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 5 of 21.
“If, indeed, this is the case, then the unemployment rate figure is not giving a true picture. So we might be lured into a false sense of comfort if policy makers were to just look at the unemployment rate alone. With regard to the unemployed workers, I am particularly concerned about those with little hope of finding a job after being unemployed for nine months or more. To help these people back to the job market, would the Minister consider changing the CPF contribution rate for these structurally unemployed people? For those facing long-term unemployment, it is indeed futile for them to plan for retirement when they cannot even take care of their current needs.”
“Sir, I have been wondering why Singaporeans are so despondent, to use the word of the Minister, about the economy when our unemployment rate was 4.2% in December 2002, having dropped from a high of 4.6% in September 2002. This has translated to about over 80,000 unemployed workers in Singapore, bearing in mind that even in boom time, the unemployment rate was about 2%. So based on unemployment figures alone, our economy should have been much better off than Hong Kong with its unemployment rate of 7%. But in terms of the people's psyche, I believe our people do not seem perkier than those of Hong Kong. So my question is whether the statistics tell the full story. I browsed through the published figures of MOM, paying particular attention to the table of change in employment in the Government press release on 31st December 2002. Change in employment, Sir, refers to the change in the number of jobs in our economy compared to the previous period. This figure shows that the Singapore economy has had five consecutive quarters of net job losses from third quarter 2001 to third quarter 2002, totalling 63,000. However, I was unable to match this change in employment figure with the employment rate of the corresponding period. If we were to add 63,000 to the number of workers already unemployed at the end of second quarter 2001, which was 60,000, or 3%, of the total workforce of close to 2 million, the total number of unemployed workers should be around 123,000 by third quarter 2002. But we have a lower number. So it seems that some 40,000 workers who have lost their jobs have simply disappeared from our radar screen. I really could not reconcile these numbers and would like the Minister to elaborate. Part of the reason could be that those are foreign workers.”
“It would have been ideal if the Minister could prescribe a blend of western and herbal medicines so that we would have the best of both worlds from both practices. Mr Speaker, Sir, our economy is indeed in transition. As Mr Raymond Lim pointed out, in a knowledge era, those resource-endowed countries are not necessarily those that would emerge as winners. Often times, the resource-deprived countries are those that would vault ahead of the others. In this respect, I am reminded of the analogy of the evolution of species. Species evolved from a small population are subject to rapid and severe change in the environment. The weaker ones are eliminated and only those who can adapt would survive. Our economy is now subject to severe challenges. Elimination of the weaker companies is painful but necessary. Sir, I believe that so long as we take care to maintain social cohesion through helping those unfortunate amongst us, Singapore will emerge stronger and fitter at the end of this journey. I thank the Minister for a thoughtful Budget that strikes a balance between the diverse needs of the economy. I support the motion standing in his name.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding my comments, I found the Budget indeed to be a very carefully crafted one, balancing the short term needs as well as the long term goals of our country. It is a deficit budget designed to maintain Government expenditure in a shrinking economy. It maintains the support for the lower income groups. And furthermore, the Deputy Prime Minister has been bold to introduce several new measures, such as tax exemption for foreign-sourced income and interest on local bank deposits. The first exemption has been proposed repeatedly in the past by Feedback Unit participants. I am indeed very glad that the Government has finally agreed to this suggestion. The tax exemption on interest on local bank deposits is indeed quite unexpected. It is indeed quite uncommon in this world to find a government that is prepared to exempt taxes on interest from savings account. I believe this exemption will continue to promote the habit of saving and will provide great relief to our retirees who are largely dependent on their savings to see them through retirement. I would like to thank the Minister on their behalf. Mr Speaker, Sir, the prescription of the Minister for our economy reminds me of the approach between western medicine and herbal medicine. Western medicine provides quick and effective relief but sometimes has severe side effects. On the other hand, herbal medicine must be taken over a long time. It is also a more holistic approach that probably would bring about better long term health. Singaporeans have been expecting western medicine in this Budget, but the Minister has prescribed herbal medicine.”
“In fact, one of my favourite gripes is the hurdle imposed by immigration on visitors from emerging countries, like India and China. It might have been true that, in the past, many visitors from these countries ended up as over-stayers. But to treat every applicant from these countries who visits Singapore as a potential over-stayer would indeed deprive many business opportunities for tourism and education enterprises in Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, many of the changes that we propose will involve pain. When the Government promises that no stone will be left unturned, no one expected that the Government will respond to some of the worms under those stones by restructuring the Government agencies, such as PSA and HDB, through massive retrenchment or early unemployment. While shedding surplus manpower is oftentimes the right approach, making jobs redundant, in particular by the Government, should be the last resort. Sir, a job is more than just a person receiving a pay cheque. A job indeed defines the role of the person in society. It gives the person respect and dignity. Often times, the workers are not at fault. Again, let us come back to the case of PSA. It is the management that lost the top two customers through inflexibility or insensitivity. However, if you look further, as I said earlier, it is also the Government land use policy that saddles PSA with a burdensome land cost that PSA must recover from its customers. Thus, the Government is ultimately responsible for PSA's troubles. Extending this idea to all businesses, it is also clear that Government land use policy has played a major role in bringing us to our current difficulties. Only the Government could unwind the situation that we found ourselves in.”
“EDB's response would be life sciences. The ERC's response would be to create more entrepreneurs. But who will really help the unemployed to help themselves? I think the question is left unanswered. In the South West CDC, Mayor Yu-Foo has been trying to create a people's market where the unemployed could somehow become self-reliant. But the problems she encountered are indeed monumental. The third question we should ask ourselves is whether values, that we have, have hardened into dogmas. It is true that our values inspire and unify our people. However, they too can harden into rigid, self-defeating policies. For instance, the HDB's housing policy provides two bites of the cherry for every Singapore citizen. However, by pursuing it without putting on our thinking hat, the Government is today left with a backlog of thousands of unsold flats. This brought the building programme of HDB to a halt. The building contractors that have been dependent on HDB's building programme are all now facing difficulties, some are facing bankruptcy. The other example is the CPF contribution rates. On the one hand, we say that CPF should return to the basics of providing for retirement. On the other hand, we somehow convince ourselves that the proper CPF total contribution rate is 40%. So, when the economy turns around, we pledge that we should restore that number to 40%. Mr Inderjit Singh pointed out yesterday that such a policy creates uncertainties with regard to the cost of doing business in Singapore. It is not only the promotional agencies, such as EDB, JTC, IES and STB, that should subject themselves to this particular review by asking themselves the three questions I have proposed. I have also in mind regulatory agencies, such as Immigration, Fire Department, URA, etc.”
“The same frames can also blind us to emerging threats and opportunities. One example I would like to give here is our land use policy. In the boom time, the Government adopted the policy of assigning a value to every piece of land based on alternative use. Doing so seems logical when such land could be converted to residential use, for instance. But adopting this policy universally means that our infrastructures, such as power generating plants, have to pay high land use fees. Our port authority, the PSA, also has to pay high land use fees. We did not foresee the emerging threat of Tanjung Pelepas where the operator is given effectively free land by the government. While it would seem that it was the PSA management that lost its two top customers, ultimately, I think, it is still the Government's land use policy that drives up the cost of doing business for PSA. Recognising this, the ERC Report has proposed the concept of competitive factor pricing, which has been accepted in principle by the Government, and we look forward to the detailed implementation of such a policy. The second question we should ask is whether proven processes have hardened into routines. We are getting infamous for Government rules and regulations. Mr Raymond Lim had already addressed this and he proposed to time-stamp every rule in the Government. I think also, in this respect, we should ask ourselves whether our Ministries and agencies are fortresses onto themselves. Has the division of labour become so clear that what is undefined is left unattended in the no-man land? For instance, let us ask the question: how could we help the unemployed workers? MOM's response would be coming up with programmes for retraining and upgrading. MTI's response would be looking for more investments.”
