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 4 of 14.
“Madam, I too would like to join my colleagues in expressing my concerns about the state of affairs in ASEAN and its future. Over the past few years, ASEAN has been perceived by many as an organisation that appears to have lost some of its earlier momentum and directions. 5.15 pm Prior to the Asian financial crisis, ASEAN had been an organisation that allowed its members much political and social contact and played a pivotal role in forging regional cooperation. Many of ASEAN's economies were regarded as amongst the most dynamic in the world and full of promise. The ability of its member states to engage in dialogue, consultation and confidence building in a peaceful and amicable manner was seen as its most positive point. Its efforts to lay the foundation for regional economic cooperation offered much hope for its 500 million people. However, the economic crisis that engulfed the region following the onset of the Asian financial crisis in 1997 changed all that. ASEAN's inability to come up with a coordinated or concerted response to tackle the crisis only served to show its weakness at a time of great crisis. Instead of working out a unified course of action, many ASEAN member countries went about their own way in dealing with the crisis. Indonesia and Thailand, for example, turned to IMF, and Malaysia instituted its own capital controls as the way of dealing with the financial crisis. Now this had the effect of reducing the region's appeal to outsiders, particularly, coming at a time when China was becoming more and more attractive to foreign investors. Even the much touted ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) was met with some scepticism.”
“Sir, the men and women of the SAF dedicate their lives to the service of our nation. The tragic loss of our four servicewomen in the collision of RSS Courageous is a sad reminder of how those who serve in the SAF work under tough and, sometimes, dangerous conditions to protect Singapore's security. The Navy plays a vital role in the defence of Singapore and will continue to do so with full dedication and the highest professional standards.”
“Sir, Dr Ong Chit Chung, Mr Sin Boon Ann and Mr Tan Soo Khoon have asked about the collision between the RSS Courageous and ANL Indonesia. Sir, MINDEF had convened a Board of Inquiry into the collision between RSS Courageous and the merchant vessel, ANL Indonesia. The Board of Inquiry has completed its work and MINDEF has provided a summary of the Board of Inquiry's findings to the Coroner to facilitate the Coroner's Inquiry. MINDEF has also fully cooperated with the Maritime and Port Authority in its investigation into the accident. The MPA's investigation report will be released in due course. I do not expect that it will take very much longer. That will contain a full account of the events leading up to the collision. Let me assure Members of this House that MINDEF, the SAF and the Navy are also as interested as Members here in finding out, getting to the bottom of this collision, learning from the lessons and moving on. The crew of RSS Courageous has undergone counselling and assessment to prepare them for operational deployment. In addition, RSN has re-examined its safety practices and shipboard safety procedures have been reinforced. The RSN has also re-examined its professional training systems, and steps have been taken to further enhance the training and qualification system for Officers of the Watch. Sir, morale in the RSN was, of course, affected by this accident. But the RSN is a strong family and our people have recovered, learnt from the tragic incident and moved on. They are, after all, fully aware of the onerous and potentially dangerous nature of military duty, and they know that they have a job to do. The men and women of the Navy are fully professional, and the Navy's operational readiness was not affected by this accident.”
“Liaison officers make regular home visits and assist the families, and the families can also call hotlines when they need assistance or information. We also, of course, appreciate visits and the concern shown by Dr Ong and others who have visited our troops in Timor-Leste. We do not have any records of servicemen suffering from post traumatic stress disorder. But we do have psychiatrists in the SAF Medical Services and psychologists in our Applied Behavioural Sciences Department who monitor those individual servicemen, not just those on missions, such as these, as well as the morale of our units. Dr Ong Chit Chung and several others have also asked about Pedra Branca. Sir, our Navy and the Police Coast Guard patrol Singapore's territorial waters off Pedra Branca round the clock. We will continue to do so to safeguard Singapore's sovereignty and territorial integrity. The measures we have in place and the various contingency plans that we have are adequate to deal with violations of our sovereignty in the waters around Pedra Branca by Malaysian state vessels. While Malaysian state vessels have not always complied immediately with our instructions to leave, they do leave eventually. Malaysia and Singapore have signed a Special Agreement on 6th February to refer the Pedra Branca dispute to the International Court of Justice and we should both allow the legal process to take its course. It is unfortunate that Malaysian naval vessels continue to violate our territorial waters around Pedra Branca, even though the Malaysian government knows full well that this will not advance their case in the International Court of Justice. Such violations could lead to a tense situation on the ground and increase the risk of unintended incidents.”
“The Second Minister for Defence (RAdm Teo Chee Hean): Sir, the United Nations' peace-keeping missions play a critical role in bringing peace and stability to troubled areas. And as a responsible member of the international community, Singapore tries to make a useful contribution to this effort and we will continue to do so within our means. Since 1989, Singapore has participated in 13 UN missions, with a total of 1,235 SAF personnel who have participated in these UN missions. SAF servicemen are currently serving in UN missions in Timor-Leste and the Ethiopia-Eritrea and Iraq-Kuwait border areas. Our participation in the UN mission in Timor-Leste, or UNMISET, is our largest to date. We have 253 people there currently. Right now, the Singapore contingent comprises 160 peacekeepers, 72 men in the helicopter detachment, several staff officers, and there are also 25 police officers there. A senior SAF officer, Major General Tan Huck Gim, is Force Commander of UNMISET. Besides doing our part as a member of the UN and making a direct contribution to peace and stability in our region, the SAF's participation in UNMISET and other UN peace-keeping missions has also gained us valuable operational experience. Sir, the SAF prepares its servicemen thoroughly before they are sent on UN missions. They are given rigorous training, which is operational in nature, and we give them briefings on the legal aspects, what rules are in place, and we also give them training in country and cultural familiarisation. This is to help prepare them to handle any situation that they might face. They are also given psychological counselling, both for their mission and for their long period of absence from home. In addition, MINDEF has a comprehensive support system for the families of the servicemen.”
