Tan Soo Khoon
Singapore
“May I just seek your indulgence and the Ministers for me to raise a little clarification? I raised the point about the absence of a medical officer at Changi Naval Base when the incident at sea happened last year.”
“We all look forward to its people obtaining their legitimate right to democracy and freedom, though I must add here that it should not necessarily be the kind we now see in some other Southeast Asian countries where democracy, unfortunately, has been taken to mean fluctuating between people demonstrating on the streets and the threat of m…”
“The West is unable to accept that it will soon be overtaken by the emergence of Asian powerhouses and fears that it will become irrelevant in an increasingly globalised world it refused to wake up to.”
“They are committed to Singapore and they want to do their National Service, but they just want MINDEF to exercise flexibility when they request for deferments. Mr Speaker, recently, MINDEF granted a deferment of three months to one Mr Stanley Aw to allow him to participate in the Singapore finals of the World Cyber Games.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this issue of the revenue pooling between the two airlines of Singapore and Malaysia is not a new issue. But can I ask why is it that in this era of competition and trade liberalisation, we are still allowing the two airlines to have this archaic policy of revenue sharing which, in fact, results in higher prices for trave…”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, does the Minister of State believe that it is in the interest oftravellers between the two countries to allow what is essentially a cartel made up of MAS and SIA to exist?”
The complete record
Every one of 656 lines we hold for Tan Soo Khoon, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 14.
“How could you expect to draw visitors to artificial beaches and an ageing musical fountain? So, we definitely have to work harder to bring in the visitors if we are not to be left behind. Time and again, members of the public have made suggestions as to how we could make Singapore more appealing to tourists. One thing I know is that we need not ape what others do. We must continue to think of original ideas and capitalise on our strengths to make ourselves an appealing destination, and ideas such as promoting health tourism and providing top class entertainment would help us achieve it. Sir, we are still working hard to find a formula that would make us different. I mentioned once in this House that what we need are things not only unique to Singapore, but also authentic, and I quoted the example of Little India which offers that ethnic authenticity that would be hard to duplicate anywhere else. It is a little messy place perhaps, but it gives that flavour of originality that offers charm and arouses curiosity. We know it is not an easy task to be increasingly creative to compete for the tourist dollar. Neither could we rely on the same tried and tired formula by simply repackaging it under a new slogan. But one thing I know we should not do, Sir, and this brings me now to once again revisit the subject of the casino. Reading in between the lines of what the Prime Minister has said, I am a bit worried that the decision is already tilting in favour of having a casino. You could call it an integrated resort, but I think it is just a red herring. It would still be the casino that would be the centrepiece of this project.”
“You see, Sir, if one charges too high, nobody comes and one could not compete. If one charges too low, one gets high occupancy rates, but does one make money? Small wonder that we fail to attract visitors to stay longer. Take the tourists from China, for example. The numbers are up - from 600,000 two years ago to over 800,000 last year. But most tour operators would tell you that many of them do not even get to spend a night here. They come in, visit what you call the free attractions like the Merlion and Mount Faber, do a little shopping so that the tour operator could earn his commission, and then they are whisked off to Johore Bahru to stay the night because the hotels there are cheaper. So they do not actually stay in Singapore and spend more money that we want them to. Sir, the question of land cost aside, we also need to be more innovative in how we package our tourism products. We may have missed several opportunities in the past. We could have hosted the Formula One event, something that is estimated to bring in about a billion ringgit to the Malaysian economy each year the race is held in Sepang. Or, we could have built a super theme park, like what Hong Kong is now completing - a Disneyland that would boost its annual tourist arrivals of 21 million last year, by a few million more over the next few years, not to mention the many new jobs that would be created. But our record of tourist attractions leaves much to be desired. We have what I call the neither-here-nor-there theme parks like the Haw Par Villa and the Tang Dynasty Village. I think we all read about it over the weekend in the Sunday Times and so we know what they are like. Even Sentosa has somewhat lost its lustre.”
“People are, in fact, moving away from investing in hotels to elsewhere. Sir, are our businessmen not seeing investments in tourism as attractive propositions? Many have cited the high costs of land and rentals in Singapore as reasons why they would rather put their money in other sectors. The Government, therefore, needs to ensure that investments in leisure and other like attractions are not hampered by high land costs. I am reminded of the time in 1997 when the Government put up the old General Post Office for tender to attract developers to convert the building into a 5-star hotel. Today, it is the Fullerton Hotel. At that time, when tenders closed, the highest bidder at $55 million was rejected because the Government felt it was too low. So, to be sure, a new tender was called and this time the Government got double the amount, $110 million to be exact, which is not a bad thing if you think that the Government extracted the maximum value for the building. But I am not sure whether it is working out to be a worthwhile return on investment for its developer. Another case in point is the piece of land at the junction of Orchard Road and Patterson Road - Orchard Turn, just above the MRT station. We have heard much about how this piece of land, which is about two-thirds the size of Ngee Ann City, could be developed into a defining point for Orchard Road and it would certainly add buzz to the area. If I recall correctly, this piece of land was tendered out in 1992 but, because the reserve price was too high, there were no takers. So one of the steps we need to take to stimulate bigger investments in this sector again is by making sure those who venture into the businesses of hotels, entertainment, restaurants, nightclubs, shops, deem it worthwhile to do so.”
