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 8 of 21.
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the reduction of corporate tax from 25.5% to 24.5% is a surprise since we had been told repeatedly that our long-term corporate tax target is 25%. Bearing in mind that it was 26% only two years ago, the reduction is, indeed, rather aggressive. The question is whether the "tax haven" provisions in many developed countries would be triggered by this reduction. And this has, indeed, been touched upon by Mr Iswaran earlier. So I would like to join him by asking the Minister what is the impact on multinational companies (MNCs) in Singapore that would be affected by this tax haven provision in their home countries. One of the persistent requests from the business community is the suggestion to tax, at a lower rate, smaller companies or start-up companies to help them find their footing. We were reminded repeatedly that Britain has such a tax incentive for small companies. I am very glad to note that the Minister has finally responded favourably to this suggestion and, not only that, he has gone one step beyond the expectation of the business community by introducing a progressive scale into the corporate tax structure, thereby benefiting all companies, large and small. Sir, on personal income tax, I would say that the measures taken by the Minister in reducing personal income tax rate across all brackets are very generous. I hope that this is not a one-off measure but is the start of a trend towards lower personal income tax rates. Hopefully, this will remove whatever disincentive to the individual to exert greater effort. The general comment received in the dialogue sessions organised by the Feedback Unit is that the direct tax burden in Singapore is actually relatively low, but there are many indirect taxes based on consumption.”
“With these surpluses hovering close to 3% of GDP year in and year out, it begs the question whether we are locking away too much money and, thereby, starving domestic demand. Well, I do not have the answer, but perhaps the Minister can enlighten this House. Another way of looking at it is this: is the nation saddled with too heavy a tax burden through direct and indirect taxes? I suspect the Minister must, in one way or another, think likewise, as he is introducing structural and long-term reductions in both income tax as well as corporate tax. Touching on corporate tax, Sir, as in previous years, the Feedback Unit had conducted a series of dialogue sessions in mid-January 2001 with the business community and the general public as a preview to the Budget. I chaired the English language sessions on business. The participants of the sessions include various chambers of commerce, small and medium enterprises, as well as selected corporations. Mr Speaker, Sir, unlike the previous year, the feedback from the business community is a bit lacklustre this year. Presumably, people are holding their breath for the details of the Budget, after the Minister had dropped strong hints about the goodies he would provide in the Budget. Furthermore, many ideas were proposed in past sessions and they were yet to be implemented. Nonetheless, we can draw some general conclusions. One is that the corporate tax in Singapore is already reasonable in comparison with the regional countries. So, instead of blanket tax reductions, the business community would have been looking towards specific tax incentives to promote industries targeted by the Government. In this respect, Sir, it is interesting to note that the Minister has desisted from so doing this year.”
“In fact, in my own personal finance, my first principle is prudence, in other words, to always make sure that I have surpluses. However, in managing a nation's budget, I think we should delve further to understand the impact of budget surpluses on the nation's economy. Like a large vacuum cleaner, taxation sucks up liquidity from the economy. Mr Chay Wai Chuen has already touched upon the lack of growth in many economic sectors while our national GDP grew by 9.9% in the year 2000. He also pointed out that the money supply did not seem to grow very much either. I believe he had touched on a very key point. Perhaps the Minister should tell us the correlation between budget surpluses and consumption by our citizens, as every dollar taxed is one dollar less in the pocket to spend. In my view, if we just look at the budget surplus item in the Budget Book, we see the figures of $4.88 billion in 1999, $3.54 billion in the year 2000, and $4.37 billion in the year 2001. But, Sir, these are actually the surpluses, after provisions for Special Transfers. And we must remember that the money in these various endowment funds, including the CPF Top-Up Scheme, is still removed from circulation in the economy, as the principal sums remain illiquid. So, to actually determine the impact on liquidity, we should look at the surplus before Special Transfers. And the numbers now stand at $5.57 billion, $5.38 billion and $6.22 billion in the three years I have mentioned. So, in three years, if we add up all these sums, $17.17 billion is removed from circulation in the local economy as, presumably, these are transferred to the Government Investment Corporation (GIC), which in turn invests most of these surpluses overseas.”
“Thus, if we take that into consideration, we should be looking at a budget surplus of close to $4.48 billion or a variation of 120%. This is, of course, already a big improvement from the FY99 budget, when there was a variation of close to $9.98 billion when the budget swung from a deficit of $5.1 billion to a surplus of $4.88 billion. Sir, I understand that predicting budget surplus or presenting budgets to Parliament is a very tricky matter because so much of this is dependent on the GDP growth rate. But the projections are so far off that it begs the question of how good we are in forecasting. Furthermore, at a time when the Singapore Stock Exchange has been urging public-listed companies to disclose their results on a quarterly basis and these disclosures should be as accurate as possible, should Parliament expect less of the Government in this climate? Maybe we do not need quarterly reports on revenue and expenditure but, perhaps, it is not too much to ask for a more accurate budget forecast. Mr Speaker, Sir, I note that some of these variations in expenditure and revenue result from the under-spending of development expenditure. I also note, in the Report of the Estimates Committee, Parliament Paper No. 1 of 2001, that the Ministry has indeed imposed a reservation fee of close to 3% to prevent under-spending of development expenditures. I would like to find out from the Minister whether this measure is necessary and what is its effectiveness, and whether we are promoting undesirable behaviour within the various Ministries by forcing them to spend money when they could not spend the money. So, are we, in fact, forcing them to incur some waste unnecessarily? It is good to have budget surpluses, and I am not against budget surpluses.”