“Sir, when the collision between the RSS Courageous and the ANL Indonesia took place on the night of 3rd January this year, it immediately sent shock waves of disbelief throughout the country. The immediate response of the Navy in searching for the bodies of those who were missing and in giving much emotional support to the families was the correct thing. Sir, that passage of seaway is an extremely busy one. Hundreds of ships pass by every day. So we must know what steps can be taken to prevent such an accident and tragedy from happening again. I recall that in January, when this matter was raised in the House, the Minister told us that the Maritime and Port Authority would finish its investigations by the end of January. But until now, we have heard nothing. We were also told that the findings would be made public and that MINDEF would also conduct its own board of inquiry. May I also ask whether MINDEF's findings would be made public? 11.45 am Sir, I know that investigations of this nature have to be very thorough. But the delay in completing the investigations and presenting their report are not helpful to the image of the Navy and that of our Armed Forces. The delay of this nature would just lead to unnecessary, unfair and wild speculation. And only a full accounting will put this matter to rest and allow the families who lost their loved ones to close this tragic chapter and move on with their lives. Above all, we must be able to assure the many people who dedicate themselves to the security of our nation, as well as their families, that lesson has been learnt and that all steps are being taken to avoid accidents and tragedies of a similar nature. So my question is: why have the investigations taken so long to complete and when will the report be ready?”
“Sir, I too would like to join my colleagues in asking the Minister to consider whether it is time to do away with estate duty. Sir, in the past 10 years, on average, there are about 3,000 cases per year of deceased persons who have had their estates taxed. And the tax that we collect from the estate amounts to as low as $42 million in one year to a high of $83 million in the year 2001. Compared to our total tax revenue of over $20 billion, this amount that we collect is actually a very, very small percentage. I am just wondering if we could not then do away with this tax. As Mr Andy Gan has related, I think when someone dies, it is a very traumatic experience for the next-of-kin or the family to find that the whole estate is frozen until the court grants a probate or letter of administration. Then, there is the tedious process of arriving at the amount of duty which is payable. Even at the point of death, the Commissioner of Estate Duty would not know how to put a value to the assets of the person. Sometimes, this process takes years and, in the meantime, interest is chargeable on the amount assessable from the time of death of the person. If the process takes years, the amount of interest that you pay is certainly a very large amount. And you cannot even pay the amount you want in advance. I hope that the Minister will look at this matter. Estate duty was implemented long ago when there were huge inequalities in income distribution. Then, it was a time when opportunities were not equal for everybody and the State stepped in in order to redistribute wealth upon the death of a person. But, today, there are equal opportunities, and everybody who works hard enough has the opportunity to amass wealth. Therefore, I think it is time for us to do away with this archaic law.”
“Earlier on, in my speech, I made a reference to the financial figures of the PUB. The correct figures should be: accumulated surplus, $1 billion; and surplus in that year after contribution of $67 million to the Consolidated Fund, $207 million.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I just want to rise on a point of clarification. Mr Speaker: Yes.”
“Even if the boards require capital outlays, should we not ask them now to fund these by going to the money market through such instruments as bond issues? After all, they operate successful businesses and should be able to raise their own funds as and when they need them. Ultimately, Sir, this will leave the Minister for Finance some extra room to manoeuvre the Budget.”
“Statutory boards today provide services that were once the function of the Government and their revenues and surpluses would have accrued directly to the Consolidated Fund if they had remained so. This throws up two questions. Firstly, can the Finance Minister ask for more from the statutory boards that are making money to boost the revenue position? Secondly, what about the large accumulated surpluses that some of them have in their books? Let us just take a look at the last reported financial year of some of them. Jurong Town Corporation, accumulated surplus, $8.6 billion; net profit, $112 million after contributing $50 million to the Consolidated Fund. Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore, net profit, $333 million; after returning $1 billion to Government, it is still left with $2.3 billion accumulated surplus. Public Utilities Board, accumulated surplus, $4.3 billion at group level; net profit, $412 million. URA, accumulated surplus, $1.3 billion; net profit, $29 million after contributing $91/2 million to the Consolidated Fund. Sir, statutory boards usually take the position that such surpluses are necessary for future capital expenditure. But can we not require them to justify their retention of large surpluses with concrete plans and if they cannot do so within a fixed period of time, to return the money to the Government so that it can be put to better use? In fact, under the Act, the Minister has the power to require the statutory boards to return to Government any amount that is not required for that board's duties and functions. If the money is sitting there for a long time, I think we have to take a look at that.”
“So averse as I am to red ink, I must say that the Minister for Finance tried very hard to show a deficit last year, but I think he just could not. Sir, I would argue this point further. The Lifelong Education Fund has a capital of $1 billion. In its last reported financial year, it earned $27 million and it gave away grants of $141/2 million. After deducting expenses, it still ended up with a surplus of $10 million. It has another accumulated surplus of $10 million from previous years. I know the long-term target is to raise the fund to $5 billion. But if the fund is, in fact, able to more than meet its current needs, why do we need to increase its capital now? Likewise, for Medifund. It has a capital sum of $800 million. In its last financial year, it earned an income of $30 million. Even with its close to 100% approval rate, it gave grants of $27 million and it has an accumulated surplus of more than $35 million. Would it not be right to say that these funds are presently self-sufficient and we need not transfer money at this time? After all, the Government did say previously that transfers to these funds would take place only when we enjoy healthy surpluses. And this may not be the time to do so simply because, firstly, we are not having healthy surpluses; and, secondly, the funds themselves are generating enough to serve their present needs. Speaking of funds with surpluses brings me to another point of how I think the Government should also examine its revenue sources by taking a look at the financial position of some of our statutory boards. Sir, under the Statutory Corporations (Contributions to Consolidated Fund) Act, the Finance Minister is empowered to require statutory boards to contribute part of their incomes to the Consolidated Fund.”
