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 3 of 14.
“Column No : 3201 CONSUMER PROTECTION (FAIR TRADING) BILL "to protect consumers against unfair practices and for matters connected therewith", presented by the Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Dr Vivian Balakrishnan); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. Column No : 3202 REGULATION OF IMPORTS AND EXPORTS (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Regulation of Imports and Exports Act (Chapter 272A of the 1996 Revised Edition)", presented by Dr Vivian Balakrishnan; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. Column No : 3202 URBAN REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Urban Redevelopment Authority Act (Chapter 340 of the 1990 Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for National Development (Mr Mah Bow Tan); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. Column No : 3202 PLANNING (AMENDMENT) BIL "to amend the Planning Act (Chapter 232 of the 1998 Revised Edition) and to make consequential amendments to certain other written laws", recommendation of President signified; presented by Mr Mah Bow Tan; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. Column No : 3202 INCOME TAX (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Income Tax Act (Chapter 134 of the 2001 Revised Edition)", recommendation of President signified; presented by the Second Minister for Finance (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 STATUTES (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) (NO.”
“BILLS INTRODUCED Column No : 3200 INSURANCE (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Insurance Act (Chapter 142 of the 2002 Revised Edition)", presented by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (Mr Lee Hsien Loong); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. Column No : 3200 MONETARY AUTHORITY OF SINGAPORE (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Monetary Authority of Singapore Act (Chapter 186 of the 1999 Revised Edition) and to make related and consequential amendments to certain other written laws", presented by Mr Lee Hsien Loong; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. Column No : 3201 COMPUTER MISUSE (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Computer Misuse Act (Chapter 50A of the 1998 Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Wong Kan Seng); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. Column No : 3201 MARITIME OFFENCES BILL "to give effect to the provisions of the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation done in Rome on 10th March 1988 and for purposes connected therewith, and to make consequential amendments to the Hijacking of Aircraft and Protection of Aircraft and International Airports Act (Chapter 124 of the 1997 Revised Edition) and the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Chapter 322 of the 1999 Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Transport (Mr Yeo Cheow Tong); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.”
“That is very important so that these safety breaches are well and quickly reported, and we can take action to redress them. If there are complaints about mistreatment by superior officers, in order for the investigation to proceed and in order to be fair also to the superior officers who have heavy responsibilities to discharge, the person who raises the complaint has to follow certain rules and therefore we will have to be able to know certain details before we can proceed. Otherwise, it will be most unfair also to the officers and warrant officers. But, let us say, if we receive a lot of feedback about a particular unit or particular types of activities, even though they are anonymous and we may not take action on specific cases which are anonymous, this will set alarm bells off, and we will have a look at what is going on with a particular activity or a particular unit. As I said, we also have an inspectorate, and so on, to go around and do surprise checks. Sir, I would like to thank Members of this House for frankly and openly providing their views on this very serious issue. MINDEF will look into every suggestion and every point raised and we will act on them. This is one of the most serious incidents, if not the most serious incident, that we have had in the SAF of this kind in its history. The SAF will work hard to ensure that we maintain the trust of this House, maintain the trust of parents, maintain the trust of Singaporeans. And, at the same time, we will work hard to make sure that we continue to have a tough, capable SAF to defend Singapore and Singaporeans. Sir, I thank you and I would like to thank Members of the House as well.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, much has been said in the past 1 1/2 hours about how servicemen can seek redress for their grievances. I am glad that the Minister has mentioned that one of the rules is for the aggrieved servicemen to see their Members of Parliament. Many of us here have, at some time or other, servicemen coming to us with complaints about ill-treatment. And MPs too have to go through the proper channel in bringing up the complaints to the higher authority. But I notice that, in some instances, when I informed the aggrieved persons, or even the parents of the aggrieved servicemen, of how the complaint is to be raised, they tell me not to take it any further for fear of reprisals by their superior officers or colleagues against whom the complaint is being made. Sir, how can we assure the servicemen with complaints that all their grievances will be investigated in a very fair and thorough way, in a transparent way, and without any fear or favour? I think the answer which the Minister just gave to Mdm Halimah on whether there were any complaints made about the unauthorised training in the first case is very important. Because I wonder if this is the case of the unauthorised training happening for quite a long time and nobody dared to make a complaint and everyone thought that it might be better just to look the other way. They did not want to have action taken against them because they feared reprisals from their colleagues or superior officers. RAdm Teo Chee Hean: The point that Mr Tan Soo Khoon raises is well taken, and I have addressed that to some extent. It is important that we have a culture of openness in the SAF, particularly with regard to breaches of safety regulations.”
“Well, buy 2 or more, if you can afford it. And now we are even asking the Minister to release more flats for rental! Sir, this is going to be a rough ride ahead, but I think the people will accept the cuts even if it is with reluctance. They are prepared to take this journey with the Government, out of the valley of gloom to the promised sunny highland. Nobody likes to have his wages cut, particularly when we cannot even promise any restoration. So, I must say that while the announcement that a further cut in salaries of the political leadership and of top civil servants recently does show that we are prepared to lead the way, perhaps we should not be too hasty to say that this cut is only for one year. Why only for one year? Why not just leave the cut alone? I think at a time when we are asking everyone to tighten his belt, we should not be too fast in talking of restoring our own pay until we really reach that sunny highland. Sir, I believe that when the chips are down, the Singaporean is willing to face up to the difficulties. The party may be over, but we have not switched off the lights in Singapore yet, and someday, I hope, not too long, the music will start to play again.”
