Zaqy Mohamad
Singapore
“Deputy Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move that the Question Time at this day's Sitting be exempted from Standing Order No 22(1) so as to enable questions for oral answer to continue until the completion of Question Nos 7 to 29, including relevant supplementary questions, until 12.45 pm?”
“Mr Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move that the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No 48(8) to remove the time limit in respect of the Minister Tan See Leng's speech, please?”
“I think on the hawker front, we keep our rentals as low as possible to sustain our hawkers. But for food prices, we continue to monitor. My colleague, Minister of State Gan mentioned about how we are monitoring food supply of food prices, and I think that we will continue to do so.”
“I thank the Member for his question. On seafood specifically, we do not see immediate risk. We have diversified our food imports. We have also got local production of seafood readily available. At this point, as both the Deputy Prime Minister and Coordinating Minister have shared, our main risk for agriculture lies in fertiliser.”
“Mr Speaker, as I shared, we are monitoring the situation. The Government is monitoring at this point. There is no need at this juncture, because we have not seen the price hikes hit the hawkers in the same way as yet. There will be downstream impact. I think that is quite sure.”
“For us to also look into buying local produce, that helps our farms to increase capacity at this point, helps them build resilience over time and should there be disruptions or should there be a need for us to divert supplies or look to ramp up local production, I think they would be in a better position if we do what we can today to supp…”
The complete record
Every one of 1,752 lines we hold for Zaqy Mohamad, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 27 of 36.
“Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak on Budget 2014. Please allow me to begin in Malay. (In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I could sense that the Malay/Muslim community was very touched when the Prime Minister paid tribute to the Malays from the Pioneer Generation who chose to remain in Singapore, after the separation with Malaysia. Their choice to do so made a big difference in our nation-building efforts. This was important, especially since Malays in Singapore eventually made significant achievements and are able to stand as equals with the other communities. The Pioneer Generation of Malays should also become our role models, demonstrating the way for us to move forward as Singaporeans, with a commitment to meritocracy. The Pioneer Generation Package (PGP) is well-received by the Malay/Muslim community all around. The Government's acknowledgement is in line with the spirit and ways of the Malay community, which are to always respect and appreciate the elderly. The PGP also takes care of the welfare and health of senior citizens, in the spirit of gotong-royong. Page: 91 In fact, it is fitting that this package focuses on healthcare, since health issues are a major concern to the Malay/Muslim community. It more or less reduces the burden on children who are taking care of their elderly parents, especially in terms of healthcare costs, and, in the long term, it would be good if the message that we wish to send out would also include raising awareness on disease prevention, practising a healthy lifestyle and planning for healthcare needs. (In English): Mdm Speaker, the highlight of this year's Budget is arguably the PGP. It is, undoubtedly, a generous package and I am heartened to see that many seniors I speak to are happy to be recognised.”
“I note that the balance being asked for in terms of trying to skew a bit more towards sports, but I know parents have also voiced concern that if they send their kids to the non-sports schools, for example, would they get disadvantaged. Would MCCY take into consideration the principle that kids should also have a choice?”
“In the Minister's view, how is MFA prepared to deal with such tests, or potential provocations from bigger countries willing to test Singapore as a young and small nation?”
