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 2 of 21.
“Clearly, this divide between the two perspectives could not be bridged by the consideration of economic benefits of the casino, the engine within the IRs. Sir, I do not object to casinos on religious ground. But I am concerned about the message that we, as leaders, are sending to our people, in particular, our young. In the past, we have insisted that Singaporeans must strive hard to make a living. We taught our children to be diligent and disciplined. We discouraged all pursuits of easy money. Thus, when this Government decides to issue two licences, the question we should ask ourselves is whether we are signalling to our people that Singaporeans need no longer pursue this model of hard work and diligence, that the Government is prepared to bend its principles, to pander to the baser instincts of man and to pursue the easier options. Are we sending a message to our young people that it is acceptable now to profit from other people's weaknesses, even though they are foreigners? The Prime Minister, in his statement, has emphatically said "no". Nonetheless, I think it is necessary, besides the other Ministers who have spoken, for the Minister for Education to assure this House that, in our education of our youths, the ballast against the seduction of the casinos be fortified in them. Sir, I am also concerned about the impact of the availability of easy money on the moral fibre of society and on our Government. Singapore has acquired a reputation of a clean Government. This is a result of many years of single-minded focus in the pursuit of meritocracy in all our endeavours. Recently, Miss Penny Low and I participated in a meeting of South East Asian Parliamentarians Against Corruption in Manila.”
“So when I proposed that perhaps to overcome this problem, only non-Singaporeans would be employed as croupiers, the participants replied that their concerns extend to all young people, not just Singaporeans. Similarly, even if we exclude all Singaporeans from the proposed casinos, the religious groups would still oppose the set up of casinos simply because it will be immoral to profit from the gaming loss of other human beings. Sir, in the feedback dialogue, what becomes clear is that the grandeur of the IRs itself is also an affront to the religious leaders. In a way, so long as the social ills such as prostitution are diffused and below the radar screen, people learn to live with it or ignore it. However, the grandeur of the integrated resort by its very nature seems to elevate the problems. In a way, while our political leaders have their views on IR changed because of the quality of the proposals, religious leaders would seem to be even more affronted. Perhaps it goes down to the roots of religion. All religions erect places of worship. Often-times, these are impressive buildings exalting the virtues of the human spirit and the holiness of God. Be they churches, temples or mosques, these are iconic structures. They represent goodness in the human nature. Casinos or integrated resorts, on the other hand, glorify the baser nature of human beings. Integrated resorts, by their sheer size, are also iconic, but they represent the seductiveness of the evil, the power of the devil. The grander the scale, the louder it screams out its message of decadence. So, when I viewed the more garish IR proposals presented by the Singapore Tourism Board, it does remind me of the City of Gotham of the Superman comics.”
“And for those who care to look, they will find this place of ill repute, like prostitution here. Yet, when the idea of a casino is floated, the chorus of opposition gathered strength. Why? Why would Dr Tan in his speech mentioned a definitive "no" against pathological gambling? In the run-up to this debate, the Feedback Unit (FBU) has received many feedback on this topic. It has also conducted focus groups on the subject of casinos with many groups, including religious organisations. I think it is useful for me to share some insights into the dialogue with the religious organisations. As expected, all religious groups oppose gambling on moral ground. In the discussion of safeguards for casino, it became clear that the perspectives of the political leaders and religious leaders on this issue are totally different. We politicians only think of the negative impact of gambling or casinos on Singapore citizens and Permanent Residents and we could propose measures to mitigate this impact on the locals. To us, foreigners who indulge in gambling would continue to do so, bet away their fortunes with or without casinos in Singapore. Religious leaders view the negative impact differently. They are very inclusive. Everyone is included in this debate, Singaporean residents or foreigners alike. There is no national boundary when it comes to saving a soul. Take job creation, for example. One objection that was raised in our dialogue was that young Singaporeans working as croupiers in casinos would be objectionable. It is not proper and not right to teach young Singaporeans the art of gambling, even though as croupiers, they do not gamble on the job.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, even though this question in front of the House refers to integrated resorts, it is clear that the debate is about the casino component of the IR. No one would object to the infrastructure improvements that would be brought about by the construction of the IRs. In fact, many have asked whether we could have the IRs but without the casinos. By now, Sir, the pros and cons of the casino have been exhaustively examined and analysed. In my view, Sir, this national soul-searching in this House about casino is not just about gambling and the social ills such as debts, prostitutions, others associated with casino. It is so because even today, gambling is readily accessible to anyone in Singapore. Every one of the social ills is already present in Singapore today in one form or another. Singaporeans could readily travel to casinos outside Singapore in the neighbouring countries or on cruise ships. For those who are inclined to be problem gamblers or pathological gamblers, they would have or could have gotten into trouble already. Chia Teck Leng and Simon Lee are tragic examples. We all agree that having casinos on our shores will exacerbate these social ills. To eradicate these social ills, we need to totally eradicate gambling of all forms in Singapore, both officially sanctioned as well as illegal ones. Sir, obviously, as a society, we have gone too far down the path to revert back to such puritanical lifestyles. So, why is there such a strong and, at times, vehement opposition to casinos? The opposition is particularly strong from those who oppose the decision based on religious grounds. Are the opponents blind to the existence of such social ills in Singapore at this very moment?”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, I would like to come back to the results of the Feedback Unit's survey on the challenges facing Singapore, which I have spoken on earlier during the debate on the Budget Statement. In this survey, there are five issues where there exist a significant gap in public perception between seriousness of the issue versus the confidence that we, as a people, would be able to overcome this problem. And keeping public housing affordable is one of these five top-most concerns. 71.2% of the respondents consider that this is a serious matter with major impact. On the other hand, only 48.5% of the same respondents are confident that we would be able to cap the increase in public housing cost and keep public housing affordable. Thus, there is a significant gap of close to 23%. In other words, Sir, up to a quarter of the people surveyed do not think we could keep public housing prices down. I find this survey result particularly vexing because 86% of Singaporeans are already housed in HDB and of those living in HDB flats, over 90% are owner-occupants. As such, this perception does not tie in with reality. However, this survey was designed and conducted scientifically and should truly reflect the concerns of Singaporeans surveyed. Clearly, past policies of the HDB have contributed to this, perhaps to switch to bank origination is one of these and perhaps the various co-payment schemes under MUP is another. I would like to find out from the Minister what steps would he be taking to dispel this perception gap. 1.30 pm”
