Tan Cheng Bock
Singapore
“As I said, we have not done much. We must not be captured by our old style of managing the old. The new old, as I said before, are better educated and travelled, and are very knowledgeable. So we must quickly explore new ways and methods to meet the expectations of the new old.”
“If we only have such a small pool of talents in Singapore because of our population size, we should spare no effort in seeking every such talent.”
“Thank you. I accepted the Minister's reply on the different pricing in the outpatient polyclinics and the hospitals. My point is that the patient's problem has still not been solved. Whenever a doctor refers a patient from a hospital to an outpatient clinic, he still has to pay more.”
“Six out of the nine items were much more expensive. Sir, I am asking why is there such a difference. Is this a one-off incident or is it going to be a norm? How can doctors in the hospital then refer patients back to the outpatient clinic if the patient is going to pay more?”
“I move this amendment to ask the Minister what is the Ministry's stand on seat belts to be made compulsory for primary and kindergarten buses. I heard over the radio that the Ministry is reviewing the case. There are two issues here, question of cost and question of safety. I think safety has a higher weightage over cost.”
“I also want to commend the NTUC for working with the Government to put this package together. I believe that without the NTUC's representation in putting forward the workers' case, the workers would not be able to benefit so substantially this year from this package.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,095 lines we hold for Tan Cheng Bock, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 22.
“5% by the end of last year, and the figure is still going up. Another reason cited for the increases is ERP and road taxes added to the cost. I checked with LTA, because I am on the LTA Board. For the year 2002, the projected increase in ERP cost alone, according to SBS, is $0.7 million. But this House must know that when ERP was implemented in 1998, it was decided that ERP charges should apply to all vehicles which use roads, and that includes public buses. Just like other road users, they also contribute to road congestion. However, to offset the cost implication of introducing ERP, the road tax of public buses was reduced by $3,900 for each single-decked bus, and $3,500 for each double-decked bus. The overall road tax savings for the public bus operators, TIBS and SBS included, amounted to $13 million annually. Now this more than offset the ERP charges of about $4 million paid by the public bus operators today. The ERP charges on public buses therefore do not contribute to cost increases for the operators. My other colleagues must have more to say and I would not want to dwell any further on this. Surely, if the current recession has been thrown out as a consideration for the increase, then the more compelling reasons must have prevailed, and given more weightage by PTC, to protect the profitability of the bus companies. Now, is there a formula or magic number to this? While I support the Motion, I can quite understand the bus fare increase is but one issue, like what Mr Tan Soo Khoon has said, and it so happened that the level of tolerance has reached a high level. And, again like what my colleague, Mr Tan Soo Khoon has said, the bus fare increase is probably the lightning rod, receiving all the flak.”
“And no wonder writers in the forum page have always asked for an independent PTC panel. Perhaps, after this debate, there should be a review on the composition of the PTC. He was also saying that we "see no wrong in ourselves" by quoting PSA. Yes, look at PSA - a hardened stand, defended almost to death, even when faced with fierce competition on our doorsteps. They were probably thinking of protecting their profits, their return on equity - too cocksure of their so-called "other advantages". They were unable to see the wider implications until they lost two of their largest customers. On the Motion before the House which calls for the PTC to review its decision on the increase in public transport fares, I think Mr Tan Soo Khoon has elaborated on this, and he did a marvellous job. But I would still like to add a few points to what he has said. It may seem odd that we should be asking for a review when the fare hike is already in place but, like what he said in the press, we had no opportune time. Parliament sat a few days after the fare increases were implemented. Singaporeans must try to understand how the decision to raise fares came about. I think what they want is more transparency. Even I, like them, cannot understand why the PTC turned down an earlier request, in 2001, for an increase in fares because of unfavourable economic situation. Then, suddenly, it changed its mind this year and opted for an increase, when the poor economic situation has not changed. Has the economic situation improved in 2002 to warrant this change in decision? Yet, this House was told by the Finance Minister in the last Budget debate that 88,000 Singaporeans were out of work, and now my colleague has told me that it is 100,000. Unemployment has reached 4.”
“Not "chou chui", please. It is different. "Chou chui" means smelly water. He said that in a flowing stream, "wa chui", there is hope, something would come by to keep them alive. They are hoping that after GE, Government would do something to create more jobs, hold prices and give them a better chance of survival. Now, he feels that he is "si chui", dead water, and dead water gets evaporated every day. The various increases evaporate whatever savings he has, slowly but surely. He said the Government always justifies by saying that there is no such thing as wrong timing. The Government's action in this economic downturn is not bad timing. Sir, if you had listened to what my colleague has just said about the person who complained to him about this poor economic condition, you will understand why. Of course, Singaporeans cannot understand. Unemployment is now almost 5%, and if this is not bad, then what is bad? Sir, if in spite of the poor state of the economy we allow the fare increases, are we not ignoring the plight of the people? We seem to be concerned, like my colleague said, about the return of equity for companies, even though these companies are still making good profits. We talk about high cost structures in our economy, yet we do not try to delay the increases. Another person, who is usually very quiet, got up to tell me and he said "You", meaning the PAP, "are so powerful that you cannot see the wrong in yourself." This statement got me thinking, very profound. But it tells something. Are we so powerful that we can go along with all these increases? We allow bus operators to sit in PTC, as Mr Tan Soo Khoon has said, and we see no wrong. We cannot see their vested interest and conflict of interest in such an arrangement.”