“But when the effects wear off, the pain returns because the root causes have not been dealt with. Many businessmen tell me, "why can't the one-off measures or reliefs be permanent ones?" We need a permanency to these measures so that we know the savings are here to stay. We cannot plan on the basis that you tweak with these measures now and then. I too would say that the Government should have, once and for all, taken the opportunity to take the bull by the horns and not let business and industry play the guessing game as to when the next round of rebates will come. And this is what I feel is amiss, Sir, in Budget 2003 - that it may not have provided sufficient stimulus to kick-start the economy. A Morgan Stanley report that I read says that this year's Budget gives little support to a fragile Singapore economy. Sir, the report points out that the estimated deficit at $900 million works out to less than 0.8% of GDP, and that this might turn out to be even smaller, given the tendency to conservatively estimate revenues. Indeed, if you look at last year's revised figures, Net Investment Income (NII) was $3.8 billion - happily, $1.4 billion more than was originally forecast. Sir, some MPs have already pointed out that the Government did not incur a deficit last year and, in fact, actually crossed the finishing line with a budgetary surplus of $1/2 billion. The transfers to the Lifelong Education Fund and the Medical Endowment Fund are exactly what they are - transfers from one account to another. They are monies that remain with the Government and are not spent. What is spent from these two accounts are the interests they earned, just like the way interests and dividends from NII are spent, but not the principal amounts.”
“$25, sorry. $25 per taxi per month. With 19,000 taxis, that is a cool $6 million collected a year. Will this result in solving problems such that taxis disappear mysteriously just before midnight and appearing suddenly when the midnight hour strikes? I think not. Will we now be able to get taxis when it rains? I think not. Will taxi companies absorb this additional charge in the long run? I think not. Will passengers end up paying for this? I think so. Or try the URA for its own brand of service - pay $1,200 upfront when you apply for a change of use for your premises. Sir, I do not wish to repeat what Mr Lee Han Shih wrote in his article. It is all in the Streats newspaper of 5th February. He wondered how the URA does its costing and lamented that it is a very costly service. Still, it is $1,200 per application, whether you are successful or not. And with 2,600 applications being processed a year, you can do your own calculations how much that works out to. This is very lucrative work for the URA but it just adds one more item to the heavy cost of doing business here. So, it is high cost that is making us less competitive. Mr Koo Tsai Kee can argue that we are not much more expensive than Guangzhou in terms of office space, but I want to tell him that every dollar saved counts today. Mr Inderjit Singh said that it is hard to shake off the impression that we are an expensive place to do business to his foreign friends. I agree with him. How can we do that when this is the reality? And it does not help us to shake off this image when some of the measures that the Government implements are labelled merely 'reliefs'. Sir, reliefs are helpful. I do concede. But they are what they are - reliefs - a balm to relieve you temporarily, make you feel good for a while.”
“We have gone through this last year, but I think the mindset still remains. Now, we are told that to ensure that taxis provide better services, there is a need to monitor them. LTA says, pay $50 per taxi per month. An hon. Member: $25.”
“We have to be flexible in doing things to meet threats and challenges because, out there, there will always be someone who will try to do things better than you can. Secondly, even in a flagging economy, one can find a niche and seize opportunities. The other point I want to make is that today, people have wised up to the fact that good quality need not mean high prices. In other words, whether you are a shipping line or you are just shopping for electronic goods, people are looking for better deals. If PSA had recognised this fundamental point, it might not have lost two of its biggest customers. How did the world's number one port, long vaunted by the Government as a model of efficient management, end up an enigma of bloated capacity? How did 500 of its employees end up swallowing the bitter pill of retrenchment and find out that they, and not the sacred cows of the Singapore economy, were the ones being slaughtered? Who can blame those, not just the PSA employees but many others in the public and the private sectors, who have lost their jobs for the way they feel now? It was not too long ago that the Singapore worker was held up as the number one worker in the world. Now, the number one worker finds that being number one is like winning a race with no prizes at the end. The problem is not just with land cost, as some Members have pointed out. It has to do with the way you handle your customers, so that you retain their patronage through good and bad times. It is all about business philosophy and attitude. Give the guy a good deal, he stays with you. But sometimes I know it is hard to change mindsets. We are quite used to the Government mantra, that if you want better services, you must be prepared to pay more - be it hospital charges or transport fares.”
“Today, they, and even others from as far as Europe, are going to Malacca or to Bangkok for surgery, because the costs, including travelling and expenses, work out to be only a fraction of what it would cost here, and the standards match ours. Sir, today, to stay alive in a lacklustre economy, companies have learned very quickly that they need to offer better value for less money. A New Paper report two days ago highlighted how companies in the luxury goods business now offer lower-end versions of their high-end products to appeal to middle income consumers. It cites the example of Jaguar which now markets its X type cars at half the price of its top-end XJ series. Similarly too, as in the case of Mercedes Benz, pushing its C Class and A Class cars at less than half the price of its top of the range models. As a consumer, I too am looking out for better deals whenever I need something. Two years ago, I bought my first DVD player, a Philips. It cost me $750. Three months ago, I bought another one, this time a Samsung, a Korean brand and it cost me only $180 - slimmer, sleeker, great features and generally easier to operate. People may say that there is a great difference between the two brands, but I have not discovered any loss in the quality of the movies I watched. A Singapore company has learned to carve its own niche during these bad times too. This is a company that makes electronic products in China under its own brand name Akira. Recently, Akira was selling 21-inch colour TV sets at $190, and friends who have bought them tell me that they are of good quality. I tried to buy one but they were all sold out. Sir, I give these examples to make some points. Firstly, never underestimate the competition.”
