Vivian Balakrishnan
Singapore
“The Ministry of Foreign Affairs does not issue advisories on wait times at overseas airports. Travellers may wish to monitor airline and airport websites, as well as news reports for real-time information on wait times and potential disruptions at specific airports.”
“When the conflict in the Middle East deteriorated and commercial flights were halted in March 2026, the Singapore Government mounted four repatriation flights from Muscat, Riyadh and Jeddah to bring stranded Singaporeans home.”
“The Government has stepped up public engagement to explain our foreign policy fundamentals and responses to key international developments to Singaporeans and to hear their views. We do this through dialogue sessions across segments of society, including students, youths, businesses and community leaders.”
“And the larger point during the Committee of Supply was that precisely, because the world is in such a difficult, prickly, volatile and dangerous state, actually, if we keep our wits about ourselves, we maintain unity and we continue to have this clear eye-realistic, but principled, approach, there are many opportunities for Singapore.”
“Well, in short, I completely agree with you. And that is why we have indeed been hosting these events and in your own capacity as a national athlete and also as an official now, you have seen how it works in practice.”
“Since 2022, about half of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) employees are women. The proportion of women in senior appointments has remained stable at about a quarter. We recognise that overseas postings are disruptive for officers with families, especially female officers who bear greater caregiving responsibilities.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,437 lines we hold for Vivian Balakrishnan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 45 of 49.
“I think this is something which will have to be sorted out later on, especially during the process of generating the guidelines. But the general principle is that if the Competition Commission is satisfied that there is a problem in which there is an unfair market practice, distortion or restriction of competition ---”
“Otherwise, we will end up like Mr Steve Chia who thinks this Bill is going to be used to reform the political system.”
“Thank you for that reminder. There is a big point and there is a small point in response. On the small point first. Technically, I would just like to inform this House that car dealers will be subject to the Competition Act. So there is no question about them escaping the coverage by this Bill. With regard to his specific point about why there are apparent variations in OMV valuation by LTA or MOF, I am sure LTA and MOF would quickly look into this. And if there is really a loophole, I am sure they will address it. The bigger point is, in fact, that there are times when the goals of public policy may need to trump the market and that is why this Competition Act should not be an overarching blunderbuss law that acts to fetter all other exercises of Government or statutory bodies. So I am saying that we need to be very clear that where this is business and where this is going to lead to an efficient functioning of the market and more competitive firms, we use this more appropriately. In other circumstances where there are other policy objectives, then we do so. But when we do so, this Government is very aware that every regulation, every tax, or every new rule that we promulgate in pursuit of a public policy objective may, and very often, have market impact as well. And we need to balance the impact of that rule versus the impact on the way the market functions. And I will assure this House that this Government is ever mindful of that and we will not unnecessarily be so pig-headed about it that we will just impose a system and ignore the impact on businesses. But this is something which we will have to feel our way and cross each bridge as we come to it. So please do not treat this Bill as a panacea or as a solution for all ills, real or perceived.”
“You will not get a situation of people saying, "Am I going to be fined by the District Court, or the Competition Commission can find against me?" Perhaps it is worth reiterating the process. If the Competition Commission finds against you and if you disagree, you then have recourse to appeal to a Competition Appeal Board. Mr Sin Boon Ann will be glad to know that the chairman of the Appeal Board will have to be a lawyer who is qualified to be on the Supreme Court. I think that means he must have at least 10 or more years of practice. So the lawyers will still have a role in this process. If you disagree with the decision of the Competition Appeal Board, you can still appeal to the High Court on points of law and on the quantum of the penalty or sanction levied against you. And if you disagree with the findings of the High Court, you can then go to the Court of Appeal. So, you can see that we have taken the trouble to set up a proper system with proper checks and balances and a right balance between business and law. But I want to conclude by saying that if you look at what other jurisdictions have done - I think in the case of the UK, it has been several decades that they have been working on competition law and evolving it, and the most recent legislation of 1998 which we have looked at - I have no illusion that this is a big first step, but it is a first step of a much longer journey, and one which we have to go into with our eyes open, clear-headed leadership, and sensible people of integrity operating the system.”
“In any case, we are not repudiating all agreements. We are saying only those provisions which infringe the tenets of the Competition Act would, if complained about and if the Competition Commission finds against them, be held to be null and void. We are not saying everything is to be thrown away and everything has to be renegotiated. Yes, there will be a bit more work for Mr Sin Boon Ann, but I hope it will not be very much work for him. Related to this also is Mr Iswaran's point about frivolous and vexatious complaints. Again, if you look at the way we constructed it, if someone complains to the Competition Commission, it is not the same as if he has gone to a court of law and filed an affidavit against you. Because it is the Competition Commission's own discretion to decide whether there is or there is not a bona fide case that merits investigation, decision and ultimately enforcement. So, again, if we have a properly constituted, properly qualified and equipped Competition Commission, this should expeditiously filter out vexatious and frivolous complaints. Mr Chiam was a bit confused, I am afraid, with respect to the role of the District Court and the Competition Commission. In clause 69, it refers to the sanctions which the Competition Commission can impose on businesses for infringing the prohibitions listed in the Bill, and the Bill provides that no financial penalty may exceed 10% of the annual turnover for up to a maximum of three years. Clauses 82 and 83 that Mr Chiam referred to refer to offences that would be committed by people who do not cooperate with the Commission in the course of its investigations or in its attempts to enforce its actions. So, I am afraid, they are two completely different issues.”
“So those 12 months are meant to provide a period of intense consultation, the drawing up of guidelines so that, as Mr Inderjit Singh said, our businesses will have greater certainty as to how this law will operate. Assuming this goes well, then on 1st January 2006, the provisions which will basically prohibit anti-competitive agreements and abuse of dominant position will come into effect. The more complex prohibition on mergers and acquisitions, we anticipate, will take two years before we put it into effect, and that is because we feel we need more time to consult and arrive at workable, sensible guidelines and modus operandi which the businesses understand. There has been concern about the retrospective provisions. I think I can quite understand all lawmakers' concerns with retrospective provisions. We thought long and hard about this. One alternative would have been to just grandfather all the current agreements, but there are dangers with doing that. First, we did not want a flurry of agreements to be made because people knew they could slip it through the grandfather's net. Secondly, there may really be current agreements that do need to have their provisions relooked at and reviewed, in order to move our economy to a more competitive phase. After all, we said this is meant to move our economy up one quantum step. As to how we are going to do it, again, the key word is "carefully". For agreements which have been in existence for more than five years before the Competition Act comes into operation, we will allow the companies to apply to the Competition Commission for more time, or a longer transitional period, so that they will have time to negotiate, renegotiate or amend those agreements so that they will comply with the requirements of the Competition Act.”
