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 7 of 21.
“I am not saying that if we fix all these, all would be well. But I am confident that once we change the reward system for young school-going children, our young people will respond and Singapore will be all the better for it. Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe that we have to make system-wide changes that will shake Singapore to its very core, changes that will bring about the desired behaviour needed for continued progress. Changes, as we all know, are difficult, especially changes that go against the grain of our own experience. We are all prisoners of our own experience. Our Ministers and top civil servants are all products of the existing education system. Could we make such a change that will deny our own experience that has brought us success? But if we are serious about leaving no stone unturned, we have to slaughter some sacred cows. Mr Speaker, Sir, we must avoid being stuck in the production economy and migrate to the post-industrial economy. Our present difficulties are not caused by the emergence of China. If it is not China, it would be some other countries like Vietnam or Thailand. China has just made our condition more difficult and shortened the timeframe we have to carry out the transition.”
“Clearly, Sir, there is a mismatch and only the Government could transform this value system. Parents alone could not do it. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is useful to reiterate that meritocracy should be based on the ability of an individual, and not on academic achievement. We already know that. When we look at the Frontbench, there are very few PhDs. But there are quite a few in the Backbench, including myself. So, why do we not extend it down to the "O" or "A" levels? For school leavers without working experience, we have always used examination results in the past as a proxy to determine a person's ability. When the number of As started to proliferate, this proxy has outlived its usefulness. We might want to broaden the selection criteria to include participation in sports, leadership quality and so on. For male candidates, I think we could include their performance in national service, such as whether they have been selected as officers. If we do so, I am not sure what we will do about the female candidates. Perhaps, someone can think about other appropriate criteria. For those with jobs in the Administrative Service, one way is to select them, mid-career, based on their actual performance in the job, preferably in the private sector. The problem with our current approach is the uniformity of ideas and responses in our elite Administrative Service. In a crisis like what we are facing today, as I have said earlier, we have to look outside the Administrative Service for different experience. And yet, through our scholarship programme, over the past 30 years, we have locked up a significant number of talented individuals in the comfort zone of the civil service to a point where we might actually starve the private sector of talents. These are just specific examples.”
“I understand that MOE is exploring ways to address some of the perceived problems in our education system. Progress has been made here and there. Assoc. Prof. Low Seow Chay had touched upon it yesterday on some of these attempts, but emphasising examination results is a problem of our whole society, and not just our education system alone. For MOE to address this issue by itself would be like solving problems piecemeal without seeing the big picture. Mr Speaker, Sir, if we are indeed serious about diversifying our economy, I surmise that we have to make fundamental changes, and to make fundamental changes in the education system, we have to review the reward system for our young people which we have fine-tuned to perfection over the years. For a start, we should review how candidates are selected for the best job in the Government, which happens to be also the best job in the country. We should re-examine the selection of scholars for scholarships offered by the Public Service Commission, other statutory boards and GLCs. Nowadays, a student will never get a chance for a scholarship interview without "S" papers and scoring all As. Sir, if we continue to select candidates based on examination results, we are not going to encourage creativity and innovation, something which my colleague, Mr Zainudin Nordin, also felt strongly about. In the post-industrial economy, we need individuals who would be able to create value from their activities where none existed before. Yet, in our education system, we are grooming an elite class who has become very good in solving existing problems using known solutions and only the exceptional ones are able to break out of the mould and think out of the box.”
“Again, Associate Professor Chin talked about the pursuit of arts and other activities that at this juncture are not assigned economic value by our economic planners. However, in a post-industrial economy, where creativity and innovation are valued, we do not just need technicians, engineers and administrators, but individuals with unique talents. We talk about greater creativity and innovation as being crucial to our future. We also know that to bring this about, we have to fix our education system. But, Sir, we do not know how or perhaps we are hesitant to make drastic changes. The key question that we have to ask ourselves is this: as people are our only resource, are we handicapping our children to face challenges in the future as we continue to foster behaviour to our examination systems like PSLE, "O" levels and "A" levels examinations? Today, we have created a system where teachers and students become very good in producing As. In the latest "A" levels examinations, I believe there were close to 700 students with 4As and the newspapers reported that some of the Junior College students cried when they scored only 3As. My goodness - what are we becoming? What does an 'A' mean in this examination, especially in technical subjects like Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry? I think we have just become very good in using existing knowledge to solve known problems in the shortest possible time. That is what it means. When we put our best and our brightest through a grill to the neglect of other more intellectual and leadership development pursuits, we have to ask ourselves whether we are doing justice to our children and whether we are laying the foundation for their future.”
“Mr Balaji pointed out rightly that we should transform ourselves into an economy with goods and services that people are willing to pay regardless of cost - in other words, the post-industrial economy. The question is how. Perhaps, we could take a closer look at the US. Its economy is broad-based and has vibrant sectors in services, food, entertainment and sports, besides the more traditional sectors in agriculture, manufacturing and housing. Its lifestyle products are permeating the whole world. Every time we eat a McDonalds hamburger, bite into a Pizza Hut pizza, take a sip of Coke or buy a pair of Adidas shoes, a certain amount of our payment is transferred to America. The same thing happens every time we listen to a piece of music, watch a movie or a sports event copyrighted in America. The US is a high-cost country, yet the world continues to pay no matter how expensive the products are. As long as our economy is stuck in what I call the manufacturing and production stage, it would be easy for other countries to join in the competition. If Japan could not compete against China in low cost and yet quality production, there is very little chance that we could. We should emulate the US in our own ways. At this point, I find myself echoing the views of Mr Steve Chia on the role that creative thinking could play in a diversified economy. In fact, we have so many common points that we almost sound alike. No wonder, Sir, he was at one stage mistaken to have come through the ranks of the PAP. We should develop our own franchise food chains like Katong Laksa, our own entertainment industry and our own sports heroes.”
“Mr Balaji Sadasivan was right on the mark when he called for the creation of a catchment area of consumers within a 7-hour flight time around Singapore based on the Singapore brand of quality, reliability and consistency. Mr Speaker, Sir, if we look at the countries around the world, we could group their economies roughly into three groups based on their major wealth creating activities. In one group are countries with primarily agricultural and earth resource sectors. Then, there is another group of countries with the manufacturing sector as their engine of growth, such as Taiwan, Korea, Japan, Singapore and, increasingly so, China. Then, there is a third group that has gone beyond the production stage of economic development with diversified major contributors from the other sectors, such as services, education, entertainment and knowledge-based. For want of a better word, let us call the third group the post-industrial economies. Singapore became successful by pursuing the production model where manufacturing plays a central role in wealth creation. And to support that role, we have an education system that, by and large, produces technicians, engineers, administrators and people like me, to man the economy. To date, we have done very well. But, along the way, our costs have increased. As Mr Heng Chee How pointed out earlier, we probably have gone as far as this formula could take us. If we were to continue fine-tuning the formula, we would, at best, become another Japan, albeit on a much smaller scale. Today, the Japanese industry is still the pride of the industrial world. But its domestic sector is very arcane and inefficient. It is now in a deflationary trap as more and more of its production facilities are being relocated overseas.”