“And it is not just a few more night zoos or underwater worlds elsewhere that threaten us. Take Dubai, for instance. Only a few short years ago, you only hear of people going to Dubai for business, and that is only if you have business in the Middle East. Heavy investment in infrastructure has transformed Dubai into an attractive business and tourist destination in a short time. Its luxurious hotels and mega malls surpass many in other countries in quality and appeal. I am told that their top hotel there is such a great attraction that if you are not a guest staying in the hotel, you would have to pay something like US$100 just to go in to admire its glitter and splendour. And it is not just Middle East Arabs flocking to Dubai. I am told that even Singaporeans and other Asians are beginning to see Dubai as an alternate holiday destination. Dubai is also going after the lucrative meetings, incentives, conventions and exhibitions market. By 2010 it aims to receive 15 million visitors, which would surpass our own projected arrivals for that year. Now, who would have foreseen only a few short years ago, that this tiny oasis in the desert, known to many Singaporeans as just a convenient stopover for refuelling, on the way to Europe, would challenge us as a tourist destination? Sir, in contrast, investment in tourism in Singapore has not been increasing. In fact, it has been falling. The same paper points out that fixed asset investment in attractions in Singapore dropped to an average of $63 million a year between 1995 and 2001, as compared to $168 million a year, in the early 1990s. Sir, add to this the several conversions of good class hotels like the Marco Polo, the Imperial and the ANA into condominiums, and you see a very dismal picture of investments in this sector.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am pleased to note that the Government will continue to actively promote tourism. This is in recognition that the tourism sector offers tremendous opportunities for Singapore and for those who are connected either directly or indirectly with the industry. On the surface of it, last year's 8.3 million arrivals generating $9.6 billion in tourism receipts and contributing 3% to our GDP is a lot to cheer about. It marks a turnaround from the SARS year of 2003. But let us look at these figures in a larger context. The paper published by the Singapore Tourism Board states that in 1993, tourism receipts were more than $11 billion. And by 2002, that is the year before SARS, then has already shrunk to $8.8 billion, or a drop of 21%. The sector's contribution to GDP then was 6% but, today, it is half of that. This report also stated that this falling trend occurred against a backdrop of growing tourism traffic in the East-Asia Pacific region. And it is stated that Singapore's share of total tourism receipts in the region between 1998 and 2002 actually fell from 8.2% to 5.2%, which means to say that we are losing out in the race for the tourist dollar to other countries in this vast region. So something must have gone wrong for us in the past 12 years or so. The first thing to note is that the competition has intensified. Our neighbours too recognise the importance of tourism to their economy and they often target the same markets as we do, often with slick campaigns to match or better ours. Perhaps, Malaysia's "Truly Asia" sounds more all embracing than our "Uniquely Singapore". Of course, as the Prime Minister has pointed out, they have copied many of the things we have done, and even done them better.”
“Let us work to make a visit for the tourist to Singapore "Uniquely Singapore" because, given the mushrooming of casinos in the region, having one will not make us any more unique. Sir, if some years down the road, having walked away from this idea, we find that for some reason we did make a wrong call, I would be content to know that we erred on the side of caution.”
“But we decided that this is not our way because we want this to be a place where our families would be safe, and where our children can grow up with the correct values instilled in them. We talk of putting in place safeguards. Is it not recognising that there will be problems? So, why create the problems? It is like closing the stable doors after the horses have bolted. Sir, the Singapore way of life is important not just to us, to all citizens, but to all those who view us from outside, people round the world know what we stand for. Let me illustrate my point with an example. Everyone knows that the Disney Corporation of America stands for good clean fun for the family. When other movie moguls use sex as a lure, Disney movies remain pure family fare that you know you can bring your kids to. For a huge corporation like Disney, it would have made more fast bucks if it had opened casinos, maybe even nightclubs or, as Dr Balakrishnan says, opened little poky gambling dens, but no, it chose to be what it is today - a name associated with good clean fun for one and all, for the whole family. So, just like Disney, we must ensure that our Singapore remains one which is wholesome for all, one which is safe and clean, and which can still provide entertainment for all. This is the image that Singapore has in the eyes of the world, one which we have painfully carved and carefully nurtured over many years. Some people criticise us and say that we are too clinically clean. I say, never mind, I think we can certainly live with that. Without a casino, we can still continue to develop our tourism products and market them correctly and keep those tourists coming. Not everyone travels to gamble.”
“He pointed out to me that even the SICC, whose members include the elites of Singapore - Ministers, MPs, corporate leaders, professionals - has little say in running their club because the Government, through the PUB, appoints its President and Treasurer, even the Club's captain, and all of them have to report to the Chairman of the Club, again someone appointed by the PUB. So the question that Dr Balakrishnan posed must be further addressed by another one; to what extent is the Government prepared to let go and allow its own citizens to make their own decisions? Sir, to be fair, I have, in the past 10 years or so, observed more participation by the public in national debate, and we have allowed this to take place even on sensitive matters. Whether it is in public fora, letters to the press or over radio talk shows, I have seen this gradual opening of more space for Singaporeans to engage in vigorous debates and to arrive at national consensus on many issues, and I want this to continue. There could not be a better example of this opening up, giving more space for us to express our views than this current debate on whether we have a casino or not, which has taken place over the past nine months. So, back now to the casino. Dr Balakrishnan says that this is not about money versus values. It is not as simple as that. I differ. In fact, it is about money versus values. Sir, mine is not the voice of morality, but I must remind the House that Singapore got to where it is today not by taking easy options but through sheer doggedness and hard work. We could have taken short cuts, maybe we could have just simply taken an easy way and become the sleaze capital of Southeast Asia, and then you do not have to worry too much about filling those tourist numbers.”
“" Sir, it is therefore not surprising that many Singaporeans understand from these words that the Government has, in fact, made up its mind about having a casino. After all, it is not everyday that the Singapore Government conducts studies, reveals details, invites interested parties to briefings and to submit proposals if a project was a non-starter to begin with. Sir, I could not agree more with Dr Balakrishnan that we should allow Singaporeans to be responsible and let them make choices. But there are many issues, not just the casino, where we could do well to allow our citizens to make their own choices and to make decisions for themselves, and I do not mean just allowing them to dance on bar-tops or to bungee jump. By framing the issue into questions of choice and responsibility, the Government deftly shifts the onus to its citizens. So the nanny state, as many say, which determines that its grown-up citizens who have worked all their lives cannot be entrusted fully with their savings and must keep a minimum amount in their CPF accounts, is now prepared - and, Sir, may I say that I am not arguing here about the merits or demerits of the minimum sum scheme, but how do you reconcile that - to say that our people should be responsible enough to make their own choices as to how to spend their money at the gambling tables. I met a friend the other day who, like me, is a member of the Singapore Island Country Club, and he told me how amused he was by this ongoing debate.”
“Sir, sometime in the 1990s - I cannot remember exactly which year it was - I was in Melbourne and I visited what was then their newest casino. I did not get there by accident - in fact, I asked to be taken there. And what I saw were many young people at the jackpot machines, and many more at the gaming tables. I can still remember that day very well. It was a weekday afternoon, and I asked who these people were, what they were doing there on a weekday afternoon when they should be at work. The reply I got from our guide was that they were all mostly locals, and that this was a common sight even on a weekday. Sir, when the Government first announced the possibility of a casino in Singapore, that scene in Australia played back in my mind over and over again. I have often found myself asking whether this is what we want for Singapore. And as the days passed by, I am convinced more and more that this is not the way for us to go. Like many other Singaporeans, I have also pulled the one-armed bandit and put down some chips on the roulette table in a casino in another country. But to have one in our own backyard where close proximity makes temptation difficult to overcome, well, Sir, that is a different story. Much has already been said about whether Singapore should or should not have a casino outside the House and I shall not be repeating these views today. But Dr Vivian Balakrishnan adds a new element to the debate when he says that this is an issue that will show whether we are now a mature society, and I quote him, "whether we can trust the majority to act responsibly, to exercise common sense and to make their own choices as to how they wish to spend their disposable income.”