“But I think Members have to agree with me that we felt this was important enough to create a statutory body that whilst it may be supervised by MTI, it is not just another department or another policy arm of the Ministry of Trade and Industry. I can assure Members that we will keep it as small as possible. But we will ensure that the people who staff it are well qualified and know what they are supposed to do and will not waste time. I also take Members' points that there is a need for this Competition Commission to make decisions in a timely way. As some Members have said, you do not want vexatious and frivolous comments or allegations to come in and keep things in limbo, and result in unnecessary friction and paralysis for the real businesses pursuing their objectives. These sentiments of this House will certainly be transmitted to this Commission when it is created and we will do our best to make sure they do. We will do our best to make sure we equip them with the staff, investigative and enforcement powers, so that they can make their decisions quickly, efficiently, but fairly. I also take Members' point that, if you just look at this legislation as it is, people need more information. They need more definitions. They need more education. And that is why, if Members read carefully our implementation roll-out plan, on 1st January 2005, if this House approves this piece of legislation, the only thing that will come about is the Competition Commission. This Competition Commission then spends the next 12 months issuing guidelines. And it is not going to unilaterally issue guidelines but to discuss with all the stakeholders, because these are complex issues which none of us on our own have a monopoly of wisdom on.”
“The Competition Commission has to find that a certain anti-competitive act or certain abuse of dominant position has actually led to a distortion, reduction or elimination of competition before it finds that this activity has transgressed the provisions of this Act. Let me try to explain that in greater detail. It is much easier to craft a legislation to say that specific acts are illegal. Instead, we have said the act is illegal only if it is performed and it has impact on our local economy, which actually puts a higher onus of proof on the person or party who wants to allege that a certain company has engaged in anti-competitive behaviour, and the Commission then has to find it accordingly. So, it is not being done in a haphazard, slipshod or easy manner. It has been done very, very carefully. I was intrigued by the fact that when we started talking about the Competition Commission, there were so many suggestions. Mr Leong Horn Kee said that it should just be a department. Mr Ang Mong Seng, Mr Inderjit Singh and Mr Sin Boon Ann all stressed the need for independence. And I think two of them said that it should be a tribunal, and they argued eloquently why it should be run by lawyers, rather than businessmen. Without getting into an ideological debate, we agree with Members that there is a need for independence, there is a need for integrity, and there is a need for integrity and impartialness to be seen as well. That is why we decided to create another statutory body. Yes, there will be some costs incurred in setting up another statutory body.”
“So we have deliberately decided at this point in time, to keep it quite separate so that you know who is your regulator, you know what are the fines you are exposed to, you know what are the strategic issues that the Government or the regulator is concerned about, and you have some certainty to get on with reforming your sector and delivering your services in the most cost-effective way. The next sub-point on this issue of exclusion I want to emphasise is that these exclusions are not permanent. As I said earlier, this is work-in-progress. In fact, if you read carefully the way we have crafted the legislation, the Competition Bill acts as a kind of a default vehicle so that if at any point in time we decide, for instance, that there is no need for regulation in telecommunications or energy, or whatever the case may be, because it will no longer be regulated under a specially created regulator under written laws, the default mode would be that it would come under the ambit of the Competition Act. So the very way we have crafted it - some Members have raised it - the wording seems to be a bit general and broad, but the intent is that eventually more and more of these sectors will come under direct regulation of the Competition Act. I want to say a few things about abuse of dominance. We are not against big companies. We are not even against dominant companies. In the nature of a small economy like ours, some companies will grow very, very big, and will have a dominant position. What we want to prevent is abuse of that dominant position. In fact, if you look again carefully at our legislation and compare it to other jurisdictions, we have defined it in a more difficult but ultimately more useful way. I will give you an example of that.”
“Secondly, there are deep and significant technical, public policy and strategic interests involved in these decisions. Hence, it would be dangerous to try to open up these sectors without sector specific regulators who know the rules of the game, who know the technical issues and who can then best manage both the competitive and the technical issues as and when they clash, as sometimes they will. So the point is we are not afraid of competition. We do want competition and we do want competition in these so-called excluded sectors. But we want to ensure that it evolves in a correct, safe and appropriate way. So please do not run away with this misconception that this Competition Act, by excluding these sectors, is meant to protect these sectors. That is absolutely not the case. Next, I want to move on to the related issue of sectoral regulators. Many Members have brought up the issue of whether there is a danger of uneven standards, different procedures, different fines even, as Mr Iswaran brought up. Well, I would say that in an ideal state, we would certainly want to evolve to a common standard. And I think if you accept the fact that the general direction is clear and this is a piece of legislation which is evolving and really needs to be practised and refined as it goes along, then you would agree with me not to rush this congruence, although the long-term direction must be congruence and coordination. But there is an important sub-point related to that. If you wanted to create more confusion for the market, then you would tell, for instance, the generation companies that they are subject to both EMA and the Competition Commission.”
“Before I enumerate the sectors, let me first describe the process by which we arrived at this list. There was a lot of consultation between Ministries and regulatory agencies and with businesses. And we decided that some exclusions are needed on the basis of public interest considerations - national security, certain aspects of defence, strategic interests. The areas which have sectoral exclusions right now, let me read that out to Members - piped potable water, waste water management, scheduled bus services, rail services, cargo terminal operations, armed security services, media clearing houses activities, gas, electricity, telecommunications, ordinary letter and postcard services. If Members stop to think about this list, does it not sound very familiar? It sounds very familiar because these did not start as private sector competitive markets. These started as monopoly services provided for public good by the Government. Now, the first change that occurred to these sectors was not the Competition Act but the fact that the Government, as a matter of policy, decided that, where possible, we would introduce competition into these sectors. And the evolution of competition in these sectors occurred through liberalising these sectors and creating sector specific regulators. For instance, if we talk about telecommunications, IDA is the regulator. For media, there is MDA. For energy, there is EMA and so on and so forth. The point is that these are highly specialised sectors with very unique and different starting points, and we were actually converting monopolies and forcing them to open up and create a competitive element. Sir, if you are starting from that point, I think you will agree with me that there is a need for, first, much more active intervention and regulations.”
