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 48 of 49.
“While some farms have stopped operations recently, there are still five of these egg farms which today meet 30% of our local demand. Let me move on to the cut from Mr Ang Mong Seng relating to National Parks Board (NParks). NParks takes into account the requirements of all park users. In this respect, it is not just the question of maintaining the parks but also ensuring that other facilities, such as car parks, toilets and security measures that Mr Ang mentioned, are provided for. In addition, we are also catering to an expanding group of park users, including the elderly, by providing things like hand rails for sloping footpaths, building ramps instead of steps, and providing coverings over drains. Apart from just physical facilities, we also have to cater for programmes and activities within the park itself. NParks' role has therefore evolved from just physically developing and maintaining parks to also meeting the social and lifestyle needs of all Singaporeans. While the Government will continue to provide for the basic maintenance and infrastructure in our parks, efforts are also being made to increase the involvement of the wider community. An example of that is the Adopt-a-Park scheme that Mr Ang mentioned. We believe that such activities and recreational programmes will help to encourage bonding and rootedness amongst Singaporeans. Mr Ang would be pleased to know that NParks is in the process of setting up a fund called the "Garden City Fund" which will support more such activities in the parks. Specific details will be announced later this year.”
“The Government's policy on farming is to allow farming in Singapore as long as land is available and as long as the investors find it commercially viable. The AVA has issued 273 licences for activities such as vegetables, fish, egg layers and cattle farming. The AVA will continue to provide assistance to farmers in the form of technical assistance and training in the areas of animal and plant disease control and prevention. The AVA also works closely with farmers to develop and adopt appropriate farming technology in order to optimise production. Sir, land zoned as agricultural land is intended for agricultural and agricultural-related uses such as farming, processing and the packing of farm products. The current guidelines already allow for some ancillary uses to support the main agricultural activities in the farms. For example, small visitor centres, display areas and snack bars that are related to the main agricultural activities are allowed. We can consider allowing integrated agricultural activities provided the intended activity is compatible with the farm's existing activities and will not impact the surrounding farms adversely. For example, orchid cultivation which requires the use of pesticides would not be allowed within or near egg layers, as the poor chickens would be affected. Prof. Low Seow Chay has sought clarifications on the rumours about abattoirs being asked to cease operations. Let me reassure him that there are no plans to close down the pig abattoirs and the poultry slaughterhouses as they can cater to consumers like him and many others who prefer freshly slaughtered meat. These slaughterhouses will continue to operate as long as they are economically viable. It is also not true to say that there is only one licensed egg layer farm in Singapore.”
“To enhance its capabilities, a new veterinary public health centre, located at the Agri-Bio Park at Lim Chu Kang, will start operations by the middle of this year. The AVA's testing capabilities will be expanded and it will include the capability to test genetically modified food. Today, the AVA adheres to the guidelines set up by the National Genetic Modifications Advisory Committee for the safe import, release and use of such products in Singapore. The new centre would also have a level three biological safety laboratory to handle the more hazardous organisms and toxins. The new centre would also address the concerns of both Mr Ang and Mr Zainul Abidin for better working conditions for the staff of AVA. Sir, it is impossible to predict when and how an act of terrorism involving the deliberate contamination of food may occur. In the event of such an act, an Inter-Ministry Committee, coordinated by the Ministry of Home Affairs, will be activated to handle the threats, including those involving chemical and biological agents. If necessary, the AVA will play a part in coordinating food recalls to prevent the spread of such agents. Meanwhile, the AVA has enhanced its vigilance in inspection and testing, to look out for tampering of food products. In addition, our food industries have also been made aware of their vulnerabilities and also to take appropriate measures to prevent the deliberate contamination of their food products. It is not possible for Singapore to be self-sufficient in food production. But having said that, we produce 5% of our vegetable needs, 10% of our fish requirements and 30% of our egg requirements.”
“Sir, it is difficult to talk about food at lunch time. That is our task, I guess. Singapore, given its limited land resources, has to import most of its food requirements. It is therefore imperative that we ensure that our external sources of food supply are stable and resilient. In a time like this, I think it is equally important that our imports meet Singapore's stringent food safety standards. The AVA adopts a strategy of diversifying our food sources so that our food traders can quickly turn to alternative sources to meet any disruption, due to either disease outbreak or even a terrorist act. Today, Singapore imports vegetables from 33 countries, meat from 25 countries, fish from 91 countries and fruits from 40 countries. The AVA will continue to seek out new sources of food and by maintaining free and open market competition among these sources will also help to keep the food prices in check. The AVA organises trade missions and provides technical assistance to facilitate overseas ventures by Singapore companies in agriculture and food production. Singapore investors have gone into pig farming in China, poultry farming in Malaysia, and fish processing in Vietnam, Myanmar, Malaysia and Indonesia. Mr Ang Mong Seng had asked if AVA could form a private company to assist local SMEs who have to set up farms overseas. I am glad to inform him that the AVA actually established the company in October 2000 to provide consultancy services to companies investing overseas on measures to assure food safety as well as on the use of appropriate technology. Sir, in order to ensure that the food we consume meets international safety standards, the AVA has an integrated food safety system which includes accreditation at source, product inspections and laboratory tests.”
“Sir, it is the same issue again. I keep emphasising that this is not a tax on profit. Whether a houseowner has made a profit or loss is irrelevant. Let me state it explicitly. The levy is to discourage people from coming back unnecessarily for a second bite of the subsidy cherry.”
