballpark figures about what we can expect from the NII? Since it is only a matter of months before the Constitutional amendment is tabled, why not discuss this whole question of GST increase together with that amendment? It may turn out later that we find that the NII amendment itself can contribute, say, an additional $2 billion and that we can manage the volatility on the flows. When and if that happens, there will be no need to tax the people via the GST increase. Instead, by implementing the GST increase now ahead of the NII amendment, the Government is not being fair to those interested to find out whether the GST increase is really needed. Increased revenues from personal income taxes, statutory board contributions and stamp duty The next question, Sir, concerns the increased revenue from other sources such as personal income tax, statutory board contributions and stamp duty. The Government's projection for FY 2007 showed an increase in collections from personal income tax by $480 million. The statutory boards are expected to also contribute $410 million more in FY 2007 over the previous year. Together, these two receipts are expected to show an increase of close to $1 billion in the coming FY. As the property market recovers and more people buy and sell property, the Government's collections in stamp duty increased significantly last year. It was reported in the Business Times that stamp duty revenue rose 61% last year, which was the sharpest increase of all tax revenues collected. The amount of $1.”
“Surely, the volatility cannot be so severe that we will have a year where land sales generate no revenue at all. Sir, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) reported in May 2006 that the Budget principles adopted by the Singapore Government tend to under-report its true fiscal strength. Perhaps, it is time to adopt the international benchmarks to reflect the true position. Net Investment Income contribution The next question is on the NII. One missing piece of this GST debate puzzle is the impending change to the definition of the Net Investment Income. We have been told that the Constitution will be amended to include realised capital gains as part of NII which, up to now, is only restricted to interests and dividends. How much additional revenue will be available after the change? In response to our question in Parliament in January, the Second Finance Minister has said that the Government was still working out the formula with the President and the details will only be available in the coming months. He mentioned that they were working on minimising the volatility of the flows. However, the Prime Minister told Parliament in November 2006 that "a significant part of the returns (on reserves) are capital gains". He noted that on average, we should expect a buffer from the new NII definition. Based on the size of the Government's investments, some economists have provided guesstimates that capital gains could boost NII by another $2 billion to $3 billion per year. Sir, the Government has been telling us that it is "not sufficient" to rely on the expected increase in NII to fund social spending. Hence, we need to raise GST.”
“According to the Budget papers, the revenue from land sales amounts to about $4 billion to $5 billion per year. And as mentioned by the hon. Member for Potong Pasir earlier, this figure by itself is more than sufficient to pay for the increased social spending of $2 billion to $4 billion per year. Economists have noted that excluding land sales from the Budget is overly conservative and not in line with international standards. The argument is that such revenue is recurrent in nature rather than capital due to the fact that the Government deals with land usually through leases which generate regular revenue. Among those who have criticised our conservative accounting is the International Monetary Fund. They have said that the Government's definition of budget balance underestimates the strength of Singapore's fiscal position, as operating revenue excludes a substantial portion of investment income and earnings from land sales. Last year, the IMF advised that the authorities should take steps to compile and publish the consolidated public sector accounts, in line with international accounting standards. Sir, perhaps the Government is excluding land sales from the Budget because it fears the volatility due to market conditions and we cannot assume the revenues will always be there. I believe the Prime Minister had used the adjective "lumpy" to describe such revenues in the past. This is a reasonable concern. However, Sir, even if we do not take the entire $4 or $5 billion income from land sales, surely, we can budget based on a portion of the average revenues over the last few years, for example, instead of budgeting based on $4 billion, we could project based on, say, half, eg, $2 billion.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to take part in this debate. Sir, the Second Minister for Finance has outlined increased social spending in the years ahead. This is to be expected of any government faced with an ageing population, an increasing income gap and the threat of an underclass developing if the income gap is unchecked. Looking at the Budget offerings, I support the principle behind supplementing low wages and keeping our low-wage workers employed. In an earlier television forum, the Second Minister for Finance had said that the increased social spending over the next five years would be between $2 billion and $4 billion more each year. Indeed, this has been borne out by the figures in this year's Budget estimates. The total expenditure for FY2007 amounts to an increase of about $2.4 billion over the previous year. Sir, as articulated in the speech by the hon. Member for Hougang yesterday, we in the Workers' Party are not convinced that there is a need to raise Goods and Services Tax by 2% this year. Whether there is a need to raise it at all in the future would depend on the financial information and projections available to us at that time, including the impact of such an increase on our citizens. Sir, the Budget Statement suggests that we will be losing some revenue from the proposed tax restructuring. Key items mentioned were the reduction in the corporate tax rate and some indirect taxes. But the key question is this. Assuming that we do not raise GST, what is the likely net position? Will we still have enough revenues to fund the additional social spending of $2 billion to $4 billion per year? The first question we want to ask is why revenue from land sales is excluded from the Budget?”