“Clause 33(4) of the Competition Bill provides that the competition law will not apply to any activity or agreement entered into or conduct on the part of the Government or statutory bodies created by Parliament or any person acting on behalf of the Government or statutory bodies in relation to that activity, agreement or conduct. Why do we do so? Because, unlike Mr Steve Chia's irrelevant rambling, we are trying to regulate the conduct of market players in an economy. This is not meant to fetter the discretion or indeed the obligation of the Government to make policy and to perform public functions. Hence, policies and actions taken by the Government and its statutory bodies do not and should not come under the ambit of the proposed competition law. If there are problems with the policies and the actions of the Government or its statutory bodies, the correct venue and the ultimate tribunal for this is this House, and ultimately the electorate. So, do not resort to petty tools like saying "I can use the Competition Act to regulate political and public policy objectives and actions." Having said that, however, I have also said earlier in my speech that this Bill will apply to commercial and economic activities carried out by private sector entities in all sectors regardless of whether it is owned by a foreign entity, a local entity, Government or statutory body. So all these anxieties about Temasek-linked companies or indeed private limited companies owned by the statutory bodies are misplaced. The anxieties are misplaced because we intend that all these companies will come under the ambit of this law. The next point is the list of exclusions set out in the Third and Fourth Schedules.”
“Our intent cannot be and it will be impossible to regulate the practices of big multi-national companies, big overseas firms who happen to have a small presence in Singapore. But, nevertheless, we do need to send a message that we do not want dominant firms, whether they be local or overseas firms, to engage in predatory and unfair behaviour within Singapore shores. As to the action we can take, obviously, we will have to confine our actions to the presence within Singapore. Another point which Mr Iswaran brought up, and I think it is worth reiterating, is that regulatory cost should be kept to a minimum. Every well-intentioned piece of legislation, every well-intentioned new rule, new entity, new regulator will lead to increased cost. So I urge this House to be mindful, as we have been mindful at MTI, to make sure we balance the cost versus the benefits. One example of this, I will discuss later, is when we talk of the need for sectoral exclusions, because we want to avoid unnecessary duplications, unnecessary cost and unnecessary confusion to the firms and businesses which have to operate under such an environment. Mr Leong Horn Kee, Mr Iswaran, Mr Ang Mong Seng, Mr Inderjit Singh, Mr Sin Boon Ann and, in fact, practically all of them have focused a lot of attention on the exclusions. The first point which I want to put to Members with respect to exclusions is that exclusions from this Competition Act are not meant to protect the companies or the sectors so excluded. I think it is worth reiterating it. Excluding companies and undertakings from the Competition Act is not meant to protect them from competition. Let me go through it in a little bit more detail.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, with the exception of one totally irrelevant speech from a Member who has totally disappeared, I would like to thank all the many Members of this House who have shared the benefits of their wisdom and experience and their thoughts on this piece of legislation. This is a significant step in our legislative and regulatory framework for businesses. It is one which we are taking boldly but carefully. And I was most pleased to hear Mr Inderjit give us seven out of 10. He says that by his standards, it is very good. I think seven out of 10 also illustrates the point that we are going forward but we want to make sure we evolve this and get the sequence and the pace right. Let me now touch on the various themes that Members of this House have brought up. I was struck by Mr Iswaran's point that competition does not equal competitiveness. It is worth reflecting on this because the purpose of this piece of legislation is to ensure that we have an efficient functioning market in Singapore and, ultimately, a competitive economy with competitive firms. Merely creating the forms of competition is not sufficient. And, in fact, although this is called the Competition Act, we must remember that this is a means to an end. The next point which I want to put to the House is that I said earlier in my speech that we are a small but open economy, and that has certain implications for us. Firstly, it means that we cannot just copy everything wholesale. Although I have said that we have modelled our legislation on the UK Act, we have had to make significant changes and modifications. Another implication of a small and open economy is this need for extra-territorial provisions.”
“This will benefit both enterprises and consumers, as well as ultimately strengthen Singapore's overall economic competitiveness. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“The Board will be an independent body comprising members appointed by the Minister. Only parties which the Commission has made a decision against may appeal to the Board. They may make further appeals against the decisions of the Board to the High Court, and thereafter to the Court of Appeal, but only on points of law and the amount of the financial penalty. Phased implementation approach Sir, we will implement the competition law in phases. The phased approach will allow time for the Commission and for businesses to prepare for the implementation of the law. In the first phase which will commence on 1st January 2005, only the provisions establishing the Commission will come into force. There will then be a 12-month transition period before the provisions on anti-competitive agreements, decisions and practices; abuse of dominance; enforcement; appeals processes; and the other miscellaneous areas which will take effect on 1st January 2006. This would be the second phase. In the third phase, which is likely to be 12 months thereafter, the remaining provisions relating to mergers and acquisitions, which are more complex and technical, will come into force. During the transitional period, the Commission will carry out more outreach programmes to raise the level of awareness and understanding of the law. Sir, our economic strategy over the years has been founded on a strong adherence to free market principles and international best practices adapted to our local conditions. With the enactment of the Competition Bill, we will create an even more conducive environment for businesses, foster greater dynamic competition, and promote more efficient and innovative markets.”
“And in such circumstances, more active market regulation and intervention is needed. Moreover, there are considerable technical matters affecting competition in these areas. Hence, the sectoral regulators, with their industry knowledge and expertise, are in a better position to handle such issues. However, cross-sectoral competition issues will be dealt with by the Commission, in consultation with the sectoral regulators. The sectoral exclusions listed in the Third and Fourth Schedules are not intended to be permanent. After the competition law has been in force for some time, we will review the need for such sectoral exclusions, taking into account market developments at that point in time. Powers to investigate, adjudicate and sanction; and rights of private action The Commission will have powers to investigate and adjudicate anti-competitive activities, as set out in clauses 62 to 68. Clause 69 empowers the Commission to impose sanctions, such as requiring the offender to modify or terminate the agreement or conduct, pay a financial penalty, and carry out structural remedies. Structural remedies will be calibrated based on the redress needed to stop the anti-competitive activity in question. Besides financial penalties, violators of the competition law are liable to be sued by parties who suffered loss or damage directly as a result of the infringement. Clause 86 provides for such rights of private action, after the Commission has made its determination and the appeal process exhausted. This will serve as an additional deterrent. Appeal process Part IV of the Bill covers the appeal process. A Competition Appeal Board will be established to hear appeals against the decisions of the Commission.”