“What happened on that day was that the Government had to arrange for a Member of the then Legislative Assembly, a Mdm Sahorah bte Ahmat, who was in hospital, to be carried by ambulance to the old Parliament building. She was brought up in a stretcher to the second level where she had to rest in her room and after a few minutes, she had to be helped into the Chamber to cast that important vote. As it turned out, the Government won the day, but it was by a very narrow margin. In a House of 51 Members, the Government obtained 27 votes, as opposed to the 24 Members who either voted against the motion of confidence or who abstained. So the Government won the day. And it was very clear then that a Member had to be physically present in the House. Imagine if we have a similar situation some day down the road, can the Member who cannot be around to cast a crucial vote, one that might perhaps also determine the survival of the government of the day, claim his right to do so via video, because the precedent had already been set last year that physical presence is not necessary for your attendance in the House to be recorded? Sir, I therefore would like to urge the Standing Orders Committee to address this very important issue. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am all for making changes to keep up with changing circumstances. But I must say that I am very disturbed if the changes do not make the playing field more level for both sides of the House and, particularly, if they are being made under the guise of making the House more efficient.”
“In many instances, there is just about enough time to make an introduction to what you are going to say. So where is the fairness in this? So why is the House now asked to give unlimited time to the Frontbench whereas nothing is being said in this Report about the inadequate time given to Backbenchers? Sir, I have now one last point to raise and which I feel that the Standing Orders Committee has overlooked in its review of the Standing Orders. Sir, this concerns the issue of Members who address the House by video. Last year, during the midst of the fight against SARS, we had four Members addressing us from another room in Parliament - Dr Balaji, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, Dr Ng Eng Hen and Mr Khaw Boon Wan - and another Member, Dr Tan Cheng Bock, addressed us from his home through a video link. These Members were not physically present in the Chamber. But Hansard records them as being present in the House. I raise this as an important matter because one never knows that this might happen again in future. And the question I want to pose is this. Is the Member who is not physically present in the House but speaks to the House via a video link really present in the House? This is significant when you need to take an important vote. If he is deemed to be present, can he then be allowed to cast a vote via video? I highlight this because, some day in the future, this may have deep repercussions for us. And I want to bring the House back to that crucial day in July 1961, to be exact, 21st of July 1961. The Government tabled a motion in this House, a motion for the House to express confidence in it. If that motion had fallen, Singapore would have been in a chaotic situation and the history of the country might have been different.”
“Sir, for Members of the House, most of us, particularly new Members of the House, the Oath-taking ceremony is a matter of pride. It is a matter of pride to be able to stand here at this Table individually and to take their Oath or Affirmation. And what are we going to have in future, Sir? It reminds me of a big wedding party where the happy families of the bride and bridegroom decide that perhaps it is too much to go round greeting all the guests and everybody then goes on to the stage, shout three yam sengs and then the job has been done. Sir, while on one hand, the Committee is concerned that the time of the House be more efficiently spent, it appears to me very strange that it proposes that in debate in the Committee of Supply - and this, I think, was left out in the speech by the Deputy Leader - a Minister or Parliamentary Secretary would now be entitled to speak without any time limit. With due respect to some of the Ministers, we all know that they have a lot to say. But, sometimes, we also know that their answers can be rather long and winding ones, even irrelevant. But surely, it is stretching the patience of those of us on this side of the House to understand from this recommendation that the Frontbench would now be given carte blanche as far as time is concerned in the Committee of Supply. How does this contribute to the efficiency of debates in the COS? What about the Backbenchers? Already, in recent years, the time given to MPs to raise their topics has been curtailed. In this year's debate, MPs were given something like two minutes to make their speeches. As anyone, and surely the Ministers, would know, these two minutes would hardly be enough for one to make a proper speech.”
“The Deputy Leader of the House, earlier on, gave examples of the limitations to such questions - he quoted the examples in the Lok Sabha of India, the Parliaments of Malaysia and Canada - but, I think, he conveniently left out the fact that the Lok Sabha has 545 Members, that the Malaysian Parliament has 193 Members and that the Canadian Parliament has 301 Members. What are we? We are 94 Members and we do not sit as often as all these other Parliaments. So why do we want to tell ourselves that we do not have the time, or we do not have the resources to deal with too many questions? Sir, it is this obsession with trying to make ourselves too efficient in this House to the extent that our rights to be heard are sacrificed, that worries me. Sir, if these proposals are to go through, it would appear that the Standing Orders Committee or, in fact, the Government is coming across as being too impatient. Even the ringing of the Division Bells has been shortened from two minutes to one minute, without taking into cognisance of the fact that we are now in a much bigger building. And if you happen to be at one end of the building, Sir, try to run to this Chamber to cast your vote within one minute! Members will, in future - this is another example of how impatient we can become - face the prospect of not having their Oaths of Allegiance taken individually at this Table but, instead possibly, as the Deputy Leader has said, in groups or as one whole group in a manner to be determined by the Speaker. Yes, Sir, the current Oath-taking procedure is time consuming. But it takes something like 90 or 100 minutes of our time in five years. Is that too much to ask?”
