Teo Ho Pin
Singapore
“Mr Chairman, Sir, when Total Defence was first introduced in 1984, it was recognised that threats will not simply affect our military but potentially Singaporeans, combatants and non-combatants alike. Thus, we must continue to build resilience in our people and community.”
“Chairman, over the past year, we have witnessed an increase in the number of cybersecurity breaches. As a response to these incidents, many countries are stepping up efforts to strengthen their cybersecurity capabilities.”
“Sir, I wish to seek an update from the Minister on the skills upgrading and development of public officers as well as aspiring public officers, especially in the three areas which I have mentioned. Can the Government also consider giving out scholarships to nurture and attract talent in these fields? Role of PMO”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, we should empower the community to come up with innovative solutions like North West 911 and build capabilities in our people to cope better during emergencies.”
“The French Government passed a law in 2016 mandating that large supermarkets have to donate excess food to food banks and charitable organisations. If we had a similar initiative in Singapore, we can not only reduce the amount of food waste, but we can also help those in need.”
“Sir, I have three clarifications for the Senior Minister of State. First, will the Ministry consider licensing PMDs so as to manage the growth of PMDs in Singapore and also to make it compulsory for the PMD riders to attend a safe riding course?”
The complete record
Every one of 936 lines we hold for Teo Ho Pin, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 8 of 19.
“It is why we have chosen the approach which we have used in the past when we implemented GST and which we have retained in this Budget: compensate the lower-income group directly with our GST offsets, and by using Workfare, which is now a permanent scheme of compensation and topping-up of their incomes. GST offset package Everyone agrees that this is a generous offset package and, in particular, that the lower-income group is receiving a very substantial offset. Several Members like Mr Lim Biow Chuan and Mr Siew Kum Hong, have asked if the middle-income group or "sandwiched" class is getting a fair deal. However, as Mrs Josephine Teo has pointed out, they are, in fact, getting "real, tangible benefits". They get between four to seven years of GST offset typically - for four-roomers all the way to executive apartment owners and, in fact, some of those at the lower-end of the private property market. The middle-income group will also benefit more from the property tax rebate than other groups. In addition, there are other Budget tax changes that they benefit from, such as the reduction in road tax and foreign domestic worker levy. They will also benefit from the increase in CPF employer contribution rates. Some Members asked about families with elderly parents and children to support. This is, in fact, something which we considered carefully: size of family and the fact that some families have more dependants to look after with the same breadwinner's income. That is why we have provided the Senior Citizens' Bonus as part of the GST offset package, and PSEA top-ups for families with children who are still in school. And for very young children, many measures are already in place today, such as the Baby Bonus and the Children's Development Account scheme.”
“There are 37 varieties of rice being sold in NTUC Fairprice. If we focus only on the cheapest, then we would draw the line at NTUC Fairprice Thai White Rice, at $0.76 per kg. But NTUC Fairprice tells us that most of their customers prefer higher-quality rice, and not just the rich customers. For example, Royal Umbrella, a very popular brand of rice in Singapore, is $1.84 per kg. There are also other kinds of rice, not wildly expensive: Dragonfly Jasmine Rice at $2.35 per kg or Great Harvest Thai Organic Fragrant Rice at $3.95 per kg. I presume the reason why they are well stocked in NTUC Fairprice is that people are buying them - they are in demand. And there is an interesting range of rice products outside NTUC Fairprice. Should we cover 'Pearl' rice from Niigata, Japan? That, incidentally, had a wonderful food review from Ms Teo Pau Lin of the Straits Times. I read it on the "ST Foodies" website. But it comes with a price - $14.24 per kg. Should we extend exemption to chapati, which for some groups is an alternative staple to rice? Because governments find it very difficult in practice to tell people what is essential and what is not, the list keeps growing. And as the list grows, the more items you include, the more the beneficiaries are not in the lower-income group, and the more the revenue that is lost has to be made up for by a higher GST rate on other items in the expenditure basket. That is why the best way is for us to help the lower-income group directly and let them decide on what they need to spend on, instead of exempting essentials.”
“If we exempt essentials, it will mean that GST on the rest of the items, the non-essentials, will have to be higher. This would affect the lower-income group too, because, as we have just seen, they too spend a not insignificant amount of their income on non-essentials. The middle-income group would be particularly hard-hit, if we were to raise the GST on non-essentials on account of having exempted essentials from GST. This is what has happened in many other countries. In Australia, for example, they exempt essential food, and they have a GST rate of 10% on non-essentials. In Dublin, which is more representative of European rates, they exempt food, and it is 21% GST on the rest of the expenditure basket. This is why we have decided that the most effective way of raising revenues to help the poor is to administer a simple, across-the-board GST rate on all products in the market, and to compensate the lower-income group more - through offsets, and by using the GST revenue to fund Workfare. Rather than exempt essentials or food from GST, and have the bulk of the benefits go to those who are not in the lower-income group, we should have a clean GST rate for all items and use the revenues to help the lower-income group. [Refer to Chart B *.] Finally, even if we wanted to move towards a multi-tiered GST system, it would be highly arbitrary and administratively costly to implement in practice. Where do we draw the line for essential items? What the Government decides is an essential item is something which will move over time. That is why countries which start by exempting a few essential food items end up by expanding these definitions to whole categories of items. *Cols. 2207-2208. Take rice, for example. Just look at NTUC Fairprice alone.”
“] There will be some families that spend more, especially some extremely poor families that have a larger proportion of the expenditures on these essentials - and we have ways of helping these families. But we have studied this carefully, and most families in the bottom 20% of the household income ladder do not spend the major part of their income on essentials. They spend a major part of their income on the remaining items, including a good 29% or so on items where GST is already being absorbed by the Government. That is the first point: that spending on essentials, as defined by Members and various suggestions outside the House, is not a significant part of the expenditure of a low-income family. The second point is that the GST that we collect from spending on essentials comes mainly from higher-income households and foreigners. If we take uncooked food as an example, the bottom 20% pays only 7% or so of the total GST that we collect on uncooked food. The remaining is paid by the rest of the population, Singaporeans and foreigners. This means that for every one dollar that the lower-income family does not pay, we will be losing an additional $14 that is not being paid by the rest of the population. Put another way, if we exempt uncooked food from GST, we would be losing $450 million in tax revenue, of which only $30 million would benefit the bottom 20% of households. That is another reason why exempting essentials is not an effective way of helping the lower-income group. It is much better to use the monies that are gained from applying the GST to essential items to help the lower-income group directly. *Cols. 2205-2206. There is another reason why exempting essentials is not the most effective idea.”
“I now come to an important issue concerning the implementation of the GST, and this is the issue of whether we should have a single-tiered or a multi-tiered GST system; in particular, the issue of whether we should exempt certain items from the GST. Inderjit Singh and Mdm Ho Geok Choo, and one or two others, had felt that we should exempt or zero-rate essential items from GST, so as to help the poor. I agree completely with their objective. We should and we will find ways to help buffer the impact of the GST on the poor. That is our objective as well. This is what we have done through the GST Offset Package. More importantly, we have Workfare, funded out of GST, which will systematically and permanently help lower-income Singaporeans, and be much more than the increased expenditure that they will have to pay on the GST. The question is: what is the best and most effective way for us to achieve this objective of helping to buffer the impact of the GST on the poor? Let me explain why zero-rating of essential items is not an effective way of helping the poor. The first reason is that most of the spending of lower-income households is in fact not on essentials. Based on the Household Expenditure Survey, if we take the most commonly cited eight essentials - this is frequently mentioned in the letters to the press, and I think some Members of the House had also mentioned these essential non-cooked items - they comprise only 5% of the expenditures of the bottom 20% of households. Even if we take all uncooked food, that comes to 1/8 of the expenditure of a typical bottom 20% household. If we add public transport and utilities, another 13%, the total for these three categories comes to about one-quarter of their total expenditure. [Refer to Chart A *.”