“Mdm Speaker, I thank both Ministers for their replies and I will have supplementary questions for both Ministers. I will start with the Minister for Defence. The "inexplicable move", as the Minister has put it, rubs salt into old wounds as it was a painful past for Singaporeans. My heart goes out to the families of the victims who have to relive history again today and each time the warship goes out to open seas. Does the SAF see this as a renewed threat, especially when there are parties who are fully supportive of this act and this shows a more nationalistic and militaristic front of Indonesia? Is the SAF also concerned that the warship could be made into a certain national symbol each time there is disagreement, conflict or difference in positions between our two countries? I also believe that mutual peace and prosperity should be the way forward for both countries. What plans do the Ministry and the SAF have to find common ground with the Indonesian military and government to come to a position that is a compromise and how we can put this episode behind us? For the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, I see a future trend looming as our larger neighbours prosper, they may take a more nationalistic or an abang-adik view to Singapore as well. Singapore's rational diplomatic position and our value to trade in this region also make us a very nice guy. When Minister Marty says, "We have no ill intent" —”
“We think this is the best way to move forward, because it is important for us to ensure that, given the complexity of the systems, that our requirements must be heightened to meet all possible circumstances. On the first question: at the moment, what we have is a resiliency code that places certain requirements on all our network operators, especially the large operators whose network has a wide impact. They are supposed to follow the requirements, and as and when an incident happens, an audit would be done by IDA to find out whether they had adopted the requirements. Finally, we will leave it to the operators to do their own audit checks and their own internal assessments to make sure that they have all the requirements in place. At the network level, we want to have certain redundancy and resiliency. At the business end, as I had mentioned in my reply, it is something for the operators and the businesses to decide what level of redundancy and resiliency the businesses would like to have. We are concerned about the critical infrastructure, and, at the network level, we have requirements which are in place; at the consumer end, we have basically left it to them to decide on a commercial basis. Going forward, with the audit framework in place, we hope that would further strengthen, not only the resiliency code, but the regular audits will also ensure our operators are in line. We cannot be too prescriptive because we recognise that technology moves ahead at different speeds. What we want to do is to impose certain requirements that are necessary to ensure the operators have good recovery in case an incident happens, a certain level of resilience should be built within the operators' network, and the need for certain types of Page: 40 network diversity.”
“Mdm Speaker, I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply. He spoke about Disaster Recovery and Business Continuity Planning, and there was quite a bit of stress in terms of infrastructure. Such things also involve typically process and ensuring that there is regular updating of these processes and performance of the tasks, like how you would do fire drills. What is IDA's framework with regard to this, and has SingTel been performing these exercises prior to the fire? Also, do the requirements involve the other operators? I also note that M1 and Starhub were also affected as they link back to the OpenNet infrastructure. The Minister also touched on IDA's new audit framework that is to be launched in the second half. Will that also mean that IDA will now practically audit service providers? The proactiveness is important. Is it also time to look Page: 39 at more stringent requirements because of our heavy dependence, compared to other developed countries, on the communications infrastructure today? Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: To answer the second question first, the Member is right that when we have the audit framework in place, it means that we will have to go out and check on a regular basis as to whether the requirements that we have put in place in the Code are being implemented by the operators. We want to look at our requirements in a comprehensive manner. I mentioned just now the example of the M1 outage and what we have learnt from that incident. We have reviewed some of the requirements that we want to put into the audit framework, which we have now released to the public for consultation. We will do so for other networks that I mentioned in my reply earlier.”
“Basically, my second question relates to this. We have always said that we are not a welfare state. We have a lot of schemes available to the low- and middle-income workers. But as we keep increasing the schemes, moving into the middle-income range, for example, would that put a heavy burden on the taxpayers? I want to ask the Minister how is the Ministry planning in the long term, in terms of the sustainability of such schemes. Page: 32”
“Thank you, Mdm Speaker. I have a couple of supplementary questions for the Minister. First and foremost, I am glad that the Minister has shared the reasons why some low-income families have not undertaken some of these schemes. I note that there are many of these schemes available but there is also a perception that these schemes are not accessible. So, how can we improve their accessibility? Because for many of these low-wage workers, they are typically daily-rated and do not have documentation, or some may also find it a hassle to go to the CDC or Social Service Offices (SSOs) because of the nature of their job. The second question is about how we can make it easier to access the schemes. How much does the Government spend or what is the increase in terms of the funding for such schemes? And in terms of the increase in expenditure, what is the impact on taxpayers?”