“On the one hand, Singaporeans are asked to tighten their belts through various measures, such as wage restraint, no bonuses and more and more job losses through restructuring. They now face a series of increasing costs in their daily lives. He said that he and his friends are dead water. Those of you who understand Hokkien - I am a Hokkien speaker - "dead water" literally translated means "si chui", as opposed to "wa chui", which means alive, flowing. An hon. Member: "Chou chui"!”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, there are two parts to this motion. I shall respond to the second part first, because it is a call on the Government to go slow on increases in the cost of services. In moving the motion, Mr Tan Soo Khoon outlined his reasons why he thinks that the rise in public transport fares and other fares should be avoided during the current recession. He has made a thorough analysis of the transport companies to show why he thinks that this rise in bus fares is not justified. I do not want to go over the grounds he covered and probably, I would not be able to do it so well. He has done a good job. But I will reinforce some of the salient points that he has made. He reflected the sentiments and frustrations of Singaporeans very adequately, and I share his concerns and hope our leaders are listening. In rising to support him, I am drawn back to a session I had with some Singaporeans on current issues, including the rise in bus fares, electricity tariffs, MRT fares, HDB parking fees, ERP charges and so on. In the course of the discussions, I was reminded by one of the members of the public that we have been testing the limits of tolerance of Singaporeans with each increase. He said that we are over-confident and, in a way, arrogant, because we have just won the GE with 75% majority. He reminded me that they gave us this high mandate, because they had hoped that the PAP can help better improve their lives in these times of need. And also, as promised in our manifesto, he said that Singaporeans truly believe that the PAP is the only party that can help them out of this recession. But now, it seems that we are making life more and more tough for them. Within six months of GE, a rash of price increases - how not to feel betrayed, they complained.”
“I think I agree with you. But I would not want to prolong this. I will bring it up with the Minister.”
“No, it is not a Specialist Clinic. It is just to the hospital.”
“Just a small point of clarification on GP and OPD cooperation. I just want to find out that, in the past, when a GP referred a patient to the outpatient clinic and he was referred to the hospital, he paid very little, ie, only the C class rate if he could not afford. But now I learn that, by way of the same procedure, let us say, if a patient is referred from the GP to the OPD and then to the hospital, he is now charged more when he goes to the hospital. I am not sure whether this is true or not. Without the GP's letter, he is charged less, that means, there is no point for the patient to go and get a referral letter from the GP any more. If he gets a direct referral by the OPD to the hospital, it is cheaper. But through a GP's letter, it is more. In the past, it was not, because some of the patients have told me. So I am just seeking clarification. You may not be able to answer it, but never mind, you can give me an answer later.”
“When I heard Dr Ong talking and being worried that subvention grants may be curtailed, I worry that some of these facilities, ie, the high-end ones and even the lower end ones, they might trim facilities or they might even close down some of the facilities. So I hope that the Minister will give assurance to all these people who put so much effort in setting up all these facilities, not only grants but also a lot more support. The means test has been mentioned. So to cut short, I shall not speak so much on means test. It has been very well articulated by Dr Ong. I think he can do it better than I. I shall now move on to ask just a few questions about outpatient clinics. The outpatient clinics have done a remarkably good job. They are the first line of defence, the primary healthcare. Since we are talking about remaking of Singapore, I was wondering whether the outpatient clinics would also remake their role. Perhaps we should make some collaboration studies with the private practitioners to open up the facilities for better use. We spend so much money providing all the facilities to outpatients. Maybe we could share these facilities with the private practitioners to ensure better service to our Singaporeans.”
“You cannot blame them because they have to look at the bottom line. So what actually happens is that you might really get some patients being discharged earlier than they should, because as I said, they need to look at the bottom line. In fact, I was so sad when I heard Dr Michael Lim mention about a young couple with a child going to KK Hospital and finding difficulty to seek admission. And what is more is the content of the letter, the reply to Dr Michael Lim, attaching the importance of cost to this. We all understand cost, but sometimes the way the letter was written, I think, really hurt him. That is why he probably brought up this matter. Now, you also can understand how case-mix, because the fear of less subvention, I suspect that some of the cases may be discharged earlier. 5.45 pm That is why I am coming to this House to ask the Minister to be more generous in the funding to all these step-down care facilities that are provided by volunteers and also by some of our own Government agencies. Step-down facilities are of various kinds. You have the day-care centres. You have your occupational centres. You have your rehabilitation centres, and so on. But I think these high-end step-down cases are quite special because the patients really need post-hospital care - hospital setting to manage that difficult period. I think our outpatient clinics are not able to do that because they do not have in-staying patients. Community hospitals can do the job but when I heard Dr Ong mention about the new funding, there is a means test that is being bandied around, and they want to have a different way of funding.”
“I remember in the last Parliament we were talking about case-mix, and I often wonder whether Members of this House really understand what this term means. But, I think Members in this House must understand case-mix because the subject that I am going to talk about actually is related to case-mix. I would try to be very brief and just be as simple as possible so that you all can really appreciate what I want to say. Very briefly, case-mix to me is actually a patient-management programme, ie, to improve the care of the patients in hospitals with minimal wastage. So guidelines were then set to make sure that doctors manage patients effectively, and discharge them at the earliest opportune time. To make sure this happens, funding to the hospital is related to this, so that you will have to make sure that the patients you see are within that funding limit. Let me give you a very easy example so that you can follow me. Let us take the example of a patient with acute appendicitis, and assuming that they have gone through all the records, and they think maybe a 4-day stay would be sufficient, to manage and treat patients with appendicitis. And, that should be the length of period that he is allowed to stay. Let us say, if he exceeds that period, then funding would be reduced or even stopped. So it makes administrators of such hospitals to think very carefully and to advise doctors that they should try to treat the patients within that 4-day period. However, I am sure sometimes the patients have no choice. Cases do get complicated at times and therefore it exceeds the 4-day stay, and when you do that, I think administrators of hospitals will be a little bit uncomfortable because they see that their funding will be curtailed.”
