Tan Boon Wan
Singapore
“May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary: do the residents really have a choice of flat? The flat type is being built, they are asked to select, and they are allocated. Do they really have a choice?”
“Sir, I have spoken on the issue of difficult neighbours in previous years. Anecdotally, quarrels among them do not seem to have abated. What is the state of relationship among the residents of our HDB flats? Many problems can arise between neighbours who live in close proximity to each other, practically separated by just a wall.”
“Sir, shops in the precinct and neighbourhood centres are generally facing difficulties and the shopping malls are bustling with activities. However, shops in some areas are doing well. Where the actual demand has fallen, due to the relocation of residents, a return of the shop for a HDB grant is appropriate.”
“Sir, recently, legislation was tightened to rein in the activities of the loan sharks. In spite of the heavy penalties, their activities continued. Innocent victims are still targeted by the runners. I would therefore like to ask the Minister for an update on the loan shark situation.”
“I hope that MAS will also look at this from the viewpoint of legislation or guideline. Although I have discussed this issue with the housing loan as an example, this appeal for new flexibility and consideration for the borrower applies to all personal loans, including credit card debts. Financial Literacy”
“On this issue, both the pro- and anti-sides have their own good reasons for the stands that they took. In deciding the matter, the Government has taken both views and made a decision that takes into account both of them and is in the overall and long-term interest of Singapore.”
The complete record
Every one of 298 lines we hold for Tan Boon Wan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 6.
“Sir, during recent meetings with parents, many continued to voice concerns with the heavy school bags that their primary school children have to struggle with to school. They are aware that the Ministry has been reviewing the curricula and the syllabi of the various subjects at the various levels. I would, therefore, appreciate it if the Minister could give the House a progress report of this effort at all levels and, in particular, at the primary level. Can the Ministry also look at other ways that can reduce the amount of materials that primary school children have to carry in their heavy school bags?”
“Sir, I thank the Minister for his very clear replies and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Sir, we are trying to build a creative entrepreneurial society, one that makes decisions for itself and takes responsibility for the outcome. In this spirit, I suggest that we let our entrepreneurs and business people decide what they want to do. The community and the market shall pass judgment on their decision. As long as what the business people do is not dysfunctional to the community and market, the latter will support them. Let our business people take the risks. They can enjoy the fruits of the right decision. They will pay for the mistakes they make. Let us regulate the requests of our business people with a light touch.”
“Customers will benefit from better food, more variety, better services and prices. There is nothing wrong with ORAs. ORAs, in fact, bring life to the place. ORAs along Orchard Road and in the town areas are welcoming sights. Can we imagine Orchard Road without the ORAs? We should do the same with ORAs in the HDB neighbourhood centres. What is important is that they are properly managed. Rules can be established and rent can be charged for the use of the common areas. We should apply these rules to all shophouses which want to use the common areas outside their shops. They must manage these areas. These rules should be rigorously enforced to ensure that the use of the common areas does not turn them into eyesores and an obstruction to pedestrians. If they flout the rules, then penalties can be imposed to bring them in line.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head T of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code TJ 2100. Sir, HDB has liberalised its change of use policy for its shops. Shopowners and operators appreciate this. It shows that the HDB understands the needs of the market and is prepared to let market forces work. But this understanding is not all encompassing. The HDB is still hesitant in liberalising the change of use of shops to family restaurants and eating houses, and the use of common spaces for open recreation areas (ORAs). I understand the concerns of the HDB. But it should trust the market to do its work, even with restaurants, eating houses and ORAs. With a good transport system, the concern for a good mix of shops is no longer a must. Consider Holland Village. It has become a food centre, with no loss of functionality to nearby residents. In fact, they enjoy the good food. They hop onto buses and trains to buy whatever else they want from other shopping centres. They have the best of many worlds. If a shop wants to become a food establishment, they can be made to pay an equalisation fee, as owners of food shops have paid more for their shops. This equalisation fee should not be refundable, if the eating house business fails and the owner or operator requests for a change of use to other businesses. The rental can also be adjusted. Owners and operators must decide if they are prepared to pay this hefty equalisation fee, increased rentals and the renovation cost to change it to a food business. If they are prepared to do so because they really believe that the business is there, then so be it. Thereafter, let competition win, and let the best man or woman win.”
“Originally, the fund allocated for the IUP Plus scheme was $7,000 per unit which included covered walkways, improved mailboxes, senior citizens corners, study corners, etc. All these improvements will give the residents a better living environment. After the upgrading, some estates appear to be as good as, if not better than, private condominiums. When the Interim Upgrading Programme was first introduced, the residents were all very excited and happy about it. But now HDB has reduced the fund from $7,000 to $4,000, and this year it is further reduced to $2,000. With this reduction in the fund, we are unable to afford comprehensive renovation works. We can only afford to put up covered walkways and new mailboxes. I think we should not cut down the provision so drastically. I hope that more funds can be given to the town councils so that we could undertake better IUP for our residents. I also support Dr Tan Boon Wan's appeal for the Lift Upgrading Programme. The LUP is very popularly supported by the residents. I have two blocks of 4-storey HDB flats in my constituency which are undergoing IUP. The residents are very anxious to know whether they would also be included for LUP. But, according to the present policy, they are not eligible for LUP. May I ask the Minister, if the residents are prepared to bear part of the cost, whether HDB would consider extending the LUP to them? When we are implementing the LUP and IUP Plus, these 4-storey blocks of flats should not be treated as second-class flats. We should treat them equally.”