“If MINDEF has found it unable to gain much out of industrial cooperation, did it work with other economic agencies of our Government in the past, to leverage its huge defence procurement? Sir, in the upcoming procurement of the next generation fighters, I believe the F15 is one of the candidate fighter planes. I understand that South Korea has also recently concluded a fighter vendor selection, and the tie-breaker in that selection, in favour of the winner, the F15K, was, indeed, the offset programme offered by Boeing. Sir, we are spending a substantial amount of our national budget acquiring this next generation fighter. If through offset we could create a flowback to the local economy, it would be a great benefit for our economy, which is at the moment sputtering only on a few engines, and not all engines are firing. I understand, Sir, that it is not the role of MINDEF to look out for economic problems in our nation in its weapon procurement. Its job is actually, as the Minister said, to get the best weapon at the cheapest possible price. However, MINDEF's expenditure is a high percentage of our budget, and is close to 5% of GDP. If there is a chance that offset could help, I think it is only appropriate that the Minister takes into consideration the benefit of such a programme. With structural unemployment becoming ever difficult to solve, I am making a plea that the Minister considers using this programme to help to create some flowback. My question to the Minister is whether MINDEF would explore the use of the offset, together with MTI and MOF, in the upcoming tender for the next generation fighters, if the incremental cost of a properly structured offset programme is, indeed, only 3% for a cost-benefit ratio of one, as claimed by some offset experts.”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, the Minister spoke earlier about the rigorous selection of our next generation fighters for the SAF. I wonder whether MINDEF would ask for industrial cooperation in the procurement of its next generation fighters. 6.30 pm Sir, MINDEF used to include industrial cooperation in its defence procurement in the past. Suddenly, several years earlier, it seems to have abandoned the practice altogether. I understand MINDEF's position is that offset is a very expensive way of paying for something that is not very useful. I would like to ask the Minister how did MINDEF come to this conclusion. What were the lessons learned by MINDEF? Has MINDEF studied how other developed nations, such as UK, Belgium and Finland, practise their offset programme? And if our experience has been poor, perhaps it could be that we have not learned the trick of the trade. From the table I circulated earlier, Sir, it seems that some of these countries manage to leverage $1 of offset for every dollar spent with an incremental cost of only 3%. From a national perspective, it might be argued that it is really worthwhile to impose offset on major weapon procurement. Sir, in the other countries that practised offset, offset benefit programmes are extended to the whole economy, including products and services from the domestic economy. In the advanced countries, with a long history, their Ministry of Defence is the lead agency, and in those nations, quid pro quo has always been the norm. For others, the lead agency tends to be the one involved in economic activities. For instance, in the Netherlands, it is the Ministry of Economics, in Finland it is the Ministry of Trade and Industry.”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, during the debate on the Budget Statement I circulated the survey results of our Feedback Unit's survey on the challenges facing Singaporeans. This survey was conducted scientifically involving in-depth interviews with 1,064 respondents, thereby truly reflecting the population profile of Singapore. There are five issues where there exist a significant gap in public perception of the seriousness of the issue versus the confidence that we as a people would be able to overcome these problems. Sir, keeping public transport affordable is one of these five issues. 72.8% of the respondents consider this a serious matter affecting their lives. On the other hand, only 46.3% of the same respondents consider that we will be able to contain the increase in public transport costs and keep them affordable. Then there exists a gap of close to 26.5%. I would like to find out from the Minister whether he will address this gap in public perception. What contributes to this gap? Mr Ong Kian Min has earlier talked at length about the new transport fare adjustment formula. Does the Minister think that by adopting this formula we would be able to change the public's perception of keeping public transport cost affordable? If not, what else would he need to do to address this?”
“Sir, in his reply to terrorism and homeland security, the Minister mentioned that he will put CCTVs at selected places and he also mentioned in passing that his Ministry has developed some capability to automatically detect pre-defined behaviours. Is that correct? If so, he has also later, in his reply to vice, talked about placing CCTVs in Geylang. Presumably, they have a software that can pre-define human behaviour, it is possible to change the software to detect all sorts of pre-defined human behaviours. So I am wondering whether this placement of CCTVs in Geylang would intrude into the privacy of Singapore citizens.”
“Most of the time, the police officers, being unfamiliar with the system, would have to be dependent on the operators to spend time and effort to do the search. This would be a departure from the old framework where the police officers themselves could perform the search. Consequently, this seems to shift the burden of the search from the State to the individual. It is also unreasonable to threaten the businesses that if they do not cooperate in the search, their assets would be seized for the police to conduct the search themselves, as they are empowered to do so. It would be unnecessarily punitive to seize and cart off the asset and storage media of these businesses. After all, they are just the service providers. They did not commit any crimes or offences. My question is whether the brute force approach using existing legal framework needs to be reviewed in this age of electronic transactions, especially for small businesses. We could insist that this is part of doing business in Singapore but it will be a burden. So perhaps the Ministry can look into this and come out with a different approach, maybe train the officers or engage a third party expert to do the search.”
“Sir, the system of laws, regulations and practices regarding police search of company held records in the investigation of frauds, both by insiders or by customers, has developed over the years based on paper-held records. Such records could be searched manually by law personnel officers armed with a search warrant. If the records were seized for further search, the files could be carted off but the business will continue. Basically, Sir, the State pays for the time of the law enforcement officers performing a search. However, as information technology becomes pervasive, records become increasingly stored in digital storage media. Still, the enforcement framework works because these are big businesses. For fraud committed by users of these service providers, the cost of the search could be borne by the service providers as part of doing business. Nonetheless, over time, the burden is being shifted to the business. However, in the Internet age, many small infocomm service providers have sprouted up and these include voice over IP, prepaid phone card companies and website companies. In such businesses, the profit margins are low and the number of customers could be potentially very high. Many such businesses are one-man shows running on shoe-string budgets. In police investigations into potential crimes committed via the service provided by such providers, the use of the existing powers of the police seems to place an increasing burden on the service providers. In fact, we just heard from the Minister that he is thinking of changing the law to ensure that pre-paid phone card company would keep records in case of terrorism. This burden would be in the form of time committed by the providers during the search.”