“And, it is not just in port services that things are shaping up. Another Malaysian company launched a no-frills airline not long ago called Air Asia. No champagne or free gifts on board. Bring your own food too, if you like. It just gets you to where you want to go without fuss and at a low price. Amongst this week's offer, fly from Kuala Lumpur to Penang for only RM19.99, cheaper than taking a bus ride. No doubt it will soon be flying passengers from nearby Senai Airport to other destinations at very low price and it gets you to where you want with minimal delays. Delays are costly in the airline business and they cannot afford to have them, not at the prices they sell their tickets. So, they are very efficient at getting you to your destination on schedule. And it is a profitable company. In the first eight months since taking over the company and operating it as a no-frills airline, the new owners turned around previous losses and made RM19 million, and they are debt-free. Last year, Air Asia flew 1.3 million passengers. This year, it is aiming for 2 million passengers. While airlines like SIA cater to their own niche luxury markets, here is one airline that has carved a new market for itself by reaching out to those who could not afford to fly before, or those who are simply looking for a better deal in air travel, especially during these difficult times. I am glad that SilkAir is sitting up and has taken notice of the competition it faces from airlines like Air Asia. Our healthcare industry is another example of how an industry is feeling the heat from regional competitors. At one time, we had Indonesians and Malaysians queuing up at our private hospitals for treatment.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the story is often told in Malaysia nowadays of a young man from Kedah, who not many years ago was a rice trader wandering around Kuala Lumpur in a pair of slippers. Today, this man has varied business interests. He has a net worth of RM1.7 billion and has been ranked the 7th wealthiest man in Malaysia. He is Mokhtar Al-Bukhary, now better known as the man who developed Johor's Tanjong Pelapas port and lured away the business of two big shipping lines, Maersk and Evergreen from Singapore's PSA Corporation. Sir, the story does not end here. This savvy businessman has now been given the green light to take over Senai Airport in Johor and turn it into a major hub to complement the transhipment business of Tanjong Pelapas and compete with our Changi Airport. Dare we say that he will not succeed? Certainly not, after the unthinkable happened to PSA. Are we running scared? Certainly not too, I hope. But what has happened should serve as a wake-up call of what harsh reality in a competitive world is, in that we cannot take customers for granted. In business, they say that you are friends, and the relationship stays for as long as you can make money of one another. If your customer finds that he has a better deal elsewhere, he will run to your competitor, no matter how long he has been with you. One important lesson we have learned in this is that if you are No. 1, there is always someone waiting to knock you off your perch, and that someone need not be an obvious competitor like Hong Kong or Kaoshiung, but it could be a sleepy backwater like Tanjong Pelapas. This is because your competitors, no matter how small they are, play a game called "catching up" - that is what you can do, given time and determination, they can do too, and at a better price.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am afraid that the Minister has not got my point. Why do we want to have a scheme for which we have announced that there would be quite a big sum of money - I cannot remember how much it was - and in the end, we tell people, everyone who comes to us, that they do not, in fact, qualify at all? What is the point of having such a scheme? I am in support of a scheme to help people during these difficult times, especially if it is to absorb the increase in the GST, but I think what we would like to have is a scheme that works and not a scheme that, in the end, ensures actually that from the word "go" when you apply, you do not qualify at all.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I cannot understand why the Minister says that it is worthwhile to continue with the scheme when so far, only two persons have benefited. Does it make any sense for us to have a scheme like this and we end up explaining to people why in the first place they do not qualify at all? Would it not be possible for the Minister to look into the formula by which we calculate their eligibility?”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, notwithstanding the fact that we are developing alternative sources of water such as NEWater and desalination - and we know that, today, there even exists equipment that allows us to extract drinking water even from air - and in spite of the fact that we are dealing with a party that is bent on shifting the goal post frequently in the negotiations, does the Minister agree that it is still in the interests of both sides to reach an amicable solution to the issues and that the successful conclusion of the Water Agreement is still our aim? As such, an agreement, besides being critical to our survival, serves also to symbolise the inextricable links between our two countries, and that the issues before us should not be allowed to hinder other areas of bilateral cooperation. Secondly, does the Minister agree that the current climate of frenzy and agitation that has been whipped up by the Malaysian media overlooks the larger interests of both countries and serves only to undermine the efforts to broaden other areas of bilateral cooperation, and it, in no way, contributes towards enhancing foreign investors' confidence in the region at a time when we are faced with many other important challenges, such as economic competition from North Asia and the threat of terrorism, all of which require our joint efforts?”
“If Southeast Asia is the next battleground in the fight against terrorism, then regional cooperation becomes vital in our efforts to take on an organisation that has cast its tentacles across national boundaries. It took the bombings in Bali for the Indonesian government to move from self-denial to the fact that they already have the enemy within. The rest of the world watches us. Investors will not make that fine distinction between Singapore and other Southeast Asian countries, if an attack takes place anywhere in the region. When the bombs in Bali went off, some countries issued travel advisories on several Southeast Asian countries, Singapore included. So, Mr Deputy Speaker, when our neighbours up north, in their own wisdom, utter the "W" word in their dispute with us over water and Pedra Branca, and in the process send their own people into a frenzy, I think it is timely for us also to remind them that what we have at hand is a real war against an enemy, playing a game far more deadly than the hysteria we have to bear with from them occasionally. Sir, I support the motion.”
“In as much as we want to know how the Muslim community reacts and we have asked them to speak out against terrorism, the rest of us must also not overreact, because at the end of the day, if the Muslim community feels alienated, the JI would have won the psychological battle. I am therefore heartened to note that the Government recognises that, in its efforts to identify and neutralise radical Islamic religious leaders and foreign terrorist operatives, it must not disrupt the legitimate and peaceful activities of the local Muslim community. Sir, this is not a fight over whose political ideology is superior. This is about a war against fanaticism, against those who want their militant brand of a religion to prevail. How else can you make of their declared position that those who defect from their cause, or who do not support their violent ways are labelled infidels? What else can you make of an organisation that thinks nothing of killing thousands, including those of their own faith? Is it therefore not significant to us that the plan to bomb Yishun MRT Station was foiled because of a call made by a Muslim Singaporean to the ISD? Whoever it was must have been aware that what is at stake is not a fight between Muslims and non-Muslims, but one of a cult-like organisation bent on inflicting senseless attrition versus the rest of humanity. This White Paper has sent the message that Singapore is no pushover in this fight. We will muster all our resources and work closely with every peace loving nation in the world. Encountering the terrorist threat needs a global effort and it cannot be done spasmodically.”