“For mergers involving public interest considerations, clause 58 provides that the Minister will decide whether such matters may be exempted from this prohibition. The Minister's decision is final. Clause 61 provides that the Commission may publish guidelines on how it will interpret and give effect to the provisions of Part III of the Bill. The Commission will set out its analytical framework and implementation approach in its guidelines, which will enhance transparency and give businesses greater certainty. As a practice, the Commission will conduct public consultation before finalising its guidelines. Let me move on to the scope of application. The Bill will apply to commercial and economic activities carried on by private sector entities in all sectors, regardless of whether the undertaking is owned by a foreign entity, a Singapore entity, the Government or a statutory body. However, as the intent of competition law is to regulate the conduct of market players, it will not apply to the Government, statutory bodies or any person acting on their behalf. As a small open economy, we are vulnerable to anti-competitive activities from entities operating overseas. Consequently, clause 33 thus provides for the extra-territorial effect of this competition law. Clauses 35, 48 and 55 exclude matters or mergers specified in the Third and Fourth Schedules from the prohibitions of the Bill. Some of these are based on public interest considerations such as national security, defence and other strategic interests. The other exclusions are for sectors or activities which already have sectoral competition frameworks. These sectors are in transition from a previously monopolistic situation to a more competitive environment today.”
“These include agreements between competing firms to fix prices, reduce the quantity of the goods and services sold, or to share markets. The provisions of any agreement or any decision that infringes this prohibition will be rendered void on or after the date the section 34 prohibition comes into force to the extent of the infringement. Clause 36 empowers the Minister to make an order, following the recommendation of the Commission, to exempt certain categories of agreements from this prohibition. This is provided that they improve production or distribution, or promote technical or economic progress, without imposing undue restrictions or substantially eliminating competition. Second, abuse of a dominant position. The Bill does not prohibit dominance or substantial market power per se - firms can continue to increase market power through offering cheaper or more innovative products. However, clause 47 prohibits firms from abusing market power in ways that are anti-competitive and which work against the long-term economic efficiency, eg, predatory behaviour towards competitors. Third, mergers and acquisitions which substantially lessen competition. Sir, not all mergers and acquisitions (M&As) have anti-competitive effects. Being a small open economy, highly-concentrated markets are sometimes inevitable in Singapore. Thus, only M&As which substantially lessen competition and have no offsetting efficiencies are prohibited under clause 54. Firms are not mandated to seek approval or to notify the Commission of any merger, but those that wish to seek the Commission's guidance or decision can do so on a voluntary basis under clauses 57 and 58.”
“The Bill adopts international best practices, and yet takes into account our specific economic characteristics and requirements, in particular, the fact that we are a small open economy. It also incorporated relevant feedback and suggestions from the public consultation exercises. I would like to thank everyone who provided feedback during these exercises. Sir, the objective of the Bill is to promote the efficient functioning of our markets and hence enhance the competitiveness of our economy. The Bill seeks to prohibit anti-competitive activities that unduly prevent, restrict or distort competition. We recognise that any regulatory intervention in the market may impose costs. Therefore, we need to balance regulatory and business compliance costs against the benefits from effective competition. Instead of attempting to catch all forms of anti-competitive activities, our principal focus will be on those that have an appreciable adverse effect on competition in Singapore or that do not have any net economic benefit. In assessing whether an action is anti-competitive, we will also give due consideration to whether it promotes innovation, productivity or longer-term economic efficiency. This approach will ensure that we do not inadvertently constrain innovative and enterprising endeavours. Establishment of a new statutory body and prohibited activities Parts I and II of the Bill establish a new statutory body, the Competition Commission of Singapore. This Commission will administer and enforce the competition law. Part III sets out the three main prohibited activities under the Bill. First, anti-competitive agreements, decisions and practices. Clause 34 of the Bill prohibits agreements, decisions and practices which prevent, restrict or distort competition in Singapore.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, competition is a key tenet of Singapore's economic strategy. Market competition spurs firms to be more efficient, innovative, and responsive to consumer needs. Consumers would enjoy more choices, lower prices, and better products and services. The economy as a whole benefits from greater productivity gains and more efficient resource allocation. Therefore, wherever appropriate, Singapore has opened up sectors of the economy to market competition. In February 2003, the Economic Review Committee (ERC) noted that whilst we have rules against anti-competitive behaviours in specific sectors like energy and telecommunications, there is no generic competition law that covers all sectors. It thus recommended that a generic competition law be enacted to create a level playing field for businesses, big and small, to compete on an equal footing. This will make for a more conducive business environment. The Government accepted the ERC's recommendation, as competition law will help to reinforce our pro-enterprise and pro-competition policies, enhance the efficiency of our markets, and strengthen our economic competitiveness. MTI subsequently studied the competition legislation of various jurisdictions, including the UK, Australia, Ireland, the United States and Canada. It also held two rounds of public consultations on a draft Competition Bill in April and July this year, and conducted several briefings for businesses through the Singapore Business Federation. The Bill before the House is largely modelled on the UK's Competition Act 1998.”
“But we recognise that there are needs and we will do our best to help them, but they cannot be pegged at the same level as women who are married, or who were previously married and are now divorced, or are widowed through no fault of their own. So, in this entire debate, let us not get distracted by peripheral issues or by wishful thinking, but focus on what we are trying to do, which is not to prescribe how many children you should have, not to prescribe how you should order your family life or domestic life. What we are all affirming is the value of intact families and the value of children to our society, and that the most that the Government can do is to assist in a small way. But the primary responsibility lies in each of us as individuals, as spouses and as parents to make decisions, and these decisions have consequences.”
