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 16 of 21.
“Sir, will the Minister inform the House when the location of the new train station will be decided and where it will most likely be located, ie, in Bukit Timah or Woodlands?”
“In this way, we will not only be preserving our artistic heritage but, I am confident, through study and research, we will be ensuring that the arts in our midst will find the right direction and continue to thrive.”
“Third, as recommended by Lord Dainton in his paper, efforts should be made to merge the Institute of Education and the College of Physical Education into an institution to be called "National College of Education and Creative Arts", linked to the NTU, as a move to enhance teacher training in Singapore. It would be better if the new institution could form a faculty of NTU, rather than be an affiliated but separate entity. In this way, we would be giving real attention to improving teacher training, school management and related areas. I am confident this faculty will draw keen interest, in view of the growing number of 'A' level holders interested in a teaching career, and we will thereby produce highly qualified teachers for the next lap. In this connection too, the Government's desire to produce graduates in the creative, visual and performing arts through NTU is evidence of an early recognition of the artistic community. It is now up to our artists to take the opportunity to further their knowledge of their chosen fields. There is no need for me to state the importance of art in our life. But since the Government's recognition is new and market opportunities uncertain, I suggest that promotional efforts be made to draw young talents into the arts, such as by giving special subsidies to students taking creative arts in NTU, or by encouraging corporate bodies to sponsor the fees, etc, of individuals who have shown talent but cannot afford to pursue a study because of lack of funds. Apart from this, the creative courses to be offered by NTU should also cover the ethnic art of every community here.”
“The upgrading of Nanyang Technological Institute into a full university, the Nanyang Technological University, is appropriate and timely, as it will not only accommodate the increase in the number of undergraduates that I mentioned, but also cater to the growing range of disciplines needed for Singapore to move on into the next lap. As such, I do not hesitate to give my full support to this Bill. Nevertheless, I feel the following points need to be aired. First, both Universities, especially the proposed Nanyang Technological University, should open their doors more widely to accept mature students who have missed the opportunity of a university education after their 'A' levels. This does not mean having to lower the universities' admission standards just to give them more opportunities. We can retain the present standards or review them based on current needs. By opening the door to mature students, we are making educational opportunities available not just to students, but to all citizens who are keen and who can afford further education to university level. At the same time, we would be giving them the opportunity to raise productivity through university study. Second, both Universities should consider ways of including courses popular among our students studying in universities abroad. By providing these courses, we can discourage our citizens from going overseas to study, and our universities can then be proud of being truly capable of meeting our citizens' need for education and knowledge. On this subject, I would like to know if the Ministry of Education has looked into the number of our young students studying abroad, the courses chosen, their performance and achievements, as recommended by Lord Dainton in his recommendations on higher education in Singapore.”
“Sir, I too rise to support the Bill. I believe that the evolution of NTI into a full-fledged University is in line with the aspirations of the students, the staff, the Alumni and the past supporters of the University. I am also very glad to hear from the Minister that he has put in place an extensive programme to evolve NTI into a comprehensive university. As such, when I listened to the Minister, I tend to believe that perhaps the title "Technological University" could be a misnomer. So my question to the Minister is very simple. Why does he not take this opportunity to drop the term "Technological University" and use "University"? If there is a need to call NTI "NTU" and in line with NUS being a three letter acronym, perhaps we can follow the convention in naming our expressways and call it "NYU". Encik Abdul Nasser bin Kamaruddin (Hong Kah GRC)( In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, year by year, there has been a progressive increase in the number of our undergraduates. In 1979, when the University of Singapore merged with Nanyang University to form the National University of Singapore, we expected our undergraduate population to grow to between 12,000 and 14,000 by the year 2000. But it is clear now that the estimate is short of the mark, as the number of undergraduates in NUS alone is about 14,500. The progressive increase in the number of undergraduates indicates a rise in the quality of our education and the scholarship of our students. And this increase is in line with the growth and development of our economy and the demand for graduates in our labour market.”
“Sir, I would like to ask the Minister whether the cost of laying optical fibres will be passed on to the subscribers as I believe the capital cost of a optical fibre network will be significantly higher than the copper wire network.”
“Sir, how does the proposed weekend car scheme dovetail into the ERP system if the ERP system were to be delayed due to technical difficulties or there exists insurmountable technical difficulties?”
“Sir, I would like to ask the Minister whether his Ministry has any plans to launch a PR exercise to educate the public in the use of the new integrated public transportation system.”
“Sir, I would like to find out from the Minister what Singapore Telecom intends to do with the revenue stream that was used previously to cross-subsidise these services.”
“Sir, I would like to ask the Minister whether these increases could have been moderated by spreading them over a longer period of time.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, would the Minister consider reducing the time period between the opening of the tenders and the announcement of the result? Or to go even one step further, would the Minister consider announcing the results first, subject to confirmation?”
“Sir, I just want to find out whether the Minister is prepared to answer the question regarding the timeframe under which subsidies will be phased out.”