“Sir, I think the point of the motorists is that when they pay the charge to move northwards, they expect that all motorists would be treated fairly if they are going in the same direction. So for people to just escape the gantry and then cause the jam further up, it is not fair to those who have paid just maybe a kilometre down.”
“Sir, I wonder if the Minister can comment on some feedback from the public about the evening ERP on the CTE, that is, that people moving from the CTE northwards towards Yishun, for example, some are prepared to pay the evening charge in the hope of getting a smoother ride home. But they have found that after passing the evening gantry near Braddell Road, there are other motorists who are apparently wiser, evading the gantry and entering the CTE through Ang Mo Kio Avenues 1 or 3, causing a holdup at the northbound end. So they feel kind of cheesed off that they paid the charge but are facing the jam at the northbound end. I wonder if the Ministry has verified whether there is validity in this and what can we do about that.”
“Sir, I think if we look at the history of the ERP rate adjustments along the CTE, we can see that there has actually been a steady increase from 1999 to-date. In fact, for some gantries, the rates have gone up from $2 to $4, and it has actually been particularly acute from August last year to February this year when there was the latest round of increase. So, Sir, it appears that the cars are still coming back onto the CTE. And because of this, I have a few supplementary questions. The first is that it seems to me that the residential population in the north and northeast of Singapore will continue to grow, based on the fact that there are still empty flats in some housing estates, as well as new condominium developments. So does the Minister agree with me that we can expect further demand to use the CTE city-bound, and also in the evenings coming back towards the north? Secondly, Sir, all car users receive the same rebates for the implementation of ERP. And I wonder if the Minister would agree with me that users of the CTE, paying the highest rates, actually are bearing a disproportionate amount of the road charges for living in the north and having to work in the city. Thirdly, Sir, can the Minister tell us if there are any plans to control the car population, whether by way of COEs available or, perhaps, reviewing the financing rules on vehicle ownership?”
“Sir, if I may turn back to the issue of our relations with Indonesia, I believe we are aware that there are some wire reports over the years that one of the reasons why the Indonesian government is not too happy with us is that they suspect there could be certain persons in Singapore, of Indonesian origin, whom they may be interested to pursue in their anti-corruption campaign. Either these persons or perhaps their monies are here. I wonder if the Minister could comment on whether this is true to some extent and whether this is one of the things that is a sticking point in our relations with Indonesia.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have some queries for the Senior Minister of State concerning the rationale for the reduction of the record-keeping period which is dealt with in clauses 2 to 4 and also in the Schedule of the Bill. Sir, if I recall correctly, in October 2005, this issue actually came up before Parliament in the context of the Income Tax (Amendment) Bill. At that time, the House was told that IRAS needed to keep records for seven years and one of the reasons was that the Limitation Act still provided a six-year time bar for actions and IRAS needed that allowance for some actions where they have to recover back taxes. Sir, as far as I know, the time bar under the Limitation Act still remains the same at six years for most civil actions. My question is whether this reduction in record-keeping to five years would risk destruction of relevant records which might be needed for court actions. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: To my knowledge, this amendment has been considered by the relevant agencies such as the Ministry of Finance which includes, of course, IRAS. They have all agreed that the five-year period is something we can move towards. I stand corrected, but it should not affect any substantive rights that would have accrued because these are technical amendments, and they only relate to the period of time in which the parties are required to keep the records. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee.] Bill considered in Committee. [Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair ]”
“Sir, could the Minister confirm that, to some extent, the Government has some say in whether to realise capital gains at a certain point or perhaps hold them for the next year?”
“Sir, is the Minister not able to provide us with a range of the possible funds based on past performance?”
