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 6 of 21.
“For instance, many young and capable people will be asking themselves why should they take the risk to start their own companies if they could become CEOs of GLCs just by going through the academic route - be Government or SAF scholars, perform well in the public sector and serve their term. My friend, Mr Inderjit Singh, has mentioned that the career path will be taken care of and the system will take care of them, and they will become corporate captains of large corporations sometime down the road. At least, that is what many young men and women will conclude by observing the career path of the many CEOs of GLCs today. Sir, is this perception good for Singapore? In my mind, it is doubtful whether men and women who are used to a command and control environment would necessarily make good entrepreneurs. Some of them would make it, but perhaps after some very painful experience at the expense of public money. I believe many of us could think of examples that illustrate my point. On the other hand, several of the really successful companies that continue to do well in this recession in Singapore are small companies started by entrepreneurs, and I could name a few - Hyflux started by Olivia Lum who is now an NMP, Osim started by Ron Sim and Accord Express, a company mentioned by PM in his National Day Rally speech. These are true entrepreneurs and Singapore would do well to have more of them. Thus, while creating more GLCs might be the expedient thing for the Government to do in the short term, it might actually be detrimental to the long-term viability of Singapore in a fast changing world. Only when we are convinced that this is the case would the tendency and propensity to create more GLCs in the future be curtailed.”
“Therefore, spinning off groups to form private companies helps to keep the total number of staff small which is, as we all know, an objective of the civil service guidelines. Secondly, hiving off assets helps to reduce the asset base of these organisations. Of course, such assets were assessed at the proper values and the Government did not suffer in privatisation. However, in the books of the parent departments and organisations, that base is reduced. Two recent examples come to mind. Firstly, Acasia of JTC and, secondly, PWD Consultants. Both organisations were granted moratorium from competition to entice staff to leave the comfort zone of the civil service, and to take the plunge into the private sector. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have also, on a previous occasion in this House, touched upon the public perception regarding the existence of corporatised entity helping the rejuvenation of the civil service and the SAF through parachuting senior officers into such GLCs. I understand from the DPM that the employment of all these staff by the GLCs is through the market force. However, this perception remains. Sir, I think these factors driving the formation of GLCs are powerful ones, and they are unlikely to go away just because of this debate in Parliament and the adoption of the EISC Report. I believe it will require a strong commitment from the Government to stop the continuous encroachment into the private sector. Whether the Government would do so will depend on the answer to the next question I have in mind. The question is: is the existence of GLCs contributing to the dearth of entrepreneurs in Singapore? We do not have definitive answers but I believe there are sufficient indications that this is so.”
“I believe that the Feedback Unit has contributed to the review of Government's stand on this matter. I would like to thank the many contributors who have played a part in moulding public opinion on this topic. Mr Speaker, Sir, next, I would like to explore whether the EISC Report, the new Temasek Charter as well as this debate on the Motion will be effective in curtailing Government's involvement in business. Based on the behaviour of the Government in establishing GLCs over the past 20 years, I must say that I am not optimistic. I am not saying so because I think we are not serious about doing what is best for Singapore. I am saying so because there are factors involved. Firstly, I believe that when good times come back, this issue will also recede from the public consciousness, and the pressure will not be that great. Furthermore, Sir, I think we have to go to the fundamentals and perhaps try to understand the forces that have been driving the ever increasing Government involvement in business. Unless we understand these factors and take the appropriate steps to mitigate them, I think Government will continue to spin off companies. Just by observing the outcomes, it seems to me that there are powerful forces pushing the various Government departments, agencies and statutory boards to spin off companies. I am not saying that there is a directive of the Government to do so. But it is just that doing so is a well beaten and tested path. What are these forces? Firstly, spin-off allows the various Government departments to shed excess manpower. It seems to me that Government departments, like everyone else, need to stay young and relevant, and they do so by recruiting younger staff and inducting Government scholars.”
“In recent years, the moratorium has increased from two years to five years and now more and more GLCs are being privatised to compete in the private industry." Mr Speaker, Sir, I took time to bring up this example to highlight that over a 20-year period, the views expressed were basically the same. In other words, nothing very much has changed despite all this feedback. It is also disturbing to me that it took the more severe recession in our history to make the Government sit up and set up the EISC, and then pay attention to this complaint. It is pertinent to note that many of the recent comments received by the Feedback Unit were made before the formation of the Economic Review Committee. Sir, regarding the work of the Feedback Unit, I would like to point out that there is a group within the Feedback Unit known as the Economic Development Group. It was set up under the leadership of Dr John Chen, the former Chairman of the Feedback Unit. It is a loose association of feedback contributors who gather about once a month to discuss topics of interest. The Economic Development Group formed a sub-committee on developing a pro-enterprise environment in the new economy. It submitted a recommendation in April 2001. That report talked about how to create an environment that is pro-entrepreneurial and pro-business. And in the 2002 annual conference of the feedback group in July this year, Mr George Abraham presented a paper on the remaking of the Singapore economy incorporating the work of the Economic Development Group and the SME Feedback Group. It is interesting to me that many of these views were reflected in the recommendations of the EISC Report. It is heartening that the views expressed by the feedback contributors have found sympathetic ears in the EISC.”
“I would like to give a sample of these comments to indicate the gist of public complaints over a period of the past 20 years. Sir, in 1985, Dr Dixie Tan, then MP for Ulu Pandan, in a note to Matthias Yao, Head of Feedback Unit then, wrote, "Government companies are competing with local companies in every area and with unfair advantage. Even abroad, private companies have to compete against Singapore Government companies." In the same year, Mr Tan Tuan Seng wrote a letter to the Feedback Unit regarding the uphill task of budding entrepreneurs in Singapore facing stiff competition from GLCs. Under the heading, "Better Entrepreneur", he lamented that the playing field was uneven with GLCs having all the resources and all the work references. Sir, now I would like to share with you some of the more recent comments received by the Feedback Unit. In July 2001, a contributor commented that the SME and the coffeeshop network is filled with complaints about GLCs and Government statutory board corporations. Is there a need for Government to compete with the citizens for jobs? If GLCs and these corporatised statutory boards exist to complement the economy, they should take this time to outsource more of their jobs to locals. Why corporatise statutory boards like Civil Service College, PSB, IPT and many others? The complaints are greatest now if the Government is the regulator and the player in the market. Again, in August 2001, on the feedback on PWD Consultants, a commentator said so, "The Government is releasing public jobs that account for 70% of the construction work now to ease the slowdown but these jobs are headed for GLCs that have a moratorium in a way. Such public works should be distributed to the private sector to ensure that the private sector stays afloat.”