“This is important as it would lead to lower affordable flats for our people. The next issue is on spalling concrete of HDB flats. In August 1995 and July 1998, there was a three-year programme where HDB assisted a total of 17,600 households in the repair of spalling concrete of flats. This constitutes only 2% of the total flats that we have now. There are about 900,000 flats presently, half of which, 450,000, are about 20 years' old. There is a large number of demand now for the programme to be reactivated. Can the Ministry again reactivate this programme for all the flat lessees so as to assist them in the repair of spalling concrete, especially families who could not afford it would have the danger of falling concrete over their heads? It could end up as a quiet home killer. If this is not possible as a separate programme, can the Ministry consider including this work under the IUP, as it would target the older flats where the concrete quality specification is poorer when the flats were built?”
“Would the Ministry also take the opportunity to review its machinery to assess the future demand of flats and see how it could promptly respond to changes in the demand of flats, although it is difficult to determine the demand in view of the dynamic market situation? The past trends have indicated a slowness in the machinery in HDB in detecting the future demand of flats, for example, the large number of surplus of 5-room and Executive flats, and the slow response in cutting back the construction of flats, in view of the low numbers in the registration of flats. The cutting back of the tender award of flats to 11,000 was only done in FY 2000/2001 when the registration of flats had already dipped sharply in FY 1997/1998 and FY 1998/1999, ie, from 67,000 to 24,800, to 7,160. When the Ministry is reviewing its role of HDB in the supply of flats, I would like to urge the Ministry to retain the two primary pillars in the supply of HDB flats, which is mainly for the lower and middle-income families. Can the Ministry assure the people that it will still have the capacity to meet the possible upsurge in demand of flats and give a definite acceptable time period from application to getting the keys? Over the history of HDB's application of flats, this stated period is a roller-coaster ride. Sometimes it is two years, three years, or even five years during the peak demand in 1994. Can the Ministry also assure the people to continue to give good and affordable quality of flats to meet the aspirations of our people? How can the Ministry ensure that the design-and-build flats achieve the design or buildability and have well-chosen building materials and features and fittings to ensure a lower cost of construction and also subsequent maintenance?”
“Sir, as of end March this year, I learn that 19,400 households have not paid their HDB mortgage loans for three years or more. Two years ago, there were some 12,800 households having this problem. Also, I learn that there were 18,200 Singaporeans who applied to HDB for financial assistance. My question is: is this trend a result of the pricing of our HDB flats, ie, pricing it too high? As brought up by Mr Othman and Dr Michael Lim, they also suggested that the pricing of new HDB flats is extremely high. Of course, they can always blame it on the current downturn as a cause for not paying their mortgages, but it could be both. Or is it because these flat dwellers bought bigger flats than they required during the good years, hoping to cash in on profits should they decide to sell and are now caught in this property downturn? Sir, for those who are having their mortgage problems, is downgrading a problem? As HDB has stopped building 3-room flats, will this restrict their choice to only 4-room flats, which may still not be affordable to them? Does the Minister see a return to building no-frills 3-room or even 2-room HDB flats in the future, to make sure such flats are more affordable for those who are downgrading and for those cases brought up by Ms Indranee in her speech just now? Dr Michael Lim has also touched on rental flats as another option for those downgrading. So I would not dwell on it. Mdm Cynthia Phua (Aljunied): Sir, in view of the surplus of 16,900 flats, I commend the Ministry in taking firm and decisive action in introducing the build-to-order programme, that is, to build based on a certain demand, and also taking the opportunity to review HDB's role. The surplus is due to the mismatch of supply and demand of flats.”
“Sir, can I just seek a point of clarification from the Minister? I think he did not answer my question as to how much of CPF money is tied to housing. Somebody in the private sector has given a figure of 25%. I want to know whether this is correct or not.”
“I would suggest not to hurry with this because of the low morale of many workers in the present downturn. Perhaps, since we have made a commitment to the present workforce, on their CPF, when they first joined the labour market, we should start this, if we have so decided, with those entering the workforce for the first time. I think acceptance would be better as they would know how to plan with the new changes. However, whatever CPF changes you want to do, we must bear in mind the very fundamental objective of our CPF, ie, for housing, health and retirement. You can refine this, but do not change this too much. As Matthias Yao said, and I fully agree with him, stick to our three fundamentals - housing, medical and retirement.”
“However, when I listened to DPM and Finance Minister Lee Hsien Loong's strong commitment to restoring the CPF to 40%, at the last debate, and I presume restoration also applies to the 40 years and above, I wonder how Singaporeans will feel. This time, the talk is restoration, and not cut. So many conflicting messages for the employer and employee. When you talk about 40% restoration, employers sit up and look at the bottom line, but employees are happy. But when you tell employees that when you reach 40 years, their CPF would be reduced, they are going to be more than sad. So if you float so many kites, you better bring all the kites down soon and ease the anxiety of those concerned. We must remember, when deciding on this CPF change, that at age 40 and above, many Singaporeans are at the height of their financial commitment - at their peak. Remembe, at this age group, the children have grown up. They are either in the higher secondary school, in JC or in the university. They are also committed to their mortgages, insurance, and loan repayments, and many must have planned to settle, or hope to settle, all these before they retire. Manpower Minister's reason for support of this idea is his concern that Singapore's seniority-based wage system could have over-priced older workers in the market, that has become more demanding, and where high-skilled and innovative workforce is key to the country's prosperity, and changes must be made, including CPF, to be in line with new economic changes. So said the Minister. I am not so sure which category of the labour workforce has many older over-priced workers. I have no data. Perhaps the Minister can enlighten the House on this.”
