Wang Kai Yuen
Singapore
“Sir, would MDA not, in monitoring these sites and when they have found such a content on its own, make it as tenable evidence and pass it to the Police rather than have the complaint from the public?”
“I would like to find out from the Minister of State when will the content of these blogs start becoming from being just mere offensive to tenable and verifiable evidence that could be tendered in court for an act committed in Singapore that is punishable under the Penal Code, such as homosexual act, oral sex and sex with underaged ladies.”
“Once they are disqualified, they might as well close shop. Sir, I am sympathetic to their plight and that it is unfair to apply the demerit points to a single company as a whole, regardless of the number of ongoing construction projects. This could act against big companies with multiple projects.”
“Individuals just make less money when they sell their flats. Hopefully, if they were to buy another flat, they could also pay proportionately less as well. However, when the market is on the way down, like in the last few years, or stagnate like now, the loss would be substantial, as many would be saddled with negative equity.”
“Sir, would the Minister agree that since the Singapore law is primarily based on the common law and since the UK Parliament has found it necessary to legislate that glorification of terrorism is a crime, would he agree that there might be a gap in our laws that our current law would not cover where the current UK law would now cover?”
“Thank you, Sir. The Minister indicated that he would monitor and would plug the hole when the need arises. Would he want to follow the UK example that they would only pass such a law after a terrorist attack in the tube? If a similar event happens in Singapore, would it be a bit too late to plug the gap? Assoc. Prof.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,025 lines we hold for Wang Kai Yuen, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 21.
“Sir, would MDA not, in monitoring these sites and when they have found such a content on its own, make it as tenable evidence and pass it to the Police rather than have the complaint from the public? If the public makes a complaint, we are making an assumption that the public would peruse this and therefore find it offensive and then make a complaint.”
“I would like to find out from the Minister of State when will the content of these blogs start becoming from being just mere offensive to tenable and verifiable evidence that could be tendered in court for an act committed in Singapore that is punishable under the Penal Code, such as homosexual act, oral sex and sex with underaged ladies.”
“Once they are disqualified, they might as well close shop. Sir, I am sympathetic to their plight and that it is unfair to apply the demerit points to a single company as a whole, regardless of the number of ongoing construction projects. This could act against big companies with multiple projects. Applying the demerit points to a single construction site would be logical if it is also in line with the Government's requirement of the formation of green fuel company for each development project. Sir, if the current demerit system were to be retained, perhaps MOM could consider fine tuning it to give more allowances to companies with multiple ongoing construction projects. Further, I hope that the Ministry would move towards a more collaborative approach and work together with companies to improve workplace safety rather than relying heavily on a system of punitive measures.”
“Sir, like Mr Yeo Guat Kwang, I too want to talk about the new Workplace Safety and Health Act, which was passed in Parliament and enacted this month. Sir, this Act is a major piece of legislation for workplace safety in Singapore. It covers general factories, construction sites and shipyards, totalling about 17,000 workplaces. There were 44 fatal workplace accidents last year, and MOM has set a target to reduce workplace fatalities by half within 10 years. I applaud MOM for taking a firm stand on workplace safety. If the tripartite partners, ie, the Government, employers and workers, take a collective and collaborative approach to improving workplace safety, I am confident that our workplace fatality and accident rate could be reduced. Sir, while I support MOM's objective and approach in improving workplace safety, I have received negative feedback from construction companies who felt that the approach relies too much on using the stick rather than the carrot. Some also felt that the system of workplace safety checks and demerit points could be improved. Sir, MOM, currently, has a system where demerit points are given for safety breaches at the construction site. Upon accumulating a number of points, the company will be penalised. In the more severe cases, the construction site will be given stop-work orders. The construction companies are also informed of these breaches. Furthermore, the demerit points are given to the construction company regardless of the number of construction projects under its portfolio. With the Workplace Safety and Health Act in place, the enforcement of the demerit system has been retched up. Some large construction companies are facing imminent disqualification from hiring foreign workers.”
“Sir, there is no doubt that Singapore needs to create its own intellectual property rights in the fields of science and technology where it has the competitive advantages. The Singapore Government has earmarked some $12 billion to finance public sector R&D activities for the five-year period starting from 2006 to 2010. This is more than double the amount of the previous five-year period. Of this amount, $5 billion has been allocated to the National Research Foundation. This seems like a lot of money. After all, the Progress Package that we just announced for every Singaporean only amounted to $2.6 billion. Yet, compared to what other nations spend on R&D, it is still small change. Therefore, in my view, Sir, picking up the winners in the early phase of the game becomes very important. Yet, doing so is extremely difficult, especially when civil servants picked to do the job need to ensure that public money is properly accounted for. Thus, in the past, we tended to allocate funds to the public sector R&D institutes affiliated to the various universities. So, perhaps our culture and mindset need to be changed. I have just noted that Dr John Chen spoke with the aid of a computer. Sir, I am not sure whether that is in line with the Standing Orders. If it is not in line with the Standing Orders, perhaps we should also take the opportunity to change the Standing Orders so that we can move with the technology. My question to the Minister is what measures we are going to adopt to measure the success of the R&D programmes. I also agree with Prof. Ivan Png that perhaps an output-based performance measure is better than an input-based one.”
“With a bigger pool of members, such association would then muster sufficient resources to help members cooperate among themselves and look for new markets. This follows the principle behind the setting up of the Singapore Business Federation. The Federation has bigger clout but its focus is not on the SMEs. Sir, many SMEs are small only in relative terms. Some SMEs, in fact, hire up to 200 people and have well-thought-out business plans. In executing their plans, they are often hampered by the obstacles to obtain good financing. This matter was brought up repeatedly in the House and the Government has reacted in some way, which Mr Inderjit Singh had mentioned, and these are well appreciated by the SMEs. However, the Economic Development Feedback Group still feels that more could be done. For instance, the Feedback Group looked at Japan and discovered that there is a government-sponsored financial institution specifically set up to provide financial loans to SMEs and start-ups. I hope the Singapore Government could also adopt the same model of helping SMEs, especially the start-up companies.”
“Sir, there about 100,000 SMEs in Singapore and they contribute a quarter of the total value added generated in our economy. Clearly, they are an important sector of our Singapore economy. However, when it comes to Government's policies and support, they feel like the neglected child. When the multi-national companies were providing all the job opportunities up to a decade ago, SMEs were, by and large, left to their own devices. However, during the last recession, when MNCs shuttered their factories, closed their offices and packed their bags, we started to realise the value of the SMEs in keeping jobs in Singapore. We discovered that being Singapore companies, boom or bust, they stay in Singapore. Unlike multinational companies, which have the EDB to look after them, there is no single Government agency championing the causes of SMEs. The Economic Development Feedback Group of the Feedback Unit, under the leadership of Mr George Abraham and Mr Kwek Theng Swee, has highlighted the need of the SMEs researching around the world for examples of how other governments take care of their SMEs. Again, at the Feedback Unit annual conference, they proposed the following recommendations geared towards enhancing Singapore's pro-business environment and enabling entrepreneurship. First, setting up industrial specific SMEs in industrial parks to group businesses together in a given location. This move will allow businesses to save cost. For instance, food and beverage companies could be grouped together for greater clout. For the food and beverage industry, this is important as the companies in this sector tend to be small and lack the critical mass. Second, making it compulsory for small companies to join the trade association of their specific industry.”