“" And I agree also with Mdm Halimah, Ms Cham Hui Fong, Dr Ahmad Magad and others who emphasised that Workfare should aim to help workers to upgrade, increase their incomes and graduate out of Workfare, rather than be dependent on Workfare for good. Some MPs, like Ms Irene Ng, had wanted Workfare expanded. Some wanted to know now whether we are ready to expand it in the future. And there were some specific suggestions; for example, should we take into consideration family size in working out Workfare benefits? We will be watching the development of the scheme carefully over the next three years, before seeing how we need to refine it further. But we should be careful not to add further complexity to the scheme, such as by introducing new criteria like family size. We should be very clear that Workfare was a scheme to supplement income and incentivise work. It is not a needs-based welfare scheme. I will move now very quickly to the issue of CPF returns. Mr Christopher de Souza and Mr Ong Kian Min had asked if we could increase the CPF returns. I understand fully the logic and argument of Mr Ong Kian Min's speech, which I think are good. We agree we have to find ways to increase CPF returns. But it is not straightforward. Higher expected returns of course come with higher risk, and the Government has to consider who will bear the risks, and how much risk should be imposed or absorbed by CPF members themselves in their accounts. It is an important issue, as Mr Ong Kian Min has highlighted, one which we are studying carefully, and we will talk more about this later.”
“We are a country. We are a society. Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon, Mr Yeo Guat Kwang, Dr Faishal and others have stressed the importance of community bonding, and especially the importance of keeping strong family values as the bedrock of our society, the bedrock of a strong society. Dr Ahmad Magad, Mr Wee Siew Kim and Mdm Cynthia Phua also talked about population challenges, immigration and integration issues. DPM Wong Kan Seng will be elaborating on how the Government will be addressing these issues, including the integration of new immigrants and measures to support marriage and parenthood, in his speech during the Committee of Supply. Is the Budget fair to all Singaporeans? Let me now come to the third major question that has arisen during the last three days, and that is, is the Budget fair? Is it fair to all Singaporeans? This Budget has something for everyone. It is designed to provide opportunities for all to succeed, the young and the older; the lower-income, the middle-income, even the higher-income; small and big companies; provided they are willing to make the effort. Mr Lim Swee Say has addressed several of the key issues concerning Workfare, especially issues concerning informal workers that several MPs have raised. And Dr Ng Eng Hen, just before the Budget debate, has also spoken about this in reply to parliamentary questions. So I will not elaborate on this now. Let me just say that I agree fully with Mr Ong Ah Heng in the way he summed up the philosophy of Workfare, "You must try your best to help yourself, then others can help you.”
“Many MPs - Dr Lim Wee Kiak, Mr Hri Kumar, Jessica Tan, Mr Sam Tan, and Mr Edwin Khew and others - spoke about the need to promote environmentally-friendly practices, and for Singapore to stand out as an environmentally-conscious city. We agree. We know the Government has to play its part, and we have to develop a stronger awareness amongst our citizens to preserve the environment. First, this means maintaining high environmental standards within Singapore. This is why we are doing so much in Singapore to promote good air and water quality. This is why Singapore took the lead four decades ago in becoming a green city. This is also why we are taking a major leap forward in creating a green and blue city, plus our investments, as Mr Edwin Khew emphasised, in alternative and sustainable energies. Secondly, besides doing our best within this small patch of land that is ours, we have to play our part as part of the global effort. But we have to be realistic. Singapore is tiny. What we do cannot make a significant difference to global warming, or ozone. If big countries like the US, China and India do not come on board, everything we do will be in vain. Also, if Singapore alone cuts back on CO2 emissions while other countries do not, it will increase our costs and affect our competitiveness. Therefore, Singapore will do its share as part of the international effort to combat global warming. We have ratified the Kyoto Protocol, and will participate in working out global solutions to these global problems. We will comply with our international obligations. But we cannot go it alone. We have to be pragmatic. The Minister for the Environment and Water Resources will speak more on this during the COS. As many MPs pointed out, we are not just an economic city, of course.”
“Plus Xiling Snow Mountain, which they say is "a natural gift from God". We have no natural gifts from God. Quality of life is therefore a critical issue for us, man-made quality of life, and we have to keep moving, keep remaking ourselves, keep reinventing our city. Not just to appear in advertorials or magazine covers, but because this is a competitive factor: it attracts people, it retains people. And it provides an appealing and inspiring home for all Singaporeans. This is why we are investing, transforming our living and business environment - public housing, new Marina Bay, new network of waterways, green and blue. This is why also, as Mr Baey Yam Keng mentioned, we have to do more to encourage the creative arts, not just Government, but corporations and the people themselves. Mr Liu Thai Ker and others also keep bugging me about arts and education, whether we can do more to encourage quality arts teaching in education. Not just because we want more artists - in fact, we probably do not need huge number of artists - but because the arts are a useful trainer of the creative imagination. We are trying to improve, recruit more art teachers and put more of them in schools. So it is a total picture, making ourselves a city that is humming with creative energy. And with first-class social habits, which Ms Indranee Rajah, Mr Masagos Zulkifli and others, emphasised. Indranee Rajah put it very well, that no doubt we are bringing waterways and water bodies right to our HDB doorsteps, but we do not mean water bodies in the lift! We will not be a first-class city without first-class social habits, and we will have to work much harder at this. Next, the environment - an important part of the quality of life and an important part of being a first-class city.”
“This is still our fundamental policy - grow the economy, create jobs up and down the ladder for Singaporeans. Next, quality of life - an important competitive issue. Ms Jessica Tan, Mr Ong Kian Min and others have pointed out it is a key issue which decides where skilled professionals will locate, which city they want to live in. Singapore is not doing badly. We are the top-ranked Asian city in many surveys, for instance, the Mercer Quality of Living Survey that was conducted last year. A month ago, The Straits Times reported that the country Brand Index had ranked Singapore as the second-best city in the world for dining and night-life - after Italy. No one would have expected this even five years ago. We are not doing badly on quality of life, but again, it is a moving piece. And we need to do more. The competition is fluid, with new players emerging. Gautam Banerjee mentioned new emerging cities who offer a high quality of life - Shanghai, Bangalore in some ways, Dubai. In fact, the second-tier cities are catching attention internationally as important competitors, not just the primary cities,and not just the capital cities. Last month, Forbes published a list of seven "emerging global cities" to watch: Chengdu, Toulouse, Pune, Warsaw, Abu Dhabi, Curitiba and Tripoli. PM mentioned Chengdu during his Chap Goh Mei speech a few nights ago; he met the Singaporeans there, and some of them in fact wanted to stay on for good. Life was good in Chengdu. I noticed that on Monday, the Straits Times carried a full page advertorial on Chengdu. A page full of text, with some exhibits in the middle, promoting its "beautiful natural scenery, magnificent man-made landscapes and rich cultural heritage that Chengdu has long been known for".”