“Sir, is too much CPF money tied to housing, and not enough cash for retirement? This was raised by Minister Lim Boon Heng, and this kicked off a debate among Singaporeans who are worried that something is going to happen to their property, their prized asset. But is this true or not? Too much CPF money in housing? The Business Times and New Paper carried a report by CapitaLand to show otherwise. They say, "No such thing. Only 25% for public housing and 15% for private housing." Who is right? Singaporeans want to know. So in the New Paper, Dr Money asked CPF, "Is this true?" CPF kept silent at first, but when they were pressed, they said they had no such data available. This is all in the New Paper dated 6th May, 2002. Of course, I know CapitaLand's vested interest. But surely CPF should come out and challenge the report. But apparently it did not, or I could have missed it as I was away. Perhaps the Minister could provide the answers. Is too much CPF money in housing? Later Labour Chief, Lim Boon Heng, went further and floated the possible 40 years and above CPF cut kite. This was echoed by the Minister for Manpower, Lee Boon Yang's call to study CPF cut for those above 40 years seriously. I quote him. He was concerned by the over-priced older workers in the market. When both Ministers concur, one Labour Chief, and one Manpower Chief, then Singaporeans better sit up and listen carefully. They had better go back quickly and re-examine their financial commitments to their home, their children's education, their mortgages and their loans, because it would probably turn out to be so.”
“I am saying that we should not just take these differences and these ups and downs that we have with Malaysia by not going to visit Malaysia. We should visit Malaysia, have more exchanges with each other, and then we will have better trust between the two countries.”
“Therefore, if we can, for once, set aside all our historical baggage, as proposed by their Foreign Minister, and negotiate all our outstanding issues purely on the merits of the case, with a little give and take on both sides, then I hope we can start a new chapter in our relations. It will be good for both countries, it will be good for our children. And for both countries because the region will be viewed differently than today, with investors more assured of their choice to put their money in these two countries. Sir, Malaysia is a beautiful country, notwithstanding what my colleague said that we do not visit Malaysia.”
“Our approach to issues has always been pragmatic and, at times, clinical, and this has probably irked many. However, we were brought up in circumstances that gave us not much of an option but to work hard and survive. Our EQ is poorly ranked. But that does not mean we cannot learn from the Malaysians or from the Thais on this art of making friends and winning people. We want to be friends with all. Some have accused that Singapore is an Israel. But Singapore is not the Israel of the East, and we do not want to be. Singapore and Malaysia have many similarities than differences. We should avoid highlighting our differences and emphasise on our similarities. Both countries' racial mix is the same, though in different proportions. Both use Malay, Mandarin and English; both have relatives on each side of the Causeway; and both have investments on either side. In fact, Singapore is the biggest investor in Malaysia. In fact, I remember, when I attended many of these parliamentary meetings with my Malaysian counterparts, I find Malaysians and Singaporeans gravitating towards each other during such meetings, and the jokes we share, the songs we sing, and the stand we took on many issues usually strike similar chords. Many of the two countries' agencies work very closely together, such as the police, the anti-narcotics agencies, tourism and even security matters, eg, the latest terrorist crackdown. Yet, it is sad when I hear of harsh calls to stop our water supply, for example. Perhaps, these were said in the heat of anger and not meant seriously.”
“Sir, relations with Malaysia will always have its ups and downs. However, recently, there are more downs than ups. The reasons, I think, are, one, historical; two, increasing intense competition as a result of Malaysia's strong economic growth and progress. I have no problems with increased intense competition because, to me, it is good for both countries. Singapore has to sit up and accept such challenges to our port and airport services with more vigour than ever before, and to compete with Malaysia for new businesses and talent with our recent tax restructuring. This healthy competition will bring about better changes to both economies. In fact, intense competitive activities attract international players to come and take advantage of the good deals that come out of these competitions. So we have Maersk Lines and we have Evergreen going to the Malaysian port, Pelapas. However, if historical reasons continue to bear down on relations, then I think it is going to be tough to resolve because of the strong emotive elements attached to this. This should, however, be addressed and left to rest once and for all in a pragmatic and non-emotive manner. Talks based on perception of issues will create a widening gap between the two countries. It must be based on facts or it will not withstand the test of law, locally and internationally. 4.00 pm The best signal came from Malaysian Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Albar, when he played moderator and told some of the country's brightest brains to discard historical baggage when dealing with Singapore. He was addressing the Association of Young Malaysian Professionals recently in KL. In his address, one of the questions he posed was: can emotions make way for pragmatism?”
“They worry about the economy, Malaysia's recent harsh stand against us, Indonesia's response to terrorist operations and China's emergence as an economic force. While I share their concerns, I also tell them to look on the more positive side. All is not lost. Relations with Malaysia, like the economy, will have its ups and downs. Nothing is static. Good fortunes will return, not by chance, but through careful planning. We must not take things lying down, react fast to make the necessary change, to be more pro-active in our approach to issues, and to stand our ground when challenged. I believe this Budget tries to meet some of the more challenging issues facing us. Externally, a different world and uncertain outlook globally and regionally; internally, restructuring taxes and creating jobs. We may not have the complete answers, but at least we are attempting to move ahead. I wait to see the various reports of the many sub-committees involved in the Remaking of Singapore. Sir, I support the Budget. It is a good Budget. ADJOURNMENT OF DEBATE Resolved, That the debate be now adjourned. - [Mr Mah Bow Tan]. Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Lee, resumption of debate, what day?”
“While I agree that tax changes do help to bring more investments to our country, I am sure those who want to set up businesses here have to take into account the political and social security of our land. In this respect, we should be ahead of many countries. In fact, I have no problems with the Minister allocating one-third of this Budget to Defence and Security. We have to ensure that this place is safe not only for the investor but also for his family and friends. The impact of the GST on the economy as a whole has been discussed and I shall not go into it. What seems to be taking a low profile is the offsetting package for the GST. So, to sell the GST better, I would suggest that more emphasis be done after this Budget to bring the message home. There are already listed at least nine ways of cushioning the GST and this includes the ERS shares, no GST on subsidised medical care, increased subvention to Town Councils, PTC would not raise fares in 2003, SC&C and rental rebates for low income HDB households, households with less than $3,000 can apply for assistance from the CCC, raise public assistance and the Singapore Allowance for pensioners and, finally, a Committee to Combat Profiteering. Sir, we need to emphasise this and in order to sell our GST better, because we did well in 1994. Here, I must commend NTUC Fairprice, Unity, NTUC Healthcare and NTUC Food Fare for volunteering to absorb the 2% GST hike for at least one year on essential items. They deserve a pat on their backs and I do hope others will follow suit. Sometimes, Sir, when I talk to Singaporeans, I get a very gloomy picture of Singapore, somewhat depressing.”