“By the way, the word "feedback" means the transmission of evaluative or corrective information to the original or controlling source about an action, event or process. So, by its very nature, the process of feedback is a one-way street. If my eminent colleague, Dr Amy Khor, wants a two-way communication, she should not use the word "feedback". She should advocate "dialogue". And instead of having the Feedback Unit, perhaps we should have a "Dialogue Unit". Mr Speaker, Sir, coming to the work of the Feedback Unit, there is consensus among participants that Singapore is a high-cost country. They opined that we have become such a place through our high wage policy, asset enhancement policy and land transport policy, such as vehicle ownership restrictions. In all these areas, there is no easy way to climb down from the high plateau without major social dislocations. For instance, in the case of land cost, there is no easy way to reduce this cost without causing politically unacceptable asset deflation in Singapore. Thus, most businesses are holding their breath, waiting for some relief to be announced by the Government. As I have said earlier, half a year seems to be a lifetime for those whose noses are already below the water. But cutting business costs only offer short-term relief. And, as we all know, competing on costs is a game of diminishing returns. We need a long-term strategy for future growth. And what is this strategy? We long to hear from the Government. Mr Inderjit Singh has done an excellent job earlier describing the ills of our economy and some of the ideas to fix them.”
“Ms Irene Ng spoke about introducing legislation to ban all kinds of discrimination. The Minister for Manpower has already responded and I will not elaborate further. But I do have a suggestion to make, and this is to overcome the employers' concern about higher medical costs of hiring older workers. Today, when an employer hires an older worker even at the same pay as a younger worker, he still has to worry about the higher likelihood of the worker having a serious illness sooner. He has to pay the insurance company a higher premium to cover the medical benefits of this older worker. I suggest that we should have a portable insurance policy for workers, very much like the CPF scheme. I am not talking about the Medisave Scheme, which is basically a medical scheme for post retirement. I am referring to a new initiative of having a portable insurance scheme in place so that as workers change jobs, they still carry with them the same insurance policy across employers, that they can continue to enjoy the premium paid in the past. I believe that having such a scheme in place would remove one more disincentive of hiring older workers. Mr Speaker, Sir, the immediate concern of businesses in Singapore today is the difficulty of making a profit. In a recession, there is very little one can do on increasing the turnover side. Thus, cutting business costs is foremost in the minds of most CEOs and businessmen. Most businesses have already cut their internal costs to the bones. For additional cost reduction, they look towards the Government. This was the sentiment expressed by CEOs and businessmen in the recent series of dialogues organised by the Feedback Unit on the upcoming Government Budget.”
“However, in the mid to long term though, the President is correct that we are facing the toughest challenge in returning Singapore to growth. Mr Matthias Yao pointed out earlier the nature of the retrenchments in recent months, ie, these retrenchments are the result of restructuring and not because of failing businesses. Sir, while the Government is focusing on the remaking of Singapore, I suggest that we should not forget the few lessons this recession has taught us. One lesson that is foremost in my mind is the difficulty faced by older workers in finding new employment. The Government has introduced several training schemes for retrenched workers. This is indeed laudable. However, we all realise that the number going for retraining is low compared to the number who are unemployed. One of the reasons is the scarcity of jobs out there. Without the assurance of a job, the motivation to retrain is hard to sustain. The other reason is the bias of our society against older workers. Many Members have already spoken on this. Ms Indranee Rajah had touched on the 50+-year-old lady who could not find a job despite her search. We, as Members, have all come across individuals who cannot even get an interview, when the potential employers learn that they are over 40 years old. These employers did not even bother to find out about the experience or the salary expectations of these older workers. Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe that we should remove as many of the hurdles standing in the way of the older workers as possible. I would like to see the Government take a more pro-active stance in eliminating discrimination against older workers based on age. I think this has already been touched on by certain Members.”
“One wonders how is it that our highly acclaimed civil service did not anticipate the challenges facing us and make appropriate plans for it, not to mention taking the necessary action. Secondly, it gives the impression that the better ideas of how to fix our nation's problems could be found only in the various remaking Singapore committees whose members are, by and large, drawn from the private sector. We have already heard from Mr Khaw Boon Wan, who left the comfort zone of the civil service, that he gained a lot from interactions with the members of these committees. He paid accolades to the wealth of experience brought to bear by these committee members. He has been in the civil service for a long time. What he said is actually telling us a lot about the civil service. Mr Speaker, Sir, perhaps we are a bit too pessimistic about the Singapore economy in the short term. But maybe that is how Government works: underestimating the severity of the recession before it hit, and over-estimating its severity after it hit. The recession turned out to be the worst in our history primarily because of our dependency on electronics and hard-disk drive manufacturing, whose global demand had fallen off the cliff in the past 12 months. It seems to me, Sir, now that the external demand is recovering as the US experienced a strong growth of 6% in the first quarter of 2002. The US Consumer Confidence posted the largest jump in 11 years in March this year. So, just like a spring that has been compressed, once the force is removed, the spring will bounce back. Given the depth of our recession, the Singapore economy will rebound without too much Government interference.”