“However, Singapore has pursued the same formulae of success for so long that perhaps our mindsets and institutions might not be suitable or appropriate to deal with the new challenges facing us. In leaving no stone unturned, we could draw some lessons on how successful MNCs react to a changing world. Or rather we can learn more lessons from those outstanding companies that failed to respond to changes. It is true that if we look at the corporate records, some of best companies in the world languish when the market changes. Why? It is not that the management did not foresee the challenges. It is not that the management did not formulate the proper response. They failed because they continued to carry out the counter-measures using the organisational structures and the processes that had worked in the past. They failed because they did not question whether those processes and organisations will continue to work in the new environment. Indeed, some of them went into overdrive, launching programme after programme to check their competitors. I think, as a government, we have to avoid similar pitfalls. We should relook at all Government departments, agencies, both regulatory and promotional ones, to see what needs to be refocused and what needs to be restructured. We should go beyond fashionable name changes such as A*Star, SPRING, and IES - with the result that nowadays people find it difficult to even remember what they stand for. Again, in the spirit of leaving no stone unturned, I suggest that the Government administration, in general, should ask the following questions: First, whether strategic frames that have helped us to succeed in the past have become blinders? Such paradigms shape how policymakers view the world and allow us to make quick policy decisions.”
“Now that the Budget is a deficit one, people are more relieved. On the other hand, some have pointed out that we could have even a bigger deficit. Mr Leong Horn Kee had brought this up yesterday. But I think we all know that we cannot spend our way out of a recession. Perhaps we can ask: why would the Deputy Prime Minister present a budget in this way? This is the first budget he presented after chairing the ERC. Had it been possible, he would probably like to make this Budget Statement a dramatic one. If it had been possible to turn the economy around by one simple Budget Statement, he would have then left an indelible imprint on the population. The bond between the new generation leaders and the younger generation of Singaporeans would then be cemented. Thus, the lack of new measures providing immediate relief in the Budget speaks volumes about the challenges facing us. It should be clear that there are no quick fixes. This should be humbling for the Government to realise that when the tide is against us, even the best Cabinet in the world could not buck the trend. On the other hand, I must give credit to the Deputy Prime Minister for not adopting any quick fix measures that would dig us deeper into the hole, from which we would then have to work harder to climb out of later. Mr Speaker, Sir, Government must take charge in leading our people out of the current depression, both with regard to the economy and also the confidence of our people. Government is the only institute we have that is able and could do the task. Mr Khaw has spoken about complacency yesterday. He warned that we would fail as a nation if we were complacent. I would go even further and say that we fail if the Government does not, as a whole, rise to the occasion.”
“Sir, clearly we have to find some alternative means, even if they were the old and outmoded means to address the unemployment situation. Singaporeans are so used to the Government's ability to tackle the problems at hand and to make some policy changes and, presto! - we would be back on the normal growth path within a very short period of time. So much so that we in Government believe that the Government holds the key to job creation and prosperity of our nation. That is also why our people accept the salaries of our Ministers and senior civil servants to be pegged to the private sector. That is why we have the best paid Cabinet in the world. But based on this Budget Statement, there is indeed a mismatch between our people's expectations and the ability of the Government to deliver. As usual, Sir, the Feedback Unit conducts dialogue sessions prior to the Budget day. Unlike previous years, participants in our dialogues did not have many new ideas. Perhaps all the new ideas have already been submitted to the ERC. In a fact sheet given to the participants as pre-reading, we asked a question: what would you do if you were the Finance Minister? Perhaps it was a wrong way to prepare the audience. The responses we got could be summarised in this one statement: "If the doctor does not know how to treat the patient, it is time to change the doctor." In short, our people are depending on the Finance Minister to pull rabbits out of the hat. However, on one issue, which I think we have unanimous conclusion, and that is, everyone felt strongly that the Government should not plan for a budget surplus in this fiscal year. The ground reaction would have been extremely negative had the Minister presented a conservative budget with surpluses.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the key thread that runs through the ERC Report is the lack of entrepreneurship in Singapore. There are many recommendations to make Singapore society more entrepreneurial. It is important enough for the Government to appoint Mr Raymond Lim to be the Minister-in-charge. Sir, we do not envy Mr Lim in his new job as he has the most unenviable task. How to convert a nation of salary earners to a nation of entrepreneurs? He recognised that our education system is not geared to provide creativity and mentioned that the school system is being changed to cater to this new requirement. Even if we do everything right in the schools, how long would it take us to turn the ship around? How about all those who have left the school system and have already joined the workforce? It is, indeed, a Herculean task. Furthermore, it is not clear what are Mr Lim's powers to make changes and what are his measures of success. Perhaps Mr Lim could find another opportunity to clarify these points. However, if we were to depend on new entrepreneurs to help us in the short term, especially in the area of unemployment, our hope would be misguided. The problem is a big one. Let us look at some numbers. We have close to 80,000 unemployed. If we assume that every new start-up would employ 10 persons, we would need 8,000 new start-ups. Since the success rate of new start-ups is not very high, the number of new enterprises in order to address this problem would have to be in the tens of thousands. From the Registry of Companies' records, we can clearly see that new companies are not being formed fast enough, and we are years away from making a dent in the problem if we were to depend solely on new start-ups.”
“Mr Speaker Sir, the concerns of our people today can be summarised in three words: Jobs, Jobs and Jobs. For working people, they are concerned about keeping their jobs. For retrenched people, they are searching high and low for a job. For young people, they are worried about whether there are vacancies for them after 12 or more years in our rigid and rigorous education system. Furthermore, as the Prime Minister was quoted recently in the papers, the outlook is not getting any better any time soon. The worse is yet to come. As a result, the confidence of Singaporeans about our economy has reached a bottom unprecedented in recent years. Confidence in the PAP leadership's ability to lead us through this downturn, especially amongst those in the category of so-called structural unemployment, is also diminishing. On job creation and confidence, the Budget Statement did not take the opportunity to address them in a sufficiently strong and forceful manner to make an impact. To me, Sir, it is basically a response to the ERC Report issued on 7th February. True, more than 1,000 people, amongst them some of the brightest and the best Singapore has to offer, have contributed their ideas and energies to the deliberations of the ERC Report. However, the gestation period of the Report is one year, which is, indeed, a very long time - one year during which the Government has ample time to formulate responses to some of those recommendations, many of which are not new, as Mr Khaw pointed out to us yesterday. For those hoping that this Budget will provide some magic prescriptions to bring us out of the recession, they are disappointed at the lack of any major policy announcements or bold moves. Mr Inderjit Singh expressed this sentiment in his trademark way very well.”
“Sir, I would like to find out from the Minister, by the time we become self-sufficient in water supply, what would be the composition of the typical glass of water, in terms of rainwater, desalted water and NEWater. Of course, by then, it is unlikely that I would have a chance to taste that glass of water.”