“It is interesting to note that the principles laid down by Dr Goh are ingrained in Temasek Holdings' latest Charter as well where it has classified its companies into Group A and Group B. In Group A, we find companies where Government would like to retain control and ownership for strategic reasons and in Group B, we find companies with regional and international potentials. Sir, despite Dr Goh's assurance in 1977, Government-linked companies continued its expansion into the private sector. In August 1983, in this House, Dr Toh Chin Chye put the question to the then Minister for Finance, Mr Hon Sui Sen, during Question Time as to whether the Government companies should be allowed to crowd out the private sector. Of course, Dr Toh did it in his very colourful language, referring to the case of PIE flying in 1,500 breeding pigs by jumbo jets. Apparently, Dr Toh must be referring to the fact that PIE was engaging in some activities that the private sector could perform which contravened the principle laid down by Dr Goh. Unfortunately, there was no definitive response from Government in that particular exchange. Clearly, I think, by then, the tentacles of the GLCs have grown so numerous and so pervasive that no one single agency has total control or oversight on the reach of the GLCs. Sir, public complaints about Government's involvement continued through the years with the pitch rising during times of economic slowdown and adding in times of economic booms. After the formation of the Feedback Unit in 1985 under my good friend, Dr Tan Cheng Bock as Chairman, there exists now, in its archives, a collection of public comments on this particular topic.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government's involvement in private sector business started way back, almost about the same time as Singapore's industralisation effort, soon after the British withdrawal in 1968. To handle the growing Government's involvement in business, Temasek Holdings was established in 1974. Presumably, flushed with success, Government's involvement in the private sector continued to proliferate. To address the public concern, the rationale for Government's involvement in private sector was laid down by Dr Goh Keng Swee, DPM and Minister for Defence, at the Income's AGM on 20th June 1977. Typical of Dr Goh, he gave the reason in very simple terms and to the point. I would like to state them to refresh our understanding of the basic rationale. Firstly, he stated that Government's involvement was to encourage the private sector to take the plunge through joint ventures. He gave the example of National Iron and Steel, Jurong Shipyard, National Green Elevators, Sugar Industry of Singapore and so on. And as the economy grew, the Development Bank of Singapore and Intraco were established to fulfill what Dr Goh referred to as new needs. Secondly, to meet specific needs, Primary Industries Enterprises was set up to process agricultural products by local farmers - a pretty old industry, I must say. Falling into this category of specific needs, we find the Mindef companies established to meet the needs of the SAF. Thirdly, to handle the odd case here and there. Dr Goh gave the example of Singapore Food Industry to tackle the problem of corrupt practices among cooks employed by Mindef leading to the failure of the tender system in sourcing for meat and vegetables. Presumably, Dr Goh raised this matter in public to address some of the public concerns.”
“So the very same company that we are berating this afternoon is earning accolades for its bus operation in Shanghai. Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe that the process of arriving at this round of fare increases could have been done better. We could have taken into consideration the number of unemployed workers in Singapore and the sentiments of Singaporeans in general. On the other hand, I would submit that the basic philosophy of a bus transport system is correct and that the regulatory framework is a sound one. Thus, Mr Low's criticism of Government is unjustified. His suggestion of increasing subsidies for commuters is based on unsound principles that have proven not to work elsewhere. In conclusion, Sir, I would urge the Minister to consider my suggestion of introducing greater competition into public transportation, especially the bus sector. 3.55 pm”
“Opening up the market for greater competition has also been advocated by Christopher Tan in Business Times and Yeoh Kok Seng in the Today newspaper. Mr Speaker, Sir, listening to Mr Low Thia Khiang, I am reminded almost like standing at a street corner rally during the 1960s. He uses 1960s' leftist jargon to appeal to the segments of society that would find his pitch attractive. He tried to paint the PAP Government as incentive-technocrat, out to squeeze the last drop from the poor to fatten the coffers of the bus companies. I think his suggestion for a non-profit corporation is seductive. However, as we all know, public transportation has a consumption element in it. If we price the service below cost, we would distort the allocation of resources and encourage unnecessary consumption. We would also encourage dependency that would be difficult to unwind in future. So by thinking through the consequence of subsidies, I am sure Singaporeans would see through the fallacy of his logic. Sir, I think some of the models which have been advocated, eg, running public transportation along the line that he has proposed, is already in operation in China. If he has visited China, he would know that in some Chinese cities, where bus transportation companies are still state-owned, the buses are rickety, and many of them have no lights in them. If you travel in such buses at night, it is pitch dark inside. To improve their bus system, the Chinese have been inviting foreign participation in their bus operation, as they know that these state-funded operations are being run to the ground. Does he know that SBS Transit has invested in the public bus operation in Shanghai? And with competition, the bus service in Shanghai has improved dramatically.”
“Based on the rate of return on equity, SBS' rate of return seems rather high, with ROE at 24.7% in year 2000, and 17.8% in year 2001. Thus, it is not surprising that people get angry when the companies raise fares in a recession where almost all other companies are showing lower profits or outright losses. So the argument should be: why is it that SBS Transit and SMRT are not prepared to earn a lower rate of return, like everybody else in a recession? Perhaps the PTC should disclose to the public what is the ROE that transport companies are permitted to achieve in a non-competitive environment. Perhaps they can also disclose what is the target rate of the ROE that companies are allowed to achieve. If the PTC can do this, I believe that it will be easier for it to win over the support of the commuters. Mr Speaker, Sir, so long as we have two bus operators running our public transport sector, this scenario that I have painted out earlier would play out again and again. I suggest that we take a leaf out of how IDA regulates the mobile phone industry. In that case, as Mr Chiam has pointed out, IDA terminated SingTel's monopoly and allowed new entrants into the market. With StarHub, M1 and Virgin Mobile in the market, the consumers now get better service and value for money. In fact, so much so that one of the companies declared recently that it is pulling out from the marketplace. I suggest that the Minister seriously consider introducing greater competition in the scheduled bus service by perhaps splitting up SBS Transit into two or more companies, or allow other companies to enter into the market. I am sure that the Minister could see the merit of greater competition, not free market competition, but greater competition, as IDA was part of his portfolio not so long ago.”
