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 20 of 21.
“Of course, calculators would be at the middle of the spectrum ranging from digital clock all the way to micro-computers. While it is more simple, like the watch, the hardware is actually pre-programmed and it is not flexible. One cannot change it. Even if you buy a clock, I doubt you own the right to that particular software implanted and incorporated into the hardware of that clock. Whereas in computers, again it is a similar situation. It is dumb but it is flexible, as I have said earlier. Thank you.”
“Can I have a chance to answer that? The Member addresses two components in digital technology that span the spectrum of different intelligence. A digital clock is a very dumb device. It does not even have a micro processor chip in it. It is not correct to say that a digital clock has a micro-processor. It does not. It is just a series of counters and display units with a crystal clock running in it.”
“It is just like a car. In order to get to your destination, you either learn to drive a car which is not an easy thing, especially in Singapore where it takes a lot of work to get your driving licence, or you pay to hire a driver. So both things demand a lot of work and practice. Similarly, in the use of computers, you can buy a computer. Now, you either write the software yourself, in other words, learn how to do it and write it yourself, or pay to get a piece of software. So I think the case of a copyright work in computer software stands on very firm ground and perhaps the Member should come to recognize that. Coming back to the Bill, with the amendment that I have noticed, I would say that the Bill has been improved. It is now a piece of balanced work and with the item addressing technologies, let me borrow a term from technology, it is a state of the art piece of legislation incorporating current thinking on copyright law in both Australia and New Zealand. While it is a good piece of Bill in terms of provision, its impact will lie in its implementation. I would say that this piece of legislation, will affect the lives of every Singaporean when it is fully implemented. Perhaps I would request the Minister to do a thorough educational work on the Singaporean through a campaign of some sort because the full implementation of this Bill would put many small businesses out of business. Perhaps the Minister should be compassionate in its implementation and, where it is possible, provide a grace period to aid the transition of current businesses in the area, which will be affected, into new businesses.”
“May I finish my speech first, and then the Member can interject me. Mr Jek Yeun Thong resumed his seat.”
“Although the Minister in the Committee had said that this clause made it clear that reproduction of software on the land is not an infringement, but the layman's reading of this clause and the way I understand it is such that whether that is so or not would be subject to interpretations. Perhaps the Minister can elaborate. There is another amendment on the computer storage of copyright work which says that the adaptation of work in a material form or through the reproduction of any work or an adaptation of a work in material form should include references to the storage of that work or adaptation in a computer. Rightly so, this amendment would address the progressing technologies in the sense that nowadays there are devices on the market that would convert printed form of work and other related form of work into computer readable and storable forms. Since I am on the topic of computers, perhaps let me address the comment by the Member for Queenstown. The Member has stated that the computer is a dumb piece of machine and without software it is of no good. It is no better than a typewriter. He is absolutely right. But he has perhaps missed out the most important point in a computer, in the sense that although it is very dumb it is also very flexible. Its flexibility is derived from the software that is part of this Bill's address. Let me give him an analogy. A computer is just like an automobile. One can buy an automobile but without a driver, or without learning to drive it, it is not going to get you anywhere. So just like buying a car, if you want to go from one place to another --- Mr Jek Yeun Thong rose ---”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, first of all, let me join my colleagues in commending the Select Committee under the leadership of the Minister in doing an excellent job on this Copyright Bill. In going through this Bill, I notice that there are a number of significant amendments and I would like to go through a few of them. For instance, in the definition of "educational institution", I note the significant amendment broadening the definition of "educational institution" thereby putting it in very clear terms what are educational institutions and what are not. This is very good work by the Committee. I also notice that there are amendments regarding performance of works in hotels and public places. For instance, showing of in-house movies in hotels are required to pay royalties. That is in the spirit of the copyright law. There is also amendment limiting the liabilities of the owners of hotels as regards the performance of work by performers on the premises. Also, there are amendments on performance of work in religious gatherings. All this, I believe, would make the implementation and the performance of work much easier and will make this Bill a much better piece of legislation. I notice that there is also another amendment on groundless threat which would provide a remedy to help aggrieved parties who are under unnecessary threat of action brought by copyright owners. There are also two amendments on computers. One amendment is clause 39 (3) which addresses the issue I first brought up in the Second Reading on local area network.”
“In my view, the nation-building process in Singapore rests to a large extent on the principle that if the few were to sacrifice for the benefit of the majority, that shall be the case. I am concerned that with better education and exposure to the Western concept of the rights of the individual, the consensus of the older generation for nation-building would be lacking in the younger generation. I urge the Government to monitor this trend carefully and, when necessary, launch a concerted effort, such as a national campaign and other educational processes like in schools, to ensure that such consensus is not eroded. However, it is also true that in a compact society like Singapore the effect of noise pollution of an expressway on the residents ---”
“Another major road construction in the Bukit Timah constituency is the construction of Ulu Pandan arterial road which I have already highlighted in Map 1, and if you refer to Map 4 it will show the arterial road extending from Clementi Avenue 6 over the Sungei Ulu Pandan, cutting across the resettled area which is being resettled, like Lorong Senohong, Lorong Hakikit and so on, and joining at PIE. When my constituents learnt of this project, a handful of them became quite upset about this. These are the vocal ones, the younger constituents, who were able to express themselves very well in English. They have this new concept of Government and how people should participate in government. They lament the loss of their scenic frontage and the resulting loss of their privacy when the new road will be constructed. They also charge that HDB, and by extension the Government, has shortchanged them in not informing them of this potential development when they made the option to move into the estate. They do not accept the fact that the resultant benefits of the new proposed arterial road to the neighbourhood and the country far outweigh any personal deprivation and the increased noise pollution they would have to endure. More importantly, perhaps only one or two of them believe that if they can rouse up the residents to unite against the project, Government will relent and scrap the project altogether, and I found this to be clearly quite disturbing. I believe this attitude is clearly undesirable in a country like ours. To begin with, these people have forgotten that the very fact that they are living in HDB flats means that someone else has sacrificed earlier when the land was repossessed by the Government to build the HDB flats they are living in.”