“They have always been controversial ones. We took fiscal measures to prevent our tiny island from being clogged with vehicles enmeshed in gridlock. But, in the process, we gained the dubious honour of being the most expensive place in the world to own and drive a car. In our desire, Sir, to have a world-class transportation system, we may have overlooked the fact that all that the Singaporean wanted was a system that could get him from point A to point B, without any of the frills that have actually resulted in higher fares. So, Sir, quite often it is this pre-occupation with wanting to be world-class in many things that sometimes has me worried. Sure, we do not want to be in the backwaters of nations but we also do not want to end up with a world-class cost of living, as a writer to the Forum page said last week, that is comparable to New York, Stockholm or Frankfurt. He was quoting from a cost of living index survey conducted by The Economist Intelligence Unit. Someone - I cannot remember who, but someone in this House - said that if you want the quality of a Jaguar, then do not expect to pay Toyota prices. Well, I think under the present day circumstances, Singaporeans will not mind being a bit more humble, and if we really want to be nimble and travel light, perhaps a ride on that nifty little Toyota will do just as well. Maybe it is not so classy, but if it does the same job, I think we can be quite happy. All of us - Government and people - have to have less expectations of one another. But were we all, in fact, everyone of us here, not responsible for asking Singaporeans to pursue the ownership of properties like there was no tomorrow? 3-room flat not enough? Well, upgrade to 4- or 5-room. HDB flat not good enough? Buy private property. One home not enough?”
“Now I bring this up because many SMEs buy second-hand vehicles for their operations as they cannot afford new ones, but they do not know why they have to pay so much just to have someone at the LTA press a few buttons on the computer and register them as the new owner. Then, last year, during the debate on the Medical Registration (Amendment) Bill, the House heard that it costs between $170,000 and $250,000 to train a doctor in a university in Sydney, Oxford or Cambridge - I think it was Dr Lily Neo who pointed this out - but educating one medical student at our own NUS costs about $400,000. Now this again begs the question of how Government arrives at such a cost, and how do we end up being double that of a world class institution like Oxford? Now, what about the point of making life more bearable in Singapore? Many of us do appreciate that Government has done a lot to lower various charges and given us rebates and Economic Restructuring Shares. But judging from what I have heard in the past few days, it seems we have not done enough. To make deep cuts that will make a meaningful difference to costs will mean re-examining the philosophies behind some of our policies. Sir, many of our policies were formulated to achieve certain social needs and while some may have succeeded in achieving the social needs, they have also turned out to be valuable cash cows for the Government. But if it is a cash cow for the Government, it translates to a burden for the people. Take for example the foreign maid levy which was introduced to moderate our reliance on foreign domestic workers. But each increase in the levy has added to the burden of many tens of thousands of households - and we still have not been able to curb the rising demand. Another example - transportation policies.”
“Sir, another view to this question has also been raised by some economists. The Government has said that the CPF cut would save employers $1.3 billion a year. I read that some economists have pointed out that the biggest beneficiary of this cut will, in fact, be the Government. This is because the Government and its GLCs form the single largest employer in Singapore, employing what they estimate to be 40% of our workforce. This means that the Government is, in fact, saving $520 million. With the increase in GST next year, the Government will rake in - it has been estimated, I do not know how correct it is - another $400 million. So if you add this $400 million to the $520 million, you get a total of $920 million that will actually be transferred out of the system back to the Government, and that leaves many of the economists to express the concern as to whether what is left in the private sector would be meaningful enough to create the new jobs that we badly want. Now, Sir, if past cuts in the CPF rate have still not solved our dilemma, then it must beg the question of what else. Like many other Members, I too share the view that Government can do much more to bring down costs. Sometimes, I believe that the problem with this whole issue of Government costs may lie in the way Government does its costings. How else can you explain why the Government charges 2% of the value of a car when you want to transfer ownership? And this value of your car is not its market value, not the price you sell and someone buys it, but a value determined by the LTA, which then, of course, turns out to be much more and, as a result, if you buy a second-hand car, you end up paying hundreds, and sometimes even thousands, of dollars to the Government just to register it.”
“Even as we tell them that in this era of globalisation, no job is guaranteed for life, companies then must also come to realise that the workers of the future would no longer have the same kind of commitment, dedication and emotional attachment they used to have. Today, the bitter pill the Singapore worker has to swallow is the cut in the CPF. Two questions linger in this debate: is the cut itself enough to save jobs, and, if not, then what? Secondly, many Members have asked, how about doing more to make life more bearable in Singapore? Sir, the first concern is understandable. We have seen how companies, after cutting wages and even compelling their workers to take no-pay leave, still end up firing people. So if we make this cut now, can we still save jobs, not to mention create new ones? I do not think even the Government can give us a definite answer on this one. To be certain, no investor comes here purely with the aim of giving us jobs. They come because they believe that we can provide them with the means to enable them to make profits, and only then do they give us the jobs. So this cut in the CPF, as has been put up by the Government, is a signal of the Government's recognition of the competitive environment that we are now in and that we are prepared to be flexible and nimble. But is this a strong enough signal? Many businessmen do appreciate the savings that they would derive but they ask, why settle now for a range that will fluctuate with the economic cycle. In fact, this would be no different from what we had been doing in the past, where the CPF rate was adjusted along with the ups and downs of the business cycle, and what was missing was the certainty that businesses needed to base their long-term calculations.”