“And for this year, so far, until the last sitting in September, there were only 49 written answers that were given by the Frontbench. Are these numbers too great for Ministers to handle or, for that matter, for our civil servants to provide the facts and figures that are needed? In fact, Sir, what is a written answer? A written answer is a piece of paper containing an answer. It does not consume the time of the House, as it is an answer that is circulated to Members and, today, it is done by electronic means, but it provides a wealth of useful information that Members of the House and the public would like to know and are entitled to know. In fact, it puzzles me that, at the last sitting - and I want to sidetrack a bit - there was a question filed by Mr Chiam See Tong for written answer regarding the recruitment of pilots by Singapore Airlines, and it was an answer which was not dealt with, it was not answered adequately. Mr Chiam had asked for the percentage of pilots who are foreigners and the number of Singapore pilots whose application to work for SIA had been rejected. Sir, the written reply that we all got was that Mr Chiam should write to SIA for that information because this is a public company. Sir, I beg to differ. The people, through the Government, and, in turn, through Temasek Holdings, own shares in Singapore Airlines. And since the issue of the pilots has in fact been made one of public interest, Mr Chiam's question deserved a proper answer. Sir, it was not the first time that a question on Singapore Airlines had been asked in the House. In fact, there had been numerous questions in the past years, and I think the Speaker correctly should have directed the Minister concerned to give a more adequate answer to the House.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think Members of the House would probably agree with me when I say that if there is anybody else in this House who is all for making sure that our proceedings in this House are done in a very efficient way, that would be me. Sir, I agree that there is a need to update our Standing Orders in order to keep up with changing needs. While the recommendations of the Report of the Standing Orders Committee appear routine enough, and I would agree with most of the changes, I think there are some areas which, on closer scrutiny, give rise to some discomfort on my part. Sir, one of the objectives of Standing Orders is to ensure that the proceedings of the House are carried out in a smooth and orderly manner. However, nothing must be done to inhibit the rights of Members, particularly those on this side of the House, on the Backbench, in carrying out their tasks of querying, probing and even criticising the Government because that is what we have been elected to do. It therefore puzzles me as to why the Standing Orders Committee is recommending that there should now be a limitation of five questions that a Member can ask at each sitting. Effectively, this means that if a Member files three questions for oral answer, he is left with only two questions for written answer. Whereas all this time, for many years, there has been no limit on the number of questions for written answer that a Member can file. I ask: has there been a torrent of questions for written answer that the Government has been flooded with that it cannot cope? The record shows that in 2003, and I have a list here, there were just 32 questions which were answered in a written format.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, with these measures that have been announced by the Coordinating Minister for Security and Defence, the House can be very assured that the Government is continually doing all it can to enhance the safety and security of its citizens. We all recognise that security is the responsibility of every citizen, and I am referring to this public document that the Coordinating Minister has just spoken about. Firstly, can I ask the Coordinating Minister whether we can put out this document in a very simplified way and make it available to as many households as possible in Singapore, perhaps to all schools even, so that members of the public are fully aware of what the Government is doing and what role they themselves can play in enhancing the security of the country? Secondly, can I ask whether it is possible for his Ministry to come up with a CD presentation that MPs can use to present to their grassroots leaders so as to communicate the message?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I have several questions for the Minister of State. First of all, are we not making ourselves vulnerable by just depending on one sole supply of gas? Do we have a back-up plan for alternative supply of gas? In fact, more pointedly, I would like to ask why is it that we have never thought of a back-up plan although we had several cases of power failures in the last two years. Why have we not thought of such a back-up plan long ago so as to avoid a systemic failure like the one we experienced on 29th June? Sir, the next point I would like to raise is the question of damage which has been caused to a lot of electronic equipment. In fact, a very angry constituent of mine told me that during the failure on 29th June, his TV set was badly damaged and he had to pay $200 to get it repaired, and he asked me if this keeps happening, who is going to be responsible. So my question is, while it is very well to have increasing penalties imposed on the power supply companies - but this money goes to the Government - could not somebody, whether the power companies or the Energy Market Authority, be made responsible in some way or other for the damage that is being caused to equipment which is owned by consumers and Singaporeans at large?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, if I recall, when we left UNESCO in 1985, we followed the decision of the United States and the United Kingdom. And at that time, it was an issue over the management staff of the organisation and the direction in which the organisation was heading towards. Are these still issues today? Secondly, does it not appear very odd that being a responsible member of the world community and given the fact that UNESCO has 190 member countries, and that the United States and the United Kingdom have rejoined UNESCO, Singapore appears to be the last country holding out?”
“Sir, the Health Sciences Authority in a study on unnatural death in children aged 12 years and below points out that this problem also exists with young children below the age of 12. Between 1997 and 2001, there were 23 cases of suicides of young people in this age group. And it says that this is a cause for concern as this is a phenomenon not seen 15 years ago. Sir, home support, particularly from parents, is essential in providing that essential psychological and emotional ballast for students in coping with life and the accompanying skills. But in modern Singapore where parents have heavy work and career commitments, and where students spend the bulk of their time in their schools, close and warm interaction between teachers and students can be of great help. Sir, it is not a problem that will just go away by saying that there are many causes and we do not know how to deal with it. We raised this issue last year. I think we need to handle this again. By now, the Ministry must come to certain conclusions about, at least, the more recent cases. I hope that the Ministry would now do a serious study and try to take a proactive approach in dealing with this issue.”
“Sir, last August, the House discussed the issue of student suicides and I raise this question again today because what I see is very disturbing. Young people seem to have difficulty getting sufficient help to enable them to cope with the pressures of society or growing up with their studies. Sir, in February this year, there was a case of a 15-year-old female student who was alleged to have stolen a handphone and shortly after she was questioned by the school, she fell from a block of flats. Over a week ago, another 15-year old boy jumped to his death after he was found by his teacher to have been dating another student. According to the press report, his form teacher phoned the parents requesting them to come to school for discussion on the matter. The boy had begged the teacher not to tell the parents, but this was refused and within a short while, the boy had jumped down from a block of flats. Sir, the MOS has informed us that schools have systems to facilitate early identification and support for students who need help and to refer them for counselling. However, with these two cases that I have just mentioned, I feel that something must have gone amiss. I am not here to say what the causes were because I am sure these would be the subject of police investigations. But it does highlight the point that in difficult situations, there could be a system failure. Sir, the majority of teachers are good first-line care givers for their students. But given the work stress that they themselves are faced with, some of them might not be in the best position to provide the type of help that is needed and a counselling session they conduct might just go awry.”
“And this point has been raised time and time again -why can these facilities not be opened to members of the public? It seems such a waste that the sports facilities in schools are only confined to the use of school children. And as Mdm Phua has pointed out, not all school children, in fact, many school children, are denied the use of the facilities. So during non-school hours, especially on weekends, why can we not allow members of the public to use such facilities? I know the answer given by the principals is that there is a cost to maintaining such facilities and they cannot allow these facilities to be used by the public. But I am just, once again, urging the Minister to come to some working arrangements with the Ministry of Education, so that our people can have better access to the sports facilities in our schools. 3.30 pm”
“I know that we are now in these days of belt-tightening, cutting down budgets everywhere across the board. But it seems to me that funding for sports has taken a big chunk of the beating. In 2002, we allocated a sum of $47 million to fund the Singapore Sports Council and its programmes. In 2003, we had a reduction of 11% and the amount allocated was down to $41 million. And this year, in 2004, we are down by another 7% to only $39 million. In last year's Budget book, the reason given for the decrease was that it was due to a reallocation of resources for the Sporting Singapore programme. This year, when I checked the Budget book, exact words were again used to account for the reduction in expenditure. I am quite puzzled as to what is meant by the decrease is due to a reallocation of resources. All I can see is that if we continue to cut down the budget for sports funding year after year, I just wonder how we are going to achieve the aims of the Committee on Sporting Singapore Report which was chaired by you, Sir. How are we going to achieve our vision of promoting participation in sports at both recreational and competitive levels? And how are we going to foster a fit and cohesive people in Singapore? So I hope that the Minister will look at this and, perhaps, plead with the Finance Minister to ensure that we do not continue to cut down the expenditure allocated to sportsby such large amounts year after year. I just want to follow up on the point that Mdm Cynthia Phua has raised about encouraging school children to be more active in sports. Here, I want to refer to the question of facilities which are available in our schools. I know the schools have running tracks andthey have football fields.”