“This is a map sent to me by the PWD on 3rd September this year showing that three accesses from Faber Hills Estate to the AYE will be closed when the AYE comes into operation. When that happens, access to the estate would then only be by way of the new interchange at Clementi Avenue 6 with one single road leading into the estate as shown on the map which I have highlighted as the sole access after closure. Where there are three entry points now, in future there will be only one. This means that all traffic in and out of the estate will be channelled to the section of Faber Drive which is highlighted in Map 2. Already the traffic along this stretch of the road at the moment is fairly heavy and one can imagine how bad it will be when the road is closed. Moreover, this stretch of road is just enough for a two-way traffic and cannot be widened. I have proposed to the PWD, as highlighted in Map 3, to open up another junction which is the junction of Jalan Lempeng and Faber Drive. Yet, just recently when the letter came from the PWD, this matter that I proposed has completely been forgotten. I would say that if this can happen to Faber Hills Estate by the construction of a major road like Ayer Rajah Expressway, this can happen anywhere else in Singapore. It seems to me, at least, there is a lack of thoroughness in following through to the consequential effect of a major construction like AYE by the PWD.”
“I believe that Government should be more open with its development plan so that residents can make more intelligent decisions as to whether they should move in or move out from the neighbourhood. This is important since the resistance to another issue that I would like to bring up, ie, the road building project, is related by the residents as they claim that they are unaware of what are the future developments for that location when some of them made the decision to move into the constituency. Now I would like to bring to your notice, Mr Speaker, Sir, the problems arising from the construction of the Ayer Rajah Expressway (AYE) and the Ulu Pandan arterial road. Let me touch on the AYE first and how it affects the residents of the Faber Hills Estate. If fellow Members will refer to the maps (Not reproduced.) I have asked the Clerk of Parliament to hand out earlier. Map 1 shows the proposed Ayer Rajah Expressway from Clementi Road to Jurong Town Hall Road. I would bring your attention to the new interchange at Clementi Avenue 6. There is a brand-new flyover over the proposed AYE that goes northward and joins Commonwealth Avenue West at Clementi Avenue 6 and its extension into the new proposed Ulu Pandan arterial road. When the AYE is completed by perhaps end-1988, it would then be possible to travel by expressway from Jurong Town Hall Road to Changi Airport. This is definitely welcomed by most people. However, building an expressway means that certain roads that have access to Ayer Rajah Road will now be closed. May I refer you to Map 2. In Map 2 on the upper left hand corner, you will find Faber Hills Estate.”
“The HDB is presently building the Bukit Timah Estate at Toh Yi Drive. Before these shopkeepers can derive any benefit from the increased population, they again receive notice of their impending resettlement. So it turns out that these people have been unlucky twice as the neighbourhood is being developed. Once when the population moved out, and secondly, when the tide turns, they have to go. They have to give up their place of business. When they petitioned for a shop unit at the Bukit Timah Estate that HDB is building, they were turned down. It seems that some shopkeepers from outside the Constituency would be allocated those units which have been reserved for resettlement in the new Estate, while the local shopkeepers who are being resettled will have to move elsewhere. In the mind of these people who have been resettled, they feel that the reason for their failure to be considered for the new Estate is perhaps related to the fact that they were being resettled by URA while the new Estate is being built by HDB. I would urge the Minister to clarify this point, ie, regardless of whichever agency is carrying out the resettlement programme, the benefits due to the residents are the same. While the URA has been quite diligent in the resettlement of the residents in the Bukit Timah 7th Mile area, they have not been as diligent when it comes to the disclosure of their development plan for the particular areas. The residents have no idea of what is being planned or proposed for the old Beauty World site and the current Bukit Timah Community Centre site. Even when questions were raised in Parliament by me, the answers by the Minister were very succinct and non-committal.”
“This is only one instance of the problems of resettlement on a vacant possession basis and its negative impact on the residents, with its accompanying impact on the Government. I am sure fellow honourable friends will recall many other examples where tenants had been deprived of their rights under the resettlement policy owing to their ignorance when the properties they rented had been surrendered to the Government by the landlord on a vacant possession basis. There must be quite a number of unhappy stories of persons being taken advantage of by landlords. In all these cases, these people have a tendency to seek redress from the Government and when they fail to do so they would blame the Government for their misfortune. From this experience, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to draw two conclusions. Firstly, repossession on vacant possession basis should be agreed to by the Government with great reservations. In other words, the default option in all resettlement cases should be, where possible, resettlement with encumbrance basis. And whenever the issue of vacant possession is discussed, the tenants should be made aware of the pros and cons. Secondly, the whole repossession basis perhaps would be better coordinated by one single authority or one single agency. In the current mode, HDB, JTC and URA all carry out their own resettlement. Although I am sure that everybody uses the same rule book, but often times the end-results are quite different and people might get confused. Another instance of resettlement problems is the URA programme at the Bukit Timah 7th Mile junction. In this case, most of the people affected are shopkeepers. These shopkeepers were badly affected when the population around the junction or around the site were cleared earlier.”
“This is a very important classification. This means that, for those lots repossessed on vacant possession basis, the residents are not entitled to any compensation with regard to improvements on the land, such as fruit trees and other structures on the land. It seems to me that HDB, with their rich experience, has repossessed all lands on an encumberment basis. As a result, neighbours are treated differently. Of course, given a chance, landowners would definitely like to surrender their land to the Government on a vacant possession basis since their compensation would be much higher. But the impact on the tenancy farmers is very adverse. As far as the residents who are being resettled are concerned, both HDB and JTC are Government agencies. So to them it is hard to figure out what is the rationale, what is the basis for the different treatment they have received. This issue was raised way back in 1984 or even late 1983 by the residents involved. After many petitions to the JTC, including finally a meeting with the JTC, HDB and the residents concerned, in 1985, chaired by me, the matter was resolved. Out of eight persons six have their repossession status changed from "vacant possession" to "with encumberments". This is apparently because the landowner, in this case City Development, has been persuaded to accept the change. However, two of them are still awaiting good news till this day. And that is more than two years since the issue was first raised. From what I can gather, the landlord, in this case Toho Investment (Pte) Ltd, has not responded to the request by JTC to have their status changed. I hope by raising the matter in this House the resolution could be achieved expeditiously.”