“It is their job to determine whether the operators have met the various performance standards. And, if they do, then the regulator would determine whether the return on investment has indeed fallen below the target. If all these factors are met, then the regulator really has not much option but to approve fare increases. If we accept that this is the way the system is supposed to work, then we should ask ourselves whether this was what happened in this recent round of fare adjustment. As far as I can tell, the PTC has acted quite independently, using its best judgment. So, I believe that Mr Low is mistaken to point the finger at the PAP Government, claiming that, because of ownership, we have allowed the Government-owned company to raise fares to squeeze the people. In fact, if Mr Low is unhappy with the way the PTC was set up, he could suggest a different way to regulate the public transportation sector. But, given this is how the PTC is supposed to work, I believe he is off the mark. As in the case involving IDA and SingTel that was in court recently, any time a regulator interferes with the market, causing the operator to have a lower rate of return, I believe the operator has a case to seek compensation from the Government. I also believe that it is not a matter whether the company is still making money or not. This is a matter whether the company is making the appropriate rate of return than existing at the outset of the regulatory regime. Of course, we could debate whether the PTC has been too generous with the operators and accepted too readily SBS Transit and SMRT's request that they should continue to earn a high rate of return based on historical norm. I think there is a point here that we can debate.”
“The return for the operators would be typically measured in terms of percentage returns based on a certain basis, such as return on investment or return on equity, whichever is appropriate. In other words, in regulated industries, the operators are given a guaranteed return and are rewarded, in most cases, on a cost-plus basis. For the regulatory environment to operate well, the regulator should be an independent body that is fair to the commuters and operators, and it is not influenced by the operators. Sir, the Government, as well as this House, should desist from interfering with the work of the PTC. Otherwise, we might as well perform this role ourselves. Maybe the House should sit as PTC and decide what is a fair adjustment. Thus, I believe that the choice of members of the PTC is important. I agree that it is not appropriate that the operators sit as members of the PTC, but as resource members. Despite all the criticisms, I must also say that the PTC has so far done a reasonable job, balancing the interests of all parties involved. This, Mr Tan Soo Khoon himself has also conceded. It has resisted requests for fare increases from the operators for several years before granting this current round of increases. I really do not envy the men and women serving on the PTC. Theirs is a thankless task, and we should not make their job any more difficult. Sir, once we have established the regulatory regime, with the PTC as a fare approving body, then we would expect to see the following sequence of events. This is already a given. So, from time to time, when the transport operators come to PTC with their hats in their hands and reams of data to show that the costs have gone up, returns on investments have declined, what would the regulator or PTC do?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I feel, however, that since the PTC is getting so much negative vibes that, in the interest of a more balanced and less emotional debate, I would like to put our public transportation system in its proper context. We should realise that the public transportation sector in Singapore, including the rail and the scheduled bus services, is a regulated industry. I would like the House to think about what is meant by a "regulated industry". It is not a free market, freely competitive industry. It is a regulated industry. So, for instance, when Mr Tan, in his speech, talked about SIA being very responsive to market forces, he should realise that SIA, in the international marketplace, is in a freely competitive marketplace with many players whereas, in Singapore, in the public sector, especially in public transportation, we have designed it to be a regulated industry. So, if we want to complain about how the system is being regulated, we should indeed go back to square one and ask whether we should have a regulated industry or a free market industry. Since we are on the subject of SIA, let me also say that many of us have in the past complained that SIA fares have been very high, that it is a cartel and, in fact, Singaporeans pay more buying their tickets in Singapore, compared to those bought in Hong Kong or KL. So, we cannot mix the SIA example with the public transportation example in Singapore. Like all regulated industries, it is the job of the regulator to ensure a prescribed level of service in the industry in exchange for a guaranteed return for the operators. I think we must all accept this. If we do not, then we are not talking like for like.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, to begin with, I would like to declare the fact that I am a Board Member of the Comfort Group, a company that is engaged in land transportation business, primarily in taxis, but has a small subsidiary in the chartered bus business. Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Tan Soo Khoon and the PAP Members who spoke before me have already touched on the public sentiments regarding this round of public transportation fare increases. Such fare increases affect the majority of the commuters, with the greatest impact on the lower income. So, not surprisingly, this is always a topic that would arouse public outcry, whether such increases are made during boom times or in a recession. Although the quantum of the increases this round is small, people feel helpless and frustrated that there is no viable alternative available to them. Unfortunately, Sir, this time round, the matter is made even much worse simply because the timing was so bad. Our economy is just turning the corner in the recession. Unlike Mr Tan, I think there is actually a clear trend that the economy is turning around. The benefit of the turnaround, though, has not percolated down to the masses yet, and many of us are still feeling the impact one way or another. Thus, even though the PTC had disclosed in detail the factors it had considered and had explained the reasons for its decisions, the majority of commuters are still unhappy with the rulings. The Feedback Unit has received numerous similar public comments regarding this, and I would like to thank Mr Tan for moving this Motion to allow Members of like mind to speak on this topic. I, too, would like to call upon the PTC to review, not so much the quantum of the increases but, perhaps, take into consideration the timing of the increases.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am a bit concerned about the Minister changing this Act to empower the intelligence officers just because the scheme of service has been changed. Perhaps, it would have been better to change the scheme of service to attract the officers as intelligence officers without changing the law. Sir, I am also quite concerned that, in my mind, we are a bit confused about what are intelligence officers and police officers. To me, police officers are law enforcement officers. They are well-trained and understand the law very well. Whereas, in the general public's mind, intelligence officers can be considered as spies. That is what the public thinks. We are a bit concerned as to why we should designate intelligence officers and give them the powers of police officers when it can be done otherwise. The other point has already been brought up by Mr Low.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate. I support the Bill and I understand the rationale mentioned by the Minister for Finance. However, I notice that in the Schedule, some of the statutory boards, such as the universities, the polytechnics and the People's Association, are also provided for. So, I wonder whether these statutory boards will also be given shares or capital grants, as proposed by him, and whether they will, in turn, be subject to financial pressures, especially those educational institutions.”