“Moving on such a scheme too quickly, without the necessary infrastructure and accreditation system, can lead to many problems. It can lead to many abuses. This is the lesson that was learnt in the UK, which shut down its Individual Learning Account scheme after just one year in response to complaints from learners that learning providers were abusing the system and quality was often found lacking. This is a point which Teo Ho Pin had made - quality matters, not just quantity, not just scaling up the provisions. So we are starting small and we will build this up as we put in place the necessary infrastructure to promote and support lifelong learning. The Minister for Manpower will provide more details on our efforts to promote upgrading and lifelong learning. PMETs were a recurrent theme in the debate. Many spoke on it - Mr Zaqy Mohamad, Dr Lily Neo, Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed and Mr Chan Soo Sen amongst others - emphasising the need to step up Government efforts to re-design jobs and upgrade the skills of our workers, including our older PMETs. We agree that this is a group that requires more attention and more focus. We will be reviewing our whole framework for continuous education and training, and lifelong learning, and the PMETs will be an important group in this review - in all aspects, making sure that they are constantly updated with knowledge, skills or, as Denise Phua pointed out, with life skills, or even language skills, refreshing your language skills in the course of your career. We will look at this comprehensively. I should also emphasise what Mr Lim Swee Say had highlighted yesterday, which is that our PMETs will be a key beneficiary of our growth strategies, the new growth opportunities that we are creating in Singapore.”
“The exemption threshold for dwelling houses for residential homes is $9 million and that for other assets is $600,000. So I agree they are out of kilter and we have to revise them. But we are also carrying out a comprehensive review of asset taxes. Whether to retain estate duty or not is a key issue we have to think through and study, and we will take all these issues together. Alvin Yeo asked me for a timeframe. The Prime Minister had said one more year last year, so I will say one more year this year. We are very consistent! Next, competing on skills and capabilities. Besides competing on taxes and costs, it is essential that we build up our capabilities for the future. The key is investing in our people - both our young as well as adult Singaporeans; basic education, post-secondary education and lifelong learning. As Dr Maliki Osman and Mr Sin Boon Ann have both mentioned this afternoon, it is not just the infrastructure on investments, but also about attitudes and culture. We will have to see what we can do to encourage an attitude of wanting to keep learning throughout your career, throughout life, amongst our people. It is not one of the areas in which we are leading internationally. It is something in which we need to catch up on and we agree that this is something to be looked at holistically and thoroughly. There were some comments on the Post Secondary Education Account and I thank all the MPs who have supported the creation of this account. There were some suggestions from Dr Loo Choon Yong and others, which we will study. Mdm Ho Geok Choo, Ms Penny Low, and Loo Choon Yong suggested an individual lifelong learning account scheme. It is an interesting idea and it is worth studying, but we have to study it carefully.”
“Competitive headline rates, attractive incentives for leading edge players and low rates for SMEs and start-ups: that is our approach and that is the way in which we will keep creating clusters of high performance, high value-added activities in Singapore that grow our local industry and create jobs for all. As Ms Cham Hui Fong, Mrs Josephine Teo and others have pointed out, this pro-business approach is also a pro-worker approach. This is how we create jobs up and down the ladder - by providing incentives for companies to grow in Singapore. Next, personal income tax. Several Members have spoken a little unhappily about this. Dr Ong Chit Chung this afternoon, Mr Alvin Yeo, Mr Seah Kian Peng, Dr Amy Khor, Gautam Banerjee and others were disappointed that we did not make a move on personal income taxes in this year's Budget. They pointed out something which we accept fully, that personal income tax is a factor in attracting and retaining talent. We have gradually reduced our personal income tax rates, quite significantly, from the top marginal tax rate of 28% in 2001 to 20% this year. Overall, our personal tax rates are competitive for the majority of the workforce. But we have to make sure that we retain our appeal and stay competitive at the top end, so that we will continue to be a city where top talent congregates, lives, and stays on permanently. The last round of personal income tax changes that we made will not be the last. Several Members also spoke about estate duty. I think they were the same Members who were concerned about personal income tax and they were also unhappy that we made no move on estate duty. I agree with the views expressed that the current exemption thresholds are not ideal and should be revised.”
“Mr Lim Swee Say mentioned yesterday the example - in fact, the Straits Times had just covered it a few days ago - of India moving into wafer fabs, trying to invite people like Intel, Infineon and others. India has for long been highly protective of its manufacturing industry, including the hi-tech sector. So this was a major decision for them, and they spent a whole year deliberating on this, whether to open up this sector to foreign direct investment. According to the article in the Straits Times, what clinched it was this: "Finally, someone produced a paper showing how Singapore's government backs the chip industry as a strategic investment for the economy. That clinched the argument." So we have to keep watching the competition, assessing where we stand, given our total package. And we have to watch both the headline tax rates as well as the incentives we offer to the best players, the leading edge players. Make sure that our incentives are attractive enough to bring them here. This is the way it is done all over the world: this game of headline corporate rates as well as incentives for the leading players. Even Ireland, with a 12.5% headline tax rate, one of the lowest flat corporate tax rates in the world, offers grants to selected companies. In the United States, individual states compete by offering incentives and grants. In Switzerland, individual cantons compete amongst each other as well as with the rest of Europe, offering tax incentives to companies and, in fact, to individuals.”
“The current Economist [the latest issue of The Economist, I think that is 27th of February] talks about it in the context of banking and finance, and I quote: "Regulators in Singapore, for instance, habitually consult local business people to see how they can improve cooperation. Their clients say this is not just public relations." And then they quote a British banker who says, "They are willing to listen and change. They are not rigid like regulators in Japan and Korea". So that is our first attribute - we are the most trusted and reliable player. We are also focused on keeping costs competitive and taxes low. We are focused on improving our skills and deepening our capabilities. We are focused on developing best-in-class infrastructure, transport, communications, financial infrastructure. And we are also focused on developing a first world quality of life. So that is the total package, but with many moving pieces, and many competitors for each piece who are also moving. We keep watch on the total package and make sure we stay competitive. Let me now talk therefore about corporate income tax. Ms Eunice Olsen is not entirely wrong to say that low corporate taxes alone will not attract businesses here. But it is a critical piece in the total package. As Teo Ser Luck has noted, we do not have the advantage of huge markets, like Hong Kong has China. But there are other pluses in our favour, which I have just mentioned - our skills, infrastructure, quality of life, the fact that we are the most trusted player - and these work to our advantage. So it is not a case, as Mr Siew Kum Hong feared, that this will be a race to the bottom in corporate taxes. The total package puts us in good stead; keep a close watch on corporate taxes, but it does not mean a race to the bottom.”
“We are exactly two weeks since the Budget speech. At least 30 reports in the local newspapers of new investments into Singapore - in two weeks. I will not give all the examples but let me mention just a few. PayPal has picked Singapore for its regional headquarters. Google decided to open an R&D centre in Singapore, its first in the region. Qimonda, the world's third largest computer memory chip maker, opened its biggest global distribution centre in Singapore. British power supply equipment maker XP Power has decided to move its global headquarters to Singapore so as to make the group more "Asia-centric". GE Healthcare has decided to base its regional headquarters here. That's foreign companies coming to Singapore - and there are many other examples. Singapore companies are also reaching out. Banyan Tree has entered into a joint venture to operate two new resorts in Mexico. Mapletree is investing $65 million to build warehouses in Malaysia and China. Bakerzin, a small player - I think most of you know Bakerzin - has opened its first outlet in the United States. Its founder, Mr Daniel Tay, hopes that it will be the first of 500. He was quoted as saying, "I might sound stupid for aiming so high, but there are huge opportunities in the States". We hope more SMEs will be willing to sound stupid and aim as high. We are a compelling node for foreign companies to base themselves here and root themselves here, and for local companies to reach out, because we have a total package. We are the most trusted player. Things work in Singapore. Business risks are lower than anywhere else in Asia.”