“Madam, residents of Ang Mo Kio GRC are very appreciative of the upgrading of their flats. Residents have voted strongly in support of upgrading. The Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP), which was introduced recently, is very popular with the residents. Those with aged parents and relatives and young children are most happy, as the lift on every floor increases the mobility of their loved ones. Many have expressed their preference for the LUP over IUP and MUP, as they see more benefits in the programme to them and the community. If we have seen the amount of efforts that the loved ones of low-mobility residents have to put in to help them to get in and out of the flats, we can empathise with their request. I would therefore join Dr Tan Cheng Bock in urging the Government to allocate more money for the LUP, and to hasten the timeframe to introduce it to all the flats in Singapore. Under the existing plan, blocks of flats less than five storeys high are excluded. If we have difficulty walking, even a step is excruciating, not to say a flight of steps. Residents with aged parents and relatives in these flats are appealing to the Government not to shut them out of the LUP. I am aware that lifts are expensive facilities to install, operate and maintain. Hence, I would like to suggest that the HDB consider smaller and lighter lifts for these low-rise blocks of flats. Presumably, such lifts would be less costly to install, operate and maintain. If necessary, we can impose restrictions to confine their use to the old, the infirm, the very young and the accompanying persons. Mr Ang Mong Seng(In Mandarin): Madam, the Interim Upgrading Programme is meant for blocks which are at least 17 years old.”
“Sir, many jobs are lost during the current difficult economic crisis. One reason is the global economic slowdown. But a more profound reason is a change in the structure of the Singapore economy. The new economy jobs require a different set of skills and competencies. Do our people understand this? Do our people understand the dynamics of the new economy and implications that it will have on us? Despite the economic slowdown, many jobs are still available in the market. At first, Singaporeans were not prepared to take them. They made many excuses. They were reluctant to take on new, difficult, unfamiliar, lower paying jobs. They were reluctant to learn new skills. However, today, many of the same people have changed their minds. They have taken on these jobs. They have gone for training and to learn new skills. But not everyone has done so. Some are still waiting for the old jobs to come back. What is really important is not that merely everyone takes the new jobs offered to them, but they need to understand why they have to do so. Hence, more needs to be done. People change more readily when they are faced with a problem. We must turn the present difficulties into an opportunity to get our people to understand the new economy and accept the needed changes. We must inform and educate them. We must convince them to accept and adapt to the new economic environment. Our future prosperity depends on successfully making this transition. 12.45 pm I would thus like to ask the Government what has been done to change the mindsets of our workforce for the new economy. What progress has been achieved? What more can be done? What are some of the future plans? We must not stint on time, money and effort, in this vital task.”
“Sir, I thank the Minister for his kind and hopeful reply, because I would think the Minister would give serious consideration. There are many deposits which, if the same rule applies, would have to be reviewed and adjusted for inflation, and which I do not think are appropriate. But, nevertheless, I would await the good news and, meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $1,266,665,280 for Head M ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $239,755,900 for Head M ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head F -”
“The former $5,000 deposit had been effective for the purpose until the recent proliferation of "football clubs". I also understand that the authorities had taken actions on these clubs. There is thus no need to raise the deposit. If IRAS is not prepared to reduce the deposit in general, can I request that this privilege be given to organisations that have behaved themselves and, if not for all machines, then for existing machines which already enjoy the $5,000 deposit?”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head M of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code MP 2100. Sir, I join Mr Chandra Mohan to ask IRAS to reduce the deposit on jackpot machines for not-for-profit organisations. Although the Minister had just said no, I would like to appeal to the Minister to reconsider. The Minister does not have to give me an answer immediately. A "yes" answer later on would do just fine. I would not ask for the deposit to be reduced to $1,000, but to its former $5,000. The deposit was increased to $10,000 at the beginning of this month on the heels of news of the proliferation of gaming machines on premises of so-called "football clubs". I understand that the deposit is not to protect the collection of taxes on the takings of the machines. The takings and revenue from the jackpot machines are already under strict control. The machine can only be opened and the takings counted in the presence of IRAS officers and the taxes duly levied and paid. The deposits are thus to deter the frivolous request for such machines. IRAS should, therefore, not band these properly behaved organisations with the so-called "football clubs". IRAS has allowed the machines to be used by members of the not-for-profit organisations for their own entertainment and the surplus collected to be ploughed back to serve the members. Increasing the deposit would require more working capital and incur unnecessary cost for the organisations. Sir, I would like to declare my interest in this matter. I am the advisor of Nessea Club, a community club in Nee Soon South. It was set up and run by residents to serve themselves. IRAS has granted it the privilege of having jackpot machines on its premises.”
“We will overcome; we will succeed. Let us quickly adapt and adjust to the new future by making the necessary changes to meet the new conditions. We must succeed. With these comments, Sir, I express my support for the motion.”
“Several residents who came to see me during the MPS with these reasons have moved on to learn new skills and take on new jobs when they realised that the old jobs were not coming back. I agree with Mr Khaw Boon Wan again when he said on Monday that proposals and recommendations were easier to promulgate than to implement. However, I am hopeful that our people will face up to the challenges that confront us. We must adopt an open and dynamic mindset with the world as our market - the willingness to learn and relearn by recognising that our knowledge is time-dated, the willingness to take risk and to try new things, to take on new jobs and to accept failures and try again - among other qualities. I hope that this open, flexible, daring mindset will take hold to become part of our national psyche. If this is achieved, then the price paid for the pain that we had to endure to meet this change would have been worthwhile as it would have prepared our people for the new world. I have one final point, Sir. In our earnestness to change, we appear to have downgraded loyalty. No organisation could survive for long without loyal members. Loyalty is a virtue. Loyal, hardworking workers are a competitive advantage. Loyalty is a culture that takes years to ingrain, but if it is carelessly handled and abused, it can easily and quickly die. Loyalty should thus not be given short shrift as we overcome our short-term problems. If we do so, this shortsightedness will come back to haunt us in the days ahead. In conclusion, Sir, it is less difficult to plan and budget than to carry it out. The success of this transition depends on us, the Singaporeans. Let us take the painful lessons learned and move forward together into a challenging future. We can overcome; we can succeed.”