“The land around Ulu Pandan incinerator plant, ie Lorong Senohong, Lorong Sakinat and Lorong Hakikit, was slated for resettlement back in the 1982-83 period. When the MRTC decided to site its marshalling yard for the Western end of its network at this location, the resettlement of the farmers in the area was accelerated. As usual, there were the normal problems. For instance, if a farmer is classified as being engaged in farming on the location site, the compensation is much higher. Therefore, everyone wants to be classified as farmers regardless of whether they are really doing farming or otherwise. Other problems include large families being resettled, unlicensed businesses on the site, or request for change of trades by the affected people concerned. What is different in this particular case of the Ulu Pandan incinerator plant is that since the area being resettled is fairly large, the land has been partitioned between two different Government agencies, the HDB and the JTC, according to the future use of the land. So it comes to pass that neighbours who are living next to one another, neighbours engaged in effectively the same activity and renting the same piece of land from the same landlord are being resettled by different authorities. One would expect that since the Government has only one resettlement policy, then there should be no difference whether the resident is being resettled by whichever agency, HDB or JTC. But in practice this is not so. For instance, if the resident is being resettled by JTC and his home is sited on the lot, these lots are repossessed on a with encumbrance basis. However, on the lot outside where they carry out farming activities, away from where their homes are sited, these lots are repossessed on a vacant possession basis.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in this Adjournment motion, I would like to address some issues and its related government policies arising from development work in the Bukit Timah Constituency. Where appropriate, I would like to make some suggestions for the consideration of the Minister. As concluding remarks, if time permits, I will also comment on the evolving attitudes of the Singaporeans, in particular the younger generation, towards resettlement and development projects in Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, let me begin by giving you an idea of the coverage of the Bukit Timah Constituency. Consider the area bounded by the Upper Bukit Timah Road, Jalan Jurong Kechil, Jurong Town Hall Road, Ayer Rajah Road and Clementi Road. From this, take away the constituencies of West Coast, Clementi and Yuhua or part thereof, and what remains is Bukit Timah. There are several significant developments in this Constituency, such as the MRT Ulu Pandan Marshalling Yard, HDB Bukit Timah Estate, the construction of the Ulu Pandan arterial road and the URA development around the old Beauty World site. To carry out these new activities, the Government has to resettle the farmers, shopkeepers and demolish old buildings. Most of the problems encountered are not unique to Bukit Timah, and I am sure my fellow Members here are all too familiar with them, and I do not propose to go into those problems. Actually what I intend to raise falls into three categories as follows: (1) Resettlement of farmers/residents around the Ulu Pandan Marshalling Yard. (2) URA Development Plan at the old Beauty World site. (3) PWD Road Development. Let me begin with the first one.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have a question for the Minister. My question concerns couples and let us suppose the breadwinner has more than $60,000 in his CPF account. Let us consider the case of two couples. In one case, the spouse is not a CPF member but in another case the spouse is a CPF member, and for argument's sake, let us say the spouse has a very small sum of $1,000 in the CPF account. Is it true that the minimum sum retained will be $45,000 in both cases or is it $30,000 in one case and $45,000 in the other case? Is it not strange that in one case where the spouse is not a CPF member, the minimum sum is only $30,000 whereas in the other case, if the spouse during his or her lifetime only works for a very short period of time, then the minimum sum has to be increased to $45,000?”
“My statements are all printed in black and white and I will defend my speech against the Member for Potong Pasir if he is going to distort what I have said.”
“Point of clarification. Will the Member clarify at which point did I say the foreign publications I am referring to are the prestigious publications he is referring to? I merely point out the facts and he is jumping to conclusions.”
“I stand by what I said and I would like the Member to point out where I said, "All foreign publications consistently present a biased view of Singapore."”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe this Bill is appropriate and will be effective in dealing with these publications. 11.52 am”
“But if one asks a publisher, his interest would be to sell his newspaper or his magazine. How to do so in a crowded field of publications? Well, one has to be different, to stand out by coming out with catchy titles and controversial articles. Thus, the editorial policy would be to project a perception in the reader's mind that the publication's articles are probing and thought-provoking. But in spite of all this, the ultimate aim must be to increase the circulation and thereby improving the bottom line. To this end, one finds articles written in some foreign publications touching on issues that are sensitive in a multi-racial and multi-religious society like Singapore, issues that, by national consensus, all responsible Singaporeans consider too sacrosanct to debate in a very careless manner. In pursuing their own ends, some of these foreign journalists are playing havoc with our nation building process, while all the while behaving self-righteously under the delusion that they are the guardians of truth and liberty. While Singaporeans can be counted to sift out the prejudices from the fact, the same cannot be said of foreigners with a little background understanding of Singapore. These foreigners will arrive at a distorted impression of Singapore and among them there could be potential investors. Even if one single potential investor is so influenced, then the efforts by EDB, TDB, etc, to project Singapore as a good place to invest will be wasted. Mr Speaker, Sir, there is really no reason why such foreign publications should continue to profit at our expense. With the ability to restrict the circulation of foreign publications which consistently present a biased view of Singapore, the Bill will provide an effective leverage against them.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, it is clear that whoever advanced this argument knows very little about the newspaper and publication business. For many newspapers or publications, while it is true that circulation revenues hardly cover distribution costs, it is also true that the major revenue of any commercially operated publications is derived from advertisement. And advertisement revenue is the function of, firstly, the number of copies subscribed and who the subscribers are, as well as the number of copies sold at the newsstands. The higher the circulation, the wealthier the readership, the greater is the demand for advertisement space by businesses and the more one can charge for carrying the advertisement. The fact that some publications, such as weekend newspapers, are distributed free clearly illustrates this. Since any commercially operated publications must be profitable to remain in business, circulation figures are indeed watched very carefully. In short, circulation is what makes or breaks a publication. The Singapore readership with its high income level and large disposal income is a prime target group for consumer product companies doing business in this region. I think one does not have to be a successful businessman to realize that, for any publication with a substantial circulation in Singapore, its Singapore circulation figures are very important to its profitability indeed. So one might ask that if circulation is so important, why would any publication, which is not politically funded and motivated, consistently adopt a rabble-rouser stance towards all the countries that it has circulation in? A journalist would say that it is for the freedom of speech, justice, human rights, etc., all lofty idealistic concepts.”