“In the case of mothers who stay at home, I want to add that I do not want to enter into a debate as to which is the right course or who is doing more or which is more valuable. I think there are no right answers. These are personal decisions. But in the case of mothers who choose to stay at home, you will have to admit that they have, in a sense, a lesser need to use childcare and infant care facilities, than for mothers who are engaged at work. So that is the reason why, although as a concession, I would add that we have provided some subsidies for stay-at-home mothers who wish to avail themselves of childcare and infant care facilities. We have not added those subsidies at the same level as working mothers. I want to end by referring to her point on unwed mothers. I think Ms Irene Ng also brought up this issue. The fundamental point here is that the State cannot and should not be the surrogate father or surrogate husband. So let us recognise that that is where the crux of the issue is, that is, a breakdown in the relationship. There is a breakdown in the sense of responsibility by the person concerned. Again, to assume wishfully that we can solve the problem by getting the State to step in would be a big, big mistake. Having said that, however, we recognise that unwed mothers have needs, and that is why they still have entitlements to maternity leave under the Employment Act and that is why if they choose to put their children in childcare or infant care while they go out to work, they will also receive subsidies. So the point here is that we cannot argue for equality because that would be missing the crux of the issue.”
“It is something which both Government and the trade unions will work very closely with employers, and this would be a good opportunity for tripartism in action. I want to move on to Ms Braema's speech. There have been a lot of criticisms that all these packages are too women centric and too motherhood centric, and that perhaps we are not focusing enough on the role of fathers. Let me state categorically that we all in this Chamber do believe that fathers have a very, very important role to play. We also all believe that fathers can do more. But we must not mistake or wishfully believe that simply legislating maternity leave will solve the problem. As a father and as a husband, I will freely tell you the main limiting factor for father's contribution in his child's life is not time. There is always time, with a five-day week and with annual leave. There is actually more time. The problem is one of values, of attitudes and commitment. And we need to fix it at that level. But to pretend that simply legislating maternity leave will fix the problem of attitudes, values and commitment is wishful thinking. So let us address the problem at its root and accept that this is something which fathers and men will have to work through in negotiation with their wives and children. As far as stay-at-home mothers are concerned, I think it is important to get the perspective right, that the subsidies we provide for infant care and childcare are basically to assist women who choose to or need to return to work and therefore need the availability of childcare and infant care facilities which are very expensive compared to, say, kindergarten care. So because we recognise there is this need for women who wish to go back to work, we have come out with this package of subsidies.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Members for their contributions and I will take them one by one. I agree with Dr Amy Khor for the need for family-friendly work practices and increased options for part-time work. But this is not something which can be easily solved through legislation. We will have to work with the employers, we will have to encourage and to educate. I note her suggestion on whether subsidies should be provided for home-based infant care. I think this is something which will need to be studied very carefully before we make any commitment in this area. Ms Irene Ng talked about adoptions by singles. I think in her own speech, she did acknowledge that our policies are necessarily biased towards being family centric. Whilst as a concession or as an exception, we allow singles to adopt children, this does not, in any way, erode our fundamental belief that the best place, the best circumstances, to bring up children is in the context of an intact family. So, yes, we do allow singles to adopt, but that does not necessarily mean that we should extend all the benefits and incentives for intact families to singles who wish to adopt. It is the exception rather than the norm. In Mdm Halimah's speech, I am glad to say that I can agree with practically all the points that she has made. It seems she has been so supportive. I would also echo, however, her encouragement to employers to take advantage of the Government's generosity during this transitional period from 1st August to 31st September to grant the qualifying employees leave and let the Government reimburse them. But, again, this is something which we cannot legislate because, by definition, this Act only comes into effect on 1st October. So, again, this is an opportunity for employers to show good faith.”
“The participants will have the opportunity to debate their ideas, and present their policy recommendations to the Government. They will also have the opportunity to act on their recommendations in partnership with the relevant authorities and community organisations. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has recently called on younger Singaporeans to "step forward to make a difference to yourselves, to your fellow citizens and to Singapore". The Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS) is taking this call one step forward and on 14th August 2004, has embarked on a six-week public consultation exercise focused on the post-independence generation, called "Youth: Creating Our Future". Through this exercise, young Singaporeans are invited to share their dreams and aspirations, and their plans for making their dreams and aspirations a reality. They are encouraged to surface ideas on how they can be active citizens, be it in the political, social or economic realms. The Government will partner the youth of Singapore to translate these ideas into reality and examine how it can facilitate even greater youth engagement and involvement.”
“There are abundant opportunities and channels for young Singaporeans to be involved in the political process. The fact that the Government is formed by just one political party is an outcome of a democratic election. It does not preclude young Singaporeans' participation in the political process. Young Singaporeans are free to participate in politics, form a political party, or join a political party regardless of the party in power. The fact that Mr Steve Chia, himself a young Singaporean, is able to engage in politics and be a Non-Constituency Member of Parliament today is a testimony to this fact. Mr Chia's assertion that "there is no serious alternative" reflects the failure of his own party to attract serious minded people with realistic comprehensive programmes for the future of Singapore. In contrast, our experience with engaging youths has shown that young Singaporeans do have ideals, ideas, passion and are keen to contribute to nation building. The Government is actively looking into how to get young Singaporeans more involved in shaping the future of Singapore. The Remaking Singapore Committee had in 2003 considered avenues for increasing youth awareness of policy issues, and recommended the formation of a National Youth Forum (NYF) under the auspices of the National Youth Council (NYC) to provide a formal platform for youths from a variety of backgrounds to study policy formulation and debate national issues. The inaugural NYF will be held from 19th November to 23rd December 2004. The participating youth will undergo training in research, critical thinking, public speaking skills and public policy. They would have opportunities to meet with senior politicians, business and community leaders, as well as other key decision makers.”
“Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong asked the Acting Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (a) how can young Singaporeans be involved in the alternative politics of the country when the powers are fully held in the hands of one political party and when there is no serious alternative choice for the people to consider or get involved in the political process; and (b) what is the Government doing to address this disenfranchised group in our society since this €˜political apathy' is a serious concern that will affect the future of the country.”
“Madam Halimah has asked about assistance for those with long-term chronic illnesses, and who are unable to or can only do limited work. My Ministry presently has two assistance schemes that are able to help such individuals and their families. Under the Interim Financial Assistance Scheme (IFAS), needy individuals and families receive a monthly allowance and where necessary, grants to help them pay for the utilities and serviceand conservancy charges. For those living in rental flats, they can apply for the Rent and Utilities Assistance Scheme (RUAS) for help in their monthly rental and utilities bills. MOE may also exempt the children from paying school fees. Applications for IFAS or RUAS assistance can be made at the relevant Community Development Council. In addition to these schemes, families with young children who need child care or pre-school support, can also seek help from the Community Development Councils. Those who need assistance with payment of medical bills can approach the Medical Social Workers at the restructured hospital or polyclinic for assistance. Families in need of financial assistance should approach their Community Development Council early so that appropriate help can be extended in time. POLITICAL APATHY 21.”