“Many were proposed before, but for whatever reason, we did not adopt them until now. So what was the main contribution of the ERC? It must be the ability to get the Government to accept its recommendations. Thus, was the Government lulled into complacency like the proverbial frog in the pot over the fire? Did the current crisis shock us out of our stupor and complacency? If it did, the economic crisis was certainly a blessing in disguise. We were lucky that we had time to get out before the pot boils. This is a very important question for our world has changed. Can we continue to depend on this same planning approach that had worked well for us? If we believe that constant change would govern the new world, then our planning paradigm must change. We must constantly review our planning parameters for the relevant and be bold enough to make continual changes pro-actively, to remain competitive and relevant. Again, Dr Wang had alluded to this in his speech yesterday. Let us not wait for something cataclysmic to happen again before we see the need or build up the resolve to change. The next crisis may happen so quickly that we may not have the luxury of time to constitute a committee to make the necessary recommendations for change. The same can be said of our people. If we were to go by the anecdotes of how some people responded to the difficult economic situation, it would appear that we were also like the proverbial frog. Some of the reasons they gave for not taking up jobs offered to them include: the workplace was too far; the job was too tough; never did this type of jobs before; too old; too bothersome; cannot learn new things; wait for the old jobs to come back, or do not like to serve others. I am glad to say that our people learn fast.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am grateful for this opportunity to join in the debate. This is a watershed debate on our economic future. We can tell our grandchildren, I am sure with pride, that we were here when the House changed their future for the better. Now at the tail-end of the debate, most of what needs to be said, my many hon. colleagues have eloquently said them many times over. I would thus keep my comments brief. It is pertinent to remember that while we are in pain, we are in the midst of a global economic downturn which many in the region and elsewhere are suffering even more. In comparison, we are certainly not doing badly. Many people elsewhere would gladly exchange place with us. In a global network world, we would be daydreaming to believe that we can shut ourselves completely from global changes and events. Let us recognise that we are entering an era of constant change. Let us accept this and adapt ourselves to this new world. Major changes are needed. However, in making the changes, we must not mistake our short-term needs for our long-term requirements. The Economic Review Committee had done a good job. They had proposed good recommendations, many of which the Government has accepted. But, on a more basic issue, do we need the ERC to achieve this in the first place? Why did we wait until the current economic crisis to constitute the ERC to do a comprehensive review of the economy and for the Government to accept its recommendations? Did we not have a planning culture in the first place? Did the world suddenly change that we could not see it coming until it was upon us? Yesterday, Dr Wang Kai Yuen had also asked this question in another form. According to Senior Minister of State, Mr Khaw Boon Wan, the recommendations were not all new.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, the Minister has just now referred to the furore by Malaysia on Singapore over defence strategy, and also Tim Huxley's book. I would like to ask the Minister if he could give us an insight why this is so, particularly when Singapore is a small island and the strategy is probably the most meaningful. And, secondly, the book was written by an academic, not in Singapore, but really in the UK.”
“Madam, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate. I rise to support this Bill. Smoking is an expensive and harmful habit. Like the rest of the speakers, I am particularly perturbed to see young people taking on this habit. So I think it is a good idea to sell cigarettes in packets of 20, instead of the present small packets of 10 cigarettes. I now realise that you can buy drinks in Starbucks with a piece of cake for that amount. So, it is not too difficult, but if by this move we make it more difficult for even some of our young to smoke, then it would have served its purpose. I am also glad to see that the Bill has closed the loopholes of retailers breaking up packets and selling cigarettes in sticks. The stiff penalties legislated make it not worthwhile for retailers to do so, and I support the stiff penalties proposed. I have a friend who was a heavy smoker. When he was asked if he knew that he was putting his life at risk, the reply was that, statistically, his life would be shortened by just a few minutes, and what was that compared to a lifespan of over, as the Minister said, 76 years. If a person can will the last few minutes to the very end of his life, then there is no problem. To cut the story short, he contracted cancer in his early 40s and had one of his lungs removed. He is now a wiser man and has stopped smoking. But at what a price! And even at that, he is one of the luckier ones. Madam, I strongly support the Bill.”
“Sir, I beg to move, On page 5, line 29, to delete the word "change" and insert "charge". The words which were originally proposed to be added, "change or other encumbrance", follow immediately the term "subsisting mortgage". When all three terms are taken together, "subsisting mortgage", "change or other encumbrance", the word "change" seems to be out of character from the other two terms which are legal in nature. I think there is a typographical error, in that instead of the word "change", it should be "charge". All three terms share a common legal character. I believe that this is the intent of the Bill.”
“Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in this debate. Several of my hon. colleagues of the House have spoken at length on the Bill. Let me add my support of the Bill for giving the HDB the flexibility to allow a wider use of HDB flats. This is timely as the nation emphasises the importance of creativity and innovativeness, the promotion of entrepreneurship and the encouragement of starting of new business. But in allowing the wider use of HDB flats beyond residential purposes, let us be mindful of the needs of neighbours and other residents. The Bill - ultimately, the Act - provides for the termination of the lease for non-authorised use. But what about lessees who use the flats for the intended purposes but are indifferent to the needs of residents and neighbours? Their activities may cause annoyance. But instead of doing something to reduce the annoyance, they hide behind the authority granted to them to use the flats. I hope that in granting them the right to the flat, the lessees are also made to undertake the responsibility not to disturb the neighbours. If they unreasonably choose to ignore the problems they cause to the neighbours and neighbourhood, the Board must have the right to withdraw the privileges granted to them. On that note, Sir, I support the Bill.”
“Sir, I would like to ask the Minister how soon does he think that the Government will want to use NEWater for domestic purposes.”
“Mr Speaker, thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak on the amendment to my amendment. I agree with Dr Tan Cheng Bock's amendment. I think it strengthens my amendment with the additional two factors. I would also like to reply to Mr Low Thia Khiang's observation that I have diluted the original Motion. The purpose is not to dilute the original Motion. I see the purpose of this Motion as an opportunity for MPs to reflect the feedback they get from the ground, their concern about the increase in fares, the economy, and so forth. In the discussion that we have heard these two days, this purpose has been achieved. MPs have very frankly expressed the concern of their residents and how they feel. Therefore, my purpose of moving the amendment is to protect our institutions because we must not inadvertently, in asking for a review, question the integrity of the PTC, and inadvertently also dilute all other institutions that Parliament has set up. And, in the process, it also questions the integrity of Parliament. As Mr Iswaran has said, if we start questioning our ability to make good decisions and start reversing the decisions that we make, what would international investors, who come to Singapore think, ie, the decisions we make in Parliament will not stand up to scrutiny.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the order of the wordings is reversed. I said, "the affordability of the commuters" followed by "the viability of the public transport operators".”
“I would like to quote what Mr Eric Gwee, Chairman of PTC, said in regard to the decision to approve the recent fare increases: "In reviewing the application by SBS, TIBS and SMRT, PTC tried to balance the need of public interest to be safeguarded and for public transport operators to remain financially viable. This year, the PTC has improved the process of scrutinising the bus and train operators' accounts and financial performance. PTC is satisfied that the operators have been prudent in containing costs and that they have not been profiteering at the expense of our commuters." I share the sentiment of the other Boon Wan in the House, when he said yesterday that, "There is nothing wrong in criticising the decision of the PTC. They have a difficult job of balancing the long-term interests of commuters and the short-term effects on them. Inevitably, judgment has to be made. We can certainly disagree with PTC's judgment, as honest people would. But we cannot fault them for not being diligent." Sir, I urge the PTC to always remember that its role is both important and sensitive and that it must carry out its duties conscientiously, properly and professionally, within the terms and reference that have been set for it, so that the public will continue to have confidence in its decision. Finally, Sir, I also urge the Government to take heed of the feedback provided by Members of this House during this debate and from the people. Please listen to us. Sir, I seek the support of the House on the amendment.”
“We are treading on uncomfortable, if not dangerous, water. We formed a body and delegated to it responsibilities. The body has discharged its responsibilities, and we are questioning its decision in public, with the intention of getting it to change its mind. The public and the world will look at this House and wonder if we made good, well-considered decisions, and abide by them. The question would be asked, is this House to be trusted? People who are asked to assume positions in our institutions will wonder if their decisions would be appreciated and supported. They will ask whether they will be abandoned when the goings get tough. We must be very wary of demeaning our institutions. We must not sacrifice our institutions for expediency. Sir, we should carefully study the explanation given by the PTC for approving the fare increase. If we believe that they had done the work fairly and properly, we should courageously support its decision and take on the more difficult and unpleasant task of explaining and convincing our people of the correctness of the decision. It is easier to support popular decisions than to support decisions that are right, but painful. But for the long-term interest of the country and people, we must do what is right and good. I personally believe that with regard to the fare increases, including the current one, that have come before the PTC, it has dutifully performed the task delegated to it by Parliament, within the framework and guidelines established.”
“What sort of bus services do our children deserve? And what do we leave them with? So, while the Prime Minister agreed that this is not the best time to increase fares, he also recognised the need to increase fares to enable critical activities that must be carried out if we are to maintain the viability of the public transport system. He thus supports increases in small steps that are affordable and less painful. I recall past instances, other than transport fares, when delay and reluctance deferred price increases until the inevitable. When the prices were increased, the increases were large, and were very painful. There were then calls for increases in small steps, to occur more frequently, so as to spread out the pain. This is what is being done now - a small increase in fares. But, alas, our memory is short. Sir, the issue of fare increase is inherently a situation of conflict. The public dislikes fares to increase, but public transport operators need it to remain viable. Parliament, in its wisdom has delegated this unenviable task of approving fare increases to the Public Transport Council. In the debate on the PTC Bill in 1987, the House made it clear to the PTC that they must consider both the welfare of the people and the viability of the bus companies, to ensure the availability of a good public transport system in the long term interest of the people. As I said earlier, this situation is inherently conflicting. To carry out the difficult task of the PTC, able, capable, fair-minded and honourable people were appointed to the Council. Hence, since 1987, fare increases have come before the PTC. But, today, there is a Motion before this House asking the PTC to review its decision on the recent fare increases.”