“Our objective is that, from Singapore to all parts of the world, there should be minimal hassle and no tariffs, and if you are serving more than one region this is the best place to locate your activities. NEWATER AND DESALINATED WATER 4. Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan asked the Minister for the Environment (a) what are the targeted quantities and proportion of NEWater and desalinated water that will be produced for direct and/or indirect use by households and industries, by (i) 2011 when our first water agreement with Malaysia expires, and (ii) 2061 when our second water agreement with Malaysia expires; and (b) whether plans to produce NEWater and desalinated water as well as expand our water catchment areas will be speeded up so that we can be self sufficient in our water demands if the need arises. 5. Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong asked the Minister for the Environment (a) whether Singapore is aiming towards 100% self-sufficiency in our water resources and, if so, (i) when will it be achieved and (ii) what will be the estimated cost of this water; (b) what is the reason for NEWater to be pumped back into the reservoirs where it will be subject to evaporation and loss, followed by another round of water treatment, thus raising cost; and (c) if he can confirm that Singaporeans are sold treated water at S$5.32 per 1000 gallon making it a whopping 445% markup from cost.”
“I would like to find out from the Minister how do our ASEAN neighbours view our initiative in all these FTAs or would they prefer us to work within the regional context as regards the liberalisation of trade ties? BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Mr Speaker, Sir, some of our friends in ASEAN had reservations which they expressed publicly in the past but, in recent months, far from expressing reservations, they have been jumping on the bandwagon. Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: For the FTAs that have been signed, could the Minister enlighten us on the tangible benefits that small and medium enterprises or local companies in Singapore have derived and whether examples could be given? BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: FTAs mean the removal of tariffs for most products that go to our FTA partner. For example, our FTA with Japan enables some of our petrochemical products to enter Japan without tariff which gives exporters here a major advantage. Under the US-Singapore FTA, there will be hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of tariff savings across a wide range. A simple but graphic example is the repair of US ships. Before the FTA, any US ship repaired outside the US will have to pay a special fee. With the FTA, Keppel and Sembawang can repair US ships in Singapore without these ships having to pay a fee and this of course encourages our shipyards to go out to all US ships in the region to do their business. These are some of the advantages which the FTAs can bring to our businesses. On existing trade patterns, the advantages in the initial years would already be hundreds of millions of dollars and they will ramp up as various provisions of the FTAs come into effect. This is the first order effect. A second order effect is to exploit these FTAs, new investments will come into Singapore.”
“So long as we provide our body with food and water, the heart will pump the blood, the blood will nourish the various organs so that the whole body will function well. The discovery of the JI is akin to the discovery of cancer cells in our body. Left unchecked, the cancer will grow and spread, ultimately leading to death. Active treatment is called for, such as surgery, followed by chemotherapy and thereafter continuous life-long monitoring and treatment. Similarly, we no longer can let nature take its course in managing the racial harmony and social cohesion of our nation. The active participation of every stakeholder is needed. I agree with Mr K Shanmugam that now is the time for action so that our children will continue to live in peace and harmony in future. This particular situation is forced upon us. We Singaporeans must rise to the occasion. I am confident that together we will overcome. ADJOURNMENT OF DEBATE Resolved, That the Debate be now adjourned. - [Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee].”
“At the moment, the increasing religiosity of the Muslim community which finds expression in more rigid adherence with respect to attire, food and conduct towards the opposite sex, such as not shaking hands, is viewed with some anxiety by the other communities. Instead of greater integration after so many years of nationhood, this development in the Muslim community seems to lead to greater segregation and less interaction. This need not be so. I think it behoves the non-Muslims to develop greater awareness and appreciation of the Islamic culture. Every one of us should extend our hands across the racial lines to gain a better understanding of each other's customs and religious practices. You yourself, Mdm Deputy Speaker, and Mr K Shanmugam, both believe that it is important that everyone, in particular, the majority, to take this step. We should banish ignorance and eliminate fear of the unknown through knowledge. As one Muslim dialogue participant pointed out, a stricter adherence is an indication of the desire to become a better Muslim. A better Muslim makes for a better member of the community, a better citizen of the nation. This cannot be but for a better Singapore. Mdm Deputy Speaker, prior to the discovery of the JI movement, we all thought that racial harmony could be achieved through mutual respect and protection of each other's rights, as we have done so since independence. We were inclined to leave it to time for a common Singapore identity to emerge. There is this faith that we will gel as a nation, as a people, over time, as if the amalgamation process would take place naturally. It is like managing the health of our body.”
“Every one of us must take on the responsibility to eliminate this rogue DNA from our society to prevent the cancer from taking root and spreading beyond control. The third desired outcome is the need of the Muslim leaders to come out loudly to reassure the rest of the community that the majority of Muslims in Singapore do not subscribe to the ideology of the JI. That Islamic values are consistent with democracy and do not impose changes through violent means. I am glad to note that in this House, most of the Malay MPs who have spoken have indeed done so. And it is also true that the Muslim leaders have in the past repeatedly stepped forward to issue such reassurance. However, perhaps the message is worth repeating, so that it could be driven into the consciousness of the rest of the community. In one of the dialogue sessions, one Muslim participant pleaded with the group, asking what sort of reassurance do the other communities need. She was particularly disturbed that there were participants who called for the Government to legislate against deviant Islamic teachings. This motion provides yet another opportunity for Muslim leaders to state clearly the condemnation of the JI terrorists. It is reassuring to most non-Muslim lay persons that the Muslim community has undertaken a self-regulatory role to monitor deviant teachings of religious teachers. If such teachings could be curbed, the rank of the potential recruits in the JI would be thinned. The fourth desired outcome is the recognition that the burden of containing this threat does not rest on the Muslim community alone. As I have said earlier, every one of us has a role to play.”
“It does beg the question whether the authorities have a rehabilitation programme to return these detainees ultimately to the mainstream of Singapore society, given the difficult tasks ahead. Given the fact that the authorities have now a much more robust understanding of the motive of the JI movement and the modus operandi on how members are recruited, I would say that most Singaporeans can rest easy to know that counter-measures would be put in place to curb the spread of the deviant teachings. Confidence of the authorities in these areas has indeed increased. Mdm Deputy Speaker, what does this House hope to achieve in debating this motion? The Minister, in moving the motion, has touched upon many aspects. My personal list of desired outcomes is as follows. Firstly, this White Paper has attracted world-wide attention, in particular, among security agencies in the world. It demonstrates the competencies of our ISD. The report will serve to reassure the world that Singapore has a good grasp of the threat and takes this threat seriously. We have the will and the means to put in place long-term measures, such as restricting vehicular access to Jurong Island, despite increasing costs and greater inconvenience. This will increase investor confidence in Singapore despite it being in the midst of a turbulent region. The second desired outcome is the acceptance that the JI movement is a low-level, hard-to-detect secret organisation comprising many cells. Such organisations are difficult to infiltrate and difficult to exterminate. Since the threat is a long-term one, we cannot depend entirely on the authorities to eliminate the threat. Every citizen has a role to play.”
