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 4 of 21.
“So, we have this unusual phenomenon of contractors bidding below cost, leading the company to go bust later, but the owner of this company continues to have lots of cash in his pocket. This is unhealthy and should be eradicated. In our attempt to regulate the industry, we have instead created a maze where if you could navigate it, there is still much profit to be made. The situation reminds me of a Chinese saying, "shang you zheng zhe, xia you dui zhe", which means for every policy, there is a counter-measure. Sir, I thought this only happens in China, but it is Singapore here. I also echo Mdm Cynthia Phua's call regarding the rapid run-up of raw material prices, especially steel. They have delivered another unexpected blow to the sub-contractors. It is indeed the proverbial last straw on the camel's back. I urge the Minister to take the current downturn in the construction industry to carry out a thorough multi-ministerial review of the myriad rules and regulations governing the construction industry. Hopefully, we could lay the foundation of a robust and healthy construction industry, which is indeed crucial to the continued success of Singapore. Construction Workforce”
“Sir, the shakeout of the local construction industry since 2001 has devastated many construction companies and their sub-contractors. During my meet-the-people sessions over this period, several sub-contractors came to me, laying bare their problems under the existing contractors' sub-contractor framework, which is viewed to be heavily loaded against them. One, in particular, complained about the novated sub-contractor system. In his case, he won a contract, an open tender, but was forced by the developer to work under a main contractor with whom he had no previous working relationship. In the course of the construction, there was a dispute and the main contractor refused to pay. Not only that, the main contractor forfeited his deposit; the bank pulled out his loan, and he was bankrupted. Soon his home will be repossessed. Sir, it was indeed heart-wrenching to see a grown man cry. In Singapore, Sir, we have other unhealthy practices between main contractors and sub-contractors. These have been highlighted in the newspapers. I just like to point out one, and that is, the sale of headcounts of foreign construction workers. MOM controls the number of foreign workers in the industry by tying the issuance of work permits to the award of major contracts. Thus, when a main contractor gets the job, he could parcel out the foreign workers' work permits to the sub-contractors, often times, at a price. At a good time, the rate could go as high as $1,500 per worker. The sub-contractors have to submit to this because it is their livelihood. The main contractor would also squeeze the workers themselves for a significant sum through their recruitment agents. Thus, the main contractor would make money personally while their construction company could go bust.”
“Madam, in the repairs of ceiling leaks and spalling concrete in old HDB flats, HDB has funded such repairs on a 50-50 basis on the ground of natural deterioration of the material used. HDB is now funding the rivet replacement programme using the same 50-50 principle. During Question Time recently, Minister Mah stated that the rivet problem arose because of three problems - the design, during construction, and maintenance of the windows. It seems that he has assigned a weight of one-third to each of these factors. Madam, the material used in the rivets is aluminium. Enough aeroplanes have fallen off the sky, that even the man-in-the-street would have known that aluminium suffers from the characteristic known as metal fatigue. HDB's decision to switch to stainless steel is a clear admission of the wrong choice of aluminium as a material for window rivets. In fact, it is possible that no amount of maintenance could prevent the ultimate failure of these aluminium rivets. We should put the problem and the responsibility where it belongs, that is, at the design stage when the decision of choice was made. Madam, when a car manufacturer needs to recall cars because of a design fault, he recalls the cars at his own cost and not at the consumer's cost. The most famous case recently involved the A class cars developed by Mercedes Benz which has a tendency to turn turtle taking corners at a certain speed. Similarly, Madam, as a matter of principle, should not HDB bear 100% of the replacement cost instead of getting residents to co-pay for the mistakes it made way back in the design stage? Windows of HDB Flats”
“Sir, like old books, old laws are left in the books, passed by lawmakers long forgotten for reasons many of which are no longer relevant and appropriate to our present society. We forgot about them until, from time to time, someone is hauled before the court. The laws in our books about victimless sexual offences between two adults fall into this category. What takes place between two consenting adults behind close doors is increasingly being viewed as a private matter between them. The State should not come between them. In this respect, Senior Minister of State Ho Peng Kee's reply to Mr Ravindran's question on 6th January this year that there has not been any prosecution for consensual oral sex in private between a male and a female for many years, except in justifiable cases, is no comfort. It merely means that the State retains the discretion to selectively prosecute some while turning a blind eye to others. These people are criminals in the eyes of the law. They are just not caught. So the message seems to be that as long as they are not caught, it is OK. This is definitely not a healthy attitude to the law that we should encourage in Singapore. Further, the recent case where the Chief Justice reduced the sentence of a convicted offender highlighted the disparity of penalties meted out under different sections of the Penal Code. I urge the Minister to bring his review to a speedy conclusion and to decriminalise all sexual acts between consenting adults and to bring about a better parity between penalties under sections of the Penal Code.”
“It is paramount that we take the right steps at these crossroads, so that our children can have a bright future.”
“On these islands, most of the waterfront properties are taken up by wealthy westerners whose lifestyles are very different from the Arabian culture and religion. Yet, the people of UAE are able to accept having areas in their country where an international lifestyle could be maintained without the rest of the country having to give up its traditional values. Could we have done the same? In our recent sales of Sentosa Cove, could we have emulated UAE and opened the sales to an international clientele resulting in a very, very different Sentosa Cove? Could we have changed our mindset to transform Sentosa island into a resort for the rich and the famous? Mr Speaker, Sir, these are just two possible scenarios. I am sure if we put our best minds together, many more great ideas challenging our conventional wisdom will surface. Some of these will be really exciting. Sir, if we could double our population to eight million, say, in 15 years, the population-induced growth alone will return Singapore to a growth-oriented society. To achieve this, we cannot depend on organic growth, as we cannot even have enough babies to replace ourselves. Therefore, our people must be open to a larger influx of foreign-born in our midst. True, we have to balance the interests of citizens with those of immigrants. But, as a society, we would benefit tremendously from the energy and drive of immigrants. We must plug ourselves into the world and transform our country more in the mould of Dubai, Luxumberg and even Monte Carlo. Mr Speaker, Sir, I think we need a vision that is bold and imaginative to liberate ourselves from the limitations we place on ourselves. I support the Minister's goal to transform Singapore into a Land of Opportunity.”