“Sir, since August 2006, based on the information released by the Central Narcotics Bureau on its website, it appears that there have been several operations in which significant amounts of heroin had been seized. And I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether he thinks it is possible that there has been a displacement effect from Subutex now that it is controlled and such abusers switching instead to heroin. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, as I have reported, our assessment is that there has been no displacement effect. Firstly, the number of heroin abusers who have been arrested has remained low. Yes, there was some increase in 2006 over 2005, but not significant in terms of the numbers. So that is the key point. Otherwise, you will find the vast number of Subutex abusers on the CARDS system, more than 3,000, if the supply of Subutex is hard to come by, then they would have gone for heroin. But despite vigorous enforcement action, and this is something that CNB has not compromised on just to have nice figures, the number of heroin abusers arrested has not shot up dramatically. The price of heroin on the ground has also remained constant because if the demand is high, the price will go up. These are figures which CNB will monitor very carefully. As for seizure of drugs, I think the number can go up and go down. I think there will be those who may try to bring drugs into Singapore of whatever volume and the bringing of drugs and the seizure of drugs in themselves do not suggest the deterioration of the ground situation.”
“Sir, I wonder if the Minister could clarify a statement which he made earlier when he asked when was the last time that an Opposition Member supported the Government. If you look through the Hansard, you will see that there are actually, over the years, many motions on which the Opposition MPs have actually supported the Government. I wonder if he could clarify what he meant by that. He appears to suggest that we oppose for the sake of it.”
“And if this is what then-DPM Goh meant by "consensual style of government", then it sidelines ordinary Singaporeans from the process. Finally, Sir, history has also shown that the ruling Party has attempted to use the NMP scheme to convince the voters that there is no need to vote for Opposition MPs. For example, in the 2001 election, literature circulated by a PAP candidate urged voters not to vote for the Workers' Party candidate as the NMPs were there to check on the Government. Sir, the Workers' Party does not support the NMP scheme and, for these reasons, I oppose the motion. 6.20 pm”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I, too, rise to speak against the motion. Sir, the Minister has earlier referred us to the original aims of the NMP scheme as elucidated by the then-Deputy Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong in 1989. In addition to the rationale given by the Minister earlier, ie, to strengthen our system, provide more opportunities for participation and to have a more consensual style of government to allow dissenting voices to be heard, he also said that the NMP scheme would cater for "Singaporeans who can contribute but who for good reasons have no desire to go into politics or to look after a constituency to enter Parliament." Sir, firstly, has the NMP scheme really strengthened our political system? To be fair, this is hard to assess because the backdrop is one where the ruling party has continued to consolidate its power by other means. For example, since 1988 till now, the size of the electoral group representation constituencies has increased from three to six Members, and the GRC populations have also increased from about 50,000 to nearly 185,000 voters today. Secondly, Sir, should those without a desire to go into politics or to look after a constituency enter Parliament? While I do agree with the Minister that the NMPs can bring fresh ideas, the question is: for whom do they speak? They do not offer themselves for election by the public, do not have any mandate from the voters, nor do they answer to the people. Should they then be empowered to make laws affecting Singaporeans? Sir, Singaporeans must decide who should be in Parliament. The NMP scheme generates intellectual discourse without political pressure, as the NMPs do not take votes away from the ruling Party during the elections.”
“Mr Speaker, I am wondering if the Minister could comment on whether the Government has any concerns about the quality of the advice that Temasek has received, particularly in this Shin deal, in assessing the political risk involved. Sir, even in the recovery phase, when we were told that Temasek will be setting up a representative office in Thailand, it was announced that they would be appointing an army general to work in our representative office only to be followed swiftly by a comment from the Crown Prince Office to say that this person is not a suitable person for such a post. I wonder if the Minister could comment on whether the Government is satisfied with the advice that Temasek has received as far as managing the political risk is concerned.”
“Sir, the Prime Minister has referred us to some handouts or charts on the rapidly ageing population, which also talked about the ratio of elderly persons to working-age persons over three snapshot years. I wonder if he could clarify whether the Government has an idea of what is the preferred dependency ratio that we should work towards.”
“I would like to respond to the Minister's statement about the Workers' Party's stand on immigration. As we have said earlier, the Workers' Party is not an anti-immigration party and we welcome foreigners to contribute to Singapore so long as we are satisfied that they are indeed doing so. Sir, my speech was actually made in response to the Government's announcement that we are liberalising the immigration policy. The point which I was making was that it should be something that is clarified to Singaporeans. As the Minister says, they cannot confirm a firm target at the big picture, but things are subject to change, I think Singaporeans would still appreciate what are its interim plans, even if it is annual or every two or three years, and what is the target number it is looking to attract and why. I think this will go a long way towards enabling some clarity to be given to Singaporeans about how their lives will be affected by this liberalisation of policy. And I believe that the Government should not be averse to being more transparent to Singaporeans even if they are interim targets. Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: I am happy that the Member is not against immigration and all that she is asking is that we share more information and more of our considerations as we formulate these plans. In due course of time, we will.”