“The White Paper paints the landscape of globalisation of Islamic fervour originating from Saudi Arabia. This fervour drives the Al-Qaeda movement to take on the strongest nation on earth, the United States. The White Paper also describes the dream of the Islamic movement to create a new pan-Southeast Asia state, Daulah Islamiyah Nusantara, based on Islamic values and how the local JI movement is linked to the global network. The analysis of the source of revolutionary fervour makes it very clear to the reader that unless the global Islamic revival subsides, the deviant ideology to pursue changes by violent means will always continue to influence Muslims world-wide. Singapore would be no exception. We cannot wish this rising tide away, and the world has to learn to live with it for a long time to come. As Encik Othman Haron Eusofe has said, there is really no quick fix. It is true that the arrests have disrupted the existing network, but the fundamental motive force driving the fervent Muslims to its cause will remain for a long time. The White Paper details how fire-brand religious teachers, like Ibrahim Maidin, identify, cultivate, recruit and control the JI members, using techniques bordering on mind-control that are reminiscent of religious cults. The use of oath of allegiance is one such example. Once converted to the cause, the JI members will stay true to the cause for a long time. After all, they truly believe that they are serving the purpose of a higher calling. I believe that since the first batch of JI members was detained in December 2001, few, if any, of them, are repentant.”
“I surmise that the JI detainees seek the true meaning of being human and, in so doing, were misled by the religious teachers. Those who sit down and read the White Paper with an open mind will find that this is indeed the case. Mdm Deputy Speaker, since its release, the White Paper is of indeed great interest to Singaporeans. It seems to fulfill a need among Singaporeans to know about the threat that prompted the arrests of close to 50 individuals under the ISA. There was a rush to buy the printed copies, and the number of attempts to access the website hit an all-time high. Unfortunately, I have received feedback that the White Paper is priced at $22 a copy. This has made it unaffordable to many in the lower income bracket to get a copy. This led to some of the individuals raising questions about the motive of the Government in setting such a high price. Since the objective of the Government in releasing the White Paper must be to disseminate the information as widely as possible, it is fair to set the copy price as low as possible. Perhaps the Government could take this into consideration in pricing future White Papers. But, of course, the pricing really did not deter those who were interested to find out more about the White Paper, because the content is widely reported in the newspapers. Thus, anyone who is interested in the content will find most of the major findings reproduced in the newspapers. May I now come to the content of the White Paper itself. Reading through the Paper, one can conclude that the knowledge and the expertise within the Ministry of Home Affairs regarding the JI have increased by leaps and bounds since December 2001, when the first batch of JI members was arrested.”
“Finally, the progress made by the Malay community, as indicated by the Prime Minister. Thus, I would urge this House not to be swayed by the arguments of the apologists in drawing conclusions about the large number of individuals as complex as a community, but to look at the cold facts and figures - facts and figures in the booklet I mentioned, and facts and figures in the White Paper on the JI terrorists. Given all these misconceptions and complacency and doubts, it is indeed appropriate that this White Paper is released. If we look at the profiles of the JI detainees, we will find that many of them hold good jobs with reasonable incomes and are house-owners. Those who have read the Senior Minister's memoirs would recall the episode of a bicycle owner carrying his precious possession up to his flat away from harm's way during the racial riots in 1964. This convinced Senior Minister that a stakeholder would be a better citizen, since he would prefer stability, in order to protect his stake in the nation. In this case, the JI detainees are stakeholders, yet they are prepared to give up all for a calling. Perhaps, instead of looking for reasons which moved these men into joining the JI, from the social, political and economic backgrounds of the whole community, maybe, indeed, it is a simple case of men looking for the true meaning of life. For those of us who are past 50 years of age, I would say that we are all beginning to feel the cold of the grave. We stare mortality in the eye, and have to reconcile ourselves with the fact that one of these days we will die - the strong, powerful, weak or simple persons. Some of us will have to live with it; others would seek solace in religion.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, may I suggest that we all go and read the booklet titled Progress of the Malay Community in Singapore since 1999 which carried the Prime Minister's speech at the Malay/Muslim Organisations' Tribute to the Prime Minister's 10 Years of Leadership, dated 21st January 2001. In it, the Prime Minister grabbed the bull by the horns by answering the question, "Are the Malay Singaporeans marginalised?" directly. He looked at the progress made by the Malay community in four domains: education, occupation, income and quality of life. In every domain, the Malays have made substantial and significant progress. The Prime Minister also compared the education and economic profiles of the Singapore Malays with the Malays in Malaysia. Even though it is true that there are more Malay millionaires and more Malays holding top positions in the public and private sectors in Malaysia, overall, the Singapore Malays have fared well compared to the Malaysian Malays. Since Singapore Malays have done equally well as the Malaysian Malays, the argument that the Malay community is marginalised does not hold water. Earlier, Ms Indranee Rajah had also touched upon a comparison of then and now when relating the factors leading to the racial riots in 1964. She pointed out that there are many similarities. But she neglected to point out that between then and now, there are also many differences. Just in case hon. Members of the House may be misled to believe that history might repeat itself, perhaps we can look at the differences between then and now. Firstly, I think the difference is that we Singaporeans are in total charge of our own destiny. Now, there is the absence of racial enclaves in Singapore through the HDB's housing policy.”
“I am, in fact, very disturbed by Mr Tan Tarn How's article in the Straits Times which questions whether the Government has swept this aspect of the issue under the carpet. Yes, there are pleas from the Muslim participants in the feedback process to accept them as they are, as just another human being. But, to the credit of the Muslim community, they do not blame the society for some of their members being misled into JI. I understand from the exchanges between Mr Low Thia Khiang and Mr Hawazi Daipi that Mr Low is quite skilled in putting across his point. He is so skilful that he misled Mr Tan Tarn How in stating in his article that the occurrence of the JI could be attributed to the political, social and economic factors that may be making the Muslims behave as they do. I think that article is like coming out with an apology for a murderer. Instead of asking whether the upbringing of the murderer was at fault, such as whether he comes from a broken family, whether his moral education was weak, an apology is offered. The apologist looks for the presence of a defective gene in his DNA make-up, or whether the murderer was basically inclined to violence because he grew up in a poor and violent neighbourhood or he watched too much violent kungfu movies. To look for an apology for an individual might give the apologist a satisfaction in being a do-gooder. But to look for an apology for the whole community would be to lampoon the sweat and blood put in by the community and to belittle the progress made by the community - in this case, the Malay/Muslim community since Singapore's independence.”
“The more audacious the target, the higher the number of casualties, the greater is the value of the target. Most Singaporeans feel that the Government has a handle on the threat and, therefore, they do not need to be personally involved. Life goes on as per normal. If the Police and ISD do their jobs properly, then all is well. I believe the White Paper, by going into great details, will educate those who hold such views. Mdm Deputy Speaker, I believe we are not facing up to the truth if I do not point out that from the feedback received by the Feedback Unit, there are segments in the Muslim community who feel sympathy for the JI members. Some even expressed doubts about the Government's case against the JI. While all Muslims reject the violent means advocated by the JI brotherhood, many could not reconcile with themselves that the JI members are bad Muslims. Since Muslims are taught from young to defend themselves when they are oppressed, many Muslims felt that the JI members were just carrying out their Muslim duties when they joined the JI in the defence of Islam. Of course, in this case, they are not rising to the defence of Islam in Singapore but to the suffering of Muslims elsewhere at the oppression of the western world. Hopefully, the details of the White Paper would convince these Muslims that, indeed, JI members are misled Muslims and had been led astray by false religious teachings. What I would like to point out to the House, especially to Mr K Shanmugam and Mr Low Thia Khiang, is that in all the feedback collected from the Malay community, either in open and free dialogue or anonymous surveys, no one has asserted that the social and economic conditions of the Malay community in Singapore contributed to the increasing religiosity of the community.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, I would like to speak in support of the motion from three aspects, namely, why the need for a White Paper on the JI threat, the White Paper itself and what are the desired responses to the Singapore society to the White Paper. Despite having to put the spotlight once again on the Muslim community, I believe it is timely that the White Paper was released. I say so because the various communities in Singapore have quite different perceptions regarding the JI threat. This has become quite clear from the feedback received by the Feedback Unit. In particular, over the past week, the Feedback Unit conducted three dialogue sessions with the various communities, specifically on this White Paper. Let me share some of the findings with the House which, I believe, are quite representative. Some people perceived that the terrorist threat to Singapore at this point in time to be quite minimal as the Government has broken the back of the JI organisation and has taken all the necessary precautions. As a result, they are more than happy to leave it to the Government to deal with the problem. As regards Singapore as a target for terrorist attacks, they believe that, being a hard target, the terrorist would choose other easier ones, as demonstrated by what happened when the JI carried out the October 12 bombing in Bali. To them, as long as there are easier targets around, Singapore will be safe, and will be lower down the list. On the other end of the scale, others think that Singapore, being an icon of modernity and being indeed a hard nut to crack, would make it all the more attractive, as the psychological impact of a successful strike would be all the more greater. After all, terrorism feeds on publicity of the greatest suffering of human beings.”