“Individuals just make less money when they sell their flats. Hopefully, if they were to buy another flat, they could also pay proportionately less as well. However, when the market is on the way down, like in the last few years, or stagnate like now, the loss would be substantial, as many would be saddled with negative equity. Sir, since this policy is meant for the common good, would it be possible for the community to bear the burden instead of having the individual home owner to shoulder this burden of implementing the EIP? I hope the Minister could review this policy.”
“Sir, I would like to ask whether it is possible to preserve the ethnic integration policy (EIP) of HDB while minimising the impact on the affected individual. I would like to state, at the outset, that I support the broad objective of the policy, which is to maintain a balanced racial mix in our HDB housing estates where some 90% of Singaporeans live. Sir, under our current policy, limits are set for each ethnic group to achieve a balance of various communities in the neighbourhood as well as within a HDB block. Residents can sell their flats in the open market only to eligible buyers of similar ethnic group. Each year, about 300 flat sellers face problems in selling their flats because of this EIP. Yes, this represents less than 1% of HDB flat sellers, but I feel that we can do more to help these owners. I have come across a family in my constituency who has lost the head of household. As a result, the family could no longer afford to stay in their 5-room flat. Yet, because of this policy, they have a hard time finding a buyer. This is another MPS helper in my constituency who is facing bankruptcy but having similar difficulties in selling her 5-room flat. I am sure my colleagues in this House could come out with many more such examples. Sir, unlike the Workers' Party, I do not propose that we do away with this policy, which has served Singapore well. Indeed, the EIP is the cornerstone policy to preserve the racial and religious harmony in Singapore through the HDB living experience, as mentioned by Mr Cedric Foo. My question is more a philosophical one. The EIP is meant for the good of the community. However, the cost is borne by the individuals affected. When the housing market is on the way up, the burden is bearable.”
“I urge the Minister to review the HDB policy to allow downgrading as well as upgrading, so long the tenants do not violate the "two bites of the cherry" policy. Two-room HDB Flats”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, like Dr Amy Khor, Dr Ong Chit Chung and Mdm Cynthia Phua, I am also bringing up the subject of downgrading by HDB tenants. This is not a new topic, as there were discussions in this House regarding the concept of reverse mortgages for retirees to fund their retirement. However, when such discussions arose in this House, the Government has always asserted that the private sector should take the lead. So far, proposals by the private sector and insurance industry have not been that advantageous to the tenant. The question is: why should the Government not take the lead in this area by facilitating HDB tenants to downgrade through selling their flats in the open market and then buying a smaller flat either from the resale market or from HDB directly? Sir, currently, HDB only has policies promoting upgrading. If a person needs to downgrade, he is on his own - no second bite of the cherry, no HDB loans, even if it is only the second direct purchase from the HDB. Such policies were put in place in the age of high growth and when asset enhancement was the mantra of the time. However, it looks like those days are gone and will not come back in a very short time. HDB has already recognised this trend by reversing the building programme and reviving it to include 2-room flats. Yet, the rest of its policies are still oriented towards upgrading. I think it is time for the Government to review its housing policies as our population ages and as the economy matures. Our current policy to promote upgrading is like driving a car stuck in high gear. As the car slows down, it is time to down shift. But we cannot. If we do not, then the engine will sputter and die.”
“With the price of oil hovering around US$60 with a little chance of coming down, the desirability of gas guzzlers has dropped while the demand for fuel efficient cars has increased, so much so that, in fact, over the past year, Category B premiums are often-times lower than that of Category A. In extreme cases, it was $4,398 lower in January 2005, and in December 2005, it was $3,080 lower. Sir, the concern that luxury car buyers would squeeze out the smaller car buyers seems to be misplaced. In fact, it turned out to be the other way round that the big car buyers are now being protected by the quota system. If anything, the segregation of the Vehicle Quota System builds in distortion in the allocation of car quotas as buyers adjust to the changing driving habits, fuel costs as well as awareness of global warming. Therefore, the VQS, as implemented today, does not encourage Singaporeans to buy smaller cars which are more fuel efficient and more environmentally friendly. Sir, I urge the Minister to constitute another review committee to see whether it can merge the two categories into one.”
“Sir, since its implementation in 1990, the Vehicle Quota System (VQS) was reviewed only once when Mr Mah Bow Tan, the then Minister, appointed the VQS Review Committee in November 1998. The Committee was chaired by Mr Chay Wai Chuen, with Dr Michael Lim as Deputy Chairman. The other Members were Mr Goh Chee Wee, Dr Tan Cheng Bock, Prof. Toh See Kiat, Mr Yeo Guat Kwang and Mr Ong Ah Heng, all very eminent Members of this House. The Committee submitted its report in March 1999. The report recommended that the merger of the then four car categories into two, namely, Category A and Category B, a recommendation accepted by the Government. In coming to that conclusion, the Committee recognised that, from the transport point of view, there should only be one quota category for all vehicles, in particular for cars. However, since the Committee was concerned that those who can afford bigger luxury cars will outbid the smaller car buyers, it proposed that the merger of car categories be done gradually. Thus, the recommendation of the Committee back in 1999 was supposed to be an intermediary step. Apparently, the Committee felt that ultimately, there should be only one car category while recommending that the Open Category be maintained. In my view, the Committee's recommendations are sound. Sir, since 1999, we have experienced several business cycles. LTA has adjusted the number of quotas for the vehicles. The demand for cars has also changed with time. In fact, over the past 12 months, the quota premiums of the two categories, Category A and Category B, tracked each other very closely.”
“Thank you, Sir. The Minister indicated that he would monitor and would plug the hole when the need arises. Would he want to follow the UK example that they would only pass such a law after a terrorist attack in the tube? If a similar event happens in Singapore, would it be a bit too late to plug the gap? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, from our experience, the main thrust of my answer is that we have detected no gap. That is the main point. We have adequate laws to deal with these acts that Dr Wang has mentioned. COMPETITION COMMISSION OF SINGAPORE (Complaints filed) 2. Prof. Ivan Png Paak Liang asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) how many complaints have been filed with the Competition Commission of Singapore; (b) whether the complainants were consumers, other businesses, suppliers, or Government agencies; and (c) what is the current disposition of the complaints.”
“Sir, would the Minister agree that since the Singapore law is primarily based on the common law and since the UK Parliament has found it necessary to legislate that glorification of terrorism is a crime, would he agree that there might be a gap in our laws that our current law would not cover where the current UK law would now cover? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Even though Singapore laws are based on the common law, in many areas we have evolved our own ways, including our laws on terrorism and also our Penal Code is based on the Indian Penal Code because England has no written Penal Code. Also, in terms of what happened in England, particularly post-July 7th, I think they found it necessary to plug the gap. But I want to assure the Member that we have found no gap so far and, of course, we will continue to monitor if the need arises. If necessary, we will plug any gap because we will leave no stone unturned to ensure that we have adequate laws to take care of this scourge.”