“And what would be the normal preferred time-table of phasing out undesirable subsidies once those subsidies have been identified, in particular, areas where the consumers have developed a sense of dependency on subsidies? Furthermore, are there any other areas within the Ministry that he has identified that such cross-subsidies exist and he would like to remove them in the future?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to participate in the debate. At this injuncture, I would like to pursue the issue raised by Mr Eugene Yap, that is, using pricing as the mechanism to regulate demand, in particular, I would like to address the issue of cross-subsidy. One can observe that in line with these pricing policies, the Ministry of Communications seems to pursue a policy of no cross-subsidy between different services within the same domain. For instance, it is not considering or is doing away with cross-subsidies between bus and MRT; international telephones versus domestic telephones, international mails versus domestic mails. Where such subsidies exist in the past, they are being removed and the removal of such cross-subsidies has led to substantial price increases in some of these services. However, cross-subsidy itself remains in many of our transportation and communication services, for example, bus companies have to maintain money-losing routes using surpluses from the money-making routes. Domestic phone services to rural or sparsely populated areas are sustained by revenue from heavily populated areas. Taxi companies are asked to maintain money-losing shuttle services from housing estates to MRT stations. Hence, cross-subsidy by itself as a concept is not a forbidden idea, it is not a forbidden fruit. It is more like cross-subsidies between identifiable and separate areas of services are defined as a no-no. Often time though I feel that the demarcation between one area that is permissible and another area that is not permissible is not so obvious. Perhaps, we have the indulgence of the Minister to enlighten the House on his thinking in this particular matter. For instance, when did this policy of no cross-subsidy come into play in his Ministry?”
“Sir, can I ask the Minister whether his reply to Mr Heng to undertake a study regarding the possibility of introducing the non-legal profession into the scheme of conveyancing constitutes a commitment to this House to initiate that particular study.”
“In the diplomatic frenzy over the Gulf crisis, words may only be temporary conveniences. But for our shared values, if we believe they are important, then the words must be exactly right, so that we can focus on the right sentiments. In 25 years time, they may still be just words. But if they get into our corporate brain, the words and, far more important, the behavioural genes underlying them, may help keep our small united nation alive and well. And I hope they do.”
“By including the shared value "Regard and community support for the individual" this time, the authors of the White Paper have recognized this danger. This value is the only counterweight to all the other group-oriented values. After amendment of the word "regard" to "respect", the weightage is improved but, as I will argue shortly, can still be further improved. Support for the weak - the poor, the sick, the old, and the lonely - is based on respect for human life. When the strong carry the weak up, both are strengthened. But support for the weak should preferably be attracted from the state as a whole, rather than be drawn narrowly from the particular community - our code word for race - where the weakness is found. The strong and talented also require our support if they are to bear a greater share of leadership and contribution. They need space for their work, and recognition for their pains. Expressing this through the word "regard" whose root meaning in French is "to look at" seems to me too laid-back. A much better choice is "esteem" whose root meaning from Old French is "to value". The etymology of the word "respect", which I have checked, is closer to "regard" than "esteem", and does not fully express the value of the individual which we seek to preserve. If we think it is simply a case of esteem for the strong and support for the weak, we are limited. The weak need esteem for their true support. The strong need support to win their esteem. So more than supporting Dr Arthur Beng, I will go further and suggest that the only shared value put forward which safeguards the individual from potential corporate excesses be rephrased simply "Esteem and support for the individual." Finally, a few words about words.”
“I can only suggest that we turn to biology for some of the clues. If animals can organize themselves in so many ways, depending on their given attributes and present surroundings, why should humans be any less adaptive? Which brings us to our attributes and our surroundings. In a breath, we have no natural wealth, little history, a few tiny islands, and a small variegated population. We live close to bigger countries, most better endowed. Yet Singapore has managed to prosper. This may be largely attributed to our prudent application of useful bee hive principles. Seen in a socio-biological light, the overarching purpose of imbuing our citizens with shared values is to retain and refine these principles. Whether it is nation before community, society over self, the family as the basic unit, consensus instead of contention, racial and religious harmony, the thrust is this - in Singapore, the interests of larger groupings should, as a rule, come before those of smaller groupings, or a single individual. The argument is that when these shared values evolve into behavioural genes, when we swarm together in search, our national competitiveness will be maximized. The danger of employing this corporate principle unthinkingly or unfailingly is that the individual may feel digitized or diminished. Excessive group emphasis will reduce curiosity and creativity, and even economic inventiveness and zest for life. If the interests of the individual are systematically subsumed, we may extinguish a Socrates here, a Copernicus there, and Sakharovs everywhere. There are enough instances in history where society suffered for sweeping away the conscience or claims of a single individual.”