“May I ask the Minister whether he agrees that the HDB resale market is basically a very restricted market in the sense that the number of buyers who can buy is actually restricted? Does his Ministry forecast the number of buyers that can buy in the resale flat market when it builds the new flats?”
“I would like to thank Senior Minister of State Tharman for steering his Review Committee to come out with these comprehensive and well-considered policy recommendations and to thank the Minister for accepting these recommendations. These changes will affect every Singaporean. For some, the change will be beneficial. For others, it will bring about greater anxiety and stress. To me, what is important is that the motivation of the MOE is a positive one, and I am glad to hear that the Ministry is prepared to do what is necessary to ensure that the new initiatives would succeed. Sir, we need to break through the present mindset and to bring the education system in Singapore to the next higher level of performance. I support the changes but urge caution and continuous monitoring to remedy any negative impact.”
“I believe that in implementing the IP, only a number of schools will be involved initially. I understand that this number is less than the number of schools currently offering the GEP. So, do we also admit non-GEP students into IP? What would happen to the GEP students in schools that are not implementing the IP? How do we deal with the aspirations of the GEP students in these schools if they could not be transferred to the IP? There are also other recommendations in the White Paper, such as the establishment of private schools and the ability of some schools to offer other academic programmes such as the IB. These are meant to bring out greater diversity in the education system to meet the specific needs of the student population. Sir, I believe it is reasonable to experiment with the concept of private secondary schools. In this respect, I am glad that MOE has insisted that these schools must meet the minimum criteria of 50% Singaporean students in the population and must comply with the National Education guidelines. I have no great issue with the private schools, except that we must address the concern of the public about the exclusiveness of such schools. Already, there are public comments about our students not interacting enough between those of different ethnic backgrounds. We need to ensure that such independent schools do not become institutes where only the sons and daughters of the rich and the famous intermingle and build networks for the future. Mr Speaker, Sir, the recommendations of the White Paper will bring about fundamental and significant changes in our education system.”
“If we take the second approach, in other words, the IP approach, will we generate a sense of disenchantment among our young who are not in the IP programme, that the system is stacked against them if nature does not endow them with the genes to do well in our system? How do we deal with the frustrations that come with the realisation that determination, discipline and other human qualities come second, while natural endowment becomes most important? How do we address the rootedness of Singaporeans when some of us are dealt with a lousy deck of cards, and the Government reinforces this in our education system? Frankly speaking, Sir, I am torn between these two poles. In my mind, I think IP is necessary and appropriate, and would bring great benefit to the students in the stream. In my heart, I feel that this will intensify the angst and stress in our education system and make for perhaps a less harmonious society. In view of the Singapore economy which will be very dependent on the creativity of our people, my mind is winning this tug of war but my heart wishes that it need not be so. Nonetheless, I would urge the Ministry to be cognisant of this when implementing the IP. This should give the assurance that the non-IP students will continue to get the attention and the resources allocated to them currently. I am glad to note that the Minister is cognisant of this and has already reassured us in his speech. Sir, both of these concepts look good on paper. Whether they will bring the benefits we envisage will depend on the implementation. There are many issues of implementation - and there are 31 speakers after me. The key one, in my mind, is the preparedness of the teachers by 2006. The question is: will these few years be sufficient to get the system ready?”
“Just by looking from the angle of time utilisation, these students would have close to six months for other development activities that the "O" level students would spend at Secondary 4 preparing for their examinations. Furthermore, the Ministry proposes to introduce the single admission to JC 1 concurrently to solve the problem of churning of students after their "O" level examinations. Thus, the new JC 1 intake will enroll as late as in March after their "O" levels in the following year. And during this period, Sir, I do not think the students in the IP programme will stay at home marking time. I am sure that they will be back in the schools, being nurtured. Thus, the IP students would have as much as up to eight months' interaction time more than a student who took the normal route or the Express stream. Sir, bearing in mind that the IP students are the top 10% of the cohort in terms of intelligence and abilities, I believe these students will end up having a very measurable advantage over the other students in the Express stream or in the Normal stream. They would probably be so good that they might be given the label "super-express stream". The IP programme illustrates once again the tensions between two different and opposing views in education. Do we strive for an egalitarian system catering to the majority and leaving the bright ones to fend for themselves or do we provide the best to the brightest, nurturing them to their fullest potential? If we take the first approach, we would not be maximising the potential of our very best, which could make a difference between growth and stagnation for Singapore in the future.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, some of the respondents to the Feedback Unit feel that the JC curriculum would only impact the top 25% of the cohort and is therefore not of major interest to the majority of our students. I think this view is mistaken as the influence of this change would be felt all the way down the school system to the primary level. Parents would recognise that the attribute that would enable their children to do well in the new "A" level examinations has got to be inculcated for many years in the lower secondary as well as in the primary levels. Contrary to public perception, the JC curriculum would touch the life of every child in Singapore and this is all the more so because of the integrated programme or the "through-train" concept to be introduced concurrently. Sir, the "through-train" concept has been floated for many years now. A number of JCs and secondary schools have already signed up to the concept. It targets the top 10% of the cohort so that they could go straight to the "A" level without having to sit for the intermediate "O" level examinations. Since 25% of our cohort would move on to the JC, 10% would be the top two-fifths of this group. We could be quite confident that the drop-out from the Integrated Programme (IP) would be few and far between and naturally most of the GEP pupils will be enrolled into the IP programme. In my mind, Sir, IP is, in essence, an extension of the streaming exercise that started way back in the primary level. Is this good or bad? This is, in fact, a very fundamental question and indeed the more troubling proposal in this White Paper. Sir, it should be obvious that by skipping the "O" levels, the IP confers significant benefits to the students in the programme.”