“If we allow people to play these games retrospectively, we are going to create much more complexity and probably much more unfairness in a system which is no longer transparent and clear. We have a clear set of policies. Remember that no one is compelled to buy a flat from the HDB. Even if a person wants to buy an HDB flat, he is not compelled to come and buy a subsidised flat from the HDB. The more important point, in fact, about the resale levy is that if a homeowner does not come back for a second subsidised flat, he cashes out the housing grant and he does not have to pay any levy. That is the important point. It is entirely up to them to do their sums and decide what is sensible and what is not. We are not here to create a system in which people can play games with the rules, change the rules retrospectively and decide which ones apply to them and which do not apply to them.”
“He cannot subsequently decide that he does not want the housing grant in the first place and therefore is not affected by the resale levy policy. We do not allow people to play the rules retrospectively.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am unable to give him the exact number for the subsidy of a notional flat which is sold for $1/2 million, because it depends on where the flat is and when it was bought. I cannot give him a specific number to that question. His second question is on whether the levy can be waived.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, since May 1977, the resale levy for a 3-room flat is 20%. For people who do their sums, it is still financially viable for them to sell their 3-room flat and subsequently come back for a second bite of a subsidised HDB 4-, 5-room or Executive flat, and they will still be ahead financially. So, the levy, in that sense, is not an impediment or an obstacle to them upgrading. Obviously, because the levy is graduated, for those who are already in 4- or 5-room flats, depending on the exact circumstances of the case and on the timing of the sale and purchase, it may not be sensible for them to come back for a second bite of the cherry.”
“I thought he said he had four supplementary questions. I counted three. First, the subsidy which HDB provides is in the form of a market subsidy, and that is clear to anyone buying an HDB flat, because they know that when they subsequently sell it after the minimum occupation period, they sell it at a price which is higher than what they originally purchased from HDB. It is a matter of timing and definition as to exactly how much that sum is. The point is that the resale levy is not a capital gains tax. It is not related to the notional or actual profit that you would have made from cashing in your subsidy.. This is a policy tool to ensure that people do not unnecessarily come back for a second bite of the subsidy cherry. At the end of the day, remember that there is a finite amount which Government can direct towards housing subsidies. The more we allocate to people taking a second bite, the less we have for people who are taking a first bite. I think Mr Steve Chia's supplementary questions are missing this point. It is not a matter of how much the homeowner actually made when he sold his flat, nor is it a matter of whether it was a profit or a loss. It is a matter of directing people so that they do not unnecessarily consume housing subsidies.”
“But if they do that, they cannot come back to HDB and say they now want a concessionary rate loan again. PROFESSIONAL, MANAGERIAL AND EXECUTIVE STAFF (Retrenchments and retraining) 12. Mdm Ho Geok Choo asked the Minister for Manpower in view of the increasing number of retrenchments of professional, managerial and executive staff aged above 40, (a) what special programmes are in place to re-train this cohort for relevant jobs to be created by the Free Trade Agreements that have been concluded and (b) how can we ensure that some of these relevant jobs will be made available to them.”
“It is not a statutory requirement for HDB to borrow its funds only from the Government who, in turn, takes it from the CPF Board. But Mr Steve Chia, as someone who used to work in the finance industry, must be familiar with the concept of the difference between borrowing funds from long-term sources versus short-term sources, and he should not confuse the two. The HDB and the Government have decided, quite rightly, that we should use funds from the CPF Board, because this is a long-term source of funds which are taken on 20-year repayment terms. And as anybody who has borrowed money to fund his mortgage from HDB will know, these are often terms running from 10, 20 to 30 years. Consequently, it is a prudential and sensible arrangement for the HDB to continue to rely on the stable source of long-term funding. The rates which we see the banks offering right now are, in a sense, promotional rates. To give Members an example, if we look at what the concessionary rate had been for HDB over the last three years, it had been flat at 2.6%. For those who have borrowed money from banks, if we look at the non-promotional rates over the last three years, it had, in fact, been at around 5 or 6%, more than double the concessionary rate which HDB had been charging. So, what we have right now is a sensible, safe and a secure system that works. 2.6% is a reasonable rate to pay for any mortgage. And anyone who has been in this business for any length of time will know that this is a system that works; this is a system that is secure. However, we have provided choices. So, if people feel that they are willing to enter the market and subject themselves to market risks at market rates, they are entitled to do so.”
“Sir, the details of the upgrading for Sennett Estate are still being worked out. I think it would be premature for me to make any definitive statement to that effect. THREAT OF TERRORISM (Motion) Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [20th January 2003], "That this House (a) acknowledges that the terrorist threat to Singapore is real and serious; (b) supports the firm actions the Government has taken against the threat to the security of Singapore posed by the Jemaah Islamiyah group and other militant and extremist groups in the region; and (c) endorses the recommendations put forth in the White Paper on The Jemaah Islamiyah Arrests and the Threat of Terrorism, contained in Paper Cmd. 2 of 2003, to counter the terrorist threat by (i) enhancing the security measures; (ii) policing the spread of terrorist and extremist ideology; and (iii) strengthening our social cohesion and religious harmony.". - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. Question again proposed.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in both MUP and LUP, we have set a 75% threshold. So there is no difference in that respect. I think it is important to understand why we have set a 75% threshold. Once a poll is conducted successfully, even those who are not in favour of upgrading, whether it is MUP or LUP, will have to pay for it. This is not a trivial exercise. We believe that there should be polling so that this reflects the desire of the vast majority and they will then have a sense of ownership and a stake in the decisions which are being made by the community. I think this is the correct direction. But having said that, you want to ensure that that majority is a significant majority because their decisions will have a financial impact on the minority who may not be in favour of upgrading. For those reasons, I think it is safe and reasonable to set it at a significantly high level and 75%, as far as we are concerned, is the right level at this point in time. LABOUR SUPPLIERS OF FOREIGN WORKERS (Deployment) 2. Mr Yeo Guat Kwang asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether labour suppliers who have been permitted to bring in foreign workers for one job can be permitted to deploy them for another; (b) if deployment is not permitted, how many such breaches have his Ministry dealt with in the past three years; and (c) are there plans to step up enforcement actions against such breaches.”