“But however it may be, Mr Jeyaretnam does not realise that defence is a capital-intensive expenditure - weaponry, arms, equipment and so on - whereas education is a labour-intensive expenditure. As we stand today, our education expenditure stands at 3.7% of the GDP, and the Prime Minister has already stated in his National Day Rally speech that it is his target to increase this expenditure to 4.5% of the GDP. And, as Chairman of the GPC for Education, I can say that the Ministry is trying its very best to achieve this target and, I think, if we want to spend more money, the MOE might have indigestion on how to properly bring value to the expenditures. Nonetheless, in the budget for the year 2001, there is an increase of close to $500 million in MOE expenditures. So, Mr Jeyaretnam should consider this point before he keeps on repeating how to address the problem of low-income citizens in Singapore, how do we help the lower 30% in our society. Sir, let me now touch on the budget surpluses in our Budget. For many years now, I have observed that the Ministry has under estimated revenue and actually over estimated expenditure. I wonder whether this is a result of poor modelling or the result of very conservative behaviour, or both. Again, in the FY 2000 Budget, the revised budget surplus is $3.54 billion while the estimated surplus is $2.45 billion, a variation of close to $1.1 billion or 44.5%. And this is after an unplanned $1.94 billion one-time compensation payment to the two telephone companies. In my opinion, Sir, this compensation should be treated in the same category as long-term capital transactions, like proceeds from land sales, and should have come out from a long-term fund rather than from our operating expenditures.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am in the forefront of the IT industry and I can give a very good example of why this income gap widening is a universal phenomenon, and not just a phenomenon within Singapore. For instance, the United States government at the behest of their IT industry had issued a new category of visa called H1B Visas and it provided a quota of close to 200,000 visas per year. In other words, since its implementation till five years hence, it will be able to suck in close to one million IT professionals from throughout the world. Now, where do these people come from? They are going to come in from developing countries, such as India, China, Eastern European countries and even a few from Singapore. So, Sir, if we had adopted policies that prevent our IT professionals from having better pay to make Singapore a better place for them to stay behind, then I think we would even face greater migration of our talented and young people to magnets, like Silicon Valley. Sir, a widening income gap is a global phenomenon, and Singapore is already in a very good position to address this problem, compared to the countries I have mentioned. So the key issue is actually not to look at how we can prevent the widening income gap, but how to address the social and economic structure within Singapore as a result of the widening income gap. And Mr Jeyaretnam did mention that, quoting from the President of Mexico, there are several factors that we should address in so doing: firstly, education; secondly, health; and, thirdly, to address extreme poverty in a society. In addressing education, he has always compared its expenditure with that for defence, that defence expenditure is pegged at 5%, whereas education is only 3.7%.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, Singaporeans reacted very favourably to the generous tax cuts and other social transfers provided in the FY2001 budget. In so far as providing tax relief is concerned, it is indeed the most generous budget ever. Enough has been said regarding the plight of the unemployed, the lower income and the struggling small businesses by Members preceding me and I do not intend to repeat their points. However, Sir, I think we will miss the impetus of the Budget if we do not appreciate the two key objectives of the Government in presenting this Budget. Firstly, to position Singapore for the new era of growth by increasing our attractiveness not only to businesses but also to individuals as a place to live and to work in. Secondly, to give every individual worker the wherewithal to weather this difficult period of transition, to assist promising business enterprises in getting established and to help businesses in dying trades shift out to other industries. In my opinion, Sir, it is important to measure the budget against these stated objectives and to determine how far this budget goes towards achieving these objectives. As I was listening to Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam, I was wondering whether he ever takes this into consideration. Unfortunately, he has stepped out of the House. So even if I want to address some of his points, he is not here to listen to them. But, nonetheless, let me touch on two points he brought up. Mr Jeyaretnam mentioned about the widening income gap and he said that the Prime Minister had attributed it to globalisation. My question to him is whether he accept this particular reason.”
“While I am not advocating matching these percentages blindly, point by point, I think we could have done more in this particular area. Mr Speaker, Sir, I understand that the social costs incurred by the Government will increase over time as our population ages even at the current level of services, thereby bringing us closer, as far as the percentage of GDP is concerned, to the norm of more developed countries. However, I think we could re-examine the basis of Government policies and perhaps, conceptually, tap part of the NII to better look after our senior citizens. If we earmark the use of NII for this purpose, we could rationalise greater expenditure without having to wait for the budget to go into deficit before tapping the NII. I would say that we should support our senior citizens better in their old age. After all, they are the people who have laid the foundation of everything we have today in Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.”
“Consequently, Sir, if we do a mental exercise and say we earmark and use the NII from the second bucket to fund social programmes and health care programmes for the senior citizens, I would find it difficult to hew to the argument that to provide more for the old means higher taxes and heavier burden for the young. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am glad that the Government is leaving no more than 50% of the NII as revenue in the Government budget, in case it is needed in the future. Part of it would be used to defray more extensive social programmes as our society ages. In my mind, there is much scope for better and more extensive medical services, in particular for senior citizens. Let us revisit the health statistics mentioned by Dr Chelliah. I asked the Librarian to do a search which yielded the following data taken there from World Development Indicators 2000 [World Bank March 2000]. In the case of Singapore, the public expenditure on health care from the latest figures available was 1.1% of GDP and the private expenditure was 2%, giving a total expenditure of 3.2%. This puts us in the same bracket as those lower-income countries I have mentioned, whose numbers were 1.2% and 2% respectively. On the other hand, the middle income countries spent 3.1% and 2.6% respectively. The high-income countries incurred 6.2% and 3.7% respectively. In the case of USA, it spent 6.5% and 7.5%, giving a total of 13.9% of GDP. Dr Chelliah was not entirely right but I think she has a point. We as a people spent one-third of the amount spent by the middle-income countries and one-sixth of the amount spent by the high-income countries when it comes to public health care.”