“No Singaporean students even attempted, because they have already concluded that they would not be good enough. Maybe we did a very good job of convincing ourselves of the superiority of foreign talent. But not even try? That is the depth of our lack of self-assurance, our lack of self-confidence. Clearly, Sir, this is a mindset we must get rid of. Sir, so long we depend on rainwater and water from Malaysia to supply our drinking water, there is indeed a limit to the population we could support on the small land area of our island. Thanks to former Prime Minister Mahathir, we were forced to take the dramatic decision to recycle our sewage water as NEWater. When Prime Minister Goh took a swig of the NEWater and the population followed at many National Day dinners, I believe we had broken this mental constraint on our own potential. Now that we are prepared to accept NEWater, we are indeed liberated from the stranglehold of limited water supply. This being the case, Sir, we could support a much larger population in Singapore. In my mind, we could probably double our population to eight million. If we could accept this as a planning premise, we would be talking about a very different Singapore. Secondly, we could have exploited our strength as a safe and peaceful oasis in a world of turbulence. Our competitors in the economic arena would not be able to replicate this in their countries. We could leverage on this reputation to develop into a fun city where high net worth individuals could come to have fun and recreation. Here, we are only limited by our own imagination. Looking at others, I am particularly impressed by the United Arab Emirates, where they have recently developed two fern-shaped islands. Sir, this is an impressive leap of imagination for a desert people.”
“Today, the focus of A*STAR is on life sciences. What were the problems that we had run into? In short, problems of a small population size, lacking economy of scale because of the miniscule domestic market. I suspect we would continue to have minimal success if we were to emulate the paths taken by economies much larger than ours. Our population base is just too small. Sir, how do we become a Land of Opportunity? I do not have the answers, but I believe we need to think out of the box in several areas. Firstly, we need to review whether Singapore is destined forever to have a very small population. The last Government planning target I recall reading in the newspapers was five million. If that were the case, we cannot even compete or compare with a city like Hong Kong or Taipei, not to mention Shanghai or Beijing. All of us grew up with this mindset that Singapore is a small country. We have limited land. We do not have sufficient water. To achieve a measure of self-sufficiency, we set aside close to one-third of our prime land for water catchment. Because of these constraints, yes, we will always have a small population. There are many limitations with a small population, least of which is our mindset. I will give one example. For instance, because we believe that we cannot produce sports champions from such a small population base, we do not even try. What is the problem with this mentality? This mentality seeps through the population and, today, we have young Singaporeans who would not even try when they perceive that they are faced with insurmountable hurdles in whatever they pursue. I was shocked when a HR manager told me that when it sought interns among the students in a MBA programme in Singapore, all the applicants were PRC or Indian students.”
“Furthermore, this vision energises every segment of the society, rich, poor, young or old. It must be a Land of Opportunity for every Singaporean. It should not be a Land of Opportunity just for the talented or the rich. Sir, what would constitute a Land of Opportunity? Whatever the definition, I find it difficult to acclaim that ours is a Land of Opportunity if our economy were to grow at an anaemic 2-3%, the long-term sustainable level of a mature economy. I would interpret the Land of Opportunity to mean that we must transform our society so that our economy would be humming along nicely at a 7% or 8% annual clip. Sir, at the moment, it seems to me that our economy has lost its forward momentum. Like a car with one of its wheels spinning in a slippery pothole, it would be hard for the car to move forward on its own steam without an external push. Today, we have a first-world standard of living, a first-world cost of doing business without the depth and width of the knowledge and technology that underpin the strength of a first-world economy. As our competitors adopt our economic strategies, we found ourselves behind the 8th Ball. Sir, it is not always so. In fact, Singapore has become a model of other resource-constrained societies. In the March 2004 issue of National Geographic that features on Armenia, Singapore was repeatedly held up by the Armenians as a model for the landlocked country to develop a viable and dynamic economy. As others look towards us for inspiration, where do we look in turn? What is the model for us? Sir, we have tried to emulate the industrialised countries to develop our own intellectual properties in R&D. Despite all the money NSTB has disbursed to IT R&D, we have been less than successful in that area.”
“The experience of many of our unemployed in the age group of 50s now with teenage children still in school would surely put a damper on our younger people in having children. To turn around the declining TFR, we must instill confidence in our people about the future of Singapore. While it is true, Sir, that our economy is recovering, I suspect this recovery in the manufacturing sector, at least, feels like a rebound and not a solid recovery based on concrete fundamentals. The rebound of business activities is probably due to an increase of the utilisation of the existing capacity in our plants and equipment. I see that, concurrently, the hollowing out of our manufacturing would continue unabated as China continues to impress with its manufacturing prowess. In the IT sector, India is the rising star. Have we downsized sufficiently to once again be attractive for foreign investors? The marketplace would tell us soon enough. Sir, I believe that this recovery is giving us a breathing space, a temporary relief from the unrelenting global realignment of production capacity for best return on investment. It is paramount for us to make use of this breathing space to transform Singapore. To me, Sir, just cutting costs alone, be it in Government or in private sector, is not the way forward. The logical conclusion of just cost cutting while leaving everything unchanged is to bring us down to the same standard of living as our lower cost competitors. This is not something even the most ardent cost- cutters, like Mr Inderjit Singh, would want. Mr Speaker, Sir, I find it invigorating that the Minister has held out the goal of transforming Singapore into a Land of Opportunity. This is an exciting vision. I hope he will find another occasion to flesh out this vision.”