“Sir, nobody likes to take bitter medicine. But then if you have been to one great and long party, a strong dose is probably what you need to sober up. As far as I am concerned, the party for Singapore ended in 1998 when we first felt the impact of the Asian financial crisis. Years of strong economic growth came to an end, and that was the day the music died. Then, two years of economic growth - in 1999 and 2000 - masked the fact that fundamental weaknesses remained unresolved, and that all was still not well and, for a while, many of us thought that the good times were back. Many companies thought it was all right to go on a hiring binge. I read, for example, that SPH Holdings recruited as many as 1,000 new staff in the year 2000, only to find that it had to inflict painful job cuts in less than two years. Likewise for Singapore Airlines, whose handling of its retrenchment exercise this year, exemplifies how a company ought not to handle industrial relations. Sure, it may have lost $200 million in April, but nobody pointed out that this was a company that also made near to $5 billion in the past five years, and, in all probability, might still make money this year. I have no quarrel with a company getting rid of workers if it is going to be financially crippled, only that in the modern day parlance of human resource managers, they cleverly called it a "pre-emptive lay-off" or they now use the term "rightsizing". They do not even call it downsizing because rightsizing allows the employer to lay off older and more expensive workers even when they are still doing all right, and then hire new, younger, and obviously cheaper workers. One of the bitter lessons workers have, therefore, learned in recent times is that loyalty to their company no longer counts.”
“Sir, I could not quite understand the Minister of State's answer regarding the recent suicide cases. First, he has dismissed study stress as the cause. Then, in the next instance, he says that we should wait for the police's investigations to come out. But what I want to ask him now is that, in view of the fact that there have been several teenage suicides in past years, surely, by now, his Ministry would have come to some conclusions as to what were the causes of these suicides, and do something about it.”
“Sir, is the Minister of State aware that there were recent cases of suicides in our junior colleges? Has it been established that there is a link between the suicides and the study stress?”
“I said that if increasing cost is of great concern to the PA, why did the PA feel it necessary to change the RC logo at this point of time. How much does the whole exercise cost the PA and how much would it cost all the RCs in Singapore?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, if increasing cost is of great concern to the People's Association, can the Minister of State explain to this House why is it necessary to have the logo of the Residents' Committee changed at such a time? How much did the whole exercise cost the PA, and how much would it cost all the RCs in Singapore to effect the change?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, there is one thing I do not understand. If the NEL is not viable to be operated in spite of the high prices, why is SBS operating the line? Why did they tender for the line? And why did the Government award this operation to SBS in the first place? Secondly, with the benefit of hindsight now, would it not have been better off if the NEL had been operated by SMRT which would then be able to enjoy better economies of scale which it now has, and thereby resulting in a better pricing structure for all commuters?”
“Sir, I think the Minister of State missed the point that Dr Neo was trying to get at. Is it not possible to simplify the procedures when applying for such grants? One of the most common complaints among the SMEs when applying for the grants under the schemes is the number of forms and questions that they have to answer, bearing in mind that many of these companies do not have professional backup. The second question I would like to pose is that in submitting their business plans, many of these SMEs have to engage consultants. I understand that previously the consultancy fees were heavily subsidised. Am I right to say that the consultancy fees are no longer subsidised, or has the subsidy been significantly reduced and, if so, why?”
“There are many little but significant things we can do to safeguard our personal hygiene. Perhaps, it is even time for the Government to consider reviving the old Keep Singapore Clean and Anti-Littering Campaigns because these campaigns, in their own ways, are efforts that contribute to a healthier environment for Singapore. Sir, these amendments therefore in a way reflect the strong stand we are taking in the fight against SARS. The World Health Organisation has stated that what we are doing are, in fact, above their guidelines. Sir, we are doing the right thing and we need to show to the world that, in fact, Singapore is a safe place, after all. Sir, I support the amendments.”
“But, over time, many also came to realise that TTSH offered them the best hope of recovery from tuberculosis. I hope that those who are hit by SARS will also understand this. Yes, if you are in Tan Tock Seng Hospital, you can recover, you can be saved. What about stigmatisation? Here, I would like to urge the authorities and the media to stop labelling certain categories of SARS patients as "super infectors" or "super spreaders". I think these terms have negative connotations. In fact, I was upset to read an article in the Straits Times of 11th April which traced the steps of how SARS came to Singapore. What upset me most was a chart that illustrated how it all started, with the headline in very bold print that read: "Chain effect: How one person infected more than 120 people", and right at the top of the chart, under the label "Super spreader No. 1" was the name of the woman who, through no fault of hers, was our first SARS victim. Her only fault was that she happened to be on holiday, like what many of us do, and she just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Sir, I sympathise with this person who has already suffered the loss of her family members and her pastor. But I would like to urge the media to stop bandying her name around because it does nothing to help her and neither does it help us in our efforts to overcome the concerns of those who fear stigmatisation. Sir, fighting SARS involves everyone of us. We all need to ensure responsibility, not for ourselves, but also for our family members, for our colleagues and for our fellow citizens. Much has been said in the past few days about what we must do to protect ourselves. One day, not too far in the future, carrying a thermometer would be as common place as carrying a pen in our pocket.”