“Madam Halimah has highlighted the plight of the family where the breadwinner became unemployed due to kidney problems and the electricity supply was cut off due to arrears in payment. The family was affected by a fire in their Eunos Crescent flat on 21st July 2004. The Community Development Councils (CDCs) help to implement the financial assistance programmes that MCDS has put in place. In the case of the family, South East CDC has extended a grant of $300 per month for three months, from August to October 2004, to help tide the family over the period as both parents are unemployed, and their two older children, aged 23 and 19 years, have only just started working. The CDC also gave the family a $100 NTUC voucher for buying food and other necessities. The family also received assistance from other sources following the incident. The Kampong Ubi Citizen's Consultative Committee (CCC) helped pay in full the family's outstanding arrears in utilities and serviceand conservancy fees, amounting to about $1,500. They also made arrangements with the Kampong Ubi PAP Community Foundation (PCF), to provide school uniform and textbooks for the youngest child, a Secondary 1 student, to ensure that his school classes are not disrupted. An additional $5,400 was raised for the family by the secondary school where the youngest child is schooling, while Singapore Power Services contributed and installed lightings and electrical fittings amounting to $220 for their refurbished flat. The refurbishment of the flat was paid for by HDB Fire Insurance. The family has moved back to their flat, and has expressed gratitude for the assistance which they have received. South East CDC will continue to keep in contact with the family to provide further assistance if necessary.”
“The additional aspect is to encourage teenagers to better understand the challenges their parents face in managing their family, work and personal commitments as it takes both the child and parents to make family relations work. Lifeskills training for youths currently offered under School Family Education will be enhanced to meet the aspirations and contributions of youth. Such an emphasis will contribute to the teenager's development into a unique, mature individual with strong family ties. Whilst the Government can help to facilitate programmes to promote and build strong families, ultimately the responsibility to establish strong parent-child bonds must still lie within the family. CUT-OFF OF ELECTRICITY SUPPLY 20. Mdm Halimah Yacob asked the Acting Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (a) whether his Ministry is aware of the plight of the family whose electricity supply has been cut off for not having paid the arrears because the sole breadwinner is unemployed due to kidney problems; (b) whether any assistance has been rendered to the family; and (c) what schemes are there to help those with long term chronic illnesses and are unable to work or can only do limited kinds of work.”
“Strengthening parent-child relationships is a priority area in my Ministry's efforts to promote and build strong families. Development of healthy relationships characterised by open communication based on trust requires much commitment by parents. Building confidence in connecting with their children is a life long process for every parent, starting during the early years of the child. As teenage years are probably the most challenging for parent and child, more efforts and resources have been invested in developing programmes to address the challenges of parent-teenager relationships. To ensure effective and comprehensive outreach, my Ministry's School Family Education Programme was launchedtwo years ago in collaboration with the Ministry of Education to facilitate easier access to family life education programmes. During its first year of implementation in 2003, 14,000 parents in 18 schools participated in parenting as well as parent-child bonding programmes. About 5,500 of them were parents of students fromseven secondary schools. I am pleased to report that more than 95% of the 14,000 parents have found the School Family Education Programme very useful and 60% of them reported improvements in their family life as a result of using the skills. Currently 40 schools are participating in the Programme. Another 20 schools will be coming on board next year. The main focus of the annual National Family Week campaigns in 2003 and 2004 has been on strengthening parent-teen relationships. Based on favourable feedback and response, the Ministry will continue to emphasise the importance of parent-teenagers relations in next year's National Family Week.”
“The current sports excellence programmes include schemes to support our athletes' training and development, grants to the National Sports Associations, sports medicine and sports science programmes, as well as supporting the Singapore Sports School. Going forward, the Government will continue to support and fund sports excellence programmes, particularly for sports that have done well and show promise of greater achievements. My Ministry will work closely with the Singapore Sports Council and other key stakeholders to regularly review our sports development plans and ensure that our potential sports champions are given the support that they need, to help them, and Singapore, realise our dreams. NUS FACULTY OF ARTS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES 41. Mdm Ho Geok Choo asked the Minister for Education (a) what is the yearly student intake of the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences; (b) what is the distribution of the intake between those from the Science stream and those from the Arts stream; (c) what is the basis for the successful enrolment of Science students over Arts students into that Faculty; and (d) what are the options available to Arts students who were unsuccessful in their enrolment.”
“a) What actions will the Government take to recognise their achievements and support their future efforts? Li Jiawei, Zhang Xueling and Ronald Susilo have done very well at the Athens Olympic Games. They have kept the Singapore flag flying high, and rallied Singaporeans from all walks of life. As the Prime Minister said at the National Day Rally, while Singapore may be small, we have high hopes and big dreams. Athletes like Jiawei, Xueling and Ronald epitomise a "never say die" attitude and demonstrate our ability to punch above our weight. They as part of Team Singapore have done us proud. The Government has in place several award schemes to recognise outstanding sporting achievements. These include the Singapore Sports Council's Singapore Sports Awards, as well as the National Youth Council's National Youth Awards for Sports and Adventure. Our table tennis and badminton players have won these awards on various past occasions. For instance, Jiawei won the SSC's Sportswoman of the Year Award for 2003 and 2004, while Xueling and Ronald received SSC's Meritorious Sports Award in 2004 for their individual achievements. In addition, Jiawei, Xueling and the rest of the women's table tennis team were named SSC's Team of the Year for 2004. Certainly, Jiawei, Xueling and Ronald's fine performances at the Athens games will be taken into consideration for the relevant awards in the coming year. b) Whether Government will also increase funding towards sports excellence so that more champions can be raised and serve as inspirations to Singaporeans. The Government has over the years been supporting sports excellence in Singapore, as the achievements and spirited efforts of our sports champions inspire our people and help pull us together as a nation.”