“Sir, the spoiler in the game in getting out of the rat race is the cost of bringing up children. Whenever one has the misfortune to draw a card indicating that a new baby was born in the family, the chance of getting out of the rat race gets very much worse. When the number of children exceeds three, there is practically no chance of getting out of the rat race no matter how high is your income. After a few games, even my 9-year old son would groan whenever he draws a baby card and say, "No, not again, another baby." Sir, this is what we got when we did not pay attention to the inculcation of family value in our youth and focused on the material incentives in motivating our people in the past. Sir, in real life, whether we are conscious of trying to get out of the rat race or not, we intuitively link the cost of bringing up children with our personal financial well-being. From a dollar and cent point of view, in modern day concept, it is true. This being the case, I urge the Committee led by Mr Lim Hng Kiang to consider how we can address the value system of Singaporeans - how to inculcate the love of a bigger family in our young people. Of course, Sir, this would take at least a decade to show effect. As a society, we must take a total approach to this problem. True, by all means, introduce measures, financial incentives needed to turn the situation around but we should not forget the long- term measures as well. For instance, we might get MOE to include a pro-family concepts in our moral education and National Education curriculum. Sir, the Minister also commented that the economic uncertainty since 1998 also contributed to the plunge in the total fertility rate.”
“He informed the House that measures to encourage more women to have babies would be implemented once the inter-ministerial committee headed by Mr Lim Hng Kiang has finished its work before National Day. Many speakers before me have touched upon what these measures could be and I would not dwell into them, except to say that we should not stop there. We should look into the future, into what Mr David Lim called the "emotional aspect" and what Mr Ang Mong Seng called the "family value". Sir, I believe that the number of children a couple would have is largely determined by the value the couple placed on family. If they grew up wanting a larger family, they will have a larger family despite all the financial burden. If they grew up placing greater importance on creature comfort than children, they would have one, two or, sometimes, zero children. Thus, to redress the declining birth rate, we must inculcate the correct values of on our people from young. There are really no quick fixes. The intrinsic burden of having children is well illustrated in the "Cashflow" game designed by Robert Kiyosaki of "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" fame. It is a board game much like Monopoly with the roll of a dice to determine the number of steps one's chip moves on the board when your turn comes up. The game is designed with the objective to teach players money management concepts to enable them to get out of the so-called rat race. As a wage earner, one gets out of the rat race when one's unearned income exceeds one's monthly expenditure. Sir, my wife was very much taken up by the educational value of the game and got everyone in the family to play the game. In this game, the player learns to invest in rental properties, stocks and shares so that the unearned income will go up.”
“Exempting an individual's foreign sourced income is necessary in this context. I am glad that the Minister has finally accepted this recommendation after this proposal has been repeatedly raised in a wish-list in feedback sessions. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister has reduced corporate income tax from 22% to 20%. Tax reduction is always welcome. However, this would primarily benefit existing companies that are profitable. It still leaves the rest of the companies which are trying to break-even in the cold. These companies would have benefited more from lower costs of doing business, such as statutory levies, taxes and fees. With the expiration of some of the tax rebates, in fact, for these companies, costs have gone up again. Thus, it is regrettable that the Minister did not continue some of the cost reduction measures like property tax rebates. It would have been more welcome if the Government could have brought about a permanent reduction of these costs, instead of just providing a temporary relief. Sir, the Feedback Group on Finance and Small and Medium Enterprises has called for measures to help SMEs to increase their access to financing. I am glad that the Minister has finally agreed to a measure through securitisation. We look forward to greater details on how SMEs could operate under the new scheme. I am also heartened that the Minister addressed the middle-class squeeze by reducing the ARF from 130% to 110%. This is indeed a much welcome move. Mr Speaker, Sir, in addressing the future of Singapore, although he did hold out a vision of Singapore as a Land of Opportunity, the Minister's primary focus on the future is on the declining birth rate of Singaporeans.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the economy is recovering. All indicators point upwards. Companies are starting to hire again. Confidence of the people is slowly recovering. Consumption is picking up in all sectors: housing purchases up, home improvements up, travel up. Everything is up. Everyone breathes a sigh of relief. There is a feeling in the air that good time is just around the corner. While the common man might have short memory, the Government should retain the institutional memory of the lessons learned in this most severe recession we have just endured. In this respect, the Government's decision to cut the budget by 2% per year for two consecutive years is noteworthy. Mr Speaker, Sir, following its usual practice, the Feedback Unit conducted three pre-Budget Statement dialogue sessions. In these sessions, the participants did not provide any new ideas or suggestions. Generally, the sentiment was for the Government to hold the ship steady. Keep the cost of doing business down. Reduce land cost. And, as usual, the plight of the SMEs in obtaining finance is also raised. On the personal tax arena, most contributors emphasised that the middle class needs some relief as the lower income groups have been the focus of Government largesse in the past. Generally, while people harboured some wishes on the Budget Statement, they were not expecting too much. They knew that the tax revenue is down and the Government's budget is in deficit. A refreshing suggestion was made by an accountant to do a total review of our tax regime system-wide as the current one was based on an entrepot economy of Singapore in the early 1900s. Our economy today is much more diverse and complex. We are trying to develop a vibrant wealth management industry. Doing so would require a different tax regime.”
“Tomorrow or some time down the road, we could be debating who would be paying for the replacement of the very expensive backbone equipment of the system. I believe we must grab the bull by the horns and decide whether a Government regulator should be permitted to run the payment system of the sector it is set up to regulate. The existence of EZ Link seems to violate the maxim stated by Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong about the need for a compelling reason for the Government to get involved in a venture that the private sector could provide. EZ Link is a clear example of a Government-owned company without a compelling reason for its very existence. The only logical solution, Sir, is for the Government to put LTA back into the role as the regulator. It should direct LTA to divest EZ Link, where possible. I urge the Minister to initiate such a review. And pending this review, I urge the Minister to put on hold the decision of EZ Link to force commuters to pay for the cards.”