“Whether we will set up this expectation of election year budget would be left to future generations of MPs to worry about. Personally, I am concerned, as I expect that it would. 1.35 pm”
“I could only add that I would urge the future Finance Minister to look into providing more affordable social and medical services for the old in the future, maybe a scheme similar to the Utilities Save, where unused allocation into this programme for medical care could be cashed. This would be much more better appreciated by Singaporeans. Sir, I will move on to other topics which I have, in fact, asked for in previous budgets. Many people have brought up the increment for the Singapore pension in the past. I did it last year and I am doing it again this year. I will ask whether the Minister would spare a thought for the pensioners on the Singapore Government pension scheme. If he could just review it, maybe this review would be like his visit to the fruit machine room in the NTUC. The pensioners might hit jackpot as well! Sir, in conclusion, I would say that everyone I have spoken to is happy with the Budget - some happier than others. Most are looking forward to cash in hand. A small minority is concerned about the lack of attention paid to the challenges facing Singapore, in particular, in the mid-term. Some of them have asked: within the next few years, what could they do? It seems like we are looking at the IR as a solution. But how long can we depend on the Integrated Resort for the prosperity of Singapore? How do we convey to the younger generation that they should be confident and enthusiastic about their future in Singapore? The Prime Minister did not address some of these questions except in passing. I hope he will do so in future Budget Statements. The Progress Package is welcomed by Singaporeans. This will render the ground sweeter for the ruling Party in the coming general election.”
“In this sense, Sir, I believe that from this year onwards, every future government will be tempted to reap political dividends through a people-oriented Progress Package at the end of its term; thus, starting a new cyclical trend which I will call "election year budget". I expect to see a trend where the Government will maintain a balance of revenues and expenditures for most years of its term of government, while recognising less than the statutory limit of 50% on return of investment from past reserves in that year's Budget. The rest will go into reserves. But, as we all know, only 50% of the NII would be locked into past reserves. The balance could be tapped for future Progress Packages. Then, at the end of the term of government, in delivering the Budget on the year of the election, the Minister for Finance could pull out from his hat a Progress Package with goodies for everyone. I think this will be the expectation set up in the public mind and, indeed, this is my major concern about this year's Budget. The question is whether setting up an expectation of Progress Package in future election years is good or bad. I first described our reserves as our "oil well under the ground" in this Parliament a fair number of years ago. I described NII as our black oil oozing out from the well and that Singaporeans should be indebted to the Government for managing and protecting our reserves so successfully. When I spoke on this, I was urging the Government to make use of the NII to provide more affordable social and medical services to the older and poorer Singaporeans. Well, the Government has outdone this and produced this year's Progress Package.”
“In other words, instead of balancing the budget every year, I can see the Government shifting to balancing the budget over the term of Government, which could be as long as five years, theoretically. I have observed this gradual change over the years after the amendment to the Constitution on the preservation of the reserves. But with this Budget, this shift of stance seems to be permanent. For the current Government, the term started from the date the Prime Minister was sworn in as Prime Minister. Since the Prime Minister has declared that he is not dipping into past reserves to fund this year's unprecedented deficit of $2.86 billion, I can deduce two facts. First, it is clear that the deficit of $2.86 billion has been provided for in the management of the Government's finances since this term of government took office. Indeed, when I spoke on the Budget Statement 2005 last year, I asked why was the NII recognised in the Budget lower than the previous year, ie, Budget 2004. In fact, NII recognised in 2004 was $0.82 billion lower compared to NII recognised in Budget Statement 2005. Now, I think we know. The difference is being salted away for the Progress Package. Second, I think we can deduce that the current term of government will end before this financial year. Otherwise, no Finance Minister could be so confident to make that statement of not dipping into past reserves without having to worry about balancing the next budget if the Government were to last another year. Even if he could, then the Finance Minister would have disclosed to Singaporeans that the Government has very deep pockets, which I am not sure is true. So I think it is quite clear that this term of government will end before the end of this financial year.”
“Rather, by settling overseas, such Singaporeans have contributed to the development of their adopted countries. Sir, the more cynical will then jump to the possible linkage between granting them the right to vote as well as their inclusion in the Progress Package. This will be unfortunate, Sir. In his speech, the Prime Minister anticipated some of these and mentioned that we would change our policies based on our experience of undesirable outcomes/results. Sir, this is easier said than done. Now, let us see how we are setting the stage of great expectations for every general election sometime down the road. To me, Sir, the stance adopted by this Budget reflects two shifts in Government's management of fiscal surpluses. First, in sharing the nation's surpluses, the Government is handing out an all-cash disbursement for the first time. In the past, the disbursement was in the form of shares, which some could and indeed keep for their future while others cashed them. In a way, this reflects the recognition that for the lower-income groups, holding on to shares is not a preferred approach. We have, in a way, given up any attempt to camouflage the Government's handout as subsidies, welfare payment or negative income tax. We just give them cold hard cash. The message is, "You have done well. You have been good citizens. You deserve a reward. Go and spend some." I believe the timing, being so close to the next GE, would condition Singaporeans to respond in a way similar to the Pavlovian experiment. Second, the Government has been changing its perspective of balancing the Budget from an annual basis to a "term of government" basis.”
“While there are some tax measures to promote the economy, in terms of tax cuts, they are actually pale when compared to the other measures being taken, in particular, of course, the Progress Package. The plight of the SMEs, which the Prime Minister is very familiar with, has not been addressed. As tax measures will take some time to take effect, I am disappointed in the sense that we are not putting sufficient weight on the measures to help the industry that will show tangible results in the next few years. Perhaps the Prime Minister has decided to deal with this problem sometime in the next term of his government. This is worrisome, because I think we might be taking our eye off this problem on the assumption that things have returned to normal. Because, I believe, that job opportunities to be generated by the local SMEs are important. Given that direct foreign investments brought in by the EDB tend to be high-end, SMEs are the companies that we must nurture so as to provide young Singaporeans today with fruitful and rewarding careers in the near term. Clearly, Sir, the emphasis of this Budget, in particular, the Progress Package, is to help Singaporeans in the immediate term. Every adult Singaporean, including overseas Singaporeans, will receive his notice of how much dividend he will get by the end of March. Money will be put into their hands by 1st May. The emphasis is here and now. Yes, we are helping those who have suffered in the long drought due to the economic downturn. However, such Government generosity breeds dependency and, in an election year, it breeds future expectations. For instance, why do we include overseas Singaporeans, in particular, those who have not been actively contributing to the Singapore nation since their departure from Singapore?”
