Tan Sze Wee
Singapore
“Sir, the Baby Bonus Scheme, which was first introduced in April 2001 and further enhanced in August 2004, supports the parents' decision to have more children by helping to lighten the financial cost of raising children. The Baby Bonus Scheme is a laudable one.”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, we know the importance of growing our human capital and to make education more affordable for those from the lower-income families. To make education accessible and affordable for all, the fees for educational courses should not and cannot be priced beyond the reach of the average student.”
“Sir, I would like to have the opportunity to ask the Minister again to provide the answer to my cut, which is what is the level of subsidy that is provided for medical students, and also when the Graduate Medical School starts operating next year, will the same level of subsidy be provided to the students of the Graduate Medical School as…”
“I would like to thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the clarification regarding not handling dead birds per se. But I have a clarification.”
“Sir, before I start, I would like to declare my interest as the CEO of a diagnostic company developing rapid tests for Avian flu. My question relates to the recent world-wide fears about the emergence of bird flu in the region.”
“The redevelopment of SGH's Pathology Department is especially far more pressing now with an H5 Avian flu pandemic, and probably a human flu pandemic, looming over the horizon.”
The complete record
Every one of 90 lines we hold for Tan Sze Wee, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 2.
“NRF should be more proactive in identifying new research areas and industries in these three identified sectors to meet the strategic needs of the country. As an example, for the IDM sector that has been identified as a strategic focus, the current discussion seems to be focused on the gaming, animation and digital movie-making industries, which have probably been identified based on feedback from the current creative industries. However, basing on feedback will mean that there will always be a time lag of three to four years, ie, "past data". Now we may want to do a bit of forecasting ourselves, to predict the possible new IDM industries that may spring up as the IDM sector grows and take a lead in researching in those areas. This forecasting would also apply to the other two strategic sectors that have been identified. This is similar to what Mr Shai Agassi, a member of the Scientific Advisory Board of the NRF said in a report in the Straits Times on 31st March 2006. He said, and I quote, "You don't wait for the market change, you make the market change if you want to remain as a global leader". Sir, in conclusion, I support this Bill that provides the necessary structures and resources to support Singapore's R&D drive. I support it and hope to see many positive changes going forward. 6.03 pm”
“What is needed is a range of indicators, such as the numbers of publications, citation counts, awards won, invention disclosures filed, primary patents filed, patent commercialised, manpower trained, research dollar attracted from the industry, attraction of overseas R&D headquarters and laboratories to Singapore, etc. This whole range of indicators should not be applied equally to all institutions conducting research, ie, there is no one pair of research shoes that fits all approaches. Rather, depending on the institution, whether it is a university, polytechnic, research institute or SME, a different combination of these indicators should be applied to measure the research output. In addition, it should vary from proposal to proposal and from discipline to discipline. For example, it does not make sense to ask how many research laboratories or research companies a proposal to set up a research centre can bring to Singapore. Sir, it is not realistic to ask for such indicators in such proposals, at least not at the onset. Research always has a sense of uncertainty. Who can be so sure to promise these figures upfront? Thus, we need to formulate a few sets of KPIs to cater to the different enterprises that are conducting research and these sets of KPIs should be based on the unique characteristics of the enterprise conducting the research as well as the nature of the research being conducted. Sir, the last point that I would like to speak on with regard to this Bill is the need to be more proactive in identifying new strategic research areas in the three identified research sectors, namely, the biomedical sciences, water and environmental technologies and interactive and digital media (IDM) sectors.”
“Hwang before his team was being found out to have fabricated certain data, these large amounts of research grants could have been awarded to other worthy research projects and proposals. Clause 19, read with the Schedule, makes consequential amendments to two other written laws which deal with, namely, A*STAR and SPRING. An observation here is: will these amendments lead to better coordination in the funding of research by NRF and A*STAR? I would also like to raise a question here with regard to funding of research by NRF. As an academic in the university, I have had experiences where some Ministries seem to be very particular in funding either basic or applied research, although it is very difficult to draw a clear line. May I know whether the NRF Fund will be used to fund both types of research? I would also like to mention that all engineering research is ultimately applied in nature since engineering research is to solve problems in the end, whether near or far. Next, I would like to raise a few points with regard to key performance indicators (KPIs). As the Prime Minister has said, we need to have proper performance measures because how we measure influences what people will do. Thus, we need to have a coherent set of KPIs to measure the achievement of the R&D activities. However, research outcomes are often not easily quantifiable. We should not be relying on winning awards and competitions alone, the total number of research publications and their citation counts. We should also not be too skewed towards commercialisation of technologies and ideas as that would influence the research towards more downstream development work.”
“In line with more accountability and transparency, we need proper research governance to enhance accountability and transparency in the use of moneys from this NRF Fund. Hence, we need to formulate a research governance framework considering that this NRF Fund will be armed with $5 billion over the next five years to fund R&D activities. Clause 14 prohibits any person exercising any function under this Bill from revealing any protected information which may, at any time, come to his knowledge in the course of his duty under this Bill. The penalty is a fine not exceeding $5,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or both. In this case, consider the scenario of research proposals that have been submitted to the NRF for consideration. Many of such proposals could lead to research breakthroughs as well as patents and commercialisation. It is thus of great importance that such research proposals and plans be carefully guarded to prevent unethical behaviour, such as stealing of research ideas from peer researchers or information being leaked out to other parties. This is more crucial in the case of documents relating to filing of patents and commercialisation of research outputs. Hence, Sir, this penalty of $5,000 or imprisonment of a term of not exceeding two years or both is, in my opinion, a little too lenient. I would urge the Ministry to consider harsher penalties in this instance. Clause 15 provides for various offences relating to supplying false information to the Board. The penalty is a fine not exceeding $5,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or more. Sir, again, this is lenient. Looking at the South Korea's stem cell research scandal, where large amounts of research grants were awarded to Prof.”