“Mdm Speaker, I thank the Minister for touching on the issue of pricing for SAs. The scheme is a fantastic one. Many of my residents are also thankful for this scheme. However, SAs serve a very niche objective and they also have to be sold back to HDB. There is thus concern about whether the price fluctuations are really impacted by the market, since you can only sell it back to HDB at the end of the lease term.”
“I thank the Minister for his clarification. I would like to ask three supplementary questions. First and foremost, many developed countries have also implemented similar frameworks. I just want to ask MOM what are some of the best practices and lessons learnt from some of these countries in which we have plugged some of these loopholes that are exploited by employers? In implementing this FCF, are there any specific industries or sectors that the MOM is concerned about with regard to racial imbalance, and what is MOM planning to do about these sectors? Are there certain targets or benchmarks that you are going after? And are there specific actions to be taken for these sectors? Thirdly, from an employer and business perspective, what is MOM's assessment of the impact to companies bringing global or regional roles here, with the FCF taking effect? Page: 20”
“[Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker, allow me to speak in Malay since we are celebrating Malay Language Month this month. I would like to ask the Minister what MUIS' plans are to enable the Muslim community in Singapore to face the challenges of the Islamic world in an inclusive manner, since the Islamic world today is facing rapid changes. Secondly, would the Minister also explain how MUIS' organisation can be fine-tuned to study the long-term issues for the Muslim community in Singapore? Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: Mdm Speaker, with your permission, can I reply in Malay, or do I have to reply in English?”
“Madam, I thank the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance for his comprehensive reply. There were two questions in my Parliamentary Question (PQ) that were not answered: one, whether the amount of time taken to approve papers has increased since these measures were taken; and, two, the time to award tenders, whether it has also increased over the last year since the new measures were put in place. For the public to also better understand the evaluation criteria for each tender, would the Ministry also consider letting the public know the evaluation criteria and tender process for each tender outgoing, such that there is better understanding of how these are going to be evaluated, so that there is less misunderstanding about where there should be lapses and so forth?”
“Madam, the Deputy Prime Minister has not replied to my questions about declarations and vetting.”
“Mdm Speaker, I want to thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his comprehensive answer. Just to add on to the issue of transparency, because I think most members of the public I speak with always ask this question: who watches the watchman? I also understand, based on the Deputy Prime Minister's reply, most of the reporting chains or whistle-blowing are all within the Civil Service chain. Has the Government considered putting an independent committee or an ombudsman function to oversee the enforcement agencies' officers in their conduct and also the processes and procedures which can improve the way the agencies are run? I also noted in the Deputy Prime Minister's reply that psychometric testing and credit bureau vetting were done upon recruitment. As many of these officers who have been prosecuted recently have also served for a number of years, are these tests also done on a continuous basis or just upon recruitment?”
“Madam, I thank the Minister for his reply. Two questions: one, based on my understanding, this was a publicised event, in the sense that this was a well-known event online and on the social media. Did the Ministry know about this event beforehand? And, two, based on newspaper reports, the event was allowed to go on for two to three hours. Why did the Police not stop the event before it happened? Why was it allowed to go on for two to three hours before action was taken?”
“Thirdly, as I mentioned in my reply, we are only talking about 10 sites. But who can anticipate what would be the number of sites next year? So, rather than wait and react, the Ministry decided to put a framework in place. A framework which all of us can agree on is not much different from the existing framework which is a Class Licence. All we did was to take you out from the Class Licence to give you an individual licence, but we hold you to the same content standards. In my reply, even for the 10 sites, we have not rushed in to license them. We are calling them in for discussions, to understand their concerns so that when we finally give them the licence, we also understand what exactly the implications are for some of these companies. We have to evolve but we need to put the framework in place, learn as we go along. There may be a proliferation of sites in the future to come. For example, among the 10 sites, Yahoo does not have a physical presence altogether. It is an online news site. We just checked – there is an Australian site called The Global Mail. It is purely an online news site. So, it is coming and I see no reason why we think Singapore should be insulated from such a trend. The Ministry thought it is useful for us to have a framework in place to deal with this emerging trend, so that at least we have some framework in managing the emergence news sites, which we expect will be beyond the 10 sites that we have licensed.”