“Following this, we will do a review of existing programmes, and develop appropriate new strategies and programmes. We will work out the required resources then. I understand that MOF will consider any requests for additional funds rigorously but sympathetically. I want to assure the Members of the House that even as my Ministry works on engaging and developing youth, it will not be at the expense of the other programmes that we run. The Ministry will continue to address the needs ofall Singaporeans, including the elderly, the disabled and the less well-off. * This is based on Feedback Unit's statistics. SINGAPORE ATHLETES 36. Mr Ng Ser Miang asked the Acting Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports in view of the outstanding performances of our athletes, in particular Li Jiawei, who reached the top four positions (semi-finals), Zhang Xueling and Ronald Susilo, who reached the top 8 (quarter-finals) in their respective sports at the Athens Olympic Games, (a) what actions will the Government take to recognise their achievements and support their future efforts; and (b) whether Government will also increase funding towards sports excellence so that more champions can be raised and serve as inspirations to Singaporeans.”
“In his National Day Rally Speech, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has articulated the vision of Singapore for youth – that we want to be a society where youth are given wings and roots. Wings to gain experience in the global arena, and to decide their own goals and destinies. Roots to strengthen their ties to Singapore, to motivate them to contribute in whatever way they can, and to make a difference to this nation. So with wings they can fly all over the world, yet remain connected to Singapore and call it home. To achieve this vision, we need to engage our youth and empower them to be active citizens. My Ministry has just launched a six-week consultation programme, "Youth: Creating Our Future". In this exercise, young Singaporeans are invited to share their aspirations for themselves, the community, and Singapore, and how we can work together to make these aspirations come true. In the firsttwo weeks of the consultation exercise, we have received more than 500* comments and suggestions through emails, SMS-es, telephone calls and faxes. On top of this, we are conducting focus group discussions and forums with different segments of the post-independence generation to gather diverse perspectives and ideas. The experience thus far has been very encouraging with youth displaying their desire to be part of this exciting process. These perspectives and ideas would help my Ministry to formulate appropriate action plans and initiatives to get youth informed, engaged, excited and involved. This will add on to our existing initiatives that were announced during the Committee of Supply for my Ministry earlier this year. It is premature to discuss resources as we are currently still in the process of consultation and gathering views.”
“For the Syariah Court, approximately half of the couples manage to resolve their differences and withdraw their divorce application as a result. The challenge to address the trend of rising divorce numbers requires a "Many Helping Hands" approach, with individuals, families, the community and the various Government agencies working in tandem. MCDS will continue to work hand-in-hand with our various partners to strengthen families, and reduce divorces. WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION SCHOLARS 1. Mdm Ho Geok Choo asked the Prime Minister (a) how does the Government ensure that some of the scholars picked by the Public Service Commission (PSC) can be groomed to be entrepreneurs and that there is a more balanced distribution of returned scholars to the private sector; and (b) whether with a reduced PSC scholarship quota, there is a case for a joint public/private sector scholarship so that more of those who are eligible will stand a chance to obtain a scholarship.”
“Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong asked the Minister for Community Development and Sports (a) what are the reasons for the rising number of divorce cases in Singapore; (b) whether the problem is exacerbated by HDB's social agenda of forcing people to get married so as to purchase a subsidised flat; and (c) what is the Government doing about this rising rate of divorce and the subsequent social problems it will create. Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: The number of divorces granted has risen over the years. However, the proportion of our population who is divorced or separated is still relatively low compared with countries in similar state of development. As of June 2003, 2% of Singapore residents aged 15 years or older were divorced or separated compared to 3% in Hong Kong, 4% in Japan and 8% in Britain. Based on data on marriages registered since 1987, less than 10% of marriages end up in divorce within the first 10 years of marriage. This is lower than the "one out of three marriages" which has been wrongly reported in some media reports. HDB policies are pro-family in nature, and do not exacerbate the problem. The Government has committed to keep public housing affordable for Singaporeans. There are no compelling reasons for couples to rush to marry so that they can buy an HDB flat. Marriage is a serious commitment. Couples must enter into it after careful consideration. My Ministry has been working closely with the Courts and our community partners to run programmes and services to support marriage. These include marriage preparation and enrichment programmes to strengthen marriages, as well as initiatives such as marriage and reconciliation counselling for couples who are experiencing difficulties in their marriage.”
“The ASEAN economy is also expected to turn in its best performance since the Asian crisis, growing by 5.4%. These projections imply that our key export markets will continue to register healthy economic growth in the second half of this year. Initial forecasts by the IMF also show healthy growth for these economies in 2005. Although high oil prices may dampen growth somewhat, a study by the International Energy Agency (IEA) has estimated that the impact of this is unlikely to pose a significant threat to global economic growth. In view of the positive outlook for the global economy, demand for Singapore's exports should continue to grow. Domestic demand is likely to be lifted by better employment prospects and a more positive outlook. For this year, we should be able to meet the 5.5-7.5% forecast that MTI had announced in May. An updated forecast for this year and the preliminary forecast for GDP growth next year will be made in August, when MTI releases the detailed economic results for the second quarter of 2004. The Monetary Authority of Singapore expects 2004 consumer price inflation to be between 1.5% and 2%, slightly higher than the 0.5% last year. Inflation this year will be lifted by higher import prices for oil and other commodities as well as stronger domestic demand. First, the higher oil prices will raise costs, including electricity tariff and petrol prices. Second, commodity prices have risen sharply this year, which raise input costs for certain industries. Third, as the economy picks up further and job market conditions improve, there would be stronger demand pressures this year. DIVORCE RATE 34.”
“In such circumstances, SP Services will assist them with suitable instalment plans to ease their cashflow. Electricity supply is disconnected as a last resort only if the households refuse to settle their arrears or commit to an instalment plan. Any household facing financial difficulties may seek assistance from the CDCs and CCCs. CDCs administer MCDS schemes such as the Rent and Utilities Assistance Scheme, and the Interim Financial Assistance Scheme. CCCs also offer localised schemes to assist families who need help with their utilities bills. * 60% of installed generation capacity comes from oil-fired steam plants and 40% comes from gas plants. However, because gas plants are more competitive, 60% of our electricity supply (as distinct from installed capacity) is generated from gas and 40% from oil. ** Cols. 291-2 SINGAPORE'S ECONOMIC OUTLOOK 31. Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what is the economic outlook for Singapore for the second half of 2004 and for 2005; and (b) whether it will cause inflationary pressures and indirectly cause the cost of living to rise. BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: The Singapore economy expanded strongly in the first half of the year, growing by 9.5% compared to the same period in 2003. The strong growth reflected rising external demand for both goods and services that are produced in Singapore, as well as our recovery from SARS which adversely affected the Singapore economy during the same period last year. The global economy is expected to perform strongly this year. The latest IMF projection puts world economic growth this year at 4.6%. The advanced economies are expected to grow by 3.5% this year, the strongest since 2000.”