“Thus, NII alone could have paid for our total annual expenditure on education, paying everything for schools, universities, polytechnics, ITEs, teachers, lecturers, the whole works. Sir, we are indeed talking about serious money. Mr Speaker, Sir, I think one could not deny entirely that our reserves have been built up over the past from contributions of our citizens in one way or another. And in my mind, I suggest that we could group these reserves into three buckets, according to the persons who have contributed as follows: the first bucket contributed by working adults (who are working adults today); the second bucket contributed by retirees during their working life, and the third bucket contributed by those - pardon my pun - who had kicked the bucket. So from each bucket, you look at, flows an annual NII. We do not need to argue what percentage of these reserves are in each bucket. Maybe the Minister for Finance could work it out. But I think of the money in the bucket that was contributed by retirees, the percentage is not zero. I do not know the number, but definitely it is not zero. We could argue that we should not touch the NII flowing from the first bucket, the bucket of the working adults. That belongs to the working adults, for their future use. We could argue that we should not touch the NII flowing from the third bucket as these should be considered our inheritance, heirloom for our future. But is it beyond the realm of reasonableness if we use the investment income derived from the "retirees" bucket to defray the medical cost of the senior citizens who are living today, in particular those in the lower income group?”
“In any event, this is already a moot point because past reserves have already been locked up by Parliament. To the statement that Government is rich and could afford it, my answer would be to highlight that again Government budget is based on annual revenue from taxes and expenditure. In order to pay for more benefits for the elders, we must raise taxes on the working adults, thereby increasing their burden. As the ratio of working adults versus retirees deteriorates over time, the burden would naturally increase. Now the ratio is roughly 10 to 1. In the future, say, year 2030, the ratio would have been 4 to 1. Adding more benefits would accelerate this and that would be unfair to the working adults. So by themselves, Sir, these arguments are logical and rational. For a country with a balanced budget or even a deficit budget, it is true that to provide more for the aged means higher taxes for the working adults. After a while, the tax burden would be sky high as we could see in those Nordic countries. Yet, when I started thinking about this Constitutional Amendment Bill, it strikes me that perhaps if you look at the NII and the size of the NII, maybe the senior citizens' grouses are not entirely without basis. The Minister has disclosed that in our last budget statement, NII is 3.5% of our GDP. To do a comparison to get a better feel of the magnitude of this number, let us look at the Defence budget which is pegged at 5% of GDP. In other words, while NII could not pay for everything MINDEF would need, it does pay for about 70%. On the other hand, the Ministry of Education's budget, the second largest in our annual Government expenditure, stands at 3.7% of GDP.”
“The participants called for greater and more generous support by the Government. After all, to most Singaporeans, the Government is considered rich and could afford it. At the Feedback Session, the senior citizens spoke with passion and strong emotion. Clearly, these issues are very close to their hearts. One participant, Dr Jazmyn Chelliah, pointed out that one of the key reasons why the senior citizens are unhappy about health care is that the Government expenditure on health care is low, at around 1% of our GDP. At this level, it is comparable to the level expended by low-income countries and is not commensurate with the ranking of Singapore. In other words, if we use our per capita income, that ranking would put us among the top 10 countries in the world. But when it comes to public health care expenditure, we are being grouped together with one of the poorer countries. She went on to point out that the percentage spent on health care in the US is about 12%. As I listened to these sentiments, arguments in support of Government policies popped into my head. It is inevitable, being a PAP member. To the statement that senior citizens had contributed taxes all their lives, and therefore should have some benefits in their old age, my response would have been that the Government budget is cash based. Most of the taxes collected in the current year would have already been spent in the year collected. So the taxpayers in the past had already benefited from the Government's various programmes in the year they paid their taxes. So paying taxes is not like putting savings away for old age. Senior citizens could not look at the past reserves as their collective savings and as such could be tapped to fund social services for them when they are old.”