“Sir, in the case of the family of eight, they were asked to wait outside the doctor's clinic and, as we understand from subsequent reports, they had just gone through the funeral service of a member of their family who died the previous day and, in all probability, they were tired, they were hungry and they went round looking for food. And I believe that if the ambulance had come a bit earlier, they would probably not have gone away from where they were waiting. As we were told a call for the ambulance was made at 10.30 am, but the ambulance only arrived at 12.30 pm, and this begs the question of why it took so long for the ambulance to turn up. Sir, we know that they have acted irresponsibly. But, on the other hand, there are also people like those who continue to be in denial mode or who fear stigmatisation by the rest of the society - the fear of being quarantined because they fear the loss of income and jobs. There are those who, for reasons best known to themselves, simply do not want to admit that they are sick. And, as has been said yesterday, there are people who think that going to Tan Tock Seng Hospital in the event that they have SARS means stigmatisation by their friends and, worse still, they will die there. We therefore need to emphasise the positive side of the fight against SARS, as was done yesterday in the House, when DPM said that TTSH is in fact a very safe place and offers the best chance of survival in case you get hit by SARS. Sir, I recall that, in the 1950s, when tuberculosis was prevalent in Singapore, TTSH was the hospital of treatment for those suffering from TB. In those days, many of the older generation feared going to hospitals. Going to TTSH was, in fact, facing a death sentence.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in the space of slightly over a month, the Infectious Diseases Act is being amended twice. This reflects how swift the spread of SARS has been that makes it necessary for us to make further provisions in the Act. When we amended the Act on 21st March, there were then 37 cases of SARS and no death as yet. As of yesterday, we had 192 cases, including 17 who have since died plus two other deaths which have yet to be confirmed as SARS cases. And now, about 2,500 people are under Home Quarantine Orders. Today, the House is being asked to amend the Act again, this time notably to increase the penalties for those who break their Home Quarantine Orders. Sir, these are steps that I fully support. That there are those who have broken their HQOs so blatantly and thereby putting others at risk or being affected with SARS have aroused the anger of many Singaporeans. In my opinion, there are no two ways to deal with those who flout their HQOs. If someone puts the rest of society at risk and in danger, then we have to ensure that the full force of the law comes down hard. We are now at war with the deadly disease and this calls for strict and draconian measures, I may say. And for some, it must mean a loss of freedom as they submit to the well-being of the country ahead of their own personal needs. Sir, the two cases highlighted by the Prime Minister in his open letter - one of the family of eight who went wandering away from the doctor's clinic while waiting for an ambulance to take them to Tan Tock Seng Hospital and the other of a sick man from the Pasir Panjang Wholesale Centre who went doctor- and sinseh-hopping before landing up in TTSH - reflect the dilemma we are all in.”
“Sir, I have two questions for the Deputy Prime Minister. My first question concerns the nation's rice stockpile. In view of what has happened in the Pasir Panjang Wholesale Centre, I would like to know whether we should take steps to relocate our stockpile of rice to different locations, because I understand that all our rice is situated in one locality. Would it be prudent for us to take some steps to ensure that, in case there is a repetition of what has happened in the Pasir Panjang Wholesale Centre, our supply of rice would not be affected? The second question I have relates to a report which I read in the newspapers a few days ago. It quoted the Minister for Trade and Industry as having said that some headway has been made in the progress in negotiations with the Chinese authorities to allow Chinese tour groups to come to Singapore again. Sir, I know we are in a dilemma over this. On the one hand, we need to do something to boost the tourism sector to fill our hotel rooms and to allow our retail shops to have more business but, on the other hand, I am just wondering whether this is really the right time to push for more Chinese tourist arrivals, in view of the fact that China is accounting for more than half of the SARS cases around the world. And here, we are talking about quarantining newly-arrived foreign workers. So, are we, in fact, doing the right thing?”
“Mr Speaker, are we allowed to ask questions again, because I believe this is a Ministerial Statement, and we have always had the opportunity to ask questions many times?”
“The reason I ask is because I think it is good to give Singaporeans a good sense of how these things are going to affect their lives in the future. Secondly, on all the measures being taken, I must first say that I do support all these measures because they are very important. But is there also a danger that we are over-reacting? It seems that Singapore takes this matter very seriously. In contrast with many other countries, some countries are quite blase about the matter and do not really seem to be taking it that seriously as compared to Singapore. Therefore, even in contrast to the number of SARS incidents in Singapore per population, we seem to have a very high incident rate in Singapore. Is there a particular reason for this? Finally, a question on temperature taking for fever. I think I have heard a lot being said about the checking of persons through the thermometer for fever. Is it a very safe measure? How sure are we that having no fever will mean that the person is not contagious, he will not carry the virus and therefore will not spread to other people?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, my first question is directed to the Minister for Health. I would like to ask whether it is possible for the Home Quarantine Order, when it is issued to somebody, to be issued in the different languages. Because I understand that, right now, it is only done in the English language and I believe that many of the people who receive the HQOs are the older people who may not understand English. Looking at the HQO, I also notice that, when a HQO is issued, it is stipulated that school-going children or young siblings would not be allowed to leave the home during the period of quarantine. But, on the other hand, the spouse or any other adults in the home would be allowed to leave. Could he explain to us the difference in the treatment of the younger ones at home and the adults? There is also a condition which says that when a workman comes to the house to carry out work within the premises, they should be alerted that the person has been served with a HQO so that the workman can take the necessary precautions. I am just wondering whether, during a time like this, when someone has been served with a HQO, they should in fact allow anyone into the home or not. Mr Leong Horn Kee (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have got a few questions as well. On this fight against SARS, or the SARS war, may I ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much longer is needed to solve this problem over time. He says it is a long haul. But how long will this long haul be? All these measures that we are doing, in terms of temperature taking, checking at airports, and so on, will it be something which will stay for a few more years or it might be overcome in a few months?”
“I am sure that, over the years, MPs and the grassroots leaders have got the experience to tell the genuine ones from the needy ones. And I think we could do with a bit more money to help those who are really deserving in our constituencies.”