“Sir, given the complexities of public funded R&D, I would like to wish the Prime Minister great success in this new effort. Picking out winners in the R&D race is important for Singapore's future. However, because we could only see the fruits of our efforts some time in the future, we cannot depend on this effort to have an impact on the job market in the next 5-10 years. Sir, I like the various proposals in the Budget for the education for our young, such as the Opportunity Fund for the schools, in the sense that the schools can then be more creative in the programmes they could offer to our children. I support the allocation for kindergarten education to ensure that all young Singaporeans would start their formal education as well prepared as others. In the field of education, I agree that if we could do more, we should. However, I am surprised that the MOE is funding breakfast programmes for our children. Sir, I am not aware that there are many children in Singapore going to school hungry in the morning. In fact, if anything, our impression is that the children in Singapore are getting bigger and fatter at a younger age. The sizes of our school uniforms and children's clothings are larger than children of poorer countries. Moreover, the onset of diabetes in our citizens is occurring at a younger and younger age. So, I am not sure that MOE's effort is all that necessary. But even if we do, even we need to help children who go to school today hungry, I thought this would be better left to voluntary organisations rather than taken up by the MOE. Sir, let me look at the mid-term impact. In this area, I am also echoing the disappointment of Mr Inderjit Singh, in the sense that the attention of the Budget did not particularly address this particular area.”
“The second principle: the Budget helps those who help themselves. Thus, it provides incentives for low-wage workers to find a job or to keep a job when otherwise he might not have taken up those jobs. For instance, there are many jobs in Tuas which could not be filled because of transportation costs. Perhaps with the incentive provided in this Budget, some workers might now find it worthwhile to travel the distance and incur the expense to take up those jobs. In this respect, I also support the CPF top-up scheme for low-income workers to own their homes, enabling them to own a stake in the nation's prosperity. Of course, on the other hand, we should be careful not to enslave those who cannot afford home-ownership in the first place by over promoting home-ownership as a Government policy. Sir, just in case that we are overwhelmed by the generosity of this Budget, I would like to take a step backward and look at this Budget and see how it deals with the challenges faced by Singapore through its impact in the following timeframes: future, mid-term and immediate. Looking into the future, the Budget allocates the first disbursement of $500 million of the National Research Foundation. This is in line with the vision of Singapore, establishing Singapore as a knowledge hub. In a way, this emphasis of a knowledge industry is a return of the previous emphasis of the old Government promotion like NSTB or A*Star R&D programmes. I wonder whether the Government was satisfied with the success of those efforts in the earlier years. To an observer, by the way the various R&D institutes had been reorganised, presumably, the effort was less than stellar success. This time round, the R&D is headed by none other than the Prime Minister himself.”
“Mr Speaker Sir, like Mr Inderjit Singh, I also agree that this is a budget for the people. In fact, I suspect most of us who stand up would say that it is a people's Budget. In this Budget, we took care of the people, in particular the poor and the down-trodden. I congratulate the Prime Minister for this very generous Budget. I too want to congratulate the Ministerial Committee on Low Wage Workers headed by Dr Ng Eng Hen. He deserves our appreciation for his recommendations and also for winning the argument to share the fruits of progress as proposed in the $2.6 billion Progress Package. Sir, it is well known that medical doctors are people with deep compassion for the underdogs. The compassion shows through in this particular Budget. Sir, the Singapore economy has indeed done well in 2005 and most Singaporeans are better off now than at the depth of the recession, except the poor and the old. Furthermore, there emerged a class of new poor as a result of structural unemployment. In fact, Sir, I was trying to come out with a definition of "new poor" but listening to Mr Inderjit Singh, I think he has done a very good job defining what is "new poor" - people who are affected by structural unemployment. In so doing, in taking care of the poor and old, this Budget has indeed covered all the bases. In giving every Singaporean an ang pow, the Prime Minister skews the benefits towards the poor and the old and I believe it established a new precedent and also several new principles. Let me look at some of the principles. First, the Budget confirmed that in sharing surpluses, the Government has committed that the poor should get more than the rich. This is a departure from the previous approach of equal sharing regardless of needs. To many of us, we think it is an improvement.”
“He was eventually sentenced to 30 days in confinement in a military prison and a dishonourable discharge - when he was facing charges that carry a potential jail sentence of live imprisonment. Sir, his sentence met both the needs to maintain military discipline in the US armed forces as well as to show compassion to an old man who has returned from the wilderness, to atone for his mistake or decision made when he was a young man. I would not suggest how Singapore could adopt a similar process since MINDEF can look into it. But, perhaps, our defaulters could be inducted into national service upon their return, given the mandatory crew cut of whatever hairs they have left and put on the uniform. Depending on their age, the returnees could serve NS like everyone else, or for those who no longer could be inducted to serve their full-time service, they could be given a dishonourable discharge after a certain length of confinement in barracks. Perhaps the same deterrent effect could be achieved. Sir, the $3,000 fine meted out in Melvyn Tan's case highlighted that the Enlistment Act needs a review to bring the penalty up to date. However, I would plead with the Minister that while we increase the penalty for NS defaulters, we should not slam the door shut for such lost sons of Singapore. Basically, the desire of the defaulters to return home comes from the same emotional mother lode of emotional ties that Singapore taps into to compel our young men to perform National Service. And these are the bonds of the families and friends, the bond of the land where we are born. 5.31 pm”
“Like the salmon returning to the stream where it was spawned, what draws it home to the same stream is an instinct. Perhaps for those who are seeking to return to Singapore, their instinct that they are tied to Singapore is still very strong. Sir, the world view of a man changes with time. As one gets closer to meeting his maker, his perspective changes. Maybe he would like to come back to breathe the air in his old neighbourhood, to touch the trees, to see the buildings that are familiar to him as he grew up as a child. Yes, Sir, this is a matter of the heart. It is the same expression of the heart as our commitment to serve National Service. Our willingness to serve National Service and also our willingness to die rest on the same emotion of the heart. I believe we should allow a man this option to find expression of this matter of the heart. Could we address the parity of punishment without resorting to a jail sentence? Could we come up with another process that achieves the same deterrent effect without jail sentences? Perhaps we could take a cue from the USA's treatment of Sergeant Charles Jenkins, the 64-year old US deserter who defected to North Korea in 1965. Sergeant Jenkins turned himself to the US military authorities at a US base in Tokyo on 11th September 2004, two months after he had left Korea to seek medical treatment in Japan. Jenkins pleaded guilty at a court martial to desertion and for aiding the enemy in the 1980s. The guilty plea was apparently part of a plea bargain process with US military officials for a lighter sentence in exchange for providing information on other US or South Korean deserters to North Korea.”
“So, regardless of how we view Mr Tan for giving up his citizenship and defaulting on his obligations to serve NS, he did retain a certain value system we all advocate, the value system to put the care of his parents high up in his priority - high enough to come back to Singapore and face the music. His return is an affirmation of his family upbringing and his early childhood education, including part of it in our school. Even though, of course, his value system did not include service to the nation, his commitment to his parents should at least deserve our sympathy. Even if Melvyn Tan were just an ordinary man, I believe his return would still be a positive example for Singapore for this particular reason alone. Indeed, we could point to him and say that for all future young men who want to default in their National Service, beware because one of these days, you might want to come back to Singapore. If, as a result of this episode, we increase the penalty to a point that there will be no returnees in future, I think it will be a loss for Singapore. Sir, ultimately, the willingness to perform NS is a matter of the heart. Yes, defaulting on NS is a very serious matter. But by insisting that people who could no longer perform their NS upon their return to spend time in jail, are we seeking just punishment or vengeance? For those people who have served NS, they feel so strongly that they are seeking a pound of flesh. Why would NS defaulters want to return to Singapore after so many years overseas? That is the question we should ask ourselves. Everyone has his own personal reasons. Perhaps, speaking from an older man's point of view, it is a matter of the homing instincts - a matter of returning to one's roots as one gets older.”