“It reflects our Government's philosophy of managing our budget. NII is not used, it is hardly ever used, unless expenditure exceeds revenue, which rarely happens in Singapore. Therefore, this way of presentation has the effect of enforcing a discipline within the Government to strike for a balanced budget or a surplus where possible. The rationale of many of our policies is derived from this principle. In other words, the Minister for Finance will always try to push for a balanced budget or a surplus budget, where possible, before tapping on the NII. Mr Speaker, Sir, I chaired a Feedback Unit Dialogue session on major concerns of Singaporeans on the evening of 4th January this year. This is the second of a series of sessions to be organised by the Feedback Unit. For the session I chaired, the subject matter was the concerns of the senior citizens in Singapore. 50-odd of these senior citizens participated in the session. Their major concerns are rising cost of living and medical cost, with medical cost being the principal area of concern. The sentiment of the senior citizens on health care is that the Government could have done more for them. Medical costs are escalating and senior citizens are burdened with the brunt of it. Several expressed the opinion that this Government does not look after the senior citizens well because they are no longer productive members of the community. Others say that this Government only cares about "profit". Nonetheless, the general consensus is that senior citizens have been paying taxes all their working lives and contributing to building today's Singapore. Yet, when they are retired and when their need for medical care is the greatest, the Government is miserly in dishing out social services and health care.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this Constitutional Amendment has the effect of focusing our mind on the net investment income (or NII), a topic which ordinarily does not attract too much debate in this House. In fact, today, it also does not attract too much debate in the House. The Minister has already given the technical definition of NII in his speech when moving the motion. Mrs Lim has also asked about the role of the Government in respect of our past reserves and the NII. At this point, Sir, I would like to share with the House what is a layman's definition of NII. To the layman, NII is the investment income of our country's past budget surpluses. It is equivalent to a retiree receiving an endowment from the cash dividends of a principal sum managed by an investment bank. Only in this case, the Government is the custodian of these past surpluses which we all know have been locked away and could not be touched. As Mrs Lim also questioned, who contributed to these past surpluses? They are accumulated from past budget surpluses and sales of Government assets, such as land and buildings. In one way or another, these reserves are derived from the sweat and labour of generations of working people in Singapore. Of course, we have a clean and efficient Government which manages the reserves very well, allowing it to grow and to be preserved over time. Furthermore, when we look at the Annual Budget Statement, one would notice that the NII is below the budget line. In other words, the budget is presented in terms of, first, revenue, followed by expenditure, then followed by a statement saying what is the surplus or deficit of revenue over expenditure, then a statement giving us the NII. I would like to surmise that this presentation, Sir, is more than cosmetic.”
“I would like to find out from the Minister of State how he could convince the commuter that the system is safe if the train is physically there and yet, through a manual reset, the train would disappear into virtual space. How could anyone say that such a system is certified safe?”
“I would like to ask the Minister how do we restore confidence of the consumers on the billing sent out by Power Supply because there are reported incidents where those bills were outrageously way off the mark and yet they were sent out. Also, are there customers who, because of such mistakes, felt that they should terminate their GIRO transactions with Power Supply? BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Mr Speaker, Sir, I agree with Dr Wang that the problems in the billing have damaged the reputation of Power Supply and public confidence in the entire billing system. So the only way for us to go forward is to freely admit our mistakes, be very transparent in what we have done, what we hope to do and to restore confidence bit by bit, layer by layer. It will be painstaking work. Power Supply must work with MPs and community leaders to explain the situation fully to members of the public. It will take time.”
“Toh See Kiat (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask the Minister whether Power Supply would consider stating explicitly in its bill, perhaps in red, that the customer may be able to pay in instalments, if he so wishes. BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Mr Speaker, Sir, I will put this to PUB.”
“I would like to ask the Minister whether he considers the penalty imposed so far deterrent enough to Power Supply. Mr Speaker, Sir, the amount seems to be rather small in comparison to the operation of Power Supply, being a billion dollar company. Secondly, how do we prevent Power Supply, being a monopoly, to pass on the penalty to the consumers anyway? BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Mr Speaker, Sir, I suppose PUB could have increased the fine on Power Supply, but that would not have resolved the problem. Power Supply had inherited a mainframe computer and, to prepare for a liberalised energy market, they had embarked on a programme to install a new billing system. So they got SAP from Germany to provide the software and a system implementor from New Zealand to operationalise it. The system was tested last year. It worked during the test. They encountered enormous problems when the system was implemented, tried to fix the problems, new bugs appeared. So one thing after another. The system implementor is no longer working on the problem because they do not seem to be making very much headway. We have gone back to the original software supplier and we hope in the coming months, the problem can be solved. It is very unfortunate and, being a regulated monopoly, PUB and MTI must take overall responsibility for the problems that have been caused to consumers. What of the future? Once the retail market is opened up, then billing becomes competitive. And in fact, the company doing the billing may not be the one actually supplying the electricity. So a market will develop and we hope that the market will regulate the quality of service. Assoc. Prof.”
“I think the Minister is right that there should be a limit. But I would like to remind the Minister that the limit has been increased gradually and that is tied to the retirement age at 65. And over time, this limit has increased. But for the parents who are still surviving, let us say when they reach 65, at one point it was about $30,000, now it could be about $60,000, would he consider moving all those limits up to the maximum of $60,000, for instance, rather than unlimited contribution, like he says, $100,000? Of course, if he said, like $1 million, obviously there could be abuse in that scheme.”
“May I seek the Minister's explanation on the cash top-up scheme for parents? I understand that besides the time bar, there is actually another constraint on the cash top-up scheme, which is the maximum amount a child can top up for the parents and that maximum amount is based on the Minimum Sum scheme and the age of the parents. I am very heartened to say that the Ministry is prepared to lift the time bar. My question is whether the Minister is also prepared to consider lifting the maximum sum allowed so that more parents, whose contributions by the children have reached the cap, can continue to contribute to this top-up scheme. 2.00 pm”
“Sir, would the Minister of State agree that in the previous discussion on this topic, the merger of categories allows buyers a greater freedom to buy cars? As such, open bidding with the information available seems to suggest that the segregation of categories is no longer necessary. Given this, would he consider merging the categories as soon as possible?”
“Sir, with the information available in the open bidding system, is it not equivalent to having a single category for all cars?”