“EZ Link, as a company, has entered into an exclusive agreement with QB Pte Ltd to extend the use of ez link cards for this very purpose. To enter into the realm of multiple electronic applications, MAS stipulated that EZ Link be tied up with a bank. QB Pte Ltd is a subsidiary of Green Dot Payment Services Pte Ltd which is, in turn, owned by Green Dot Capital Pte Ltd which is, in turn, owned by Singapore Technologies. As we all know, Singapore Technologies is a Government-linked company. So the Government has its hands in all this, somehow or other. Sir, I looked up QB on the Net and here is their company vision, and I quote: "QB will leverage the strengths of the ez link card and its strong wallet penetration in Singapore to enable the conversion of cash payments to e-payments, thereby reducing the printing of small denomination notes and the minting of coins, aligned to the MAS' vision of Singapore becoming a cashless society by 2008. QB has set its vision to become a world-class regional e-payment company, leveraging consumer friendly technologies. QB will work with partners in Singapore and the region to jointly build a seamless payment network, using contactless card technologies where appropriate." Very bold vision, very ambitious, no doubt. But is there any hidden agenda as the Government has its footprints or fingerprints everywhere in this e-payment system? Perhaps, the closet entrepreneurs in LTA saw dollar signs all over this payment system when it could be extended beyond public transportation and wanted a piece of the action. Sir, the root cause of the problem is the way that EZ Link Pte Ltd is set up as a company. Today, we are debating about who pays for the cards.”
“Increasing, the refundable deposit would also likely to be readily accepted by the commuters. So why is this step not taken? I think the answer lies in the fact that, in the ez link payment system, the float is being held by a bank, and not by the EZ Link company itself. Therefore, increasing the refundable deposit does not put money into the pockets of EZ Link to pay for the additional cards. Now that the initial lot of five million cards are being used up, EZ Link is under pressure to pay for more cards and the shareholders are unlikely to come up with more investments to help them pay for the cards. Therefore, the commuters are being asked to pay to buy the cards. Which brings me actually back to the fundamental question: why would LTA set up EZ Link Pte Ltd to be a 100% owned company in the first place? Having done so, why does it sign over the right to manage the float to a bank? Why did it not adopt the same model as the TransitLink company that the ez link system be replaced? The TransitLink company is a jointly owned company by the transport operators. In fact, in that system, more than 8.7 million farecards were issued, and the company did not complain that too many cards were issued. There are several reasons for that. Firstly, the cards were cheap. I believe they were 20 cents each. Secondly, TransitLink held the float. More importantly, Sir, there were sufficient savings from the other operations of the TransitLink system to subsidise the cost of the cards. So, indeed, Sir, why did LTA not replicate the same model? I can only surmise the reasons by looking at the moves EZ Link has made as a company. EZ Link card is designed to be used beyond transportation to pay for retail purchases.”
“On the North East Line, Minister Yeo Cheow Tong did - which he denied - a policy U-turn. And Deputy PM Lee described it in public that it was a mistake made by the Government to require more than one rail operator under the premise of increasing competition. Are these just "honest mistakes", as we have a tendency to classify such mistakes made by civil servants? Or is it symptomatic of something deeper? Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let us return to address the actual problem. So what is the problem? The problem is that more cards were issued than was considered necessary. Why are there more cards issued? Maybe people actually lost their cards. Maybe some keep them for souvenirs. Maybe people genuinely need more than one card, given the constraint of this system. For instance, I understand that there is always a queue in front of the machines for the people to top up. So for those people who have no time to top up, they would prefer to have more than one card. Perhaps, some people genuinely need more than one card to feel comfortable at using the system. Since there is a need for people to hold more than one card, and since the company has refused to provide more than one card per person, are there any alternative solutions to limit the card the commuter would hold? I would surmise that one solution would be to increase the refundable deposit. I am sure EZ Link could easily increase the refundable deposit from $2 to $5, $7 or $10, whatever is required, so that most people would find it silly to hold on to more than one card, and most people at most would say, "I would keep two cards." So increasing the refundable deposit would also increase the amount of float held by the payment system which, under ordinary circumstances, could be put to good use by the operators.”
“Then, too, the commuters paid a $1 refundable deposit. They were not required to buy the cards. Why? Sir, I surmise that these two companies understood very clearly the fundamental principle, that is, the commuter is the custodian and, hence, he is only asked to pay a refundable deposit to take care of the card. Of course, Creative Star and TransitLink are subject to scrutiny by their respective public transport regulators. The regulator would probably veto the idea of asking the commuter to pay for the card even if this idea was to be suggested in the first place. Now, Sir, by asking the commuter to buy the card, EZ Link is not just asking the commuter to pay for the card. It is actually changing the basic fundamental principle of the whole payment system. The card now becomes the property of the user - a property the user does not want to own. In fact, he refuses to own, and we are forcing him to own. Sir, EZ Link could do so because its parent, the LTA, is both the regulator and the owner of the fare collection system. This, I believe, is fundamentally wrong. It is wrong in terms of principle. It is wrong because there exists a conflict of interests between the regulator and the operator. Getting the commuter to pay for the cards is a solution to a problem that could only be arrived at by decision makers with a civil service mindset. The fact that we see such befuddled thinking from the LTA should no longer surprise us in this House. In fact, it is the same agency that causes none other than Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong to publicly acknowledge its two very big mistakes. Firstly, Deputy PM Lee Hsien Loong described the scheme to charge the taxi drivers a fee in order to monitor their performance "invidious" in the House recently. So he actually changed it.”