“So many policy changes are happening each day that the average Singaporean is probably lost or cannot follow, resulting in many to be indifferent to the changes. However, we cannot turn the clock back. We have to be more circumspect in the execution of our policy changes and not be too quick to throw the rule book at them. Mr Deputy Speaker, creating jobs through the tax restructuring is one way of attracting investors and talent. Therefore, the cut in corporate and personal income tax will be most welcome. But do tax cuts draw investments? In a report of Barclays Capital, which I read in the Business Times on 9th May 2000, it is unlikely to spur inflows of foreign direct investments (FDI) and in its view, the main impediment to FDI is not necessarily the cost base but limited business opportunities. And it goes to explain: 'South-east Asia's manufacturing base is also "far shallower" and its economic outlook "far more modest" than North Asia, while Singapore's regional entrepot role is undermined by competing port and transport hubs in Malaysia. Until South-east Asia can deliver the economic growth prospects seen in North Asia, we find it unlikely that Singapore will experience an upsurge in foreign direct investments.' It further says: 'At best, the new tax measures may prevent a net decline in FDI - which itself is not an achievement that should be sniffed at.' So you see, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Singapore watchers are guarded in their assessment of our economy restructuring. But having said that, I think they should, on the contrary, spur us to explore more investment opportunities through more aggressive selling of Singapore through our EDB. This becomes a challenge to push us to achieve more.”
“The concern of the man-in-the-street is GST, CPF changes, car park charges, utility bills, medical and education. Above all these, he wants job security and jobs. The changing economy has made many Singaporeans very insecure and worrying. This insecurity affects many, but more so the less educated. Some want to change with retraining, some simply cannot change, and watch with frustration to see foreign workers doing the jobs that they do not want. Calling Singaporeans to have mindset change is right, as we cannot continue to provide, for example, economic downturn relief, as this will create a crutch mentality. Yet, there are some who have lost jobs, because of business change and relocation up north and elsewhere, especially manufacturing plants. They cannot upgrade, because of technological changes and cost of operation is high compared to China, Indonesia, etc. However, perhaps to save jobs, we should not be too eager to replace such factories too quickly with new biotech ones. Some are beyond rescue, but surely there must be some that can be helped to upgrade to meet the new business and manufacturing requirements of high-end products. I hope our special Committee on Remaking of Singapore will look into this. Perhaps they can involve the Enterprise Promotion Centre to help. Do not write off manufacturing too fast, because employment in this sector is high, and if we can lend a helping hand, we should and this will be able to protect job losses in this sector. We must capitalise the expertise of EDB, our universities and industry experts to help such companies to upgrade, and thus preserve jobs. Sir, I am advocating a balanced approach to transform our economy because many of our people are not able to cope with the speed of change we expect of them.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I shall be as brief as possible. After an overwhelming victory of 75%, the people's expectation of the Government is very high, and the task of meeting this expectation is challenging and daunting. Challenging because many changes to our economy and institutions are being made, and daunting because these changes bring a lot of uncertainty and pain to our people. Yet, not to do so would be like an ostrich hiding its head in the sand. We change because the world has changed since September 11. Business methods are changing, so our financial institutions and banking instruments will have to change. Manufacturing is no longer assembly work, but innovation, design, research-based. Biotech is slowly going to replace even our wafer fab, because the latter has reached an over supply stage. And we cannot compete with China as it has more of the wafer fab plants. In the past, Indonesia and Malaysia served as our hinterland, but geopolitics and competition have changed all that. Our ports face competition from Malaysia and Indonesia, and so also our airport will soon face very strong competition. We must accept this as part of our neighbouring countries' upgrading and domestic needs, and push ourselves into new frontiers of service and business. I do not foresee the position we enjoyed in the past with our neighbouring countries as ever coming back. So we must change and change fast. Geopolitics and terrorist activities will serve as a backdrop, as we continue with our determination to progress and survive. With these opening remarks, I look at our Budget trying to meet the new circumstances of doing business and helping our people to come along with the Government to meet this new challenge.”
“Sir, my clarification is that these people must make a clear distinction between personality and policy when they bring this matter up. The other clarification is that I am not so obstinate as Kai Yuen said. I support the NCMP, so I am not so stubborn as the Member thinks I am. The other point is that there are many avenues -”
“Thank you. I do not know who spoke. There were so many. Mr Speaker, Sir, I think there is a difference between personality and policy. Some Members who addressed this issue to me, did mention some of the good -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think there are certain points that have been raised, at least I must respond.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, my name keeps cropping up every time when -”
“"Democracy", as Clement Atlee said, "means government by discussion.". Lord Lindsay, in his classic work, Democracy and Discussion, argued that ". anyone with experience of the effectiveness of discussion in a small democratic society must recognise how valuable is the contribution of those who are not easily convinced but can stand up resolutely for their own point of view." Since the introduction of NMPs into this House, many resolute men and women had, together with elected Members, committed their intelligence, expertise and experience in the service of this nation by discussion and debate on issues that affect Singapore's future. In doing so, they helped to fulfil one of the most important aims of Parliament, which is to ensure that the Government acts in the national interest, free of partisan inclinations and local prejudices. With that, Sir, I support the motion.”