“Madam, I thank the Minister, the two Ministers of State and the Parliamentary Secretary for their well-reasoned replies. Judging by the answers, some of what I thought were mere boulders turned out to be the outcroppings of a mountain range. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“As an independent nation with outstanding scholastic track record, a well-funded R&D sector and an aspiration to become an education hub for the Asia-Pacific region, I strongly support the proposal to establish our own Examinations Authority. However, we should be always aware of the penchant of Singaporeans to crank up standards year after year. In establishing our own Examinatiions Authority, we should focus on developing a well educated individual with high academic achievement, strong cultural ballast and sound character. We should avoid falling into the trap of ever increasing content to stress the students to the limit. Sir, would the Minister share with this House on his thinking on the Examinations Authority?”
“Sir, it was only about three years ago that the Ministry announced that the US-based Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) would be used as an additional assessment test for university entrance. Presumably, once accepted, this would become a substitute for the "A" level examination. Sir, there are problems with this approach. At this point in time, the inclusion of SAT simply meant that our JC students have to prepare for two university entrance examinations in their final year of studies. Interestingly enough, none other than the respected UC President, Richard Atkinson, has lambasted the SAT 1 test as being unsuitable as a university admission assessment test. As a result, the US College Board announced in March this year that it is planning to revise its SAT 1 to better service its objectives. For a test that the Americans themselves have declared as not very suitable, we have to ask ourselves what is the value of us switching to SAT. Of course, I am aware that there is another part of SAT, known as SAT II, that is more vigorous. Sir, in the Addendum to the President's Address, the Ministry has declared its intention of taking greater control of the "A" level examinations in year 2002. It also floated the idea of setting up our very own Examinations Authority. It states that from year 2003 onwards, university admission will take into account other measures, in addition to the "A" levels. I would like to find out from the Ministry whether this announcement meant that we have second thoughts about SAT. At this stage of development, Sir, I think we do not have to depend any longer on the "O" level and "A" level examinations.”
“On the other hand, the President has recruited advisers and consultants from US universities, many of them 60 years old or above, to advise him on various development programmes. It seems that we are forsaking younger staff for older staff. Of course, I understand that reform that impacts established norms is always unwelcome and discomforting to the incumbents. Sir, there is disquiet on the NUS campus. The public is uncertain of what is going on. I would like the Minister to lift this veil off the reform in the University, and to elaborate on the goals and objectives of the reform currently being implemented. For instance, what are the desired outcomes? What is the progress to-date and how would the proposed setup of another campus for the NUS tie in with the proposed plan of a fourth university that we earlier talked about? VISIT OF THE BRITISH PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION (Presence in Gallery)”
“Sir, on this cut, I would like to talk about the development in National University of Singapore (NUS). Many of us are alumni of the University and we have very fond memories of our time as students. As such, the continued development of NUS is of great interest to us. Even to the casual onlooker, one can discern that a reform is being implemented in NUS, which goes beyond the change of the title of Vice-Chancellor to President. There was a newspaper report carried by Today, dated 19th February 2002, commenting on certain aspects of the changes currently ongoing, under the title "The Plain and the Gain". The paper later apologised, retracted the article in full and without reservations on 2nd May. Nonetheless, the fact remains that the attrition of the faculties has been high in year 2002, and many from these faculties are well-known names in the academic circle in the Asia Pacific region. This NUS reform was also described by an article that appeared in Times, Higher Education Supplement, dated 3rd May 2002, as "Americanization". As Feedback Unit Chairman, Sir, I too got an earful. I gained the impression that the morale of the staff in the University is low, as established norms of employment are turned upside down. I hesitate to give some of the comments I heard, but I thought that perhaps I should do so, to give a depth of the emotion of the undercurrent that is going on. But I would like to disassociate myself from any innuendoes associated with them. For instance, a number of staff reaching 50 years old were given short-term 2-3 year contracts, which is very upsetting to the staff who have committed their working life to the University.”
“Sir, I just want to ask the Minister why visitors from China, both social visit pass and business pass visitors, face a more lengthy application process compared to visitors from other countries. The other aspect I would like to ask is on the student pass. It seems to me that SIR must be the only immigration authority in the world that terminates student passes based on their examination results. I would like to find out whether SIR could liberalise this policy.”
“Sir, the continual injection of talents into the civil service is crucial to maintaining a vibrant and dynamic service. However, the size of the civil service is capped to ensure that it is not bloated. My colleague, Mr Inderjit Singh, even called for it to be scaled down by 30%. Moreover, when a young officer is recruited at an age fresh out of university, he has a 30-year working life in the service. With all the scholars we have recruited in the service all these years, it is possible that we have reached a point where the annual intake of scholars far outnumbers those retiring officers based on natural attrition. Furthermore, the terms of service are also so attractive that few would leave the comfort zone to strike out on their own. Sir, in many cases, those who are good in academic studies make better researchers and academicians than Division 1 officers. To my mind, Sir, it would be better for the Government to recruit those with proven abilities from the market and to depend less on the scholars. This is especially so for those in the elite Administrative Service. As regards the scholars that we have already signed on, it might be better to assign them to the private sector, such as those in the GLCs, to test them out first. I understand that there is a programme to attract mid-career officers, but the outcome to date has been quite poor. May I know what are the reasons? Would the Government review the mid-career options and renew the emphasis on this? I believe, with the current recession, it would be a good time to tap the market for mid-career officers.”
“Perhaps the Minister would be kind enough to identify the income bracket where the net GST increase is greater than the reduction in personal income tax. This group will truly experience an increase in tax burden. This group of taxpayers will feel it sooner or later, so we might as well be as transparent as possible in identifying them. In conclusion, Sir, the tax changes in this Budget could only be part of a strategy to remake Singapore. Judging from the ongoing work of the Remaking Singapore Committee, one would expect more is yet to come. We look forward to the recommendations that will bring about long-term transformation for a better Singapore.”
“The feedback received by the Feedback Unit is that a fair number of Singaporeans found that this classification is not entirely equitable. For example, some households living in 5-room flats have dependent aged parents living in those households. Had the parents been living by themselves, they would have qualified for more payoffs. So, by living together, these Singaporeans feel that they are being penalised. Some have suggested that it would be more equitable to use household income together with the household size as a measure to determine the disbursement. I hope the Government would consider these suggestions. Listening to what the other MPs have said, the general sentiment amongst our population is that with lower income tax and higher GST, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Well, with the GST relief package, it is not as simple as that, at least for the next five years. It is clear that for the higher income group, they would enjoy some tax savings as the reduction of income tax is far greater than the increase in GST. We know that the lower income groups are covered by the GST package and, therefore, would not be worse off. So who are worse off under this regime? Some groups must be, because they must bear the increase in GST over the reduction of personal income tax so that the Government could have a balanced budget. To my mind, Sir, the concern expressed by many MPs regarding the lower income group might be overstated. Perhaps those groups that truly feel the burden of GST in the next five years should be identified, and this group feeling the squeeze could be the middle income group. I do not have the data to determine what is this middle income group.”