“40 pm Assoc. Prof. Maurice Choo (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, colleagues, after two days and two dozen speeches, I now fully understand what is meant by the words: Say your peace or forever be silent. 15th January, 1991, is a miserable moment in history to make a maiden speech. Today, when we are deafened by the drums of war, can we really hear a tune so plain as Shared Values? We can and we should. What does the Gulf teach us? It reminds me that each nation must be self-reliant, well-prepared, at peace with itself, and then the world. Small nations must learn this especially well, for their continued well-being requires much greater concentration and effort. In the natural world, some smaller animals such as bees and termites, beavers and wild dogs, successfully compete with larger adversaries by closely sharing a common purpose, working and complementing one another with uncanny understanding. When a worker bee launches a self-destructive attack to repel an intruder, the hive and its queen bee - the repository of their genetic pool - both have a better chance of survival and continuity. But human beings are not bees. If human behaviour were automated by genetic calculations, "I would give my life for two brothers and eight cousins," said the eminent geneticist J.B.S. Haldane. But it apparently is not. For although humans are gregarious creatures, with strong instincts for preservation of their society as a whole, they have, with civilization and greater self-consciousness, accorded each individual human life a very high intrinsic value, surpassing that of society in some respects. Many have already argued about the relative positions of the individual and his society. Their divide is the root of contention between different social systems.”
“If that is the case, their decisions might bias too much in favour of the society to the detriment of the individuals. I feel that as it is, "Respect for the individual" is not given sufficient importance. I would urge that it be paired together with "Society above self" to achieve the proper balance. I would like to point out that there is no way we are going to insulate our population from the Western influence on placing increasing importance on the rights and freedom of the individual; that individual civil liberties and civil rights should be safeguarded. I think if we do not place comparable importance between society and individual, we risk traumatic soul-searching amongst our young people in the future. Hence, I would prefer to see the list of value statements, when they are taught to our children, be changed to the following: 1. Nation before community and society above self 2. Community support and respect for the individual 3. Consensus 4. Racial and religious harmony 5. Family as the basic unit. To me, Mr Speaker, Sir, this order is a more logical arrangement, putting all the political behavioural relations together. It would also avoid the pitfalls of placing too much priority on "Nation before community and society above self". If the order is not important, then there should be no objection to changing the order. However, if the order is important, then it is all the more important that the values between the society and individual be paired, with society ranking just above the individual. Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe for a small country like Singapore, the inculcation of these Shared Values in our future generations would be important to our continued prosperity. I support the Motion before the House. [Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lim Boon Heng) in the Chair] 4.”
“"Society above self" and "Respect for the individual" put together would provide a balance between the demands of the society over the rights and freedom of the individual. At which point such a balance between society and individual should be struck, would depend on the circumstances faced by the nation at any given point in time. For instance, in war and other emergency situations, society must come before self and individual rights must be subjugated to the needs of the nation. At other times, the balance should shift towards the rights and freedom of the individual. The Deputy Prime Minister spent a significant amount of his time during his speech covering this balance. He recognizes that these two statements are closely intertwined and addresses the two ends of a continuous spectrum. Mr Speaker, Sir, as listed in the White Paper, "Society above self" is listed first and "Respect for the individual" is listed third. In between, we have this motherhood statement on Family. As a consequence, "Society above self" stands head and shoulder above the other values that follow, in importance and priority. Furthermore, as human beings, after some time, after we have learned these values in our schools, we tend to forget the items further down the list. I am concerned that after a while, what is left in the subconscious of our future generations would be just one value, ie. "Nation before community and society above self". It is possible that future decision makers and policy implementors, who are schooled in these values, when they come to making decisions that require a choice between society versus the individual will, consciously or sub-consciously, rank their decisions against this list of Shared Values.”
“Whereas, the remaining four statements deal with the behavioural relations between the individual and the society at large as well as one group of people with other groups of people. In this sense, they could be considered as political behavioural concepts governing the priority of unrelated people living together in a society. I am not a social scientist nor a political scientist. So my classification may be wrong but I find that a useful one. Mr Speaker, Sir, family transcends racial groups and religious belief. It forms the foundation stone of all stable human societies. The family structure has evolved over time together with human evolution. I believe it is not going to be replaced by other alternative social structures that are being experimented from time to time. As such, I think the statement on Family should be in a separate class by itself, very much like a preamble. Emphasising family is like emphasising motherhood. The most common reaction I got about this statement on Family is: What else is new? Furthermore, by inserting Family between "Society above self" and "Respect for the individual", we did one thing. We break up the important pairing of "Society above self" and "Respect for the individual". Mr Speaker, Sir, the Deputy Prime Minister has told us that the order these values are presented is not important. However, for those not having the benefit of listening to him in this House, and that will include all future generation Singaporeans, they will automatically assume that the order gives certain priority and importance of one set of values over the other set of values, just like any other lists.”
