Wee Siew Kim
Singapore
“I hope these numbers will persuade the Minister to reconsider installing lifts at overhead pedestrian bridges that are linked to the MRT stations. My heart aches whenever I see elderly residents limp up the long flight of stairs at Khatib pedestrian overhead bridge. This is the fourth time I raise this issue in Parliament.”
“Could there be interim scheme plus, that is, a longer-term solution, maybe even dormitories? Although I fear to think that refugee camps-like enclaves will spring up in Singapore, we do have to find innovative ways to provide spartan-level housing for the down and out.”
“In my visits to the nursing homes and other interactions with the elderly and the not so old, like the neighbourhood vegetable and fruit seller, the florist, or the auntie that sells my favourite deep fat fried chicken wings – I have heard the same thing, they all do not want to stop working.”
“I urge the Ministry to extend the maternity leave, Baby Bonus Scheme, the cash grant for newborns and tax relief to employ domestic maids to single mothers. We may limit the grant to only the first child and make this point clear to the mother upon her collection of the grant.”
“We may not have all the answers and may not be right – but what are our alternatives? Unless we can pull together, marshal our resources, sustaining our quality of life is but a pipe dream. Our forefathers are no strangers to hardships and challenges. Risk taking and them are no strange bed fellows. We should be no different.”
“In conclusion, I believe what would make us different this time round is that in this recession, people who are in trouble look to themselves and their extended families and be self reliant; with the Government moving with speed, empathy and civil servants realising that they have the power to make a difference in many people’s live…”
The complete record
Every one of 267 lines we hold for Wee Siew Kim, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 6 of 6.
“Let us work together to enhance the pillars and the foundations on which they hang on, rather than undermine the very basis for the PTC's authority. Sir, I support the amendments to the Motion.”
“Just go to Shenton Way and ask some of the people in the high-rise buildings during lunch-time. They probably wait 8-10 minutes for the lift to get from the top floor to the bottom floor, and to get on a lift. Is that high expectation? Do we put in more elevators? I re-read the public statements put up by the PTC last year when there was no direct price increase. At that time, it too had the dilemma of balancing operators' viability and commuters' interest. The increase was turned down. Yet, the operators made money. I think the argument is not whether the operators should be viable. There is no disagreement here. They must be viable. Rather, the question is whether enough has been done to eliminate wastage and drive productivity in order to reduce cost. And it will go a long way if Dr Amy Khor's request to see the compelling evidence of imminent non-viability is produced. That would silence many critics. There should be some means of injecting competition, thereby subjecting the operators to even sharper cost discipline. And to echo Mr Ravindran's point, there must be in place alternative means of assurance and independent verification, if market forces are not fully in play. In summary, the call is for more transparency in the process and better communications. In addition, service levels should be based on some market-based consumer derived benchmarks, and let them decide for themselves. And further, for more competition that would blunt the inexorable increase in cost. We need to tackle these issues as enhancement but, in the meantime, we must be reminded that we have a world-class public transportation system that we all ought to be proud of.”
“The level of service quality and the attendant cost should also be based on what the bus commuting public want. Whether it is frills or no frills, let it be determined empirically. I know we have a system where people go to bus interchanges and from there, they go outwards. And my point about the Sengkang bus service is why stick to that? Why not offer point to point, which people want. Even in the airline industry, there is a struggle between hub and spoke, and point to point. You need not do point to point all day round. As for my market, I do not have a market, offer point to point at the time when people want to go to the market. So, you do not run it all day round. So, ask the commuters. Let it be determined empirically. It would seem that in the present economic context, the commuters may want our public transportation system just to be reliable. Regular intervals, good coverage and be safe. TVs and airconditioning on buses and interchanges, whoever pays for it, just would not get the thumbs up. It is very hard to accept that with airconditioning, operating cost would not go up. Just compare food court versus natural air kopi tiam prices, this would show up. Why not have a forum where the needs can be determined. While it may not satisfy every one all the time, at least there is a gauge of what the consumers want as determined by the travelling public for themselves, whether it is 8 minutes interval or 12 minutes interval. Let us not sweep all these under the banner of "rising expectations", because these can be managed. I believe people can accept that shorter intervals will mean more buses, more drivers and hence higher costs, especially in instances when increased frequency does not stimulate higher ridership.”