“Spending on the basis of expected long-term returns, prudently determined, also avoids the volatility of using actual annual returns. How do these universities do it? First, they rigorously estimate the returns that they expect to make over the long term, given the type of portfolio that they invest in. Then they decide how much of that long-term expected return should be spent annually. In fact, they also adjust the expected returns for inflation so as to make sure that they are protecting the real value of the endowment. The Government has not decided on the most suitable methodology that we should use. We are studying this issue carefully and we will be seeking the President’s views and agreement when ready. There will be a full parliamentary debate on these and other NII issues at that stage. What do we need to do to grow Singapore? Next, I move on to the second major theme of the Budget debate, which is what we need to do to grow Singapore. It is a rapidly changing world. Many Members have emphasised that in different ways with different examples. And it is getting much more competitive. Mr Teo Ser Luck, Mr Gautam Banerjee and Mr Arthur Fong have all emphasised this - it is getting more competitive. We are well-positioned for the competition, and we do not compete on cost alone. It is a total package, as Teo Ser Luck and Mr Sin Boon Ann have emphasised. Trust, skills, quality of life, costs - all part of the total package that we offer. I gave some examples in the Budget speech of how companies, big and small, are looking to Singapore, and how Singapore businesses, big and small, are reaching out to the world. These were not exceptions. They are not one-off examples. They are, in fact, typical. We took a look at the newspapers over just the last two weeks.”
“He warned about the danger of incentivising governments to realise capital gains to boost their incomes for immediate spending. Ong Seh Hong is right. The discretion to realise capital gains opens up the possibility for governments to game the system. A government can decide to liquidate assets to boost the NII, take in more revenues, spend it now - and the gains cashed out may well be reserves that have been accumulated a long time ago, as Ong Seh Hong has pointed out. So there is a need for prudence in working out the new NII formula, as Mr Liang Eng Hwa also emphasised earlier today. That is why we agree with Mr Inderjit Singh that it is worth looking at how the US university endowment funds address this problem. They do not base their spending on realised capital gains. Instead, leading universities like Yale and Harvard have designed spending rules that are based on expected long-term total returns. In other words, the increase in the value of the reserves that is expected over the long term. I think Mr Liang Eng Hwa had some apprehensions over what Inderjit Singh said because he might have thought Inderjit was referring to eating into the reserves, reducing the reserves year by year. I understood the point Inderjit was making with reference to the US endowment funds to be about projecting the increase in the reserves in future and deciding on the percentage of that increase that you should be able to prudently use for your current spending. So the way they do it, these US university endowment funds, ensures that there is no incentive for the fund manager to realise capital gains because it is the gain in the total reserves that counts, not just the gains that are realised from selling off assets.”
“It is precisely because we have pursued the right fiscal policies, monetary policies and economic policies - cutting corporate taxes and personal income taxes to 20%, introducing the GST in 1994 and then raising it to 5% - it is precisely because we have put in the right policies that we are able to say with some confidence that our prospects for seizing the opportunities of globalisation are solid. And it is precisely because we have confidence in our future that we are able to take these bold steps now - cutting corporate taxes now, investing in new capabilities and infrastructure, and raising the GST to 7%. Because our prospects are good, we are able to operate from strength, make bold changes now that will position us well to take the opportunities that are coming, because we think Singapore is uniquely positioned to take advantage of the opportunities of globalisation. That does not mean we are assured of growth. It means we have to keep taking the right steps to seize these opportunities to convert them to growth and convert them to jobs for Singaporeans. That is what the game is about. The moves that we are making in this Budget are moves that will ensure that how we got here, despite many odds, is not a one-off story, but a continuing story - that we keep seizing opportunities, keep making opportunities that are available outside translate into gains for Singaporeans. And we are able to take bold steps because we know they will pay off for Singaporeans. Let me go now to the issue of Net Investment Income from our reserves. Dr Ong Seh Hong had made some very useful points about the need to guard our reserves and our NII carefully and not allow them to be squandered.”
“Sylvia Lim went on to suggest other alternative sources of revenues: stamp duties, personal income tax, statutory board contributions. She noticed that stamp duty went up sharply last year because of the property market upturn. We have no idea whether these improvements will be sustainable and it would be very poor fiscal policy to commit to future expenditures in the hope that short-term spikes in revenue will be sustained. Sylvia Lim and Low Thia Khiang want us to take the easy way out. They say, wait for the Integrated Resorts, in case we get a bonanza in gaming revenues; wait for corporate taxes, in case it comes out more strongly than expected or can be reasonably hoped; or wait to see whether spikes in stamp duties and personal income taxes and any other spikes are sustained year after year. When we finally run out of revenues, then come and ask, "Can I please raise the GST?" That is not the way that a responsible government conducts its fiscal policy. I think Ms Lee Bee Wah had a rather colourful way of responding to this. As Second Finance Minister, I have to choose my words carefully, of course, but let me just say that we make no apologies for the fact that we anticipate future needs. We look into the future, look at what the needs for Singapore are, prepare ourselves to meet those needs and go forward from a position of strength. That is the way that we have done it and that is the way we must continue to do it - go forward with confidence, not uncertainty. Sylvia Lim and Low Thia Khiang agreed that our prospects have never been better.”
“In fact, the latest Budget Speech by the Financial Secretary, delivered yesterday, which I read very carefully yesterday evening, points out that Hong Kong has to "face up to the long-term pressures on public finances brought to bear by such challenges as a narrow tax base, unstable revenue, economic restructuring and an ageing population". There is another reason why we should avoid linking land sales directly to Government revenues and spending. If we do that, we open ourselves to the danger of subsequent governments being motivated to sustain a property boom. We have seen how it has happened elsewhere and this is not what we would like to get ourselves into. Avoid any incentive for governments to be keen, wittingly or unwittingly, to sustain a property cycle. Next, corporate income tax. Low Thia Khiang and Sylvia Lim say that with better economic performance, we should be able to collect more from corporate taxes and therefore, we do not need GST. We do hope that with improved competitiveness and growth, corporate taxes will continue to grow well. But this does not mean that corporate taxes will increase as a percentage of GDP. You must remember that when we budget for the future, we budget knowing that our expenditures increase more or less in line with GDP and, on top of that, we have got new initiatives which will make expenditures increase faster than GDP. I explained earlier that we are now mapping our future and planning expenditures that involve significant new investments on top of what would happen if expenditures merely grow in proportion to GDP. So our expenditures will rise in proportion to GDP. Corporate taxes will not be able to fund an increase in expenditure as a percentage of GDP.”
“But to put it in perspective for her, all the casinos in Las Vegas, put together, earn $10 billion a year in gaming revenues. So the $15 to $38 billion which she hopes she will get from the two IRs will be 1.5 to 4 times the gaming revenues of the whole of Las Vegas! Next, land sales. Sylvia Lim and Low Thia Khiang have noted quite rightly that most land sales are actually leases. So they argue that we should treat the revenue from the sale of land as income, not capital, and spend it for current use. I think that is what Mr Chiam also believes. Our treatment of land sales is prudent and responsible, and I agree with what Dr Ong Seh Hong said on this matter. When we sell land on short leases, we do treat the proceeds as operating revenues which can be used for spending. For longer leases, we put it into our reserves so that it earns income, which we then draw on through NII. And when we re-define our rules for NII, we will be drawing more of the income on our reserves, including the reserves that have accumulated as a result of our putting the proceeds from land sales into our past reserves. Mr Chiam also mentioned Hong Kong because they do use land revenues directly in their budget. Hong Kong's own tax reform panel and their Financial Secretary have noted that their reliance on land sales has resulted in a very volatile revenue structure - narrow-based and highly volatile. Their own analysis shows that land sales revenue as a share of government revenue has fluctuated between 3% and 28% in the past decade.”