“So, indeed, there are significant incentives for the operators to switch to ez link card system and there are savings that the operators could have used to cross subsidise these cards. The ez link card is just a token in the EZ Link Enhanced Integrated Fare System. The fare payment system cannot function without the cards and the card by itself has no use outside the payment system. By itself, the card has no intrinsic value at all. So it is not an item that you and I would go out and buy just because we fancy it or just because we like to have it in our pockets. Sir, to determine whether the consumers should pay for the ez link card, the question we should ask is whether the card should be a property of EZ Link, or a property of the user? When the ez link system was first introduced, users paid a refundable deposit of $2 per card. They were not asked to buy the card. Sir, I submit that, by so doing, EZ Link has established the precedent that the card remains the property of the company. The commuter is just a custodian of the card. In fact, he is supposed to take good care of it. If a person were to fiddle with the card, I believe he is liable to be prosecuted by the EZ Link company. Of course, whether the company wants to do so is a different story. But if a person were to fiddle with the card to default the ez link payment system, I am sure he will be apprehended. Sir, we are not the only city in the world using these contactless smart cards. The Hong Kong Octopus System operated by Creative Star, a joint venture of the Hong Kong transport companies, is another. There, too, the commuters are not asked to buy the cards. They too pay a refundable deposit of HK$30. Before ez link cards, in Singapore, our commuters were using the TransitLink cards.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, before I begin, I would like to declare my interest as an independent director on the Board of ComfortDelgro, the holding company of several transport operators in Singapore, including SBS Transit which operates the North East Line and also part-owner of Transit Link Pte Ltd. In preparing for this speech, I received no help or privileged information from ComfortDelgro. Everything I needed to know, I found on the Internet. Furthermore, many members of the public have contacted me regarding what I am going to say this evening. All of them are rather unhappy about the arbitrary approach adopted by EZ Link. This is unusual, Sir, and it shows the extent of public disquiet in this matter. Sir, many Singaporeans found this decision to force them to buy the ez link cards high-handed and insensitive. They find $5 unreasonable and the timing of this measure unthinking and lacking in compassion as the economy is still in the doldrums and many Singaporeans are still unemployed. The ez link card system is imposed upon them and they have no choice but to use it. They are forced to pay ahead for services yet to be consumed. Now they are forced to pay for cards that they have no other use other than for taking public transportation. They believe EZ Link, as a company, could arbitrarily force them to do so because it is part of the Government. Sir, I propose to argue that it is conceptually inappropriate to force consumers to buy the cards or to be owners of the cards. We were told repeatedly in the past the advantages of the ez link system, such as proper collection of fares, minimum leakages, ability to implement fare adjustments in small steps, like in cents, rather than tens of cents.”
“Where no criminal offence has been revealed and the Attorney-General may decide not to proceed with criminal charges against individuals, it is still possible that the SAF may proceed with military charges where we feel that the serviceman may not have discharged his duties in a way which is required under the SAF Act, but which, of itself, does not constitute something which is criminally chargeable in the civil court.”
“Sir, I thank the Minister for being very frank in his disclosure in Parliament. I think the key task ahead of us now is to restore confidence of Singaporeans in national service, and I hope that he will conduct the investigation in as transparent a manner as possible. On the other hand, having heard the comment on compensation, I would like to find out from the Minister whether the investigation will be conducted under military jurisdiction or will it be open proceedings in a civil court? For instance, will the findings of the committee be published? If the family decides to take action in the civil court, will the Minister be prepared to release the findings to the public? RAdm Teo Chee Hean: Sir, we have taken the position that the Committee of Inquiry reports are not released, because they deal largely with internal matters in the way that the Ministry or the SAF works. Also, the rules of evidence and so forth at the Committee of Inquiry are not the same as those in a court of law. The purpose of the Committee of Inquiry is to discover as many things as possible so that we can set them right. This is a different purpose than in a court of law, which is to find whether a person is in breach of the law. We have provided summaries of the findings of the Committee of Inquiry and we will also do so in this case. In this case, the investigations have been undertaken by the Criminal Investigation Department of the Police. There will also be a Coroner's inquiry. The Coroner's inquiry will be held in open court. And if the cases do come to court, they will be held in open court. There is no reason to do otherwise.”
“Sir, the reason why I ask is that I recall an accident case involving a lady driver and a woman with a baby at the pedestrian crossing of a road junction. In that case, when it came before the court, it was found that the pedestrian was at fault. From that judgment, it seems that if a person is at fault and gets killed, it is his problem. I am asking whether we can introduce legislation in this House to shift the blame on to the motorist regardless of who is at fault. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: I think each case will depend on its own facts. When the case goes before the court, the respective lawyers will argue the case. Sometimes, one party is wholly negligent. Sometimes, there is contributory negligence. The laws are there. I think it is better that the facts are presented before the judge who will then make a decision as to whether one side is wholly liable or both sides are liable and how to apportion the liability.”
“The motorist is at fault. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: It all depends on the circumstances. There are enough sections in our various Acts, because we can charge a person under the Road Traffic Act or under the Penal Code. There is also a whole range of possible sections. So, for example, we can charge a person for careless driving or dangerous driving. In terms of the arsenal available for punishing errant motorists, it is there. For example, the Member, who has been in this House for a long time, will know that, in fact, the penalty for drivers who exceed the speed limit by more than 50 km per hour, the demerit points go up and his susceptibility to being suspended also goes up. Over the years, we have finetuned the range of punishments. What is really now needed is awareness that everybody can play a part.”
“Sir, would the Minister consider introducing legislation in the House to increase the penalty on errant drivers in situations where they are clearly at fault, and also to shift the onus of blame in such accidents on to the motorists, in favour of the pedestrian or cyclist? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Just to clarify on the Member's question, is he asking us to raise the punishment when the accident involves pedestrians and cyclists?”
“Is it possible that this mindset in our decision-makers has deprived Singapore of innumerable opportunities to take our place in the sun, because we do not want to deal with one or two possible occurrences of unpleasant events? If we truly want a breakthrough into the next phase of our development, not only do we need to get rid of NUTS, we also need to get rid of this "NO VOWels After S (NOVOWAS) syndrome". Let us start by putting back the vowels in our licence plates and have SADs, SEXs and SOBs on our vehicles running around in our city roads. When that happens, we could shake off the straitjacket that we have strapped on ourselves and truly liberate the creativity and energy in our people. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this recession presents daunting challenges to the Government. On the other hand, it is comforting that the same Feedback Unit survey indicates that eight out of 10 Singaporeans believe that Singapore can overcome the current challenges. 67% have faith in the new team of leaders and 69% are upbeat about the Singapore future. Therefore, Sir, if this Government could provide the leadership, our people would rally around and Singapore will come through this valley of gloom. The retuning of CPF is just the first step in this journey of recovery.”