“Sir, I beg to move the amendment as follows: (1) In line 3, to leave out the word "and"; (2) In line 5, after the word "fares", to insert the words, "and noting his support for the principle of Public Transport Council granting small increases"; and (3) In lines 5 and 6, to leave out the words, "to review its decision on the increase in public transport fares", and there to insert the words, "when reviewing requests for fare increases, to take into consideration relevant factors such as the affordability of the commuters and the viability of the public transport operators.". Sir, there is really no good time to increase fares. Nobody likes to pay more, even if one can afford it. It is in the nature of things. However, I agree with PM and my fellow Members, who have spoken earlier, that this is not the best time to increase fares. The economy is down, many are out of job and the future is still uncertain, though it is beginning to brighten up. If my income were reduced and uncertain, I would certainly wish that the cost of living would not rise, and even hope that it would be reduced. Hence, where expenditure can be deferred to keep cost and, hence, fares down, it should be done. But, alas, life does not stop just because the economy is bad. It continues. So some costs continue to rise - maintenance must be carried out, old equipment need to be replaced, and new equipment need to be purchased, if we want to continue to have a good public transport system. Fares may thus need to rise for all these necessary activities to be carried out. So, even in difficult times, as now, we have also to think of the future. For what we do today affect the lives of our children tomorrow. The decisions that bus companies make to-day affect the services they can deliver tomorrow.”
“Sir, with this in mind, I am moving an amendment to the Motion before the House. I have taken the liberty to ask the Clerk of Parliament to make copies of this amendment, which I would like to ask your permission to be distributed to the Members of the House.”
“Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in this debate. We are amidst difficult times. And, like my fellow Members of the House, I understand and feel the distress of the people over price increases that raise the cost of living. I am glad for this Motion, for it provides an opportunity for many of us to reflect the concerns of our constituents. As we saw yesterday, and no doubt, we will see today as well, my colleagues do quickly seize the opportunity to express their views and to reflect the sentiments on the ground. My residents have also expressed to me their concerns and unhappiness over various increases, and in particular, the recent transport fare increase. The sentiment of the people is clear. While I appreciate the Motion before the House for providing the opportunity to discuss the issue of the recent transport fare increases, I do not agree with it in its entirety. First, the Motion reflected the Prime Minister's appreciation of 17th June that this is not the best time to increase fares. However, the Prime Minister at the same occasion also said that the principle of small increases is right. This was left out. This is an important omission and I felt ought to be corrected, so that the first statement by the Prime Minister is placed in its proper and complete context. Second, as noted by several colleagues who spoke earlier, the PTC is a body set up by Parliament, specifically to make decisions regarding public transport. It has performed its duties, and unless we are convinced that it is derelict in carrying out its duties, I wonder if it is wise for the House to require it to review a specific decision that it made, with the purpose of getting it to change its mind on this decision.”
“Sir, since the unveiling of the Infocomm 21 Plan, the dot-com bust had occurred, and euphoria for a networked world has ameliorated. The landscape has changed. I wonder if the Minister could share his views on the following. How have the dot-com bust and related developments affected the Infocomm 21 Vision, if any? What is the progress with the bringing of broadband connectivity into homes and offices? How many homes and offices have subscribed to broadband services? Is the Minister satisfied with the broadband adoption? What are the causes for resistance to broadband access? Is price a deterrent? If so, what is being done to bring it down, and when can we see this happening? 4.00 pm Thirdly, what is the status of the digital divide in Singapore? What progress have we achieved to review this divide? Has it in the meantime widened? What further plans are being considered to fight this digital divide?”
“Sir, we are now in the process of remaking Singapore. I would therefore like to join my fellow colleagues to ask the Minister if he would share his vision on the role of arts and culture in the strategy to remake Singapore. In particular, we are searching for competitive advantages for a changed world, and here we must exploit all our strengths. Our arts and cultural heritage does not need to be "nice to have". Art and cultural centres of the world have exploited arts and culture as a source of growth. For example, London and Paris have used arts and culture to lure both tourists and talents. We can do the same. I would therefore like the Minister, in his reply, to address, if possible, the role of arts and culture as a strategic tool for our economic development and competitiveness.”
“Sir, the global economic slowdown has played havoc with the lives of our people. As several of my fellow hon. Members had earlier recounted, many of the residents, like those of mine, lost their jobs and came to seek our help to find another job, and to tide over a very difficult and traumatic period in their lives. Not all of them were doing low-skilled work, a group whose plight many of my fellow colleagues have focused on. Some were holding skills and technical positions, while others held managerial positions. While their immediate needs - feeding their family and paying household bills are indeed pressing - what I am equally, in truth, more concerned with is whether the jobs that were lost would ever return, even when the economy recovers. Some will never return, having permanently migrated from our shores. New jobs will be created. But, at the same time, some skills would have become redundant and obsolete. How are our people going to cope in a world that has changed so abruptly? I would like to join my fellow hon. colleagues to ask the Minister the following questions. How many jobs were lost since 2001 when the slowdown began? If we were to classify the jobs that were lost as low-skilled, skilled and technical and managerial, how many would there be in each category? How many of the jobs that were lost are lost permanently? What are the job prospects for this year? How many new jobs will be created? Finally, how many of the new jobs will be filled by Singaporeans or permanent residents? What is holding our people from the rest of the new jobs? What is being done to help our people to overcome the obstacles to these jobs?”
“I thank the Minister for his reply and beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $569,087,400 for Head V ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $4,263,662,000 for Head V ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head N -”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head V of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code VA 1500. Sir, I am glad to hear from the Minister of State that we should attract entrepreneurship wherever these may come from and develop these ideas if the ideas are good for us. The slew of industry incentives and assistance schemes provided by the Government has been very helpful to companies to improve their operations. I would like to ask, if it is true, that these incentives and schemes are not available to bodies or persons, such as trade, industry and professional associations, and, if so, can these be extended to them? Here, I would like to declare my interest as Chairman of Singapore Quality Institute. These bodies provide services to their members and, often, also the general public. Some are also engaged in business. They are also a source of entrepreneurship. If they have access to these incentive schemes, they too can use them to improve their operations.”