“Such a clarion call to rally everyone is, of course, easy to make, and I have found myself grappling with the thought that if we do encounter a situation where a dastardly attack takes place, will we find ourselves asking: have we done enough - and have we done it fast enough - to maintain the integrity of the relations between our various peoples? To come back to the reality of the present, we know we have time, hopefully, to scrutinise what we must do. We have the IRCCs, and we are shaping the Code on Religious Harmony, and I think these are all positive moves. But we must ask ourselves, in all frankness, whether it is enough just to make symbolic visits to temples and mosques. While we take heart that good sense does prevail at leadership levels, I find myself, at times, fearful that if a group of evil and desperate persons succeed just once in breaking through our meticulous security cordon and explode their devices and cause untold damage, what would be the reaction of our own heartlanders? What would be the effect on the moderation and peace that we now enjoy? We rightfully ask that there be more common space for the different races and that the social space where all Singaporeans can interact be expanded. The Prime Minister himself has pointed out that the downside to Muslims feeling more at ease with social activities at mosques than anywhere else is that Muslims will feel less and less of a need to mingle with other races. This is a poignant truth that the Muslim community has to ponder. But while we ask our Muslim friends to move closer to mainstream Singapore, at the same time, we who are the majority, must not, unwittingly or otherwise, become more vigilant towards them because of the militant ideology of the few in their midst.”
“Sir, immediately after the first arrests were made, the Government made it clear that this was not a focus on the Muslim community but on the JI, that it was not a communal threat but one concerning national security affecting all Singaporeans, underscores the point that the fabric of racial and religious harmony that we enjoy in Singapore can be easily torn apart if unfounded suspicions are allowed to affect the way non-Muslims behave towards Muslims in Singapore. For decades, we have had the foresight to build a multi-racial and multi-religious society while giving recognition to the unique flavour of each ethnic group and the values and heritage of each religious belief. It would be benign of me to simply put it that 37 years of nation building would have been in vain if we have not fortified our resolve to live as one nation, one people, regardless of race, language and religion, come what may. But the reality is that the harmony we now enjoy is fragile enough to be unzipped right down the middle, if ignited by an event such as the one that might have happened if the JI had its way. Hence, the White Paper serves as a wake-up call. Its recommendations require us to be on the defensive as well as to be proactive in the fight against terrorism. We have enhanced our intelligence and tightened security measures. We have passed laws to criminalise terrorist funding, and we have joined the global effort through steps, such as the signing of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. But, Sir, what is equally important is the proactive role of each citizen to strengthen social cohesion and racial harmony.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to share my views on this subject. Sir, 38 years ago, to be precise on 10th March 1965, a bomb went off in MacDonald House in Orchard Road killing three persons and injuring 37 others. This was during the height of the Indonesian Confrontation. It was the work of infiltrators sent by the Sukarno regime, and it was the first time an act of terrorism of such a scale took place in Singapore. The two Indonesian marines who masterminded the bombing were caught, convicted and hanged. Sir, at that time, I was a young boy, but that incident and two racial riots the year before left lasting impressions in my mind. And my memory was jolted again when news first broke out that the Government had arrested 15 persons in December 2001 for planning attacks on several targets in Singapore. If these attacks had been pulled off, the damage to innocent lives and property would have been of far greater magnitude than that one single act that took place 38 years ago, as we have found out from the many revelations that came in the ensuing months as well as from the White Paper. But of even greater consequence to us would have been the damage to ethnic relations in multi-racial and multi-religious Singapore, because those who were thwarted in their mission were Muslims, connected directly to Al Qaeda, and were prepared to carry out their mindless acts in the name of Islam. The Jemaah Islamiyah, if it had succeeded, would have placed Muslim Singaporeans under a glaring but uncomfortable and unenviable spotlight.”
“Because, like all businesses, when we are faced in a difficult situation, one of the things that all businessmen do is to cut back on expenses.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I had said previously in the House that one of the ways for the Government to ensure that the Budget is properly balanced is not merely to increase tax, but also to watch out for its expenditure. I was heartened to hear from the Deputy Prime Minister earlier that he would take steps to ensure that the expenditure is properly controlled. But I think it takes more than reassuring words from the Deputy Prime Minister to ensure that this is carried out. I am afraid that years of strong economic growth and years of strong surpluses may have set the free and easy mentality in some of our Ministries. I do not wish to repeat what I said during the Budget debate because I have no new seven wonders to reveal today. But I was quite taken aback, like many other Singaporeans, when we heard that the Land Transport Authority was building a $500 million headquarters and I think because of the public ruckus, the whole project has been shelved. But I was also very concerned last month when I read that for the opening of the Esplanade - Theatres on the Bay, we spent something like $13 million and was all blown away in 23 days. And yet, on the other hand, the Government announced the increases in hospital charges, raising more money from the sick to the tune of $12 million a year. So I want to ask: sometimes have we got our priorities correct? Therefore, I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister, in spite of what he has told us and his reassurance to the House, what concrete steps can really be taken by the Government to ensure that the cost of Government is well controlled and, if not in a crisis, can it be reduced even further?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in 1982, when we first introduced the foreign domestic worker levy, which was then 30% of wages, and wages were much lower at that time, we had something like 14,000 foreign domestic workers. But now that it is $345 a month, we have got something like 140,000 workers, and it is very obvious that the Government is still not satisfied with the situation. Can I therefore ask the Minister of State what would be the number of foreign domestic workers that would be deemed acceptable to the Government?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in 1999, we imposed a moratorium on the increase in the FDW levy because of the uncertain economic climate. Would the Minister of State agree that the economic climate is still uncertain and likely to be uncertain next year and, therefore, all the more reasons to continue with the moratorium on any increase?”
“Sir, can I ask the Acting Minister why the decision as to whether we should reverse the policy of female intake into the medical course has to await the recommendations of the Remaking Singapore Committee? After all, when the decision to restrict the intake was taken years ago, I do not recall that it took a committee to make the decision. So surely Government is capable of making such a decision after so many pressing demands from Backbenchers over the years. Why do we now have to wait for a few months more for a committee to come to a decision? Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: Sir, we are not waiting for the Committee to submit the proposal. We understand that this has been raised by several Backbenchers. But the Remaking Singapore Committee has actually met people who are interested in this particular issue and gathered feedback and submitted the proposal to Government. They have built up a consensus and submitted to the Government for consideration.”