“I think it is right and proper that we look to the Government to bring us through the recession. Are we Singaporeans being too dependent on the Government? I do not think so, Sir. After all, what is the role of a government? To do what the individuals on their own cannot do. To provide leadership in a crisis. Our people want to be led. So, we should lead them. It is important at this juncture when Singapore is at a turning point, at the deepest recession since our Independence, that this Government provides strong leadership. We all could recall, close to 30 years ago, the then Prime Minister, Lee Kuan Yew, pointed to a bare batch of land and declared, "On this piece of land, we will build a modern metropolis." He was brash, even arrogant, confident. But he did egg our people on. I hope in the remaining days of this debate, we would be able to hear the frontbench elaborate on the Government's vision of our country and the plan to bring us there. We need a strong dose of leadership to restore the confidence of our people. Mr Speaker, Sir, we understand that the various committees established by the Government after the GE have yet to finish their work. Yes, we anticipate that their recommendations would probably result in new policies and new tax changes, come the Budget in May. However, the elapsed time of half a year by the time we come to May to figure out what to do, seems rather long. As the Chinese saying goes, "yuan shui jiu bu liao jin huo". Basically, it means "distant water is useless in fighting the immediate fire". To me, Sir, the long delay seems to give us two impressions. Firstly, the Government is unprepared about the need to make major changes and is now scrambling.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to join my colleagues in thanking the President for his Address. In his Address, the President paints a very gloomy picture of our outlook over the next three years. Many Singaporeans after hearing him are taken aback by the bleak forecast. Our people have always assumed that with the PAP Government in charge, our future is assured. At the 3rd November General Elections, our people were already painfully aware of the severity of the recession and the challenges facing the nation. They gave the PAP a renewed mandate with increased popular support because they believed that with a proven team in place, Singapore will be able to weather the recession and to continue to do well. Five months had passed and before Parliament was convened, during this interim period, the recession had deepened, the unemployed continued to rise. Our people long for our Government to hold out a ray of hope, a promise of a better tomorrow. After all, is it not what the General Election was all about? Vote for the PAP and we will guide you to a better tomorrow. After listening to the President, our people are not so sure anymore. Instead of hearing what the Government could do to lead us out of the recession, in the debate so far, we have heard from Member after Member telling Singaporeans that they have to be more self-reliant, that we should not look to the Government to solve all our problems. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is well and good that our people should be more self-reliant. But there is a limit to what the individuals could do, especially in an island country like Singapore. We cannot go back to farming, we cannot go back to itinerant hawkers, we cannot drive pirate taxis. Yes, we could go back for more training and retraining.”
“I understand that they have not been elected yet. They are two very able Members who have earned our admiration. Sir, as reported in the papers, the Leader of the House is prepared to lift the Whip more often in future. With this change, we would expect that the debate in this House will become more vigorous and robust. We all look forward to lively sessions of the 10th Parliament with you in the Chair.”
“As I recall, when the new Parliament Building was first contemplated by the Government, it was indeed a very modest concept. It was Mr Tan who planted the seed that we not only should have one that embodies the principles of freedom and democracy that Singaporeans hold dear but one that is worthy of the achievements of Singapore as a modern nation. Therefore, we were all pleasantly surprised that this piece of prime land was allocated to Parliament for this new complex. To ensure that we had the best building possible, Mr Tan led several study trips to overseas parliament buildings to learn about their features as well as their shortcomings. During the construction of the building, Mr Tan was also instrumental in setting the requirements upon which the architect would flesh out the design. He was also tireless in chairing the many meetings of the building committee to ensure that future generations of Singaporeans have a great building that we could be proud of. Even though it is the Government that built this complex, we are nonetheless indebted to Mr Tan for the role he played. It would take some time to get used to the fact that Mr Tan is no longer in the Chair, Sir. Looking at the bright side, he is now back on the Backbench and we look forward to hearing from him once again. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would also like to take this opportunity to extend my congratulations to the two new Deputy Speakers, Mr Chew Heng Ching and Mrs Lim Hwee Hua. An hon. Member: You cannot say that, as they have not been elected.”
“Nonetheless, for those of us who travelled with him on official visits, we could attest that he is a speech maker par excellence. His discourse always puts Singapore in good light in front of Parliamentarians from all over the world. It is also well known that Mr Tan has a great singing voice when he let his hair, or whatever is left of it, down. In fact, at this very moment, the tune of Blue Suede Shoes is ringing right in my ears. As Speaker, Mr Tan had presided over the proceedings during his tenure exceedingly well. His grasp of the Standing Orders is complete and thorough. Members who stepped out of line would invariably feel his wrath. Furthermore, his handling of Mr J B Jeyaretnam, the Non-Constituency Member of Parliament, who adopted a belligerent stance in this House, earned our great admiration. When it came to Members trying to catch his eye, Mr Tan had been most fair, giving equal opportunity to everyone, new and old. This is very important to us Backbenchers as a point, no matter how substantial, made a second time, would have lost its impact. We had all, at one time or another, experienced the sharp edge of the knife when he applied the "guillotine" when we rambled on past our allotted time. However, one could not complain, as Mr Tan applied the knife even-handedly, be it a Backbencher or an office holder. All in all, I think I have the support of this House when I say, "Mr Tan, we will miss you in the Chair." It would be amiss for me if I do not touch on Mr Tan's crowning achievement, and it is the construction of this new Parliament Complex. The Leader of the House has already touched on this. New Members should bear in mind when they enjoy the convenience and the comfort of this new complex.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I join the Leader of the House in extending to you our congratulations on this occasion of your election as Speaker. Sir, you and I were amongst the then new Members elected to Parliament in the 1984 General Elections. There are not too many of us left. Soon thereafter, you were inducted into Cabinet and, since then, you have played a pivotal role in policy making as well as providing leadership to our nation. As we get to know you better, we have developed a high regard for your character and integrity. Your contributions all these years as Minister have earned our respect. Your election to this high office today signifies our confidence in you. And for those of us who are involved in sports, we are aware that you were a rugby player during your school years. You have developed a reputation as someone with broad shoulders, who is dependable and reliable, someone who knows when to block, when to pass and when to run. You have also developed a strong sense of team work and fair play, which you have retained to this day. I am sure you will bring these same attributes to your new capacity as Speaker. I would like to affirm that we will all give you our full support and cooperation. Sir, with your indulgence, may I take some time at this juncture to pay tribute to your predecessor, Mr Tan Soo Khoon, who had presided over the proceedings in this House for the past 13 years. When I first entered Parliament, Mr Tan had already earned a reputation for wit and clarity in giving speeches, a reputation well earned as we listened to his speeches as new MPs. His election to the Chair in January 1989 was a loss to the subsequent batches of Members, as they had one less master to learn from.”
“Finally, Sir, what really impressed me is the fact that, by the measures announced and by the bold action taken, this is a Government in full charge of a ship in stormy seas - a Government of action that our people can depend upon - responsive, pragmatic and bold. To make the measures work, we need the wholehearted support of Singaporeans. In this respect, we have laid a good foundation by the leadership taking a pay-cut. Together, Sir, I think we shall be able to sail through this stormy sea to calmer waters ahead.”