“This is what this Bill is all about, Mr Speaker, Sir, to prevent foreign manipulation of public opinion. Still, under the Bill, foreign judgment, opinions and analysis will continue to be accessible and available since the declared publications will still be allowed to circulate in Singapore. Even then the instruments of information, reproduction and transmission, such as photocopiers and facsimile machines, are readily available and accessible in Singapore. Interesting judgment, opinions and analysis can be transmitted, copied and distributed at very low cost. We can count on the resourcefulness of Singaporeans that this article will find their way into the hands of interested parties. Another form of information exchange that is also becoming more common nowadays is the computer bulletin board. This is a private information centre where a user with a home computer can dial-up the bulletin computers and produce the information at leisure. Before the Monitor ceased publication, we may recall that it indeed operated a bulletin board where a user could dial-up for news and other interesting tidbits. Mr Speaker, Sir, via all the means I have mentioned and some that I did not and some that I am ignorant of, it is clear that access to information will continue to remain free. The net effect of this Bill is that Singaporeans will still get to read whatever interest them. But the fact that they are reading this article will not show up in the circulation statistics of anybody. This brings me to the argument why we should bother about reducing the number of copies in circulation. One part of the argument is that the impact would be minimal because the revenue generated by the sales hardly covers cost.”
“This is precisely what this Bill is addressing, consistently biased foreign judgment, opinion and analysis. So when the Member for Anson says that without freedom of information, we cannot have creativity, he is not referring to the freedom of information but freedom of foreign JOA (judgment, opinion and analysis). Is he saying that, without these foreign JOAs, Singaporeans cannot have creativities? I think if he is saying so, it is an insult to all Singaporeans. I believe we can count on Singaporeans to form their own judgment and their own opinion. Whether one or two publications would be affected by the Bill is not going to restrict or affect the amount of information flowing into Singapore. And Singaporeans will continue to have access to all the information and facts they need to form their own judgment and opinion. Moreover, who are the Singaporeans who subscribe and read foreign publications? By and large, they are the lawyers, doctors, lecturers, engineers and executives in the private and public sectors. These are the well-educated, well-read, well-travelled, Singaporeans and they are trained to think logically. In short, they are the elite of our country, the decision makers. So if you can trust the destiny of our nation in the hands of these people, surely we can trust them to have the faculty, the intelligence and the logical thinking to read for themselves and to come to a logical conclusion, to decide what is biased reporting and what is not. While the individual can be counted on to think logically, the mood of the collective readership of a publication can be manipulated by systematically focussing the consciousness of the reader on certain issues and by the proper choice of headlines and photographs.”
“Foreigners' opinions and foreigners' analysis.”
“And whose judgment, opinion and analysis is he referring to?”
“What is happening in the far corners of the world can be viewed in the other part of the world at the same time. For instance, during the recent World Cup games in Mexico, we all witnessed grown men coming to work with sleepy eyes for staying up very early in the morning watching the telecast of the games. Furthermore, computers are becoming more dominant in the information storage, distribution and transmission. With computer networks spanning the globe, information flows freely across national boundaries. Over the computer networks, millions of characters will flow every second across the wire. And it is close to impossible to regulate such flow of information. Any attempt to do so, in fact, would be futile. Furthermore, there is nothing in this Bill that will restrict the free flow of information, particularly when they are transmitted in electronic form. So free flow of information exists and will still continue to exist in Singapore. When the Member for Anson was arguing his point on the free flow of information yesterday, I pointed out to him that he was contradicting himself by stating, on one hand, the world is getting smaller and, on the other hand, because of this Bill, the freedom of information is endangered. He countered by saying that he was not talking about news items. Indeed, he was talking about judgment, opinion and analysis. So there it is, he is not really talking about freedom of information in general. He is talking specifically about freedom of information of judgment, opinion and analysis.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, since the First Reading of this Bill, many arguments have been advanced against the Bill, some of which have been repeated in this House. Typically, they fall into the following categories: (1) The Bill will restrict free access to information. (2) By introducing this Bill, it is implied that Singaporeans are not able to determine for themselves what is true reporting and what is false. (3) This Bill is ineffective since its impact on the publishers would be minimal as circulation revenue hardly covers cost. I will take each of these points in turn. The Member for Anson has dwelt on the first two points extensively. He asserted that Singaporeans would lose their right to access of information under this Bill. Let us look at the facts. In this age of instantaneous satellite telecast, the world is indeed getting smaller.”
“Without this preclusion under the provision, the cost of the software required for those courses would have made such courses prohibitive. What is a bit vague here is the use of the software in the educational institutions for their own non-teaching use, such as administrative and consultancy purposes. Moreover, the rapid advancement of computer technology might have overtaken the considerations of the Bill. The Bill is silent on the use of computer software in a computer network environment, such as a local area network supporting micro-computers. In this situation, a copy of the computer program is stored in the network service computer known as the network server. As and when the user uses the program, an electronic copy of the program is transmitted over the network into the user's workstation. Since educational institutes may make copies of the software anyway, can they put such software onto the network server without paying for a site licence or a network licence? For private users, is such transient copying a violation of the copyright provisions of the Bill? With Singapore's growth as a developed country and a cultured society, the protection of the intellectual properties is necessary. For example, the popularity of Xinyao indicates that there is a group of budding talents in Singapore. On top of the cultural development, the emerging of a homegrown micro computer industry with companies like Creative Technology, necessitates the implementation of the Bill. These provisions will give them the protection and, in turn, the fiscal incentives they need in their formative years. The Bill touches almost everyone in their daily life. I therefore support the Minister's move to commit this Bill to a Parliamentary Select Committee for detailed consideration.”
“The net result is that the bigger companies would release their products soon after its announcement elsewhere which is a good thing. But for the majority of micro-computer software companies, the situation would be no different from now. I urge the Minister to look into this carefully. A bilateral agreement or ratification of the 1952 Universal Copyright Convention (UCC) would have resolved this difficulty and should be considered when the circumstances are right. It is noted that the Bill has been drafted in such a way that as and when bilateral agreements or when the Government decides to ratify the UCC, no modification of the Bill is necessary. Clause 199 seems to preclude copyrights of all existing products when this Bill takes effect. In other words, copyright protection might not be provided retroactively. Perhaps the Minister can enlighten us whether this is true that no protection or no prosecution of violation of old works could be pursued by the aggrieved private parties. There has also been concern that the Copyright Bill will hamper the pursuit of knowledge, particularly in the educational institutions. I am happy to note that Part III of the Bill deals with this quite adequately with Copying of Works in Libraries covered in Division 5 and the Copying of Works in Educational Institutions covered in Division 6, as I read it. In the case of computer software, clauses 52 and 53 seem to preclude educational institutions from the provision of this Bill. Perhaps the Minister can comment on this. This is important as the instruction of micro-computer software would necessarily mean that in a class of, say, 25 students, each with his own computer, 25 copies of the same software would have been required.”