“I thank the Minister for his reply and beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $1,462,780,650 for Head M ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $284,077,310 for Head M ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head C - 4.45 pm”
“Thank you. First, I would like to ask if the corporate tax applies to bodies or persons, such as management corporations, town councils, trade, industry and professional associations and clubs. Second, I would like to ask for the maid levy allowance to be extended to single women, including divorcees and widows. Third, I would like to ask that parents, with children already studying overseas, be allowed to claim double child relief for the remaining normal duration of the course.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head M of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code MP 2100. Sir, may I have permission to take the three cuts together?”
“Sir, Ministries and statutory boards should be helping businesses to grow. I join my colleague, Mr Inderjit Singh, to call on Ministries and statutory boards to desist from starting in-house units to provide products and services that can be readily supplied by private businesses that already exist, unless special requirements exist. If they do not, they are really withholding business opportunities for the private sector. Sometimes, these in-house units even compete with the private sector for businesses, and some are subsequently spun off as independent companies. One example is PSB. There were many well-established private training institutions ready to work with it. Yet, it set up its own in-house unit to provide the training programmes that it administered. These units were recently spun off as PSB Corp. In this particular case, it is water under the bridge. My two colleagues, who have just spoken, have referred to other cases. Government should not compete with the private sector. Ministries and statutory boards should concentrate on their mission and core activities. They should outsource their requirements to the private sector to help the private businesses grow stronger and bigger, so that companies not only operate in Singapore but where opportunities exist to expand overseas. Keeping yet again to the training industry, a good example is Informatics. The company not only operates in Singapore but has successfully expanded into the region, and recently into China as well.”
“We must not particularly fear our neighbours, for competition can and will also come from afar, especially with increasing globalisation as an irreversible trend. But this does not mean we simply give up our share. We will fight to keep what is ours, and our competitors will have to convince the buyers that they can do better. I am convinced that my fellow countrymen share with me that we have the means and the resolve to overcome the challenges that we face. We can have our place under the sun. We will, if we work together as a people, thinking not just for ourselves but also our relatives and friends, all our fellow Singaporeans and, importantly, our children and their children. Sir, the People's Action Party and its leaders have remained true to its ideal to serve the people of Singapore to the best of its ability. As long as the people of Singapore keep faith with the PAP, we will work our fingers to the bone for them. With the support of all Singaporeans, we will overcome our challenges and our nation shall prosper. Sir, I support the motion moved by the Minister.”
“Here, we can learn from the proverbial ant who starts to prepare for winter, as soon as spring begins, through autumn, knowing that winter will come and life will be tough. Unlike the happy-go-lucky grasshopper, the ant tempers his enjoyment during spring, summer and autumn, keeping something aside and accumulating its larder for the winter. Singaporeans must do the same. We have till now saved for just one winter in our life - our old age. Some do not even do that. We must now begin to set aside a part of what we earn to build a larder for the next downturn, so that we will have the resources to weather through it while waiting for the upturn. It is better that we prepare for such a future than to look forward to others, like the Government, each time for help when a downturn occurs. Sir, when we first began as a nation, our leaders, with less resources and experience and under equally daunting circumstances, overcame the odds to develop the country to what it is today. They succeeded because the people understood the situation and what needed to be done, supported the Government and worked together to achieve our common goals. Today, we come yet again to another watershed in the life of our nation, but now equipped with more resources and experience. The unknown is the support, commitment and resolve of our people. Like our parents, if we understand our situation, share a common vision, and are prepared to support the Government and work hard and smart, we will succeed. We must not fear competition. As much as we desire to grow, so also do others. Economies grow as societies and nations prosper. With the growing pie, competition can result in a win-win situation. Under fair competition, everyone improves and the pie grows in size.”
“The changes are efforts to ensure that there will be good, well-paying jobs for us and our children now and in the future. I am sure that we will happily pay our taxes for there is something to pay from. Will more changes be necessary? Unfortunately, the answer is yes. Besides the increase in pace, change will also be relentless. The number of players in the field has increased and they have also become more sophisticated. Competition in the future will be like treading on a conveyor belt, constantly on the move. We have to keep on moving just to keep up. Hence, we have to be constantly on our toes - changing and, at the same time, proactively anticipating changes to keep ahead. Besides rapid changes, the cycle of change will be short. Booms will follow busts, in quick succession. The pace of technological advances will force us to learn and relearn our knowledge and skills to remain relevant, quickly discarding those no longer useful and replacing them with newer useful ones. Furthermore, the downturn will be sectoral. In other words, simultaneously, while some economic sectors boom, others may be in recess. It appears that this will be the typical economic landscape of the future. To cope with such a dynamic and parlous future requires a sea change in our mental attitude, in how we should plan and do for the future. Our thinking of what we need to do to survive must change. Because of the last 40 years of nearly continuous prosperity, we are not well prepared for adversities. Over committed in assets and low in savings, two economic downturns in quick succession, resulting in high retrenchment and exhaustion of savings, led to financial difficulties for many.”