“Thus, we are sending a message, "Defaulters, thou shall not return to Singapore." Is that a correct message to send? Further, I think we are also presented with a logical impasse as, currently, the Singapore Government has denied such defaulters from renouncing their citizenship. On one hand, in the eyes of the Government, these defaulters are still Singaporeans, even though some of them have acquired foreign citizenship. On the other hand, we are saying, "Don't you come back. If you do, we are going to jail you." Should Singapore be so harsh to its sons? Yes, these people made a mistake when they were young. Some maybe made their own decisions and some at the urge of their parents. However, Sir, everyone made mistakes when they were young and brash. I think if we look back, some of us also made mistakes. By seeking a jail sentence on NS defaulters, we are indeed slamming the door shut for their return. Similar to Mr Sin Boon Ann and also Dr Tan, could we be a more gracious society by leaving the door open for such people to return? Several questions come to mind. Firstly, is Singapore worse off with such people returning? Take Melvyn Tan. Did his return encourage more people to follow his example to default and later pay a fine of a few thousand dollars? Secondly, is Singapore better off with such returnees regardless of whether they are rich, famous, talented or just an ordinary man-on-the-street? Are we better off with them coming back to Singapore? Take Melvyn Tan again. Mr Tan expressed his desire to come back to spend time with his parents who are ageing and no longer able to travel.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, performing full-time National Service is a life long commitment Singapore expects of its native sons. This commitment of time and effort could not be measured in monetary terms, in particular, when this commitment occurs at an age when the young man is poised to take on adulthood and is preparing himself for a future career. Everyone has to defer his plan and some would miss out on a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Thus, when Melvyn Tan received only a $3,000 fine for defaulting on his National Service obligation, it is understandable that it caused a major outpour of passionate debate regarding the disparity of penalty versus obligations. In his statement, the Minister has outlined some of the steps MINDEF intends to take to enhance the penalties for National Service defaulters. I support some of those measures. I support his proposal to amend the Enlistment Act to increase the maximum fine to $10,000. However, for those who have passed the age of enlistment, such as Melvyn Tan, the Minister intends to seek mandatory or minimum custodial jail sentences as a punishment, and he mentioned that MINDEF will seek the maximum jail sentence of three years in certain cases. This is a departure from existing practice where MINDEF presses only for a fine. Presumably, the Minister decided that the jail sentence is necessary because even the maximum fine of $10,000 will be an insufficient punishment, in particular, when the returnee has achieved fame and fortune by then. I am disturbed by this declared intent to seek a jail sentence for similar defaulters. In seeking such a jail sentence, we will, in effect, deter anyone in similar circumstances from returning to Singapore. In all probability, someone like Melvyn Tan will not return.”
“I am glad that a thorough audit is now ongoing in NKF. I am confident that if we could strengthen the code of governance along the line I have suggested, Singaporeans of all income groups will continue to donate to public charities when the current storm blows over. Many of us, Sir, give out of compassion. For those with meagre income, the amount they give, though very meagre, is a significant portion of their disposable income. They give from their hearts. It is our responsibility to ensure that their trust is not betrayed. Let donating to charity be the hallmark of Singaporeans. Let the compassion for an unfortunate fellow human being be what Singapore, as a nation, is known for. I urge this House to call for a more enhanced code of governance so that the debacle of NKF would not be repeated.”
“Furthermore, with so much money involved, I believe that in the regime of poor transparency and disclosure, problems can arise. This could be one of the reasons why NKF started down the road deviating from its key charitable mission. Of course, the question of limits on fund raising does not come about because no IPC in the past would have been able to raise so much money. Perhaps, my suggestion is that we could adopt a sliding scale based on the total amount raised, ranging from 30% all the way down to maybe a reasonable number like 15%. Furthermore, today, the code of governance does not prevent NKF to branch into other activities. I believe that the code should be enhanced to hold the charity to its original terms of reference, its original mission. I see no reason why a charitable organisation with the name of National Kidney Foundation should engage itself with children cancer and other medical domains. Sir, the Government has intervened and NKF is given a fresh start. There remain many kidney patients who need help. And a new Chairman and a new Board of very eminent persons have been appointed. If the public were to stop supporting the cause, the patients would be the ones who would suffer. For those who have cancelled their GIRO donations to NKF, I would urge them to reinstate them. But if they cannot find in their heart to do so, I urge them to switch their support to KDF. Furthermore, I also would urge the new Board of NKF to undertake a total review of its mission and operations and to benchmark perhaps its performance measures with another organisation, such as KDF. It is time to restore confidence of the public in donating for charitable purposes. Not just for NKF but for all charitable organisations in Singapore.”
“Furthermore, the collapse of public confidence in the accountability of NKF is affecting the public confidence of the rest of the IPCs as well. Sir, we need to move on to a more rigorous framework of accountability. Already, we are holding key executives of public listed companies to a very high standard of disclosure and transparency. There are codes on insider trading and corporate governance. I do not think we should hold the individuals involved in the running of IPCs to a lower standard of transparency and disclosure. Sir, in May, the Minister mentioned that the Government accepted 15 out of 19 measures put forward by the Council on Governance of IPCs. Some of the recommendations were rejected, partly because they were considered too stringent. The new rules are to take effect from January 2007. From the episode of NKF, I feel that these guidelines should be strengthened. It is regrettable that a key proposal to disclose the salaries of the top three executives of VWOs was not even included in the 19 recommendations. I suggest that this requirement be made mandatory, in particular, for the larger IPCs and for professionally-run IPCs like NKF. Sir, the other parameter that did not receive mention is the 30% allowable expenditure of fund-raising of an IPC. Today, this allowable limit is the same regardless of how much money is raised. Whether we are raising $100,000 or $100 million, the allowable expenditure is still 30%. But, clearly, $30 million is a quantum leap from $30,000. In the case of NKF, it raised $193 million in three years and spent 22.6% of this amount or $43.7 million doing so. I think, by any reasonable comparison, that is a lot of money to spend to raise such money.”