“I just have a few comments to make. For instance, in the extension of rebates in energy bills, utilities bills and service and conservancy charges, we have always depended on the classification of HDB housing types as a measure to provide such assistance. I believe this time round, Sir, we should allow for greater latitude and devise an escape route for even those who live in the bigger HDB types, eg, 5-room and Executive flats. This is because I believe some of them are really cash-strapped, and many of them are also faced with negative equity. If they were to sell their flat today to downgrade to a smaller flat, most of their lifelong savings will be wiped out. In handing out aids to HDB dwellers, we should take the plight of such residents into consideration and allow greater flexibility, even if they are staying in 5-room or Executive flats. Coming to the anti-speculative measures, I was hoping that the Government will scrap the anti-speculative measures and which, indeed, the Deputy Prime Minister has done. However, I thought he should also look at the payment of stamp duty before transactions, because that was one measure introduced and which is still in force today. While it is very important that we would like to look at all the short-term measures announced by the Deputy Prime Minister, we should also look at some of the medium-term and long-term measures, to shift the economic strategy of our development from past strategies to newer ones. Perhaps, because of time constraint, the Deputy Prime Minister had not touched very much on this. I was hoping that he would elaborate that, in future, we would shift our focus from multinational corporations to local entrepreneurial enterprises, a shift from Government-linked companies to small and medium enterprises.”
“In so doing, I was looking forward to a massive injection of cash into the economy, and the only way I can see it coming from is a massive reduction of Government taxes. As to whether we should be worried about creating a dependency mentality in our people, Sir, I think it is time that we did not worry too much, because now is the time to put help into their hands. Like Mr Leong has spoken earlier, xue zhong song tan. It is the time to send hot charcoal to the people in snowy weather, ie, to provide timely help. Mr Speaker, Sir, let me state that, after listening to the Deputy Prime Minister, I am very impressed that he has taken a complete relook at every issue facing the Singapore economy and has almost redone, single-handedly, a complete revamp of all our tax issues. Instead of having an energy drink - like Red Bull in its advertisement, he le jiu xing - we had had an intravenous injection of energy drugs, and I think the economy will benefit significantly from this injection. And since the Singapore economy is not dead - it is just very sick - I think the injection of this massive tax cut will bring around early revivals. Furthermore, Sir, I am also very impressed that the leadership has taken the pain to take a 10% pay cut and also forgo a certain amount of bonuses. That indicates that they have learned their leadership skill very well from ancient military lessons that, in fighting wars, the generals and the soldiers must endure the same pain - the cold and also the hardship - together. Mr Speaker, Sir, while it is heartening that the Deputy Prime Minister has indicated a whole host of measures to help businesses, it is also important that we realise the pain of those in the lower income group and extend assistance to them. The package is quite comprehensive.”
“We have to accept that the recession in Singapore will be longer than expected and will be a difficult one - a recession that our people are not really mentally prepared for, a recession that Singaporeans will find it very difficult to tackle, based on our own individual resources. In this severe economic recession, there is, indeed, very little that businesses or individuals could do to turn the situation around in the short term. For instance, no amount of job training will allow the retrenched workers to find a job if no one is hiring. Therefore, we, Singaporeans, are looking to the Government to provide the steady hand needed to steer the ship through the stormy sea. We are looking for bold measures, as the time for conservative step-wise measures is over. When we look at the US economy, we see that the Federal Reserve Bank has implemented nine consecutive interest cuts this year to tackle its recession. I was hoping that our Government could be just as aggressive. So what kind of medicine do we need, Sir? It would be useful to think in terms of long-term measures and also short-term measures. I was hoping to see in the second package the following: In the short term, we have to protect jobs and also to keep people, who are already employed, working. Therefore, we have to keep businesses viable, make less profitable businesses more profitable, make loss-making businesses profitable. And for those who are already retrenched, we need to provide assistance to help them to tackle the costs of basic necessities. Now, Sir, with weaker consumer confidence, our domestic economy is winding down slowly. So, therefore, we need to increase the cash flow in the economy and keep our economic wheel turning.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, like my parliamentary colleagues, I am also overwhelmed by the package just announced by DPM. I find it very difficult to keep track of the details and all the individual measures announced by him. But there is really no need to. Mr Speaker, Sir, I propose to state that, prior to coming to the House, what I had expected in the package - what are the factors we must address - and then look at whether all the measures announced by the DPM will be up to the task. Mr Speaker, Sir, in the first off-Budget package tabled by Minister George Yeo, it reflected a strategy to do just about the minimum that was necessary to help the economy and also to hope that the projected recovery of the world economy expected in first quarter 2002 would lift Singapore out of the current recession. The dose of medicine proposed by the good Minister was calibrated to be about just right - not too much, not too little. That strategy would have worked if the condition had been favourable. But it turns out that the confluence of weather fronts had produced a severe storm - what the Minister had said, a perfect storm, a once-in-a-lifetime occurrence. The third quarter results show that our worst fear has been confirmed. We have, indeed, experienced our worst quarterly contraction since independence. Furthermore, with the terrorist attacks on 11th September, there is no longer any need to second-guess the duration or the severity of the recession. The drop in consumer confidence and air travel means that any hope of an early recovery in the US economy is dashed, so much so that the top executives of SIA have to take pay cuts to weather the severe buffeting the airline is expected to endure.”
“It also would seem reasonable to deny payment if a member is convicted and sentenced to death or for other penal servitude. But there is a provision to deny payment to a member if he or she were sentenced to any term of imprisonment for any crime or offence that seems to me rather punitive. Perhaps that is the way all Bills in this House are written. But if we read those clauses, one gets the impression that a member of this CONNECT Plan might lose his entitlement even if he were imprisoned for one day for a non-criminal offence. I realise that in the Explanatory Note of the Bill, it did mention that clause 8 would come into force if the member is sentenced to certain penalties due to conviction. This implies that it would not necessarily come into force for all offences resulting in imprisonment. But, nonetheless, I feel that perhaps the Minister could elaborate on the types of offences that would be covered by this clause 8. On this note, Sir, I support the Bill.”