“Sir, when Mr Charles Chong asked a question in the House earlier this month, the Second Minister for Finance told us that the scheme attracted something like 14,000 applications and, out of the 14,000, only two were successful, and they were given a very princely sum of $177. Sir, I know the Second Minister went at great length to explain the rationale behind the scheme and, in fact, he said that it was an opportunity for us to calculate to the applicants to show specifically that the offset package that they get more than pays for the additional GST expenditure, and that he thinks that it also allows us to win the converts to the GST scheme. Sir, I am not too sure about this. All I know is that I had one experience trying to explain the scheme to an old man and to tell him why he could not qualify. All he did, at the end, was to look at me and say, "Wah boh kow ree." - money not enough. I am not so concerned with the dollars and cents of implementing the scheme, but I think the danger here is the political cost to the Government. We have given so much publicity to the scheme. A lot of people have come. Yes, I know there are some who just come to try their luck. But, at the end of the day, I think we have a lot of people leaving with a sour taste in their mouths. Since our experience in 1994, when we first had this scheme - at that time, we only had 30 applications and this time, we just have two - I am wondering why we want to have such a scheme. Since we have the money, ie, $3 million allocated, it would be better to have this money given to the welfare fund of all CCCs. If we divide $3 million by 84 constituencies, I think each of us would get $35,000.”
“On the question of the sports city, I find that he misses the point. Do we really need a whole complex with all the extra office space, shops and recreational facilities? Does he really think that people will be flocking there? He has to understand that, in Singapore, if you really want to have people going to your sports stadium, the trick here is to build more stadiums all over the island. I do not think if you build a multi-complex, people are going to flock over to Singapore. That was the same argument we used when we built the National Stadium in 1974. But just see how many people go to the National Stadium every day? After the Malaysia Cup matches were over, you hardly could fill the stadium at all. I must also tell him that the cost of $650 million for the whole complex, probably, is wrong. Because, to build a top-class stadium would already cost you $600 million, at least, and I do not think for that price you could build a whole complex with all the other facilities.”
“Sir, a clarification need not be in the form of a question. But I do not understand him.”
“Yes, I am clarifying something on --- The Chairman: No, you were asking a question. It was not a clarification.”
“Sir, I do not quite understand the Minister when he said that he is now prepared to lower the admission standards to the Sports School on a case-by-case basis. If he is now prepared to lower it on a case-by-case basis, why stop at that? Why not just allow it for everybody? I recall that one of the reasons stated for not allowing admission for those with just the normal standards was that the school would not have the facility to cater for Express and Normal streams. But, if you are now prepared to allow people in on a case-by-case basis, that means you still have to run courses for those from the Normal Stream. So why do it on a case-by-case basis? Secondly, on the question of the sports city, I think he has missed the point ---”
“Even in the United States, the sports colleges there require only an entry level of a minimum of 2.0 grade point average - they call it the GPA - on a scale of 4.0. This grading is what I would term as a fair pass, which is lower than our Express stream qualification and probably 2.0 grade point is closer to our Normal stream standard. Furthermore, their grading takes place at a higher age for everybody, that is, after High School. Whereas in our case, the child is already streamed at a very young age and on the basis of just one single examination, ie, the PSLE. Sir, the Sports School must be seen as another route for those who, though they may have less intellectual capabilities, have other talents which, given the right environment, can be nurtured, exploited to the fullest, and that such people can bring honour to the country.”
“Sir, the question here is whether the criteria for admission into the Sports School are not being set too high. By setting the entry level at the Express stream, the Sports School is actually looking for sportsmen with brains. An official was quoted as saying that this is in order to prepare students who, if they eventually do not make it in sports, can switch to academic pursuit. Sir, such thinking is like admitting defeat even before the School is open. Such a stand actually means that aspiring sportsmen and sportswomen can only pursue their sporting interest if they can excel academically. Sir, in that case, I would just submit that we do not need a Sports School for this. There are already many schools in Singapore doing this for a long time. Schools like RI, ACS and a host of others produce all-round students all the time, students who excel academically as well as in sports. It appears that, by setting such a standard, the School may have missed the objective of why it was set up in the first place and that is to produce sports champions. Not all sports champions excel academically. As has been pointed out by Mr Chew, I do not think someone like Michael Jordan, or for that matter, you can name a lot of other top sportsmen, Ronaldo and the like - I do not think they were that great in their studies. And it is like the same as if you want to have good musicians. If the guy is gifted in musical talent or in singing, you do not say that he needs to be academically qualified before he can pursue such a career. I do not think for that matter the Rolling Stones members were great shakes in their studies when they were young. So, is setting a minimum standard of 200 points in the PSLE result too high and actually depriving us of a larger talent pool?”
“The National Sports Associations have complained that the $500 million in the ACT hardly trickles down to them, and they are the ones who need the money most to nurture sports talent. Why can we not look at providing more facilities for the Sports School, and I will have more to say about this later so that more talent can be nurtured.”
“Sir, a new stadium, I agree, can make use of the latest technology and we can have the latest facilities. One that is often used as an example of the latest is the Sapporo Dome in Japan which was used in the World Cup last year. This one has the latest works - one field inside the stadium, one field outside the stadium, so that during matches, they actually move the outdoor field into the stadium so that players play under the best conditions. But right now, they are wondering how to earn enough to maintain this stadium, just as both Korea and Japan are wondering what they are going to do with all the 20 stadiums they built to host the World Cup, and they spent $131/2 billion on them. The same too for Sydney Homebush Stadium, the home of the 2000 Olympics. Even Malaysia's Bukit Jalil Stadium, built for the Commonwealth Games in 1998, has a problem to cover its operating costs of RM2 million a month. Unless we plan to host the Commonwealth Games or Asian Games, in which case building just one stadium would not be enough, I am not so sure what the new stadium hopes to achieve. Do we really need a complex with more shops, restaurants and more office space to compete with the present glut? We already have eight million square feet of empty office space at the moment. Are there really that many pop concerts that can fill a stadium of such a capacity? Are there not already enough venues in Singapore for such non-sporting activities? Do we really believe that it will be such a vibrant sports hub that families will flock there all the time? I do not think we have the critical mass to keep this going. Most likely, it will turn out to be a ghost town. Sir, there are better ways to spend $650 million in the name of sports.”