“Under MUP, we add in extra rooms, etc, so as to enhance the value of the flat. But under LUP, for those blocks of flats which are technically and economically feasible, should not MND consider looking at the policy to see whether there is a need to set a "Yes" vote at 75%, because the objective of LUP is quite different from MUP? The objective of LUP is to improve accessibility. So for blocks of flats which are technically and economically feasible, maybe a simple majority would be good enough for LUP.”
“Sir, there are actually two points. Let us deal with the first point about 100% barrier-free access. In my earlier reply, I said that we would aim to provide convenient access where it is technically and economically feasible. I do not believe it is tenable to aim for 100% access at all costs and disregarding the technical aspects and indeed the preferences of the residents in any particular block. You must understand that HDB blocks have been built with a variety of housing forms. Not all blocks are standard blocks with common corridors. There are blocks with staggered configurations, in which at the time they were built the priority was given to privacy. It is not a simple exercise of saying that there will be 100% access for everybody at all costs regardless of the preferences. There are still residents in some of these blocks who prefer not to have a new lift shaft. Some of them claim that it obstructs their view and some of them do not feel that it is an essential item. It is a convenience and not something which they are willing to pay that amount for. The next figure, which is the second point, is the 75% level. I think we can argue whether it should be 51%, 65%, 75%, 90% or 100%. But the point is that once Parliament has passed a law, in effect, setting a certain threshold, then that threshold has to be respected. If you say that we should make it 74.5%, then you set a new threshold. But once that new threshold is set, that threshold has to be implemented and implemented exactly, fairly and transparently. I empathise with the residents in the block concerned. But there are clear legal principles involved here which I think should be best adhered to. Dr Ong Seh Hong: Sir, as I see it, LUP and MUP are quite different.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, regardless of whether it is for private or public development, wherever possible, the HDB will inform the Advisors and the grassroots organisations of the impending use of the land. MEDISAVE 2. Mr Arthur Fong asked the Minister for Health if the Government will consider allowing Medisave to pay for the hospitalisation and delivery cost for the fourth child, as there is a growing number of Singaporeans affected by the current ruling, and falling fertility rate, which currently at 1.48, is among the lowest in the world.”
“The market rental rates are decided by valuers and they will ensure that, at any point in time, the level at which it is set takes into account the current market conditions. And for those facing renewals from now onwards, the current market conditions are certainly taken into account. CODE ON RELIGIOUS HARMONY 4. Ms Braema Mathiaparanam asked the Prime Minister (a) if he will clarify how the Code on Religious Harmony can be applied by Singaporeans; (b) from whom individuals can seek counsel when the Code is flouted; (c) what kind of remedial action can be taken when it is flouted; and (d) whether he will consider setting up a mediation council comprising different religious leaders to resolve conflicts arising from non-compliance with the Code on Religious Harmony.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the proposal to adjust rentals to the market is not a new one and, in fact, was negotiated back in 1988. The intention then was to ensure equity between shopkeepers who have heavily subsidised rentals versus the newer comers who were paying market rents. So this is not a new policy. Having said that, however, in view of the conditions, since November 2001, we have provided for a stagger within a stagger. And for those in their final term of adjustment, we stagger out the increases over three years.”
“So, Mr Speaker, my take-home message to all Singaporeans is that this is an artificial nation in a hurry, built in a very short time. Let us not be too harsh on ourselves. Let us remind ourselves, however, that we only exist because of an effort, a conscious exercise of will. And if our younger generation loses that will, then we will perish. So that is why today's Motion is relevant, and that is why I support it.”
“As long as they stay within these guidelines and rules, we exempt them from having to apply for a Public Entertainment Licence. So you can see that we have made moves. But we will make moves cautiously, deliberately in full cognizance of the potential consequences and in full cognizance of the potential benefits. That should be our approach in this area. Another example we heard is, increase the stakeholding of Singaporeans. If you think of the Community Development Councils, Residents' Committees, Neighbourhood Committees and Residents' Associations, there is a whole plethora of committees which we have created, which we keep begging people to join, "Please help out. We want to devolve responsibility and decision making." For those of you who are involved in this they know that it is not so easy. But we have provided avenues for people. I want to end with emotional rootedness because, at the end of the day, it is one thing to talk about identity and ideals. But we also need to remember that it is a matter of the heart. As Mr Gan Kim Yong said yesterday, yes, we have to look for avenues to provide for more family time, family opportunities, more avenues for alumni and other social groups to get together to support each other. Yes, we want to have a familiar environment, and I agree with Mr Chiam yesterday. Yes, we must have some landmarks which will remind us of our past. That is why we have set up things, like the Conservation Advisory Panel, that is why we engage in conserving heritage buildings and, last week, we inaugurated the Heritage Trees Scheme. All these are attempts to preserve for Singaporeans emotional signposts and landmarks for us to fall back on.”