“I am wondering whether the Government will take care of these teachers through some parallel measures, so that they do not feel left out by the introduction of this scheme when the majority of teachers in Singapore would start to enjoy something over and above their current salaries. Furthermore, since we have a different category of schools called independent schools and if more schools become independent, how do we treat the transition of teachers in those schools going independent in the future when they have already been vested by an endowment or award scheme in this CONNECT Plan? Sir, clause 7 states that the contributions or awards due to a member will be "excluded property" from the bankrupt member's estate. This gives the impression that a teacher who has served the prescribed period and qualified for the awards would still be entitled to the money even though he is adjudicated a bankrupt later. However, the Explanatory Note on clause 8, which is the clause on "Effect on conviction, dismissal, etc.", dealing with the effect of bankruptcy, conviction, dismissal, states that "Contributions may be withheld and awards refused if the member is a bankrupt .". Sir, this means that a bankrupt might lose all his entitlements under the scheme for past contributions and for service rendered. I wonder why the Explanatory Note of this Bill needs to include this statement on bankruptcy, especially when we are taking measures in this House to render this society more tolerant of failures. Clause 8: Effect on conviction, dismissal, etc on Awards and Contributions. I believe it is justifiable to withhold or refuse to pay, in part or in whole, if a member has been dismissed or charged with any disciplinary charge for any negligence or misconduct.”
“However, Sir, while financial incentive is an important useful tool, we should not depend entirely on a financial incentive scheme like the CONNECT Plan to solve the retention problem of the teachers. Many teachers left the service for other reasons as well, and these reasons or root causes should be addressed. Therefore, I think it is useful for the Ministry to review the issue of retention in total and not depend principally on the CONNECT scheme. In his speech, I heard the Minister mention that he has implemented the Edu-Pac scheme to review the Education Service in total, but perhaps he should take this opportunity in implementing the scheme to review all the related issues of teacher retention, eg, workload, career path, training and upgrading. Sir, it seems to me that the heavy workload of the teachers is a perennial issue. The introduction of administrative assistants in the school is a good start to reduce the workload, but we should not stop there. We could review the course load and other unnecessary demands on a teacher's time. A lower workload might have a better effect, in the sense that it would make the pace more bearable for the teachers who are in for the long haul. We should also look into the career development and retraining of the teachers. Other staff retention measures should continue to be pursued. These include the pursuit of higher qualifications, career opportunities in education, attendance at seminars, workshops and other courses. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me now touch on a few details of the Bill. I believe this Bill excludes independent schools. I understand that the teachers employed directly by the eight independent schools are not included, for the reason that their terms of service are different.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this Bill seeks to establish the CONNECT Plan as a means to retain teachers, particularly young teachers, in the teaching service. It is an award scheme with payments at intermediate break points in a teacher's career. With this scheme in place, the teachers would have some monetary incentive to look forward to as they progress in their careers. It will be a valuable tool to motivate the teachers when their enthusiasm starts to wane, commitment starts to waver, and realism sets in after a few years of service. For those who would otherwise have quit the teaching profession, the scheme would give them cause to pause and weigh the pros and cons of completing the remainder of a prescribed qualifying period. As such, Sir, I support this initiative by the Ministry, as any programme that helps to retain teachers in the service is worthy of consideration. Without a doubt, we shall try our very best to retain the best teachers in the education of our next generation. Sir, in presenting the scheme to the teachers, I think it is important to re-emphasise that the CONNECT payments are over and above the existing compensation for the teachers. As the Ministry has already just reviewed teachers' pay in the past year, there is no question in my mind that this money paid into the CONNECT Fund is removed from funds that would have otherwise been incorporated into the pay increases of the teachers concerned in the future years. The Minister has already elaborated on some of the details of the scheme and I believe the total sum to be paid out is quite attractive and shall be welcome by the teachers.”
“Sir, my other question is how to leverage on the very positive impression of the Chinese public of Singapore and how to prevent the tarnishing of such impression by unscrupulous merchants in Singapore whereby some of the practices seem to be unhealthy and they tend to fleece the tourists.”
“Sir, I would like to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary whether the Government will improve on the approval process for visas applied by these visitors. Even though we have a target to achieve 1 million PRC visitors it seems to me that the approving authority for visas still vests with the Ministry of Home Affairs and they have been quite restrictive in this area.”
“" They are very carefully chosen words. He is beginning to see the market structuring a bottom. In other words, he has not yet seen a bottom, but maybe there is a bottom forming. Two days later, the National Economic Advisor, Larry Lindsey, said that the US economy is at a virtual standstill but with the tax cut and the interest cut, next year there should be growth. Paul O'Neil, US Treasurer, declares that he is an optimist, and next year it will be at least 3%. Among Federal Reserve Governors, they said US growth this year will be between 1.25% and 2%. This means that for the second half they expect maybe 1-2% growth. Therefore, an upturn at the end of the year. Of course, you may say that these being officials, they have got to err on the optimistic side in order not to talk down the market. But, at the same time, these are very serious people with access to reams and reams of comprehensive data. So I do not think we should lightly second guess them. What we have done is this. Look, yes, on the scale between optimism and pessimism, we are on the pessimistic side. But we cannot be completely pessimistic at this point in time. If we use up all our ammunition now, there will be little left later. So hold back the 155s, hold back the F16 strikes, but do all that is necessary, given the situation now. If we need to do more later, if you are right in your gloomy prognostication, then we will do more.”
“Sir, I would like to ask the Minister whether his Ministry might have under-estimated the severity of the recession facing us this time. Of course, if we look at Chairman Greenspan's estimate, he is cautiously optimistic. But the US economy is a very wide economy, unlike the Singapore economy which is really based on IT and high-tech. If the Minister has studied the order book versus built ratio, for many of the high-tech companies, this is one of the worst recessions in their history. And when I was coming to Parliament today, I heard on the BBC that ABB of Sweden has cut 8,000 workers. This has just been announced and is based on this order-book-built ratio. My wife and I work for US multi-national companies and both of these companies have complete capital freeze for the next six months. This means it is zero. Both these big US multi-national companies are not spending any dollars on capital equipment. I think, to me, the recession facing us, in particular, in the high-tech sector, is quite severe. I thought perhaps in the package announced by the Minister, there might be an under-estimation of the severity of the challenges facing us. BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to assure Dr Wang that we are not making light of the economic situation at all. In fact, Business Times two weeks ago printed an analysis by Stephen Roach from Morgan Stanley. He is sometimes called the "Resident Bear" in the investment community. He wrote a carefully reasoned piece that in fact the whole world has already entered into a recession. Of course, among private analysts, there is a range of views and he represents one end of it. We cannot be sure. We read Greenspan very carefully and he said that he is beginning to see "the market structuring a bottom.”