“If these foreign scientists in the US and elsewhere have to go through competition and rules to secure grants, they should also follow the same rules in Singapore, ie, compete on merits and level ground. Why give them special concession? Sir, I would again like to make a plea for equal treatment as I did during the MTI's COS debate, ie, that NRF should not favour the foreign researchers and, therefore, discriminate against the local R&D talents. We are only asking for a chance to compete equally. Let us compete on level grounds. Sir, I welcome clause 14 and clause 15 that deal with research governance, which spell out the penalties for persons who reveal trade secrets, etc, and penalties for persons supplying false information to the Board respectively. These clauses would promote IP protection and are steps towards strengthening research governance. However, these two clauses alone are not sufficient to safeguard scientific integrity and prevent misconduct in research. Scientific research today is increasingly about access to grants and rewards, such as fame, prizes and commercial spin-offs - these incentives that can sometimes lead to unethical practices, as in the South Korea's stem cell research scandal. In Singapore, we have the Bioethics Advisory Committee (BAC) to guide the biomedical research and an external oversight system. However, we need a sound research governance framework that is aimed at continuous improvement of standards and the reduction of unacceptable variations in research practice to safeguard scientific integrity, ensure financial probity and prevent fraud and misconduct in research. Sir, we are reminded of proper corporate governance in the recent meltdown of NKF.”
“It would also mean that - if I may be frank here - Singapore, which has been viewed as a "Santa Claus" by many overseas researchers and research institutes, would have more goodies to dish out now with the setting up of this new NRF Fund. Sir, as the Prime Minister has said in his Budget summary speech, which I quote, "We will not spend it blindly; we must make sure it is well spent". To reiterate, the questions we need to ask ourselves here are: (1) If a world-renowned scientist is not able, or is facing certain difficulties, to find grants to support a certain research project in the US, UK or his home country, there must be some reasons and important factors to it, and we should analyse carefully before we throw in huge amounts of money for this person to come to Singapore and conduct the research work here. A different angle to view this is: is the Singapore Government offering them huge sums of research grants without requiring them to clearly state their research objectives and deliverables in the form of writing research grant proposals? (2) In attracting these world-renowned scientists with huge research grants and/or salaries, what are the key performance indicators (KPIs) that we have set for them to meet, and within what kind of a timeframe do these scientists have to deliver what they have promised? (3) Is "buying" scientists the right approach for Singapore to put us on the world map of R&D? Are we merely using them to decorate a list of who's who in research in Singapore? (4) Are we giving a different treatment to the foreign scientists as compared to home-grown researchers in research grant application and approval?”
“Sir, this industry-track PhD degree has been proven with great success in the UK and Europe, and it can be introduced in local universities to increase the industry-relevant research conducted in the universities. This will ensure that the research performed is of greater practical use and can be transferred to the industry. Hence, companies will be more willing to participate and provide such R&D funding. This will encourage private-sector participation, bridging the universities' research efforts with the industries. Clause 5, subclause (2)(a), states that the moneys in the Fund may be paid to "other person (whether in Singapore or elsewhere) undertaking or facilitating R&D activities". Sir, the inclusion of this phrase in this subclause could again be more exciting news to overseas researchers than Singaporeans. This inclusion would mean that the moneys from this NRF Fund can be paid to overseas researchers in a manner similar to what our local research agency is currently doing in "catching whales". So far, this local research agency has caught many "whales", and they are renowned researchers from the US, Japan and UK who have made their names in the cancer and life science research. Sir, in my speech during the MTI's COS debate this year, I put forth a series of questions that we need to carefully consider before paying out huge sums of money to such overseas scientists or researchers. I would urge the Ministry of Finance to consider these questions as well when managing this NRF Fund. What has already been practised by this local research agency should preferably not be repeated by NRF, otherwise, it would only mean more moneys being paid to expensive overseas scientists.”
“Sir, in my speech during the September 2005 Parliament sitting on the topic of Singapore's R&D strategic thrusts, I mentioned that there is a R&D value chain that can be considered. In this R&D value chain, firstly, the universities can be responsible for most of the basic and fundamental research. This is followed by the RIs, which act as halfway houses and the next stage where discoveries and inventions from the universities can be transferred for further development into prototype systems and products. The last stage is the polytechnics, which can take the prototypes further and develop them into commercial products together with the companies. Hence, in encouraging R&D in the Singapore SMEs, the polytechnics, which have very good industry networks, can be roped in to perform downstream application-oriented research jointly with these SMEs. In this R&D value chain, these polytechnics can partner the RIs and universities on one hand and the SMEs on the other hand to perform application-oriented research that can provide immediate solutions to the technical needs of these SMEs. A new research funding scheme can be set up for polytechnics and the SMEs to jointly apply for grants to perform such research. Fourthly, I have proposed introducing a new industry-oriented engineering Doctorate degree in my Motion for the Adjournment on the topic of Singapore's R&D's strategic thrusts. Here, Sir, I would like to propose that NRF consider providing research scholarships from this NRF Fund for Singaporeans to pursue such industry-oriented PhD degrees in the local universities.”
“In order to increase the percentage of business R&D by SMEs in Singapore, we would need to study and analyse the profile of these SMEs, such as their primary business activity and employees' qualifications, the funding structure in their projects, their financial cashflow patterns, etc, so that new incentive schemes can be proposed to encourage these SMEs to engage in R&D activities and help them to align their R&D investments with commercial opportunities. A new research grant funding scheme can be introduced for the SMEs. Currently, the Academic Research Fund (ARF), which is managed by the Ministry of Education, has bi-annual calls for research proposals mainly for the Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs), while A*STAR has similar open as well as thematic research proposal calls, again mainly for the IHLs and RIs. There is no specific scheme calling for proposals from the SMEs. To promote private R&D among the local SMEs, a new scheme can be introduced where SMEs can submit research proposals for consideration by the NRF. This SME research grant scheme can be targeted at specific local industry sectors that Singapore is keen to grow. Examples are the precision engineering and the food industries. This will encourage local SMEs to engage in greater research activities. Thirdly, to encourage more private sector R&D investments, we need to increase the efficiency with which good ideas are turned into new products, processes, services and solutions so as to create a conducive environment for firms to increase R&D investment in Singapore. In this regard, we need to bridge the gaps between the research in the universities, RIs and the private sector research in MNCs and SMEs to turn R&D outputs into new products, processes and services.”