“But why should we subject our children to this very trying, tempering process? The White Paper did not address the question whether it is necessary to impose such a heavy workload on our students. Not only that, Sir, on the contrary, the new curriculum, by requiring the need to take a cross-discipline subject, would probably increase the workload. It is true that through the new classification of H1, H2 and H3, the Ministry proposes to keep the total instruction hours the same. But by increasing the emphasis on project work, thinking skills and the need to take a new subject in a different discipline, I believe students will need to spend more time instead of the same amount of time. It is regrettable that the Review Committee did not delve into this area and take the opportunity to make the necessary adjustment to bring down the total workload. I would request the Minister to monitor the workload very carefully in the new implementation and to make necessary adjustments, if so required. Another impact on students that we have to watch out for will be their response to the new emphasis on thinking skills and project work. These are harder to do well in, especially for those who are not so strong in the command of the English Language, in writing and in expressing themselves. It is likely that these students will prefer the old approach and I believe that they will aim to go to the universities via the polytechnic route after their "O" level. Thus, it is likely that some years down the road after we implement the new JC curriculum that the pressure to allow more polytechnic graduates beyond the now top 10% into our universities will intensify.”
“However, as we try to upgrade ourselves into a knowledge-based economy, we discover that our engine sputters as we step on the accelerator's pedal. What happened? Some say that we did not develop enough intellectual property ourselves that the others are willing to pay for. Others say that we are not creative enough. In other words, our workforce basically does not know how to leverage the knowledge we have in our systems and processes into goods and services that the world is prepared to pay for. The other aspect of a rapidly changing economy is the rapid transformation of job skills. As we no longer could predict the job skills that will be required in the future, it is better to train our population to be flexible and adaptable instead of being channelled into specialised areas too early. To fix these two problems, the whole education system must be transformed, and some part of which very fundamentally. Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe that the JC curriculum is the first step in a complete overhaul of our education system to be more like the United States' system compared to the United Kingdom's system. It puts emphasis on thinking skills and avoids early over-specialisation. Our local universities have already recognised the need and have taken the step to transform themselves from the British system to the American system. Thus, the changes in the JC curriculum will remove the disjoint that exists today between the JCs and the universities. This change is welcomed by everyone that the Feedback Unit has consulted with regard to the White Paper. Mr Speaker, Sir, what the new curriculum does not address is the workload and the stress of the JC curriculum. Yes, we know our students can take the stress. Yes, they can take the load.”
“Our students are so far ahead when they are admitted to the United States universities, even into the very best US universities. They are given exemption for many first-year subjects such as Mathematics and Sciences. Furthermore, in the last "A" level examinations, the number of students scoring 4As has once again broken the record. The end of better and better scholastic results is not in sight. I do not think we have somehow managed to manipulate our children's genes so that they are now brighter and smarter than the previous generations. What happens is that our children just have learnt a whole lot more in the process of preparing for the "A" level. If we do not transform our education system, the only way to provide some differentiation among top students is to crank up the ratchet one more time, so much so that perhaps one day in the future, our students will be given exemption from even more senior level classes, perhaps the sophomore year classes in the United States. This shall be obvious to all, lay persons and experts alike, that to continue this path is not what education is all about. The second reason that the Minister has already touched on is that the Singapore economy in the future requires a very different type of workforce than what our education system is geared to produce and our current severe recession has driven home this key point. Up to now, our economy has done well by adopting production techniques from the developed countries and we will refine them so that Singaporeans are more efficient and effective in performing those jobs. And the output of our education system is well-suited for this task. As a result, our economy has grown since independence spectacularly.”
“Thirdly, our education system overwhelmingly favours discipline and the ability to apply oneself. As a result, our students learn too much fact and not enough abilities. In particular, we are short in thinking skills as well as social skills. In effect, our students become very good in solving known problems using known solutions but become hesitant and unsure when confronted with new problems, a behaviour regularly observed by our university and polytechnic lecturers. Sir, these observations are not new. But what prompted MOE to set up the Review Committee? I surmise that there are two reasons. First, we have painted ourselves into a corner as far as the evolution of the education system in the secondary schools is concerned. Evolution in the natural world has taught us that it is important to continuously evolve to adjust to changing circumstances. In my opinion, Sir, our JC education had made a wrong turn many years back into a cul de sac. Why do I say so? Our teachers have become so good in tutoring their charges in scorings and our students have become so good in honing their examination skills that the only way to segregate the outstanding students from the mere excellent is to make the subjects harder and harder. And as we crank up the ratchet one turn at a time over the years, we lost sight of what we are trying to achieve in education. The ranking of schools and the students became the proxy measurements for success. Today, our typical "A" level students are required to spend about 330 hours in one subject versus the equivalent 280 hours in the United Kingdom's "A" level. It is even more when we compare to the United States' equivalent of 240 hours.”
“To me, Sir, two major thrusts - the JC curriculum and the Integrated Programme - could have been better clearly de-linked and their merits considered separately. Sir, as a way of setting the stage, let me list out the shortcomings of our existing secondary education system, and then look at whether the reform proposed in the report has addressed them. What are the generally perceived issues regarding our upper secondary education at the moment? In simple terms, they can be summarised as follows: Firstly, the overall workload is high, in fact, very high. The workload of a typical student is around 1,700 instruction hours for the "A" level programme comprising the General Paper, mother tongue language and four principal subjects. For individual subjects such as Science and Mathematics, our workload is heavier than equivalent programmes in the United Kingdom and the United States by at least 15%, sometimes more. Secondly, life as a student in Singapore is very stressful. Our students strive to take as many subjects as possible and to score as many As as they can achieve. They also choose more deterministic subjects such as Science and Mathematics and to shy away from humanities. One of the factors in driving our students is our emphasis on meritocracy and transparency. When it comes to scholarship applications and university admissions, we primarily look at the examination results of the applicants. And given that the examinations test primarily the mastery of these content-based subjects, it is possible for those with the mental ability to score better and better grades just by spending more and more hours memorising the facts and honing their examination skills by practising on the 10-year series.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the report on the JC curriculum contains two major recommendations - firstly, to revise the JC curriculum, broadening the content as well as emphasising thinking skills and, secondly, to introduce the Integrated Programme in secondary schools. These proposals aim to introduce improvements as well as address some basic problems in our education system. For years, the Ministry has steadfastly asserted the virtues of our education system. Therefore, I consider this Motion significant for the Ministry to admit that there are shortcomings in the system and, secondly, for the Ministry to accept the recommendations of a Review Committee established not so many months ago with members from outside the Ministry. Admittedly, by accepting the recommendations of the Review Committee, the Ministry of Education has taken a giant step in resolving these systemic issues. In fact, these proposed changes are considered so fundamental that the Minister has recommended to the Prime Minister that the Whip be lifted so that PAP Members of Parliament could debate the motion thoroughly without restraint. Mr Speaker, Sir, every parent with a child in our school system has an opinion on how to improve our education system. However, to be able to come out with a comprehensive overhaul requires courage to admit that there are problems, an exceptional ability to grasp the gist of these problems, and the clarity of mind to come out with the solutions. I believe that the Review Committee, under the chairmanship of the Senior Minister of State, Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam, has managed to achieve. One regrettable aspect of the report is that it contained so many new initiatives that the reader may not see the forest for the trees.”
“I would like to ask the Minister whether in the treaty agreement between Singapore and Malaysia that was established by the British, were there any treaties that were biasedly in favour of Malaysia, for instance, the use of rail road land in Singapore where Singaporeans had no say whatsoever on the use of the land as long as it is used by Malaysian railway? Prof. Jayakumar: That is a good point which I will consider using in future negotiations.”