“Since January this year, and I suspect most of us are unaware of it, the Registry of Societies (ROS) has implemented a pilot project to register certain categories of societies on a fast-track basis. Under this pilot scheme, societies, such as alumni associations, performing arts groups and reading clubs, would only need to fill in a registration form and they are deemed to be given in-principle approval. They can proceed to conduct their activities. The Registry of Societies is currently refining this fast-track process to make it easier for other types of societies which pose minimal security considerations to also register on this fast-track basis. So for those of you who said you want more freedom to be able to form your own societies, get on with it. We have. In fact, this avenue has been there since January this year. However, in the light of the heightened security situation which we are in, I would also have to tell you categorically that, if you want to form a society that is of a religious or an ethnic nature, it is still safer that we continue with the normal registration process for the time being and I think all of you would agree with me on that. I give you another example, public entertainment. Since March 2000, the Police have applied, what they call, a "class exemption" approach to licensing public entertainment. Under this approach, certain types of activities are exempted from having to apply for a Public Entertainment Licence. For instance, organisers of Chinese opera or getai no longer need to apply for a Public Entertainment Licence provided that they comply with certain conditions. For those of us who have been attending the Seventh Moon Festival, we will know. You have got to pipe down at 10.30 pm.”
“The fact that they are engaged in the process of dealing with national problems and finding solutions, I think, will awaken them and remind them that they have an essential role to play in Singapore's future. There has been much said about the Government's need to review its regulatory approach towards public expression. Yes, I agree that we need to have a system which allows expression of diverse views. Yes, Singaporeans have a right to be heard. Singaporeans need to develop that capacity for dialogue to disagree and yet ultimately to agree to move along as a united whole. We need all this in order to achieve our goals of a creative, entrepreneurial society. Yes, all that is correct. But let me put in a caveat first. If you say you want less shackling by OB markers, if you want a less prescriptive pre-censorship type of regime, if you want to be able to say what you want to say, act out the plays you want to act, engage in performing art that you want to perform, and you do not want us to censor it beforehand or to tell you beforehand, then you must also be prepared to have a system in which there are heavy penalties which will kick in if you engage in activities which are inimical to the safety and stability of society. Freedom of expression must come with responsibility. And you cannot say, "Let's take away defamation laws", and suddenly, the debate will be wonderful and all great truths will emerge. That is not the way life works. You want more freedom, yes, there will be more freedom, but the penalties must remain in place. Because, at the end of the day, the system and Singapore must still continue. Having said all that, in fact, I was pleasantly surprised that there have been moves in some areas. Let me give you an example.”
“Because usually a young girl, with a short skirt, dancing on a bar-top, may attract some insults from some other men, and the boyfriend starts fighting. Some people will die. Blood will be shed for liberalising this policy. While I support the liberalisation of the policy, I also want all of us to be aware that there is a price to be paid for liberty. If we are convinced that our society is ready to pay that price, or that price is a necessity, then let us go in, but go in with our eyes wide open. My colleague, Dr Ng Eng Hen, has expounded on the educational issues. I do not want to go into that, except to remind Members that the Ministry of Education is providing more choices. There will be a sports school. There will be greater opportunities for people in art, music and so on. We will look for your strengths rather than your weaknesses, and we will try our best to give you marketable, employable skills. But, again, do not expect the Ministry to wave away competition. Do not expect the Ministry to give equal pay and equal results, regardless of talent, regardless of input. If you want such a system, it died a long time ago when the Berlin Wall came down. Another theme we have heard - re-engage Singaporeans in public life, give greater franchise. I think Mr Chandra Mohan just spoke about that as well. Mr Arthur Fong talked about a Youth Parliament. We are not going to have a Youth Parliament, but we are considering a National Youth Forum where there will be a formal platform for youths to engage themselves and their minds on national issues, provide them enough information to think it through and work out solutions. Regardless of whether their solutions turn out to be superior or not, that is not the point.”
“Even yesterday, we talked about the quota on women entering medical school. Let me tell you that I am sympathetic to it, not because I am a feminist, but because of the more important message behind that, which is that at an individual level, we are all of equal worth and that we will compete fairly and squarely for limited resources and limited places which are available. It is about reaffirming the primacy of free choice and free competition in our society. The corollary of increasing space for the individual and giving more free choice is that you cannot expect the Government to guarantee success for you and say, "Look! You told me to do this course. And now that I have done this course, you make sure I get a good job, and it is a good living." It is like the young student who says, "Look! Since you say art and music is now important, you must guarantee that when I graduate from the university, I will have a job as a musician or an artist, and I will make as much as my engineer colleague." This is still old thinking. Young Singaporeans need to wake themselves up. There is no guarantee for success. The role of the Government is to give you as many opportunities as possible to maximise your interest and potential, and then you take your chances in the game of life, and we wish you all the best. There will be a safety net. Nobody in Singapore is going to starve, to be without a roof, to be denied healthcare, or to be deprived of any educational opportunities for his children. But beyond that basic, everything else, you have to make a go for it yourself. If you want to dance on a bar-top, some of us will fall off that bar-top. Some people will die as a result of liberalising bar-top dancing, not just because they have fallen off the bar-top.”
“But you buy food for your family not for the sake of buying food but because of love, and because you want to keep the family intact. Yes, we are very careful with our economy. Yes, we want to make a living. We want to make a good living. But it is not an end in itself. It is a means to an end. And I would like to remind all Singaporeans that when the Government says, "I need to ensure a reasonable surplus at the end of the year", it is not for the sake of keeping score. We run a system in which the economy has to work. The Government budget has to be reasonable. And we need a surplus because without that surplus, we cannot look after the people who may fall behind in this race of life. So, yes, it is a hard-headed approach to life and in making a living, but it is one based on heart, compassion and love. I think the sooner people stop treating the Government as a separate agency, and that the Government's surplus is somehow money which otherwise would belong to them, the better. Because we are all on the same side. We are all part of the same family. Another recurrent theme we have heard is - enlarge space for individuals. I hear that, and I sympathise with that. Yes, we have to stop micromanaging choices. What do I mean by that? We have this temptation to manage, say, manpower planning, that we can look in the crystal ball and tell you exactly how many engineers, doctors and lawyers we need. You and I know it is not so straightforward. In the name of distributing talent, we even have quotas on ensuring that not too many top people enter one or two disciplines. But, again, in the name of doing that, we affect people's freedom of choice. We affect, in their eyes, the whole concept of free competition.”