“As a Government and as a people, we have decided that it is the right thing to do distributing public funds to alleviate economic burdens as a result of Government restructuring policies. The ER shares will be in place for five years, long enough to become part of our national psyche. I think it would be very difficult to change our people's expectations in the future in this area when we encounter economic recessions then. At that time, we would be handing out more ER shares. In this respect, I am concerned about creating a dependency mentality in our people. When we look back 20 years from now, it is very likely that this Budget will be remembered as the one that changed our social compact for a different Singapore. Whether it is good or bad, only time could tell. Let me move on to specific comments on the GST. When the GST was first introduced in 1993, it was presented as a tax reform aiming to be revenue neutral. The Government reviewed all the existing taxes then to ensure that GST did not increase the tax burden. Two examples come to mind. The first is the tax on petrol. The Government changed the tax regime so that the total tax collected per litre of petrol remained the same. The second is cess. It remained at 4% after GST, with 1% going to the Singapore Tourist Board and 3% earmarked for GST. This time round, there is no mention of the words "tax reform", even though the tax reduction and the additional GST collections nearly balance each other out. Hence, we could conclude that there is no attempt to mitigate the increase like before. Thus, it would be logical to expect to pay more for petrol, cess and everything else. Secondly, Sir, it seems that the GST relief, such as the ER shares, will be distributed based on HDB housing types, just like before.”
“The fact is that the Government has made use of the GLCs as part of its talent development programme for the civil service. Senior officials have been transferred regularly to these GLCs to make way for younger officers moving through the system. Thus, Sir, I believe that it will be very difficult to get the whole system to accept the need to revamp the GLCs for an inconclusive objective of promoting entrepreneurship. Perhaps, the more pragmatic solution is how to level the playing field and to leave niches in the eco-system for budding young enterprises. A favourite example quoted in the dialogue sessions I talked about is that of PWD Consultant with its 5-year moratorium. You will say that as a result of its monopoly of Government projects at a time when Government projects are the only ones available, this company has grown substantially, so much so that it has to subcontract out its jobs while the independent firms competing with it are starved of projects. Sir, let me now move on to GST. Once the Government has decided to cut company and personal income taxes, the increase in GST becomes inevitable. The Government has announced a relief package, including the Economic Restructuring Shares for lower income families to offset the increased burden of the tax. I would like, firstly, to comment on the philosophy of the ERS and then touch on three elements of the GST. Sir, of course, it is not the first time the Government is handing out cash disbursements using the concept of shares. Last year, the Government issued the New Singapore Shares. Now the Economic Restructuring Shares. It is all about a mindset change.”
“Neither wage cost nor land cost could be unwound that quickly without causing major dislocation in our economy. Sir, that leaves the Government administrative fees as the remaining major cost contributors. And it is a disappointment to many that the Minister did not take this opportunity to further cut these costs. On the contrary, the Minister decided to increase parking fees as part of the measures to control vehicle usage. This begs the question whether this Government administrative fees have been cut to the bone. Perhaps, the Government is waiting to evaluate the impact of the slew of cost-cutting measures introduced last year before taking any further steps. Sir, in his speech, the Minister spent some time on the Government's position on GLCs. The gist of his comments is that the Government will divest those GLCs that are no longer of strategic importance to the nation. Sir, GLC is an emotive topic in most of the dialogue sessions that are organised by the Feedback Unit. For many of these sessions, the issue always come up. And needless to say, most of the comments are unfavourable ones. Basically, the contention is that GLCs crowd out the SMEs. Like an ecological system, every niche in the system is occupied by a species. And when an exotic species without a natural predator is introduced to the eco-system, they would displace the existing species. Once established, no new species could emerge unless the existing species become extinct or the environment undergoes dramatic changes creating new niches in the process. So it is the case with our economic system. Therefore, Sir, to encourage greater entrepreneurship and risk-taking, we need to review the fundamental reason for the existence of GLCs. Merely divesting GLCs by itself might not address the issue.”
“5% to 22%, the Government forgoes 2.5 cents per dollar of profit. To yield an equivalent benefit of $1,000 to the company, that company would have already been profitable and must be making $40,000 profit in that year. For a company that makes $1 million profit, of course the saving of $25,000 is significant. On the other hand, for a company that is only making $10,000 profit this year, the benefit is only $250. For a company that is breaking even, or is not making any money at all, the tax cut has no impact whatsoever. Thus, the company tax reduction is good for large and profitable companies, such as MNCs and GLCs, but is of little help for struggling SMEs. Hence, for SMEs, reducing cost is of greater benefit than reducing company tax. Therefore, it is not surprising that many of the CEOs and businessmen who participated in the Feedback Unit dialogue sessions commented that they are not too worried about paying tax at all so long as they are making money. Many participants lamented that this Budget does not address the root cause of the high cost of doing business in Singapore. Sir, what are these main cost contributors? We know they are wage costs, land costs and other Government administrative fees and levies. Wage costs have been pushed up over the years by the tight labour market in Singapore as well as by the Government's policy regarding the civil service pay. Land cost permeates through the infrastructure to contribute to higher cost all round. For instance, higher land cost resulted in higher rental. And I also recall that the asset enhancement policy pursued by this Government about 10 years ago also helps in playing its part in increasing land cost.”