“As such, we are often confronted with the question - one come, all come, how come? Next, the process. There is a perceived insensitivity on the part of the regulators, manifested in the outcry at the lack of time for feedback to be properly obtained. Secondly, there is a perceived opaqueness under which the decisions were arrived. But all said and done, we must however realise that we do have an approach that worked before. The PTC and its independence must be preserved. While we look into the timing and the process, let us not destroy the very foundation that gives us the public transportation system that we have today, which we are extremely proud of. Hence, to be constructive, rather than a review, I support Dr Tan's amendments which highlighted key factors that have to be taken into consideration. I would like to take this opportunity to make several suggestions. First, the deliberations of the PTC should be on public record. In this way, people who are interested can satisfy themselves of the substance of the deliberations as well as the thought process. They are not uncaring. In this particular instance, what appears to be hiding behind the CPI + X formula for substantiating increases just would not do, especially where for most of the seven out of ten Singaporeans that are affected, they do not see any CPI increase in their incomes and their X could well be negative. While one can understand fully Senior Minister of State, Khaw Boon Wan's explanation, that the CPI +X is a strong motivator to the operator to push for productivity in the face of such an escalation ceiling, it would not be entirely out of place if we exact some concessions this time round. So, can we push the boundary?”
“Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak on the Motion. There is a lot of unhappiness and unease among the populace on the bus fare increase. But, surprisingly, while many may think that the grouse is about the quantum of increase, this is not merely the case. I agree with Dr Wang when he said that the majority of the people are not as upset about the 3-cent unit fare increase. To the embattled members of the PTC, within the constraints that they work under, this speaks well of the diligence that the PTC members had put into the exercise. I believe we should applaud their resolution in maintaining the long-term view through the principle of small step increases. However, despite what the hon. Member, Mr Ong Ah Heng, said about not raising small issues in this Chamber - whether it is dirty toilets or bus services - we feel that we must address and bring up the unease. Let me just categorise the unease into two key areas, which are that of timing and process. In terms of timing, there are two aspects. One is that of the macro, which is injecting an increase when most in the economic milieu are still smarting from the impact of the downturn, and have yet to taste the fruits of any improvements. Yes, as all may say, this is not the first time that there has been an increase in bus fares. And, yes, we would all agree that this would not be the last time either. But everyone knows the cry is, why do it now? Can it not wait another half a year? The general perception is that the rush in the increase seems to smell of more to come in other areas. Hence, more worrying is, what else is next? This brings me to the second part of the timing issue, ie, that this issue comes on the heels of all the other announcements of escalations.”
“In time, these two neighbouring economies will be strong again, and it is very likely that we will continue to have a role to play, as long as we position ourselves correctly in the meantime. In addition, continuous engagement will buy us the time as we breathe life into the other sectors that we are betting on for the longer term, sectors such as life sciences and the services. Hence, we should not leapfrog too quickly out of this region and jettison these two economies while we set our sights farther afield. Could the Minister give his views on the state of economic cooperation with Malaysia and Indonesia? What measures must we have in order that we stay relevant to their needs in spite of their many attempts to supplant us? How can we extend the hand of economic cooperation such that, when they emerge from their problems and pick themselves up again, we could grow alongside them, having them feel the nascent services sector along the way?”
“Sir, I will take both cuts together. The pull of China, both for investments and talents, can no longer be ignored. The emergence of China presents both an opportunity as well as a threat. The threats have been pounded into our awareness. There is no need to belabour them. What is key is our response to take advantage of the opportunities. While we are always talking about the behemoth, China, it may be worthwhile to hear the Minister's perspectives on how similar would be our responses when we turn our sights at the other lurking behemoth, India. I hope that the Minister would elaborate on what are the opportunities these two markets present to our companies and where the emphasis should be. Singapore has been touted as a service hub - efficient and incorruptibly predictable. We must, therefore, have a role that these two markets can benefit from. We must be able to fill a value-added niche, one where we can exact a premium and ensure the continuous survival of our people. It would be a worthwhile goal to aspire towards having either China or India, or both countries, ranked alongside the US as one of our engines of growth. Is this achievable and in what timeframe? In this discussion, I hope the Minister would also consider informing us on how our neighbours will react to our response and our confidence in staking a future for ourselves. We must not assume that our neighbours will stay put and not raise their ante to compete with us in these two large markets. I will go on to the second cut. Our neighbours, Malaysia and Indonesia, have only recovered in varying degrees from the aftermath of the Asian crisis. They have been key engines of growth for our economy.”