“Sir, if it is just solving the immediate problems as well as generating revenues, then the three identified R&D sectors would be better driven by some private organisations for profit-generation rather than under NRF for the creation of a knowledge-driven economy. Singapore is moving towards a knowledge-driven economy, and an important component is the creation of new knowledge in the possible new industries that may spring up as the three identified sectors grow. Singapore-based IP needs to be created in the long run. It is not sustainable to build research capitals in these three sectors just by using imported technologies forever. Such a lead can be easily eroded. Hence, I personally feel that it is important that research efforts should be more generic and not be skewed too much towards these specific private sector or industry's needs as well as profit-driven targets. Although the ultimate aim of R&D is to generate economic payoff, there should be a fine balance of developing new basic skills that could reap even greater payoff eventually and applying existing skills for the smaller but more immediate payoff. In this regard, a good balance is needed: basic research to fuel the private sector or private-sector led applied research which is of immediate relevance. Secondly, in the July 2005 EU report, it was reported that 22.4% of the business R&D is performed by SMEs in the EU; 14.1% in the US and 7% in Japan. SMEs, being small, have limited funding to channel into research.”
“I would like to urge the NRF, in managing and awarding research grants, not to unduly favour proposals that have overseas collaborations unless they truly add value and are bona fide. What we hope to achieve, with this ramping up of research grants, is to build up the R&D landscape in Singapore and groom local R&D talents and budding industries from the SMEs rather than for the mere purpose of bringing in big players from overseas, whether a company or an institute, that may siphon the limited R&D resources away as well as force the smaller local R&D players out of the R&D scene and, worse still, having their own agenda which may not benefit Singapore directly. Clause 5, subclause (1), sets out the purposes to which the moneys in the fund may be applied to. One of the objectives listed in subclause (1)(b) is to fund R&D activities so as to increase investment by the public and private sectors in Singapore in R&D activities. Firstly, private sector usually drives technologies that are of immediate use to them. Economically relevant no doubt, but they may not be addressing technologies of the far future. Currently, most local research laboratories of MNCs and local large companies are application-driven. Local SMEs are mostly only keen on short-term downstream application-oriented research that can provide solutions for an immediate problem that they have experienced, if not yesterday. Sir, the private sector and SMEs tend to only focus on the needs that are of immediate concern to them. To them, upstream research is not an important component, and they are only concerned in solving the current industries' immediate problems.”
“In this regard, I would urge that detailed implementation procedures of such overseas partnerships be clearly spelt out, such as the level of involvement and commitment required of overseas collaborators, the percentage or amount of co-funding that overseas collaborators would need to provide in such partnerships and collaborations, the maximum allowable percentage or amount of overheads that can be charged by overseas collaborators, etc. In addition, these detailed procedures have to be meticulously followed through in the implementation of the research proposal awarding and grant application process. As a researcher myself, I have had experience where I received "invitations" from overseas researchers asking me to lend my name to their research grant application that they are applying to, to fulfil the need of having a so-called overseas collaborator. In many cases, the actual participation of the overseas collaborators is very minimal, and hence does not truly amount to an overseas collaboration. Fourthly, in including a phrase of "partly within Singapore" in the definition of R&D activities in this clause, a question to raise is: will this favour awarding grants to research proposals that have overseas collaborators, even though overseas partners do not contribute financially or may even request for high overhead components and expenses when they come to Singapore? As a researcher myself, I have witnessed "special collaboration" where the overseas collaborators charged an overhead of as high as 50%-60% of the total research grant, and "demanded" VVIP treatment when they come to Singapore. Sir, there could be just as many good research proposals coming from within Singapore that may not have overseas collaborations.”
“Secondly, one could argue that overseas funding bodies, such as the US National Science Foundation (NSF), DARPA, etc, award some of their research grants to overseas researchers to carry out R&D activities outside of these countries. However, NSF and DARPA award a very small percentage of their grants to overseas researchers, compared to the amount that is retained in the US. Personally, I feel that NSF is NSF, and the US has vast resources that we do not have. In addition, they want to be seen as "donor" countries. Do we want to be seen as a donor country? Hence, it may not be in Singapore's interest to spread resources thinly trying to attract the top 1% of the research proposals from all over the world, creating some high-end technologies that have no specific practical applications and mass appeal in Singapore and its neighbouring countries. Sir, here, I echo the comment made by Prof. Clayton Christensen of Harvard Business School, a member of the newly-formed RIEC council, in his recent interview reported in the Straits Times of 31st March 2006, where he commented that Singapore should develop products that can be mass-produced and sold at affordable prices in neighbouring countries and not waste resources creating high-end technology with little mass appeal. Thirdly, another perspective of viewing this inclusion of "partly within Singapore" in clause 3 is that it would serve to encourage researchers in Singapore to have overseas collaborators in their R&D activities, as well as to jointly apply for research grants from the NRF Fund.”
“Sir, this strong growth in our R&D intensity in China will affect the implementation of Singapore's R&D plan. Thus, I would like to raise a few questions here. Is our target of 3% GDP within the next five years sufficiently competitive? How do we compare with China's R&D efforts? Also, by that time, Japan, EU, etc, would have probably spent something like 4% to 5% of their GDP per year on R&D, if not more. Are we still competitive then? Next, I would like to raise a few points with regard to several clauses in this Bill. Clause 3 of the Bill specifically defines what is meant by R&D activities. Subclause (1)(a) states that R&D activities include those that are carried out "either wholly or partly within Singapore". Subclause (1)(b) also states that R&D activities include those that are carried on "either wholly or partly within Singapore". Sir, the inclusion of "partly within Singapore" in this clause 3 is certainly an exciting news to overseas researchers and research institutes, and they could be even more excited than Singaporeans over the inclusion of this phrase in this clause. Sir, what these two subclauses imply is that research grants from this NRF Fund can be used to fund overseas R&D activities. This will lead to a few possible undesirable outcomes. Firstly, overseas researchers could make use of pseudo-research or "name-sake" partners or collaborators in Singapore, including private companies and research institutes, to apply for research grants from this NRF Fund, indirectly sponging the limited R&D resources away from worthy Singapore R&D projects and proposals. In such cases, the research outputs of such overseas R&D activities would not lead to increased direct R&D outputs, intellectual properties (IPs) and patents from Singapore.”