“Sir, following the Committee on Sporting Singapore Report, the Government has earmarked $500 million under the Athletes Career and Training scheme to boost sports. I spoke at length on this subject last year, but I also pointed out that since this sum was being spread over three objectives, namely, achieving sports excellence, sports for all and the nurturing of a sports industry, the sum just appeared to be too little. I am one who would, in fact, advocate more money than what we have earmarked annually for sports, so that we can attain our dreams of achieving sports excellence. But I was a bit surprised when I heard the Minister announce a few weeks ago that a $650 million sports complex will be built in Kallang comprising a new stadium, a new indoor stadium as well as offices, shops, restaurants and other recreational facilities. We are told that the two new stadiums can also be used for events such as concerts. And all these are meant to ensure that the new complex will be for multi-use and that the complex will be a lively place the whole year round, and not just when there are sports events. Sir, I feel that this is a case of putting the cart before the horse. We will be spending so much money on hardware that we will not have enough money for the software which, to me, is more important, ie, the nurturing and development of sports talent. Singapore already has 13 stadiums, 12 public sports halls, one indoor stadium. Our present National Stadium, built in 1974, can seat 55,000 persons. In fact, I remember that in one Malaysia Cup match in 1974, we actually squeezed in 70,000 people. The new proposed stadium will seat approximately 50,000 people, about the same number as what the existing one caters for.”
“Sir, from the little answer I got, it appears that switching is one of the problems. But I just want to point out to the Minister that many countries in Europe started with the other system, and they had switched to calling-party-pay system. Sir, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $271,321,180 for Head Q ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $258,095,000 for Head Q ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head I -”
“On the contrary, the smallest telco, Starhub, is providing free incoming local calls till March next year, and there is a possibility of extending it further. One may say, "Why not switch telco?" But there again, we run into other problems. If a person is a subscriber of SingTel or M1 and he wants to switch to Starhub, he cannot retain his phone number unless he pays a monthly charge. So he either bears the inconvenience of a new number or he bears the burden of additional charges. If we realise that SingTel has a 49% market share and M1 has a 33% market share, we can see that Starhub is disadvantaged, and such a decision of IDA does not encourage the type of competition that we would like to see and which I thought IDA is supposed to promote.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head Q of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code QM 3100. Sir, I am disappointed with IDA's decision to continue the practice of receivers of mobile phone calls paying for half the cost of mobile calls. This means there is no free incoming calls. I raised this subject sometime last year, and I was quite hopeful that the present system, whereby the receiver of a call, in fact, subsidises by half the cost to the caller, would be scrapped. Sir, the latest decision fails to recognise fundamental flaws in the current system. Why should the consumer pay for something he did not initiate? This means consumers have no control over their final billings. Why should the consumer pay for something he has no control, such as paying for wrong calls made to his number or unsolicited calls from people like telemarketers? Does this not mean that those who make calls do not realise the full cost of making a call? In asserting that changing the format may not mean lower cost to consumers, IDA has not provided us with any evidence to back up its claim. On the contrary, I have read a lot of studies that have shown that the calling-party-pay system encourages more use of the handphone.”
“Maybe I should remind the Minister that there is a saying that says if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys. In this case, if they decide to spend $100,000 or $400,000, it is no small peanuts, and they will find that in the end, if they spend the money, they still end up with the same old monkeys running around. Sir, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $442,032,300 for Head V ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $4,674,405,100 for Head V ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head S -”
“So everything looks much better, and in the process he makes more money for himself. He has got a little coffee-house there, a restaurant and, in so doing, he bundles services into his product and ups the value of his products. So, to answer Mr Tan Soo Khoon, there are many things that we can do to make tourism more lively in Singapore and to gain more economic benefit out from it. As for the zoo, MTI was asked to take over responsibility for the funding of the zoo only from this year. I would not like to answer for some of the ideas that have been floated. Maybe, next year I would. 5.45 pm”
“But we are working on tour buses going to the Exhibition Centre on Jurong Island, and that may bring in tourists from various countries, and really it is one of a few such sites, anywhere in the world. I have been to the site in Pernis, near Rotterdam, and it is not half as attractive as Jurong Island. At night, when we see the lights, it is magical. But, I am not promoting Jurong Island. I would let STB do it. And, even our NEWater plant, I told Lim Swee Say, "Look, I see a tourism opportunity there. Let them try it and maybe sell some souvenir products - NEWater from Singapore. We may make some money along the way." Recently, we found that visitors from Mainland China were interested to experience staying in HDB estates. We will convert a few blocks of HDB flats for them and make some money in the process and gain some reputational benefit for Singapore along the way. So there are many things that we can do. A few months ago, I visited Orchidville up in Mandai. It is an orchid farm. Our orchids are high quality orchids. When they reach the Japanese market, they fetch twice the price of orchids from Indonesia or Bangkok. I asked them why. They said, "Well, because they are all the same length, all have the same number of petals, same number of buds, opened and unopened." And it is a high quality operation. The owner, because he was facing the pinch from the economic downturn, decided to open his orchid farm to Japanese tourists. So they come, they are happy to cut the orchids. They do not cut them well, so he throws in a few of his own sprays, then when they bring them back to Japan, those that are cut by the tourists they do not perform so well. Those that he put into the boxes they look better.”