“Thank you, Sir. I would like to seek a clarification from the Minister regarding the new passport that he mentioned. I would like to find out when will the new passport be issued and once the new passport scheme is implemented, how long will the existing passport be valid, and what is the replacement schedule for the existing passports if it is not longer than 10 years. Finally, since the validity period for the new biometric passports is five years, would he adjust the fee for the new passport issued? Would it be half the current cost, or would it be the same?”
“Yes, that was my question. Do we consistently tap at 50%?”
“Mr Chairman, I understand the Constitution allows us to tap up to 50%. Is the Minister saying that we always tap 50%? Mr Raymond Lim Siang Keat: That is up to us. We do not have to tap the full amount of 50%; if not, then it would go into the reserves.”
“May I seek your indulgence to ask further questions on NII? Since the Minister has responded, I presume it is all right to ask. He mentioned that the decline was due to a special dividend last year. My question would be: do we account NII contribution to the budget based on a fixed percentage of the total NII return of the fiscal year? Or the Minister has the flexibility to decide how much of NII would be accounted into the current year's budget and the balance of it would go into the reserves. I think, perhaps, there should be some transparency because, otherwise, looking at the budget, one really could not tell whether we are tapping the appropriate amount of NII to meet the budgetary requirement.”
“I have looked at the Budget Statement and see that the vehicle related taxes go up this fiscal year, but concurrently the quota premium collection is projected to decline, also by a similar proportion in the coming fiscal year. So my question is: if we levy the collection based on the same number of vehicles, how is it that, on the one hand, tax goes up; and, on the other hand, quota premium drops?”
“I asked two questions in the debate on the Budget Statement. The Minister did not respond and he said I could ask the details in the Committee of Supply. My first question was on NII - why is the NII proportion this year dropped by 30%? The second question was on vehicle tax. Why was vehicle tax increased at the same time when the projected quota premium collection decreased? Perhaps, with your indulgence, maybe the Ministry can clarify.”
“Mr Chairman, we still have time. I seek your permission to ask some questions.”
“The report asserted that the offset programme has contributed to countries like Japan and South Korea in real improvement to their industrial development policies across a wider spectrum more than defence alone. So I would like the Minister to consider constituting a multi-agency committee taskforce to look into the virtue of counter-trade requirement in our defence procurement. I note that in other countries the offset requirement is not administered by their Ministry of Defence. So I hope the Minister would look into my request. Manpower Management Framework”
“Assuming weapon acquisition is around 20% of that number - actually I could not figure out how many percentage is going into long term defence expenditure on acquisition of this nature - then it would be around 10% of GDP. Thus, if we have offset requirement, the positive impact on our economy would be around 1% of GDP, which would be rather significant. Sir, in doing my research for this cut, I searched the web and one of the items was the press release by the South African Government in 2000. Its analysts showed that with offset requirement, the expenditure on its weapon procurement would be matched by economic spin-off of the offset. The benefits come in three forms. First, in terms of defence related offset, it is about 20%. Second, by counter-purchase by the defence equipment supplier of South African goods, amounting to about 45%. The goods procured include automotive components, furniture, fabricated metal goods, including railway cars, wagons, electronic goods and so on, thereby creating jobs for the South African economy. And, in the third area, foreign investments in South Africa by a company associated with the equipment supplier, amounting to about 35%. Sir, of course, this is a statement issued by the South African government. It understands the pitfalls, and the success of the entire procurement offset programme would depend on the mechanism that the Government puts in place to carry out this task and to carefully monitor the progress of the investment and counter-purchase project proposed also identified. In its report, it is also asserted that this offset programme has been implemented for the past 20 years by many countries. Today, more than 130 countries make use of this offset programme.”
“Sir, yesterday I released a table showing other countries got about $1 back into their economy for every dollar they spent on defence. They do so by requiring defence vendors to participate in compulsory offset programmes which are also known as counter-trade. Singapore, I fear, gets very little back in its defence expenditure. Sir, defence weapon procurement is an expensive consumption expenditure. Without offset or counter-trade programmes, very little of this expenditure would give our local economy any multiplier effects. My question to the Minister is: why do we choose not to engage in offset programmes in our defence procurement, especially when we have structural unemployment, which we do not seem to be able to solve? In 1999, Singapore procured Apache helicopters for around US$1.7 billion. Four years ago, Netherlands and the United Kingdom also purchased Apache helicopters for US$1 billion and US$2 billion, respectively. But, these two countries required formal offset programmes and, from the data provided, it seems to be that they were able to obtain close to $1 billion and $2 billion in offset into their economy, respectively. We know that if it is done properly, the incremental cost is around 3% of the purchase price. So, if we had implemented the purchase programme effectively then, we would have a flowback of US$1.7 billion into our economy, at an incremental cost of close to US$50 million. I could safely say that we could have done with US$1 billion or two extra in our economy, even when we were entering into a downturn, starting in the year 2000. Sir, on a long term basis, our Government is committed to allocating up to 5% of GDP in defence expenditure.”
“My question is: why is the revenue for motor vehicle related taxes going up by 10% while the contribution from the vehicle quota premiums declined by 8.6% according to the Budget statement? Since these numbers are all based on the same number of vehicles to be registered in fiscal year 2005, there must be certain assumptions made - tax going up, but quota coming down. It is not transparent to me, Sir. Perhaps the Minister would be kind enough to enlighten us why those numbers are what they are. Finally, Sir, I would say that overall, there is no denying that Singaporeans are confident and upbeat about our future. Bread and butter issues continue to be the focus of concern for Singaporeans. Nonetheless, 62% of Singaporeans are concerned with the uncertainties in the future economic outlook of Singapore. This is a complex issue to grapple with for any small nation. As such, we should strive our very best for economic growth. We should also explore all ways and means to booster the lack of demand as mentioned in the House yesterday. The key is that we want our younger generation to be confident and enthusiastic about our future. The last thing we want of them is to be uncertain and disillusioned. Sir, we must continue to send a clear signal that even if there were difficulties, hard work and enterprise of our people would eventually pay off.”