“To achieve the desired results, our young people must accept these values and embrace them as their own. These values should be simple to explain and easy to understand. Furthermore, we cannot assume that young people will accept these values automatically just because they were taught in schools. In this modern world, after our children have grown up, they will be exposed to all kinds of values and their prioritization in other societies. The thinkers, amongst them, will ask all the questions that have been asked in this House. For the rebels amongst them, we run the risk of having them rejecting the whole lot of values, if they find reasons to reject just one. Hence, it is important that we should remove as much contentious issues from these value statements as possible. I am glad that those have been taken care of by the Motion standing before us. At this point, I would like to address the sequence of those value statements. Mr Speaker, Sir, as a computer professional, I tend to look at concepts in a logical sequential manner. When I first read these five statements presented in the order they are listed, it struck me that the concepts do not flow smoothly. Dr Koh has also touched on this in his speech. The statement on Family deals with the relation of the individual with his family. How he or she would treat the spouse and how he or she wants their children to be brought up, in a normal family or in a single parent family. To me, Sir, family is a social structure and the statement on Family reinforces our belief in social behaviour with blood relatives. To me, the family statement is a social behavioural concept.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, my colleagues have spoken at length on the Shared Values and their importance to Singapore. I do not intend to delve into them. Instead, I would like to take a different perspective. I would like to ask what are we going to do with these values after the House has adopted them? As indicated in the White Paper and also mentioned by the Deputy Prime Minister, these values will be taught in our primary and secondary schools to inculcate them in our children. They will form the core curriculum of our Civics classes. Our children will recite them regularly and commit them to memory. Here, I will surmise that they will be taught these five values not in any random order but in the order as presented in the White Paper. I would like to ask what will be the effect of future generations of Singaporeans growing up with these five statements imprinted in their minds. As the Deputy Prime Minister had mentioned, having these values sunk into their subconscious. That is the crux of the matter, Mr Speaker, Sir. These values are not meant so much for us adult Singaporeans but they are actually meant for future Singaporeans. With these values in their minds perhaps, in future, when our children are faced with the constraints of living in a small and resource-poor country, they will accept those limitations, namely, putting "Society above self". Perhaps this would reduce the tendency of throwing everything to the wind and choose emigration to a foreign land where they can live a more luxuriant lifestyle. Perhaps when they are faced with the challenge of the future that requires subjugating their individual rights, they will find it a natural thing to do. If so, these values will help them weather the crisis.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, with restructured hospitals and independent schools, the Government is introducing free market practices in health care and education. We also know that this Government is also very tight-fisted when it comes to funding social and welfare programmes. This is the right approach since the Government makes sure that every dollar of the taxpayers' money should be properly spent. However, we should ask ourselves whether the same pragmatic approach is being used in funding R&D. If getting $10,000 for worthy social programmes is difficult and getting a million dollars for some high-brow R&D with dubious outcome is relatively easy, there is probably a lack of equity in fiscal control and management. It is our duty to ensure that all taxpayers' money spent receives a reasonable value for money. I hope that under the leadership of the NSTB, the Government R&D programmes in science and technology will pass this litmus test. Sir, I support the Bill.”
“For example, today Taiwan is the world's leading producer of IBM PC compatibles. This very strong position is the result of the government-sponsored R&D effort, producing R&D technology which is then made available to the industry. Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore is a small country. No matter how much we spend on R&D, we are unlikely to match the efforts in countries like US, Japan, UK, Germany and France. Even if we have all the money, we are also unlikely to find enough people to make our presence felt in the global competition for technological leadership. Hence, we should be selective in our choice of R&D areas and focused in our R&D efforts. I am glad, in this instance, that the Minister has mentioned the NSTB will oversee a master plan in our R&D programmes. I hope under the NSTB, a small dose of realism can be injected into some of the more esoteric Government-funded R&D programmes where the end results tend to be just some published academic papers. The NSTB should adopt a more pragmatic approach in evaluating the R&D programmes under its purview. For instance, we should make sure that we have a comparative advantage before we embark on any R&D efforts.”
“We pointed out that there was a need for a central coordinating body to manage the different and widespread R&D efforts currently underway. I am very happy to note that the Minister, in moving this Bill, is taking action to remedy the situation. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is perhaps too early to know how the NSTB will play this important coordinating role - what organisational structure it will adopt and what philosophy it will pursue. However, I would strongly urge the NSTB to begin its work by reviewing the fundamental philosophy behind Government-sponsored R&D. In many ways, Sir, our current approach in R&D, in particular, those efforts in R&D institutes which are part of the universities, follow the American model. It is not surprising as many of our research personnel are US trained. The American model, Mr Speaker, Sir, is great for doing basic research, producing Nobel Prize winners. However, it has not known to work well in transferring technology from research laboratories into industry. In fact, in recent years, borrowing from the Japanese experience, the Americans have set up industry-wide joint consortia in an effort to get better value out of their R&D money. On the other hand, the Japanese model of close collaboration between government and industry on joint R&D programmes under MITI has produced many outstanding successes. Also among NICs, like Korea and Taiwan, particularly in Korea, the Ministry of Science and Technology has produced a master plan for moving the country into the 21st century, again emphasising on joint industrial collaboration. Taiwan also has followed this model of joint government and industry collaborative effort and its R&D effort has also produced some impressive results.”
“This rapid ramp-up in Government-sponsored R&D has meant increased demand for these engineers. This increased demand has, in effect, removed valuable manpower from the industry, thereby depriving the industry of these valuable resources at the same time. And especially at times of severe shortage of manpower, doing so would aggravate the already tight labour market in our industry, leading to wage inflation and higher staff turnover. For instance, in the computer industry in 1989-1990, the staff turnover has been about 20% and wage inflation about the same order. This development, Mr Speaker, Sir, is definitely detrimental to the promotion of Singapore as an IT centre. Perhaps, during the period of high demand, it would be better if Government-funded R&D efforts could be curtailed or deferred until a period of lower demand. In the past, this was not possible but, perhaps, with the establishment of the NSTB, this might change. I am also glad to note that one of the objectives of the NSTB is to monitor and plan for the appropriate level of R&D personnel in Singapore. Hopefully under NSTB, similar problems that we have encountered in the past could be avoided. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is clear that R&D is important for future industrial development. It is also stating the obvious that as we move up the technological ladder, we will reach a point where Singaporeans or Singapore industries can no longer imitate other people's technologies or even buy their technology. Thus, invest in the future in R&D we must. However, I believe the way the Government has gone about investing its R&D funds can be improved. My colleague, Dr John Chen and I have spoken on this issue during the last Budget debate.”