“Sir, I wish to express my thanks to the three Ministers who have spoken, even though, in the case of the Minister, I found some of his responses rather assertive. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, Sir. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Sir, MOE is conducting a pilot programme on pre-school education. In today's Singapore, every child enrolled in Primary 1 would have taken at least two years of kindergarten. But not every child has the same two years of experience. It ranges from private individual attention programmes to the more egalitarian PCF kindergartens. It all depends on the wherewithal of their parents. Some parents even send their children to two kindergartens in one day. The first one to Montessori for individual attention and the second one to PCF for the discipline that they will face when they enrol in Primary 1. It is a fact that some children start Primary 1 much better prepared than the others. The Minister in his reply earlier has also addressed this matter when he talked about the Learning Support Programme. So it is debatable whether such headstart that the children enjoy has any long term impact. But I think the confidence gained by some of these children with the headstart could mean an insurmountable gap for their classmates to catch up. Sir, we pride ourselves in providing an equal opportunity primary school education to our children so that all children, rich or poor, would be treated the same. However, it is clear that with widening income gap, our children are not starting from the same starting line when they begin the formal education in school. I think it is time now for the Ministry to provide subventions to certified kindergartens so that more qualified teachers could be hired for these kindergartens.”
“On this topic, since the Minister has already mentioned that in this year's Budget, it has been given a higher budget allocation, would he review how the Ministry can make teaching a more challenging and interesting career? 2.15 pm”
“Sir, let me quote the British Teachers' Union leader when he talked about the shortage of teachers in UK recently: "The British government before the last election made a famous war cry, `Education, education, education.' But they should have been thinking: `Teachers, teachers, teachers'." And I would also like to quote Kevin Spacey, actor of a teacher in the movie "Pay It Forward", a very inspirational movie about the interaction between teachers and students: "It is important that someone suggests a way of opening up your mind. Great teaching is an incredible art. It is not easy at all." Sir, the men and women, who teach our children, hold the key to opening up the mind of children. The speakers before me have already touched on this point. On their shoulders are placed a heavy responsibility of transmitting knowledge and inculcating values, and only the committed and dedicated will take this on as a lifelong vocation. Like many countries with a vibrant economy, it is very difficult to find qualified young Singaporeans to choose teaching as their lifelong career. MOE currently looks for future teachers among the top 30% of each cohort. This effectively limits the pool of candidates for the teacher training to the university. Given the pool of other sectors of the economy, we are just recruiting enough new teachers to fill the vacancy resulting from retirement and attrition. Mr Iswaran has already spoken on the need to address the issue of making teaching an interesting career from two aspects, namely, compensation and benefits, and also equally important, the continuing development of teachers during their career lifetime.”
“So at the individual level, our students have 21/2 times more opportunity to get through the system and come out with a Science or Engineering degree than a student in the UK, because of the strong preparation that they have in school. At the society or country level, you can see that a number of these countries are lamenting the shortage of engineers and scientists to support the economy. We have a shortage too, but for different reasons - we do not have enough people. But a large proportion of our students are going through such programmes and they are getting the benefit of these programmes. So at the society level, on the whole people level, we are also doing better and not just at the individual level. I am glad also that Dr Wang feels that our universities do produce graduates which are comparable with the best in the world. As regards his second question on whether or not we have moved away from a purely content-based curriculum to one which encourages creativity, I mentioned that we have cut back our curriculum by some 30% basically to provide more time and opportunity for students to do things which are more creative. The graded project work which students now have to do, which teachers have to supervise, is one such example. I am sure that many of our students have been very busy over this vacation doing some project work or other. So this is one example of some of the changes that are taking place in our education system.”
“Thank you, Sir, for permitting me to seek clarification from the Minister. When I say that we do not have any long-term advantage, that a university degree holder, say, from a USA university, with a Bachelor of Science, and another student graduating from a Singapore university in the same area and domain, they probably have the same content and knowledge at that level. That is what I meant when I say an individual from the Singapore system, after he graduated from a four-year degree programme, compared to, say, a US graduate in the same discipline, the amount of knowledge that they have is probably the same. In that sense, we do not have a long-term advantage. Furthermore, I do not think the Minister has addressed my point that we actually learn a lot in our education system, but in terms of utilisation and creativity, we are no better off than a graduate from, say, a USA university. This is an area that Mr Inderjit Singh has in fact mentioned earlier. RAdm Teo Chee Hean: Sir, I would like to address Dr Wang's points on two levels. One at the individual level; and the other at the society level. At the individual level, I have already put up the statistics to show that many more of our students get to the start line. When they get to the finishing line at the university and they take a course in Science or Engineering in the United States, or they take Science or Engineering in NUS or NTU, they may be comparable. But a very much higher proportion of our students get to the start line and actually get through, 21/2 times more than in the United Kingdom.”
“Of course, changing the culture of the whole society is not the task of MOE alone, but might require a policy decision by the Cabinet. But change we must in order for Singapore to continue to do well in the knowledge-based economy. Creativity and innovation are key to the wealth creating process in the KBE. And without change, our current education system would be found wanting. Sir, the Minister has given much thought to this issue. I think the House would benefit from his comments on this topic.”
“In fact, there is no easier way to pick them than to base on scholastic achievement at that time. I believe this is what drives the competitive engine in our education system. Examinations must be designed to separate the few at the apex from the mere outstanding. At the last 'A' level results, the number of students with 4 As, if you look at the report, is in fact very staggering. Since we can no longer separate the cream from the mere outstanding, we introduced the S paper into the examinations. This intensity to get better and better results in the examinations percolates down the whole system, from pre-university all the way to primary school. Therefore, if we were to address how to improve our approach to education, reducing course load to the students itself is not enough. We will still need to change the culture, starting with changing the selection process for the best jobs in the job market. In this area, the Government will have to take the lead if we are indeed committed to changing the culture. To start with, we should change the way candidates for the best jobs in the civil service are selected. We should de-emphasise scholastic achievements and focus on demonstrated abilities. Perhaps we can learn from the Singapore Armed Forces how they select the officers, where the total capability of the individual is assessed. Another possibility is for the Administrative Service to rely less on scholars, fresh out of the university, and to tap matured talents from the open job market. If the rest of the GLCs and the statutory boards take the cue, we could be on our way to change the culture. Once that message is made loud and clear, I am sure the behaviour of the parents and students will change accordingly.”