“If you refer to Annex 4.1 of the Report of the Committee on Compulsory Education, page 35, actually the numbers are very, very small. Of course, there are over 400 pupils not contactable. They just cannot be traced, despite all the efforts by the Ministry of Education. So we must be referring to very different data. I do not know which one is correct. But I think this is perhaps quite authoritative.”
“If we are referring to the same data, my impression is that there are very few children not registered in Primary 1 as a result of family situation. In fact, if I recall correctly, if we were to exclude children not already living in Singapore, children who have migrated, children attending madrasahs and all the designated schools, in fact, the numbers must be very, very small, maybe one or two, or no more than a handful. Maybe we are interpreting the number differently. Of course, I also exclude children with special education needs in this respect.”
“Sir, may I be permitted to seek a clarification from Mdm Claire Chiang? In her opening remarks, she referred to the problem of registration of children in Primary 1, and she mentioned a number that is close to over 700 children who are not registered in Primary 1 because of family situation. Did I hear it correctly?”
“When the Board of Compulsory Education has exhausted their avenue to persuade a recalcitrant parent, it would recommend to the Director-General of Education to bring the parents to court. Unlike other laws, for instance, the Maintenance of Parents Act, other interested parties cannot bring the parents to court on their own. This is a recognition that since such families are already in distress, bringing the family to court should be the very last resort and should only be left to the Government. The Bill has the support of all the communities in Singapore. There is one major shortcoming in my opinion, which is its duration. By any measure, six years of Compulsory Education is not enough for a person to hold his own in the future. Globalisation is an irreversible trend and is picking up pace across the world. Singaporeans have no choice but to be fully engaged in the race. To be able to stand up to the best in the world, we should put all our children through at least 9 or 10 years of education instead of just six as provided in the Bill. Hopefully, after Compulsory Education has been implemented for several years, the worries and concern about Compulsory Education would be assuaged and we could think about extending the duration to a longer period. Hopefully, this could be done soon. Even now, more and more of our children are already voluntarily having at least 9 years of education, if we include technical education. This is so because those without such an education would find it increasingly difficult to find a job in the job market. Sir, this Compulsory Education Bill as it stands is the most appropriate one at this point of time for Singapore. I support the Bill.”
“I believe the safeguards and the guidelines contained in the Compulsory Education Committee's Report to monitor the progress of these children would be sufficient to prevent home-schooling from becoming a loophole. There are also advocates who would like Compulsory Education to address the issues of handicapped children, including their call to integrate these children into our national schools. They would like all children to grow up and attend school together, instead of being segregated today into special needs schools. The objective is to promote awareness and compassion of our children of the handicapped and the less able from a very young age. Sir, since our education system is an ability-based system, with children with different learning abilities streamed to different streams, this idea would have required a complete overhaul of our education system. The Committee feels that the current approach involving the voluntary welfare organisations with regard to children with special needs is the right approach and we recommend that this be retained. Sir, clause 7 of the Bill contains provision on penalty for recalcitrant parents. Most members of the Committee feel that penalty should only be imposed as a last resort. Counselling instead is a preferred approach. In this respect, I am glad to note that this Bill provides for the establishment of a Board of Compulsory Education. The duties and powers of the Board are given in clause 6 of the Bill. It is appropriate that no person should be charged for any offence under this Bill except on a complaint from the Director-General of Education.”
“Besides the pupils in the madrasahs, the Compulsory Education Committee has recommended exemption for two other groups of children, namely, children attending designated private schools and children who are being tutored at home by the parents. The Minister has indicated that he has accepted these recommendations. Sir, why did the Committee recommend that home schooling be exempted from Compulsory Education? Since there is only a very small number of children every year being tutored at home, the question could be asked as to why a special provision should be created just for these children. In fact, several members of the Committee felt that no exemption for home schooling should be made. Firstly, parents could make use of this provision as a loophole to circumvent the Act. Secondly, unlike the educational institutes such as the madrasah and the San Yu Adventist School whose exemption could be revoked if they fail to meet the PSLE benchmark, there is no such recourse when it comes to home schooling. These are very strong arguments. However, I have the privilege as a member of the Feedback Unit to have met a few parents who are tutoring their children at home. I can reassure the House that these are dedicated and committed parents. A few of them are former school teachers themselves. In almost all cases, one of the parents will give up his or her full-time job so as to stay home to tutor the child. If we truly believe that education is primarily the parent's responsibility, these parents are the exemplars of dedication and commitment. To forbid home schooling will be sending a wrong message. Therefore, I support the exemption for home-schooling from Compulsory Education.”
“It is also very positive that the community itself understands the challenges of the future and is prepared to deal with the problems. As we know, the madrasahs' curriculum is geared towards the training of religious teachers and leaders. Yet, for those who do not take up religious vocation as a career, these young people trained in madrasahs are not well prepared for the KBE. I would like to quote some recent studies that have shown that in the knowledge-based economy, the wage gap increases as jobs go upscale in skills and training. A recent study by a Stanford professor using real life data from a US corporation proved this conclusively [Stanford Business School Social Scientist Roberto Fernandez]. As the study surveyed working adult Americans, it showed that the correlation between race and income was very strong as jobs move upscale. As the corporation turned towards high technology, white workers with higher wages were hired to replace African American workers with lower wages. So it seems that the digital divide not only increases income disparity between the skilled and unskilled, but also widens the chasm between racial groups of different aptitudes towards technology. It would be a tragedy for this to happen in Singapore. This we must avoid at all costs. The Prime Minister had done a great job, convincing the Muslim community to accept Compulsory Education for their children, while making special provision for the needs of the community for religious teachers and leaders. The madrasahs themselves have voluntarily set a PSLE benchmark for all madrasah pupils to aim for after the Compulsory Education Act comes into effect.”