“I am glad to note that the Minister has pointed out that two additional R&D institutes, the Institute of Microelectronics and the Institute of Manufacturing Technology, will be approved later in the following year. And each of these institutes might have headcounts of 100 researchers and again tens of million of dollars in Government expenditures. Besides direct involvement in R&D, the Government, through its Science Council, has also handed out close to $50 million via its Research and Development Assistance Scheme (RDAS) since its inception to assist the private sector in its R&D efforts. Again, the EDB has its own Software Development Assistance Scheme (SDAS) and Initiative for Technology (INTECH) handing out another $20 million in R&D grants since 1985. From a meagre beginning, Sir, science and technology R&D have blossomed into big programmes. As the Minister has pointed out, in 1978, the gross annual expenditure in R&D by both the private and public sectors was about 0.2% of GDP. By 1982, it has grown to 0.3%. However, by 1988, it has grown to 0.9% of GDP, which translated to dollars and cents, Sir, was about $370 million in expenditure, of which 40% was direct Government expenditure. Given that our GDP, in fact, has doubled over the decade as I mentioned from 1978 to 1988, the actual dollar expenditure has grown more than 10 times over this period of 10 years and with major increases squeezed into the last five years. With such rapid ramp-up in R&D efforts, Mr Speaker, Sir, it would not be surprising that certain inefficiency, redundancy can be found in these R&D efforts. Furthermore, there is also only a limited pool of R&D personnel in Singapore. In fact, in the technological area, we are talking about 3,400 R&D engineers.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the establishment of the proposed National Science and Technology Board (NSTB) under this Bill is timely. Besides the encouragement and promotion of R&D in science and technology, the Board will also be engaged in the coordination of the establishment and development of R&D institutes and other facilities connected with science and technology. Mr Speaker, Sir, there is a dire need for a body to coordinate this activity in Singapore and to provide guidance and leadership to the numerous Government-funded R&D programmes which have been launched in Singapore in recent years. As the Minister has indicated, in high technology R&D there are now four research institutes in Singapore. In biotechnology, we have the Institute of Cell and Molecular Biology (ICMB) which is part of NUS. In information technology, we have the Institute of Systems Science (ISS), also under NUS, the Information Technology Institute (ITI) under NCB, and GINTIC for Computer Integrated Manufacturing under the Nanyang Technological Institute. Each of these institutes has headcounts approaching 100 researchers and annual budgets amounting to tens of million of dollars. It is also noteworthy that out of the four research institutes, three are in information technology. By this year, the combined annual budget of these three institutes would have grown to S$40 million. I think, Mr Speaker, Sir, it has led to a situation where Singapore today, in fact, spends a higher percentage of its R&D money in computer related fields as compared to Taiwan and Korea. In this enthusiastic support for computer related R&D, it is possible that other equally important building blocks of industrial development might have been overlooked.”
“In view of the Minister's very strong and rational arguments for a time-based system, would Telecom go completely into a time-based system for domestic services and thereby in future probably eliminate completely the flat-rate system for domestic services?”
“This amendment is an extension of the original amendment. As such, I find the definition of "offshore newspapers" as those reporting on countries in Southeast Asia a bit too wide from this particular perspective. I can understand that to make the definition narrower to reporting purely on Singapore would be too restrictive from an administrative point of view. However, critics of this Bill could point out to this definition and claim that Singapore would like to extend its purview beyond its boundary and thereby weakening the rationale for this Bill. Perhaps the Minister can reply.”