“So many countries, like India, Malaysia, African countries, closed their doors. Singapore went against the advice of these eminent economists. We opened up, we linked up to the world, we succeeded. Because we went against the advice of the day, we succeeded. I am not saying that we should go against the advice of these renowned academics. But think again. We are here, we know our business better. We are here because our destiny is here. They are in Boston, they are in London. Their business is to write papers, to gain a world-wide audience, to win the Nobel Prize. Our duty is to provide for our future, for our children's future.”
“NTUC's seed capital comes from all of us. It is a cooperative, and the money comes from small timers like you and I who buy shares, $1 a share, over the last many years. I am not sure if we divest, let us say, FairPrice, we will quell the public discontent. If FairPrice were to be sold, sold to whom? That is the first issue. The second issue is the person who inherits FairPrice would want to make it even bigger, and he will crowd out even more local retailers. The presence of FairPrice in any new town is welcomed, I tell you, because it brings down the cost of living in that town. It has what we call the Wal-Mart effect. Every time a Wal-Mart opens up a big supermarket chain in some parts of America, the residents welcome it, because it lowers the cost of commodities by a huge margin. But, of course, shopkeepers around the town would be upset. It is something we have to live with. In Malaysia, they have found that by allowing big retail giants, like Carrefour, to operate, for example, retail shops went out of business. So unless you say that you want to limit the number of supermarket outlets, it is not going to help even if FairPrice were divested from the NTUC family. One last word about academic advice. I have left the university for the last 10 years now, and of course not as well known as Michael Porter and all that. Listen to their advice, they have a lot to offer us, but please listen with a pinch of salt. Many renowned academics over the years, when you look back at their advice, their advice sounded foolish. In the early years of independence, in the 60s, the advice of the renowned academics around the world to all developing countries was to close your doors, be self-sufficient, do what is best for you.”
“Certainly some companies should be divested; some merged; some acquired, but that is best left to the management of Temasek. But reading the Charter, I am confident that Temasek management has the ambitions and determination to succeed. With this Charter, Temasek is really chartering into uncharted waters, because there are no MBA case studies for Temasek to emulate and analyse. Temasek Holdings will have to write its own MBA case study, for somebody else to study in the decades to come. In time, we will know how Temasek has remained faithful to the Charter, how it has linked the future to Singapore, and how it has performed against its own benchmark. I think today's debate is useful. We should revisit this debate in the next few years. But, Mdm Deputy Speaker, before I end, I hope I have time to talk about the NTUC-linked companies. Actually NTUC-linked companies are not part of today's Motion. NTUC-linked companies are largely formed for Singaporeans and, in fact, NTUC-linked companies - I know it, because I had been in NTUC for sometime now - were formed precisely against the Yellow Pages rule. The Yellow Pages rule says that if the name is in the Yellow Pages, let us, say, a supermarket, it should get out. But when FairPrice was formed, there were few supermarkets. NTUC FairPrice went in basically because the price of basic commodities was too high. And NTUC went in to provide competition against the local retailers. The results, after 20-odd years, I think, prove that it has succeeded. NTUC prices today are among the lowest prices in the retail scene. Not every item but, by and large, if you look at a typical basket of items, NTUC has the cheapest basket in town. NTUC companies are not funded by Government. Government does not put money into NTUC.”
“At the top of its Charter, it says, "Temasek Holdings holds and manages the Singapore Government's investments in companies for the long term benefit of Singapore." I find this most reassuring. How many companies can put up that kind of mission statement? The Temasek Charter makes it clear from the very outset that every Singaporean has a stake in Temasek even if we do not hold a single share in any of the Temasek-linked companies. I think we should be proud of Temasek. Temasek really is our future. Our SMEs, our small mom and pop shops do deserve encouragement. They should be encouraged to grow. We should level the playing field. But they are unable to reach out and anchor to the big powers, the big players in the West. When we were young, we all know this refrain in essay. The teacher always says, "Singapore is a small island with limited resources." I think, today, we can tell the teacher to tell Singaporeans that "Singapore is a small island with Temasek". If Temasek is our future, we should chart its future together. And for this reason, I really welcome this debate on Temasek Charter in this House moved by Mr Leong Horn Kee and Mr Inderjit Singh. In some ways, I agree with them. For too long, Temasek has been a passive holding company. Its mode of operation and its mission were a little bit opaque, a little bit over our head. I hope that it is slowly changing. I think it is changing. And this new management is a catalyst for change. I have a dream that one day Temasek will be a General Electric with a diversified stable of businesses, each of which is a world or, at least, a regional brand name. It will take Temasek decades to reach this goal. It took Jack Welch a good 20 to 30 years to finalise the shape of General Electric that we know today.”
“There is a third point in my comparison, and this is not a major point I want to make, but I thought this is the mood of the day, and I would say it. Singaporeans are having so much angst over foreign talent policy. If TLCs were dismantled, for example, who do we sell to? Well, possibly sell them to some foreign investors maybe, who have the money and the interest. If so, there will be a lot more foreign talents in Singapore. Both Hong Kong and China regard Mr Li as a patriot, but Mr Li did not grow his stable of companies by employing Chinese and Hongkongers for a long time. For as long as I can remember, Mr Li has always had a policy of hiring the best, and his most senior management are foreign talents, and foreign talents I mean Caucasians. In Hong Kong, they say kwai lao. Here, in Singapore, we have a few foreign talents in GLCs, TLCs, and already Singaporeans are feeling the heat. Actually, we should have more. Because if you want TLCs to be global companies of distinction, we really need to harvest the best from around the world. So I asked those people who are lobbying for the dismantling of TLCs, are you sure you want to dismantle TLCs? Because, you know, what they say, be careful of what you wish, you might just get it. I hope I have put into perspective a world without TLCs. Still, I think it is right that Temasek Holdings is determined to sell some TLCs even if it wants to grow others, find partners for others and merge others. But we are reassured, through the Temasek Charter, and the statements in the press, that there will be no fire sale. We are not going to sell. We should not sell the TLCs for a song. Our national assets are not for lelong. And this brings me to my last point. The management of Temasek Holdings has come up with a Temasek Charter.”
“In fact, Hong Kong is worried every now and then that he might just move his Hutchinson Whampoa and Cheung Kong offshore. Each time Hongkongers feel that he might be doing so, he came out to reassure them. But our TLCs have never said they want to move overseas. Our TLCs have said they want to go overseas to do business and bring the money back. The question of TLCs rooting themselves with the Singapore economy and providing jobs for Singapore has never been an issue here, which I am glad. The issue of Hutchinson Whampoa moving overseas has always been rumoured and always dispelled by Mr Li himself. But Mr Li, although he is a superman, is not infallible. His company has made some less than good investments. Or even today, Hutchinson Whampoa's share has been hammered from the high. Before the year 2000, it was something like HK$120 per share. Today, it is something like HK$60. I do not know the rate today. But, last week, I saw it was hovering below HK$60. In the 1980s, Mr Li's investment in a Canadian oil company did not live up to market expectations. It under-performed for many years. Mr Li's investment in Rabbit, if you remember, a telephony company in Britain, was another flop, a failure. But few remember his failed investments. We all remember his successes, and so it should be, because he is a very successful businessman. This example brings me to a second message which I want to bring home - that Singaporeans should be a little bit more forgiving, if some of our TLCs have made some bad investments in the short term. Even a highly successful company, like Hutchinson Whampoa, has made bad investments. Singaporeans, in fact, should be worried if our TLCs make no investments and think short term.”