“It is useful to reiterate that, even after the enactment of this Bill, the responsibility of the upbringing of the child still rests primarily with the parents. This is the right approach as our parents have been very serious about the future of our children. In fact, the main reason why the Singapore education system is stressful and highly competitive is the strong emphasis on education placed by our parents. Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me now to elaborate upon some of the deliberations of the Compulsory Education Committee leading to its recommendations. The Feedback Unit has reported that the majority of respondents polled by the Unit felt that four years of Compulsory Education is too short. Many felt that six years is the minimum, with 10 years the ideal. This view is also reflected by the Minister in his speech. Several members of the Committee felt that to truly meet the objective of preparing our children for the knowledge-based economy, the minimum requirement is 10 years of Compulsory Education. After extensive deliberation, the Committee finally agreed to confine Compulsory Education to primary education in the first instance. This is so because it is more important to get every Singaporean, every community, to accept Compulsory Education at this juncture than to aim for the ideal of Compulsory Education at the first go. If need be, the Act could be amended in future to provide for another four years of secondary education. Mr Speaker, Sir, as expected, some members of the Muslim community are concerned that Compulsory Education would or could legislate the madrasahs out of existence. This is of course not the intent of Compulsory Education.”
“Yet, we are aware that in most cases, penalising parents for not sending their children might make matters worse for the families. When a child is not attending school, the root cause is traceable to the family, often times broken families and dysfunctional families. These are not situations or problems that can be resolved with the stroke of a pen. Nonetheless, Sir, we recognise that a child not given the opportunity to blossom to his full potential is a terrible waste. At a time when our birth rate is below replacement level, this becomes an inexcusable and an intolerable waste. In proposing Compulsory Education, the Prime Minister has decided that it was time for the Government to make an affirmation that every Singaporean matters. Making education of a child compulsory elevates the visibility of this commitment. Mr Speaker, Sir, once the Government decided that Singapore should have a Compulsory Education Act, it is a logical step to define what Compulsory Education means for Singapore. This task was entrusted to the Compulsory Education Committee set up in December 1999 under the chairmanship of Dr Aline Wong, Senior Minister of State for Education. I was the Vice-Chairman of the Committee. After examining the role of education in a young country like Singapore, the Compulsory Education Committee reaffirmed the two objectives of the National Schools system: (1) to give our children a foundation for life-long learning in the preparation for the knowledge-based economy; (2) to give the children a common educational experience to enhance national identity and social cohesion. These two principles are still the basis of this Compulsory Education Bill.”
“Mr Goh Chee Wee and Mr Liew Kok Pun raised the issue in March 1982 in the context of reducing school dropout rate. Compulsory Education has been a favourite topic of Mr Chiam See Tong who raised it in no fewer than seven occasions from 1989 till 1999, and Mr Chiam will be speaking after me as well. NMP Kanwaljit Soin brought up the subject in February 1993 and again in December 1993. Mr Lew Syn Pau raised the same topic in March 1994. One could only conjecture as to why we did not implement Compulsory Education in the early years of our nation building. Perhaps, Singapore being a multi-racial and multi-religious society, Compulsory Education would be perceived differently by the various communities. Instead, the Government had chosen to make education as widely available to our children as possible without making it compulsory. In retrospect, this would appear to be a wise decision. As we all know, there were strong reactions by the various interested parties, in particular, the Muslim community, regarding the future of the madrasahs after the Prime Minister's suggestion on 13th October 1999. Some of these reactions were rather emotional ones, with the extreme ones even expressing doubt regarding the Government's intent. The community was only reassured when the Prime Minister personally met with the representatives of the Muslim community. From the past ministerial statements on this subject, we can also deduce that the Government was preoccupied with the problems of enforcement when it comes to Compulsory Education. This might be true, because while other governments might be comfortable about not having 100% compliance, this Government would have wanted 100% compliance.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, we have chosen to make primary education compulsory when practically all our children are already enrolled in schools of one sort or another, if we include private schools and religious schools. In fact, 90% of our children are already in the national schools. At this point in time, our education system is more focused on the quality of education to enhance creativity and originality in our children in response to the changing world instead of focusing on the number of children being enrolled in primary schools. So, based on past events in this House, it would appear that the Government was galvanised into action after NMP Claire Chiang raised an Oral Question on 4th August 1999 on the topic "Children Not Registering for Primary School". When she declared that "one child not in school is one too many", it did strike a chord in many of us in this House. The Minister, responding at that point, reiterated the argument that since we have already passed the stage where we need to make education compulsory, there is actually very little need to do so. Therefore, when the Prime Minister addressed the House on 13th October 1999 proposing that MOE consider the introduction of Compulsory Education of a 4-year period, the impression in the public mind is that NMP Claire Chiang had won the argument against a long-standing policy of MOE. Mr Speaker, Sir, that impression would not have given credit to other Members of Parliament, past or current, who have spoken on this subject because the call for Compulsory Education in this House was not new. I looked through the Hansard, Sir, and it shows that Mr Tang See Chim first brought up the subject in December 1966.”