“] The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs and Trade and Industry (Mr Raymond Lim Siang Keat): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support this motion. I read the NMP debate on Hansard since 1989. I have read many of the arguments of Dr Tan Cheng Bock in the Hansard. I think what sticks in his throat when it comes to NMPs is that they enjoy the ride but they do not pay the price. And I understand this sentiment. No one is suggesting that the men and women here are not excellent. I think they are absolutely excellent. But the key question that we must ask ourselves on this motion is whether having Nominated Members of Parliament in this House will serve the national interest. Do NMPs add to the public welfare that we, as elected representatives of the people, have been entrusted with? My view is that it does. If we take the position, which I believe is shared by many Members in this House, that a vital role of Parliament is as a debating Chamber on issues that affect the public welfare, then the addition of Nominated Members can only further this cause. To arrogate this right to debate, to review and question the Government to only elected representatives is not to add but to take away from the public interest. It is precisely because we believe the discussion on public affairs should not be the exclusive preserve of political leaders, but a right as well as an obligation of citizens that various initiatives have been launched to engage the public in matters that affect their lives and future. Feedback, dialogue sessions, the Remaking Singapore Committee and the Economic Review Committee are but manifestations of this belief. The Nominated Members of Parliament provision gives institutional recognition to this in the highest deliberative assembly in the country.”
“Singaporeans read and watch us on television. So, everything that we say and do here is examined in the living room, and they take the cue from us. So they listen to all of us. Many Members call for Singaporeans to be prepared for a change in lifestyle, to take risks, to go into business areas where nobody dares to go. And we always tell them, "Don't worry. If you fail, jump up, start again." So we are risk advocators. We have to ask ourselves how Singaporeans are going to react on the way we vote on this scheme. We are asking to approve a scheme to accept non-risk-takers as Members of Parliament. So it contradicts what many Members are saying in this House. We must think very carefully whether we want non-risk-takers to come into this House. Non-risk-takers are afraid of elections. They are afraid of being challenged by the electorate. They are afraid of abuses. But you all are prepared to go through. You went through and you came out of it strong, and you are all here. We must send a correct message to the ground. And if the ground thinks that we have a double standard, then we are all hypocrites. We cannot have a double standard. You cannot say that you can take risk, I cannot take risk. Why can I not take risk? Because I am a professional, I am well heeled, but I am afraid you can take risk. You do not belong to that category. To me, it is a double standard. Finally, this time round, the Whip is lifted. I know Prime Minister has spoken about the Whip. And PAP Members here are not stupid as to bring down the Government, but this issue is not a life-and-death issue. This issue is to bring in non-risk-takers into this House. So, if Members want to agree to have non-risk-takers, then vote for it. But I will vote against it. [Applause.”
“How can the elected unionists have a nominated unionist sitting side by side, listening to him, cautioning and advising our Minister for Manpower? Surely there must be something that is not correct. I am sure that our unionists here, Yeo and others, will all agree with me that they all can do a very good job. And yet the very people that cannot get representation - the hawkers, the shopkeepers, the taxi drivers and so on - either they do not know the system or because they are not familiar with the procedure. I wanted to know why. So I spoke to a former Nominated MP, Gerard Ee. He said that there is some eliteness in our selection process, which is quite true, because we are biased towards the professionals. So, who are they representing? We are missing a big group of people outside clamouring to come in, and we are not giving them representation. It is not fair. While listening to the Prime Minister, it suddenly dawned on me that this system could be a backdoor entry for religious and racial politics. The Prime Minister said that we are in charge. Yes, we are in charge. Let me tell you that some enlightened ones will study our selection process. They will be wise to how we select, and they will train themselves to present in a very acceptable form for this selection committee. And before long, we will get someone very well educated, but he is a proxy representation of maybe one of the terrorist groups. [Laughter] This is not a laughing matter. It is a remote possibility. But if things can happen now, it can happen later. Why do we take this chance? Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, this House, being the highest legislative body in the land, must send the right signals to Singaporeans. We must remember that in this House, we set policies, we set rules, we make laws.”
“Lack of women was one of the reasons our Prime Minister gave for wanting Nominated Members of Parliament. Now I see 10 women in this House, and Members have all listened to how our 10 women have performed in this House. They are more than adequate. They are women of substance, and we have even included single women. So, I think, we have covered the whole range of women's interests. I ask this House, what more do they want? Alternative voices? We have the Opposition parties here. We have the NCMP. If we expect Nominated MPs to give opposition views, our past experience shows that some of the Nominated MPs are more PAP than the PAP! Mr Speaker, Sir, we cannot artificially create another voice in this House to represent sectoral and functional interests. We are pandering. The moment we start to pander to functional and sectoral groups, we are in trouble, because there is no end to it. Everyone will come knocking at the door every two years asking why he is not represented. And who do we select? They have a whole list of functional groups that are coming in. But I said that if we look at some of the women representatives of the previous nominations, invariably, one must come from AWARE. To me, it is proxy representation for AWARE. Why should this House be used as a platform for them to air their grievances and their views? We select lawyers. I wonder why. We have Davinder Singh - he is great. We have Shanmugam, another great senior lawyer. We have Ravindran, Indranee, Sin Boon Ann. We have so many and yet we want more. I think it is crazy. Mr Speaker, Sir, the worst - I cannot understand - is that we want unionists to enter this House. If I were an elected unionist MP, I will be thoroughly embarrassed.”