“I hope the esteemed NRF Board and the RIEC will be able to advise the public on how soon the Fund will be made available, and also to outline the criteria that must be met by private and public sector companies in order to qualify, and successfully apply for this Fund. Assoc. Prof. Ong Soh Khim (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak on this Bill. I would first like to declare my interest. I am an academic at the National University of Singapore where my work involves both teaching and research. This Bill aims to set up a National Research Fund that will be managed by the National Research Foundation (NRF) Board, and the purpose of this fund is to encourage the development of innovative products, processes and services. The Prime Minister said, in the latest Budget speech in March this year, that the fund will be armed with $5 billion over the next five years to fund R&D activities. It will have an initial injection of $500 million this year. The Government is targeting to raise Singapore's GDP expenditure on R&D to 3% by 2010 from 2.3% in 2004. Sir, I would like to reiterate a point that I mentioned in my speech on the motion for the adjournment on the topic of Singapore's R&D Strategic Thrusts in the September 2005 Parliament sitting, ie, we need to view this increase of R&D spending from a macro perspective. China has experienced a very strong growth in its R&D intensity recently. In a July 2005 EU Report on Key Figures 2005 for Science, Technology and Innovation, it was reported that China experienced a very strong growth of its R&D intensity over the recent years, with an annual growth of 10% since 1997, and that China will catch up with EU by 2010, in terms of the share of GDP allocated to R&D.”
“Secondly, it is hoped that the RIEC will consider how best to utilise strategic private and public sector partnerships, eg, establishing linkages between the higher institutes of education and the private sector companies in sharing best practices in research development, to allow the best possible leverage on R&D opportunities provided by the fund. I hope that the RIEC will provide us with the guidelines very soon. I would also like to emphasise the importance of allowing more private sector companies, regardless of their sectors, to be given the opportunity to tap into this Fund, as long as the basic criteria outlined for application of this Fund are met. Further, I would like to highlight the importance of allowing Singaporeans based overseas, such as those working in research institutes abroad, to tap into the NRF fund for the purpose of conducting investigative research for data collection that would assist in scientific and technical breakthroughs. Under Part III, clause 2 of the NRF Bill, the "activities taken to be systematic, investigative and experimental" as described within, are important points that should be adhered to, but their scope could be widened to allow overseas Singaporeans the same leeway to use the Fund to carry out relevant R&D activities. On Part IV, clause 14(2) in the NRF Bill, I find the penalty for the breaching of confidentiality clause or of falsifying records too low. Because of the premium that must be placed on guarding the intellectual property of patented products, I would like to suggest that the monetary fine of $5,000 be increased to $10,000 to serve as a better deterrent.”
“In a commentary made in 2004 by Sir Peter Williams, the Chairman of the UK Engineering and Technology Board and Chairman of the UK National Physical Laboratory, he said: "We recognise that R&D is only one indicator of innovative activity within a company, as the DotCom boom has taught us that technology and investment success are not guaranteed bedfellows. It is financial success which both a manager and investor alike seek - not scientific achievement." "It is nevertheless this link between science, engineering and technology (SET), R&D, and wealth creation, which is often a prerequisite for success, as shown in a study led by the Engineering and Technology Board of the UK, in partnership with the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering." They observed that SET intensive Small Caps and spin-outs emerging from UK universities have provided one of the fastest growing investment sectors, with the FTSE Small Cap index out-performing the FTSE 100 since market recovery commenced in early 2003. The Science and Technology Plan 2010 also quoted the importance of SMEs in their report. They mentioned: "SMEs, because of their small size and less entrenched modus operandi, hold great potential as a source of creativity and innovation. In the US, four out of 10 highly innovative firms are small firms. Indeed technology innovation can provide a powerful platform from which SMEs launch into the competitive economic landscape of the 21st century." As I scrutinised the NRF Bill, two key concerns emerged. Firstly, how can the NRF be best directed to the private sector?”
“We have also aimed to increase the private sector’s share of GERD to two-thirds over the long term, from the 2004 level of 64%. The last objective is to increase the research manpower to support our R&D thrusts and the higher level of R&D activities, where the current level is about 98 Full-time Employee (FTE) Researcher per 10,000 labour force. The aim is to catch up with countries like Sweden and Japan and also to ensure an adequate supply of manpower. On the agency front, we have also used criteria, such as the number of PhD students trained and graduated, patent application numbers, and scientific publications as KPIs to measure our R&D efforts. I believe that an important KPI of our National Research Foundation is to improve the innovation activity of our small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and to promote private-sector R&D activities. We have a multitude of programmes and schemes to address technology innovations in SMEs. However, there is a limited take-up rate of these initiatives, as well as low R&D activities in SMEs. Most SMEs, lack the know-how and capability to absorb and develop new technologies. Most are either technology followers or technology-indifferent, with only a minority possessing the technological foundation and skilled personnel to take advantage of technology. Any SME that focuses purely on technology innovations is viewed as "high-risk", similar to the "Dot-Com" companies, which "burn" a lot of money with no visible return to their investors. Biomedical companies that focus on drug or device development also fall into this category, as they consume a lot of resources but do not provide immediate financial returns.”