“This is why the GST, which is focused principally on funding social expenditures, and the NII, which will be focused on making long-term investments in our future, are both necessary. A quick look at the estimates that I have provided in the Budget speech should show that we are not raising revenues in excess of our needs. This is why Mr Low Thia Khiang and Ms Sylvia Lim are wrong in thinking that there is no need to raise the GST because, they say, we can use the NII instead. We need both the GST and the NII for these new major expenditures that we need to engage in in the future, both on the social front as well as infrastructure, productive potential and competitiveness. They have also given other reasons why we should not raise the GST: we can use gambling revenues which Sylvia Lim thinks will be about S$1.5 to S$3.8 billion a year; use revenue from land sales, which Mr Chiam See Tong also advocated; or wait for corporate income taxes to grow, because although we are reducing corporate tax, with good economic growth, our corporate tax revenues will eventually go up; or use revenues from personal income tax and stamp duties, which Sylvia Lim observed increased sharply last year; and from statutory board contributions. Sylvia Lim had systematically listed out all these items and questioned the tightness of the Government's fiscal position. So let me go through each of the items that she mentioned and explain why she is mistaken. First, the Integrated Resorts. To get that amount of taxes from gaming that Sylvia Lim expects, the two Integrated Resorts would need to generate combined gaming revenues of $15 billion to $38 billion. That is based on an effective tax rate of 10% on gaming revenues. I do not know if she really believes this.”
“But we also need to make major investments to enhance our capabilities and to invest in infrastructure for the long term. So it is not just the corporate tax cut, not just the social expenditures, but the major new investments we need to make in infrastructure and capabilities. That is why I expect expenditures as a whole to rise as a percentage of GDP faster than revenues. These expenditures would include R&D, rejuvenating our housing estates, refreshing our Downtown, making Singapore a green and blue city and many other infrastructure investments: roads, MRTs, IT broadband. These are major requirements for the future - higher social expenditures starting now and building up over time, and new investments to prepare Singapore for the next 10 to 15 years of its development. That is why we need additional revenues by raising the GST and by drawing more from our Net Investment Income from our past reserves. The GST increase will help us to fund our Workfare Income Supplement scheme and the other social expenditures that we need to increase, like healthcare. It will also enable us to make improvements now in our competitiveness. But the GST alone can only form part of our increased expenditure needs. Redefining the NII will also allow us to invest significantly in our infrastructure and to build our capabilities. The redefinition of NII will allow us to take further steps to reduce direct taxes and improve competitiveness. That is the way the Government intends to use the NII. And that is the right way - use it to boost Singapore's productive potential and our growth prospects for the long term. That is the way in which we will serve both current and future generations, putting the NII for long-term use.”
“First, why do we need to strengthen our revenues and, especially, why raise the GST? Second, does the Budget position Singapore well for future growth? And third, is the Budget fair, and is it fair to all Singaporeans? Why do we need to strengthen our revenues? Let me first reiterate the fundamental shifts in the budget position that have made the GST increase necessary. We face declining revenues. That is the first fundamental shift. Our operating revenues have not grown as fast as our GDP. Revenues, as a percentage of GDP, have declined quite considerably, from around 19% in 2001 to just 14% last year. Two main reasons: first, personal and corporate taxes came down as a percentage of GDP, and second, vehicle-related and road-related revenues - COEs, ARF - also came down significantly as a percentage of GDP. Secondly, our expenditures have to be built up. We have to spend more, invest more, do more, to stay competitive and to prepare ourselves well for the future. We are cutting corporate taxes; that is our first major move in this Budget to stay competitive. That will cost us $800 million a year. We are enhancing continuous education and training to help Singaporeans to re-skill and stay relevant. That will cost us an extra $300 million a year but probably more over time. We are strengthening our social security system - we have discussed that extensively - through Workfare, and that will cost us about $400 million each year. We are increasing our healthcare expenditure in the next five years and we think that will cost us an extra $300 million a year, but it will certainly be more than that over time as ageing starts to kick in. The items I have just mentioned will alone cost us $1.8 billion a year.”
“Sir, I hope that our Workfare scheme would provide more support to handicapped persons who are willing to be self-reliant. With that, I support the motion. TIME LIMIT FOR SPEECHES (Suspension of Standing Orders) 3.53 pm With the consent of Mr Speaker and the general assent of Members present, Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 48(8) in respect of the reply to be made by the Second Minister for Finance. - [Mr Mah Bow Tan]. ANNUAL BUDGET STATEMENT Debate resumed. The Second Minister for Finance (Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam): Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank all the MPs who have spoken, given suggestions and supported the Government's financial policy. I have listened to all the speeches, including Dr Teo Ho Pin who just spoke before me. Many suggestions have been raised. I cannot take all of them in my round-up speech, but I can assure you that we have listened to every view. There are many issues which we have to study further and some which we will follow up on. There were also various suggestions that concerned other Ministries besides the Ministry of Finance, and my colleagues will be taking them up, either at the COS or subsequently. 4.00 pm Let me address the major issues that have arisen in the Budget debate. There is strong support for the three key thrusts in this Budget. First, to sharpen our competitive edge by lowering corporate taxes and building capabilities for the future. Second, to strengthen our social security system through Workfare and the CPF changes. Third, to raise the GST now and build a strong and sustainable revenue structure to meet our future needs. The issues that have been raised in the last few days can be grouped under three key questions.”
“As a young boy, I used to help them buy breakfast during rainy days, and went swimming with them quite regularly. These gentlemen were all gainfully employed in 1972, and self-reliant. They have high esteem and led a good quality of life. Sir, but their quality of life was badly affected by the 1997 Asian financial crisis and globalisation. Most of them have lost their jobs, and encounter great difficulties to find jobs. Today, there are only five of them left and their monthly income is between $400 and $800. Sir, over the last 10 years, my grassroots leaders and I have been trying our best to support these handicapped persons. They appreciate our help but have self-pride and they do not want handouts. In fact, they would prefer to find jobs which can help to sustain a good quality of life for themselves. But this proves to be difficult as many firms are not willing to employ handicapped persons. Furthermore, they also cannot find many handicapped-friendly work environment in Singapore. Sir, last year, I was shocked to see one of them actually crawling on the floor when I visited them. I asked him, "What happened to you? Why are you crawling and not using your wheelchair?" He told me that his wheelchair was badly worn out, and he could not afford to repair or replace it. Sir, I came to realise that many of these handicapped persons have grown old and they are quite fragile, and they face difficulty to use the conventional stainless wheelchair which is quite heavy. In fact, they face so much difficulty but they refuse to ask for help because they still would like to be self-reliant. After much persuasion, I managed to convince them to actually agree to accept the donation of five wheelchairs to the five handicapped persons.”
“This can only be done by increasing the skills of low-wage workers, or encouraging employers to redesign their jobs into higher value jobs. Sir, many older job-seekers prefer jobs in the service sector, such as retail, food and beverages, and hospitality industry. Unfortunately, service jobs normally entail working shifts or on weekends. These jobs also do not pay well, and thus, deter many Singaporean job-seekers. As a result, many firms prefer to hire foreign workers. Sir, in order to develop a service culture in Singapore, we need to provide more opportunities for Singaporeans to work in the service industry. The salary and reward schemes of service jobs must be reviewed so as to encourage better customer services. We need to recognise and provide more support to firms which place emphasis on training and employing Singaporeans in delivering quality services. There must be a level playing field among service providers so that business competition will not compromise on the quality of services. This is especially so when firms submit "cut throat" tender bids and win contracts based on the lowest bid award criteria, and then subsequently, hire illegal or abuse foreign workers making them work long hours in order to deliver their services. Sir, instead of focusing on making older low-wage earners become more employable through lower employer CPF contribution, we should incentivise employers to increase the low salary of their workers. Finally, let me share with Members the plight of a group of handicapped Singaporeans who stay at a Red Cross hostel in Boon Lay. I have known this group of handicapped persons since 1972. Many of them are polio victims, and are wheelchair bound or having walking difficulties.”