“Sir, the SAF has to continue to uphold its image as a professional fighting force capable of defending the nation. We must be sure that our professionalism and our reputation as a fighting-fit force will always be maintained. But, at the same time, we have to assure families that their sons sent for NS to serve the nation will return home safely in one piece. And I hope that the Minister can continue to give this assurance.”
“Sir, last year probably has not been a particularly good year for our armed forces, in terms of incidents that occurred. The year started with the disastrous collision of the naval vessel Courageous with the merchant ship in which four of our servicewomen died. Then came the revelation that three NSmen died in training in August, one of whom was the result of serious breaches in training procedures. These incidents have cast a stain on the reputation of the SAF. Then the revelation of the so-called labelling of "white horses" amongst NSmen has also not helped the image of the SAF. Unfortunately, most people do not buy the explanation that "white horses" were identified so that they do not receive special treatment. So, I think the image of the SAF suffered somewhat during the year. However, the openness in which we discussed the deaths of our NSmen in Parliament shows that the Ministry is serious that it wants to be held accountable for any lapses, and this is very important, especially when we consider that, in the last 10 years, 3,000 NSmen had in fact been injured during training, and a total of 37 had died. We must, therefore, continue to have such open accountability. The availability of the SAF Hotline to report any misconduct or unhappiness in training is encouraging, but some NSmen do not know what is allowed or what is not allowed in training. So, they do not know if there has been a breach of training guidelines or of what the limits are. Then, there are some NSmen who are afraid of reporting their injuries to medical officers, as they fear they may be accused of malingering and giving excuses to skip training. Yet, some of these injuries may have life-long implications in the long term.”
“Sir, I used to enjoy eating this large chunk of otah at my club for breakfast until somebody told me that this otah is probably made in some unlicensed factory or unhygienic place across the Causeway and brought over. Then, at one time, I used to buy at the supermarket char siew pau. They were very cheap - 15 cents - and I used to enjoy eating them until again somebody pointed out that these are probably made under very unhygienic conditions. Maybe that is why they always tasted so good. I find this very disturbing because, on the one hand, we ban the import of pork from Malaysia because of the Nipah virus, but we allow the pork to come in in the form of meat dumplings. Then there is this case of the oyster food poisoning which took place in November when more than 200 people who ate at a 5-star hotel came down with poisoning because they ate raw oysters. Because of that incident, we found that the oysters did not actually come from Australia or New Zealand, but actually came from China. Although we were told that investigations were underway as to what the problem was, whether it was a contamination at source or due to the handling at the hotel, we have not exactly known what has happened. I know that the AVA does a very good job in ensuring very high standards for our food imports, but it is near impossible to check every source of food production or food manufactured overseas. But in view of what I have said, can I just ask the Minister what steps can he take to ensure a better control of manufactured food and food that is imported into Singapore and to ensure that the food we consume in Singapore is always safe?”
“Can I just make a point? Madam, the Minister may have missed a point that I was trying to make, and that is, whether we can ensure that there is tighter supervision at the construction stage. And since we are building so far less HDB flats today, could that not be possible?”
“So while there is a 12-month defects liability period, it can be very frustrating if problems keep cropping up, especially when you are nearing the end of this period. While HDB has assured the public that all flats are subject to quality checks, the question is whether the checks are stringent enough, and whether there is, in fact, adequate supervision. I suspect too that the problem may have to do with our tendering system. Having won the tenders, because they submitted the lowest bids, and faced with rising costs, contractors may be forced to cut corners. And with the construction industry in the doldrums, I would not be surprised that this is the case. Given the fact that HDB builds far less flats today and, if I am not wrong, it is going to be less than 10,000 units this year, surely it would not be too onerous a task to tighten on the quality control.”
“Madam, why are there increasing complaints about the quality of HDB flats? And I am not talking about old flats, but of new ones, where defects seem to appear almost right from the day you get your keys. In recent months there has been a spate of letters to newspapers from new home owners with complaints ranging from cracked tiles, faulty doors, doors that do not close properly, leaks from walls, ceilings, peeling paintworks, choked toilets, etc. When a home owner makes a complaint, it can be a very frustrating wait for rectifications to be made. And, even more so when it upsets their plans to move into their new home. Of course, HDB would refer the complaint to the contractor, but then you will find that the contractor would sometimes make all kinds of excuses. If there is a leaking ceiling the contractor might say that it is due to the renovation works going on upstairs. In fact, one writer complained, when he was told that the reason why the paintwork in his apartment peeled off was that it was due to heat from the sun, but then the sun does not even shine into his flat. Another contractor told a new home owner that the reason his toilet bowl choked was because someone must have thrown something inside. But then the family had not even moved in! And when it was finally fixed, the silicon seal was not applied and the matter was not properly done. When asked why, the contractor said, "Well, this is a HDB flat. What do you expect?" But, Madam, why not? Why cannot HDB flat buyers expect a reasonable quality? They are not talking about high-class condominium quality, but HDB flats today are not cheap either, and surely it is fair to say that when you put in your life-time savings into a dream home, you do not expect to have quality defects from day one.”
“Sir, as we are slightly ahead of time, may I have your permission to speak?”
“If we take a look at, for example, Lan Kwai Fong in Hong Kong, there is nothing oriental about the place. In fact, it is all western-styled pubs and watering holes. But that place has become an icon of night life in Hong Kong. In a way, it has become unique to that territory. Sir, developing tourism has to be all-encompassing because there are all types of tourists, including families. Catering to the rich and famous, as we want to do now, is a good approach because it will help us double, if not treble, our tourism receipts in the years ahead. It will enable us to carve out this very important huge niche market. But we must not forget, at the same time, those who continue to come here with fixed budgets. I say this because with the growth of the low-cost carriers, the no-frills airlines, we can therefore expect a totally new market to grow. We can expect more people to come here looking for just simply, what I call, good deals. While we now switch our focus to an upmarket high spending type of customers, we must not forget that numbers count too. Much of our tourism infrastructure is geared towards the mass market, our lower priced hotels, small restaurants and not everybody is attracted to just the plush resorts or the spas. I hope that we will not forget to remember our focus on this.”