“" Since the BMS initiative was launched in 2000, the manufacturing output, value-added and employment for the industry have grown strongly over the past five years with compounded annual growth rates of about 23%, 19% and 12% respectively. This figure looks set to grow, as an increasing number of multinational pharmaceutical and medical equipment firms set up operations in Singapore. Providing the underlying foundation for the BMS industry is the strong base of basic science research capabilities established by BMRC. Five key areas of research have been identified by BMRC where Singapore could play a critical role: (1) Drug discovery; (2) Bio-imaging; (3) Stem cells; (4) Cohort studies; and (5) Biomarkers. I support the continuing funding of these key research areas, as these translational programmes will interface with our basic biomedical core capabilities to further strengthen the BMS industry cluster. Figures from the Economic Survey of Singapore conducted in 2005 also showed that private sector expenditure on R&D increased from S$2.1 billion in 2003 to S$2.6 billion in 2004, accounting for 64% of total expenditure on R&D work. The clinical-research base would therefore be enhanced with the much needed R&D capital transfusion provided by the NRF, serving to boost Singapore’s R&D levels and contribute to our knowledge base. This is indeed timely. However, what are the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) that we will be using to measure the success of our funding measures? At the national level, we have aimed to increase the Gross Expenditure on R&D (GERD) to 3% of GDP in the next five years. This aim is to close the gap in R&D investments with innovation leaders, such as Sweden, Finland, and Japan.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am delighted to hear that the Government shall soon be establishing a National Research Fund (NRF) for the purpose of funding and administration of research and development activities by Singaporeans. With the introduction of the NRF, this may be the much needed impetus to encourage and stimulate further innovations in the technological, scientific and multimedia industries in Singapore. The Prime Minister mentioned, in his Budget speech, that R&D is one foundation upon which Singapore’s key competitiveness will be built upon, and I agree wholeheartedly. The United States and Japan have long and established records of leading advances in science and technology that serve to improve the human condition. I believe that Singapore, with its excellent infrastructure, financial resources and manpower capabilities, is similarly positioned to become a strong contender and a central repository, or knowledge hub, where ideas and innovations flourish. The introduction of the NRF is one step towards reaching this goal; however, some refinements to the Bill can still be made. I support the focus on R&D in the biomedical sector, as befitting my role as a medical doctor, and also an entrepreneur with a keen interest in the commericalisation of biomedical innovations. In its report for 2005, A*STAR reported that, "The Biomedical Sciences (BMS) industry's manufacturing output grew to about $18 billion in 2005, which is a 9.8% increase over 2004. Pharmaceuticals accounted for 88% of the total while Medical Technology enjoyed a strong 10.6% growth to reach S$2.1 billion in output. Employment also expanded by a healthy 8.6% to cross the 10,000 mark. Of the 10,200 jobs in the BMS manufacturing sector, 62% are in Medical Technology.”
“Sir, the Baby Bonus Scheme, which was first introduced in April 2001 and further enhanced in August 2004, supports the parents' decision to have more children by helping to lighten the financial cost of raising children. The Baby Bonus Scheme is a laudable one. Yet, many couples are remaining childless due to factors, such as personal choice, stress, or inability to conceive. Sir, I would like to ask the Minister if the Ministry will review the plans to boost the total fertility rate, as the rates have not improved significantly in the last two years, even after the introduction of the new Baby Bonus Scheme. Infants”
“Sir, we know that the Singapore society is ageing rapidly. Indicators show that the population of elderly will increase from about 7% today to about 19% by 2030, or one in every five persons. Singapore has a fast greying population and the issues that will arise due to this trend should be addressed. In order to support the greying population, a significant number of young Singaporeans, particularly the sandwich generation, will have to stay at home and take care of their ageing parents, in addition to taking care of their own families and children. Further, there are some families who have to take care of children, siblings or parents, who are mentally or physically disabled, in addition to taking care of their own families. Therefore, there is an additional strain on these sole breadwinners or able Singaporeans to take care of their loved ones who are less able. Sir, I would like to ask the Minister if the MCYS has given any consideration or made any plans to recognise those caregivers who opt to stay at home to care for their children or look after their aged parents or loved ones who are incapacitated, either physically or mentally. I mention this concern as this form of sacrificial love cannot be compensated adequately by money, but at least it makes it easier for the caregivers if their sacrifices are recognised. In some ways, the Government will be seen as promoting the values it espouses and, thereby, inculcating a sense of filial piety, compassion and gracious living in the hearts of younger Singaporeans. 6.30 pm Disabled”
“But a majority of Singapore employers have not become actively involved in helping caregivers. I would like to ask the Ministry to consider entitling employees who are caregivers three to five days of paid Eldercare Leave per year, for the purpose of bringing elderly parents above the age of 70 to the clinic or hospital for their routine check. The Eldercare Leave Scheme is widely practised in countries, such as the US, for some years, but it has yet to be widely implemented in the public sector in Singapore. I would like to ask the Government to take the lead in this practice in the various Ministries as a model to encourage the private sector to follow. Women more than men find themselves in the caretaker role, in spite of taking on wage employment. Since a sizeable proportion of caregivers are women, providing eldercare support in the workplace means that employers are choosing to be gender-sensitive in two ways. First, the employers are involved not only in retaining female employees but also concerned with their career development. Second, the employers are contributing actively to the CPF benefits of the female employees, which means that the latter would be more likely to be prepared for old age on retirement.”
“Sir, three unions are formed essentially to balance the interest of employers and employees. In Singapore, from my understanding, there are currently up to seven registered employee trade unions. My question is therefore to ask the Minister for Manpower what percentage of Singapore's workers are unionised now, compared to perhaps about 10 years ago? Is the difference of concern to the Government? And does the Government have any programme or incentive in place to encourage more workers and employees to achieve a high percentage of unionisation? ElderCare Leave Assoc. Prof. Ong Soh Khim: Sir, Singapore's population will age rapidly over the next few years. Compounding the problem is the trend of families with only one or two children, such that for every two old dependent persons, there is only one young person to provide continuous physical and economic support. Singaporeans increasingly find themselves in the caretaker role, having to cope with the stresses of caregiving as well as work demands. At present, there is an absence of employee leave scheme to meet this group of employees in most private and public sector organisations. Although a variety of eldercare benefits can be introduced, an effective option is the Eldercare Leave Scheme. Currently, the majority of caregivers are forced to rely on personal, urgent or compassionate leave to meet this specific need. Recently, the Committee for Ageing Issues recommended holistic healthcare and eldercare for the seniors but did not recommend provisions for Eldercare Leave for Singaporeans who need to look after old dependants while struggling with their work. The employers have a significant role to play in providing eldercare leave.”