“Sir, at the recent General Elections, a friend of mine attended a Workers' Party rally, and I believe that this is the rally that the Prime Minister's son also attended. And this friend of mine overheard a conversation between two groups of strangers in the crowd. The topic of ministerial salaries had come up and one group was expressing disbelief at the figures being cited. "It cannot be true", they said. Another group standing nearby was obviously from a different social background, told this group that it had to be true, otherwise these things would not be said at the rallies. Then ensued an exchange of views among strangers about whether such salaries were justified, where Singapore was heading and what was good or bad for Singapore. Sir, let us not underestimate the value of such exchanges in building a collective identity and rooting Singaporeans here. Let this be part of our unique culture and another reason why Singapore will always be special to Singaporeans. In short, Sir, let us become as First World as we claim to be. Sir, I support the motion.”
“On the other hand, treating Singapore as a nation would entail a sense of ownership, a feeling that you are rooted here to defend the place against external threats, a sense that you should try to improve the lives of citizens even if it calls on you yourself to make personal sacrifices. You do not carefully weigh the pros and cons before acting. Your heart tells you that you must do these things. As I hear the Government seeking to root the P65ers here, it is basically saying that it would like them to treat Singapore as a nation rather than a place. Sir, this can only come about if Singaporeans feel that they can make a difference - that they can be agents of change in the society and on their own terms. My belief is that if the Government wants to see people rooted here, there is one thing that they can do. No, I am not asking for another Government campaign. Instead, the Government should repeal the restrictive laws and policies such as restricting outdoor meetings and exhibitions, making a political film and political expression from citizens. There are already criminal laws in place which criminalise rioting and acts of sedition and there are laws against defamation. I believe that if the Government does repeal those restrictive laws, it would be pleasantly surprised that Singaporeans are capable of being loyal, yet critical. Let the police concentrate on counter-terrorism and murders rather than to investigate school girls selling T-shirts with white elephants on them. Let there be an environment which encourages Singaporeans to express themselves about current issues and even make jokes about the Government.”
“What is the Government's answer to these people? Sir, lower-income Singaporeans cannot afford to have their wages depressed further. The statistics show us that 40% of households do not earn enough to meet their monthly expenses, and the lowest 30% have seen their incomes fall over the last few years. Yet the cost of living continues to rise. The cost of utilities has gone up by 30% in the last two years. Public transport charges have risen. If foreign competition depresses Singaporeans' wages further, this will surely have dire consequences for many families. Rootedness Sir, in the last part of my speech, I would like to concentrate on the issue of rootedness. The Government has listed rooting Singaporeans here as one of its priorities in the new term. The public has also discussed what it means to be Singaporean, with most people talking about landmarks and, of course, the food. But these are surely inadequate answers for why we should be rooted to Singapore. Linda Lim, a Professor of Strategy at the University of Michigan, recently gave a talk at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies entitled, "Singapore: Place or Nation". She says that if one treats Singapore as a place it is a choice of convenience. One chooses to live in a place because it offers a certain standard of life, only to leave for another place if it gives a better offer. The choice is purely utilitarian - one of cost-benefit. In applying this logic, I see the act of attracting foreign talent as something which tends to encourage foreigners to see Singapore as a place because we too assess the benefits that they can bring us. We cannot blame some immigrants for treating Singapore as a place. Immigrants would generally be mobile and may not see Singapore as their final destination.”
“It may be worth the Government's time to propose what our optimum population should be and focus on more sustainable policies. To address the low fertility and ageing population, the Government should focus on increasing fertility by making the choice to have children easier, for example, by facilitating parents to combine career and parenthood. This may take longer than immigration but it is a more effective response to an ageing population. The Government could also develop many alternative solutions to ageing population, some of which it is already doing, such as increasing fertility, encouraging work beyond retirement, increasing the rate of return on CPF savings, or even promoting the adoption of children. Double whammy Mr Speaker, Sir, any easing of immigration policies will naturally lead Singaporeans to question the value of being Singaporeans. As things stand now, and my colleagues have said before me, Singaporeans are losing jobs to foreigners here. We know that employers in Singapore have been employing foreigners in place of Singaporeans. This may not be because they are more talented than Singaporeans but simply because they are cheaper to hire. This is affecting even skilled workers and professionals. The former Chief Economist of the World Bank, Mr Joseph Stiglitz, notes that due to globalisation, it is no longer enough for governments to tell their citizens to accept lower wages because their lives will improve later, as this simply may not happen. Singapore workers are feeling vulnerable with the double whammy of globalisation and liberalising immigration. The Government should clarify how it will watch out for Singaporeans as it allows more foreigners in. Minister Mentor has honestly told Singaporeans that they would lose jobs to foreigners.”