“Secondly, are our SMEs and large corporations adequately supported by incentives and measures to ensure that they are well-positioned to take on the competition when they make their forays abroad? Is enough being done so that companies here build up the requisite intellectual property and technology bases that will allow them to penetrate this extended hinterland with superior product and service offerings? In spite of the sentiments that are popularly espoused of the largest corporations crowding out the smaller ones, I believe that critical scale is required to weather the perils beyond our shores. As such, have there been enough efforts and measures put in place to energise our larger corporations to be the vanguard of our overseas drive? While we can let the market forces take its course and let winners emerge, I ask if the Minister would consider that a more robust approach would be to identify and nurture would-be global and regional champions and turbo-charge them to give them a higher chance of survival and success. I am not saying that we do not pay attention to the eco-system where smaller firms can thrive in the country. What I say is let us hedge our bets and do both. Thirdly, it would be much appreciated if the Minister could also give us his insights on how the series of FTAs that are in place would further enhance our companies' competitiveness in the global league. We need a strong external wing to complement our activities on shore so that we can ensure jobs and more jobs. The sooner we develop and spread the wing, the better off we are going to be.”
“Sir, fundamentally, as a country and a colony with many things going for us, brand Singapore is one that we can be proud of, with its high regional and global awareness and attributes that businesses want. But the brand needs to be continually reinforced, or it will fade and pale in comparison when others emerge from the not too far horizon. After hearing the concerns raised by so many hon. Members in the Budget debate, I am reinforced in my belief that much still needs to be done. Singapore's competitiveness cannot be just left to the private sector. There must be an obsession to drive the cost of doing business in Singapore continuously downwards. For without a strong home base, there is little chance for survival for both SMEs and large local corporates where they attempt to set foot beyond our shores. We cannot be merely satisfied with the small domestic market within our boundaries. The call to stake out the area within a seven-hour plane ride from Singapore as our hinterland is worth stepping up to. As such, I would like to ask the Minister if enough has been done to ensure the international competitiveness of Singapore. Firstly, is there adequate attention focused on the sizable elements of business costs that are attributable to the Government and statutory boards' fees and levies? This must be continuously driven down. Perhaps, we need a body to be vigilantly looking at this, year in, year out, to ensure a continuous improvement. What other performance measures that the Minister needs to put in place in order to achieve this, just as EDB has set its annual goals of attracting FDIs?”
“Both are parts of the same vibrant eco-system, supporting the growth of each other to ensure continued survival. As the smaller enterprises grow, they could well be the seeds of reinvention. How else did Nokia, a lumber company, for most of its existence become synonymous with mobile telecommunications today? Mr Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, while I advocate bonus in seeking opportunities outside Singapore, I also advocate a Government role in focusing and driving the pace. Let us not get mired in ideological discourse but to implement an approach that best utilises the growth engines that we already have. Without intervention, some companies with the right expertise may not have the guts to go beyond our shores and the smaller ones may not have that opportunity to build up its expertise. It will always be a difficult risk-benefit equation but risk must be taken. Human and financial capital are all we have. Both are temporal in nature. We must make the best use of both and multiply them to ensure our continued survival so that the next generation will live in a steadfast and prosperous Singapore, just as our forefathers had prepared the ground for us. The time is now. We are at a crossroad. We must act and move boldly and quickly seize the opportunities. Future generations of Singaporeans depend on us to make steam and navigate well. Let us not fail them. ADJOURNMENT OF DEBATE”
“Just as MNCs had been the employer of choice for many young Singaporeans, it would come a day when Singapore-grown MNCs will hold the same prestige for the future young from within and without. Then can we attract the best talent, local and foreign, increase our gene pool, renew and enhance our intellectual capital. Mr Speaker, Sir, nowhere am I suggesting that we should protect local enterprises at all costs. They must have viable product or service offerings. All I am saying is that competition is out there and not amongst ourselves. Competition is now on a global scale. This trend will not let up and global competition will be the norm for more industries in time to come. And if we are to come through and succeed, we better lie in our ships to deliver the most ferocious broadside. But what about our smaller enterprises? They may not yet have the capability to take that leap. How can we help them compete in this new global economy? We must not just give them a fish to survive another day, but rather teach them to fish so that they will survive a lifetime. For these companies, especially those in niche markets, we need to believe in them, to support their ventures with capital and management know-how. And more importantly, leave the scientists and the entrepreneurs, the people who are driven by passion and vision, to get on with their work. The challenge is perhaps seeking out these companies with the right formula for future growth. Next is to resist temptation to invade these companies and force-fit them into standard management models. It is about providing them with the right impetus to grow. You may ask how the support I spoke about earlier for the larger companies co-exists with this nurture for smaller enterprises. There is no contradiction.”