“Sir, if that is the case, and if we do not have permanent long-term advantages, the question then is: why do we put our children through a pressure cooker system, so much so that one young girl even took her own life for failing to meet up to her own expectations? I note that Dr Lily Neo has a cut on this subject and I would not go into this further. For years now, the Government has asserted that the stress in the education system is not there as a result of any Government policy. The Minister has, in fact, responded on many occasions that even if he instructed the schools to ban all homework, it would not have changed the situation at all. The simple reason is that the parents would then step in, take over and hire tutors to ensure that their children stay on top. So, who is responsible for the stress in our education system - the parents or the system itself? Sir, parents' behaviours are indeed rational and logical. They want the best for their children. They are equipping their children for the best jobs in the job market. I surmise that they are just responding to the way our system selects candidates to fill the best jobs in the job market, in particular, when they first graduate from the university. At that stage, because of our transparency and our emphasis on meritocracy, individuals are chosen by the civil service, the GLCs and statutory boards based almost exclusively on their academic achievements. Furthermore, because we have a scholarship system, these candidates are chosen soon after their 'A' level examination results, when most of them are just 18 years old. For the creme de la creme, good jobs and well-smoothened career paths await the scholastic high achievers. This is epitomised by the public service, which only picks the very best.”
“And our children end up spending most of their time poring over books and pitifully little time in other activities such as sports that school-going children in other countries are engaged in. Many of our children do not enjoy school, even though they score very well in their examinations. Sir, I think it is worthwhile for us to note that almost every education system in the world requires a 12-year education for the children before they are admitted into the university. This minimum period seems to be a universal norm. Perhaps it has something to do with the maturing process of the human mind. However, because of our singular focus on knowledge acquisition, at every level of our school system, our children out-perform their counterparts in other countries, in particular, some of the western countries. But once our young men and women graduated from a 4-year university degree programme, I surmise that they emerge no better than the graduates from other overseas universities. So, the advantage gained in our school system seems, to me, to be short-term ones. Therefore, my question is: is it necessary to subject our children to study so much, be subject to so much stress prior to entering university when, after graduation, they are almost back to the same level as others from a less stressful education system? Furthermore, I think it is well-known in the university education circle that no matter how we design the sorting system, be it examinations or otherwise, it is very likely that the same strong students will always emerge at the top.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head L of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100. Sir, the education of our children is a subject close to our hearts. Every parent with a child in our school system has suggestions on how to improve it. Some of these ideas sound very logical and it is tempting to tweak the system to incorporate them. For instance, when pupil workload was identified to be an issue, we reduced the course load. Sir, I surmise that step-wise improvements are useful, provided we are already very happy with our existing system. But sometimes it might be better if we perform a total review and, where necessary, implement system-wide changes. Sir, what we have got today is a very good system, highly productive and efficient. All we have to do is to look at the recent 'A' and 'O' level results, and from that perspective, it is a system any education authority in the world would envy. Ours is a system designed by systems engineers where pupils are sorted according to their learning abilities. From primary 4 onwards, the school children are graded every two years, and streamed to different ability streams. After 'O' level, they are channelled into different career paths according to their examination results. Some 20% go on to universities, another 40% to the polytechnics and the rest to ITE. It is a traditional system where rote learning and discipline pay great dividends. As a result, we send our children to schools to be educated. They ended up being on a treadmill whose speed is being cranked up one notch every so often, because there is a need to separate the outstanding from the merely good. Stress is high.”
“5 million, would it not be more cost-effective to pursue alternative schemes like SERS with immediate effect, where possible?”
“Sir, unlike Dr Teo Ho Pin, I would urge the Government to make a total review of the IUP and MUP. The reason is because of the recommendations encompassed in Concept Plan 21 where the land use review envisions Singapore with a population of 5.5 million. Based on current land utilisation ratio, there is a potential shortfall of 4,000 hectares of land. The focus group on land allocation, in its report, called for a higher plot ratio in general. In high density private and HDB estates, the focus group urges that the GPR be increased from 2.5 to 3.65. The reason I call for a review is that there is limitation with the IUP and MUP. As no new additional units will be built in those estates, existing residents have to move out before new residents could move in. Thus, there is always a shortage of younger and more energetic residents to rejuvenate the older housing estates. IUP is, of course, always welcome by the residents as the improvements are free to them. But MUP requires co-payment by the residents. Furthermore, during the construction period, those affected have to live in the midst of a great construction site. Most of those who have lived through it would not recommend it to their friend, but perhaps to their enemy. With the falling of HDB prices in the resale market, it seems to me that MUP is losing its appeal to the residents nowadays. As I said, the MUP and IUP do not change the landscape in line with our future scenarios. The Minister, in his reply yesterday, has already agreed that higher GPR in existing HDB estates would be more cost-effective, in particular, if we were to include the infrastructure cost of building new towns. If we are planning for a population of 5.”
“Sir, I would like to join in Mr Chng Hee Kok's call for the Government to resume the sale of HDB shop scheme because, since the last sale, there has been no further activity in this particular scheme. HDB has also not announced when it would resume the scheme, nor indicate whether it has been cancelled altogether. There are, in fact, many neighbourhood centres whose operators are still waiting to participate in the sale of shops scheme, on the assumption that the sale prices would always be pegged at a discount to the market price. This was so when the market was on the way up, and should be so when the market is on the way down. One of these neighbourhood centres is in my constituency at Clementi Street 13 in Bukit Timah GRC. Their desire has been highlighted in the press recently. Not all businesses were negatively affected by the scheme. Some of the more vibrant ones would like the scheme to continue. If HDB were to continue to do so, those currently settled down will find their assets further depressed if HDB were to sell the shops at the current market price. In a way, I can understand why HDB is silent on this matter because no matter what it does, it can please no one. If HDB were to suspend the scheme, it would be equivalent to denying the opportunity to those who are still waiting for the privilege granted to many others, including the early batches. I would like the Minister not to leave everyone waiting for the scheme in limbo and to state very clearly and explicitly whether the scheme will be continued or suspended.”
“Sir, the Medical Endowment Fund set up by the Government would help older Singaporeans to defray the cost of medical treatment after the Government hospitals were restructured. Yet, when we talk to the retirees, many of them are fearful of their ability to pay for their treatment and this has been reflected by previous speakers before me. As Dr Tan pointed out, this could be an irrational fear. It is possible that many of these retirees are unaware of the existing Medifund or whether they are eligible for such a subsidy. In this year's Budget, FY2001, another $100 million is added to the Medical Endowment Fund, bringing the total to $800 million. This is a laudable move by the Government and demonstrates this Government's care for the elderly. Yet, Sir, at 4% interest, the Fund yielded $28 million last year and would yield another $32 million this year, a mere $4 million increase this year over last year. To meet the needs of the elderly in Singapore, $4 million increase per year seems a pretty meagre sum to me. I have several questions for the Minister. Firstly, for the years since the Medical Endowment Fund has been established, what has been the utilisation rate of Medifund? Secondly, whether MOH has a programme to publicise Medifund and help people understand how they could qualify for such a fund.”