“I should clarify that the existing plan, as it stood, was not a contractionary plan because the GST increase was accompanied by very substantial offset measures, including the Economic Restructuring Shares that would actually have meant a net boost in the amount of funds being put into the economy by the Government. It was actually, on balance, an expansionary package. But having said that, the Government is considering very carefully the mode of implementation of the GST increase, bearing in mind the economic difficulties of businesses and workers. HDB AND JTC COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES (Rentals) 3. Mr Charles Chong asked the Minister for National Development if his Ministry will consider extending the rental rebates and deferring the rental increases or the upward adjustments to 'market rental' of HDB and JTC commercial properties until the economic situation improves. The Minister of State for National Development (Dr Vivian Balakrishnan) (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, Sir, existing rental rebates provided by HDB to its commercial tenants will expire at the end of the year. The Government is currently reviewing these rebates taking into consideration the economic outlook. As for the upward adjustments to "market rental" of HDB commercial properties, HDB has already moderated their impact on its tenants by staggering the rental adjustments over four renewals at 3-yearly intervals since 1988 - a 12-year period. Tenants who are renewing their tenancies with rental increases from November 2001 onwards can further stagger their rental increase equally over a 3-year term.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, given the economic uncertainty and the fact that we have been told that there might be even a double-dip recession next year, would not the Government consider, as part of its strategy, a postponement of the proposed increase in the GST hike scheduled for January next year? Given the fact that the unemployment situation is set to increase further in the coming weeks or months, that people are already tightening their belts and will tighten their belts even further and therefore consumption spending will drop and businesses will suffer, and this would lead to a contraction in the economy in the months ahead, would he not consider such a move? Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, a double-dip recession cannot be ruled out but it is not likely at this stage. There are some economists in the US who have painted a scenario of a double-dip in the US but the majority opinion remains that of positive growth in the US economy. Likewise for the region around us and the global economy. So we cannot rule it out but it is not a central scenario at this point, not something that we attach high likelihood to. We will have to watch the economy very carefully in the coming months and respond accordingly. Likewise, for unemployment. We are watching it very carefully but it is not a situation where we expect a sharp surge in unemployment figures at this point. The Prime Minister has mentioned publicly yesterday that the manner of implementation of the GST increase is being considered. This is being looked at together with various other economic relief measures, whether we should extend some of the earlier economic relief measures. This is being considered very carefully. There are obviously revenue implications.”
“Sir, I am now not so sure who I should direct my question on KK Hospital to. But am I not wrong to suggest that, earlier this year, KK Hospital closed down two women's wards owing to declining birth rates? Sir, following up on Dr Tan Cheng Bock's point, may I also ask the Minister of State whether he agrees that the latest price increases run counter to the spirit of the resolution which this House adopted in July, when we debated the increase in public transport fares in which we urged the Government to ensure that the prices of public services are not unreasonably increased during these difficult times.”
“Sir, would it be correct to suggest that such increases in costs came about after the hospital has moved from its old premises in Hampshire Road to its present one? I understand that, today, the KK Hospital is underutilised. Would it be correct to suggest that the costs of such unutilised facilities and the wards would then have to be borne by the patients in the other wards? Just a follow-up on the second question. If that is the case, why did we have to build such a large new hospital to deliver babies, especially when we knew that the birth rate was declining?”
“Sir, while the Minister of State has acknowledged that the controlling cost is very important and he has mentioned the difficulty he has with manpower cost, could he confirm that in the case of the KK Hospital, utility cost went up by $1.2 million in 1997 to $5 million a year today, and its equipment and medical supplies ballooned from $1.2 million in 1997 to between $7-$9 million annually today? How are costs being controlled in the hospitals, like the KK Hospital?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for this opportunity to make a personal statement. Sir, on 9th July 2002, during the debate on the motion on public transport fares, I said the following: "The Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister had told the House in May, when making his Budget statement, that the PTC had decided that there would be no need to raise fares next year as a result of the increase in GST. Little did we know that what the PTC meant was no increase next year did not mean no increase this year! I do not know if you would call this twisted or sardonic humour, but I think it is, almost for sure, not funny at all to Singaporeans. How sure are we that, next year, we will not be told again by the PTC that never mind the increase in GST, but operating and maintenance costs have gone up again and therefore we have to have another increase in fares." Sir, after my speech, the Minister for Transport rose on a point of clarification. He pointed out that the Deputy Prime Minister had not given the impression that the PTC would not be approving any bus fare increase this year. Mr Yeo quoted what the Deputy Prime Minister had actually said in his Budget statement, and I quote: "The Public Transport Council (PTC) is currently evaluating proposals from the transport operators to revise fares. PTC is only considering revisions to catch up with operating and maintenance cost increases over the past year."”
“Sir, in the Budget Statement, I think the Deputy Prime Minister did say that the PTC has decided that there would be no need to raise fares next year as a result of the increase in GST. That was what I said. I did say that if that was what was stated, the PTC meant no increase next year, but what we did not know was that there would be increases this year.”
“People are angry today because they feel that there are just too many increases in such a short space of time and, not only that, during the worst of time. There never will be a correct time for any price increase, but they are asking why it has got to be now, when they are out of jobs, or when those with jobs are earning less, or are unsure of whether they will still have their jobs tomorrow. The Government asks us to tighten our belts, even earn less, do not be fussy if we earn less. But how can they if the Government is putting up the prices of things which are essential to them? So I say, let us keep everything in check. We are not asking for hand-outs. We are not even asking Government to subsidise the bus services. But when you are providing essential public services, do strike a balance between making money and making the services affordable. When people are already suffering, do not add more pain.”
“But I hope that the shareholders of Delgro will understand that when they are in a privileged position to run a country's bus service on what is practically an exclusive basis and, on top of that, they are going to get to run a rail line soon, they have to realise that apart from ensuring that they get a fair return on their investments, they also have a social obligation to ensure that the services their company provides remain affordable and that it does not cause undue burden to the people, and that in times of great difficulty, that obligation becomes even more. And, of course, the greatest obligation is on the part of the Government which must ensure that all public services remain affordable. If the Prime Minister says that this is not the best time to increase public transport fares, then it is also not the best time to increase the prices of many other public services. The Ministry of National Development wants to increase carpark charges very soon, on the grounds that it needs to cover the cost of building their carparks, ie, the cost of building carparks has increased. Sir, I pointed out in the Committee of Supply that the cost of building carparks today, as given by the Minister, is in fact cheaper than the cost of building the carparks years ago. The Minister could not give me a satisfactory reply and he is now just proceeding ahead to raise carpark charges. This is just one example of the Government going ahead with a price increase, even though its arguments for doing so have been shown to be unsound. There are many other examples, but I will leave these to my colleagues to elaborate. In the end, people are once again asking: is the Government listening or not?”