“And for the benefit of the new MPs, I quote paragraph 54, page 15, of the Report of the Constitutional Commission 1966: 'It will be a body separate from Parliament, but to which Parliament can look for serious and weighty advice and while having no control over legislation, it will, to the extent of having given its advice, share with Parliament the responsibility for any legislation passed pursuant to such advice. We think the continued practice of a sound democratic system of government in Singapore will best be achieved if our recommendations leave untouched a unicameral legislature which we have at present, where all Members of Parliament are elected by the people by secret vote at elections held at regular intervals of years. In this way the many and grave responsibilities which Members of Parliament taken upon as the elected representatives of the people will rest solely on them.' Even our Senior Minister - I would not quote him - said that no nominated people can give him advice. So, Mr Speaker, Sir, we have seen these two reports and they were crafted by non-parliamentarians and yet, today, we are asking parliamentarians, all of you here, to endorse this Nominated Members scheme. Sir, 30 years have passed since those reports. This Parliament is very different. Members of the House are experts in their own field. Like I said, we have experts in finance, health, law, business and even unions. The fear of no minority representation has been taken care of. We have the Presidential Council on Minority Rights to make sure that all legislation in this House must pass through their hands to make sure that there is no discrimination against minority interests. Then we have the GRC system to ensure that minority representation is guaranteed in this House.”
“I have watched NMPs perform in this House. Yes, some of them were good at articulating issues, but no better than our Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, Mr Tharman Shamugaratnam, Dr Wang Kai Yuen, Assoc. Prof. Chin, so many of you here. So if we ask ourselves, are they better than all of us, and if they are better than any one of us here, you let them in. Because some of you are new here, let me bring up some of the things I said in this House 10 years ago. It is still relevant. We had Nominated MPs in Parliament. It was not called Parliament. It was called the Singapore Legislative Assembly and there was a recommendation by the Rendel Commission. The Rendel Commission recommended four, two to make sure that the minority interests are taken care of, and two to make sure that trade and business matters are taken care of. I am sure you can quite understand. In 1954-1955, what was Singapore? We were a third-world country. We did not have so many PhDs. Education was very low. Therefore, we can expect that these people were there to oversee their interests. We can understand that. But there was an overriding clause that that feature was to be a transient feature, and that it would not be permanent. And this non-permanent feature was later examined by another Commission. This Commission was chaired by the former Chief Justice Wee Chong Jin in early 1966, which examined whether a council of nominated people called the Council of State should be a part of Parliament. They were non-elected people, and their primary function was to make sure, again, to check on minority rights.”
“" But this is part of the hustings and we have to go through it. At the end of the day, we develop a certain inner strength in us. We develop thick skin, as the Prime Minister said. We learn to handle abuses but we gain the respect. These experiences will mould and change us, but also help us to tackle issues and to manage crisis. So we Members in this House deserve to come into this place because we made it, we earned it, we have the mandate. Do we want people nominated to come into this House and enjoy what you have fought so hard to earn a place here? You better think twice. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have once asked a Nominated Member of Parliament why he wanted to come to this House. He was silent. He said he was not interested in politics. So I asked him, "Do you know what this Chamber is?" In this Chamber, every discussion is political in nature. So I do not understand why a person, who is not interested in politics is prepared to come into this Chamber, which is a political Chamber, as I have said. Mr Speaker, Sir, we want men of substance, not men of words in this House. In the last four days, we have heard numerous speakers in the House giving their views on the remaking of Singapore and they addressed a wide range of issues, from high-tech to the bread and butter issues, and even to what is happening in the region, terrorists, tudung and so on. And there were no NMPs in this House. I wonder whether anyone of you felt you missed their presence. I did not. The ideas and issues raised by all of you in this House would give the Ministries a lot of work to do, and they will be kept busy for a long, long time. Yet, we were told by the Leader of the House, in the last debate, that they needed non-elected Members to give us alternative views.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to urge Members of this House not to support the motion moved by the Leader of the House. Mr Speaker, Sir, Parliament is an elected institution and we must keep it that way. Each Member in this House fought their way through an electoral process involving nine hard days of campaigning and countering many traumatic moments of electioneering. Some who fought lost and are left out of this Chamber. There were risks taken, like giving up comfortable jobs to venture into this political arena. If we had lost in Jurong, our hon. Member, Mr Tharman would be jobless because he left MAS. I am sure that he must have some moments when he asked himself why he got into this when matters got very hot in Jurong. But he went through the hustings and I am sure he felt a sense of pride and joy when he won. He told me that he felt very humbled, just like what I felt when I won my first election in 1980. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee, my good friend, fought very hard and he lost a lot of weight, but he won. So also my good friend, Assoc. Prof. Low Seow Chay. Steve, you gave him a hard fight, but you lost. At every election, we go round to campaign for votes in trucks, lorries, we walk, we run. Every time we meet somebody, we ask them, "please vote me". It takes a lot of courage to ask somebody, "please vote for me". Those who have not gone through an election do not understand, but most of us, who have gone through would realise how difficult it is for us to ask somebody to vote for you. And when they go knocking at the doors, sometimes when people open the door to you, they do not offer you pleasantries. They call you - I do not know whether it is unparliamentary language, Mr Speaker - "PAP bastards, you get out!”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, with regard to discharging of patients, is it because of the present case mix policy, meaning there is a specific period of stay that a patient will get subsidy from the Government, after which there will be no subsidy? So I am wondering whether the patients are being discharged for this purpose to make sure that the hospitals do not have to pay on their own to treat those overstayers.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, can I ask the Minister whether we could convene Parliament one month after the General Elections, so that Parliament can be operationally ready in case there are urgent matters to discuss? I am sure Members of this House are fully aware that many issues happened after the General Elections, and this House has got no opportunity to discuss all these issues. Therefore, I would request that following General Elections in future, at least a month, we should all be sworn in and this House will be ready to tackle urgencies. Another question, Sir, is whether this is going to be the trend.”