“Sir, I would like to have the opportunity to ask the Minister again to provide the answer to my cut, which is what is the level of subsidy that is provided for medical students, and also when the Graduate Medical School starts operating next year, will the same level of subsidy be provided to the students of the Graduate Medical School as well.”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, we know the importance of growing our human capital and to make education more affordable for those from the lower-income families. To make education accessible and affordable for all, the fees for educational courses should not and cannot be priced beyond the reach of the average student. Sir, may I ask the Minister for Education, with the introduction of new fees for medical students in NUS, can the House be informed how much subsidy does one medical student receive per year during his/her five-year undergraduate programme, and what is the amount received as an average for the five years? Affordable Post-secondary Education”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, together with Dr Tan before me, I would also like to ask the Minister for Health regarding the promotion of gerontological education in Singapore. Our Government has addressed the ageing population issue for more than 20 years. During this time, it has focused properly on the healthcare needs of older persons. The health issues of older persons are addressed by medical gerontology or geriatrics. Non-medical issues are addressed by social gerontology. By this, we mean the study of the reciprocal relationship between the older person and health, family, community and society, as well as policymakers in Government whose decisions affect him or her. Society needs to ensure the following: (1) There will be sufficient healthcare for our ageing population; and (2) There will be policies, practices and understanding to meet the social and economic challenges posed by that population. This can only be ensured through gerontological education. It is concerned not only with the provision of healthcare for older persons but also with their development, so that they can continue to contribute to society or to find fulfillment and meaning in later life. It includes the promotion of knowledge and understanding about ageing and older persons. Therefore, may I ask the Minister, in view of the rapidly ageing population, what are the Ministry's plans for the promotion of gerontological education in Singapore?”
“The redevelopment of SGH's Pathology Department is especially far more pressing now with an H5 Avian flu pandemic, and probably a human flu pandemic, looming over the horizon. Can the Minister explain why the redevelopment of the SGH's Pathology Department, which is the backbone of our nation's virology diagnostic services, has been delayed, and what steps are taken to expedite its redevelopment?”
“Sir, with block funding already in place for the clusters, there exists the possibility that each cluster is incentivised to see as few subsidised patients as possible, especially at the hospital level where the lion's share of the block funding is consumed, by shifting workload to the other cluster through more referrals. Can the Minister reassure the House that there is no gaming within the clusters and cross-cluster referral rates have remained relatively constant over the recent years? Can the Minister also inform the House what percentage of NHG polyclinic and A&E patients is referred to SingHealth hospitals for further care and vice-versa, for each of the years from 2001 to 2005, omitting 2003 due to SARS outbreak? Pathology Services During the 2003 SARS outbreak, our pathology, especially our virology diagnostic capabilities and capacities were put under severe strain. The need to boost our capacities and capabilities was clearly felt. It is thus a disappointment to note in the Ministry of Health's budget estimates that plan to redevelop the Singapore General Hospital's Pathology Department building has been delayed. If my memory serves me correct, when SGH was redeveloped in the 1970s, the Pathology Department buildings were omitted. Thus, the buildings are at least 40 years old, if not older. We all know that most HDB flats at 40 years of age have been given extensive upgrades or redeveloped, what more our SGH's Pathology which actually forms the backbone of our nation's pathology and virology services? The small, crammed and old rooms at the SGH's Pathology Department are also not coping with automation, which saves manpower, and it is also where laboratory medicine is heading towards currently.”
“Sir, it has been shown time and time again that the most cost-efficient way of managing healthcare costs is to move care away from the hospital setting to the primary healthcare setting, where health promotion and disease prevention take place and where the primary healthcare physician acts as a gatekeeper to the hospital services. To realise this, many governments have shifted consumption of public healthcare from the hospital to the primary healthcare setting through apportioning of more financial resources to primary healthcare providers as well as health promotion and prevention efforts. Can the Ministry of Health inform us how much of MOH's operating expenditure is devoted to primary healthcare and how does this percentage compare with other countries, such as Australia, the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Canada? I am not asking for the overall MOH operating budget to be increased, but rather to consider shifting more of the operating budget from hospital services to primary healthcare where we can achieve a bigger bang for the buck, especially if you are found to be relatively under-funding primary healthcare when compared to other developed countries due to insufficient apportionment. Institutions of Public Character”
“I would like to thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the clarification regarding not handling dead birds per se. But I have a clarification. It is a fact that, as we know from recent cases, quite a majority of the human cases have been children who have come in close contact with dead poultry or birds that have been exposed to H5N1. This question arose because one of my friends, who is a parent, had seen with her eyes, how in a school, when there was a dead bird in the compound, the way it was handled upset her because it seems that the school does not really know what to do as well. Perhaps it is for the Ministry to consider public education because although we do not have it here yet but, because of migrating birds, we never know when it will come. Schools too would also have to be educated on how to handle dead birds within their compound, especially how to educate the children not to touch the birds as well.”
“Sir, before I start, I would like to declare my interest as the CEO of a diagnostic company developing rapid tests for Avian flu. My question relates to the recent world-wide fears about the emergence of bird flu in the region. Does the Ministry have safety guidelines for workers on how to deal with the disposal of dead birds found in public areas, such as roadsides, schools, parks and other public places? The reason is because the current outbreak is primarily in migratory birds that have been propagating the Avian flu. In particular, do these guidelines dovetail with our national H5N1 flu surveillance efforts? Does the public have to be educated on the safety guidelines for handling dead birds as well? Sir, I reiterate my concern, as we cannot afford not to be too careful, what with the recent bird flu outbreaks in the neighbouring countries and Singapore's situational position.”