“This is, in fact, the highest increase in percentage terms of all Government ministries, and I hope that part of this increase would go towards salary adjustment in the public health sector so that doctors and nurses could look forward to some recognition of their contribution. The question I would like to pose to the Minister is a simple one. How did we spend so little and yet achieve so much?”
“Sir, Dr Lily Neo has already touched on our public expenditure on healthcare being 1.1% of GDP and that the private expenditure was 2%, giving a total of 3.2% in 1999. This is indeed lower than what other countries had spent during the same stage of economic development as we are. Yet the Minister has pointed out in the House, during the debate on the constitutional amendment on NII, that if we measure the outcome of healthcare delivery system, in fact, our healthcare delivery system ranks very high against the various international benchmarks. It strikes me that Singaporeans must be very efficient to achieve such a high standard when we spend comparatively quite a little amount in this area. So my question is: what are we doing right that others might not be doing? One possibility is that ours is a city-state with limited geographic areas, and thus the infrastructural costs of the public health delivery system must be low compared to other countries with large rural areas. Another possibility is that perhaps our environmental health is very good, thereby minimising the expenditure on actual health delivery. But, maybe, another third possibility could be that we might be underpaying our healthcare workers, such as nurses and doctors in the public health delivery system, thereby leading to low morale and high attrition. There were reports indeed in the newspapers several months back that some of our doctors are regretting their career choice, for having chosen to become doctors. Sir, I notice that in the FY2001 Budget, the operating expenditure allocated for the Ministry of Health is going to $1.46 billion, a whopping 34.5% increase over last year.”
“86 billion in the next year, FY2001, would only come to 14%, much less than the mandatory requirements. My question to the Minister is: on what basis does the Government decide how many percent of the NII is transferred to the operating expenditure each year? I actually would like to understand the basis they use to decide on these numbers. I think it will help this House to gain a better grasp of the budget, which is already complicated. To me, as it stands, the NII contribution in the Budget Book seems like a book-keeping entry, balancing the various figures so that the annual surplus does not look so high and attract undue attention. Perhaps, the Minister can correct my impression on this topic. Sir, we have done well as an economy. This is not by accident but is the outcome of a strong partnership between the people and the Government. The Government contributes by implementing farsighted and consistent policies. The people responded with commitments to their jobs and to the nation. I believe with the new Budget philosophy outlined by the Government, Singapore will continue to prosper for many years to come.”
“However, in this new presentation, the new money and old money got mixed together. Like a glass of water, once mixed, it is one and the same. In effect, NII contribution now forms part of the Government revenue and becomes indistinguishable from other sources of income. Of course, as long as the budget surplus at the bottom line is still greater than the NII contribution, we really have not tapped into the NII yet. Nonetheless, this is more than a change in presentation. It is a change in mindset. So by mixing the old money with the new, the Government seems to have overcome a mental hurdle to tap into the investment income generated by our past reserves. Having set that aside, I have several questions regarding the NII numbers shown in Table 1 of the Budget Book. The revised NII for the year 2000 is $1.55 billion while the estimated NII contribution for FY2001 is $0.86 billion, a decrease of 44.7%. I am interested to find out what accounts for the decrease. Are we foreseeing a dramatic decrease in NII as a result of some poor performance of the Government Investment Corporation which is tasked with investing our reserves? The Minister also did not disclose what percentage these numbers represent. In other words, how much is $1.55 billion out of the total NII, and how much is $0.86 billion out of the NII for the coming year? As we know, the Constitution stipulates that the Government should set aside at least 50% of the NII as part of the past reserves. The Finance Minister has disclosed in this House that NII for year 2000 was 3.5% of our GDP. That would translate to $5.94 billion in that year, using figures in the public domain. Thus, by our own computation, the NII contribution in FY2000 was only 26%. Assuming that the NII remains at about $6 billion, then $0.”
“The principal sum has been increased to $1 billion in order to generate $40 million to fund the activities of the lifelong learning programme. What is interesting to observe is that these disbursements from the funds are actually off-Budget, as they do not show up in the line items of the Ministries involved. At this point in time, these items are still relatively small, and do not distort the total Government expenditures. Nonetheless, they are not pittance and should, in principle, be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. For instance, Members of this House do not know the amount actually paid out from each endowment fund over the years even though we have close to $32 million and $30 million in the Medical Endowment Fund and the ElderCare Endowment Fund respectively. I would suggest that the Minister provide a table somewhere in the Budget Book showing the actual disbursements of each of these endowment funds. The other question I have is whether the amounts yielded by the various endowment funds count towards the limit of not more than 50% of the NII that could be allocated towards the operating revenue of the Government. I hope the Minister could enlighten the House in this respect. Sir, before I sit down, I would like to make some comments on NII, one of my favourite subjects. With the Constitutional amendment clearly defining part of the NII as operating revenue, the NII contribution, a new item, which is the spendable part of the NII, is now moved above the line in our budget presentation. In the previous year, NII was placed below the line. Then, new money from tax revenue was spent before there was a need to tap more money from the NII and therefore, the so-called new money was segregated from the old money.”
“These include GST, COE, vehicle import duties, ARF, property tax and so on. As an end result, for the high-income earners desirous of a certain lifestyle, such as car ownership and living in landed properties, the total tax burden is, indeed, rather high. I am glad that the Minister has made appropriate adjustments to the income tax structure so as not to deter strive and enterprise. Mr Speaker, Sir, in good years with healthy budget surpluses, the Minister has been consistent in providing provisions into the various endowment funds, such as ElderCare, Medicare, as well as the Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund. This year, he has done the same. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like at this point to touch upon the survival of these endowment funds after the dissolution of Parliament. Under the Constitutional amendment to preserve past reserves, once Parliament is dissolved, the net budget surpluses of the present Government over its tenure would have gone into past reserves and, thus, locked away from the reach of the next incoming government. On the other hand, the endowment funds survive the dissolution of Parliament and remain accessible to the next incoming government, at least the interest generated by these endowment funds. I understand that the principal sum is still under the stewardship of the Ministry of Finance and it, thus, forms part of the past reserves. The question I have is: would there be a proliferation of such endowment funds, as additional specific needs are identified by the Government? Furthermore, since we only use the interest of these endowment funds to meet operating expenditures, the principal sums of these endowment funds would have to be quite substantial. Take, for instance, the Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund.”