“We need to get our people to understand and focus on the big picture, on the long-term benefits to all, than merely harping on the immediate gains and losses to individuals and groups. Sir, we cannot just assume that a few announcements by Ministers and the discussion in this august Chamber will inform the people of the purpose and the seriousness of the change. Like Mr Heng Chee How, I believe we need to sell the needed change to the people. We must engage our people. To succeed, we must try to get everyone to come on board - the quicker, the better. To succeed in the remaking of Singapore, we need the population to understand and support the changes that are needed. We need a deliberate focused effort to do this. But let me also quickly add that we must let our people know that we are not making these changes from a position of desperation or panic, but one of proactivity. By moving before others do, we get a headstart in the race. We must not be complacent like the proverbial hare. But it bears repeating that we do not oversell the change to the extent that we appear desperate, as this will cause the people to lose confidence, when we are really taking off from a position of strength, of confidence and in command of our pace of change. I am repeating myself here in elaborating the rationale for change. There is a tendency to view the change in tax rates as a key point of change. It is not. It bodes us well to remember that a zero percentage of nothing is still nothing. Whereas some percentage of something is real, no matter how small that something is. For if there is no work, there is no pay, so what, if the tax is zero? I am confident that our people will rally round if they are aware of this.”
“The current salary has galloped way out of sight, and the Singapore Allowance which is to adjust for this hardly keeps pace. They had contributed to the growth of the nation during their productive years and now depend on the State for the remaining years of their lives. Like them, the public assistance recipients, less able to help themselves, are also dependent on the State for help to live. On this basis, I hope that the Government, in the current consideration, will be more generous in its assistance to them. Immediately after Senior Minister of State, Mr Tharman, announced the recommendations of his Committee, changes to income, corporate and goods and services tax rates caught the attention of the public. Many saw the changes as benefiting the rich and taxing the poor. After the Budget was announced and the package of GST offset was made known, the fervour quietened. The purpose of the GST offset package was achieved. It was thus evident that to many, the changes quickly boiled down to who gained and who lost. Every group saw the specific impact upon itself. The raison d'etre of the effort was missed. Should this be the case, the purpose of the change would be defeated. We cannot merely assume that the people will understand, or that they will eventually understand. The changes, with many more on the way, are intended to remake Singapore for a changed world. The world will not wait for us to be ready. The world will just move on. Hence, the quicker we get the people to understand the seriousness of the situation, the better prepared will we be to face and surmount the challenges, and the faster we can respond to the changing environment.”
“Singaporeans who pay income tax and thus benefit from the decrease in income tax will be better off in the changed regime, but those who do not pay income tax and thus do not benefit from the decrease in income tax will be worse off in the changed tax regime. The GST offset package of economic restructuring shares and rebates is thus very reassuring to the people. I have spoken to several of my residents and they are reassured. It is important for all of us to realise that by making changes, we can grow the pie. The intended result is not that of a zero sum game where one gains at the expense of another, but that of a win-win situation where every Singaporean benefits. Let us say that if we have $100 to spend with the GST rate of 3%, we have effectively $97 to spend. If we do nothing and become less competitive, we may end up with just $50, and taking into account 3% GST, it means that we have effectively $48.50 to spend. But with the change and the economy grows, we could have $150, and taking into account 5% GST, it will still leave us with effectively $142.50 to spend. So compare the value of $48.50 without change to a value of $142.50 with change, the brief pains of change are clearly worth the while. Some may disagree with my choice of numbers, but this illustration makes clear the intended dynamics of the change. At this point, let me join my colleague, Mr Leong Horn Kee, to plead with the Government for the public assistance recipients and pensioners. The Minister has said that both the amounts of public assistance and Singapore Allowance are under review. This is good. I have spoken to several pensioners who ask for more sympathetic understanding of their situation. Their pensions are tied to their salaries.”
“These are brave changes, which though taken with calculated risks, are fraught with great uncertainties, but change we must if we want to give our children and grandchildren as good a future in Singapore as we had of our lives and opportunities. My more senior colleagues with more years in this Chamber may feel even more strongly of these changes than I. Sir, in view of the tectonic shift, some may ask, is it enough? Hong Kong has a corporate tax of just 16%. Ireland has reduced its corporate tax even lower to 12 1/2% taking effect next year. I would say that it is enough for now. By raising our GST rate by 2%, from 3% to 5%, it has already aroused so much distress and discomfort in our people. A reduction of both corporate and individual tax rates to below 20% would necessitate an even higher GST rate. In any case, tax, though an important factor, is not the only factor in the decision whether Singapore is a good place to do business. We require a holistic response to the new circumstances. Sir, very few worthy changes are easy or painless to achieve. More often than not, sacrifices are needed to achieve the desired goals. The changes in the tax regime will shift and redistribute responsibilities. Some will contribute more, others less. This is inevitable, but this is not the purpose of the change. These are unintended effects. It is vital to constantly bear in mind the primary purpose of making the change. But it does not mean that we should merely accept the pain and not do anything to soften the adverse consequences. GST affects every Singaporean. This means that increasing the GST rate, all Singaporeans will pay more GST.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in this debate. I support the efforts by the Government to remake Singapore for a changed world. For a long time, driven by technology and globalisation, the world has been changing. The pace, initially slow, has speeded up in recent years. It was just a matter of time when the cumulative effects became visible. September 11 precipitated its unveiling. Everyone was thus abruptly awoken to a changed world. However, if one has been discerning with the works of the Government over time via the changes made to policies, systems, values, processes, institutions, infrastructure, he would have noticed that our leaders have always realised the changing landscape. The effect of September 11 thus demanded a sudden step change, ie, a major response. The luxurious gradual change of yesteryears was no longer enough. The tax changes just announced emanated from the recommendations by the Economic Review Committee's sub-committee on policies related to taxation, the CPF system, wages and land, headed by Senior Minister of State, Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam, and reflected the gravity of the situation. These are significant changes. I know. I have sat over five budget sessions in this august Chamber in the past years. To get Minister Richard Hu to agree to a tax change was a major battle, very few of which were ever won. But in the Budget just announced, the shift was tectonic. The changes could only have been dreamt of. The degree and extent of change clearly reflected the seriousness with which the Government viewed the changed world and our need to respond.”