“I want to reassure Mr Chandra Mohan that we have consulted very, very widely, if you look and count the number of people we have met, if you look at the number of emails, letters and telephone calls, which all of us and the sub-committee members have been involved in. I have stopped counting a long time ago, because it is no longer a question of quantity. We have consulted local voices. The overseas Singaporeans have contributed both to the Economic Restructuring Committee as well as to us. There is no question of lack of commitment. It is not a question of geography. It is not even a question of partisanship. Having said that, what are some of the signs or signals that have been transmitted to us? Firstly, we have heard a loud reaffirmation of one of the key taglines from S21 that "Every Singaporean matters". Mr Gan Kim Yong yesterday said this was not a doctor-patient relationship. Nor is this even a commercial relationship. He said, we are a family. Singapore cannot be a corporation that just recruits the best members and retrenches everybody else. Even if you were to take a business analogy, this is a family-owned business. Yes, we have said repeatedly that there is no free lunch. Nobody owes Singapore a living. But I would like to remind all of you that regardless of your station in life, all Singaporeans have a place at the family dinner table. This is something the Government has not forgotten. Mr Low Thia Khiang, Mr Steve Chia and some of the other Members have accused the Government of being materialistic, single-mindedly obsessed with money. You know, my mother used to tell us, "You can't live on love and fresh air." We need money to buy food to keep body and soul together.”
“Because if younger Singaporeans feel that they have no role to play in going after those big goals for the society, then the only thing left is to focus on themselves and look after number one. So, I feel that in order to sharpen this sense of obligation in this group of Singaporeans, we also need to enhance our sense of ownership, belonging and participation. Because if we allow younger Singaporeans to feel alienated from society, then they will lose that sense of obligation. I believe that if we can show young Singaporeans that they are needed and that there are avenues for participation, then that natural deep-seated imperative to do something worthwhile with their lives will surface. And I think we can count on them to continue this process of nation-building and not let the past and the future generations down. If we accept that there is a role, we then have to decide whether this role is in any way going to be different in the future. And that perhaps is as good enough an excuse to discuss superficially some of the aspects of Remaking Singapore. This is not the time to discuss the whole laundry list. But I want to say a few things. It is a process. As Ms Irene Ng yesterday asked, "Why aren't there instant answers, instant responses, from the Government?" It is not so easy. We are not just deciding that we shall raise your tax on loyalty by 3%. It does not work that way. It is not a panacea for all ills. In any case, there are very many different perspectives, and some of these perspectives are contradictory.”
“" But Members know that this is not a game that we are playing. The crux of the issue is not how many people go, or who goes, or to get the details for their exact reasons that anybody makes such a heart-wrenching decision. The crux of the issue for us, as a country, is how many Singaporeans will willingly exercise their freedom of choice to decide to commit themselves to their families, their friends and fellow Singaporeans. If we do not have a critical mass of local committed Singaporeans, then who will be responsible for our collective destiny? Who will be responsible for Singaporeans who do not even have an option to migrate? In fact, it is this unique role of local committed Singaporeans who cannot be replaced by expatriates. The survival of Singapore depends on the quality and quantity of these hardcore local Singaporeans. I will move on to the fourth question. What is the role, especially of younger Singaporeans in all this? There is one key difference between the first and the third generation of Singaporeans. The first generation had to fight for independence. They then had to unite a potentially explosive mix of disparate ethnic enclaves. They had to build an economy and they had to create a first-world country. These are really big hairy goals, worth several lifetimes of effort. These challenges and the very real prospect of failure and the consequences of failure enhance that sense of participation, obligation and, ultimately, bonding in that pioneering generation. Now, we fast forward to today. The question that many young Singaporeans ask themselves is: Do we collectively have any big worthy goals to achieve for ourselves and for our country?”