“Moreover, the US Congress has passed a Trade Act in 1984 tying the benefits of the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) to copyright protection. That the widespread impression of Singapore being a country where violations are rampant, regardless of whether it is a myth or fact, will cause difficulties in trade negotiations. Thus, I support the Government and it is timely for the Government to introduce this Bill. The Bill seeks to regularize the duplication of printed matters, songs, video and cable programmes as well as computer software. The Bill clearly spells out that computer software is an intellectual property which would help in the prosecution of violators. Both fines and imprisonment terms have been increased in this Bill as compared to the 1911 Copyright Act. Clause 26 of this Bill states that copyright protection can be acquired if it is the work of a Singapore citizen or resident. Alternatively, if the work is published or sufficient copies are available in Singapore for distribution (for sale or otherwise) within 30 days of its original announcement or release elsewhere as stated in clause 23, subclause (5). The last provision would have made it a bit difficult for some foreign companies to acquire copyright in Singapore. For example, movie makers, since a movie is typically shown much later than 30 days after its world premiere elsewhere. In the case of micro-computer software, most of the companies involved in this trade are in the US. They are small and without overseas offices. As such, the 30-day restriction might be a bit too stringent. Only a handful of such companies would have benefited from this Bill while the small software developers would not be protected.”
“I would like to state here, and let it be very clear from the beginning, that the subject about computer software is not about large mainframe software, such as operating systems, database languages and data communications software. This software is too complex and requires so much support from vendors that just making a copy is of not much use to anyone. The users of this software are major corporations and government bodies anyway. So there is no problem here. The subject is actually micro-computer software for home use or personal use. In this case, I believe that the extent of software duplication in Singapore is no worse than elsewhere. Definitely, the situation in the US could be just as bad. If we take a look at all the copybreaking software and see where they originate, they have actually all been written in the US for the US market. In terms of dollar revenue loss through piracy, I believe the amount in the US or elsewhere would have been astronomical as well. Yet no one really gripes about it. Such is the nature of the personal computer market. In any event the perception exists. It is not uncommon for micro-computer software vendors to avoid bringing their products to Singapore, or at least they say so, under the impression that their product, once it is introduced to Singapore, there will be no market for it thereafter. More importantly, without proper protection computer software companies might avoid investing in Singapore and such companies have been identified as one of the high-tech industries of the future. Without proper protection, the development of a home-grown computer software industry will definitely be retarded.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, infringement, alleged or real, of intellectual properties, such as musical works, films in the form of video cassettes and computer software for microcomputers, has given Singapore a less than favourable impression. Recent articles in newspapers and magazines highlighted this. The Far Eastern Economic Review, for example, in its 24th April issue reported that Motion Picture Association of America reckons that its members lose at least US$11 million annually because of illegally recorded video tapes in Singapore. The article also mentioned that Singapore is the largest exporter of pirated music cassettes in the world. Another article, using the same figures, expressing essentially the same sentiments, also appeared in the 12th April issue of The Economist. The wordings are so similar that the two articles could very well have been written by the same reporter. The Straits Times, on 8th April 1986, carried a report quoting a British Parliamentary Under-Secretary that the United Kingdom lost o70 million or S$222 million because of pirated goods like books and musical recordings from Singapore. No one has said whether these figures could be substantiated. Perhaps it has become fashionable to estimate revenue loss and attribute it to Singapore. It does not matter to the authors of these articles that there are other countries with very high activities in pirated goods as well and sometimes with quality superior to those of Singapore. To them, Singapore is it. Of course, the problem is that some of the people reading these articles are going to believe them and, like it or not, the perception of extensive copyright piracy activities in Singapore is perpetrated. This perception is also extended to computer software.”
“I would suggest that SDF itself be modified to support the current national training effort with every employee paying a certain percentage of their monthly payroll into this fund, regardless of his or her wage. In that way it would be rational and logical to support a comprehensive national continuing training programme for every employee funded by every employee. If the revenue base is extended to cover every employee, then the levy at a very small percentage would be sufficient to generate a sizeable sum. Let us say this figure is a quarter of a percent. So in the transition from a selective levy to a comprehensive levy, Government could consider actually reduce the current SDF levy further to a quarter percent to help further relieve the cost on employers. And when the economy recovers, instead of increasing the levy back to 4%, we could actually increase the salary limits from $750 per month upwards, gradually until all employees are included in the plan. I submit this for the consideration of the Acting Minister.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have a few words to say about the SDF. The Skills Development Fund is levied by the Government on all employees earning less than $750 per month, and the disbursement of the fund is administered by EDB. As we all know, the percentage of the levy has been reduced from 4% to 2%, and to the current 1%. I am not advocating a reduction of the levy but I would like to draw your attention to the way that the fund is disbursed. SDF disburses grants to support a multitude of industrial and continuing education activities. With the SDF support, vigorous continuing adult education training programmes, such as BEST as well as others involving both private and public organizations, have evolved, benefiting many thousands of employees. In fact, a whole new industry has emerged, providing continuing adult education for the working people. So much so that any course support by SDF is now viewed by the people as a quality course, having earned or having been vetted by SDF. So in the process the SDF scheme has effectively evolved into a national training scheme. This is a good thing and I strongly support a national training effort of this kind. Moreover, to sustain the economic growth of Singapore, as outlined in the Economic Committee Report, such an effort should continue. However, for a national funding organization providing training support for every sector of the economy and for every category of employees, SDF is too narrowly based, since it derives its money only from those earning below $750 per month. While I support the SDF activities wholeheartedly, I have some difficulties in reconciling the manner the money is collected and spent with the egalitarian principle.”