“It is basically technological changes. Convergence is upon us. We had a Committee last year; they have looked at it; they have come back with four key recommendations and it is blurring the line between what is online and what is physical. It is a new landscape that is evolving. And whether we like it or not, whoever reports news, whether you are in the physical world or in the online space, Singaporeans must expect that we hold them to a certain degree of responsibility because news is very important. To move on something about the online space, as we all know, we had to be very cautious; we had to study this very carefully. We had studied other jurisdictions and we realised that other jurisdictions are also looking at the same problem. I mentioned New Zealand in my reply to the media. Why did I cite New Zealand? I know some people in the Internet community were not happy with the example I cited. They are also going through the same process of collapsing all of the legislation into one piece of legislation because Page: 78 of convergence. They are having problems dealing with that. In UK, they are also doing the same thing. So, first is technology, and the second thing is, eyeballs are shifting. More Singaporeans are now moving online to get the news. That is the truth; we cannot hide that. The mainstream media know that; it is something you cannot avoid. Young people turn on the Internet and go on the websites to read the news first. They then go to the mainstream newspapers later on to verify whatever the story may be. I think the truth of the matter is online sites are gaining popularity. If more Singaporeans are going to online sites to get their news, I think we need to do something about it, at least lay down a framework.”
“That is why we have given ourselves two months to see whether there are some consistencies in terms of the way of reporting and then ensuring there is a reach because the reach will measure the influence Page: 77 of the site. By and large, we think that based on the definition that we have in place, it will give MDA some discretion to be very conservative rather than to rush in and license everyone, and to ensure that whether that site has become a news site, it is done so on a consistent basis and on the data that we have over a very long period of time. The second question as to whether or not there is a difference. There is certainly a difference between the panel that we have that deals with the arts groups and what the Member is suggesting on the news sites. In the case of arts groups, we realise that there are matters that pertain to public interest and also public taste and whether or not we are moving far ahead of the curve or not. Therefore, in matters in which MDA cannot make a decision, it will call upon the body of wise men and women to help us and guide us to what is the necessary course of action given a piece of art work. In this particular case, we think it is quite straight forward in terms of how we can monitor it because it is about news, it is about current affairs, whether you are reporting about the haze yesterday or today, and about what happens in Parliament, it is quite clear cut. What is different now, of course, is the degree by which that reporting takes place. We talked about the two months and of course about the reach that we mentioned earlier. We did not rush through this. I have to be honest to Members in the House. We looked at this for a very long time. The reason why we are doing this is because of three trends.”
“I thank the Minister for his clarification. Three supplementary questions. First, is there a reason why the Ministry still reserves the right to keep the definition of news sites broad and not narrow it down? On one hand, I understand Minister tried to allay fears of netizens that MDA is not constantly watching them. But at the same time, you have got this definition that is broad enough that gets everyone concerned. Two, on the issue on independent panel that I spoke about earlier, how different is this in trying to reserve regulatory powers to the Ministry, compared to say, the statutory boards where you have independent members sitting on the boards or the way you regulate arts groups for example. There is also some degree of self regulation. Is there a difference in terms of why has MCI taken this approach? Third approach is related to Mr Baey Yam Keng's question earlier on. From a perception view, we seem to have rushed through this, and different from a process, say, for a debate on the amendment of the Broadcasting Act. So, was there a reason why we seemed to have rushed through this and announced it quite abruptly? Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: Madam, I thank Mr Zaqy for the three questions. First, in terms of the definition, if you look through the licensing conditions, what we have done is just merely to take what is defined as a news site from other legislations like the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act (NPPA) and ported it over. So, it is not a definition which is crafted purely for this licensing framework. It is already in existence. It is very difficult for any government to be able to predict every permutation possible as to whether or not you become a news site.”