“The readers could then be the judge. To me, Sir, observing the right of reply of the other party would ensure responsibility of fair reporting by all newspapers. Of course, no one likes new restraints, least of all, foreign journalists. However, Mr Speaker, Sir, we are not the only society which has enough of irresponsible reporting. The British Parliament has declared its intention to introduce legislation to guarantee right of reply in newspapers. I recall reading recently a news report that the British press has been given a "final warning" to buckle up on this issue of irresponsible reporting and to provide the aggrieved party the right of reply, or face the consequences when legislation is introduced to regulate the press in this matter. Sir, the second litmus test I would like to apply regarding this Bill is whether foreign publications still enjoy greater privilege vis-a-vis local publications when this Bill becomes law. To me, the answer is obviously yes, and the obvious privilege is the privilege of foreign publications to carry cigarette advertisements when our own publications are banned from doing so. We all know that the greater part of the revenue of newspapers and weekly magazines comes from advertisements and cigarette advertisements form the major part. As such, I am not happy that foreign publications circulating in Singapore under the new rule can still carry such advertisements which allow them in a way to bypass our express intent as a people to curb smoking in our country. If this is not a privilege, then what is? Sir, I do have a point to seek the Minister's clarification. The premise of the original amendment to the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act is to deter foreign newspapers from engaging in domestic politics.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the key element of this Bill is the introduction of a permit for an offshore newspaper to circulate in Singapore. When I discussed this amendment with some young professionals in Singapore, the first question they asked is whether this amendment constitutes a form of censorship, however subtle it may be. Mr Speaker, Sir, this misconception should be dispelled thoroughly in the course of this debate. To me, Mr Speaker, Sir, censorship takes place when individual issues of a publication and individual articles in the issues are examined and offending paragraphs are expunged or obliterated with black ink. This amendment does not impose this on the newspapers. In my view, the new requirement for a permit makes it compulsory for an offshore newspaper to declare its intention to circulate in Singapore. Furthermore, by going through the process of an application for a permit, the offshore newspaper will gain a clear understanding of the ground rules in Singapore. By accepting the permit, the newspaper in effect accepts the ground rules that we would like to uphold in our country. These ground rules that the newspapers should observe are not some over-bearing ones. They are, to my mind, simple ones that should pose no difficulties. Clearly, there is no intention whatsoever to change the editorial policies of the newspapers concerned. From what we have observed in the past, what the Government would like to uphold is fair and accurate reporting. In particular, the Government would like the offshore newspapers to observe and be committed to the right of reply. In other words, when a newspaper publishes a critical article, the other party, be it a private person or the Government, should have the right to present his side of the story.”
“May I ask the Minister whether he agrees that we are not talking about the free market situation in the quota system. The supply of the COEs is determined by the Ministry, and given a certain number, the market then determines the quota premium. By changing the number of supply, the Ministry can actually change the prevailing premium of that particular category. So, what I am asking the Minister is whether he agrees that in the current system, based on historical data, the allocation given for cars higher than 2,000 litres has been too high. And in my judgment, I believe it is.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, my question was very specific, ie, you either pay more or you pay less for COE, depending on which category you are bidding. I am not talking about total taxation.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the Minister whether he agrees that the quota allocation for cars in the category of 2,000 litres and above is too high, since the quota premium has been consistently lower for cars in the lower category as well? Will the Minister not agree that the system is not working well when those who can afford bigger cars pay less, and while those who cannot afford bigger cars pay more? And will he consider changing the allocation as soon as possible?”
“I would like to find out whether my figure is correct if we assume that the number of quotas per month is 3,500, and for each quota being transferred, the average excess the public pay over the bid price is from $500 to $1,000. If you multiply the period that the quota system has been in place, the excess which the individual has paid over and above amounts to either $14 million or a ballpark figure of that amount. Is my argument correct? And if so, would he not consider this a loss to the state coffers, even though I agree with him that the actual price of the COE should be determined by market force? But, nonetheless, this transfer between private individuals should be considered a loss to the state coffers.”
“Sir, may I ask the Minister whether my following line of reasoning is correct, since he did not answer my question on what is the sum total of the excess the public has paid over and above the bid prices? The quota system has been in place for four months and every month ---”
“Sir, may I ask the Minister, since he did not address my question, whether the implementation of the vehicle quota system has met with his expectations? I assume that it has indeed met with his expectations. And if so, may I ask the Minister, in view of his own admission that speculators make a lot of money, how could he consider the implementation satisfactory when he had said these in Parliament on two occasions, and I quote: "But I want to assure the House that the scheme will be devised in a manner that will not permit a cartel to be formed, nor would we allow people to use the quota system as means for speculation." And further in response to another question on speculation, he had further declared very categorically in this House: "Don't try it!" And I believe that this remark had left an indelible impression on all who had watched him on television. Would the Minister take this opportunity to enlighten the public on what he meant by these statements?”
“But I think it is the worry that they would have to go through this path that remains with these people. While I think the policies of Government towards free market forces and privatisation are the correct ones, I would urge the Government that in the pursuit of privatisation it should take into consideration this sizeable group of people who still prefer the old ways. I think, Sir, we could accommodate them. For instance, I would urge that we adopt what I would call "life-line" policies concurrently as Government services are privatised. I call this "life-line", using the analogy of a life line being thrown to a person who has fallen into rough water, so that he could grasp the life line, be pulled aboard and be saved. In health services, the promise by the Government to retain class C wards is a very good example. And in the privatisation of PUB, I would urge a life-line service with minimum charges for some basic consumption level. In the privatisation of Singapore Telecom, I would propose a life-line service for each household so that some basic services can be provided at the minimum cost. I hope through the acceptance of this life-line concept, the interest of this sector of Singapore society, ie, the under-developed sector, can be taken into consideration. I hope through such policies this Government will continue to serve all Singaporeans. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the motion thanking the President for his Address.”