“But as we face economic uncertainties, and as our manufacturing sector hollows out, and our workers face structural unemployment, many for the rest of their life, maybe and just maybe, it is worthwhile for us to distort the free market principle that we adopt in favour of protecting jobs in Singapore. Sir, as I said, I am not an offset expert. But on the surface of the argument, perhaps we should make sure that as a nation, we do not give up this tool that we could have used to our advantage. So, therefore, I would urge the Prime Minister to constitute a multi-agency task force to look into this as the benefit evaluation of such a programme cuts across Ministries, for instance, the Ministry of Manpower and the Ministry of Trade and Industry. Perhaps we should not let the Ministry of Defence alone to assess the appropriateness of what we call Formal Offset Programmes. I have two more cuts in the Committee of Supply on this topic and would delve into greater detail there. Next, I would delve into Budget specifics. I have a few questions. First on NII. My question to the Minister is why is the current NII lower than last year's NII when the Singapore economy is, in fact, expected to grow further, albeit at a slower rate. Why is there a drop of NII contribution of $0.8 billion or 30%? Does the Minister expect the Total Investment Income to drop because of weaker economic circumstances in the coming financial year or does he tap a smaller percentage of NII and allow the balance of it to be reverted to the reserves? Assuming we kept the NII contribution, Sir, as was last year, and put back $0.8 billion into the budget, then we are actually looking at a budget surplus of $1.3 billion. The next question I have concerns vehicle taxes and COEs.”
“An article in the journal Counter Trade & Offset published on 10th February 2003 contained a Special Report titled "Dutch Audit - A Remarkable Document that Shows Offset provides substantial measurable Benefits". In this report, it shows a "Costs & Benefits Analysis" prepared by Price Waterhouse Consulting [PWC] for the Netherlands' Ministry of Economic Affairs and the Ministry of Defence finds that the cost of imposing offset averages 2.9% of the value of the acquisition. So, in other words, if we impose an offset for $1 billion spent, we increase the cost of the acquisition by about 3%. Assuming these figures are correct, on the surface of it, it seems that a developed country like Netherlands is able to leverage $1.28 dollars of benefit by spending an additional 3 cents or a ratio of 42 times cost/benefit ratio. This seems to present a very persuasive argument if offset programmes in defence procurement could be implemented appropriately. For instance, in 1995, our Apache Helicopters purchase amounted to US$1.7 billion. Had we imposed formal offset requirement along the lines of the European countries, maybe we could also obtain a flowback of close to US$1 billion in economic activities to Singapore at an incremental cost of around 3%. Sir, even if we are not as good as the Dutch, and we had to be less efficient and modify this cost by three times, let us say, incremental cost of 10%, it would seem that from a national perspective it is still worthwhile for us to impose this Formal Offset Programme. Sir, in the age of full employment and vibrant economic growth, I believe we could give up the leverage of a tool such as this.”
“Perhaps one has to graduate to the theory of Economics 401 or 501, graduate-level economics, to see the virtue of a Formal Offset Programme. Sir, I am persuaded enough to bring this matter up for discussion because I could not come out with a counter- argument to debunk his persuasion. But I must declare that I am not championing his cause, nor am I speaking as his mouth-piece. Sir, may I now refer to the second sheet of the chart that I have asked the Clerk to circulate earlier. If you would refer to this table, this table gives the cumulative values of defence procurement by 15 countries from 1993 to 1999. On one column we see the actual value of procurement versus the benefit accrued by the Formal Offset programmes, what we call "credit value". This table is taken from a report issued by the US Department of Commerce and so the dollars are in US dollars. This talks about the purchases from the US and the credit value given by the US Defence vendors. This document is publicly available on the web and the URL is also given in the table. Sir, the first top 15 countries are mostly developed countries in Europe and they do not engage in barter trade that is typically conjured up by the term "offset". The top country here, in fact, is Finland with a cumulative credit value of US$3 billion and a credit/actual ratio of 1.07. In other words, Finland manage a flowback of $1 benefit for every dollar spent on defence procurement from the United States. Of course, by requiring the Defence vendors to honour the Formal Offset Programme, the cost of the procurement would go higher. The key question is: by how much.”
“My colleague, Mdm Halimah Yacob, has also put the framework in the context of globalisation. Sir, structural unemployment is a very nice term, a scholarly term used to describe a very damaging social problem. Basically, the people who are structurally unemployed are obsolete with respect to the need of the market. Industries come and go in a few years, but human beings could not change their skill base so rapidly. It is important that we should explore all avenues to create jobs for these people. It would be uncaring if we leave these people in the garbage heap of history by lumping them into a category called "structural unemployment." So, in this respect, in mulling over the options Singapore has in globalisation, I am struck by the arguments in favour of instituting a Formal Offset Programme in our Defence procurement. Sir, I must add that I am not an expert in this area. In my capacity as Chairman of the Feedback Unit, a Mr David Hew has highlighted to me the leverage of a Formal Offset Programme that Singapore could have exercised in the economic competition between nations. Sir, David Hew has been the lone voice in the wilderness for many years now, advocating the cause of offset. When David Hew first approached me several months ago, I too mentally brushed his petition aside using my simple Economics 101 argument. And that is basically this: there is no free lunch in the world and offset would simply increase the cost of our procurements. But David Hew persisted and showed documents that are, on the surface, quite persuasive. It seems that in the convoluted world of offset, one could not just depend on simple basic instincts.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, we have also analysed the profile of the respondents who have expressed a lower level of confidence over Singapore's ability to overcome those five critical areas I have highlighted. I think the results are interesting enough to share with the House. The issue of cost of living worries especially those who have received a tertiary and a higher level of education. Those who are less confident that Singapore is producing enough babies are in the 45-49 age group. They are typically Chinese. All have tertiary and higher education. On the challenge of keeping public transportation affordable, those who are less confident are likely to be degree holders or post-graduate holders, the self-employed, as well as the unemployed. When faced with the issue of keeping healthcare cost affordable, those in the age groups 25-29, 45-49 and 55-59 are typically graduates and the self-employed who are also less confident about Singapore being able to handle this challenge. And, lastly, considering the issue of creating sufficient jobs for Singaporeans, those who are less confident are more likely to be males, have university education, are self-employed or unemployed, middle income earners or are single. Sir, we could observe that, by and large, Singaporeans who are university educated, male and those who are self-employed are the ones most concerned with the five issues. One reason could be that they have higher expectations and aspired to attain a higher standard of living. They not only feel that these five areas pose serious challenges to Singapore, they are also not very confident that Singapore could cope with these challenges. Sir, as Singapore's economy restructures rapidly, structural unemployment becomes a significant issue.”