“When some of our companies succeed, others will have the courage to venture likewise. Let us have the courage to take the first steps and help some of our companies to succeed long term on a global scale. While theorists will argue on a hands-off Hong Kong approach or the MITI-led Japanese extreme, we must recognise that Singapore must fine-tune its own approach, one that is appropriate to our circumstance. Here, I believe that the Government's role has two facets. One is to push certain companies out more quickly in a bolder fashion than they would otherwise do. And two, to ensure that they go forth with the collective capabilities and knowledge base that Singapore has to offer. Several hon. Members have spoken on the need to merge for critical size. I strongly second that. If companies can come together and combine resources or complement expertise, we would be more formidable. This was the dimension that was missing in our arsenal of the 1960s. Now we cannot afford to forsake such growth engines. Take a couple of potential global champions and unleash them, nurture and support these global and regional champions in their forays while encouraging them to anchor their knowledge intensive IP-heavy economic activities in Singapore. They would be the motherships around which the SMEs would sail with, benefitting from the multiplier effects, further spawning more domestic players and providing employment for our workers. Yes, we will encounter storms. The flotilla must stay on course for among seamen it is aptly put that the winds and the waves are always on the side of the ablest navigators. We must keep faith.”
“We must move and move boldly. With a limited domestic base, we know we can only do so much. Growth must be export-led. We have to take our expertise outside Singapore. The proverbial external wing must spread and soar, for as Napoleon had said, "Ability is of little account without opportunity". For Singapore, we must go forth, create and seek these opportunities. Services were featured prominently in the President's Speech. I truly believe that our people, on the coat-tails of the large Singapore companies and established SMEs, are able to venture abroad and bring with them the intellectual capital that is distinctly Singapore. We have begun to do so but we can do much more. No longer can we make incremental moves. We have to have that courage to make quantum leaps. Let us not be held back by the old ways we have handled competitiveness within our shores. Let us marshal the collective firepower of light-minded Singapore companies, concentrate their value offerings and venture abroad. Yes, there had been failures and there will be failures and pessimists abound. There would be more short-term setbacks. There would be those who would quickly say, "I told you so". But to succeed, we must take the longer term view and recognise our competitors likewise would pit against us with their own vehemence. Switzerland, Finland, Netherlands, countries that have similar constraints as Singapore, have companies that stand up among the global 150. Switzerland has 6, Nokia leads Finland's charge, Netherlands, through the Royal Dutch/Shell, ING, Philips, Unilever and Aegonelay claim to five. In our part of the world, Taiwan has one and even the tiny SAR of Hong Kong has two in the form of Hutchinson Whampoa and China Mobile. We can likewise do so. Success will breed success.”
“The 1960s and before, Singapore was essentially an entreport. To survive, our people had to depend on hard work and survival instincts to eke out a living. We provided labour, exported the natural resources of our region to the wider world and received in turn manufactured goods for onward transshipment. To survive and survive better, we worked at being better organised, more efficient and more competitive than the rest of the region. Then, the MNCs came and built some basic manufacturing plants. Our people became increasingly educated, and as a consequence, MNCs brought in their higher value-added activities. Along the way, we learnt quickly. We took some necessary risks and went on to build our own companies, some of which today have gained some measure of regional and international reputation. For the successful ones, surpluses have piled up but, more importantly, there was an accumulation of intellectual know-how, technical skills and managerial competence. This happened across industries and the magnitude of this intellectual property that now exists in Singapore cannot be under-valued. We have now built up a workforce of Singaporeans who are very different from the 1960s. We now have the opportunity to export our intellectual software. In some ways, it is like coming full circle but, this time, it is not hard labour, but high value-added labour, backed up by institutional knowledge and expertise that we are able to provide. We have proven expertise in many areas. Some good examples are our airport, our seaport and how we have developed our petrochemical and logistics hubs. We must, therefore, be focused and concentrate our firepower in these and others that we excel in. Mr Speaker, Sir, while we have come a long way, we cannot rest on our laurels.”