“Mdm Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister for his clarification. The supplementary question from me would be that the perception of the public was that there seemed to be "reactive-ness" in terms of how we handled this, that is, we have known this problem for some time. The Transboundary Haze Agreement has been out there since 2002. In MFA's view, how serious is Indonesia in tackling this issue because they have not ratified this agreement? They are saying that they are seeking to ratify it, but what is the probability of it being ratified? Even if it gets ratified, how much resources are they going to put in, based on the Minister's experience?”
“I thank the Minister for sharing the case studies and also the progress made by MENDAKI and MUIS. I would like to ask the Minister if MENDAKI and MUIS had done a scan in terms of the demand for such help in Singapore, and whether MUIS and MENDAKI are adequately staffed and resourced to meet the demand? Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: We did a scan first in 2002 when I took over and we have just finished another scan. Clearly, there are gaps and the gaps can be filled by having more partners come onboard. So, a good example is the CLF that we created in 2003. And it has created an opportunity for more organisations to come onboard so that we can have more hands on board to deal with the problem. As I mentioned in my figures, we are only helping 200 families. Clearly, there are more families out there and we need more partners to come onboard. Having said that, the response from the MMOs has been very heartening – they also faced constraints such as manpower and resources and, certainly, we can always raise the money but we also need warm bodies on the ground to be able to do the hard work. So, this will be an ongoing challenge and we will continue to engage the organisation as best as we can to ensure that they are scaled up as quickly as possible to deal with the problems.”
“Madam, I thank the Minister of State for his reply. The question also relates to communication. The point raised by Member Teo Siong Seng is right – that it is also about feedback. The Ministry is getting a lot of feedback but the feedback back to the SMEs themselves, like the recommendations that have been accepted, is also important to say that they are being heard too. The other challenge is this: what else is the Ministry doing in order to improve the level of communications. The schemes are there; the centres are there. Many of them are still not coming forward perhaps due to prior bad experiences, but perhaps something new needs to happen. Perhaps the Ministry could look into this.”
“I thank the Minister for the reply. First question: the changes that were made recently concerned films in general but, given that the topic at hand is about party political films, does the Ministry intend to seek feedback since the political landscape has evolved in 2009? Perhaps there may be new considerations at this point. Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: We can allow greater space for civic discourse while keeping political debates serious and robust. And in that process, we will do the necessary due diligence to ensure whether or not the changes will be in line with what is happening within the society.”
“I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his explanation. During the debate last year, one of the key issues that we raised was connectedness. When we talked about salaries, there was also a concern that political office holders were not that connected because of the scale of salaries that they earned. For members of public who are watching this right now and the feedback that the salaries are still going to remain for Administrative Service Officers, the question would be how do we ensure that Page: 18 the Administrative Service continues to be connected and understanding of public sentiments as well as public needs. The feedback that we often get is that civil servants are highly paid and, therefore, there is a concern whether they are still connected to the ground.”
“Many SMEs are aware of the Government's direction to improve sectoral productivity, but the pace of change may not be something they can adapt to, especially the small businesses and especially start-ups. Some may have the potential to grow but their progress may be prematurely halted in this whole-of-economy transformation. Now, moving on to the concerns of social entrepreneurs. If small commercial companies are feeling the pressure of having to boost their productivity significantly, what more of social enterprises? These are companies but they are also businesses that rely on society's goodwill in exchange for business and cost-efficiency. This sector was certainly an area that we promoted in recent years to build our social capital. But if social enterprises start to close in significant numbers, this will also reverse what the Government was trying to achieve in this space.”