“These would go in a way to alleviate the worries of the 67% of the respondents who said they were concerned about not having enough savings to meet their retirement needs, and not being able to pay for their future healthcare costs. Sir, about two thirds (65%) of those surveyed believe that having enough babies is a major challenge facing Singapore. Yet, despite the slew of baby bonus measures announced in the previous statements, the gap of ensuring enough babies are born is among the highest. This indicates that the Government still has a lot of work to do in this area if it wants to see the result desired by our baby bonus policies. It is good that in this Budget, the Government has announced enhancements to the Baby Bonus Scheme and the reduction in the foreign domestic worker levy to help families. An area of concern is the coping with an ageing population. More than 70% of Singaporeans viewed dealing with the problems of an ageing population as a main challenge. Although the Budget has provided some measures to address retirement-related issues, it is important that we address these issues from a comprehensive macro-manner. For instance, we have to look at the fundamental change in the society's social structure. I urge the Government to continue to adopt a concerted, comprehensive and in-depth approach to cope with the eventual social demographic shift in our population. For instance, it is excellent that the PM recognises the need to provide lift service to every floor of our HDB blocks. Next, we might have to ask how we could incentivise public transport operators to provide elderly-friendly buses. The list goes on.”
“The issues that registered the widest gap are first, lowering the cost of living; second, ensuring enough babies are born; third, keeping public transportation affordable; fourth, keeping healthcare costs affordable; and fifth, creating sufficient jobs for Singaporeans. I must add that this survey was conducted in the last two months of 2004. It captured the sentiments of Singaporeans at that particular period. Sir, it would be interesting to reassess these sentiments from time to time to determine whether these gaps have narrowed as our economy continues to improve. Some might even postulate that when there is a clear trend of these gaps narrowing, the ground would be considered sweet. Over seven in 10 of Singaporeans surveyed perceived creating jobs for Singapore as a very serious concern. The Budget measures addressing this concern include the topping up of the Lifelong Learning Fund, redesigning jobs, reskilling the workers and others that my colleague, Mdm Halimah Yacob, had already addressed. Although this Budget mentioned SMEs, it did not address the cost of doing business in Singapore at large. In fact, the increase in foreign worker levy would increase the burden to many SMEs, just as the economy is recovering. Hopefully, the Minister has assessed that this measure will not nip the recovery of our economy in the bud. The Budget also announced several measures to help Singaporeans prepare for better retirement and tackle worries of healthcare costs. Measures such as top-ups to CPF Special/Retirement accounts of older Singaporeans, to increase the CPF voluntary contribution and tax relief caps, as well as to simplify the Supplementary Retirement Schemes are good ones. To address healthcare cost, the Budget has announced Medisave and Medifund top-ups.”
“The strongest sense we get from the survey is that Singaporeans remain confident and optimistic, even when faced with challenges. This is a very positive aspect of the survey. The survey results were released to the public just two days before Budget Day. The survey was well reported in the press, so I do not intend to repeat those points. However, I would like to point out that the survey also gauged how Singaporeans view the seriousness of each concern versus their confidence that Singapore would be able to handle these challenges. There are areas which are of serious consequences but, at the same time, Singaporeans are very confident of overcoming these challenges. These include the threat of terrorism and reforming our education system. There are also areas where Singaporeans consider serious but are less confident in resolving them. Sir, at this juncture, may I seek your permission to ask the Clerk to circulate the chart that I have prepared. [Chart circulated to hon. Members.] If we refer to the chart, there will be two numbers: one, the percentage of the respondents who consider the issue a serious concern. The second is the percentage of the same respondents who are confident of Singapore being able to overcome the challenges. On the right hand column of the chart, I put the differences between these two percentages as a rough indication of the gap, and this is the gap in the perception of the respondents and the wider the gap, the less confident they are about Singapore being able to overcome the challenges.”
“Sir, the Prime Minister has said that this Budget is an encompassing Budget and it is indeed so. It has something for everyone - the poor, and not so poor, young and not so young. It is a compassionate Budget. It establishes a ComCare Fund that will provide money to look after the disadvantaged in our society. The $500 million committed to the ComCare Fund to help needy Singaporeans cope with their daily livelihood will provide a safety net to those who need them. However, there is one group who seems to have escaped the attention of the Minister. And I am referring here to the group of Government pensioners, many of whom had provided sterling service to the nation in the past. For those older pensioners who retired about 30 years ago, their monthly pensions are still rather meagre. As the economy recovers and as salaries in the public sector are likely to be restored, I hope the Minister will consider the feasibility of increasing their monthly pension. Sir, next, I would like to assess whether this Budget addresses some of the concerns of Singaporeans. Between November and December last year, the Feedback Unit conducted a poll with 1,064 Singaporeans on the challenges facing Singapore and Singaporeans to find out about the concerns and issues affecting them. This is a survey conducted using professionals in the business and this survey met the various statistical standards and should reflect accurately the opinions of Singaporeans across all income groups and ethnic origins. The results were telling. Bread-and-butter issues, such as employment, healthcare and cost of living, continue to be of concern to Singaporeans. They are concerned about their ability to deal with these uncertainties. Yet, two-thirds of Singaporeans are upbeat and confident of Singapore's future.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am aware of the process in which the project comes to the review of the Committee. My suggestion is that he works harder with the constituency Adviser so that he can come to see the virtue of the project proposed by Mr Chiam. The Minister for National Development (Mr Mah Bow Tan) rose ---”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Chiam earlier lamented that ever since he became a Member of Parliament, he did not get a single cent out of CIPC funds. I can also enlighten him that ever since I became a Member of Parliament together with him, all my requests for CIPC funds have never been fully approved. It has been always partially approved. And I have always complained how come my worthy project was not considered appropriately. And since the Minister for National Development had deemed it fit to appoint me into the Community Improvement Project Committee (CIPC), I can say that when the Committee meets, there are always requests that are at arms-length, and before we can even approve all the projects proposed by the PAP colleagues, the budget had been exhausted. So perhaps, if Mr Chiam tries harder next year, the Committee might have a chance to review his proposals. Mr Speaker, Sir, let me now proceed to my --- Mr Chiam See Tong rose ---”
“May I seek a clarification from the Minister? Regarding the personal liability of a partner who is personally liable for malpractice or fraudulent act, the Minister has mentioned that the partner is personally liable and there is no cap. However, to bring that partner to court, I understand that he or she would have to be prosecuted under a different set of law, and probably the law of tort, which requires a different onus of proof, and makes it much more difficult to pursue the wrongdoing, whereas under partnership, of course, those do not exist. In creating LLP, perhaps we could also look into this consideration.”