“The best way to do this is to give Singaporeans the freedom of the market-place to grow and nurture their ideas, to work and be rewarded for their effort. But they must exercise that freedom responsibly and within the code of conduct laid down by the majority to safeguard the fabric of the nation. They must use that freedom to create and not to destroy, to strengthen the fabric of society and not to tear it apart. In the history of nations, there are few occasions when Government and people are brought together by circumstance to fight a common battle. The current recession is one of those rare occasions for Singapore. The past one year has seen much soul-searching. Let there be no more misgiving and self-doubt. It is now time for everyone to get on with the job of moving the economy upwards and building a nation of excellence. It is for us to fight courageously side by side to defeat recession and recover lost economic ground. When the battle against recession is over, when victory is ours, as surely it can and will be, then we can all look forward together to another generation of peace and prosperity. [Applause] 4.24 pm”
“These measures will substantially reduce the cost of doing business in Singapore. In addition to the tax concessions, the Government will spend an extra $700 million this year on public projects. They are part of the package of 127 projects costing $3.2 billion which was announced last August. These projects are being brought forward for early implementation in view of the recession. The remaining $2.5 billion will be spent in subsequent years. It is in addition to the $3 billion for upgrading educational infrastructure over the next 10 years. With these measures, the Government will release a total amount of $2.8 billion into the economy in 1986 alone. When the reduction in corporate tax takes effect next year, an additional $420 million will be released into private sector hands. The private sector must now respond positively and courageously. They have to increase investments and create jobs. Our businessmen must now scour the world, even reaching out to unfamiliar lands, to look for new markets. Mr Speaker, Sir, a new generation of Singaporeans is taking over from the old. It has to unleash a new burst of creative enterprise to take Singapore into the 21st century. The Economic Committee's Report on the New Directions for the Singapore Economy has sufficient ideas to overcome the current recession and to propel Singapore through the next two decades. The Government agrees fully with the philosophical thrust of the Report and the policy recommendations. But ideas will remain dreams unless we make them work. It is for us to make them work. They will work only if we pull ourselves together as one team to get Singapore out of the current recession. We face new challenges constantly and we must be quick to change and adapt to new situations at short notice.”
“This upgrading is not confined to physical facilities. We shall also have better teaching staff who must upgrade their skills, like everyone else in the economy. Only then can we produce better - qualified workers and significantly raise the proportion of professional and technically related jobs in the economy. Only then can we enlarge our capacity to attract better quality investments which can provide higher-paying and more satisfying jobs to our people. While the Government will do all it can to facilitate economic growth, it is the private sector that must boost our economic growth. Whatever the visible presence of the Government hand might have suggested, there has never been an iota of doubt that the faith of the Government in the dynamism and creativity of private businessmen has been the secret of Singapore's economic success in the past two decades. We never doubted that the private sector has contributed to our economic growth significantly. This faith has not diminished. Indeed, it will be enhanced. The Government has already taken steps to divest its involvement in business. The private sector must now move in and fill in the place vacated by the Government. We have no doubt that it will do the job as well as the Government has done, perhaps even better. Let me sum up the main points of my response on behalf of the Government. We want to give a clear signal to investors that as a nation we can cut the costs of operating business in Singapore to the bare minimum. It is in the hands of the Government to do so. Employer's contribution to the CPF will be reduced by 60%. The SDF levy will be cut by half. Corporate tax will be lowered by 17.5%. There will be a 25% rebate on personal income tax. The rebate on property tax will be increased to 50%.”
“It agrees with the Economic Committee that Singapore should attract foreign companies to establish their original operational headquarters in Singapore. It also supports the recommendation that foreign income, particularly from exports to services, third-country trade and overseas investments should be taxed on the reduced rate. The Ministry of Finance will study further these and other tax measures recommended by the Economic Committee with a view to deciding how and when to implement them. These tax changes and CPF cuts do not by themselves guarantee success, but they will lay a sound foundation for future economic growth. The Government agrees with the assessment of the Economic Committee that economic growth will be more difficult in the years ahead. The international trading environment is getting less hospitable. Fortunately, being a small country, our appetite is not enormous. We do not require huge markets to satisfy our appetite. Provided our markets continue to grow and provided we can carve a niche for ourselves in the world economy, our economy should be able to grow. The worrying constraining factors are the slow growth in our labour force and productivity. We must quickly make up for the lack of numbers through an improvement in the quality of our workforce. In other words, work better and smarter. This applies equally to management. The Government will assist businessmen to increase their capital stock and the skills of their workers and managers. In the long-term, we can work better and smarter only by raising the educational levels of our workforce. As has already been announced, the Government will spend an extra $3 billion on education in the next 10 years. This sum will be used to upgrade our schools and other educational institutions.”
“However, the Government recognizes that there is a special reason to encourage new investments in many sectors of the economy in this recession. The EDB already administers a scheme of selective capital investment allowances for manufacturing and selected service industries. The scope of this scheme will be widened to include trading and service companies. EDB will also be more liberal in approving applications for allowances under this scheme. For companies which wish to invest in Singapore, new or existing, this is a good time to do so. A few words on the property market. The property market is depressed because of its overbuilt position. It is a problem of supply and demand imbalance, not one of lack of confidence in investing in properties in Singapore. Hence I am personally bullish on properties over the medium and longer term. As long as Singapore progresses and prospers, property values will trend upwards, but of course we must expect its ups and downs. A rebate of 30% on the present property tax rate of 23% has been given for both owner-occupied and let-out industrial and commercial properties, vacant lands, including lands under development and let-out URA, HDB and JTC properties. This 30% rebate will be deepened, with effect from 1st July 1986, to 50%, and extended to 31st December 1988. The additional rebate of 20%, however, will be given only if it is fully passed on to the tenants. The total revenue forgone by the Government is $430 million per year. Other changes to the system of property tax collection are also being planned. Details of these will be announced later by the Minister for Finance. The Government agrees, in principle, with the other recommendations pertaining to taxation.”