“Sir, the Ministry of Trade and Industry has the noble task of growing the economy, expanding the trade levels and developing a pro-enterprise environment that will position Singapore as a key trade and business hub. The Entrepreneurial Talent Development Fund (ETDF) was introduced by MTI in 2004, targeted at students from institutes of higher learning, to develop talent by encouraging 'learning by doing' and encouraging these students to participate in various business ventures over the next five years to develop the spirit of entrepreneurship in our young. My question, therefore, is to ask the Minister, when the ETDF was introduced, $25 million was earmarked in total for the fund. For FY2004, $2.41 million was the amount drawn down by SPRING (as in actual figures) and in FY2005, the revised amount needed by SPRING was $700,000 versus an original estimated amount of $2.5 million in FY2005. For FY2006, the amount was only $500,000.”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, Singapore is fast becoming a cosmopolitan city and a global hub for people from various nationalities and talent to relocate here for work, to live and to play. MICA's vision to create a network and Net-savvy society is fast becoming a realisation. Still, the country needs to be adequately wired for appropriate optical network cables and for citizens to be infocomm-savvy in order for them to be a connected Singapore. Sir, I would like to know, in the setting up of the new national broadband network, what is the Minister's aim to raise the national household broadband penetration rates to. If I am not mistaken, only about 50% of the citizens in a household with access to broadband usage are Net-savvy. How does this compare to the national household broadband penetration rates of countries such as Korea and Taiwan? Can penetration rates be raised as a result of content and cost? I think this is very important. Infocomm 21”
“Mr Speaker, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State, as regards the prevalence of diabetes in the latest health survey of 2004, which was running lower than the previous health survey, whether it is possible to give a breakdown according to race. I am interested to understand why the prevalence rate came down, which runs counter to the prevailing rate which is supposed to rise.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for the clarification to my question. I would like to pose a supplementary question. In view of the fact that Medisave will be raised in terms of daily withdrawal limits as well as the utilisation and outpatient selected use, will the Minister consider raising the ceiling on the balances on Medisave as well. This is because the Medisave balance that is in each person's Medisave account will probably be higher for those who could contribute more, and because of the fact that the utilisation amount is going to rise over time.”
“Sir, the ban on fresh pork is perhaps understandable. But what about prepared dried barbecued pork which obviously has no risk for human consumption? Will the AVA consider reviewing its current ban on such prepared food, because in the preparation itself, the virus is denatured?”
“Sir, I would like to ask the Minister of State on the import ban on pig products from Malaysia because of the persistence of foot and mouth disease in pigs. But in the preparation of dried pig products, the virus will probably be killed in the process. Is there a need to also impose a ban on pig products as well as pig byproducts that are prepared, and we cannot bring them into Singapore?”
“My question is this. For religious organisations, does the ROS govern them strictly? If it does not, then it should look into this. Because religious organisations do collect a fair amount of money and there have been concerns about the lack of transparency in how the funds have been administered. Recently, there were also issues about fraud as well in one of these organisations. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, if a religious organisation is a society registered under the ROS, it will be governed by the ROS. And as I have said, essentially, it is for the members to watch over how the affairs of their society are conducted. These are funds collected from the members themselves. In so far as any society which wants to collect funds from the public, the society will have to apply for a permit from the police. And, indeed, one of the requirements of the permit is that within 60 days of the end of the collection, a statement of accounts, properly audited by an external auditor, will have to be submitted to the police. So that should control that part of the activities. BAN ON MEAT PRODUCTS (Update) 13. Dr Tan Sze Wee asked the Minister for National Development if he will provide the latest update on the bans on (i) beef product imports from the USA and Japan and (ii) meat imports from Malaysia, and what is the rationale for these continuing bans, particularly on pork products from Malaysia.”
“Sir, the answers are fairly clear. However, in view of what has happened recently, I think the concerns on the ground are primarily with regard to either charitable or non-charitable organisations which are collecting or in the process of collecting funds from the public in terms of accountability. For organisations that are governed under the Registrar of Societies, there is a clear guideline on the enforcement of corporate governance through the AGM and also through the accounts. Mr Speaker: What is your question, Dr Tan?”
“I would like to ask the Minister a question to clarify the issue about the living donor transplantation rate which is pretty low in Singapore. I think it is very important that we should try to encourage the rate of transplantation to increase. We would like the Minister's thoughts on the low rate of transplantation. Is it because of the awareness issue? Is it because of the cost issue, resulting in Singaporeans getting transplants overseas that we hear about? Or is it a cultural issue such that, particularly among the minority races as well, there have been very low participation rates? What can we do to encourage and also to improve this, because this is one important solution to bring down and also improve the lifespan of kidney patients?”
“Justa point of clarification. From the CDC itself,I understand that about $663,000 has been disbursed to 500,400 people, which worked out to be $122 per person. To the low income who earn less than $1,000 a month, this is quite substantial. But fortheir daily needs, is this sufficient for them to cope until the tide turns against them? The second matter I would like to clarify is, for the social enterprise, what sort of programmes is the CDC assisting. Is it by providing seed capital so that the social enterprise can be started off?I bring this up becauseI have a friend who is actually unemployed. He has been approaching the CDC for eight months. They basically try to tell him to retrain, but he cannot get any job until the company that wants to employ him sends him for training and he has no money to start up an enterprise. That is onefeedback I have received,and I would like some clarification.”
“So I agree with the Member that this is something that we have to tackle immediately. But at the same time, Sir, as I have mentioned in my speech, life must go on. We have to continue to work. In fact, yesterday, I had a visitor from America. She came in with my brother, very happy to visit Singapore, went to the Lantern Festival at the Chinese Garden. She asked me whether there was anything to be wary about. I said, "Nothing. Go and enjoy." So I think the impression must be given that Singapore is taking care of this. And, at the end of the day, our daily routine need not be changed so dramatically as long as we adopt some of the steps that we have highlighted over the weekend, and then let the expert panel do the study. And I am confident that over time we can put this problem under control, Sir.”
“Sir, in reply to the previous Member's question, a lot of these measures in place would take time to take effect. Do we have any expectation or how much reduction in terms of dengue infection rates? We are talking about 130 to 150 cases a day being reported now. What is the expectation with these measures being put in? How much reduction are we looking at? Because it is a lagging effect and, as most Members know, Singapore is already being put on quarantine watch in terms of dengue outbreak areas in South East Asia by, for example, Hong Kong's Department of Health. So the last thing we want to remember is what happened during SARS and to be labelled as a dengue hot spot, and that will affect tourism and our economy as well. Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: Sir, I think that is the reason why PM announced the Ministerial Committee over the last weekend because we are seeing a worrying trend and we have to tackle this quickly. I think it is very difficult for all of us to really put on a number because, as mentioned earlier, the relationship between breeding sites and the number of dengue cases is indeed very complex. So I think the more important thing is to try and go out and send the message and get Singaporeans to adopt that routine while the expert panel do the study. If you ask me and the members of my Committee and the Government, obviously we want to reduce it as much as possible in the shortest possible time. But there are things in which we can do, and that is our appeal to the community. Let us do the things that we can do, so that we remove as much as possible the uncertainty in the entire picture, and the expert panel would at least have more information to study and to come up with recommendations that would really help us to reduce this as much as possible.”