“However, Sir, in my view, we must go beyond getting rid of NUTS. We must become a fun city with creativity and vibrancy. Only then would the Singapore goods and services command a premium in the world market. I think the Government must relax and allow our people to have more fun. The uncertain response of the various regulators on the issue of bar-top dancing indicates that the old mindset dies hard. I call this old mindset of the civil servants, the "NO VOWels After S (NOVOWAS) on licence plates syndrome". Let me elaborate. Did Members notice that as our car licence plate numbers changed, running through the series of "SDZ", the next series actually started with the letters "SFA"? What has happened to the "SEA" series? The answer is that years ago, we changed from the SY series to the SBA series, skipping the SAA series. This was presumably because someone in the decision-making position had decided that there should be no vowel after "S" on our licence plates. The question is: why? No reason was offered except perhaps the civil servant in charge, or even the Minister in charge, looked into the future and decided that it was no good to have "SEX" on the Singapore licence plates. So to avoid the fuss of having to deal with SEX, it was decided to do away with all the vowels after S. In so doing, the decision has deprived Singaporeans some opportunities to have fun with our licence plate numbers and it has also deprived the LTA some opportunities to make some money from selling some interesting licence plates. For instance, some vehicle owners will be very willing to pay a high price for a licence plate such as SEX 999. Sir, while this is not a life and death issue, it does represent the mindset in the civil service and maybe even ultimately, in the Cabinet itself.”
“To prevent abuse, we could put a limit to the amount withdrawable or consider this withdrawal as deferred income from previous years and render them liable for income tax. If we are truly prepared to let Singaporeans take greater ownership of their own lives, as the Prime Minister has urged in his National Day Rally speech, perhaps we should consider this one option. I do not think it is a withdrawal of their old-age savings if they have met their Minimum Sum requirement. Sir, even as the world recovery takes place and the Singapore economy returns to positive growth, together with this recovery, we should take the challenge that we face today as the harbinger of things yet to come. The world has been changed by IT and the Internet. The historical hurdles preventing free flow of knowledge and services such as time, distance and geography have been rendered irrelevant. By allowing the individuals to tap into the world market, even Government is becoming less of a consideration. Witness the success of the Indian IT industry despite the same old Indian political system that hampers the other aspects of the Indian economy. So, in the case of Singapore, while having a good Government allows us to enjoy a premium, I believe that the quantum of this premium is reducing and diminishing rapidly. Good government remains important, but in exploring new frontiers, the individual is now the key motive factor. I am glad to note that the Prime Minister, in his National Day Rally speech, has indicated that his Government is now prepared to change to a new mindset. He said that only what is prohibited in the future is not allowed. Everything else is fair game. While the Prime Minister did not use the term "No U Turn Syndrome" or NUTS, in effect, this is what he was talking about.”
“During the times when our economy enjoyed 8-10% per annum growth, that was not an issue. But, today, I believe, it stares us in the face. Sir, the Prime Minister has also touched upon the various aspects of changing the CPF scheme affecting older workers. At this point in our recession, an immediate issue of addressing how we can help the long-term unemployed, ie, people who have been unemployed for nine months or more and have very little prospect of finding a job in the immediate near term, we might have to face the fact that jobs would be hard to come by for a while, especially for these older workers, even though there are those who do not like the words "older workers". At the moment, our assistance to these long-term unemployed is through providing training opportunities and, if they do show up at the MPS of PAP Members, we will provide them through some cash disbursements using our welfare schemes. The question many of these affected persons have been asking is: why can they not draw on their CPF money to make ends meet if they have already enough savings in their accounts to look after their old age? Since we are changing the CPF scheme - quite drastically I must say - maybe we should consider this one change. There is this provision of a Minimum Sum in the CPF scheme and which is being adjusted upwards year by year. For those few individuals - I am not sure if there are many of them - but for those few who have amounts larger than the Minimum Sum, maybe we should look at the possibility of allowing them to withdraw the balance from their CPF scheme before reaching the age of 55 years old. This will alleviate their pressing needs when they hit a long period of unemployment.”
“Even if there is a willingness today in the Government to explore means to help businesses to deal with high land cost, the Government might not have the means to do so, as it is reported in the press that we are encountering a Budget deficit of close to $3 billion for the first six months of this year. Sir, this Government is known to loathe using the second key, unless the situation is truly desperate. I would like to ask the question: is it possible that we have forsaken some policy options that could help in this recession because of this budgetary constraint? For instance, have we considered capital allowance for commercial properties? Capital allowance is now only granted to plants and machinery that generate income for a company. Except for hotels, most commercial properties do not qualify for capital allowance. On the other hand, if a company uses a commercial property to operate its business, then it claims rental expense as a reduction in its tax computation. Furthermore, Sir, recent corporate governance guidelines also require diminution of the value of commercial properties be provided in the profit and loss statement. With the decline of the property market since 1997, this has been a drag on the performance of all companies owning commercial properties. In this respect, if we do not deal with the drag of high land cost on our economy, we are like a boxer jumping into the boxing ring with one arm tied behind our back. I must hasten to add that I am not suggesting that we raid the reserves the moment we run into trouble. I am just pointing out that the unnecessary constraint we put ourselves into by locking away the reserves every four or five years while the other components affecting our economy have longer life cycles.”
“The Government has already indicated that if we were not careful in our attempt to reduce land cost, we could bring about asset deflation. As we know, more than 80% of Singaporeans are home-owners. Asset deflation would surely adversely affect all of us. Already, bankruptcies have hit an 18-year high, as reported in the news media. If asset deflation were to happen, the evaporation of billions of dollars in the value of assets will surely put our economy into a tailspin. Sir, while we profess that we could not readily reduce high land cost, I thought it would be useful to point out that the Government's land sales in the past have actually accumulated some surpluses from the high value of land. In fact, if we recall, Government land sales were timed to maximise revenues. By our budgetary process, the proceeds from these land sales are below the line when the Budget is presented to Parliament every year. Therefore, it becomes part of our reserves. After the dissolution of every Parliament, these land sale proceeds could no longer be touched without the second key. However, the impact of these sales at a high value lingers on, as leaseholds of these lands are either 30, 60 or 99 years. Thus, we pay in advance for the use of land and we are now living with the aftermath of high land cost. Sir, it is my view that the way we manage our surplus from the land sales puts an unnecessary constraint on the way we manage the economy. The life of every government is at most five years, but property cycles are typically 10 years. The economic cycles are shorter at three to four years, but they are not in sync with our political cycles. Thus, what we put away in boom times, we cannot use in lean times.”