“And it is the belief and allegiance to this set of ideals which has created a unique way of life and a common destiny for us, fellow Singaporeans. In this debate, a lot has been said about emigration. Let me give Members a personal take on it. Every Sunday, I see buses choked, full of people, foreign workers, on their way out to enjoy their only day off in a hard week. I remind my children when I pass these buses, or when I pass certain parks where they are congregated, that we are entirely of the same genetic stock as these foreign workers. The only reason some of us will have the privilege of migrating as a professional, not as a maid or as a labourer, is not because of any inherent superiority in ourselves or in our genes. It is due entirely to the fact that we were blessed to be born in this place called Singapore and to have enjoyed the environment which has shaped us, for better or for worse. And in our case, certainly, for the better. Everything that I am and all that I have are due entirely to the Singapore system, and the fact that Singapore exists. So, for those who have considered or are considering leaving, all I am asking is, leave with some gratitude in their hearts and we wish them well, and we will continue to hope to be connected with them. But, as my good friend, Ahmad Khalis, said yesterday, do not use emigration as a threat to us. And, as Mr Chandra Mohan says, if indeed all the people who are considering leaving Singapore are doing so because of unhappiness with the PAP and the Government, and if indeed these are the same people who would be likely to vote against us at the next election, then if we were to be purely partisan about it, we should say, "That's fine. That improves my votes at the next election.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion proposed by my hon. colleague, Mr Gan Kim Yong. I would like to pose four questions to Members of this House and, in essence, to all Singaporeans. The four questions are the following: (1) Who are we? Do we have a sense of identity? (2) What do we stand for, or what are our ideals? (3) What do we owe Singapore? Or do we have a sense of gratitude? (4) What role do we play in Singapore? And this is a question which perhaps is especially so for the younger, 3G Singaporeans. Let us look at the first question - identity. Singapore and Singaporeans are a 37-year old fluke of history and geography. In the eyes of some people, this is a joke. Are we just the southern tip of Malaysia? Are we just another island in the Riau Archipelago? Look around this House, were all of us born here? Do we all speak the same languages? We do not even believe in the same God. Singapore and our identity only exist because of an act of will. Singapore citizenship is not based on genetics, history or geography. Singapore citizenship is based entirely upon allegiance to a set of ideals, which brings me to the next question. What are our ideals, and what do we believe in? Because, if we cannot answer that, then we cannot be Singaporeans. The issue is do we have a set of ideals that we believe in? These are ideals which, in a sense, have been encapsulated in the Pledge written by Mr Rajaratnam and our Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew. The ideals of a Singaporean Singapore, a multi-racial democratic society, meritocracy, justice and equality. And all these in search of happiness first - for those of you who are worried about us being too materialistic - happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation. It is this set of ideals which defines Singaporeans.”
“NEW CHARTER OF GOVERNMENT-LINKED COMPANIES Order read for resumption of Debate on Question [27th August, 2002], "That this House, taking into account the Report of the Entrepreneurship and Internationalisation Sub-Committee (EISC) of the Economic Review Committee and the press release by Temasek Holdings (Pte) Ltd on the new charter of the Government-linked companies (GLCs) and in view of the concerns of the private sector regarding GLCs, urges the Government to implement the recommendations of the EISC which define the new roles and positioning of the Government and GLCs in business and, in so doing, support the growth of private enterprise and entrepreneurship in Singapore.". - [Mr Leong Horn Kee]. Question again proposed. 1.55 pm”
“Under the HDB Home Ownership Scheme, having a family nucleus is one of the prerequisite eligibility conditions that applicants need to satisfy before they can qualify for an HDB flat. Examples of such a family nucleus include a married couple, a single staying with his or her parents and a divorced parent with legal custody of the children. When a married couple divorces, the Family Court usually addresses the issue of legal custody of the children, if there are children, and the question of division of assets, including the HDB flat as this is the matrimonial home. As the parent who obtains legal custody, care and control of the children is considered to form a family nucleus with the children, he or she is allowed to retain or take over the ownership of the HDB flat. Where a couple who jointly owns the HDB flat is divorced, it would not be appropriate to allow them to continue to jointly own the flat since that couple no longer constitutes a family unit and is really not likely to be living in the same flat. It is therefore not practical for outgoing divorcees to retain ownership, since this would render them ineligible to buy another flat in the future. And in any case, there is also no guarantee that granting such joint ownership of HDB flats to divorcees would really make any difference as far as the reduction of custody disputes is concerned.”
“We have certainly explored all the options that he has mentioned. Anyway, we hope this will also be part of the advertisement. Those of you, whether you are a GLC, private company, or any other business, who wish to use the premises at the old HDB headquarters, please apply.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, whether that figure is $1 million, or $1, it would still be a concern on the part of HDB and of the Government. The real question is: are we trying to lease out these premises? And the answer to that question is yes. Exactly how much it would be, the market will say. When someone will move in will depend also on the market. So there is a limit to how much we can try to flog a dead horse. In this case, the premises are not dead. The premises, as he quite correctly pointed out, are useable premises. And in due time, tenants will move in and they will pay a good market rate. When that happens, the shopkeepers who are in that vicinity will also experience an increase in their business prospects.”
“The Member is quite correct that, obviously, there is an interest on the part of the owner of the building to ensure that it is rented out. However, this is a free market economy and all of us who have ever been in a situation of having to rent out our property will know that we cannot guarantee that there will be uninterrupted stream of tenants queueing up outside our door. The decision to move was made in 1995, seven years ago. At that point, things were obviously different. But even now, the real issue is: is HDB trying to lease out the vacant premises? We have appointed five marketing agents, and I am sure all of them are equally incentivised to find the right tenant mix for these premises. So it is not a question of HDB just sitting back and leaving it vacant because it can afford to leave it vacant. That is not the case at all. I do not have the figure that he is asking for as to how much it is losing over the last few months. In a sense, he also has to realise that, in a free market economy, the rental yields will fluctuate from time to time. So if you ask me, even if I were to give him a figure now, it would be an entirely notional figure. The proof of the pudding ultimately is how much whoever is going to come in to these premises is willing to pay. And we hope that, over the next few months, we will find a tenant, or several tenants, who will take up the vacant premises.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, currently, motorists who wish to park their cars islandwide can purchase a Monthly Parking Coupon (MPC) from URA and HDB. There are two types of MPC: There is one which costs $270. This is valid for parking at all URA/HDB car parks outside the Restricted Zone at all times and in the URA/HDB car parks in the Restricted Zone after 5.00 pm. There is another Monthly Parking Coupon which costs $420. This is valid for unrestricted parking at all URA/HDB car parks. Both types of MPC are also valid for overnight parking at all these car parks where the night parking scheme is available. MINI-BUSES PLYING IN HDB ESTATES 10. Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong asked the Minister for Transport if his Ministry will consider introducing 8 - 10 seater mini-buses to ply within HDB estates with a standard boarding fare, similar in concept to co-sharing in taxis.”