“Sir, we should provide more incentives for firms to hire older workers or provide job opportunities for older workers to share their experiences. In this regard, I would urge the Government to support the good work of the "Yellow Ribbon" project, and expand its services to give older Singaporeans a second chance to pursue a second career. Strengthen our social security system Fourth, strengthen our social security system. Sir, I support the four pillars of the social security system, namely: CPF, 3Ms, home ownership, and Workfare. This will indeed encourage savings and motivate Singaporeans to work for a better quality of life. It also prevents the breeding of welfare mentality among Singaporeans. However, I am concerned that the CPF restructuring and Workfare CPF top-up of the lower-income earners may be inadequate in meeting their retirement needs. The proposed graduated employer component of CPF contribution will help firms to save money on their existing low wage workers. But it will not incentivise them to employ more older low wage workers. It may also suppress the wages of low-income earners. Sir, last year, North-West CDC helped more than 3,000 job-seekers found jobs. Unfortunately, many of these jobs are below $1,000 in salary, and require the workers to work six days per week, including weekends or shift work. It is quite a challenge for a sole breadwinner to support a family of two or three children with a $1,000 gross pay in Singapore. I do not know why we are still having so many low-paying jobs in Singapore. Sir, besides focusing on Workfare, we should also help low-income earners to find jobs with a monthly salary above $1,000.”
“Sir, I fully support the Government’s strategy to place top priority on education and continuous learning. We need to invest in our people, and nurture more quality education and training institutions in Singapore. The emphasis should be on the quality of education and training, and not just education and training per se. It is only through quality education and training that we will be able to nurture and build capabilities among Singaporeans to be competitive globally. Sir, first, we must build and nurture good quality education and training institutions in both the public and private sectors. An independent accreditation system must be set up, comprising various stakeholders of our society, to ensure the robustness and quality of our education and training programmes. Both the public and private education and training institutions must be subjected to regular quality audit to ensure that their programmes are updated to meet industry’s needs. To achieve a quality workforce, we need to have a pool of quality teachers and trainers too. We must tap the expertise and experience of our older workers, and provide opportunities for them to impart their knowledge and skills to future generations. Sir, recently I went on a rainforest tour at Kota Kinabalu. I was impressed by the tour guide who was a retired Science teacher. He told me that he was happy to work as a part-time tour guide, and applying his Science knowledge into practice by explaining the different types of plants, insects and animals in the rainforest to his tour groups. Furthermore, as a former teacher, his group management and organisational skills are good, thus ensuring a safe and smooth tour for all of us throughout the rainforest tour.”
“Second, they are unable to take public transport as not all routes leading to the bus-stops are barrier-free. Furthermore, not all buses are equipped with wheelchair-bound friendly features. Third, many buildings have stairs or steep slopes, and some have no lifts to reach the upper floors. In addition, some of the doorways or passageways do not permit wheelchair movement. Finally, it is difficult for a wheelchair-bound person to find suitable toilets in both public and private premises. Sir, if we want to encourage older Singaporeans to work longer or stay active after retirement, we must make our work places and public areas barrier-free. We need a national agency to champion and adopt a more holistic approach in making our built environment barrier-free. More resources must be allocated to make public and private places barrier-free. We must review our barrier-free building code, and set up measures to encourage private building owners to integrate their developments into the public’s barrier-free environment. The URA’s concept plan has laid out an exciting vision for Singapore: A distinctive city of gardens and waterways. I am just wondering whether our elderly and handicapped population will have access to these gardens and waterways. Sir, we need a Master Plan to make Singapore a barrier-free environment. I would like to urge the URA to map out the barrier-free access routes to all its proposed development when working out the Master Plan for the respective regions. We need a Master Plan and a timeline to expedite the construction of “barrier-free connectors” in Singapore. Focus on quality of education and training Third, focus on quality of education and training.”
“I wonder why there is no growth dividend this year although we enjoy a good growth rate. Although Singaporeans support the Government’s efforts to provide more help to the needy and elderly, we should also consider sharing part of the fruits of our economic success equally. Therefore, I would urge the Minister for Finance to consider providing a flat rate growth dividend to all Singaporeans without any criteria-based distribution method, as in the corporate dividend. A flat rate growth dividend will ensure that all Singaporeans get an equal share of the country’s growth. This will rally all Singaporeans to be gracious and stay united as one people. The growth dividend should be given to all Singaporeans simply by sending a cheque without the need to fill in any forms. Provide a barrier-free environment Sir, as a fast ageing society, there is an urgent need to make our built environment barrier-free for our people, especially the elderly and physically handicapped. I commend the Government for allocating resources to provide barrier-free access amenities, such as the HDB housing estates. Unfortunately, these efforts are recent and sporadic. Today, different stakeholders of our built environment are working at different paces to provide barrier-free amenities, and many buildings or public amenities are not integrated to provide seamless barrier free access routes to all Singaporeans. At the present pace of development, it will take a long time for Singapore to be an entirely barrier-free access place. Sir, let me cite an example of the difficulties faced by a handicapped or wheelchair-bound person in moving around in Singapore. First, wheelchair-bound people have difficulty coming out of their flats, if they do not have lifts stopping at every floor.”
“Mr Speaker Sir, it is always good to be the last speaker of a debate. First, you have nothing much to say. Second, you have many Members in the House to listen to you. Sir, I rise in support of the Budget. As Singapore faces the globalisation challenges, it is crucial that our fiscal policies continue to encourage Singaporeans to “Stay together, move ahead, and improve our quality of life”. We must continue to strengthen the three pillars of our society, ie, a strong and good Government, a vibrant and prosperous business community, and an active and gracious people. I wish to propose four areas to further prepare Singapore for the future. Share success of economic growth As the Chinese saying goes "bi shang bu zu, bi xia you yu". What it means is that when you compare with someone who has more, you will feel that you have less. But, if you were to compare with someone who has less, you will feel that you have more. This Chinese saying simply reminds all of us to be contented in life and not to compare too much to make life miserable, especially on material things or handouts. It is always a challenge for the Government to distribute goodies fairly in a Budget. While Singaporeans understand that the Government should help the needy more, many Singaporeans still feel that they should also benefit from the country’s economic success. Therefore, in addition to the handouts which were distributed according to specific criteria, I would urge the Minister for Finance to consider giving a "Singapore Growth" dividend to all Singaporeans, irrespective of their income and house types. Sir, in last year’s Budget, the Government gave growth dividends to all working Singaporeans as a result of our economic growth.”
“Sir, may I ask the Minister whether the Government can consider setting up a national hotline on Government services, so that all Singaporeans and people in Singapore can call if they want to enquire on Government services, ie, a phone line, not E-Citizen Portal.”
“So I urge Members to give feedback and suggestions for us to consider when we come up with a comprehensive package to solve these two problems. Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): I am often baffled by the numerous financial assistance schemes and different assistance schemes for the low-income families. I wonder if the Ministry can consider doing a more user-centred communication package to help the low income and possibly uneducated families make sense of all the schemes that are available to them, and that might also help the Members in this House.”