“For the people in the first group, they will be able to adapt to Government's move towards market allocation of Government resources. In fact, many of these people would prefer less Government interference in their daily lives. For instance, they would prefer greater access to information, eg, on satellite television. They would also prefer less censorship in their reading and entertainment materials. The second group, however, Sir, still clutches to the more socialistic concept of government, namely, the government has to provide the basic social and health services; the government as an arbiter of equitable distribution of resources. As the individuals in this group grow older and retire, their dependency on Government increases. As the Government moves towards greater free market allocation of social services, in particular health services, these are the people most affected and they are the people least likely to adapt to the new world. In fact, in my point of view, it is a problem of how to live in a developed country with an under-developed income. In one of my dialogue sessions with my constituents, one of the retirees present made a simple point. And this point is that his fellow retirees are afraid of getting sick. They fear the very thought of hospitalisation because they have known of acquaintances whose life savings were wiped out in one single major operation. They feel that the Government they have supported all these years and they have paid tax dutifully all these years has changed the rule on them. They see sizeable accumu- lated surpluses in the Government, and yet they fear of growing old, they fear of getting sick and die a pauper through high medical costs. I must add that not everyone has gone through this and suffered this plight.”
“However, if we just accept that as the explanation, we might miss some other reasons for these different responses from our people. Sir, I think another reason for the unanticipated reaction of Singaporeans is the fact that these are indeed responses from two very distinct and different groups of Singaporeans. In one group, we have the wealthy, the upward mobile, the younger generation. And in the other group, we have the older generation, the not-so-rich, not so well educated, and the poor. The seemingly inexhaustible money to buy new cars obviously comes from the first group and the people who change their behaviour to save a few dollars definitely come from the second group. However, Sir, I believe that wealth alone is not the dividing line in these two groups. The habit of spending and the value of money inculcated in a person through his upbringing and his past experience is indeed the key differentiating these two groups. One reason we have such a dichotomy of people in our society, I believe, Sir, is our rapid development over the past 25 years. Our rapid economic development has telescoped our development time-frame from an underdeveloped country into a reasonably well-developed country which will normally take three to four generations into one single generation, so much so that today in Singapore we have a group that can fit into any western society and live comfortably, and another group that still retains the mentality of people of an underdeveloped country. Had we developed at a slower pace then the transition would take place over a longer period of time, and this dichotomy would not have been so distinct. As it is, we are a society in transition, a transition between the old and the new, the past and the future.”
“Firstly, the taxi fare increases in 1985 when the flagged-down fare was increased to $2. At that time, most Singaporeans were so shocked by it that they switched to an alternate mode of transportation en masse, leading to protests from taxi drivers. Whereas the Government believed that the taxi commuters indeed took the increases in their stride. Secondly, the petrol tax increases around the same period when a large number of Singaporeans drove over to Johor for cheap petrol, and wasting valuable time in pursuit of a few dollar savings. Again, a completely unnecessary waste of human energy. In fact, I still remember some drivers installing additional fuel tanks in their cars. I believe these were quite unanticipated by the Government. In both cases, the Government's decision was reversed later. On the other hand, today, when the interim measure of $5,000 was imposed on the registration fee at the beginning of this year to deter the mad rush to buy cars, not everybody was deterred. Not only that, the $5,000 has become the benchmark for the transaction pricing of the Certificate of Entitlement (COE) in the secondary market. In fact, this has allowed many who are successful in bidding their COE to make great profits even though the scheme was introduced with the assurance that speculation would not pay. Sir, I surmise from these example that the reaction of Singaporeans could be quite different from that anticipated by the Government. Some might say that in the examples I gave, the economic recession of 1985 and the economic boom of 1989 account for this difference in reaction. That the change in economic fortunes of Singaporeans definitely plays a significant part in these different reactions cannot be discounted.”
“Sir, the President in his Address gave the direction of the Government for the current session of Parliament. He touched upon the Government policies on education, housing and health. There were no surprises. In all cases, the President indicated that the Government would continue to pursue its current policy. In other words, the Government would continue to move towards free market allocation of resources through privatisation. In education, we see greater freedom for indepen- dent schools. In housing, market forces are brought into play in the allocation of Government flats, instead of the usual principle of first-come-first-served and the luck of the draw. In health, the Government policy is towards greater cost recovery through increased hospital charges. Sir, these moves are in tune with the time. The global trend is to move away from the command economy towards the market economy. The rejection of the Eastern European countries of their communist system proves the superiority of the free market system. Our adoption of a free market allocation of Government services would lead to greater efficiency in the allocation of limited resources. However, in certain areas where the Government has been the provider of the safety net services, in particular, health services, we should ask ourselves whether Singaporeans are ready to accept this greater responsibility for their own welfare. In many cases, I am not even talking about their ability to pay. In many cases, they are able to pay. I am talking about the mind-set of Singaporeans. Sir, the reason I pose this question is that when I thought about some of the Government polices in the past, I am not so sure that we have always properly evaluated and anticipated the reactions of Singaporeans. Two examples come to my mind.”
“I think riding bright should not only be given encouragement but should be given the force of the law. Finally, Sir, I note the Minister sees the need to extend the interpretation of this Bill and the principal Act by clause 25. Perhaps he would like to enlighten the House the reason behind this. Sir, I support the Bill.”