“There is not much in this Budget in the immediate term that will give the economy a fillip in. Nonetheless, it is heartening that the Government has gone through a lengthy consultation process, tapping the views and opinions of many professionals and lay persons. It is a reflection of the willingness of the Government to listen and to further the pre-policy consultation process. However, as a strategy, the Budget lacks the comprehensiveness of a total response as it addresses only part of the issues facing Singapore. It uses old tools, that is, tax changes to address problems in a changing world. Thus, the Government has left untouched many opportunities for truly remaking Singapore. Like the other MPs speaking before me, perhaps these are being left in the next phase after the Remaking Singapore Committee has completed its work. I too look forward to their recommendations. Sir, being tax measures, the company tax and the personal income tax cuts, while effective in certain aspects, have their limitations. Let me give some examples. As we all know, the profit of a company equals revenue minus cost. And of course, what is really important to the business is profit after tax. There are only two ways one can have a higher after tax profit if we cannot increase the revenue, being in a stagnation or recession, and that is, to cut cost or reduce tax rate. Sir, with your indulgence, I would like to give a comparison of the effectiveness of tax cut and cost reduction in increasing after tax profit. To yield an after tax benefit of $1,000 for a company, the Government could have cut cost by $1,324.50 based on the 24.5% company tax. And doing so, it would apply to all companies, large or small, profitable or not. On the other hand, when we cut company tax from 24.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the recession we are going through is the result of existing factors as well as some long-term trends. The primary short-term factor is the collapse in external demand for electronics which is starting to recover. We are beginning to see signs of the turnaround in our manufacturing sector. In the long term, manufacturers continue to relocate their facilities to low cost countries leading to structural unemployment. It is clear that the era where we depend on export-oriented MNCs to provide large scale employment is coming to an end. Thus, the Government has stated that it would encourage the formation of more small and local companies in the next phase of our development. Sir, I would like to ask what are the pressing problems businesses are facing today. In simple terms, existing businesses are facing declining profit or chalking up mounting losses. New start-ups are being clobbered and strangled. In this environment, our people are looking forward to the Government to provide leadership in restructuring the business environment to address these issues: how to make existing companies more profitable and how to create the environment for new start-ups to prosper. In response, this Budget aims to position Singapore for a different world through cuts in company and personal income tax. This is based on the assumption that, doing so, will attract more company formation, greater personal strife and thereby creating more jobs in future. In adopting this strategy, the Government has accepted the recommendations of the Economic Review Committee. Sir, if these changes indeed were to succeed in attracting more companies and talents to Singapore, the impact would still be felt only in the mid or long term.”
“Would the Minister elaborate how would project work be assessed as an admission criterion for going to university in the future? Is it done by the university concerned, the faculty concerned, or would there be a central examination board in assessing this project work?”
“For NMPs to leave a mark within their first two-year term, they are indeed rare individuals with outstanding abilities. Talents are hard to come by and we should not make it harder for talented individuals to step forward to serve in this capacity as NMPs in this House. We should not denigrate the office of the NMP, thereby discouraging more outstanding individuals to step forward. With all due respect to my good friend, Dr Tan, I do not think he is doing a service to this House by opposing this motion. Sir, I support this motion and urge all my colleagues to vote in favour of it.”
“Sir, I have the privilege of attending several international conferences of parliamentarians with some of our NMPs in the past, and these NMPs had done us proud in these international forums. They were accepted by all as equal. So if a flower looks like a rose, feels like a rose, smells like a rose, it is a rose. The other argument Dr Tan has against the NMP concept is that we should not provide a backdoor for people who are non-risk takers into Parliament. And I believe he said that this is not just a debating shop; it is a political chamber where we make decisions. Surely, Sir, Dr Tan knows from the bottom of his heart that there is actually a major difference between an elected Member of Parliament and a Nominated Member of Parliament. This difference is obvious even to those who volunteered and were selected to be NMPs. In my view, an elected Member of Parliament is more than just a representative of the people in his constituency because we, the elected MPs, do not carry out an opinion poll of our constituents every time we speak. An elected MP, everyone of us - Backbenchers, Opposition Members included - is a leader in our own right. So, in a crunch, I think we are expected to step forward and to lead. Having NMPs in the Chamber does not dilute or blur this distinction. Thus, in my mind, Sir, having NMPs in the House does not provide a backdoor. Nominated Members are just a different category of Members in this House and should be recognised and accepted as such. Sir, being an NMP is already difficult enough. They have to make a mark within a very short period of time. I am already a fifth term MP and I still have a lot to learn to improve my performance in Parliament.”
“It is but a value system acceptable to all members of the community appropriate to the demands of the time. Mr Speaker, Sir, I will present to Dr Tan that this is the case with Parliament. We should be an institution that should be enhanced to meet the needs of the time. NMP to me is an innovation in the Singapore Parliament. The constitutionality of the NMP concept has already been settled. Theory aside, the question we should ask ourselves, as Mr Raymond Lim has pointed out, in this motion is whether NMPs inducted into Parliament have been positive or negative to Parliament. Have they added to the depth and the breadth of debate in Parliament? Sir, I think everyone, including Dr Tan, must agree that many of them did contribute to better debate in Parliament. Names that readily crop up include Prof. Walter Woon, Claire Chiang - I think we all missed her very much - Jennifer Lee, Shriniwas Rai, Thomas Thomas, Zulkifli Baharudin, Tay Beng Chuan, among others. I do not think these are non-risk takers. Many of them are successful businessmen in their own right. Surely, they are risk-takers. Yes, while some NMPs could have contributed more but, overall, I think we are better off with NMPs in Parliament. One of the arguments Dr Tan has as regards NMP representation is whether they represent anyone when they come into Parliament. I think, Sir, we should ask instead, whether NMPs are Members of Parliament. The answer actually lies with Singaporeans. Do Singaporeans accept them as Members of Parliament? And whether NMPs have been accepted by the international community of parliamentarians is another question we should ask.”