“As it is, Singapore is already the fourth most densely populated region in the world at more than 6,000 persons per square kilometre. Thus, although population growth will result in more economic activity, it does not necessarily lead to well-being. Next, Sir, if ageing population is our concern, will bringing in more immigrants to Singapore help the situation in the long run or perpetuate the problem? After all, everyone eventually grows old, including the immigrants. I believe it is well known among policy makers that immigration cannot compensate for population ageing unless immigrants are brought in in very large numbers to replace the existing population, which once again leads us to the question of what kind of numbers we are talking about. Will immigrants have more children and help raise the fertility rate? There are foreign studies which show that fertility is directly related to optimism in the future and economic security. In other words, people tend to have children if they are confident that they can afford it and that the future of the society is bright. Based on what Singaporeans have said so far, local parents too have similar concerns. Can they afford to raise a child? What future will the child have? Assuming immigrants become integrated into Singapore society, they may, over time, have similar worries as locals. The fertility rate for new citizens may become just as low. This would mean the problem of ageing population will continue, and we may have to keep bringing in more and more new immigrants to churn the economy! Is this feasible? Alternatives to solve ageing problem While we recognise that we have to address the ageing population, is there a need for us to panic and liberalise immigration overnight?”
“First, as far as I know, we have not been told what target population we are aiming towards. We know that we are seeking to have more than 4 million people here, but how many more? The Government has said that it has no fixed target in mind but this seems somewhat shoddy to me. Should setting a target not be the first step from which we work backwards to determine how many new immigrants we want? Secondly, Sir, what kind of immigrants are we interested in? The Prime Minister has said that we would recognise talent using more flexible criteria. While, in principle, this makes sense, how flexible we become is another matter. Since late 2004, the Government has broadened the criteria for assessing citizenship applications to include how the rest of the applicant's family can integrate into Singapore society. This has apparently helped to increase the number of citizenships granted last year to nearly 13,000, which is a 70% increase from the previous year. This poses an interesting question. Even if people can integrate into our society, how much do they contribute to Singapore and do they have a net effect of benefiting us or becoming a cost to us? I believe the Government should carefully track these cases and inform Singaporeans of the cost-benefit of the policy change. Thirdly, Sir, the prospect of a more crowded Singapore should be carefully planned. Every new person fights for resources, takes up space and disposes of waste. The demands on healthcare services, public transport and the police will increase. How much investment do we need to make to cope with this influx? What would the island be like if we had a population increase from four million to six or eight million?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion by Mdm Halimah Yacob to thank the President for his Address. The President touched on several themes and I would like to focus on three of these - population, immigration and rooting Singaporeans. Singapore population Sir, the Government's history of dealing with population has been rather colourful. There was a recent past when family planning was paramount. Singaporeans even got financial incentives to sterilise themselves. Now, the Government has realised the dangers of Singaporeans not producing enough babies. By 2030, 20% of Singaporeans will be over 65. The economists tell us that an ageing population is less dynamic, results in skills shortages, and it is a strain on public expenditures such as health care. To respond to the population challenge, one of the key ideas of the Government is to welcome immigrants to churn the economy and to naturalise them as citizens. Clarity and calmness needed on immigration policy Sir, let me state categorically that the Workers' Party is not an anti-immigration party. We welcome foreigners who are able to contribute to our society and want to make Singapore their home. However, Sir, I believe that for immigration policies, clarity and calmness are needed. The Government has made some general statements about foreigners' contributions, such as creating jobs here and making Singapore vibrant. But it has been short on the details of this liberalised policy. What specific desired outcomes are we aiming towards? The Government should be transparent with Singaporeans on the rationale for the changes and their impact on Singaporeans. As it stands now, there is anxiety among Singaporeans about how living in Singapore will change in 10 years' time or even five years' time.”