“We can also understand why NKF branched into fund-raising for other heart-wrenching medical conditions involving children, elbowing out other VWOs already engaged in those activities. If indeed NKF became what it is because of one person's drive to collect as much donation money as possible, and if part of that drive is to meet a certain bonus target, then I would surmise that there is a clear failure in the exercise of governance by the NKF Board, which the Minister had also referred to. It would indeed be a disgrace to everyone involved in that governance if the righteous cause of NKF got hijacked to serve a different agenda. Furthermore, we should also realise that the total pool of charity money in Singapore is a finite amount. And this fact is clearly evident from the impact to the other charities resulting from the donation drive for the tsunami victims of 26th December last year. Thus, when NKF takes more, there will be less in the pool for the other equally deserving VWOs. Sir, until the acceptance of the recommendations of the Council of Governance of IPCs in May this year, I think governance of VWOs rests primarily on the fear of backlash of public opinion. This fear is a powerful deterrent, as amply demonstrated by the episode of NKF. However, the price of governance based on backlash is a heavy one. Besides the cost paid by the individual, such as the CEO and the Board, the future of NKF today hangs in the balance. If the damage to NKF.s reputation could not be repaired, it would be, as the Minister mentioned, a monumental loss to Singapore, as two out of three Singaporeans have contributed to its development and growth over the last 40 years.”
“Everyone had assumed that in well-run Singapore, as part of the VWOs under the auspices of the Commissioner of Charities, NKF would be properly supervised and monitored. The revelations show that this might not be the case. While T T Durai has stated that he has done nothing legally wrong, public outrage has clearly shown that there is a significant gap - a very big gap - between the code of governance he subscribed to and what the public expected of NKF, or for that matter, of all IPCs. I think it falls on this House to implore the Government to promulgate an enhanced code of governance for IPCs so that it is more in tune with the public expectation. Sir, perhaps we can take one step back and ask: what is behind a VWO movement like the NKF? What gives a VWO life? In a word, it is our values. The purpose of a VWO is nothing short of making the world a better place, based on its vision of what that world should be. Thus, VWOs are the spirit and the conscience of our citizens. They raise funds by appealing to our value system. That is the reason why individuals, young and old, rich and poor, dig into their pockets and part with their hard-earned money to support VWOs. Therefore, a VWO is very different from a commercial organisation. It has a moral underpinning based on care and love. Individuals working for a VWO should get involved based primarily on their solidarity and compassion for the well-being of their fellow citizens. Pay should be a secondary consideration. Sir, up to now, we still do not know how the bonus of the CEO was determined. If the bonus of the CEO of NKF proved indeed to be tied to donations raised, then I could understand why NKF became such a sleek fund-raising machine with close to half of its staff being non-clinical staff.”
“If the bonus of the CEO of NKF were indeed tied to the amount of donations collected - and this is a question asked by every Singaporean - then considering the unusually top heavy staffing situation in NKF, a reasonable person would ask: in whose interest is T T Durai working so hard for? For the kidney dialysis patients who have to cough out 67.4% of his dialysis cost? For the kidney patients of the future, as he has reportedly said so? To build up the reserves of NKF for a rainy day, which happened to come but completely unexpected? Or could it be possible, just possible, that he is also partly motivated to meet a donation target? These are the questions, I think, the audit and the new board should enlighten us. Sir, I am not here to bury NKF. By its own doing, NKF is now in the pit of a major confidence crisis. It would take the new team many months to restore confidence of its donors to the organisation. Furthermore, with the suspension of major donation drives like TV shows and telemarketing, I suspect NKF could not reasonably maintain the current staff strength of close to 1,000. If the redundant staff were to be retrenched, this would aggravate staff morale in the immediate future. Sir, I am here to look at the lessons we could learn from this episode of how the largest and the most successful VWO in Singapore lost the confidence of the majority of Singaporeans overnight. The revelations of the law suit have caused unprecedented disquiet amongst Singaporeans. Public confidence in the accountability of NKF has collapsed, but the Minister said "shattered", and close to 15,000 donors have cancelled their monthly contributions.”
“Could NKF have done a better job, becoming leaner, slimmer and channelling more of its resources to the patients, thereby fulfilling its core mission for existence? Sir, we all know that in one measure, NKF outperforms everybody - KDF and any other VWOs - and that is in fund-raising. Even in this area, many people are increasingly turned off by its hard-sell tactics and putting patients on display that sometimes borders on bad taste, an issue brought up by Prof. Ong. So, when one sings praise for NKF and T T Durai today, we are primarily praising him for his ability and his talent to raise funds. Sir, would it not be a sad day for Singapore when the value of an organisation - and a charitable one at that - is based entirely on its ability to accumulate surpluses? That we could justify a person's pay just because of the reserves accumulated from the small donations from millions of hardworking Singaporeans - money that we have parted because we believe it was meant for a good cause. Does that say something about ourselves, about our own value system as individuals and also as a society? Sir, looking at the table I have given out comparing the two organisations, I would leave it to you to draw your own conclusions as to what kind of organisation NKF has morphed into. On good authority, I understand that donation staff of NKF have part of their pay based on commission, and they are able, when they are successful, to collect up to 12 months' bonus. We all read about T T Durai's work schedule - six days a week, up to 18 hours a day.”
“As the Minister has pointed out, some are dedicated to prevention programmes. But, presumably, a sizable number is deployed to canvass for donations. We do not know what is the number because NKF had not been too transparent about this. Many have spoken up justifying the annual compensation of T T Durai. Indeed, he has done the nation service in building up NKF into an organisation looking after a great majority of kidney patients in Singapore - 44% to be precise. In looking after its 1,512 patients, it is also effectively self funding with very little subsidy from the Government. In fact, Government only provided $574 subsidy per NKF patient, while it provided a sum of $6,896 subsidy for every KDF patient. From that performance measure, we all would say that NKF has done a very good job. Yet, this comes at a cost to the patients. Despite its success in fund-raising, NKF recovers more from the patients than KDF. If Members look at the table, the average dialysis fee paid by the patients is $16,138 per year, a recovery rate of 67.4% while the corresponding figure for KDF is $9,195, or a recovery rate of 41.9%. Of course, KDF was able to do so because of Government's subsidy which amounted to $1.2 million in that particular year. But, on the other hand, if KDF were to charge the same fee as NKF from its patients, then the subsidy from the Government per patient for KDF would have dropped to $753. As to why they cannot charge that number, I think it could be a self-selecting exercise. Therefore, if we were to look more closely, I would say that NKF is performing not better than the new kid on the block despite its ability to benefit from economies of scale.”