“This is also the Minister's argument to prohibit persons older than 70 years old from driving heavy motor vehicles. Perhaps the Minister would like to implement similar stringent criteria for drug alcohol levels for commercial vehicle drivers, although judging from press reports, the incidents of commercial vehicle drivers driving under the influence of alcohol in Singapore have not been very high. Sir, the Bill also makes renewal of driving licence for certain class of drivers difficult. However, the Minister might want to consider taking this opportunity to tackle the problem of non-driving drivers, that is, people who possess a valid licence but who have not driven for many years. These individuals just keep renewing their licences, since getting a new one is very difficult and paying for the renewal is not very high. They are definitely not safe drivers if they ever go behind a wheel again. I am of course not advocating that driving licence fees be increased to curb this problem, because doing so would affect all legitimate drivers. However, the Minister might want to consider introducing a procedure so that drivers are required to go through a written test or eye test every so often, maybe six years, and a driving test every 10 years. In my mind, Sir, even for regular drivers, a written test every so often, like six years, would be useful to ensure that drivers are kept up to date in their understanding of the law. I am also disappointed to find that the Minister did not take this opportunity to make it an offence for motorcyclists when they ride without turning on their headlamps during the daylight hours. The "ride-bright" campaign has demonstrated the effectiveness of a headlight in making motorcyclists much more visible.”
“When the Minister announced the quota system in Parliament, he also re-introduced the concept of additional road tax for cars beyond 10 years old. I would like to find out from the Minister how would he determine the age of a car, bearing in mind that some highly valued used cars, especially Mercedes, are imported into Singapore. Would the age be determined from the date of manufacture or the date of first registration in Singapore? If it is the former, how would the Minister prevent falsification of documents in the age of the cars? Coming to the clause governing the suspension of driving licence for drunk drivers and other high risk drivers, Sir, I am all in favour of the amendment. It is actually about time that the law governing drunken driving be toughened. Current laws are rather lax in this area and this Bill is a step in the right direction. I find the increase in penalty for refusing to take the breathalyser test appropriate. I had heard from my grassroots leaders that drivers resort to all kinds of tricks in order to frustrate the test or delay taking the test. As regards the definition of being classi- fied as drunk, I would prefer to see even more stringent criteria. In California, for instance, the law for drunken driving has been made very tough recently. Moreover, I believe two levels of blood alcohol content has been defined - a more lenient one for car drivers and a very stringent one for drivers of commercial vehicles. In the case of commercial vehicles, the consumption of one tall glass of beer would have raised the blood alcohol level of an average person high enough to be classified as legally drunk. Since heavy vehicles are more destructive in accidents, such control makes sense.”
“Sir, it seems to me that clause 2 of this Bill allows the Minister to exercise the power formerly vested in the President. I would like to find out from the Minister whether in doing so it changes in any substantial way the intent of the principal Act. Clauses 3 to 10 pertain to the vehicle quota system. I agree with the Minister of State that so much has already been spoken on this topic that it is not necessary for me to raise it here again. It is time to go ahead to implement the system, let the system operate for a while before we weigh the pros and cons of this car control measure. However, there are some technical points I would like to raise with the Minister. Clause 10 of this Amendment Bill authorises the Minister to prohibit the registration of used vehicles beyond a prescribed age-limit, and to prescribe a levy for the re-registration of a used vehicle in the name of the purchaser. In the prohibition of used vehicles beyond a certain age, is the Minister referring to the first registration of the vehicle in Singapore or is he talking about just any used vehicle? Is he asking for the power to prohibit old cars beyond a certain age on the roads and what is this age limit that the Minister has in mind? This issue did not come up in the debate on the vehicle quota system at all. Furthermore, what is meant by "to prescribe a levy for the re-registration of a used vehicle in the name of the purchaser"? Does this clause pertain only to used cars imported into Singapore and to be registered for the first time? Or is the Minister saying that after the 10-year life span of the quota licence, the car becomes automatically de-registered and the owner must pay the prevailing quota premium to get his car re-registered again for another 10 years?”
“Hence, it is not very surprising that of the three institutes I mentioned, perhaps only one which reports to the MOF directly has performed satisfactorily to-date. Furthermore, we are at this moment debating this issue under the Ministry of Trade and Industry and, to my knowledge, MTI officers were neither involved in any substantial way in the direction setting nor the coordination of these research institutes. So I am very glad to learn from the Minister that he is now considering to upgrade the role of the Science Council to perhaps play this role. Finally, Sir, with all due respect to the ability of the officers involved, I think the Ministry of Finance's Budget Officers are not necessarily the right group of officers to approve, coordinate and monitor R&D efforts. They do not necessarily understand the R&D process and they are easily awed by the technology involved. With this line of control rather unclear, it is not surprising that our R&D efforts on which we have allocated so much money run the risk of missing its target. Furthermore, Sir, to my knowledge, the performance measures of all those R&D institutes have not been finalised as yet. Without well-defined performance measures, how do we know the money we spend on R&D is money well spent? When the Government does not take the lead to state its objectives in R&D programmes, the institutes are left to define their own, and the results are definitely less than satisfactory. It is indeed quite surprising to me, Sir, that this Government, with its well-known tough budgetary control process in other areas, approves large sums of money for R&D in what I would consider a rather lax manner. I think the Minister should consider and look into this matter.”