“The Government will, as is recommended by the Economic Committee, slowly put in place the machinery for consumption tax on selected items sometime this year. Essentials will not be taxed in order to minimize the regressive effect of consumption taxes. The timing and quantum of any such taxes will take into account its effect on consumer demand and its consequences on an economic recovery. Over the longer term, the more the revenue yielded by consumption taxes, the more we can reduce income tax. This is important. In the special circumstances of Singapore where our survival as an economic entity depends on our ability to remain competitive in the export of goods and services, it is even more imperative that we move away from a heavy reliance on taxation of production, which an income tax is, towards a more even balance between taxation of production and taxation of consumption. Such a move is also consistent with our desire to give the individual more choice in the use of his income. If he wants to spend more, then he pays more taxes. If he wants to save more, he will have to spend less. The Economic Committee has recommended that a 30% across-the-board investment allowance for expenditures on capital equipment and machinery should be introduced as soon as possible. The Ministry of Finance does not support this proposal. It considers the existing tax allowances for write-off of capital equipment and machinery introduced only in FY 1984 Budget adequate. They allow computer equipment to be written off in one year and other investments to be written off in three years. These are generous provisions. Their effect has not yet worked its way through the system, and it would be wise to see how successful they are before introducing permanent changes.”
“Singapore has to defend herself now and beyond 1997. A better comparison would be with nations which have to defend themselves. I am talking about comparison of corporate tax rates, particularly countries from whom we welcome investments and those who are our main competitors for such investments. UK has moved its corporate tax rate down to 35%. The US Administration wants to move its rate down to 33%, but the House of Representatives in Congress is prepared to let it go down to only 38%. Japan has a corporate tax rate of 43.4% for undistributed profits and 33.3% for distributed ones. Taiwan has a corporate tax rate of 35% and South Korea a progressive rate of 20% to 33 1/3%. If these countries move their tax rates down, as some hope to do, we shall review our position and move down to remain competitive. I move on to the recommendation that personal income tax rates should also be brought down as soon as possible to be in line with the corporate tax rates. Marginal tax rates for personal income will be adjusted downwards, with the top rate brought down in line with the reduction in corporate tax rate. These changes will take effect from fiscal year 1987. The Minister for Finance will announce the details when he presents his Budget in March. For fiscal year 1986, an across-the-board rebate of 25% will be given. This means returning an amount of $250 million to the individual tax- payers this year. This is not the first time we have given a rebate on income tax. The Government has been reducing the burden of income tax since 1978. It is motivated by the philosophy that the tax system must reward enterprise, not punish it.”
“The Government will concentrate on enhancing our favourable business climate by improving our fundamentals, keeping pre-tax costs down to the minimum and reducing after-profit income taxes to attractive levels. This area belongs to the Government. The Government will also encourage entrepreneurship and let those who dare reap the reward of their risks. This is the preferred way to rekindle our economic fire and turn Singapore into a powerhouse economy again in the environment of the future. Coming to corporate tax. The Government agrees with the Economic Committee that the corporate tax rate and the personal income tax rate should go down to reward those who dare to venture, and succeed in doing so. But it must be more cautious in pruning taxes than the Economic Committee. The Government must be sure that there will always be sufficient revenue to meet all national needs both for the short term and the long term. It is better to exercise prudence, to avoid taxes going down too low only to up them again in later years. Once taxes go down, they should stay down unless unforeseeable circumstances require them to be revised upwards again. The corporate tax rate will be reduced from 40% to 33% to take effect from fiscal year l987, instead of 30% as recommended by the Economic Committee. The Government recognizes that a lower corporate tax rate will improve the net return of companies. Even as we move in that direction, we must recognize that Singapore cannot compete with Hong Kong on tax rates. Hong Kong is not trying to be a nation. Singapore is. Hong Kong spends less than 1% of its gross domestic product on defence, whilst Singapore spends between 5% and 6% of its GDP on defence. The British will defend Hong Kong until 1997, then China will.”
“Regarding the overall tax philosophy, the Government endorses the underlying philosophy of the Economic Committee's recommendation that: '... a broad-based, low corporate and income tax regime, with minimal selective tax incentives, should be our long-term goal.' In the past, we have successfully used selective tax incentives to promote economic growth. We have, for example, biased investments into the manufacturing sector, and within the manufacturing sector, into specific industries, like oil refining. Such an approach worked, as can be seen from Singapore's economic growth since independence, and the rapid growth in the manufacturing sector, in particular. But it presumes that the Government can spot winners better than the private sector. This is not necessarily so. There is another compelling reason why we now prefer a broad approach towards investments. The economic climate in the next 20 years will be different from that of the last 20 years. No longer are companies leaving their home shores in large numbers in search of cheap labour, tax holidays and industrial peace. New technology, the microchip revolution, robotics or robots that do not go on strike or ask for high pay, have relieved the pressure on these companies to move out of their home shores. Within Singapore, we have also exhausted the simple industries in which we have an obvious competitive advantage, based on location and cheap labour, like the shipyards, oil refineries and TV assembly plants. For the future, the Government will adopt a more open-arms attitude towards all kinds of investments. Whether the investment is high-tech or low-tech, in manufacturing or in services, it is welcome.”
“I must caution here that whether we regain our competitiveness or not in two years depends also on what our competitors do. If Hong Kong, Taiwan and South Korea (the NICs) also hold their wages, then our relative position has not changed. We expect that there will be some growth in their wage levels because their economies are still expanding even though it is at a slower rate while ours is contracting. But should they decide to compete on wage levels and hold down their wages in the way we are holding down our wages, then wage restraint may have to be exercised for more than two years. Over the longer term, we must make fundamental reforms to our wage system as recommended by the Economic Committee. The Committee's arguments for wage reforms are convincing. There is no need for me to go through them. The sooner we embark on the reforms the better. The employers and the unions should consult with each other in the National Wages Council and to plan and implement the fundamental reforms to our wage payment system as quickly as is practical. It is imperative that we embark on wage reforms to bring about a more flexible wage system swiftly. If we do not have a flexible wage system, we lose our suppleness to adjust to changing situations outside. Then next time there is a recession caused by the downturn in the world economy, our economy may break because of the rigid wage system. Now, let me move on to the recommendations on tax changes. This is an area normally dealt with by the Minister for Finance. I have, however, discussed the recommendations with him and he agrees with what I am going to say. I shall, however, comment only on the major recommendations. The Minister for Finance will deal with the details when he presents the Budget sometime in March.”