“As a partner in an LLP could be an individual or body incorporate - foreign ones included as provided for under clause 7 of this Bill - this could throw the whole field of local professional services open to foreign competition. So, in proposing this Bill, I hope the Minister has taken into consideration the American experience. There should not be unexpected consequences flowing from the Bill if the LLP structure is applied beyond the professional partnerships. Sir, after the Act is enacted, customers and suppliers of the LLP must be made aware of the nature of the new entity they are dealing with. I urge the Ministry to conduct an exercise to educate the public regarding LLP. We should ensure that LLP should not be confused with any other abbreviation, such as the LLB, which is Bachelor of Laws, or the Taiwanese version of abbreviations. I would suggest that the Ministry make certain regulations to ensure that LLP be displayed prominently in all business letters, just like the requirement to display company registration number. Furthermore, until the public is conversant with the LLP abbreviation, maybe the full text of LLP, ie, Limited Liability Partnership, should be used in business letterheads. Sir, the creation of limited liability partnerships does add to the variety of business entities available to those wishing to set up business in Singapore. Firms will now have the option of becoming a limited liability entity with the internal flexibility of a partnership. Taking everything into consideration, such a new business environment would only be a positive step for Singapore. Sir, I support the Bill.”
“But reading through it, I gained the impression that they are mostly amendments of a typographical nature to include the LLP concept. It seems to me that when the UK enacted the LLP Act, various regulations were introduced, including a requirement for financial disclosure equivalent to that required of companies, which I have mentioned earlier, the provision that partners of an LLP can be sued for wrongful or fraudulent trading, and the provision that partners can be disqualified from being partners of an LLP and company directors. The UK also amended the Insolvency Act of 1986 to include a measure that would deter partners of an LLP from siphoning off funds to the detriment of creditors. Sir, the other aspect is that up to now, our discussion and deliberation leading to this Bill have been mostly focused on professional partnerships. However, in the United States where LLPs have existed for some time, the LLP structure is increasingly used for joint ventures, such as those between manufacturing companies. In the US, there are many advantages, especially when non-US international companies come together to establish a new joint venture in the locale. The structure offers relatively favourable tax advantages, as compared to the traditional companies. Thus, the US experience shows that LLPs could be a new vehicle for entirely new enterprises, which the LLP drafters might not have anticipated. Singapore is a regional hub. Would the new LLP legislation create new niches for foreign professionals or even foreign LLPs in the legal and accounting professions to enter into the Singapore market?”
“In creating an LLP, this House should be assured that the quality of work would not be compromised, in particular, when existing partnerships are converted to LLP as provided in this Bill. A consequential question would be the question of damages. In a partnership, the aggrieved party could take any of the partners to court to seek damages suffered as a result of poor advice or malpractice. When an existing partnership is converted to an LLP, this sense of protection will go away. Would the Minister consider, for instance, making sure that the converted LLP charge less for the same service it provided before the conversion? Because the nature of the transaction has changed. Alternatively, would the Minister consider requiring the converted LLP to carry the relevant insurance so that third party's interest of the transaction could be protected? Because, once the conversion is over, the unlimited liability would also go away. In fact, in some jurisdictions, requiring the converted LLP to carry insurance is part of the total package. Sir, as the Minister has pointed out, the LLP concept has been well tested in the US and the UK. The drafter of this Bill has done a very thorough job scanning the legislation of those countries that have enacted similar legislation. Hopefully, this Bill has taken into consideration the lessons learned elsewhere. Therefore, a question I would like to ask is whether this Bill is self-contained in its entirety and could function well as a single source of legislation for the LLP. Or do we need to amend other legislation, such as the Companies Act, and other related laws to make the LLP concept function appropriately? The Sixth Schedule of the Bill lists the consequential amendments to other laws in Singapore.”
“We need to strike a proper balance between privilege and disclosure. In this Bill, clause 24 imposes a requirement for the LLP to lodge an annual declaration of solvency. So the question we should ask is whether this requirement is striking a proper balance. However, there is no definition in the Bill about what is considered solvency. Someone reading the Bill might say that being "solvent" is "the ability to pay bills", or for the annual declaration of solvency, maybe at the end of the year, one might have a positive balance in the assets. And a positive balance could be as little as $10 or $100. So I feel that solvency is not the same as the declaration of assets and also the liabilities of the LLPs. Since an LLP is more akin to a company, I personally would like to see the same disclosure requirement that was required of a company as provided for under the Companies Act. When UK implemented its LLP Act, this was what was required. In other words, disclosure of the LLP is more in line with that required of a company. Sir, another major consideration is the quality of service provided by the LLP. With unlimited liability, the perceived assurance was that the partners in a partnership would work out a very rigorous system of check and counter-checks to ensure quality of service provided. Indeed, it was a great privilege to the professional to be invited by the partnership to be a partner. Hence, the existing partners would screen the aspiring newcomers vigorously. For the prestigious partnerships, the tutelage could be long and the screening process exhaustive. Thus, the public, in dealing with a partnership, has this assurance of the quality of work performed by a partner, in fact, any partner within a partnership.”