“I am sure that we recall Mr T T Durai earned a total of $1.8 million over the same period. Some would say that amount is large, some would say that it is animal feed. But if NKF were a commercial enterprise, indeed, his take of 1% of net income is very reasonable. Next, I would like to refer to the number of patients served by the two VWOs. The numbers were quoted from the Minister for Health in his disclosure in Parliament. In NKF, it was 1,512, and 147 in the case of KDF. Let us look at the number of employees of the two organisations, 996 for NKF and 20 for KDF. Therefore, the patient-to-employee ratio for NKF is a low 1.5:1 and a substantially higher number of 8.7 for KDF. Sir, imagine one NKF employee serving 1.5 kidney dialysis patients. Maybe, the comparison is not entirely appropriate but it gives us a scope of the efficiency or the purpose of the organisation and who and what they are serving. Furthermore, the staff cost of NKF amounted to $27 million in 2003, while the total staff cost of KDF amounted to a very small $573,000, which is still a tag less than the $600,000 Mr T T Durai drew as an NKF CEO. Yes, Sir, I understand that NKF and KDF operate on different clinical models. For NKF, clinical staff are on its payroll whereas for KDF, clinical service is contracted out. Indeed, according to a press report, close to 500 of the NKF staff are clinical staff. So if you just take the clinical staff and compute the patient-employee ratio, it is still a very low number of 3:1. Perhaps, I might be mistaken, but I hope our hospitals operate at a more efficient number than this. Sir, one is prompted to ask: what is the other substantially large number of NKF staff doing in the organisation?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, I will ask the Clerk to distribute a table giving a comparison between the two voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs) providing kidney dialysis service in Singapore, namely, National Kidney Foundation (NKF) and Kidney Dialysis Foundation (KDF). I tried my best to be as accurate as possible, pulling information from multiple sources. I seek your indulgence if the data presented are not entirely accurate. First, I would draw your attention to the donations received by NKF. Its tax-deductible donations in 2003 amounted to $38.5 million or 57.3% of the total. By itself, it is already higher than the Direct Charitable Expense of $36.2 million. Given that the co-payment of patients amounted to $24.4 million, NKF's tax-deductible donations alone would have more than covered the needs of the dialysis activities after making allowance for operations and administrative costs of $8 million in the same year. Nonetheless, NKF went out to raise $28.78 million in non-tax-deductible donations which I would gather to mean television shows and telemarketing, etc. On the expense side, it incurs $16.57 million in fund-raising. Sir, I do not know what is the proportion spent for tax-deductible donations and what is the proportion spent for non-tax-deductible donation activities, but we knew it spent a total of $16.57 million to bring in a total of $67.4 million, or an expense ratio of 24.6%. In 2001, the corresponding figure was 21.4%. In 2002, the figure was 22.1%. In other words, in the three years from 2001 to 2003, NKF raised a total of $193.1 million in donation. Cost of fund-raising amounted to $43.7 million. Net of cost, the amount of disposable income, Sir, is $149.4 million. Sir, I give all these numbers just to illustrate the matter.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I heard the Minister said he does not want to comment on the impact of his package of measures on the market. But, being the decision maker, did he not anticipate the impact of this package of measures? Did he take a look at the market during the break? If he did, he would have found that the market has responded very positively. Did he not realise that all the heavyweights of the property counter have actually gone up substantially? In fact, I think the Straits Times Index has gone up by 33 points. My concern is actually not so much on how the market responds, but the link between the price of commercial property and private property. Sir, do we recall that in the past, during the industrial recession that Singapore encountered, one of the factors of the cost of doing business is the cost of commercial properties? So, did the Government not anticipate that, with this adjustment, with this package of measures, the increase in property prices would render us, in this economic restructuring, even more difficult in view of globalisation?”
“Sir, I would like to ask the MOS, of the people who have been given rental flats over the last three years, how many of them are the "exception" cases that he has mentioned?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank the Deputy Prime Minister for issuing a statement on terrorism and the attack on London. But would the DPM not also agree that, besides taking security measures, we could also learn quite a bit from the social change currently undergoing in Britain? And one of the key questions is: why would well-adjusted young men from 19 to 20 years become so radicalised that they would undertake such act against their fellow citizens? A question has also been asked, in the preaching of Islam to these young people, whether there was a shortage of British-born Imams, so much so that they have to bring in foreign-born Imams, and as a result they could not preach to the young people using British terms, thereby exposing them to external Islamic radical ideas. So I thought, perhaps, we also have to ask ourselves whether in a multi-racial and multi-cultural society like Singapore, terrorism can be internal rather than external. If the threat is mainly internal, then all the ICA barriers that they put up may not stop terrorism. Therefore, it is more important, Sir, that we might have to look further into this and ask the same question that the British have asked - can the young people in Singapore become so radicalised to take similar action against their fellow citizens?”
“A study done by the Problem Gambling Research Group of the Psychology Department at the University of Windsor, Ontario, Canada, in 1996, one year after the casino opened in the city, showed no statistically significant difference in either problem or pathological gambling levels. Furthermore, the casino approval rate increased from 54.2% of the population to 65.1% one year after they opened, with the disapproval rate decreasing from 30% to 18.6%. I hope Singapore will be in that happy situation then. Sir, the decision to go ahead with two casinos must have been made on the assumption that we could manage the downside of social ills while benefiting from the upside of an economic boost of the IRs. The Prime Minister has stated that he would take ultimate and full responsibility for the decision. This burden is a heavy one. I urge all Singaporeans to close ranks and support the Government on this very difficult decision. I am confident, with proper safeguards and rigorous efforts by the Government and civic groups in inculcating the right value system, Singapore will be able to ride the crest of the tourism boom and yet remain immune to the ills of casino. EXEMPTED BUSINESS (Motion) Resolved, That the proceedings on the Proposal to Develop Integrated Resorts be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 2. - [Mr Mah Bow Tan]. PROPOSAL TO DEVELOP INTEGRATED RESORTS Debate resumed.”
“For instance, should it be higher? Recently, I went to a parliamentary conference in Manila and met a young Singaporean working there. He was a former investment banker. He mentioned that, as a young man, he dabbled in casino gambling while a student in Australia and learnt through hard lessons not to take unnecessary risks in life. Sir, he was the lucky one. Many of his friends from the gambling circle in those days were not so fortunate. Some have gotten into so much debt that they simply disappeared. Others dropped out of school and were deported out of Australia. Still, others got into organised crimes. He estimated that out of 10 persons he knew who got involved in gambling, only three managed to graduate or to move on in life. Thus, the cost is very high. He believes that while gambling does make one sharper and gives one an edge, it takes a lot of discipline and self-control to be able to cut loss. Many young people have a bravado in them and cannot bear to lose. They do not have a good understanding of the theory of probability and even have little self-control. Thus, he believes that it is vital that the younger generation of Singaporeans be educated on the perils and pitfalls of gambling. From his experience, he feels that the age limit should be higher, say, 26 or 27. Sir, now that the decision has been made, we have to make the best of it. STB has conducted a preview of the IR proposals to the MPs. I am confident that when the winner entries are announced, Singaporeans will also come round to support the establishment of the IRs. Hopefully, by 2010, when the casinos have been in operation for one year, we will be in a happier situation when we conduct a review of the casinos. Why do I say that?”
“A study by the National Opinion Research Centre at the University of Chicago found that pathological gamblers generate 15% of the industry's gross revenues in casinos. And each pathological gambler ultimately burdens the society with a cost of close to US$10,000 over his or her lifetime. It is appropriate that the Government has taken into consideration all the feedback from the ground and proposed certain guidelines, including exclusion by self or by families. Further, in a study by two professors from the Creighton University, the impact of casinos was gauged using bankruptcy rates as a proxy for social ills in 250 counties in the US. This study compared counties pair-wise, one with and one without casino, with the pairing chosen to match the counties in other parameters as closely as possible. The results showed that the number of bankruptcies in those counties with casinos is double of those without. On the other hand, the study also disclosed that the cumulative rate of change in business bankruptcy rates in the casino counties was, on average, 35.4% lower than those in the non-casino counties. In a way, this study reinforced the economic benefits of casino for business and also the negative impact on the individuals. So we should guard against and try to have our cake and eat it as well. How do we do this, Sir? Many jurisdictions have gone down the road of the casinos. We can benefit from learning from them. This the Government has done, having sent many missions abroad. The proposed safeguards are some of the most thorough proposed. Sir, let me touch on one exclusion to be implemented by the Government. The Government proposes to exclude everyone younger than 21 years old. The question is whether this age is the appropriate age.”