“Sir, last year, when I spoke on this topic, I suggested that we have to focus ourselves on developing a unique identity for Singapore, be it a product or a service or an experience that the tourist can get when he comes to Singapore. I am happy to note that STB has adopted the words "Uniquely Singapore" as a slogan for its new campaign. Likewise, the Minister said yesterday said that the development of Sentosa and the surrounding islands has to be uniquely Singaporean. Yesterday, Ms Irene Ng was a bit heated up over the fact that the Crazy Horse show is coming to Singapore. I too am quite excited about this but in a different sort of way. I will agree with her that there is nothing uniquely Singaporean about this and I do not think tourists will come to Singapore because there is a Crazy Horse show in Singapore and it is really exciting to watch. But I see this as part of an effort to spice things up in Singapore. It is often the case that visitors ask me what is there to do in Singapore at night after dinner. I must admit that the options are limited, unless, having been a Member of this House for so long, I am really out of touch with the nightlife in Singapore. I do remember that some years ago, we had the old Bugis Street. I am not talking about the present Bugis Street. It was an attraction by itself. We still have visitors coming back to Singapore asking where is the old Bugis Street, because it has that type of vibrant nightlife. I am not advocating that we should develop the seedy type of nightlife that we find in places like Bangkok, but I think we should have that kind of places and the kind of attractions that will make visitors remember that they should come back because Singapore is a happening place.”
“Sir, the last point I would like to raise pertaining to road safety has to do with the road works and even things like tree cutting along our roads, especially along the expressways. I think the contractors do place pylons to warn motorists of the danger ahead. As a motorist, I have come across many instances where there are so few pylons that you have to brake very suddenly or you have to switch lanes and this can in itself be a very hazardous act to other motorists who are driving behind me. My question to the Minister is whether there are any regulations to determine the number of pylons that must be placed or a minimum distance ---”
“Sir, last year, there were a total number of 201 fatal road accidents. This is a slight increase over the 190 fatal road accidents in 2002. My concern today is with pedestrians, the second most vulnerable group after motorcyclists and pillion riders. Sir, there were 63 pedestrians who were killed on our roads last year. But what is most alarming is that one out of two pedestrians killed were over the age of 60 years. My question to the Minister is how can we focus our effort on this age group, bearing in mind that the older you get, you tend to be less nimble and less alert. I know that we have road safety outreach programmes. We work very closely with the community groups, such as the Singapore Action Group for Elders. But I believe that much more efforts can be made in this direction so that we can prevent more road deaths in the older age group. Sir, this brings me to my second point and that has to do with jaywalking. I remember that, years ago, we used to take very firm action against jaywalkers. And, of course, a lot has to do also with the way we design our roads. Take, for example, the stretch of North Bridge Road, just in front of the Peninsula and Capitol Shopping Centres. Each time, when I drive past that stretch of road when I come to Parliament, I notice that there are a lot of pedestrians who just dash across the road, just because in this short stretch of road there are three bus stops. For some reasons, very few people are inclined to cross the road at the traffic junction, although the traffic junction is less than 50 metres from the bus stops. Perhaps, roads like this, we cold construct barriers to prevent people from haphazardly crossing the road and compelling them to use the traffic light junctions.”
“Madam, I too would like to join Mr Yatiman Yusof in expressing my concerns about the possibility of terrorist attacks on the high seas around us. He has spoken of the possibility of an attack on our ports. In fact, another possible scenario would also be where a ship is laden with explosives and rams into, say, an oil tanker in the Straits of Malacca, and this would therefore cause a lot of disruption to the passage of ships along the Straits. In fact, a recent report by the Institute of South East Asian Studies has pointed out to the fact that if such an event were to take place, either along the Straits or in our port, the impact, not just on our economy but on the world economy, would be even worse than the 911 attacks on the World Trade Centre. It has been said that half the world's oil passes through the Straits of Malacca and as much as a quarter of world trade, in fact, passes through the Straits as well. One can well imagine the impact of such an act of terrorism on our high seas. I would like therefore to ask the Minister on his overview of the situation. What steps can be taken to further enhance the safety on the high seas? Regional Cooperation on Terrorism”
“Sir, two years ago, I raised the question of ASEAN's relationship with the European Union and I then expressed my concern that EU relations with ASEAN appeared to be drifting further apart. At last year's Asia-Europe Meeting of Foreign Ministers, the EU had pledged to invigorate the relationship and to expand the scope of relations. However, I note that at this summit of Foreign Ministers, EU was represented by only three Foreign Ministers out of a possible 15. The other 12 countries were represented by junior officials. So, while there was a lot of rhetoric on the part of the EU people over how close the EU wanted to be with the ASEAN countries, this absence of important Ministers only enforced the perception that the EU places little importance on such meetings with us and, by extension, even less so on the relations with ASEAN countries. The EU also has been cool to Singapore's proposal of a Free Trade Agreement, unlike other countries. It prefers to have a Free Trade Agreement with ASEAN as a bloc. But it has, at the same time, been quick to add that it will not start negotiations for a FTA with ASEAN until the Doha Round of talks within the WTO is completed, and I think that will only take place probably next year. I would like to ask the Minister, therefore, for his assessment of ASEAN's and Singapore's relations with the EU and how, in his opinion, we can move forward. Assistance to Other Countries”
“Yes, Sir. In fact, the question of ASEAN solidarity has been raised. I would like to ask the Minister therefore whether, in his view, the ASEAN countries now still have the political will to get its act together to meet the challenges ahead, and is there in fact a leadership vacuum to the extent that the organisation is rudderless.”
“Sir, we all know that ASEAN has lived up to the realities of facing competition, particularly from China. We must also seek to regain the confidence of our economic partners, otherwise it is no use to keep on repeating that we have such a large market of 500 million people to offer to investors. Take another example - America's war against Iraq. ASEAN countries have been deeply divided over this and, even in the war against terrorism, as has been mentioned by the other speakers, while every country proclaims itself to be against all acts of terrorism, one can easily detect that some member countries have not quite got their hand on the handle in dealing with this issue because of their own domestic politics. Sir, a very serious question has been raised over the past year.”