“For children with disabilities, these include the Early Intervention for Infants and Children Programme, integrated child care programme, special student care and special education schools for children up to 18 years of age. We have also set up the ENABLE fund last year to encourage employers to make that first step of employing persons with disabilities. The Government and the Community Chest help to co-fund these services to ensure that the cost of these services is affordable for low-income Singaporeans. The subsidies that MCYS provides to assist needy Singaporeans, under the ComCare last year, were about $68 million, out of which the subsidies for the elderly were $3.1 million and $4.8 million for the disabled children. The VWOs complement these subsidies with fund-raising efforts to assist needy families, for example, by waiving part or all of the fees. We also recognise that healthcare costs can be a major expense for those who are caring for the elderly or the disabled. The Government therefore provides significant healthcare subsidies for Singaporeans. Lower-income Singaporeans who cannot afford to pay for their hospital bills despite the Government subsidies, Medisave and MediShield, may also tap on Medifund for additional help. Low-income sole breadwinners who need more help with their living expenses in caring for their disabled children and elderly parents, can also approach their Community Development Councils for assistance. In addition, the caregiving needs of low-income families with elderly and disabled dependants will be addressed by the newly formed Ministerial Committee overseeing ageing issues, to be chaired by Minister Lim Boon Heng, and the inter-Ministry efforts on disability issues co-ordinated by MCYS.”
“Sir, may I ask the Senior Minister of State what is the profile of these offenders? Are they mainly locals? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, of the 200 offenders who were caught last year, about half were foreigners and half were locals. FINANCIAL PROGRAMMES FOR LOW-INCOME SOLE BREADWINNERS 11. Ms Cham Hui Fong asked the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports what financial programmes are there to assist low income sole breadwinners to look after their disabled children and elderly parents, as tax relief is of no benefit to them. The Minister of State for Community Development, Youth and Sports (Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon) (for the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government's ComCare social assistance schemes to assist low-income breadwinners are based on Workfare principles, whereby those who are willing to help themselves through work would be encouraged and facilitated to do so. We believe that work is the best form of welfare, and individuals should take responsibility for their own lives. We subsidise childcare and student care to help low-income parents go out to work. These subsidies were increased under the Workfare package that was introduced last year to help low-wage workers. In addition, through the many-helping-hands approach, we partner with Voluntary Welfare Organisations (VWOs) in the community to ensure that there is a broad range of services available to help low-income families care for their elderly dependants or disabled children, so that they are able to go out to work. For the elderly, the services range from Day Care Services to Home Help Services.”
“Sir, I understand that the Ministry has fixed the price of sand to about $25 so as to stabilise the situation. But I understand from industry sources that the ready-mix concrete price has gone up by over 50% to about $100. So, it is the ready-mix concrete which will affect the construction cost. May I just ask the Minister whether the Ministry has plans to fix the ready-mix concrete price?”
“A reporting structure, similar to the Secondhand Goods Dealers Act, should be put in place where persons dealing with explosive precursors must immediately report to the authority of any loss or missing explosive precursors so that appropriate action can be taken to prevent any hostile attacks. Sir, may I ask the Minister how is the Ministry planning to monitor the use of explosive precursors in commercial applications. Sir, I support the Bill.”
“A classification of licence by the types of explosive precursors and quantity handled would provide a more efficient and effective "risk-based" approach to regulate explosive precursors. Sir, as the control of explosive precursors forms a critical pillar in our security infrastructure, I would urge the Ministry to allocate resources to set up the licensing structure as soon as possible, including upgrading the IT system in the Police Force. Sir, I hope that the Minister can also further clarify on how the licensing structure can help to better control the use of explosive precursors in Singapore. The second point is on the monitoring regime. Sir, at present, explosive precursors is used in many applications. This, coupled with the introduction of new compounds with potential of converting into explosives, will pose challenges to the authority to enforce the Act and prevent hostile uses of explosive precursors. Sir, it is difficult to monitor the movement, storage and use of these explosive precursors at different locations at different times. This will increase the risk of having these compounds being put into hostile uses. Sir, I would urge the Ministry to set up a traceability regime where explosive precursors can be tracked closely without imposing too much cost on businesses. We can adopt the procedures as set up in the control of poisons as laid out in the Poisons Act. Sir, firms dealing with explosive precursors should also set up control systems to monitor such compounds in their respective activities.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. The proposed amendments to the Arms and Explosives Act will expand regulatory control of explosive precursors such as ammonium nitrate and potassium. As part of our efforts in strengthening our security infrastructure against terrorism, it is necessary that a legislative framework be put in place to regulate the use of chemicals which can be used to make explosives. Many of these explosive precursors have dual uses, meaning they can have both peaceful and hostile applications. To provide additional safeguard to our people, we must set up measures to control the use of explosive precursors in Singapore. Sir, however, there are two concerns in the Bill which I would like to highlight. First, licensing structure. Clause 6 of the Bill spells out the licensing structure for persons dealing with explosive precursors in situations such as possession, importation, exportation, storage, transportation and manufacture. In order to prevent the hostile use of explosive precursors, we need to control the entire supply chain of such chemicals ranging from its source to its end-user point. Therefore, we must have a single point control and have only one type of licence for all persons dealing with explosive precursors irrespective of their activities in the supply chain. This will ensure better accountability and facilitate monitoring and enforcement by the authorities. To further minimise the security risks, we should classify the various types of explosive precursors according to their likelihood of converting into explosives, and the quantity used by commercial or Government agencies.”
“I would propose that this clause be implemented with caution, and should only apply in situations where there is sufficient evidence that dubious dealers are deliberately concealing information on secondhand goods. Sir, instead of penalising dealers for not collaborating, I would urge the Ministry to consider incentivising dealers who furnish information resulting in the solving of crimes. These good efforts by the dealers can be appropriately rewarded or recognised when renewing their licences. In this way, we can further encourage partnership between the Police and secondhand dealers in crime prevention and increase the chances of recovery for stolen goods. (6) Protection of consumers purchasing secondhand goods Sir, the proposed Bill does not offer any protection to consumers buying secondhand goods. While we practise the caveat emptor principle, the secondhand goods market is a complex market where consumers can be easily conned into purchasing stolen goods or misrepresented into paying new goods prices for secondhand goods. To further protect consumers, I would propose that the licensing authority should maintain a directory of licensed secondhand goods dealers on its website so that consumers can authenticate these dealers when purchasing secondhand goods. The authority should also display dealers whose licences have been revoked or suspended. This will prevent such dealers from operating in our market and conning our consumers. I wish to ask the Minister what measures are in place in the Bill to protect consumers of buying secondhand goods. Sir, I support the Bill.”
“(4) Retention of secondhand goods To deter the transaction of stolen goods and ensure recovery of such goods, it is necessary for the Act to specify the retention of certain specified secondhand goods, especially those which can be disposed of easily, for a certain period such as one month. There should be provisions in the Act to require licensed dealers who acquire secondhand goods other than from another licensed dealer to retain such goods in possession for a minimum period before reselling them or making modifications to the goods. This will provide more time for Police to effectively investigate and recover stolen goods. In this aspect, may I ask the Minister how effective is the Police in helping people to recover stolen property? If the recovery rate is low, we should put in place more measures in the Act to facilitate the recovery of stolen goods. (5) Unfair practices Sir, clause 11 of the Bill requires the secondhand goods dealers to provide information of stolen goods or lost secondhand goods to the Police upon notification. Failure to do so is an offence under the Act. This requirement is indeed very onerous on the dealers, especially when they have to deal with thousands of secondhand goods transactions and stocks, especially for small items such as handphones or electronic devices. In practice, it may be difficult for the dealers to provide the required information on time to facilitate Police investigation or it will cost the business a lot to comply with every Police's request under clause 11. This practice, if frequently implemented, will be unfair to the dealers as their business operations will be adversely affected.”