“Project work now scores towards qualification for a place in the university. Much has been done in this area. The curriculum in our educational institutions must be continuously adapted to teach thinking and discovery skills that will help everyone to manage through the continuous changes that can be expected in the new economy. However, it will still be some years before this generation comes of working age. It will still be some time before we have more Singaporeans, who by exposure and training, have a high affinity to take risks and reap the rewards. Meantime, we are promoting this spirit of entrepreneurship in our working adults and to widen their perspective. There are now increased opportunities for many to explore outside their workplace. For example, many Singaporeans are given the opportunity to take on short-term or long-term jobs outside Singapore. This is essential and Singapore employers must push their employees to do so for nothing replaces the experience and exposure that such a working stint would bring. Others have the chance to further their studies or take short-term management courses elsewhere. Such exposure is necessary to give one a wider perspective and to learn from others. The interaction with other cultures and working styles all add to enhance one's experience and knowledge and plug Singapore into the regional and global economies. The Government has encouraged this through its many schemes and should continue to do its utmost to promote them. The second pillar, I believe, is to do the same, ie, to inculcate this spirit of entrepreneurship, an element of risk-taking among our large local corporations and SMEs. We have to build up world-class enterprises that are able to compete globally.”
“He tried but he only managed to obtain five signatures. He was chided by some teachers and told not to bother and waste his time. He went home dejected. Thank goodness, his principal relented and the boy is now studying, relishing his second chance. While it is not time yet to say that this boy would succeed the second time round, the story hits home on the need to give a second chance, especially when one recognises failure and stoke that spark of courage to try again. What the principal did was to etch in the youngster's mind the value of a second opportunity and making him go round and work for it. Unfortunately, the incident also speaks of the teachers who turned their backs on him when he wanted to try again. But the fact that he managed to get even five signatures speaks of the graciousness of our society. The young must view failures as opportunity to learn and how to do it better the next time. If we succeed in this investment in our young right here in our schools, we will have a generation of more entrepreneurial Singaporeans who are stout of heart and are more willing to take risk, for risk and entrepreneurship go hand in hand. In some ways, we have been victims of our own success. Singaporeans who had the opportunity to be better educated and had grown up in an economy that was experiencing high growth are naturally more likely to choose secure career paths. It has often been heard that opportunity cost is sometimes too high to do otherwise. Risk aversion is understandable. We must start in our schools. We have already incorporated many activities and programmes which will encourage our younger Singaporeans to think more on their feet, think out of the box, come up with new ideas and explore new frontiers that may well lead to new opportunities.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion of Thanks to the President, and thank you for giving me the privilege to participate in this debate. The President, in his Address to Parliament, has given us a realistic scenario of Singapore's future. It is not going to be smooth sailing. I remember someone once characterised Singapore's challenge as paddling upstream all the time. But, folks, it is not going to get better. We have to leave the safe waters of our rivers and venture into the open seas. There will be strong currents, we will be buffetted by waves caused by bigger passing ships over which we have little control. Inevitably, there will be storms. But it is not a totally gloomy voyage. If one is alert and careful, navigate well, there will still be beautiful skylines and shores to admire, and periods of calm seas to enjoy the fruits of our hard work. Against this backdrop, the President spoke of the challenges for Singapore, one of which is the priority to strengthen the spirit of entrepreneurship and risk-taking among Singaporeans as the basis for Singapore's future competitiveness. Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe that there are two pillars required to nurture and enhance these qualities for survival. The first is to encourage and inculcate that spirit in individuals, especially our young. We must try to instill in our young thinking and questioning skills, curiosity to explore and the knack to take measured risks. Our young must not fear failures. Let me recount a story from one of my constituents. The boy failed badly in the "O" levels and, in order to resit, he had to seek the permission of the principal who said that he would allow it if the boy could get 10 signatures from his former teachers to support his retake.”