“The need to go beyond a CPF cut has been raised by those who have spoken ahead of me. They have also touched upon how to deal with the difficulties Singaporeans will face in their housing mortgages as a result of these cuts. I am confident that the Government would have considered all these and would have counter-measures in place to deal with them. Sir, I would focus instead on the question of what we are trying to achieve in this cost-reduction exercise. Are we, firstly, attempting to stem the tide of job losses? Or are we trying to turn around the job losses and try to entice industries that have already left for cheaper locations to come back to Singapore? Or are we trying to prepare ourselves to catch the wave of the recovery when it surely would eventually come? In any event, the proposed reduction in the employers' CPF contribution rate from 16% to 13%, an effective reduction of only 2.6% of the payroll burden, is, by itself, unlikely to swing things one way or another. While this small reduction is a relief to all workers in Singapore, I must confess that I am not too clear what the Government is trying to achieve with this reduction. Let me paint a scenario. Consider a gymnast on a trampoline. In order to reach a higher point, I think the gymnast would press the spring harder, go down lower, so that, on the rebound, he would reach higher. So, let us assume that Singapore needs a system-wide reduction of at least 10% to make the world sit up and take notice. Where would the balance come from? That is a billion-dollar question. Could we have done something about land cost, which is of course, as we all know, a major cost of doing business in Singapore?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Singaporeans intuitively understand that their wages are high in comparison with the countries that are competing with us for the same investment dollars. Singaporeans are a rational lot. They travel to the neighbouring ASEAN countries, China and India. They know that, like water seeking the lowest point, investments go to the location yielding the best returns. They know that we have a high standard of living not simply because Singaporeans are by nature somehow better or cleverer than others. We managed because we have a better Government in Singapore. The Prime Minister had earlier mentioned about India and China, and why these countries were not competing in the world a decade ago. Now that these countries have adopted identical strategies that we had pursued successfully in the past, the competitive scene has changed completely. So, Singaporeans accept that, one way or another, the cost base for doing business in Singapore must be reduced. This is reflected in the findings of the Feedback Unit. 70% of a group of respondents, representative of the Singapore population, supported the idea of restructuring the wage system for Singapore to remain competitive. 71% supported the idea of setting a range of CPF rates to allow for flexible adjustments in response to changing economic conditions. 61% agreed that the CPF system should be changed to help Singapore remain competitive. 64% agreed to the retuning of the Singapore CPF system to save jobs. Only 56% agreed that in order to keep business costs low, CPF should be cut. In other words, Singaporeans are in support of retuning the CPF to remain competitive and to save jobs. However, to keep business costs low, most believe that more than just a cut in wages is needed.”
“Sir, I would like to ask the Minister of State whether any other public utilities company in the world pays interests on their deposits.”
“To begin with, I would like to thank the Minister for giving a very comprehensive answer and giving us an opportunity to ask further question on his Ministerial Statement. I really do not want to make his job more difficult by exploring more the data, but since he has given the data in Table 2, I would like to draw his, and also fellow Members' attention to manufacturing. I am particularly perturbed by the figures. For instance, in year 1998, while there was a shrinkage, you see the locals shrunk by 19,000, foreigners shrunk by 7,000. In 1999, there was a growth and locals increased by 400, foreigners increased by 4,000. As you go down that column, you will notice a very distinct pattern and the conclusion I can draw will be very similar to what my fellow colleagues from the labour unions have pointed out, ie, Singaporeans seem to be the first to go, last to hire, in manufacturing. If you look at manufacturing specifically, Sir, over the 5-year period, while there is a shrinkage for Singaporean locals of 28,000-29,000, there is actually a growth in the foreign workers by 11,900. So, contrary to our guidelines in foreign labour and quotas, it seems like in manufacturing the employers seem to have preference for foreigners. Could the Ministry of Manpower look at this further and see whether there should be some adjustments in our employment guidelines?”
“Sir, I would like to confirm with the Minister that, based on his statement, if a mortgage payment ranges from 20-40% of his income, he would consider it as affordable. Secondly, since we are currently paying 20%, if the mortgage loan increases, let us say, to 40%, is it still considered affordable for a Singaporean to own a HDB flat?”
“I would like to ask the Minister whether HDB would consider lowering the price of new flats if the affordability of Singaporeans has indeed become lower and also if the costs of the construction have indeed become lower, such as construction cost and land cost.”
“I mean "terminal" internally, but not known outside.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. Would the Minister consider that, despite his assertion that nobody goes into business to commit suicide, for a company which is already in "terminal" difficulty, it is possible that such a contractor will tender with a suicide bid and, not only that, he will tender as many bids as possible so that it will go down with a big bang rather than with a whimper? And having looked at this evidence, would he take this into consideration as a lesson learnt when he reviews the tendering system?”
“I would also like to ask the Government whether, in implementing the various measures, we have taken human psychology into consideration. To me, Sir, it seems that all the measures depend on two factors: one, public spiritedness of the citizens, and second, by penalty, in other words, punishment. But, Sir, is it not true that there are individuals who, through self-denial, will go to all extent to say that they do not have SARS, and to be sent to Tan Tock Seng Hospital seems to them to be a sentence or label that they will try to avoid at all costs? Perhaps, the Government should also have considered human psychology in this respect by going through better publicity to show the recovery rates of patients from Tan Tock Seng Hospital so that going to Tan Tock Seng Hospital is not considered a death penalty or sentence. That, I believe, is pretty important as well. May I beg your indulgence here also to express my personal tribute to the healthcare workers for their sacrifice in this battle against SARS.”
“I would like to ask the Minister whether the Government would differentiate the usage of the terms "SARS-affected areas" and "SARS-affected countries", in particular, in relation to large countries like Canada and China.”