“Sir, around the world today, there are variants of democracy and democratic representation, each evolved to suit the situation of the respective countries. Enough had been said about this in the previous debates on this very topic in November 1989 and March 1990 when the Bill was tabled for the Second and Third readings. The subject was again extensively elaborated in March 1992 and June 1997 when a motion to admit NMPs in the respective term of Parliament was debated again. Basically Dr Tan argued for what I would classify as a static vision of Parliament. He would like to see that as long as possible - the concept that he had learned as a young man be perpetuated unchanged in this Parliament. I say, Sir, representation in Parliament should not be that static and should not be locked into time. Parliament is a living thing and it should evolve with the needs of the time. Just like the concept of marriage, husband and wife, that evolves through human history. Today, one man, one wife is the accepted norm in Singapore. However, under the Women's Charter, bigamy is illegal in Singapore, but it was not that way that long ago. Just about 50 years ago, it was quite acceptable in Singapore for a man to have more than one wife. Now if you really go back in time, anthropologists would tell us that most human societies were a maternal society, remnants of which could still be found scattered here and there around the world. In some of these, a woman could have many spouses. Today, in some western societies, same sex partner families are recognised by law as a basic family unit similar to the traditional family unit. So even with a concept as fundamental as the concept of family, there is no absolute.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, to me, Dr Tan is a man of principles. I have known him as a fellow MP for the past 17 years. He is a righteous man. To him, the world is black and white, and very little grey in between. He also tends to be obstinate, which is a virtue under certain circumstances. Sir, if I were to choose just one man to go into battle of life and death, I would choose Dr Tan. I knew, with him at my side, I would not have to cover my back, as he is absolutely dependable as a friend and as a comrade. He also knows his politics very well. He is now in Parliament for the sixth term. His PAP Ayer Rajah Branch is indeed a very small branch, compared to the other branches of PAP. In fact, we have been urging him to build up his branch. And, yet, in the last General Election he polled 88% of the popular votes. How he managed to do that is something that we all should learn from. I think the speech he just gave showed us some of the things he really learned how to do it. And he had named all of us who would speak against him, making it difficult for us to speak against him. Therefore, when Dr Tan spoke about the right of representation in Parliament and spoke against the NMP concept, I believe all of us take his views very seriously. However, despite my respect for him, I think he is too obstinate in his view in this area. I believe he missed two major points in his speech. Firstly, the right of representation by ballot box - he insisted that to be in this House, one has to be tested by the ballot box. Secondly, I think he completely ignored the contributions of the NMPs in Parliament to-date, those who had served us in the past.”
“I try to find out from him whether he is speaking for a minority of Singaporeans or he is speaking for all Singaporeans. I have three sons. I am prepared to send all my sons to fight for Singapore, to die, if necessary.”
“Would he not want to ask himself what is wrong with our society that for a young boy like him to ask that question? Is there a failure in our education system or is there a failure in our upbringing of the family? And, secondly, his son is going to National Service in seven years' time, so what are we proposing to do to educate the young son that by the time he is 18 years old, he is prepared to spill blood for Singapore, if necessary?”
“Sir, a point of clarification. I listened to the Minister of State with a heavy heart. He started by quoting his son. His son is not too young - 11 years old, am I right - and he is a fifth generation Singaporean. And the son asked: Why should I fight for this country? First, I think the Minister of State perhaps should ask himself why is it that a young boy like him ---”
“Only then will the bond among Singaporeans be stronger than the forces which can tear it apart. Sir, I support the motion.”
“It is also mentioned that the Government is aiming for a modest budget surplus over a business cycle. If I understand this correctly, as it seems to be saying, it would be good news. Maintaining fiscal discipline is undoubtedly important. I am not against budget surplus, but persistently high budget surpluses draw dynamism away from the private sector economy. Public savings in Government revenue must find its corollary effects in diminished private sector savings, thereby affecting private sector investments which create further wealth and jobs. The public sector officials argue for public savings for the ageing economy. But do not forget, the private sector members must be responsible for saving for their own old age. Other statutory costs, Government charges, licensing fees add up as other additional costs besides taxes. While taxation may be comparatively low, the operating environment after the flow through may cause the cost of operation to be high because of the various statutory costs. A look at the Report of the Estimates Committee will bear me out, to see the amount of such statutory collections. We need to really address this issue in our review of the economy to make our economy competitive. Finally, Sir, the President has highlighted the cultural issues and challenges we face as a nation. I have focussed mainly on the economy, but there is no doubt that the social challenges confronting us require a renewed response from us to find more common ground. We need to know more about ourselves as Singaporeans. This should be done in schools, in the workplaces, in community centres, in the celebration of festivals. We must learn to speak the languages of our other brothers and sisters.”
“So, many different Ministries can be involved in these sites, and the Town Council staff, which the poor MP can count on, has to get the bureaucratic red tape sorted out before some action can be taken. Every time after a Ministry's clearance, some fogging is done by the relevant body and after that forgotten, leaving the mosquitoes to breed again. It seems an unsolvable problem, but actually the solution is quite simple. Quite frankly, some local action by the Town Council can be done on these sites to fog regularly and the bill and fines be given to the Ministry or the contractors. But that would require an inter-Ministry coordination effort to cut the red tape. The second example I want to give concerns the never-ending fortnightly visits to the immigration authority office to extend social visit passes of foreign spouses of Singaporeans. Each time the poor Singaporean has to take leave to bring his/her spouse to the office and pay a fee for renewal. Can we not make life a bit easier by granting such Singaporeans' spouses a 3-month visa? Straightaway it will help to solve the frightful queue at the SIR office and help save cost for these Singaporeans. Do these spouses not deserve at least a 3-month visa? I have actually come across many cases where they have been renewing fortnightly visas for two years. If anything, it will enable them to plan their family life better with a 3-month horizon, and put less stress on the families. Can one imagine what life is like with a foreign spouse on a 2-week visa for months on end? Finally, I note in the Addendum that it is the Government's policy to ensure as low a tax burden so that Singapore would be attractive for investment and job creation.”
“But up to a point, such growth is futile, if productivity gain is not generated because wage increases will eat into the value added; or newer production from somewhere in the world will make us less competitive. Capital investment will also move to these countries in search of better rates of return. Today, faced with competitors with huge labour supply, input growth is not a viable solution. In the long run, it is not growth but productivity that determines whether our people will have a better standard of living. I welcome the Government's intention to strengthen the spirit of entrepreneurship and risk taking among Singaporeans, as the basis for Singapore's future competitiveness. We must welcome foreign talent. We must also value our own. That must be the corollary of our national economic agenda. Are our existing rules flexible and expeditious enough for our entrepreneurs to allow them to pick up the threads and go ahead quickly, or be caught in bureaucratic regulatory pitfalls? One of the issues highlighted in the Addendum to the President's Address touches on innovation, the responsiveness of the public sector and improvement in service delivery. I totally agree and I find that a lot of good can be achieved through some inter-Ministry coordination to cut red tape. I give two examples. Many MPs will have come across this problem in their house-to-house visits where residents complained about the mosquito nuisance for themselves and their children. It could be in the open field, which is under one Ministry or the Land Department, or a construction site for a school under MOE, or a construction site under MND. I see that the Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development is smiling.”