“So, therefore, this leads me to a key question. The question is: is LLP closer to a partnership or a company? The Minister has mentioned that it is more like a partnership, except it has limited liability. But if you look at it more carefully, while partners of LLP would be free to make arrangements amongst themselves much like a partnership, the LLP itself would be a separate legal entity owned by the partners. Thus, it would be able to enter into contracts, hold properties and continue to exist independently of changes in the membership. Thus, in many respects, LLP is more akin to companies than to partnerships. In fact, in some jurisdictions, the participating legal persons involved are referred to as "members" and not as "partners", to distinguish the differences unambiguously. Therefore, personally, in fact, I would prefer the drafter of the Bill to use the word "members" instead of "partners" in this Bill. Sir, I would also like to deal with the fundamental roles and responsibilities between two parties in a business transaction. Under the common law system, limited liability granted is a privilege. It tilts the balance between two parties towards the one with limited liability. Also, with privilege come responsibilities and one of these responsibilities under the common law is the requirement to disclose the soundness of the finances so that the other party could make a sound judgment and decision. Thus, companies with limited liability are required to disclose their financial status. On the other hand, partnerships with unlimited liability have been free to keep the internal financial status to within the partners. Thus, in creating the new entity, it is important that the law be drafted so that, as the Minister has also mentioned, this privilege is not abused.”
“The concept of LLP was invented in Texas in 1991, not too long ago, just 13 years ago, as an alternative to an ordinary partnership, in which innocent partners were shielded from the vicarious personal liability for malpractice liabilities of the firm. Thus, an individual partner of the LLP would not be liable for claims against the firm arising from negligence or other forms of malpractice, unless the partner was personally involved in the negligence or malpractice. Sir, we must bear in mind that this concept was introduced at a time, and in a country, where litigation, as well as damages awarded by the courts, was increasing at an alarming rate. This concept in the US proved to be very popular and most states in the US have such legislation by the end of the decade, whereas UK only implemented its LLP Act in 2000. When the UK Labour Government introduced the Bill, being a pro-business Bill, some of the Labour MPs asserted that it was the outcome of the lobbying effort of the big accounting companies. Sir, in Singapore, litigations involving malpractices of partnerships are rare, in fact, very uncommon. Thus, this could not be the reason for introducing this Bill in this House. It is true that when this legislation is implemented, it would help small partnerships to resolve the age-old problem of one or more partners retiring. It is also true that this legislation would provide a new platform to launch many more new businesses. But I believe the major beneficiary of the LLP Act would be the big accounting companies or other existing professional services partnerships. Therefore, in examining this Bill, I am particularly interested in the safe guards for the clients and suppliers of the existing partnerships which would take the opportunity to convert to LLPs.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, to-date, the Singapore legal system recognises just two categories of business entities, namely, companies and partnerships. Partnership, the last innovation in business legislation under the common law, was introduced in 1907 when the Limited Partnerships Act was enacted in Britain. Thus, for close to a century, a firm could choose between being a company or a partnership. A company is the preferred choice if one wants a good split between ownership and management. On the other hand, a partnership is the route if one wants greater flexibility in arranging the internal affairs of the business and does not mind unlimited liability. As the Minister has said, so far, only a company, either a private limited company or a public company, offers the directors or shareholders limited liability. Sir, for the past century, this has been the legal framework of businesses. So, as a result, the whole culture of how business is transacted has evolved around this legal framework. The public understands the pros and cons when they enter into a relationship with a business entity, be it a company or a partnership. Thus, when we create a new entity, the Limited Liability Partnership, we need to bear this in mind. We are not just introducing a new entity, we are actually introducing a whole new culture, and by this legislation, people would have to take on a new culture in doing business. Sir, when changing culture, this House should take great care because the instincts of people could not be changed overnight, while the law could be implemented overnight. Sir, let us look at the concept of LLP and how it came about.”
“One might say it is contradictory, that we worry for ourselves, we worry about the vulnerability of Singapore, yet, as a group, we believe we could overcome the challenges. The reason is that we have a very high respect for our political leaders. Singaporeans trust the political system. We trust that our Prime Minister would be able to lead us to a better tomorrow. True, it is hard to visualise Singapore being a land of opportunity at this moment. Nonetheless, we believe that the Government would be able to lay out the strategies to take us there. This faith in our leaders is a strength which Prime Minister Lee will find invaluable in forging the nation forward to become a strong, resilient and yet, at the same time, compassionate society.”
“In recent years, outsourcing has spread to technical and professional service jobs. At the ground level, we see this trend continuing without abatement. In the past, for those of us working in the multinational companies, we could pitch Singapore as a possible site for outsourcing. Today, it is a non-starter to even mention Singapore in such discussions. China and India are the preferred locations when MNCs take a pan Asia-Pacific view. It seems that there is no effective counter measure. Today, the destination for outsourcing that is Singapore has itself become the outsourcer, when we read about SIA and HP Singapore outsourcing their professional jobs to Malaysia and India. Even as the economy generates more jobs, these new jobs are likely to be in the service sector, with lower salaries and poorer career prospects, as the data from MOM have demonstrated. Furthermore, unless Singaporeans change our attitude towards service jobs, these jobs would continue to go to foreign workers. We worry a lot about our future, and we also worry for our children's future, because job prospects are not as good as we have experienced when this trend of outsourcing accelerates. Sir, these two summarise the major concerns of Singaporeans. For those of us looking forward to some answers in the President's Address, we were slightly disappointed. Perhaps the Prime Minister would find other occasions to address these concerns. Just in case I present Singaporeans as worrywarts lost in bewilderment, there is actually one attribute about Singaporeans that will stand us in good stead. Singaporeans have great confidence in our nation as a whole to overcome our challenges.”