“Sir, I thank the Minister, the two Ministers of State, and the Parliamentary Secretary for their comprehensive replies. I am grateful to the Minister for his decision on class sizes. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Madam, in the dialogue sessions conducted by the Feedback Unit on social cohesion, the issue of racial interaction among our children is a recurrent theme. Participants are concerned with how to inculcate tolerance and understanding of each other's cultures and habits in our young. In fact, some of them do not like the word "tolerance". Tolerance connotes something that it cannot be helped with. They prefer the word "acceptance". Acceptance is a two-way street. It is not just for the majority to understand the culture and the values of the minority, but also for the minority to appreciate the need to give and take. Living in a multi-racial society, we must learn to accept the culture and habits of our neighbours which could be very different from our own. To achieve this, most of us will agree that interaction among our young is the best approach. Ideally, all our children should have the opportunity to intermingle with children of the other races while growing up - play together, eat together from young. In that way, there is little opportunity for extremist views to take root. Madam, currently, the racial composition in many of our schools does not reflect the racial composition of our population. Thus, there is a need to find ways to force a greater interaction among our pupils and students. I believe one of the best approaches is through sports, such as soccer and hockey. I would suggest that MOE explore organising regular sports meets, perhaps with the Community Development Councils, so that children have greater opportunity to interact.”
“30 pm Furthermore, would the Minister explain the trade-off between the cluster university concept versus starting the fourth university as originally proposed? The market had actually responded to the vacuum with SIM publicly declaring its interest to evolve into the fourth university. Does this proclamation by SIM have the Ministry's support?”
“Madam, MOE recently released a paper on university sector review. I have several concerns about its recommendations. Firstly, the Government is targeting to enrol 25% of the cohort into university when the implementation is in full swing. This is a numerical target. Once the facilities and manpower have been built up to take in this number, the institutions will enrol that target number of students. However, in terms of calibre, we might not be enrolling the top 25%. We know that significant numbers of our JC students go overseas for their education. Thus, we could be enrolling students down to the top 30% of a cohort. If that is the case, would there be a concern that standards in our universities could be maintained? And how does this tie in with our aspiration to build a world-class university in Singapore? Furthermore, the current graduate unemployment rate has illustrated that our economy might not absorb the number of graduates already as it is. If we expand the enrolment further, would we be creating an even bigger problem in the future? In the year 2000, former Minister of State, Mr Peter Chen, championed the concept of a fourth university. One of the objectives of the fourth university was to cater to the aspiration of the large pool of polytechnic graduates in the workforce looking for an opportunity to upgrade. As we know, 60% of the 'O' level students in our cohort proceed to polytechnic. And, at the moment, only the top 10% of polytechnic graduates get to enrol into the local universities. Yet, of those who have gained admission into foreign universities, they have performed very well. Now that the fourth university is no longer on the table, do we cater to this niche in the new vision of university education landscape in the future? 4.”
“Thus, for children in P1 and P2, I believe that our children will benefit significantly from greater personal attention in the class than they are today if they could have fewer pupils in a class. Rather than calling an across-the-board reduction in class size, I would urge the Minister to consider reducing the number of pupils in P1 and P2 only, so that the teachers could better maintain class discipline, while paying significant attention to the pupils and, at the same time, meet the ever-increasing demand of higher expectation. 2.15 pm Sir, I think in some of the developed countries, teacher aides are used to support the teachers in the classrooms. We do not have to go that far but, I believe a smaller class size in the early years will work wonders for our children.”
“Sir, primary education will always be tugging at the heartstrings of our parents, as we see our young adjusting themselves to the discipline and rigours expected of them in schools. For those of us whose children adjust easily, it is a big relief. For those whose children do not, it is a source of great anxiety and stress. Sir, I think one way to address this concern is to look at the ways and means to ease the adaptation of children to primary education. The attention the children receive in class is important and, to have better attention, one possibility is to reduce the class size. I have reviewed the studies on class sizes done overseas in the US and Japan, and must confess that I could not find any conclusive evidence showing that smaller class size would necessarily mean better education. It seems to me that it is more important to have better teachers than to have smaller class size, everything being equal. But, of course, we must bear in mind that, in Singapore, our class size is already larger than those of the developed countries which I have mentioned. However, I think the one-size-fits-all class size might not be the best option when it comes to Primary 1 and Primary 2 classes. We should realise that in our pre-school, childcare and kindergarten classes, including PCF kindergartens, the class sizes are already smaller than the standard size of 40. Presumably, Sir, this is in recognition of the fact that younger children need better and closer personal attention so that, when the children join Primary 1, they will endure a quantum decrease in teachers' attention. Some adjust well and some do not.”
“Sir, in land-scarce Singapore, everyone has the impression that in Singapore, there is always going to be short of land, Government landfills notwithstanding. Therefore, investing in land cannot be that wrong. Government has also reinforced this concept through very careful and controlled release of land through its tendering system. As a result, often times, property investment yields fantastic result not because of its intrinsic value but because of Government's land policies. This has led to over-investment in land by businesses and individuals. Regardless of whether it is residential, commercial or industrial land, their value has escalated over the years, leading to the current high land cost in Singapore and contributing much to our current difficulties. In fact, it was a surprise to learn from the Minister for Finance in his recent Budget Statement that there is no shortage of industrial land in Singapore - not now, not ever. So, in a way, one wonders what has JTC been doing over the years, allocating industrial land at ever increasing land price, until recently. Sir, unwinding the current situation is extremely difficult. As the Minister for Finance has indicated, we would all be very worried if Government causes a collapse in land price, leading to negative equity suffered by all Singaporeans. On the other hand, if we were to leave the current situation to slowly digest the inflated land price, it would also delay our economic recovery. In the ERC Report, the concept of competitive factor pricing for land use has been introduced. I would like to find out from the Minister how he proposes to implement this concept.”
“I would like to find out whether for those who are unemployed for one year or more, would the Minister consider phasing in the CPF contribution rate starting from zero to the full contribution rate over, let us say, nine months or so?”