“Make the use of the space more flexibly and lower the rental, and I believe HDB will be helping the economy. Cold Storage, owned by Dairy Farm and previously by foreigners, was not born yesterday. It was here earlier than FairPrice. Then there were Yaohan and K-Mart. In construction, big foreign contractors, with their own government support had always had the advantage of bidding for contracts in Singapore. Why is productivity so low in the construction sector where we have put the most part of our domestic capital formation in it? We have foreign contractors and foreign labour galore in this sector. Why is it a laggard sector in productivity? Obviously, there is something about the innovative process, the so-called construction technology, that is missing, or has not quite been achieved in spite of all the money spent there. Something about the skill development process that was not quite nourished sufficiently. Something about the market signals which large number of cheap foreign construction labour failed to provide in the market corrective mechanism. The President's Address mentioned that we can no longer expect 8-10% growth, and that we should be happy if we make 4-6% per annum. I am gratified by this revised growth target. However, I suggest that more important is for us to focus on productivity growth and, correctly, total factor productivity growth that is now the champion of SPRING, the Standards, Productivity and Innovation Board. I have argued the case for total factor productivity measurement for the last 13 years in Parliament. It is in Hansard. An economy can grow by adding up growth in factor inputs, such as capital investment and labour input.”
“They raise issues of viability of the businesses in competition and skills retraining for the labour force. I wish to point out a paradox for Members to consider. The two most protected sectors we had all through our sustained economic growth period of the seventies, eighties and into the nineties were paradoxically telecommunications and banking. Did we not pride ourselves in the world as a telecommunications hub and financial centre all this while? And paradoxically, while we lament retail and construction, these are the two sectors most exposed to international competition from the early days. Services embrace many areas of businesses, from the high investment, high technology type, such as telecommunications and IT, to the more mundane corner-street retail shop service or the cleaning services. Knowledge-based businesses are also classified as the services sector. By virtue of its wide definition and the fact that so much of these services do not enter into the tradeable international competition, it makes sense for us to develop this sector, at least for our domestic economy and the employment it can create. It does not have to be reflective of the state of the art, but must answer to our need - the need for employment of our dislocated workers. A person who lost his job and starts a shop selling something is also in retail. He must be given a chance for his effort to try. He is not going to compete with the likes of Carrefour or Wal-Mart, but he may find a niche for his business activity. We must not make entry into business too restrictive, by control over space or regulation. Hence, I am not surprised that the Voluntary Exit Scheme proposed by HDB last year for shopowners met with such negative response.”
“The future for us, I believe, lies in industrialising the technology we have acquired or developed by ourselves or in joint partnership. If we overcome this current recession with the same mode of attracting foreign direct investment to add to input growth, I would not consider it as credible or even as a middle-term solution. We must collaborate and develop the technology for products and processes. Switzerland, though a small country, has built up huge enterprises with their own technologies in product, process and market access. Examples are Nestle in food, Ciba-Geigy, Roche in pharmaceutical. Yet the Swiss have their own traditional economic sectors where business organisation, operation and processes are honed to service the domestic economy, including the tourists. All these things are easier said than done. But that is precisely why this current challenge is so immensely different and uncertain. Domestically, we have to undertake economic restructuring. The fact of it is that dynamic economies have to continually restructure by introducing challenging market forces into the economy for the participants, whether as businesses, workers or government to react. This is so because of changing technologies and changing demand. Also, new entrants will always do it cheaper elsewhere. And to do this, we need enterprise and flexibility in the business and regulatory environment. The President in his Address talks about identifying new areas of growth, especially in the services sector such as telecommunications, banking, retail and construction. Industry-wide structural changes globally and technological changes brought about the competitive changes in these industries.”
“The second challenge to us was in the mid-1980s when, through some of our own economic policies, we realised we were pricing ourselves out of the growth path and the Economic Competitiveness Report made many policy recommendations for getting ourselves out of the recession. The challenge then was also domestic and of our own creation. This time, the problem we face are both of external and domestic, economic and political. In the economic sphere, the challenges we face this time are drawn from three major driving forces of changes in the world economy - globalisation, deregulation and rapid technological change. These driving forces will affect us in determining our growth and employment profile. Together, they form a new definition of the new economic citizenship. There are new opportunities but they bring with them new risk and uncertainties. It is about global competition. Since the end of the 1980s, two billion people in the world gave up the plan or command economy and joined the market economy - among them, China, India, the former Central and East European countries, Russia and the Latin American countries. They have skilled and industrious people and for several decades, they have been waylaid, living under the plan or command economy which did not react adequately to market signals and demand. Today, these countries are competing for global foreign direct investment and going for growth. Their supply of labour, resources and land is huge. In particular, China and India stand out for their tremendous market potential. What remains then of our competitiveness in attracting foreign direct investment for growth? The markets are growing in the new economies. The developed economies which we have been integrated with in trade and investment are slowing.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am an engineer by training. In all the feedback systems that I have studied, designed and worked myself, the feedback loop is always one way. The arrow goes in one direction. It never comes back in the other direction. Mr Chay Wai Chuen (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, Sir, perhaps the two Members can carry on their conversation outside this Chamber. Sir, I wish to speak in support of this motion in the name of Mrs Lim, the Member for Marine Parade GRC. The President in his Address draws us to two sets of challenges facing this country - one external and the other internal. He identifies them as the most severe ones challenging our country in our history. I can remember two occasions in the past 37 years of our history since independence in 1965 when we were confronted with economic and political challenges of this dimension. One was in 1967 with the prospect of British withdrawal and the unemployment rate at 10%. The challenge then was really domestic and economic and we were so down then that there was probably little choice. Once we embarked on the policy alternative of attracting foreign direct investment and export promotion, the ground was set for take off. We were fortunate as our leaders then took this path, while the other countries have not quite got their act together in the late 1960s and the early 1970s. They were still entangled in ideological arguments about theories of economic development. Political leadership then of gelling our people into a cohesive nation, and a rugged society took us on the growth path once and for all for more than two decades.”
“Thank you, Sir. As I mentioned, we need to work as one to move in the right path. We better make the right choices at this juncture as the wrong choices would mean that we would have wasted our efforts and we would need many more years to recover from our mistakes. I do not envy the burden placed on our new team of leaders. Leading Singapore after year 2007 will be a difficult task but I have confidence in them. If the right solution is somewhere out there, I am sure that they will find it.”