“I mentioned that the cost of land is depreciated over 99 years and the cost of building is depreciated over 60 years. These are accounting norms based on what we think would be the estimated useful life of that building or land. In the case of land, it is quite clear because the entire land is sold on a 99-year lease. In the case of a car park, I think we can argue whether it should be 60 years or 50 years, or so on. But the point is this is what we feel and the accountants feel is a reasonable target to be depreciated over. I would like to caution Members that if we were to increase the rate of depreciation, it would increase the cost on an annual basis. HDB SEASON PARKING CARD (Introduction) 9. Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong asked the Minister for National Development whether the HDB will introduce a season parking card that can be applicable island wide, similar to what is issued to an elected Member of Parliament.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I said that, the figures that I have from 1995 to last year show that there has been a deficit throughout except in FY 97. As far as I know, from 1995 to now, there has been no change in accounting basis. When we tell Members that the deficit has been growing in the last six years, this is a real deficit and it is an operating deficit. The quantum for last year was $115,288,000.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this, in a way, is related to Dr Teo's point. When we put up car parks, we have to purchase land and incur costs to build those car parks. The money to buy land and to build car parks does not come out of nowhere. In the case of HDB, it borrows money in order to fund the purchase of land and building costs. In order to sustain the borrowings, this will attract interest and will have to be repaid.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I only have the figures going back to 1995 and I can assure the House that it has been in a deficit entirely over the period except in Financial Year 1997. On Dr Teo's next question, I am not sure whether I understood his question on the difference between a structural deficit and an operating deficit. The deficit that I have referred to, in the case of the car parks, is an operating deficit which takes into account the building cost, land cost and these costs are then depreciated over their useful life. There is no separate sinking fund and other accounts.”
“The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Dr Vivian Balakrishnan]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. SEWERAGE AND DRAINAGE (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read.”
“And if we do not have the critical mass to conduct a good, high quality course, we are better off sending people with this ability and aptitude to appropriate overseas centres for their training. The final point he made is about protection from liability. I think those are generic points, not specific to this Bill itself. But the only thing which I would like to say in reply is that this protects the Authority, the Director-General and public officials who are performing their duties pursuant to directions of the legislation, or to rules passed by Parliament, or the appropriate Executive, and that they are doing this in good faith. If these officers do not perform the task in good faith, they are liable to prosecution, not only by the public, but even internally, subject to our own disciplinary processes and indeed criminal prosecution. I think, as a lawyer, he would agree with that. If members of the public feel that laws are unfair, the appropriate forum for that is this Parliament, and that is why Members scrutinise all legislation which is passed down here, and all rules and subsidiary legislation emanating from that. If the laws have been misapplied, members of the public have a recourse to the legal system. And that is why we have more than adequate lawyers in Singapore. So I think, contrary to your premise, it would be wrong to assume that the State and its public officials and, indeed, outsourced agents, acting on behalf of the State, are suddenly being given a licence to behave in an unfair manner, in an unjustified manner, in a capricious manner. I do not think that is the state of affairs. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.”
“The caterwauling of cats is part of their mating ritual, and the veterinarians in the AVA have told me that cats caterwaul in post-coital agony - not post-coital ecstasy - it is also a source of irritation for neighbours. I am not saying that it is a never, never situation with cats. I am just pointing out that there are problems. What the HDB has to do is to strike the appropriate balance between the needs and desires of all, if not most, of the residents. Nevertheless, I am aware that the Cat Welfare Society has submitted a re-appeal, and the Ministry will examine the re-appeal for fresh grounds. And if indeed there is merit in this, or there are ways in which we can be more flexible in our implementation, we will certainly look at it. When he talked about the zoo, I hope he was not implying that there was any cruelty in our zoo. Because I am very, very certain that our zoo is, in fact, a showcase of how animals should be treated and kept and, in fact, looked after in the most appropriate way. And, in fact, it is exactly the educational value of the zoo which, I think, will actually bring about a better attitude of human beings to the proper treatment of animals. On his suggestion of the university running a veterinary science course, this, obviously, is something which the Ministry of Education will have to decide. But, from my perspective, I do not think this will be necessary. Members of this House may be keen to note that it is harder to get into a veterinary school than it is to get into a medical school. The number of veterinarians we need in Singapore is much, much smaller than the number of doctors we need.”
“It is not about animal rights. He then went on to talk about the operational efficiency of the AVA and how we need it. He suggested that all pet animals be licensed and tagged. Let me first tell him that we license all dogs and we tag imported dogs. We do not tag rabbits, chinchillas, guinea pigs and all the other things. In fact, if we were to indulge in that, it will surely raise our fees and it would be something which, I am sure, will not be popular. Our stand is that we will do only what is necessary and what is reasonable. And having put all these licensing requirements in place, the AVA will operate only on a cost recovery basis. We do not intend to make money from this, and we will not indulge in any unnecessary tests, licensing or any other procedures. I would like to move on to the points raised by Mr Chandra Mohan. The issue of cats in HDB flats is not a new issue. Again, I want to stress that it is not about cats. It is about human beings, social norms and public acceptance. To-date, there has been a difference, whether you like it or not, in terms of public acceptance of dogs vis-a-vis cats. It is not a matter of what is right, or what is wrong. There is a difference. In the past, the HDB has incessantly received complaints about cats from other residents who obviously are not cat lovers. There is a difference between a cat and a dog. Cats are nomadic by nature. A cat is not some animal which normally takes kindly to a leash. A cat is not an animal which you can leave in a flat. The moment a window or any opening is available, that cat will move out. The cat is nomadic by nature. The cat has defecation or urinary habits which may aggravate neighbours.”