“With few jobs in the market, our young people are accepting short-term contracts of six months to two years. No longer are they waiting for the iron rice bowl jobs. Sir, what do Singaporeans worry about? Let me relate some of these worries. Firstly, as individuals, we are concerned about our ability to adapt in a rapidly changing world. We are worried about our jobs. There is an acceptance amongst Singaporeans today that during one's working lifetime, one would be retrenched at least once. Even for those of us with a reasonably secure job, we harbour a fear that somewhere along the line we will suffer a significant pay cut. Interestingly, most Singaporeans do not blame the Government in this job market. We understand that this is beyond what the Government could do. Nonetheless, we are concerned that, as individuals, we would not be able to make much of a difference working alone. So, in a way, we are hoping that the Government could step forward to galvanise us as a team to come up with counter-measures to tackle these challenges. Sir, we worry about our ability to maintain our current standard of living. As we age, we are concerned about our ability to afford the rising health costs of our loved ones. We hear about the high cost of ineffective treatment, particularly of friends suffering from cancer, which drained the life-savings of individuals while making very little difference in their life expectancies. Secondly, Sir, there is a realisation of the vulnerability of Singapore as a nation in a highly competitive world. As a nation, it seems that the era when we could make a good living just by being disciplined and working hard is coming to an end. For many years now, Sir, we have seen our factories being relocated to low-cost countries.”
“When I returned to Singapore on 30th December 2004, the tsunami relief programme put in place by the Government was already moving into high gear. Private donations, both in kind and cash, were pouring in. The contrast was stark. The selfless outpouring of compassion towards the tsunami victims by Singaporeans was indeed heart-warming to witness. I got a first-hand experience when the Bukit Timah grassroots volunteered to raise funds for the Red Cross at the market and IMM on 2nd January 2005. Young or old, rich or poor, the generosity of Singaporeans is touching. While Singaporeans are still very much worried about our future, the tsunami has taught us that our problems are minor ones. It has taught us that ours is a blessed land. More important than the physical attributes of our small island, Singapore is a blessed country because of our people. As the political leader, Prime Minister Lee could not have a better people than Singaporeans to work with, to mould into the nation as envisioned in the President's Address. Sir, Mr Gan Kim Yong, in his motion, mentioned that Singaporeans are cautiously optimistic about our future. I would add that Singaporeans today worry a lot about our future. The recession and the enduring structural unemployment have left a permanent dent on our collective psyche. We have a better understanding of the realities of life. No longer are we cocky about our future. I still remember the days about 15 years ago when I interviewed fresh graduates from the university. It was common then to meet young people who would expect their salary to double in three to four years' time. And some of them were indeed getting it. Today, the young people are more realistic.”
“In pursuit of the better standard of living, Singaporeans have been perceived to tilt towards the materialistic side. We ourselves have listed the five Cs as our pursuits. We coined the phrase "the Ugly Singaporean" to describe our behaviour outside Singapore, as some of us reverted to our old selves once we are outside the constraints of the rules and regulations of Singapore. Our people were condescending to the residents of our poorer neighbours. We have a sense of superiority towards new immigrants from the very same countries, such as China and India, where our forefathers migrated from. In particular, the local Chinese press almost enjoyed playing up the negative aspects of visitors from China, such as peidu mamas, KTV hostesses, making it even more difficult for the authorities to relax entry requirements for Chinese visitors and tourists. Sir, the recession, as well as the downturn caused by SARS in 2003, mellowed us. The recession taught us that we are not invincible as a country, as an Asian tiger. SARS taught us that the world is an inter-linked one. Furthermore, two tragic events demonstrated that, despite our own problems and anxiety about our future, Singaporeans have retained our love and compassion for our fellow beings. One, a small one, Huang Na's tragic death, touched the hearts of many Singaporeans. But it was the Indian Ocean tsunami on 26th December 2004 that buttressed my faith in Singaporeans as a people. When the tsunami struck, I was in Sichuan, China, attending an investment promotion conference. There, the news hardly made a ripple. Maybe Sichuan was too far away from the sea. Maybe the impact was not felt yet.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to join the House in thanking the President for a speech that sets the Government's priorities in the coming years. I like the framework presented - the seven priorities of the Government. To me, Singapore's place in the world and a secure environment form the foundation for this particular framework. Quite unlike Mr Chiam, who spoke about the ISA and wants to repeal the ISA, I personally feel that the ISA is one of the pieces of legislation that forms the basis to ensure the continued security of Singapore. The President moved on to talk about the need to build the economy and the need to educate and train our people. These two priorities are the building blocks of the economic well-being of our citizens. Following this, the President's focus shifted to balancing material aspirations versus emphasis on family, engaging our youth and ensuring everyone in Singapore would benefit from the progress of our nation as the ultimate goal of being Singaporeans. This framework, focusing on Singaporeans as individuals and as a community, is inspiring. It reiterates that, under Prime Minister Lee, the role of the Government would no longer be primarily focused on economic development but also, ultimately, on social and community development. Economic development is just an enabler, not the final destination. It suggests that the end objective of the progress of our nation is the development of each individual as a more holistic and wholesome individual. It envisions that working as a community, Singapore would be a more people-oriented nation, with warm-hearted people, caring and supportive, happy and self-assured. Sir, I find this vision appealing.”
“Sir, I was schooled in Chinese as a boy, and converted to English as a primary language in secondary school. Nonetheless, I value my Chinese education. I believe it moulded me into the person that I am today. I want my children to have the same experience, the same learning process, and the ability to benefit from the best of both worlds - the Oriental and the Western world. Sir, this Report is very timely. It identifies the problems facing Chinese Language instruction and anticipates the worsening of the situation as English becomes the "mother tongue". So, I am very heartened that this Report, while proposing a new review of the Chinese Language curriculum and a new approach to Chinese Language pedagogy, reaffirms in no uncertain terms the importance of bilingualism in our society. Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 4.15 pm. Sitting accordingly suspended at 3.56 pm until 4.15 pm. Sitting resumed at 4.15 pm [Mr Speaker in the Chair] REVISED CHINESE LANGUAGE CURRICULUM Debate resumed.”
“Thank you, Sir. An hon. Member: Wen ti pu da!”
“For instance, the Chinese prefer to use double negatives. For example, when someone asks "How are you?", the Chinese would typically respond, "Not bad." Not so commonly do they say "Good". If you go to China today, a lot of people will tell you wen ti pu da, ie, no big problem, instead of saying "It is a small problem."”