“I could have used the words "reverse its decision", but I do not want to undermine the work of the PTC because, in a lot of other areas, I can say that the PTC does good work. So, I do not want to adopt a confrontational approach. And I chose the word "review" to give it more leeway and allow it to come up with other options. Perhaps it could be some ingenious way, as the Hong Kong MTR has gone about to keep its commuters happy, or maybe the two companies, SBS and SMRT, can think of something and consider making a gesture to Singaporeans in order to sweeten the ground which is, certainly, in a very sour mood now. Why can the two companies not show some compassion for those who have been very badly hit by the economic downturn? I think a reasonable gesture on the part of SBS Transit and SMRT will go some way to alleviate some of the pain that Singaporeans are going through. Ultimately, the Government has an overriding responsibility in easing the pain of its citizens in times like this. It is, after all, through Temasek Holdings, the main shareholder of SMRT and, therefore, the largest beneficiary of the profits made by SMRT. SBS Transit's largest shareholder is Delgro Corporation, which owns 75% of shares in SBS Transit. I do not know who owns Delgro. All the large shareholdings are in the hands of nominee companies and investment funds.”
“Maybe the Government should have given us loyalty shares in these two companies instead and we would not be complaining so much, and we would all be shareholders of two very profitable companies and then we do not mind paying 3 cents more because, at the end of the year, we will get such nice dividends. But to tell us that these two companies are going to run into great financial straits if they do not increase their fares now? These are companies tottering on the edge of bankruptcy? It is more like the case of Money Not Enough for these two companies. And to use scare tactics - if you do not give us this increase we would be in trouble - and try to wring the necks of poor commuters, I say each and every Singaporean should rise and tell them, "Give us a better line because I Not Stupid." It, therefore, brings me to the question of what is the role of the PTC in all this. How does it come to the conclusion that if fares are not increased, then the operations would not be viable? Is it, in fact, the duty of the PTC to ensure the profitability of the transport operators, or are they supposed to ensure that everyone - the bus companies, you and I - get a fair shake? I think the PTC must remember that it should not become the apologist for the transport operators. What are the chief executives of SBS Transit, SMRT and TIBS doing on the PTC? They would be there armed with facts and figures to support their arguments. But should they not be asked to appear before the PTC to state their case, instead of being part of the PTC? How can the players in the game be the referees at the same time? Mr Speaker, in my Motion, I have asked that the PTC review these fare increases.”
“Members might recall that in 1978, when SBS was listed, the Government actually guaranteed shareholders a dividend rate of 71/2%, because it was the first time the Government was allowing the use of CPF funds to members of the public to buy shares of companies listed on the Stock Exchange, and it wanted to provide this form of assurance and to encourage members of the public to invest in SBS. In 1993, this guarantee was withdrawn as SBS had in fact been paying more than 71/2% and, as we have seen, with the type of dividends that it has been paying in the past few years, the guarantee would have been superfluous. The return on equity of both SBS Transit and SMRT Corporation exceeds the ROEs of many other companies in the broad transport sector of companies listed on the Stock Exchange. So, there you have it, two highly profitable companies making very good returns for their shareholders. And do not forget that from next year on, they will pay less corporate tax. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have nothing against shareholders receiving what is rightly due to them for their investments. Do not get me wrong. And the shareholders must be happy if we look at the share prices of both companies today. They have always been quite consistent. Based on their share prices, SBS Transit and SMRT offer respectable dividend yields of 5% and 4% respectively to their shareholders. And the market cannot be wrong about the profitability of these companies. That is why the share prices of these companies have remained strong. Sir, I wish I had bought shares in SBS Transit and SMRT instead of in SingTel, but that is another story for another day.”
“To the shareholders of SBS Transit, it must be a good investment. Each SBS share has a par value of 25 cents. Last year, shareholders were rewarded with a dividend return of 34%, in spite of the dip in profits. In the previous years, they got between 12% and 49%. In fact, in 1997, shareholders received a very nice 36 cents for each 25-cent share that they owned. Total payout to shareholders in the last two years: $27 million was given to shareholders in 2000 and, in 2001, shareholders received a total of $19 million. Let us now look at SMRT. SMRT is a little complicated. It was Singapore MRT Ltd, and then it became SMRT Corporation when it was listed as a public company in July 2000. So, I will just take it from that year. In the reporting period before it was listed, SMRT Corporation made a profit of $180 million. For the financial year ending 31st March 2001, it earned $102 million and, for the year ending 31st March 2002, ie, just ended not too long ago, it earned $56 million, all at the group level. Return on equity: 26% in 2001 and, for last year, 14%. Let us take a look at SMRT Corporation's dividend payout. Each SMRT share has a par value of 10 cents. For the year ended 31st March 2001, it declared three dividend payments amounting in total to a dividend rate of 46%. For its latest reported year, the dividend payout rate was 28%. Total amount of money paid out to shareholders: $52 million in 2001, and $32 million in 2002. Both SBS Transit and SMRT Corporation have policies of paying half their yearly profits to their shareholders.”