“And if we feel that there are public health concerns, we may then decide that we may need to board to conduct an inspection or, indeed, to confine the animal to that ship, aircraft or train. The next section where he was worried about is the apparent exclusion of the word "train" from vehicle. We have just checked with the Attorney-General's Chambers and I have been informed that when they refer to a vehicle, they mean a conveyance or transmission, especially a structure with wheels in which things or people are transported by land. And I am therefore assured that this includes trains. So there is no loophole in that respect. To move on, he brought up the issue of a balance between human rights and animal rights. Let me, first, assure Members of the House that there are no animal rights. We are not conferring any rights on animals. However, the issue of cruelty has got everything to do with humanity and with social norms. When an animal is abandoned, hurt or stolen, the emotional pain and distress which the owner of that animal feels is very much a human issue. It is not simply an issue of an animal right. Similarly, when a dog is cooked alive with an acetylene torch, as has indeed happened in Singapore, even though that dog is a stray, it offends our social norms, our sensitivities as to what is appropriate in our culture. So I want to reassure the House that when we are talking about cruelty to animals, we are not talking about stomping on a cockroach or killing a mosquito. We are talking about the need to have the ability to intervene when people indulge in acts which go against our social norms, or indulge in acts which will actually cause distress and pain to fellow human beings. So, let me assure the House that it is all about human beings.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I will reply to Dr Teo Ho Pin's points first and then cover Mr Chandra Mohan's. I would like to start by commending Dr Teo for having obviously gone through this Bill with a fine-tooth comb, and for detecting what he felt were inconsistent provisions in the Bill. I am even more happy to report that my civil servants have gone through this Bill with an even finer tooth comb. I would like to assure him that there are no loopholes. Let me deal with them specifically. Dr Teo was worried about inconsistent definition of the means of transport referred in section 9. Let me first bring him back to sections 7 and 8 of the Act. Section 7 provides that no one can import an animal or bird into Singapore without a licence. In section 8, if and when that person does import such a live organism, he has to report to the AVA. Section 9, which Dr Teo refers to, places an additional burden upon the captain of an aircraft, a ship, or the guard of a train. These are modes of transport which are large and require the officers specifically to board and conduct a more detailed examination and in which we want to place the onus of notification, not just on the importer of these animals or livestock, but on the person in charge of that aircraft, ship or train. This is also related to the fact that in certain cases, livestock may not even be imported into Singapore. They may be transhipped via Singapore. And such a person may say, "Look, I am not importing this animal or bird, and I do not feel that I need to apply for an import licence." Section 9 gives us the specific authority to require that the master or captain of this transportation means will specifically inform us that he has on board such livestock.”
“It will better enable the AVA to deal with the animals, birds and fish diseases more effectively and promptly in order to protect the health of Singaporeans from transmissible animal-related diseases. It will also strengthen provisions for the prevention of animal cruelty. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“The authorised examiners will not be given enforcement powers. The AVA will still retain overall control and accountability in the final judgment on disease control based on the findings and recommendations of these authorised examiners. Clause 26 of the Bill re-enacts the existing section 57 to make clearer the procedure for the forfeiture of items. The revised provisions are similar to those in the Wholesome Meat and Fish Act. Clauses 24 and 31 of the Bill enhance the AVA's powers of investigation and enforcement and facilitate the AVA to carry out the functions of this Act more effectively. This includes powers to suspend or revoke licences and permits, require the production of documents, remove obstructions to entering a premise or vehicle, to facilitate the examination of any animal or bird, and compound minor offences. These provisions will allow for more effective enforcement of the Act. The maximum penalties for offences committed under the Act are also increased under clause 34 of the Bill. This is to maintain the level of deterrence as these penalties have not been revised since the Act was enacted in 1965. Offences that present a lower risk of disease spread will incur penalties not more than $5,000 in fine and/or jail term of up to six months. Offences that have a higher risk of disease spread and a greater impact on animal and public health will incur higher maximum penalties of a $10,000 fine and/or a jail term of up to twelve months. In conclusion, Sir, the Animals and Birds (Amendment) Bill will strengthen the existing provisions to prevent the introduction into, and control the spread of diseases of animals and birds, including fish diseases, in Singapore.”
“The abandonment of animals without reasonable cause is made an offence. This is to serve as a deterrent against irresponsible pet owners. In addition, the Bill increases the maximum penalty for animal cruelty offences from the current $500 fine and/or a jail term of six months to a proposed $10,000 fine or a jail term of twelve months. The Bill also provides AVA with the power to enter and search any premises with suspected cruelty cases. Animals subjected to cruelty can be taken away from their owners and can be medically treated by a licenced veterinarian. Clause 25 of the Bill provides for a new section to regulate the keeping and breeding of animals and birds to ensure public health and safety, and to prevent animal cruelty. It also regulates the feeding of animals and birds to keep in check the proliferation of stray animals, which in turn can help in preventing and controlling the spread of animal and bird diseases. Improve AVA's operational efficiency Clauses 4, 6, 8, 13-15, 25 and 28 of the Bill include amendments to give AVA the flexibility to outsource some of its functions to augment its own services. The Director-General of the AVA, subject to any general or special directions of the Minister, can designate suitably qualified persons from the private sector, such as authorised examiners in order to carry out inspections, examinations, tests, treatment and certification of animals and birds for import and export, and for the diagnosis of disease. The impoundment of strays and identification of animals and birds, eg, through micro-chipping, can similarly be outsourced to private entities. The AVA will direct these authorised examiners on the functions to perform and specify the procedures and conditions for these authorised examiners to comply with.”