“So there are many things that we should do, there are many opportunities, and I hope that in the coming years we will see many more Chinese and Indian tourists coming here and they will give a strong boost to our tourism industry. Mr Tan mentioned that we should consider new and more interesting products because shopping is down. Shopping may be down generally, but we continue to be the New York of Southeast Asia, as far as shopping is concerned. People come here for diversity. When we speak to the golfers, they say they can get different range of golf clubs in Singapore. One Malaysian Minister's wife told me that she shopped for her toys along Orchard Road. I said, "Surely, you can get the same toys in Kuala Lumpur." She said, "No, you have got more range here." So we are finding more such flagship stores relative to the rest of Southeast Asia and this is how we are seeing the development of Orchard Road. Yes, we try to boost Chinatown. I do not think we should do nothing. We have cleaned it up. It is somewhat sanitised now. Recently, we opened a Heritage Museum. It is not bad - old shophouses showing the old `coolie keng', and it has received a good response. The other things that we are doing may take a while longer before we see everything come together. But, we are not letting up on our efforts on Chinatown. Little India can be a little cleaner, but we should not over-sanitise it. There are other products we should consider and we are working on them. For example, we take Jurong Island for granted. But Jurong Island is a remarkable place. If you are a student who studies chemistry or organic chemistry in school, it is a fascinating site to visit. Right now, of course, because of September 11 there is tight security.”
“What we are seeing is just an over-spill from what is happening within China itself. It is the same thing in India. So we are working very hard to develop the Chinese market. It has been growing double digits. We expect it to reach 1 million by the year 2005. Initially they are mostly here on cheap tours. Some are on zero cost tours, which means they sign up for the tour, they pay nothing, but when they come in here they are brought shopping. They are milked at each shopping centre. They do not see our museums and, before you know it, they are off to Malaysia, Thailand and then back to China. They spend. Many buy gold, not because gold is expensive in China, but because they want to bring back souvenirs. But that market is fast changing and we are finding now more Chinese tourists coming in as individual travellers and they are going for more diverse products. So we have got to keep up with the changes and make sure that we move with the higher value tourists. So, this year, STB will be conducting major publicity campaigns in both India and China. Indian tourists are here mostly as individual travellers. They come with family members and relatives, you can see them all over Singapore and they stay here much longer. And, per head, they spend more than any other category. That is partly because they stay here longer. I am amazed, whenever I go to India, how favourably they look at us. And not only as a shopping emporium - yes, all of them have heard of Mustafa - but it is no longer just Mustafa now. So, we are also stepping up our tourism efforts in India, including involving some of their Bollywood stars, and we are trying to get Singapore more featured in some of the films produced in Bombay.”
“So I hope somebody does not wake up one day and take on a flight of fancy and say that since we are remaking Singapore, maybe we should change our name because Singapore sounds so 19th century. I hope the Minister will make sure that this does not happen. BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Sir, Mr Tan Soo Khoon raised two important points about the tourism sector. One is that the total tourism receipts have been on a declining trend for a number of years now, and the average number of days that they stay in Singapore has also come down. The situation has been made worse by the Asian financial crisis, the global economic downturn, September 11, then Bali, and so it is a whole series of knocks which the industry has suffered from. But, we are not doing badly, and the number of visitors has continued to trend upwards to over 7 million tourists, which is not bad for a city-state of 4 million people. The fact that they are staying fewer days in Singapore is partly because we have become a very efficient switch. So, if you are doing business here, you are exhibiting here, you carve up your time finely. You land, SIA flies in punctually, in so many minutes you are in town, do your business, whatever, stay one night if necessary, if not, you are off. So, in that sense, that cannot be helped. But, there are new opportunities arising principally from all the developments around us, and the growth of the middle-classes. The Chinese are travelling in huge numbers and this is just the beginning. When I was in Xian two years ago, I asked them, "How many foreign tourists?" They said, "800,000". I asked, "How many Chinese tourists?" They said, "30 million." All over China now, internal tourism is rising spectacularly.”
“Another problem facing Chinese tourists is their difficulty of navigating around in Singapore because the signs we put up are not in Chinese. I recall that sometime ago STB was looking into the possibility of multi-lingual signboards and preparing more brochures and maps in different languages. Can I know what progress we have made? Sir, India is another promising market. Last year we had 340,000 visitors from India, each spending an average of $278 per day, making them the No. 1 spending nationality. I would like to know what plans we have to increase the number of visitors from this market. Sir, I do not have much to say on the Singapore Zoological Gardens because events have overtaken us, except to say that many Singaporeans are relieved that they have backed down on the proposal to change the name. They wanted to spend something like $100,000 to change their name and $400,000 for the signs. That is exactly the point I was making last year. It is not just the money on changing a name. You spend many more times that amount just to effect the change. Last year, I mentioned about the changes of organisations to names like A*Star, SPRING Singapore, IE Singapore. Today I still have difficulty explaining to people what happened to our Trade Development Board. When I tell them it is called IE, they look at me with some amazement. I notice that all these organisations which have changed their names, and also the zoo, are all under the same Ministry. I hope that we do not change the name for the sake of changing the name, because there is an attraction and value to old names. In the private sector, for example, names like Robinsons, Cold Storage, and as mentioned just now, Khong Guan Biscuits, these are all venerable names with value.”