“The PTC said further that the private bus operators could not pick only the profitable routes, as this went against the principle of balanced coverage which SBS and TIBS had to observe. In other words, they cannot cherry-pick their routes. It claimed that it wanted a level playing field. Yet, it forgot that the playing field was already not level when it allowed SBS and TIBS to offer charter bus services, which had all along been the domain of the private bus operators. The private bus operators were also trying to make up for under-provided feeder routes at that time in the new towns like Punggol and Sengkang, which were just not well served by the big boys. But, I suppose, this did not figure in PTC's reasoning. So, the PTC calls it levelling the playing field. I think it was just plain keeping out the competition and, in the end, it was the common man who lost. What about the viability of the two big companies? The Minister also says let us not wait till they go bust before we increase prices, and that they have to make a certain amount of profits on their assets to make them viable. He says that if they do not get their fare increases, they are going to make losses and they would not be viable. Sir, does he not know that in a recession almost every business is just making less today? Let us take a look at how profitable or unprofitable SBS Transit and SMRT are. SBS Transit made profits, after tax, of $21 million in 1997, $35 million in 1998, $42 million in 1999, $51 million in 2000, and $39 million in 2001. Yes, profit figures do not tell the whole picture, but let us look at their return on equity, which is the paid-up capital and reserves combined. For SBS Transit, return on equity: 24.4% in 1997, 30.6% in 1998, 28.3% in 1999, 24.7% in 2000, and 17.9% in 2001.”
“They know what to do. Many of us who have been to Hong Kong and travelled on their buses and their MTR know that they do not boast of a world-class transport system - not that ours is anyway - but they have a system that is efficient, reliable and at reasonable prices. But what is the situation here? If we recall, last July, SBS and TIBS feeder fares went up by 10 cents. The Singapore School and Private Hire Bus Owners Association sought the PTC's permission to run feeder services, as the Association felt that it could provide lower fares than SBS and TIBS. What was the response of the PTC? Instead of allowing the competition, which would have meant lower prices for everyone, the PTC rejected the application on the grounds that the private operators would not be able to provide "a seamless, integrated transport system that gives maximum convenience to commuters." These are the PTC's own words, "a seamless, integrated transport system that gives maximum convenience to commuters." In other words, in order to compete with SBS and TIBS, the private bus owners would have to provide for a fare card system which, of course, is a non-starter for them, considering the large amount of investments in technology for a fare card system. I understand that such an investment would cost them millions of dollars. To the PTC, the word "seamless" means only a fare card payment system when you travel by the two bus companies and by rail. But, to the customers, "seamless" means getting to point A and point B, and maybe to point C, and he does not care if it is an SBS or TIBS bus that comes along, as long as the bus gets him to where he wants on time and at a low price. Singaporeans would have gained, but competition was nipped in the bud by the PTC.”
“So what is this passing of an additional cost to run the line to Changi to commuters? Look at what they do in Hong Kong. They run a new line, but they do not tell commuters that it is going to cost them more money to run the service, and so they have got to raise fares throughout the whole island. They reduce prices for the new line in order to compete. Sir, I heard that the buses are also to be linked to a Global Positioning System so that fare stages will be automatically updated instead of being done manually as they are being done now, and costly panels will be provided at bus stops and LRT stations to provide real-time information. How much will these cost? Do we really need them? Do these add value to customers? I think the management of these companies should realise that all commuters want is to get from one point to another without all these frills that they will have to pay for ultimately. Sir, not everybody wants to travel first class. For the majority, all they want is a no-frills economy class trip. What is the point of spending all that money on things that your customers do not seem to appreciate and you tell them that they have to pay for it? What about retaining customer loyalty? Not too long ago, Hong Kong MTR gave a rebate to its passengers. If they used their farecard 10 times within a week, they gave the commuters a rebate. Until last week, they ran another promotion. Use their farecards 10 times in a week and they get a free lunch voucher with Tai Ka Lok, a fast-food chain, and, this week, it is even better: use the same card for 10 times within a week and they get a voucher for dinner. Now, how is that for competition? Hong Kong MTR does not need to hide behind the skirts of any public transport authority to tell them how to stay alive.”
“We don't take into account bus company fares but we would like to pledge value for money ." I think they did take into account the bus fares. That is why the MTR lowered their fares. But note what the MTR spokesman said, he used the words, "value for money." That is the basis of competition. You add value to every dollar your customer pays so that you can retain their loyalty. In the Hong Kong MTR, they have just, not too long ago, added glass doors at their stations, like what we have in our MRT system, and these doors open only when the trains arrive. It is a safety feature. They have also added, not too long ago, display signs that tell you when such and such a train will arrive. But they did not pass on all these costs to commuters. That is value for money. That is part of the service. But, in Singapore, any slightest service improvement becomes a frill, or is a frill that no one asked for, and they will ram the costs down your throats: TV Mobile, plasma information screens, piped-in radio programmes, etc. SMRT has justified the higher operating costs by pointing to examples, such as its new information system and even things like adding more benches for us to sit down at station platforms. Another reason it has given is that it will incur another $4 million in expenditure to run the new service to Changi Airport. Well, are you not supposed to collect revenue from a new service that will cover your operating costs? I remember that, for years in this House, Members were clamouring for this service to Changi Airport, and we were always told that it could not be done because there was just not enough passenger traffic. But we were finally told that we could have it as the service was found to be viable.”
“But our two transport operators can do this because there is no competitive environment in their business. The two companies do not compete with one another on the same routes, so that is why, even during a recession, they can put up prices with such impunity. There is simply no incentive for them to find ways to do things better and more economically to keep the loyalty of their customers. It is a question of take it or leave it. Now, let me illustrate this point further. I have here a news report from the South China Morning Post of Hong Kong dated Friday, 5th July. The headline reads "MTR [that is the mass transit rail] extension fares undercut buses". It says: "Hong Kong MTR announced that its fares will be up to 23% cheaper than travelling by bus when a new service starts on 18th August. Fares on the rail will also fall between 2.9% and 22% lower than on comparable bus routes operated by three other bus companies. In addition to the lower fares, MTR will also grant a promotional discount of $2 for Octopus card users [Octopus card is their equivalent of our fare card] for two weeks after the new service commences." Sir, the report then goes on to say: "The announcement prompted some bus operators to consider cutting fares to remain competitive. A First Bus Company [this is one of the bus companies] spokeswoman said the company welcomed competition." "A Kowloon Motor Bus Company added it may review routes and fares. " This report adds that the bus companies would consider rearranging their routes and reduce the number of stops to cut their fares. An MTR official then responded by saying that the MTR fares "were set in accordance with affordability, market competition and economic conditions.”