“Sir, I too would like to join my colleagues in expressing my concerns about ASEAN. The Minister has earlier spoken about the Bali Summit, from which has emerged the Bali Concord II agreement as well as the idea of establishing an ASEAN Economic Community (AEC). I welcome this objective of setting up the AEC. But my concern is whether we will find out later, as had happened with other agreements in the past, that national interests and sensitivities will impede its progress. The AEC is to be built upon the ASEAN Free Trade Area. But, to recall, Sir, how difficult it has been for AFTA to get off the ground, as in the past years we have had different countries backtracking on their commitments to AFTA. Such reluctance on the part of the countries to go full steam with AFTA can only fuel further scepticism that ASEAN meetings produce lots of rhetoric but, in practice, much less is achieved. Already, the concept of the AEC seems to have gone off to a rocky start with Singapore and Thailand wanting a single market by 2015 while the other countries are settling for 2020, ie, if they do not start making excuses nearer the date. The Minister also spoke earlier about the idea of the "2+X" approach, whereby any two countries can move ahead as long as they want to do so, instead of the old arrangement whereby ASEAN would only move as fast as its slowest member is prepared to go which in fact meant, on many occasions, that quite often, ASEAN could not move fast enough. One must, therefore, ask whether this "2+X" approach undermines ASEAN cohesiveness or does it merely augment the view that ASEAN is just a collection of countries with so many disparate views that its members are more often in disagreement than in agreement.”
“Both my wife and I have had to pursue our own careers but we have shared the joys of parenthood. In raising our children, we had been through their ups and downs with them and we had shared their trials and tribulations. There have been times when they have made me angry but there had been many more moments when they have made me happy and proud. To those who still eschew the idea of having children, let me ask them to look some 30 years into the future and ask themselves what kind of Singapore will we then have. Would it not be a Singapore lacking the vibrancy that we now have? Let me ask them who is going to look after them when they can no longer look after themselves? Sir, there is no one size solution to fit all in this issue. Mr Lim Hng Kiang and his Committee have an unenviable task to find the solutions, and they may not even find them all by National Day but he deserves our support. The problem is such a perplexing one, and it is so crucial for our long-term survival, maybe even more so than Dr Ng Eng Hen, he needs to have his bonus pegged to how successful he can produce babies for us. Sir, no pun intended, of course.”
“And the Government is telling me that there is no such thing as life-long employment, and I am seeing many of my friends becoming unemployed in their mid-40s. So, I think having one child is already dicey enough." Sir, there are many changes that we can make to encourage couples to have children and, no doubt, we will hear many more ideas in the next two days. It is a serious problem we are faced with, and I find it disconcerting to read stories in the newspapers that seem to glorify those who do not want to have children. Sir, last week, the Straits Times ran a series of articles over some days. One story last week showed a couple looking very happy with the headline saying: "No rushing the stork". Next to this was a picture of another couple with their child and it read: "One is enough for now". Then, a few days later - to be exact, last Saturday - there was another story of a journalist smugly proclaiming that although she loved children - other people's children, that is - marriage and having babies were just no-no to her. Another story the same day had another reporter who simply said that she could not stand bawling babies around her, forgetting that all of us at one time or another must have been pesky little kids to another generation of adults. Not only that, she said that having babies would surely put paid to her plans for going on holidays and there was no way anything the Government could do to make her change her mind about having a child. Sir, I think such stories are not helpful to what we are trying to achieve. I think what we need to have is more pro-family stories. Let me say that as one who is a parent, there is nothing more fulfilling than having and bringing up your own children.”
“" Or what about the many Singaporeans who have foreign spouses, but we tell the foreign spouses that "Marriage to a Singaporean does not confer on you the automatic right to live in Singapore"? Many such couples want to start families in Singapore, but our rigid immigration rules do not even allow them to live together. Sir, if we want to make every baby count, we need to re-examine the rationale behind some of these rules and find ways to relax them. Sir, there is another area I am concerned about in the Budget Statement, and this is the intention of the Government to raise fees for university students. While it may be a simple solution to suggest that students need not worry too much about the coming increase in fees as they can always pay later when they are working, the Government may be unwittingly adding to our procreation blues. Can you imagine that we would end up having young people who will already be in debt the day they graduate? Repaying their study loan will of course have to be their priority. This means delaying their ability to marry early and start a home and their family, because there would be the mortgage to think of, and you do not want to think of another loan until you have got the first one off your back. In fact, one would-be parent in his 30s put the problem to me in another way. He said, "If I have a son and I look after him, I will have to look after him for actually a quarter of a century because, by the time he completes his NS and he graduates, he would be close to 25 years of age and I will be close to 60. If I have a second son a few years later, that would take me to over 60 years of age, and I shudder to think if I also have to help them pay their university loans.”
“Sir, with 140,000 maids in Singapore, each attracting a levy of $345 a month, it has actually become a very convenient cash cow for the Government to milk. But then it is parents who suffer because, with the levy, a maid today can cost between $600 and $700 a month. This is no small sum for a young couple. Do they turn to parents for help in raising the child? Not likely because, in many instances, some parents and in-laws would probably still be working. But if we really want to ease the worries of young working couples who need someone to take care of their children when they are at work, then we must lighten the burden of hiring someone. It is not the ideal solution, I agree, to have someone else, not least a foreigner, bring up one's child. But the Government must examine its priority in this area: whether to continue with what is viewed by many as a revenue-raising measure, or whether it wants to achieve a larger social objective. If it is to be the latter, then the Government must be prepared to bite the bullet on this and consider lowering the levy. Sir, while we are talking of foreigners, let me just add how painful it is, as an MP, for me sometimes to come across cases of Singaporeans who are denied permission to marry the person they love because their desired spouse happens to be a work permit holder. On the one hand, we lament the low rate of success of the Government's match-making agency, the Social Development Unit, but we readily deny those who find love on their own, just because one partner happens to carry a card that says, "You are here to work only, and you cannot marry a Singaporean.”
“Much has been made of the reservations expressed about extended maternity leave, not just by employers but even by some women employees themselves. And I do not wish to repeat them here. But let me just add that extended paid maternity leave is a tried formula in many countries that has brought only mixed results. In Italy, for example, a woman gets 20 weeks of paid maternity leave; in Austria, 16 weeks; Hungary, 24 weeks; Spain, 16 weeks; Japan and Germany, both have 14 weeks. Yet, all these countries have Total Fertility Rates (TFRs) close to or below ours. Yes, there are a few countries with long periods of paid maternity leave and higher TFRs. But none has reached replacement fertility. Interestingly enough, the United States and New Zealand are two countries with unpaid maternity leave: 12 weeks in the US, and 14 weeks in New Zealand, and the US has a TFR of 2.11 and New Zealand, 2.01, close to replacement rate. Sir, there are women who feel that long maternity leave is in fact disruptive to their work and careers. Paternity leave has been suggested too, but I think this is probably not a good solution. If our male citizens have to do reservist training for up to 42 days in a year, any additional days off from work would be highly disruptive to any organisation. Many people, Sir, would prefer, say, half a day off or a day off mid-week to spend with their children, in other words, a move towards more flexible working arrangements. Perhaps we might want to make a national move towards a 5-day working week, so that all of us can spend more quality time with our families. Other policies can also be relooked. A case in point is the foreign maid levy, a policy to contain the number of foreign maids working in Singapore.”