“May I ask the Minister, with this wavering of decisions by the Malaysian side, will this be the last time that these changes will stop? We have to end these changes so that we can come down to some serious discussions and settle these issues.”
“Chin's advocacy of the importance of culture and arts itself to quality. Quality, productivity, creativity and innovation are all important, but each is important in its own right. We have been exploring the issue of cost-cutting. Quality cuts cost in so many ways. Workers, doing the right things and doing things right, reduce repairs and reworks. Reliability of the products and services passes the savings to the parties down the line as their repairs and reworks are also reduced. Satisfied customers return and are retained, reducing further promotion costs, adding certainty to operation. We can go on enumerating its virtues. We should, thus, not take quality for granted. We should not merely subsume quality under productivity or creativity and innovation. Not everyone can or needs to be innovative or creative all the time. But everyone can and should deliver quality all the time. We should see quality as important, to be developed and promoted in its own right. By developing a quality culture among Singaporeans, we will add to the competitiveness of Singapore to whatever other competitive edges that we may develop. 4.02 pm”
“But precisely because quality is difficult to achieve, it also means that, once you have got it, you get to keep it for a longer time. But does this mean that we have the luxury of time to develop a quality culture among Singaporeans? Let me answer this question by describing for you a recent experience. Last month, a friend bought me a gift from a trip to China. It was a nice box of biscuits. The box was fairly large, but there were only 12 biscuits in it. Each of the biscuits was separately packed with a small packet of drying agent to keep the biscuits crisp. It was a quality product. I asked my friend about the biscuits. The answers both impressed and perturbed me. It was made in China. So, Chinese manufacturers have obviously climbed the quality ladder in a few short years. What was even more disturbing was the fact that the biscuits were not produced for export but consumed by the local population. This suggests that the Chinese people have also changed and acquired a quality attitude. My perception fits in with the Chinese experiences of Mr Ahmad Mohd Magad, Mr Matthias Yao, Mr Inderjit Singh and others, as they had described in their speeches during the last few days. If in such a short timeframe the Chinese are able not only to acquire the capital, talent and technology but are also able to get their people to change their mindset and attitude to compete effectively, China is really the formidable and fearsome competitor that it is made out to be. Sir, as a nation, we started out with the emphasis on quality in the earlier years. During the 1980s, we refocused on productivity. But in the last few years, we refocused yet again and, this time, on innovation and creativity. I would like now to borrow Assoc. Prof.”
“They might be looking in our direction but, miraculously, they did not see us, even when we stuck up our hands and waved. When this happened, we often swore to ourselves that we would not go back to the shop again, ever. And many customers do just that. You can put up lots of money into advertising, to decorate up the place and to spruce up the ambience, but the poor quality of service provided by the workers will kill the business, sooner or later. I have merely used the above examples to highlight the need for Singaporeans to adopt a more positive attitude towards their work. The taxi drivers and service personnel in restaurants and shops are not the only people who need to spruce their services, as each of us has encountered or heard of experiences of poor quality service in many other places and trades. Yesterday, Mr Ong Kian Min also described his experiences with some electrical contractors. If every worker in Singapore, citizens or otherwise, takes pride in his or her work to produce the highest quality product or service, to perform his or her work with care and attention to the best of his or her ability, this will result in happy, appreciative and satisfied customers who will buy the product and service, even if the prices may be a little higher, return for more and will probably sing praises of the establishment to others. By now I do not blame you if you were beginning to ask why is it that if quality is that great, that not every country is pursuing it. The truth is that though the idea is simple, it is very hard to do. Quality concerns mindset and attitude. A quality nation is one in which quality is endemic, systemic and permeates completely throughout the country. Converting a person is already difficult, what more a nation?”
“Sometime ago, travellers arriving at Changi Airport had wished that our taxi drivers could be more helpful, such as helping them with their bags and luggage. I do not know if the situation there has improved, but I recently saw a lady stopping a taxi along Holland Road. She was struggling to load her luggage bags into the boot of the taxi. Meanwhile, the taxi driver merely sat in his taxi, waiting for the work to be done. Another example. A few days ago, I observed a passenger paying the taxi driver for the journey. The driver received the payment and returned the change, all the while with a sullen expression tainted with annoyance and anger. I asked myself, "Why so? Why was he not happy? Did he not just get paid? Should he not show some degree of happiness, if not gratitude for the customer, then for himself, especially when we are trying to survive the current difficult economic times." And what about the taxi driver who drove away with the belongings of his passengers? The misdeeds of this one black sheep brought Singapore world-wide infamy. In one stroke, as a result of his greed and misdeed, he tainted the good name of Singapore, Singaporeans and his fellow taxi drivers. And if we remember that for many tourists and overseas visitors, the taxi drivers are some of the first and last Singaporeans that they meet, their attitude and services provided by our taxi drivers are, thus, not unimportant to the image of Singapore around the world and our tourist income. Another experience of poor quality service that we can share is the treatment that we receive in some of the restaurants, shops and stores. I am sure each of us has encountered instances when there were many attendants and serving personnel but could not get one to help us.”