“I will answer MP Mr Low Thia Khiang and NMP Mr Steve Chia's questions on electricity tariffs together. Approximately 60% of our electricity supply is generated from gas plants, with the remaining 40% from oil-fired steam plants*. The power plants do not usually run on diesel fuel. Diesel is only used as an emergency back-up. Fuel costs account for about half of the cost of generating electricity. Consequently, changes in fuel costs will affect electricity tariffs because we do not subsidise electricity. The price of our natural gas is pegged to fuel oil prices under long term contracts. This follows international practice in this part of the world. Hence, when oil prices increase, gas prices also increase and electricity tariffs will have to increase. Over the last one year, households have experienced both increases and decreases in tariff rates. Rates today are 1.3% lower compared to the same quarter (ie, July-September 2003) last year, even though oil prices have gone up by 5% in July 2004 compared with July 2003. This is a result of the electricity market becoming more competitive. I have attached a chart (Annex A**) showing movements in electricity tariffs for households. Tariffs came down by 3.4% for October-December 2003. Rates then increased by 1.1% for January-March 2004, by 2.3% for April-June 2004, and by 3.5% for the current period of July-September 2004. Overall, tariffs will move in line with changes in fuel costs. Most households are able to pay their bills. Data from SP Services show that the billing arrears rate has declined from 1.2% in May 2003 to 0.9% in May 2004 and stabilised at this new level. Nevertheless, some households may face financial difficulties.”
“Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong asked the Minister for Trade and Industry what is the basis for allowing an increase in the electricity tariffs when Singapore is using more natural gas than diesel to generate electricity.”
“The electricity market is open to new technologies and the use of different fuel types, including solar energy. Investors who are able to be commercially competitive using solar energy are welcome to enter the electricity market to be a power producer. Studies have shown that the cost of electricity generated from solar (also called photovoltaic or PV) energy is currently about 2.5 times higher than the current electricity tariff. At the current level of PV costs and efficiencies, PV systems for electricity generation do not appear economically viable. Cost aside, solar energy may still not be suitable for wide-scale implementation because, even if the useable roof areas of all HDB blocks are installed with PV panels, the total amount of electricity that can be generated from solar energy is about 3% of the total electricity demand of Singapore. Despite these factors, improvement in PV efficiency and reduction of PV costs, as well as volatility of oil prices could tilt the balance in favour of PV energy. The Government is closely monitoring developments in this area, which could also provide opportunities to develop a PV industry serving the region. Also, PV systems integrated into buildings as roofs or facade walls could serve dual functions of building construction and energy conservation. There is scope to explore this further. For example, JTC is working with NEA and a PV company on a project that integrates PV into a building at the Biopolis. ELECTRICITY TARIFFS 29. Mr Low Thia Khiang asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what is the reason for the continuous upward adjustment of the electricity tariff since April this year; and (b) whether he is aware that the escalating electricity charges have become a financial burden to many households. 30.”
“I cannot give a detailed answer as to exactly when the last system-wide test was performed. But last night I was going through the records of the "hotswitching" drills that the companies had gone through and, within the month of June itself, there was at least one company which had done it twice. So, it is not for lack of going through the drill, and it is not for lack of education or training on the part of the operators. However, I just want to say that on the 29th June, it was a hitherto unexpected and unanticipated problem. If it had been a simple shutdown of the emergency valve or a repeat of incidents which occurred in 2002, we would not have experienced this blackout. Instead, we had a pressure valve malfunctioning, first closing and then suddenly opening, overcoming the back-up system, and then the emergency shutdown valve having to kick in because of safety concerns. In that space of eight minutes, we lost precious time, and that precious time then cost us the ability to "hotswitch" in time before the gas ran out. Sir, I am not offering this as an excuse. I am just offering an explanation for what went wrong. It was an unanticipated sequence of events. But we can fix this, and we intend to fix this. If we look at our plans both in the short and long-term, we will have additional back-up measures, additional robustness within our system, and I think we will all emerge ultimately stronger for this experience.”
“The generation company at Senoko already has dual pipelines. The PowerSeraya and Tuas generation companies already had plans in place to install dual pipelines even before this blackout. So, it is not for lack of consideration or forethought.”
“The feasibility study on whether or not to have an LNG terminal will commence later this year. I do not want to make any conclusions on what that study will show. But I also want to add, however, that we did not make that decision to embark on a feasibility study because of this blackout. There were other strategic and commercial reasons to consider this, and we will await the results of the feasibility study before the Government makes a considered decision.”
“During the on-going investigation by EMA, and indeed subsequently by the Energy System Review Committee, if we discover any incompetence, negligence or, as you have alluded to, complacency, the Government will take action. The second question was on our inter-connection to Malaysia. There is an inter-connection between the Singapore and Malaysian electricity systems. But this pipeline, so to speak, is basically meant to assist in load balancing for small degrees of fluctuation. On a night when you lose 30% of the capacity, this inter-connect must shut down, and the reason it must shut down is that, otherwise, you will get a sequential collapse of whole regions and, possibly, even extending across countries. So, Malaysia does not want to have a blackout because we have a problem, nor do we want to have a blackout in Singapore because of a sudden catastrophic failure in Malaysia. So, although there is an inter-connect, it is not designed to respond to losses of 30%, as what we experienced on 29th June 2004. The third point on whether we should have a body to award damages, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am very reluctant to go down that route. I would rather focus on making sure our system is as robust as possible, and that the impact of such failures is minimised. Over and above that, if companies wish to pursue their legal options or exercise their contractual rights, I think they are free to do so and to go down the legal route.”
“The answer to that is yes. There is a complex control system that continuously, in real time, balances supply versus demand, and also, if need be, if one part of the network goes down, as long as there are alternative channels, it will route electrical supply through these alternative channels, so that there is no disruption. But, again, I do not want to pretend that this is a simple system that will work totally according to plan all the time. However, the Member's question is: is there such a system? Yes. Do we have a state-of-the-art system? Yes. Do we still want to make sure that we try to improve it further? Yes.”
“I presume he means when there is a localised failure, whether there are alternative channels of power to be supplied to that area so that there is no disruption.”
“The answer is that we did not think it was necessary at that point in time. But clearly, as I have announced earlier, we now do believe that it is necessary to bring them under the licensing requirements.”