“The question I wanted to ask is that, for the average length of stay, the Senior Minister of State has actually accounted that by age alone because Tan Tock Seng Hospital has a high rate of patients. But if you account by the age itself, Tan Tock Seng Hospital could, in terms of efficiency or turning round the patient, look at it as well. So perhaps one of the factors, besides providing the building of hospital beds because the length of stay has a bearing on the hospital bill, is that the length of stay should be looked at as one of the performance indicators of hospitals as well.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank the Senior Minister of State for providing the answer to my question. However, I was asking the question because of the reply that was made in the previous sitting regarding the capacity of the beds in Tan Tock Seng Hospital resulting in the A&E situation. I find a bit startling to realise that, based on his reply, for the period 2005, Tan Tock Seng A&E has actually closed down about 9% of the time which, on an annualised basis, amounts to about one month per year which is quite alarming, compared to last year which was only 1%. Perhaps, he may wish to clarify that. The second point is that with the rest of the other questions I have on A&E, what is the knock-on effect on the other hospitals' A&E workload, as a result of Tan Tock Seng A&E closing down? What is the patient waiting time in the rest of the acute hospitals that have A&E services that were being overflowed now as a result of Tan Tock Seng A&E being closed down. The additional questions are actually relating to length of stay. What I have asked for is the average length of stay for rehabilitative and geriatric patients in Tan Tock Seng Hospital and across the other public hospitals which the Senior Minister of State has actually provided. However, what the Senior Minister of State has not provided is the average length of stay of rehabilitative and geriatric patients in the other hospitals as well. We note that the average length of stay has a bearing on ---”
“We need effective and responsible leadership in NKF to fulfil its purpose to serve the needs of kidney failure patients in Singapore.”
“Finally, one last comment on the infamous $600,000 annual salary package for Mr Durai. We should not criticise Mr Durai for taking home this amount, especially since the previous NKF Board approved it. But I do question the wisdom of the NKF Board. On what basis and benchmarks was this amount arrived at? I was told that the annual salaries of CEOs of our public acute hospitals range from about $300,000 to, maybe, $500,000 a year. Please bear in mind that these hospitals treat hundreds of thousands of patients a year, have thousands of staff and an annual turnover of anywhere from $100 million to almost $600 million a year. In fact, I think with the exception of maybe two very senior CEOs, most ofour public acute general hospital CEOs earn substantially lower than $500,000 a year, let alone $600,000 figure. The NKF CEO package should get a reality check by some objective benchmark. We can start by perhaps comparing it with, say, the CEO, COO or even the CFO pay packages of our public acute hospitals. I think the job responsibility of the CEO of the NKF should be equivalent to the job scope of the CEO of a smaller acute public hospital or, perhaps, the CEO or CFO of a larger hospital. I would question really hard the rationale behind the pay package if the NKF CEO job pays as well as the CEO of SGH or Tan Tock Seng Hospital, which iare two ofour largest public hospitals. In conclusion, Mr Speaker, the recent events in NKF have shown that we need better governance and transparency in the VWOs in Singapore. However, it should not distract us from the bigger picture of the rising trend and the subsequent burden of renal dialysis patients in Singapore, in the years to come.”
“MediShield is not bound to cover them once these patients exceed the lifelong withdrawal limit for MediShield.When this occurs, patients and organisations, such as Medifund, NKF andmaybe KDF, will have to take up this very substantial burden. In addition, the NKF has, with the support of the Health Minister, branched out into other areas of service. Some of these other areas include kidney disease research, cancer and paediatric health. I think these are very laudable objectives. Despite the setback in public confidence, I urge Singaporeans to continue to support in these NKF areas of work. The troubling facet of NKF saga is not how much wealth NKF has, but how little it has, in terms of transparency. In this respect, it can be clearly seen that Singaporeans demand transparency in how public money isspent. This is because most Singaporeans do not realise the costs involved in dialysis care and the implications in the long term, that is, in view of the ageing population and the projected dialysis care costs.Furthermore, what if NKF uses the funds raised for cancer and children's medical care and lumps them into a single pool of funds and takes some of the funds out for operating expenditure, or for other purpose? The public does not know how the funds raised will be used or projected for the future, hence they have demanded accountability from the NKF Board. From what I understand, directors' fees in some private and public listed companies are published openly in their company websites and annual reports. So, why doesNKF not publish its directors' fees, since it has accountability to its stakeholders, that is, both the public andthe donors? I would even suggest that the same criteria be applied to directorsfor VWOs as well.”
“MrSpeaker, Sir, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak and comment on the Minister's Statement on the National Kidney Foundation. The recent events in NKF have shown that we need better governance and transparency in VWOs. However, I would like to take some objections to the arguments put forth by the SPH's counsel on the funds in NKF that are needed to fund kidney dialysis in this country. I fully expect that the legal counsel of SPH would try his best to defend his claim and demolish the plaintiff's case. After all, the Singapore's legal system is an adversarial one and this is his job. However, the argument he put forth that the $262 million will last NKF for 30 to 40 years is overly simplistic.It is based on historical facts and figures. However, it conveniently ignores the disease load that Singapore has to face in the future. With a rapidly ageing population, the incidence and prevalence of chronic renal failure and patients requiring dialysis will rise rapidly. I would like to ask the Health Minister the following questions: (a) What has been the year-on-year growth of kidney failure patients on dialysis in the last 10 years? (b) What is the number of patients on dialysis now and what is the expected number in five and 10 years' time? (c) What is the average expected life expectancy of a renal failure patient on kidney dialysis? (d) What is the expected number of kidney dialysis patients claiming MediShield that will exceed the lifelong cap on MediShield claims in the next two, five and 10 years? In addition to the advance in medical science and better care, dialysis patients are expected to live longer than what the MediShield planners already anticipated.”