“I would like to clarify with the Minister as to how this proposed Act will regulate Internet sale of secondhand goods, especially for auction websites, where not much information of both sellers and buyers are needed for the transactions. Such Internet transactions may provide the loopholes where stolen goods can be channelled for disposal. Sir, I wish to seek clarifications from the Minister as to whether licences are required for individual stall operators of flea market, trade fairs and ad hoc car boot sale operators, including community-based organisations. (3) Keeping of proper records Sir, the keeping of proper records is a costly process but a necessity for control purposes. In Singapore, many secondhand goods dealers are small and medium enterprises. Many do not have the resources to modernise their operations, such as using information technology to keep track of transactions and inventory control. Thus, the requirements of the Bill to keep five years proper records will have significant impact on these businesses making it difficult for them to comply. Sir, I would propose that the Ministry spell out clearly the format and information required in keeping proper records for the purpose of crime prevention and investigation so that secondhand goods dealers can comply without undue financial commitments. In addition, the Ministry should also take this opportunity to encourage secondhand dealers to upgrade and computerise their operations and provide appropriate Government grant through SPRING Singapore to support these SMEs. The upgrading of business practices of secondhand goods dealers will also benefit the Police Force in its crime prevention efforts.”
“In addition, dealers are bound by the Act to provide information at their expense to facilitate Police investigation. Sir, I wish to ask the following clarifications from the Minister: (i) how much is the licensing fee as compared to the present fee; (ii) is the licence fee applicable for one shop outlet or multiple shop outlets for the same firm; (iii) what is the period of the licence; (iv) how much are the renewal and transfer fees; and (v) whether there are procedures and prescribed forms to ensure the standardisation of keeping proper records in English such as a master register of secondhand goods in possession, and those transacted stating the time at which and the person from whom he purchased or received such goods, including their particulars? Sir, I propose that the Bill provide a standard procedure and the use of prescribed forms so as to ensure compliance, reduce business cost and facilitate Police investigation. (2) Control of secondhand goods shops Sir, licensing will ensure proper control of the secondhand goods dealers and the secondhand goods market. To further facilitate the enforcement of licensed dealers, I propose that we should include a clause highlighting the need for secondhand goods dealers to display their licences in a conspicuous place in their shops or sale outlets. These signages should also be of a certain size and type as prescribed by the licensing authority displaying such words as "Licensed dealer in secondhand goods". The display of licence and signage will also protect consumers who wish to purchase secondhand goods from authorised secondhand dealers. The growth in Internet transactions, both locally and overseas, has made it challenging to control the sale of secondhand goods on the Net.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. The proposed Bill will provide a comprehensive legislative framework to regulate the trading of secondhand goods in Singapore, and prevent the sale of stolen goods through secondhand dealers. Sir, the rise in prices of consumer goods and the promotion of reuse or recycling of consumer goods for environmental protection reasons have created a market for secondhand goods in Singapore. This is especially so for secondhand goods such as precious metals, jewellery, computers, electronic devices, and antiques. This growth in the secondhand goods market has at the same time also provided a convenient channel for stolen goods to be traded in secondhand goods shops or through the Internet. Thus, it is indeed timely to update the current Secondhand Dealers Act which was enacted in 1918 and to take into consideration the new range of secondhand goods, the avenues where secondhand goods are transacted, and the prevention of stolen goods being transacted in the secondhand goods market. Sir, the proposed Bill has placed stringent measures to regulate secondhand goods dealers in terms of licensing, keeping proper records, facilitating Police investigation, and penalty regime. But there are certain shortcomings in the Bill with regard to the impact of the Bill on cost of business, control of secondhand goods shops, keeping of proper records, retention of secondhand goods , unfair practices, and protection of consumers purchasing secondhand goods. (1) Cost of business and secondhand goods dealers Sir, the proposed Bill will increase the business cost of secondhand goods dealers as there will be licensing fee, licence renewal fee, transfer fee, and cost of keeping proper records for five years.”
“Thus, the use of different languages provides opportunity for Members of Parliament to better connect and engage Singaporeans. Sir, I support the motion. 3.08 pm”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion, as moved by the Deputy Leader of the House. The use of any or all of the four official languages in a parliamentary speech will provide more flexibility for Members of this House to conduct our debate more effectively. It will also facilitate the broadcasting of parliamentary debate to Singaporeans in different languages through the TV, radio and new media channels. As a multi-racial society moving towards a cosmopolitan society, it is necessary that parliamentary debate be conducted in different languages so that Members of Parliament are able to express their views and the concerns of our people using different languages in parliamentary speeches. This is even more crucial for elected Members of Parliament who represent their constituents to provide feedback to the Government. The use of the different official languages in a speech will also enable elected Members of Parliament to better express their concerns of their constituents in this House, and at the same time help Singaporeans to better understand the contents of parliamentary debate. Sir, as an elected Member of Parliament for Bukit Panjang constituency, I have always made it a point to translate key points of my parliamentary speeches into the four official languages and publish them in my constituency newsletter - Bukit Panjang News Express. Feedback from my residents is that they find it useful to understand my parliamentary work and also the issues which I have championed for them in Parliament. The translation of my speeches in my newsletter has also allowed my residents, especially those who are monolingual, to better understand national policies and parliamentary debate.”
“To prevent the influx of illicit supply of the drug, CNB is maintaining a watchful eye at the checkpoints as well as on the ground situation. CNB has not detected any signs of a black market emerging and the number of Subutex tablets seized monthly is not high. Between 14th August 2006 and 31st August 2006, 512 Subutex tablets were seized. Although about 1,000 Subutex tablets were seized in September 2006, this is attributed to a single seizure of 884 Subutex tablets, which is the largest consignment seized so far. 319 tablets and 590 tablets were seized in October and November last year respectively. In December 2006, only 79 tablets were seized. Feedback from the public also suggests that the Subutex abuse situation has improved. I am sure Members of Parliament who monitor the grounds will know this. Since September 2006, the monthly number of calls and other feedback from the public on Subutex abuse have declined. We believe that CNB's strong enforcement action has led to a decline in public concern over Subutex abuse. CNB's intelligence indicates that, while it is likely that a small proportion of Subutex abusers may attempt to illicitly access the drug, the vast majority of ex-Subutex abusers have very likely managed to overcome their Subutex dependence. Thus, CNB's enforcement actions have helped to contain Subutex abuse. Nevertheless, CNB will continue to keep a close watch on the Subutex abuse situation and will press on with vigorous enforcement efforts to detect and deter illicit drug activities, taking firm action against both drug traffickers and abusers alike.”
“Sir, may I ask the Minister whether the present water tank trucks which actually carry potable water for watering plants will be classified under hazmat vehicles because these vehicles can be easily stolen and refuelled with hazardous materials and pose as a security threat? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Currently, about 680 vehicles are licensed and these are vehicles of three metric tons or more, because they carry hazardous materials like chlorine and flammable materials like acetylene or butane. These are the ones that are the target and focus of this regulation, not water-carrying trucks. SUBUTEX ABUSE (Update) 6. Dr Fatimah Lateef asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs if he will give an update on Subutex abuse since Subutex’s classification as a controlled drug was implemented in August 2006. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee (for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs): Sir, buprenorphine (which is the active ingredient in Subutex) was made a Class A controlled drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act on 14th August 2006. Between 14th August 2006 and 31st December last year, CNB arrested a total of 347 persons for Subutex-related offences. Of these, 150 Subutex abusers were sent to the Drug Rehabilitation Centre (DRC) for treatment, 55 abusers were imprisoned under the Long Term Imprisonment regime, and 102 persons were sent to Prisons as they were found to have either trafficked or possessed the drug. As for the remaining 40 persons, 22 were given a warning and 18 are pending further investigations. Since the implementation of tougher measures to counter Subutex abuse, I am happy to report that the situation has improved significantly.”