“It was also common to implement Compulsory Education for six years in the first instance and then later extend the duration to a longer period such as nine years. Mr Speaker, Sir, by now almost all nations or self-governing territories in the world have implemented Compulsory Education. The 1998 UNESCO Statistical Yearbook on National Education System yields some interesting data about the universality of Compulsory Education. In the Africa region, 50 out of 56 nations or territories implemented Compulsory Education. In North America, 35 countries out of 35 did so. In South America, 14 out of 14. In Europe, 40 out of 42. The standouts are Andorra and Latvia. In Asia, only 37 out of 50. In the Oceania region, 16 out of 19. In the ASEAN region, Indonesia, Thailand, Philippines, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, and Brunei Darussalam have Compulsory Education laws on their book. Only Singapore and Malaysia do not. We are in the company of Bhutan, East Timor, Lebanon, Maldives, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. On paper, Sir, at least, it is indeed an anomaly that Singapore, a progressive country, does not make education compulsory. In terms of duration, Compulsory Education duration ranges from as low as five years in Iran, Turkey, Bangladesh, Nepal, Myanmar and Vietnam, to 12 years in Belgium and Germany, with the Netherlands as high as 13 years. It is nine years in Japan, 10 years in the US and 11 years in the UK. There is only one small territory in Africa that implemented a Compulsory Education of four years. Nine or 10 years seem to be the duration of choice for most countries.”
“By 1918, all the states in the US had laws on Compulsory Education. In England and Wales, Compulsory Education was introduced in 1880, close to 120 years ago. Over time, Compulsory Education spread throughout the western countries as one country after another implemented CE. By the 1920s, the concept that every child has a right to education was fully implemented in the western countries. This has strong influence on emerging countries. These countries too aspire to implement Compulsory Education as part of their nation-building process. These are countries in the second group. Their founding fathers set out to build new societies out of the old. They saw education as the means for their population to bootstrap themselves out of poverty. Let us look at a few countries in Asia. Taiwan introduced Compulsory Education for primary schools in 1945 after the Second World War. By 1951, six years after the enactment, the enrolment rate in their primary schools was only 81.5%. Nonetheless, by 1968, when Compulsory Education was extended to nine years, their enrolment rate stood at 97.7%. India's 1949 Independence constitution provided for Compulsory Education. However, compulsion to-date has not been enforced due to socio-economic and political considerations. Hong Kong introduced Compulsory Education in 1971. Indonesia made primary education compulsory in 1987 and extended it to nine years in 1993. Thus, emerging countries tend to introduce Compulsory Education early in their nationhood. They primarily use it to enshrine a certain set of principles. The second objective is to use it as a political platform to bring education to all their children, those in the cities as well as those in the countryside.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, it is stating the obvious to say that education would allow a person to develop his inherent capability and fulfill his full potential as an individual. It is through education that children from poor families could move up the social ladder and escape the poverty trap. In so doing, the able and the diligent lift their families out of poverty along with them and prevent social stratification. We, as a people, are passionate about our children having the best possible education. And many of us in this House have benefited from the education policy of this Government and are in full support of the Government's education programme. This is reflected in MOE's budget, which is the second largest in our annual Government expenditure, standing at 3.7% of our GDP. As a result of our steadfast effort, 97% of our cohort are enrolled in Primary 1 of our national schools. 59% have achieved at least five "O" Level passes and about 60% are enrolled in tertiary institutions such as the polytechnics and the universities. All these we have achieved without making education compulsory. Our current education policy, as the Minister of State stated earlier, has served us well. So, why are we introducing Compulsory Education now - 35 years after independence? Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me to go through the history of Compulsory Education elsewhere. History shows that countries with Compulsory Education can be grouped into basically two categories. In the first category are western countries that introduced Compulsory Education in the late 1880s or early 1900s as education of the common person had become recognised as the cornerstone of democracy. The State of Massachusetts in the United States was the first to enact compulsory education attendance laws way back in 1852.”
“Sir, does this apply to a Non-Constituency Member of Parliament? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, the answer is very clear. It applies only to MPs who have been elected to represent constituencies.”
“Sir, I believe that the press report said there was a laboratory test that PUB took and it was after the laboratory test confirmed that the water was contaminated that action was taken. So to my mind, if my impression was correct, there was indeed a time lag of 24 hours for the laboratory test to be confirmed.”
“The Senior Parliamentary Secretary said that once the problem was notified to the authorities, they took immediate action. But to my mind, Sir, the time lag between notification and action seemed to be too long. The report was made by the doctor to the authorities and by the time PUB took action, I believe there was a time lag of 24 hours. For your information, Sir, during those 24 hours, I was one of those invited guests to the dinner function at that particular location.”
“I would like to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary how did it come about that the design of water tanks below the sewerage line came to be approved by the building authorities. Was PUB involved in such approvals? And of the 49 buildings which were found to have certain problems, would he identify those buildings? Would he take action to inform residents of those buildings so that if something happens in future, they will know something may be wrong with their water supply? On compensation to the tenants, it was reported in the newspapers that the management corporation was prepared to compensate the tenants. But in my mind, would not PUB be responsible too and would PUB be held responsible to pay compensation to the tenants as well because, after all, the business relationship is between the tenant, someone who pays for the water bill, and the water supplier, that is, PUB, and not the management corporation?”
“That is precisely my point, Sir, that, as a monopoly, SingTel's profit is outrageous. And, the Government, being a regulator, perhaps had not been doing a very good job by allowing SingTel to make so much money out of Singaporeans through the use of telephones.”