“Thus, to take up the slack of job creation and to enable us to take a crack at structural unemployment, it is paramount that we explore all avenues to create service jobs in our economy. Thus, if an integrated resort with a casino could give our tourism industry the required boost, I think the Government would be derelict in its responsibility to reject it out of hand. Sir, as we struggle with our recession, Singapore has more or less stagnated over the last few years. We have also become less optimistic about our future. Yet, the world around us has moved ahead. In the debate on the President's Address, I had held up the example of the Palm Island of Dubai and urged our Cabinet to be bold and imaginative in formulating a new vision for Singapore. I am glad that the Prime Minister has left no stone unturned in exploring all avenues for Singapore. It is reassuring that he did not just reject the casino proposal out of old instinctive reaction. By so doing and re-examining the whole issue, he has shown himself to be able to revisit old issues with a fresh mind. This could only be good for Singapore as the new team of Cabinet Ministers grapples with the challenges facing Singapore. Mr Lim Hng Kiang has earlier mentioned the total job creation of 35,000 with the IRs. I think this would make a significant dent in the structural unemployment problems in Singapore. To me, this is a very important consideration. Given that so many families will benefit from the jobs created, I support the Government's decision to allow the casino as part of the IRs. Sir, nonetheless, we should not underestimate the social ills of a casino or two will bring.”
“It is indeed heart-wrenching to see heads of households breaking down as they struggle with the social stigma and the financial burdens of being out of work. Sir, as a society, we are not unique in encountering such issues of industrial restructuring. The US has endured such problems for several decades now, as free trade and globalisation led to obsolescence of its uncompetitive industries, such as consumer electronics, garment and steel. In their place, the service industry is becoming more important. In fact, the literature many years back used to lampoon the creation of low-skilled jobs in the US, deriding them as hamburger flippers. Nonetheless, the value of service jobs should not be under-estimated. WalMart, one of the biggest employers of low-skilled workers in the US, points out that these workers, besides making an honest living in their job, are also given a chance to learn valuable skills in working in a corporation, skills that will stand them in good stead in the future. Sir, it is also over this period that more and more counties in the US legalised casinos. Twenty-five years ago, legalised gambling was confined to Nevada, Atlantic City, New Jersey and a few race tracks and two or three state lotteries. Since then, the US has added almost 400 commercial casinos and 248 tribal casinos to the gambling landscape. In recent years, commercial casinos generated adjusted gross revenues of US$19.7 billion in 1999, which increased to US$26.5 billion in 2002, a 10% increase every year. In other words, Sir, gaming is now considered an economic activity in a post-industrial economy. Many people view gaming as a legitimate avenue for leisure and recreation. Sir, in Singapore, data from MOM already show that new jobs being created are primarily in the service sector.”
“In the debate on the President's Address, I had spoken about the difficulties of Singapore gaining mindshare of the decision-making of multinational companies when they consider where to put their investments. Many of my acquaintances are senior managers in the MNCs. They are Singaporeans and, therefore, would have naturally pitched for Singapore in such discussions. But more and more of them are commenting that Singapore no longer stands even a mention in such discussions. In other words, there is no mindshare, as far as Singapore is concerned. Many are getting concerned about the future of Singapore, particularly the future of their children living and working in Singapore. Another dampener in our drive towards the new Singapore is our aborted attempt to develop a home-grown infocomm technology industry. A*STAR has basically given up funding R&D in ICT and shifted its focus to life sciences. What does this mean? To me, it means that, in the race for the information age, Singapore cannot make its mark against the competition of India and China. I believe, Sir, in our transformation, we have hit an inflection in our industrial development. Structural unemployment is now with us and will remain with us for many more years. The press reported that about 78,000 people are stuck in structural unemployment. I have said earlier that structural unemployment is a very nice term. But what is structural unemployment? In layman's terms, Sir, it means basically that these people who are structurally unemployed will be unemployable for the foreseeable future. As our economy continues to restructure, more will join the ranks. As Members of Parliament, we are in touch with the pulse on the ground.”
“Because we ate at the local eateries and shopped at the convenience stores, we got to see the locals and the employees of the casinos on their way to and from work. They were just ordinary folks making an honest living, albeit in a different vocation. There was nothing glamorous about their jobs. I remember making a mental note to myself that casino is not a productive human endeavour. Nothing of value is created in these activities. Casino jobs are not those that lift one's spirit as a productive job on an assembly line would. Sir, about six years ago, I visited Macau for the first time. Those were the days before the Sands Casino in Macau. At that point in time, Macau was still very much a seedy place. It was not a place also for you to visit to lift your spirit. Coming back to the debate on casinos in Singapore, the severe recession that we are still emerging from since 1997 causes me to pause and think about casinos as part of our tourism strategies. Sir, the recession is the outcome of a convergence of several trends which continue to transform the economic landscape for Singapore. Firstly, the emergence of China as the factory of the world has basically pulled the rug out from under Singapore as we try to transit from a low-tech to a high-tech manufacturing centre. At one time, Sir, we assumed that we would have a lead time of 10-15 years to make this transition. But this time period vaporised right in front of our eyes. Secondly, Sir, our cost of doing business has increased to a point that renders us uncompetitive. Even our vaunted geographic location no longer shelters us, as PSA lost two of its key customers to Tanjung Pelapas. The lack of growth also led to the lack of optimism among Singaporeans.”
“The admiration and the praise of the other participants regarding the achievement of Singapore in stamping out corruption in our society made us very proud to be Singaporeans. After the IR, would the tsunami of easy money erode our stand on corruption? The casinos, Sir, will generate a new stream of taxation to the Government's coffers. As the Government, we must guard against the availability of such money and such an easy taxation source and develop a dependency on these revenues, even if we make use of these monies for socially desirable activities. Perhaps we must think of a way to earmark such revenues for tourism development rather than allowing it to go under the Consolidated Fund. If we allow it to do so, perhaps we would develop this so-called dependency on easy money. Sir, personally, I am against gambling. I do not fancy any game that is stacked against the player in the long run. It is also not that I have not been exposed to casinos or gambling. I first got into contact with casinos as a graduate student in the US 30 years ago. I went there first together with another Singaporean to Las Vegas to visit the casinos. Since we were poor graduate students, we would stay in the cheapest hotel and eat in the cheapest restaurant. In the hierarchy of casino visitors, with "whales" being the highest life form, we were the lowest. We would spend hours standing by blackjack, roulette, crab and baccarat tables, watching gamblers play. Not once were we tempted to join in. We basically verified the odds of the games we read in the books, and we observed human nature in the interaction between the croupiers and players. On the other hand, I did spend some good money on the tickets to the world-class shows at the MGM and other resort casinos.”