“Unfortunately, too many Singaporeans love to hate our Temasek-linked companies and now that has been extended to NTUC-linked companies. They blame TLCs for the death of local entrepreneurs. They say, dismantle the TLCs, and then everything will be fine. All entrepreneurs will mushroom. They will grow, they will flourish, and then they will be big. But I wish it were true and life is so simple. Mr Leong Horn Kee and Mr Inderjit Singh, please take a look at Hong Kong and tell me, where are the Bill Gates? Tell me, where are the Jeff Bezos, where are the Dells, where are the Intels, where are the HPs? You do not find them. None. They are not there. The gatekeepers of Hong Kong are really small entrepreneurs. They are the unsung heroes of the economy, but the people underpinning them are just a few big tycoon-dominated companies. You will not find a Bill Gates in Hong Kong, but you will find a Mr Li Ka Shing. Hongkongers love him, and they call him "Superman", chiu yan (in Cantonese). Chiu yan means Superman. Mr Li's hold on the economy is formidable. His two companies - Hutchinson Whampoa and Cheung Kong - dominate the economy of Hong Kong. But unlike some of our CEOs of GLCs, Mr Li is revered, respected and worshipped. Here, Singaporeans blame TLCs for being too big and crowding out businesses. But, think again, Mr Li is held up as a model entrepreneur in Hong Kong even as his eclectic empire grows. Some people are saying in Hong Kong that he is also crowding out entrepreneurs. But, by and large, this is a voice from the minority. Mr Li is a hero in Hong Kong and not a villain. He provides jobs, thousands of jobs, for Hongkongers. And Hongkongers believe in Mr Li.”
“GLCs are rich, but GLCs are not powerful. The Hong Kong tycoons and their companies are answerable to no one, but themselves, their shareholders and their boards of directors. But usually they have the biggest chunks of shares in their own companies. So they are basically answerable to shareholders of which they form a large part. And they are very profitable companies. The profits only accrue to the shareholders. In contrast, GLCs are not powerful. Today, we are debating the role of Government-linked companies, Temasek-linked companies in this House. TLCs are answerable not only to shareholders, because some are listed, and their boards of directors but, of course, to Temasek Holdings, which has to answer to Government. That is why we are here today. And Government has to account to MPs who have to account to their constituencies. So, talk about transparency, talk about accountability, our GLCs, our TLCs in particular, are extremely accountable. Anybody can move a motion or file a Question. In my 10 years here, I have heard several questions and answers on why these TLCs went into this business, why this business failed, and the Minister for Finance dutifully stood up and gave an answer which, I think, most of us accept, while some disagree altogether. I am using this example to drive home the first of many messages in the New World, in the new regime of WTO. And this first message I want to drive home is this - that TLCs are not villains. In a global economy, a few companies dominate. This happens in Singapore. It happens to be GLCs because of our history. It happens in Hong Kong. A few tycoon-dominated companies control and run Hong Kong. And the rest of us, SMEs, sweat shop owners, have to feed off these TLCs, tycoon-owned businesses. It is the same everywhere.”
“It is worth reading. It says: "In all honesty [in typical Economist style] most of Asia's tycoons no matter how illustrious they appear at home are really keepers of glorified mom and pop shops. The exception is Mr Li Ka Shing." I will talk about Mr Li a bit later on. So, how did they become billionaires? There are many reasons. The Economist went on to say: "Among many reasons, they were developers who simply rode with land prices." The reality in Hong Kong today is a noisy market place, crowded with thousands of entrepreneurs who are, in the final analysis, owners of SMEs and glorified sweat shops. They perform useful roles. Please do not get me wrong. They provide employment for the masses. They provide hope. But the world has changed. In the economic food chain of the WTO, the new regime, it is a big fish eat small fish scenario. Hong Kong's cousins, their brethrens, from mainland China, are beginning to eat Hong Kong SMEs and sweat shop owners as fish feed. The truth of the matter is this. In Hong Kong, a few tycoons and their gargantuan holding companies, like Cheung Kong and Hutchinson Whampoa, dominate the Hong Kong economy. People do not see that. Together, these companies and the tycoons employ hundreds of thousands of workers, and their decisions influence the destiny of Hong Kong and HongKongers. These tycoons own an eclectic group of businesses, sometimes totally unrelated. They are like the mini-government of Hong Kong. Some say the only government of Hong Kong. These tycoons own what? They own banks, the ports, power stations, telecommunications, the media, retail, yes, supermarkets and, of course, real estate. They are the economic equivalents of our Temasek-linked companies. But the similarities end here. They are powerful. They are rich.”
“10 pm Today, after 30 years of relentless economic growth in both city states, we have reached a crossroad. Hong Kong and Singapore are pausing, taking stock and both are scratching their heads, but I think these questions of how to go forward from here focus the minds of both governments. But in the case of Singapore, fortunately, because of our industrial policies, much criticised no doubt, I think we have more levers to pull than Hong Kong - more levers to pull for entrepreneurs, more levers to pull for all Singaporeans. Our decisive advantage is really the GLCs, and here I confine myself to the Temasek Holdings companies and not the NTUC companies, which really serve the domestic market. I want to talk something about the NTUC-linked companies a bit later on. Because only Temasek has the clout to anchor Singapore to the world beyond our shores. We have many entrepreneurs in Singapore. Some of them are sitting in this House. But for them to reach out beyond our shores is really one leap too far. Only Temasek can give us what I call the GNP effect - the GDP plus net foreign earnings. What for? To compensate for a slowing GDP which is almost inevitable, because of an aging population and a declining birth rate. Madam, back to Hong Kong. The laissez-faire economy in Hong Kong has always been paraded as the utopia of entrepreneurs. Mr Leong proudly said that Hong Kong has 12 billionaires. Singapore has five billionaires. The fact is that they are richer than us. They have double our population notwithstanding. But whether they are entrepreneurs of the breed that inspire confidence and envy is quite different. I will quote an Economist article entitled "Face Value - Asia's superman swoops again". Basically, it is about Mr Li, but the opening paragraph is instructive.”
“Sir, while I am supportive of the new Temasek Charter and the recommendations of the EISC, it is important for us to address the fundamental questions I raised. Only when we accept the answers honestly and with a clear mind would we be able to avoid the pitfalls of Singapore evolving into an outwardly private sector economy but actually dominated by the GLCs, an economy which we affectionately refer to Singapore Incorporated, an economy that will perform well but will flounder and look for guidance in bad times. To me, Sir, how the Government decides on this particular matter will determine whether Singapore will evolve into a high performance entrepreneurial economy or will always remain an economy that is tied to the umbilical cord of the Government. The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development and Minister for Defence (Assoc. Prof. Koo Tsai Kee): Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Leong Horn Kee spoke about the differences between Hong Kong and Singapore, how Hong Kong has become a nursery of entrepreneurs while Singapore is really a desert. I would like to continue this analogy between Singapore and Hong Kong and set the substance of my debate in this context. Singapore and Hong Kong are successful city states. We are the envy of countries big and small. Every time a country like East Timor gets independence, they say they want to be like Singapore. We have arrived today at our positions by very different routes. I need not elaborate. Hong Kong grew with minimal governance - a bottom-up approach - while Singapore largely prospered because of Government's top-down approach. Hong Kong is trying to be a bit like Singapore. Singapore is trying to be a bit like Hong Kong. [Mdm Deputy Speaker (Mrs Lim Hwee Hua) in the Chair] 5.”