“ADJOURNMENT OF DEBATE Resolved, That the debate be now adjourned. - [Dr Lee Boon Yang].”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I know I am not scheduled to speak. But when I stood up to speak, I was stopped by you, Sir. I had only wanted to caution my good friend, my fellow MP Inderjit Singh, on his choice of words. He made a good speech. Throughout his speech, I was feeling very uncomfortable in his call for economic colonisation. He belongs to the new generation of Singaporeans. He did not live under the colonial days, and economic colonisation may be a new economic buzzword - am I right? I am not so sure. But I live at a time when Singapore was a colony, and the British were our colonial masters. And the word "colonisation" has a very strong emotive meaning, not only for my generation but also for the generation of those people across the Causeway and in Indonesia, and also in many other countries not only within this area but just a little bit further from the two countries which have just got rid of their colonial masters. Therefore, the words "economic colonisation" could be misconstrued and misinterpreted by many people, and we coming to invest with a colonial mentality when we go there to do business. We must not allow this to happen. That is why I chose to speak. And I am sure Mr Inderjit Singh never had this in his mind. He may be quite innocent, but these two words could carry a very wrong connotation. Mr Speaker, Sir, we are a small nation with some economic clout, but we are nothing compared to the US, nothing compared to Japan, nothing compared to Europe. We do not have their might and influence. So we should get our perspective right. We are only trying to find niche markets in this global economy. So, let us just do that, and do it in a quiet and humble way. I support the motion moved by Mrs Lim Hwee Hua.”
“No, I just want to caution him on the word "colonisation". I think the word connotes very different meanings. His meaning is economic colonisation. We were once a colony, and our colonial masters were the British. I do not want our Singapore ---”
“I listened to Mr Inderjit Singh and all his comments. They were good comments.”
“We found out that there was one employer who had several employment pass holders at $2,000 washing dishes and plates. I do not think he was really paying $2,000. The employer said that he was paying $2,000 and I do not know what else the foreign worker might have been doing. But if an employer is really paying $2,500, then I do not think the foreign worker is a bottle or dish washer. He will be doing a proper job as a proper professional. And the requirement is not just the salary but that he has an acceptable degree. So what we are looking for is the quality of the person who comes in, and even if the price is somewhat lower, he makes a contribution and he adds to the mix of people available in Singapore to be employed. And if you exclude them, you will be worse.”
“MOM's estimate is that the $200 million will support 20,000 places and, of these, about one-third will go to retrenched professionals and executives. All of them are meant to be for older workers, if you interpret "older" to mean 40 and above. Of these older workers, we hope one-third will be retrenched professionals and executives, but MOM cannot be sure because we are ramping up the programme from quite a small pilot project. There is a lot of interest. We will push hard to encourage employers to take it. And I hope the unions will also push from their side to encourage their union members to take it up. Ms Braema asked whether training programmes were effective in helping retrenched workers. Mr Chiam See Tong, more pungently, asked whether retrenched programmes were doing any good. According to an MOM and NTUC survey last year, three out of four retrenched workers who took up full-time SRP training were able to secure re-employment within 3-6 months after their training. Mendaki did a survey of retrenched workers whom they had sponsored for full-time SRP training, and 70% were re-employed within three months. In this downturn, it will take longer. Jobs are harder to come by. But at least the results are promising and I think we should press on with them. Next, we come to foreign talents. Mr Simon Tay says that the employment pass criterion of $2,500, which is about the starting salary for graduates, may be too low. I think what we are looking for is a cut off which is not too low, but really we are not looking to price the foreign graduates out of the market. We want foreign graduates of a certain quality, and the $2,500 is really an indication of the kind of graduate we are bringing in and also the kind of job which the foreigner is doing.”
“The answer is that we already contract out soft contracts to the private sector. For example, the civil service needs training and development programmes and these are open to competition by all service providers and the Civil Service College has to compete for the training dollar. They do not automatically get their contract, they have to compete. They are on a self-funding basis and they have to be better than the other suppliers in order to get the contract. Furthermore, the accelerated infrastructure projects already include soft IT projects, like software development for schools and for hospitals; like the Ministry of Health's cancer registry and the central immunisation registry. These will be open for bidding by local companies. We have included some soft projects there. Mr Chiam wanted pump priming to also include schools. I sympathise with that but, in fact, in terms of schools, we are already building as many as we need and as many as we can build. The Ministry of Education has a regular planning pipeline. The Fifth Secondary School Building Programme, with $332 million to build seven or eight new schools by 2005, has started, but no school has been completed yet. So that is going full steam ahead. Then, there is the Fifth JC Building Programme, which is $139 million, starting in 2002, to build three JCs by 2006. These had already started before this package, but what is in this package is an acceleration of the construction of the regional ITE campus. We agree with him that education is an area where it makes sense to bring forward infrastructure construction, and we are pushing on. Next, queries on employment assistance. Mr Hawazi asked how many older retrenched professionals and executives will benefit from the People for Jobs Traineeship Programme.”
“It will not be the last adjustment but you cannot not do anything throughout the cycle. There are adjustments we can make, even though they are not fully effective. Mr Simon Tay asked whether we need the 80% rule and whether we can leave it to the market. The answer is that we would like to leave things to the market as much as possible but most countries have a restriction on the degree to which you can lend against property for mortgage loans. There is a reason for this because, if you lend 100%, the risk to the bank goes up. And if there is a downturn, first, the buyer has less equity put in, he has not put his own cash in, the chances of his saying, "Let's default. I will lose nothing. It is the bank's money anyway." will be greater. It is no loss, I buy a property, I borrow 100%; if the value goes up, I collect the upside, if the value goes down, the bank carries the can. We want him to have 20% standing there. Secondly, if, in fact, the value goes down and the bank does carry the can with the 20% buffer, the bank has some comfort that it will be able to recover the loan. From MAS' point of view, from the banking system's point of view, that is very important. So I think there is a reason for the 80% limit, which is valid in an up-cycle as well as in a down-cycle, and we should not change it just to deal with this temporary problem. There is more to the issue than what I have explained. It is quite a complicated matter. The developers have discussed this several times with MAS and MAS will be putting out a somewhat fuller reply and you can study that, and we can discuss it again. Next, acceleration of infrastructure projects. Mr Leong Horn Kee asked for pump priming to include soft projects for local companies.”