“One will find young accountants auditing their books in order to meet quarterly reporting deadlines; lawyers scrambling to have agreements drawn up because their clients have to complete their deals by the morning; and bankers dealing with financial markets that are still open elsewhere because of differences in time zones. So, small wonder that many couples, young or old, rarely find the time for one another, let alone think of having a child. Most are too exhausted after a long day and night at work. But this has been a society which urges everyone to work hard or you would not survive. Strive for excellence, compete or perish. This has been the Government's mantra for decades. Nothing wrong with this, mind you, except that, faced with this kind of stress, parents do not want to have children who will also have to face the prospects of their own rat race in the future. So, it does not take much logic to reason why many opt to have just one quality child who can take on the world when his or her time comes. They can then focus all their resources on that one child, and that includes paying for all types of private tuition needed to make sure that little junior scores straight A's in his examinations. A Straits Times survey recently found that it costs $77,000 just to pay for a child's education from pre-primary to university level. What can we do to make couples change their minds and have at least two children? That is the burning question we have to deal with. We tried financial and tax incentives but have found that they do not work. And I am not so sure that rolling out more taxpayers' money is the only solution to our problem. Neither is providing more paid maternity leave the panacea for our ills.”
“With your kind permission, Sir, I too would like to join in this Great Baby Debate. Sir, last year, I came across this very interesting report. This is a 2003 global survey on sexual attitudes and behaviour conducted by Durex, a condom manufacturer, and it covered over 150,000 people in 34 countries. The survey found that Singapore adults were the least amorous in the world. For once, we did not turn out to be Number 1 in a survey. Not only did our results rank last in the world for the number of times that our adults had sex in a year, we were also the only nation where the number fell below what the survey called the magic 100 mark - to be exact, only 96 times a year. Some of us may want to take the Durex report with a pinch of salt. But it is one more way of looking at the problem of declining births. If Singaporeans are, firstly, not inclined to be passionately romantic, how are we going to produce babies? Sir, amidst all this search for schemes to make sure that our young adults produce babies, I think we may have to start from the starting point. I cannot be more colourful and more graphic, but how can we get them to be more romantic and to be more passionate about romance and, hopefully, then allow nature to take its course? But, as they say, Singapore is not a very romantic place. And how can you blame them? If one were to take a walk past some of our office blocks at night, one might not be too surprised to see how many offices are still lighted up.”
“One is simply amazed by the fact that, with NETS launching its own combi-card for contact and contactless applications very soon, no contact seems to have been made by the two companies to try to work out a common card that would be convenient for their respective purposes. Sir, I think, all too fast, it has been forgotten that, last year, in this House, when we debated the price increase in public transport fares, the House agreed that the Government should take steps to ensure that prices are not increased unjustifiably, especially during these difficult economic times. The difficult economic times are still not over. Perhaps, it is time now for the Government to, as they say, bite the bullet and write off this costly mistake and let a commercially-savvy outfit run the show. Sir, I think it is time to shake things up in an area which seems to have created so much bungling for Singaporeans in the past one year. First, the price increase in public transport fares last year, then NEL fiasco, and now this. And unless we do start to do some things right, I am afraid that EZ Link will end up as the weakest link in our effort to achieve seamless travelling.”
“If this is not so, then somewhere from the beginning, right from the start, EZ Link must have had its business model wrong, and Singaporeans are now being punished with another round of price increase because of its poor business judgement. Or are we simply once again going to shrug it off by just saying that, "Ah, well, they probably made the wrong assumptions from the beginning and we will just ask the public to pay for the mistakes they make."? I agree with Dr Wang that EZ Link must have thought from the beginning that it could make quite a lot of money out of the whole thing. Otherwise, there would not have been a company called EZ Link! So now things have gone wrong. And it would appear to me also that EZ Link is now not trying hard enough to come up with alternative and better solutions. So many suggestions had been made in the past days, after the price increase: charge for advertising on the cards, extend its usage to other commercial transactions, sell cards with pictures of recording and movie stars at a premium so it can raise more money. In fact, someone even suggested, have photographs of some of our politicians on the cards, although I am not so sure if anyone would want to buy these. Perhaps, as has been suggested, EZ Link is trying to recover quickly the huge investment it made of $300 million. Then it begs the fundamental question of why it did not buy an existing system that has been tried and proven successfully elsewhere, most notably the highly successful and profitable Octopus system used in Hong Kong. Why reinvent the wheel when it was already there? But being commercially practical does not seem to be EZ Link's forte.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think it seems like I have only four minutes left on this. I will share my views with the House. Sir, nothing gets the Singaporeans more worked up than another increase in his transport cost. This increase in the price of the ez link card implemented, in fact, just one day after the company made its announcement, seems to many, as another effort to test the Singaporean's resolve to have another price increase forced down his throat. I think this can only happen when a Government-owned company, like EZ Link, holds monopolistic power and therefore has the clout to push through a price increase with such impunity. Raising prices to cover what it loses in its business is, of course, the easiest option when one does not have any competition. But fundamental questions have to be asked. Did EZ Link not foresee the possibility of so many more people buying cards and not using them? EZ Link has to be the only company I know that loses more money the more of its product it sells, so we are led to believe. In fact, I find it hard to accept that in this day of modern technology and mass production, this little card that is the cause of so much controversy, can cost $5 to produce. I would think that the more they produce, the more they sell, especially when demand exceeds expectations, the cost of the card should come down. So we are told that it has come down from $6 to $5, but I still maintain, and I still believe, that $5 is a very expensive price. Or is EZ Link not getting the best terms from its card supplier? Or is it simply involved in a bad deal that it cannot get out of?”
“2) BILL "to amend certain statutes of the Republic of Singapore", recommendation of President signified; presented by Mr Lim Hng Kiang; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. Column No : 3203 CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Central Provident Fund Act (Chapter 36 of the 2001 Revised Edition)", presented by the Acting Minister for Manpower (Dr Ng Eng Hen); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. Column No : 3203 SINGAPORE EXAMINATIONS AND ASSESSMENT BOARD BILL "to establish and incorporate the Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board, to provide for its functions, duties and powers, and for matters connected therewith", presented by the Acting Minister for Education (Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.”