“This would give them greater discretion in the use of their earnings. Calculated in this manner, the average rate of savings for employees will be less than 50% of wages. The Economic Committee has recommended that in addition to the CPF reduction, there should be, as a matter of national policy, no increase in overall wage levels in 1986 and 1987. I consider this recommendation a test of our national resolve to face up to the reality of the current difficult economic situation. In essence, it requires all of us to lower our standard of living and to lower our expectations. It would be a real test of our strength should there be inflation for one reason or another because inflation will bring down our standard of living even further, in real terms. We do not expect any inflation to be generated domestically in the coming one or two years because of the slack in the economy, but it is possible that inflation could be imported. If this happens, do we have the resolve to restrain pressure for wage increases? We urge all to accept the spirit and substance of the Economic Committee to exercise wage restraint for this year and the next. The public sector has taken the lead by forgoing the half month incentive payment for this year. Workers and companies that are not doing well should help themselves and their employers by not asking for wage increases. They should even reduce their salaries, if necessary. Workers and companies that have done well should ask for wage increases only if they expect further vigorous growth for the companies. And even then, they should exercise restraint. Only thus can we keep down the overall wage level for the country and be competitive as a nation.”
“The Economic Committee has urged the Government to review the CPF scheme from a longer term perspective, to decide on the appropriate long-term rate and structure of contributions that would meet the basic needs of the CPF scheme. The Government has started to do this last year, even before the Economic Committee has come out with the Report. I expect to be in a position to discuss this later this year. Let me reiterate here that both as a nation and as individuals, we want to have high savings. We must have high savings. We do not have natural resources, no rubber trees, no oil in the ground, to produce a stream of income even in times of recession. Whenever we can, we must put aside a portion of our current income for a rainy day. In a way, the current recession underlines the wisdom of our CPF policy, the wisdom of our having saved as much as we could in the past. Had we not saved in the past, we will not be here discussing the economic recession with our nose above water. We will be down on our knees, with cup in hand begging the IMF or other charitable institutions for alms. When the employer's CPF rate can go up again will depend on the pace and strength of economic recovery. What the rate should be will take into consideration the basic objectives of CPF, the need to preserve jobs by keeping wage cost competitive and the productive use of savings. At present, it looks like a flat combined contribution of 50% of wages over a person's working career may be on the high side. But whatever the average rate of savings over a person's whole working career may be, it would make sense to start at 50% for young workers, so as to build up contingency funds as quickly as possible, and later lower the rate for older workers, to lower the wage cost.”
“If these measures are not sufficient, members will be allowed to draw on their balances in the Special Account to help them pay their housing loans. This relaxation of the CPF rules is adequate for the majority of members whose mortgage payments are affected by the 15% CPF cut. The number of members who may require further assistance is small. They will be helped in other ways. For those with HDB housing loans, the HDB will extend the loan repayment period and allow conversion of the loans to easy payment schemes, for example, the ballooning scheme. For hardship cases, the HDB will consider deferring or suspending the instalment payments temporarily. For members with private housing loans affected by the CPF reduction, the Government will provide bridging finance through the banks and financial institutions. The bridging loans will attract a concessionary interest rate of 0.1% above the CPF interest rate for account holders. This is the same interest rate as those enjoyed by the HDB mortgagors. In order not to inhibit the purchase of homes, all those purchasing homes for the first time can impute as though the full CPF contribution has been made by the employers at the rate of 25%. In other words, they can borrow from the HDB or banks, with loans provided by the Government which we call bridging finance, the imputed loss in CPF savings. This will help all first-time purchasers of homes. With all these relief measures in place, no one should have any difficulty in meeting his housing loan repayments caused by the cut in his employer's CPF contribution.”
“Do not forget that many CPF account holders have outstanding housing loans. You give them back their CPF contributions, and they still have to use this to pay their housing loans. What is the net result? No contribution to consumption, but a contribution to taxes. Because they have to pay tax on the employee's CPF that has been refunded to them. Will the reduction in employee's CPF contribution lead to an increase in domestic consumption? The answer is yes. But I think the stimulating effect of this increased consumption is not likely to be great. Singapore is not like the United States. About half a dollar spent in Singapore will find its way out through imports also, unless my guess of human psychology is wrong, I think in a recession most Singaporeans will save the extra dollar which they get because they fear sudden unemployment. We have a recession. It is tempting to sugar-coat or soften the tough measures of the economic package by giving workers increased take-home pay through a reduction in the employees' contribution to the CPF. But if we do this and the economy remains difficult for another one or two years, where do we find more sugar to give away? I think we should face the problem squarely, like a man. The Economic Committee has recommended that for households whose mortgage payments will be affected, the Government should make special arrangements to enable them to reschedule their housing loans. This will be done. Members who have more than $15,000 in their Medisave Accounts will have the excess balance transferred to their Ordinary Accounts. This extra amount of funds can now be used to pay their housing loan instalments. This includes the future monthly contribution of 6% to the Medisave Account, so long as they have a minimum balance of $15,000.”
“So reluctantly, and only because there is no better solution, did we agree to consider a cut in the employer's rate of CPF contribution. It is a painful decision for us to take. It is painful for the workers, for all salaried employees. It is especially hard for the lower income workers. But far better for us to lose a slice of our savings than to lose our jobs. Because if we lose our jobs, that is even more painful. The Economic Committee has recommended that, to reduce operating costs, the present employer's CPF contribution rate of 25% should be reduced by 15% points to 10% for a period of two years in the first instance. This is a reduction of 60% in the employer's CPF contribution. The Government accepts this recommendation and it will be implemented with effect from 1st April this year. In addition, the Government will reduce,for the time being, the employer's contribution to the Skills Development Fund from 2% to 1%. It is not desirable to remove the whole 2% contribution to the SDF as skills training must continue, especially in a recession. The CPF and the SDF reductions will cut the costs of doing business in Singapore and help the employer's cash flow. It will release $1.5 billion into the economy. The 15% point reduction in employer's CPF contribution will be effected as follows: (a) Suspension of the 4% contribution to the Special Account; and (b) Reducing the Ordinary Account of 40% by 11% points to 29%. Some Members have asked that the employee's CPF contribution be reduced by 5% points, or even 15% points as someone has suggested. Let us think this through carefully. What is our main concern in this economic recession? That our costs are uncompetitive, isn't it? How does reducing the employee's CPF contribution help to reduce costs?”