“Many visitors I brought there are simply not impressed with what they have seen because they said there are better Chinatowns elsewhere. But let us take a look at Little India. Luckily, we have not tried to remake Little India too much. It is so naturally attractive, and that is why many visitors, including Singaporeans, flock there. Sometimes you need a little of messiness to make a place attractive. Maybe sometimes it is best to leave things alone. So, I would like to hear from the Minister how the Singapore Tourism Board is tackling this problem. One area I would like to highlight is the increasing number of visitors from China and India. China is now our third largest visitor generating market, with 670,000 visitors last year, up 35% from the previous year. They spent, on the average, $201 per visitor per day, that is the third highest number amongst the spenders. I would like to urge the Board to continue to step up its promotion to the Chinese market with activities similar to the one that was recently done - the Tourism Carnival in Guangzhou. Sir, I was not able to get figures of how many days the Chinese tourists spend in Singapore, but I understand that it could be less than the average of 3.2 days. This is because they find that Singapore is a bit too expensive for them and many tour agents are using Singapore as a quick stopover before whisking them off to nearby destinations. This is a pity. Hong Kong last year attracted over 4 million visitors from China. That is about 34% of their total number of visitors. Many of these are high spending tourists, buying high value items. So it has been forecasted that in the year 2020 some 100 million Chinese would be packing their bags and travelling abroad. This is a vast market that we have to tap.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head V of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code VN 3100. Sir, last year, Singapore attracted some 7.57 million visitors, marginally more than the 7.5 million figure for the previous year. However, there are two disturbing trends. First, tourism receipts have been estimated to be only $9 billion, a decline of 5% over the peak some years ago, and that is a $1 billion loss to our economy. Second, the average length of stay of visitors was 3.2 days per visitor, and this is a steady decline from the peak figure of 3.9 days chalked up in 1991. Although in the past few years we have heard a lot about different ways to boost tourism, eg, Tourism Master Plan, Tourism Blueprint, Tourism Task Force, etc, it appears to me that we have reached a kind of dead-end as to what we can actually do to give a boost to this sector of the economy. To me, the difficulty is similar to what we face in other aspects of the economy - that we are faced with immense competition from other destinations that are not just only cheaper, but are probably more attractive. In the three areas of interest for your average tourists, ie, sightseeing, shopping and dining, other places have caught up with us, and are probably outdoing us. The challenge for us now is to find niches to differentiate ourselves from others. We must focus on a unique identity and offer something not easily available elsewhere, say, a product or a service, or an experience that the tourists can only get here in Singapore, otherwise why would they come. In the past, we have made some dubious efforts, like the redoing of Chinatown, resulting in what I call a "sanitised version" of Chinatown.”
“Yes. --- trade between China and ASEAN has grown three-fold in the past decade and helps us to lessen our dependence on America, Europe and Japan, countries which are anyway in the doldrums. Can you now imagine the prospects of a China-ASEAN free trade area, of a market of more than 1.7 billion people with goods moving about freely? ASEAN has been rudderless for a while. And I would like to hear the Minister's views on how Singapore can contribute to closer regional cooperation and economic integration and to show the world that ASEAN is back in business.”
“But this is an incident that will leave scars on relationship. And it is not helpful to ASEAN's image. Madam, last year when I spoke on this topic, I mentioned that ASEAN was fast being lost on the radar screen of outsiders. Many perceived the member countries as simply not trusting one another enough to the extent that ASEAN was incapable of negotiating collective deals with outsiders. Even Rodolfo Severino, the Secretary General of ASEAN who stepped down last year, had this to say, and I quote him: "People in the region, including those from the business sector, don't recognise their stake in the destiny and cohesion of ASEAN." Yet, ASEAN, if properly managed again, holds so much potential for its people. ASEAN solidarity is central to its success. We need to speed up the pace of economic integration and trade liberalisation, make sure that all member states are fully committed to the success of AFTA and to pursue more intra-ASEAN trade. The possibility of a China-ASEAN free trade area excites me. According to a report I read in The Economist --- The Chairman: Mr Tan, can you please wrap up?”
“While intra-ASEAN trade has increased, there remains significant bugbears like Malaysia's refusal to bring down tariffs on imported vehicles for a few more years and the Philippines' reluctance to lower tariffs on petrochemicals. There has also been difficulty in drawing up procedures and standards for imports into the various countries. To the man-in-the-street, ASEAN remains much a mystery. They do not even know what ASEAN means. Many cannot even name all the 10 member countries. To them, ASEAN is, at most, a talk shop for political leaders and some businessmen that they hear about or see in the newspapers from time to time. Many do not even bother to read articles on ASEAN. And this, to me, Madam, is a pity. To the man-in-the-street too, ASEAN is far from being a united force. All they see is the negative side, which is reported in the newspapers, like the quarrelling neighbours, for example, the regular spats between Singapore and Malaysia and the border skirmishes between Thailand and Myanmar. A few weeks ago, when a Thai movie actress allegedly made some sensitive remarks about Angkor Wat belonging to the Thais, this led to days of riots in Phnom Penh as the Thai Embassy and Thai businesses' premises were attacked by Cambodian mobs. At a time when the whole world was worried sick as to whether war would break out in Iraq, there was this sudden danger of actually a war occurring between two member countries of ASEAN. Nobody would have imagined that the Thai airforce was already on the alert and ready to send its planes into Cambodian territory. So much for regional peace and cooperation. Fortunately, good sense has prevailed. The matter is now being resolved, to put it very diplomatically, through diplomatic channels.”