“I would like to find out from the Minister whether he considers it staggering that the loss of monopoly over two years for the industry amounts to a net revenue of $1.9 billion. In my mind, there are very few industries that if they lose a monopoly for two years, it will come to that amount. Would he agree that perhaps this number shows that Singaporean consumers have been paying too much for their fixed-line service?”
“Sir, I would like to clarify with the Minister whether the killer litter provision in the Housing and Development Act is against littering, which means throwing something out wilfully, but placing a flower pot on the ledge of the common area and thereby falling down may not be covered by the killer litter provision. Is that correct?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have two questions for the Minister. Firstly, would the Speakers' Corner from now on be a permanent feature in Singapore? What happens if in future Hong Lim Park is redeveloped? Move the Speakers' Corner to some other places? The second question I have is regarding the language used. The rule says four official languages will be allowed. I would like to find out from the Minister whether dialects, for instance, Hokkein, Cantonese, or Teochew, would be allowed in the Speakers' Corner.”
“Sir, I would like to thank the Minister, the two senior Ministers of State and the Parliamentary Secretary for their comprehensive response. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Sir, technical education as provided by ITE is not considered high in the aspiration of our secondary school students, neither do parents encourage their children to take this up as a career choice, thereby relegating it to a choice of last resort. As the Minister has already pointed out earlier, the perception of ITE education is that it is still a career choice resulting in getting one's fingers greasy. This is unfortunate as it is natural in the human population that individuals are endowed with different abilities and talents across the whole spectrum. Every Singaporean counts, and each must be educated and trained to the best of his ability. Thus, ITE caters to those for whom the academic progammes of the "A" level would not be suitable. Furthermore, ITE graduands would play meaningful roles in our society. Hence, the negative perception regarding ITE training should be changed and this job should not be left to the Government alone. All of us must play our part. I am glad to note that the various Community Development Councils are already doing their part by inviting the advisers to hand out Edusave bursaries to ITE students at public functions. From time to time, we also read about the success stories of ITE graduands in striking out and starting their businesses. More could be done. I would urge the Ministry to do more in promoting the image of ITE education among Singaporeans.”
“This is not necessarily desirable as the children end up spending additional time in private tuition. My question is: Is it possible that our primary school system has become too egalitarian? There were some preliminary discussions on allowing a few selected schools to go independent. I would like to find out from the Minister whether this scheme has moved one step further.”
“Of course, these parents are prepared to pay for the privilege, sometimes ranging from $300 per month upwards. I remember several parents who approached me expressing fear that their children are so far advanced that they would be bored and de-motivated if their children are enrolled into Primary One. They would prefer to have their children enrolled into a higher level. Sir, our education system is built on an egalitarian principle that all children, rich or poor, must be given the same educational opportunity. Yet, it is beginning to emerge that not all children beginning their Primary One education are studying from the same starting line. If we truly believe in giving children the same headstart, we should start thinking about subsidising pre-schools so that quality teachers can be hired and engaged for these programmes. Sir, I am also aware that MOE has given up the idea of extending primary school into pre-primary after experimenting with it several years ago. However, I would like to find out from the Ministry whether it is prepared to draft a set of curriculum for all pre-primary schools and our pre-schools and provide some sort of subsidies to all these pre-schools that conform to the curriculum. Moving from pre-school to primary school, in terms of school fees, today the child pays $12 per year as supplementary fees for primary schools. For those parents who have been paying more for their children's pre-school education, I believe many would not mind continuing to pay at that level. Yet, because they do not have to do so, they continue to spend the same budget on additional enrichment programmes and engaging private tutors once their children enter primary school.”
“Sir, in the early days of nation building, the majority of our people were poor. Families were large. Children, when enrolled into Primary One, had few if any pre-school education. As a result, we all learned our ABC together. Today, the situation is quite different. Every child at the entrance to Primary One would have taken at least two years of kindergarten; majority attended the PAP Community Foundation (PCF) kindergartens. For those who attended non-PCF kindergartens, they would have attended programmes based on other pedagogical principles. Thus, on one end of the scale, we have children who are very well schooled in reading and writing; on the other end, children who have very little basis at all. This state of affairs was reported in the Straits Times recently. My question to the Ministry is: How does the school cater to different capabilities of the children at Primary One? How does the school assign them to different classes? Do they go through a grading process? What is the assumption of the education level of the children at entry to P1? Is it pegged too low or too high? The fact is that most children have attended two years of PCF kindergarten. Presumably, the PCF has a common set of curriculum for all its kindergartens. Thus, once the PCF kindergartens are brought to a set of consistent standards, it would appear that the problem of different standards of various kindergartens would have by and large been contained. In fact, some educationists consider pre-school to be just as important, if not more important, than the first few years of primary education. For some higher income families, parents would have sent their children to private pre-schools where more individualised attention is possible.”
“They accept that it is important for all children to have a common educational experience so that the risk of fragmentation would be minimised. Thus, I would conclude that most Singaporeans would accept the twin goals of our national education system, namely, to impart knowledge and skills so that young Singaporeans would become productive citizens in the future knowledge-based economy and, secondly, to develop a common experience to bolster national cohesion. The participants would come to accept that if we were to introduce compulsory education, then we might as well ensure that the child is enrolled in the national school education system. If this means usurping the choice of the parents, most would consider it a price worth paying so that future generations of Singaporeans can live in peace and harmony.”