“I am actually happy that the local staff are paid better, but this will not help the productivity drive. Second, profit substitution from the property market or "property-vity". A number of businesses realised that it may be more productive to invest in property in Singapore and abroad. In recent times, some businesses have also realised that they can actually make better profit from property investment and rent collection as a landlord rather than transforming their core businesses to Page: 75 deliver the bottomline because this can be more tedious. This distracts companies from improving their productivity as their bottomline targets are met from alternative means, that is, the property market. Can the Ministry comment on the challenges and barriers that it views as important for us to overcome in order to achieve the desired productivity objectives? How do we avoid the situations of "poach-tivity" and "property-vity" from distracting businesses from the productivity agenda? Madam, many of the efforts under the NPCEC are still driven by the Government. For example, the sectoral productivity roadmaps are top-down plans developed by Government agencies, with some consultation with trade associations and chambers. There are many companies and trade associations that have good ideas to improve productivity and can do more to help their sectors. Can the Ministry elaborate on some of the ground-up initiatives that it is also seeing and how these can complement the top-down approach in driving productivity? Madam, if I may also relay a concern that a number of some SMEs have spoken about. They are taken aback by some of the narratives that they have heard in the news and on the ground. Such comments include companies that cannot adapt may have to exit the market.”
“Madam, the National Productivity and Continuing Education Council (NPCEC) was set up in 2010, and is responsible for driving the national effort to achieve 2%-3% productivity growth per year over a decade. However, last year, in spite of various measures, productivity growth was negative for 2012. Can MTI update on the progress of the productivity drive, and whether it is realistic to continue to aim to achieve this 2%-3% productivity improvement target year-on-year? The main thrust of the productivity drive today, assumes that the tightening of low-skilled foreign manpower and putting higher levies on the unskilled workforce will force companies to transform and of course, hopefully, rely on a more productive and Singapore core of workers. In doing so, I would like to highlight some potential blind spots which the Ministry could watch out for that may impede the productivity targets that the Ministry aims to achieve. First, we face a risk of what I call "poach-tivity". "Poach-tivity", a term I borrowed, is the risk that with the tightening of foreign manpower, local workers are poached and wages rise when they are hired by competitors, but not because they have improved productivity or capability. The risk is we see wages rise without any improvement to productivity in this merry-go-round poaching across the industry. This "poach-tivity" will also favour the larger players and cause an extreme shortage of manpower among SMEs which are not able to afford the higher salaries. An example was cited by a business owner of how an F&B outlet had a number of its local staff poached by its neighbour, a much a larger franchise seeking to expand. The local staff were paid about 30% more and they moved over.”
“As a concerned son, I am too Page: 155 worried for her safety in the future." (proc text)] I hope his story and that of many others will also change the lens through which we look at this issue and address barrier-free access in our HDB heartlands. Town Council Management”
“Mr Chairman, in a recent reply to the Member, Mr Zainudin Nordin's PQ on the LUP, MND replied that 200 blocks across Singapore will not qualify for LUP by 2014, and it is looking into the matter. I have 30 of such blocks in my constituency, with segmented design which accounts for 15% of the national total. I did a simple computation − that it may cost HDB about $60 million or more in subsidies to complete the remainder at the national level, assuming we double the benefiting unit criteria, keep the resident share the same and hope that this can address 80% of the remaining units. But the issue should not be just about costs; it is about the philosophy that this Government cares and is preparing for an ageing population. My residents define their home not just by the space they live in, but the community and friends around them. These cannot be easily replaced, especially when many have lived there for 20 years. We cannot expect residents of the 422 homes to simply move on and find alternatives as they age and need a lift to serve their units. A significant number are increasingly going past middle age; some have parents living with them who are aged. Let me share this email from a young gentleman who recently wrote to me: [(proc text) "I met my neighbour (Uncle Peter) ... with his elderly father who is on a wheelchair. We have to either take the lift to level eight or 10, and walk up or down the stairs to level nine respectively. … Uncle Peter has to carry his father from level 10 to his home at level nine … twice every day, to daycare and back from daycare. This can be very taxing on Uncle Peter as he is also not young. Both of them can fall together if Uncle Peter misses a step. I am living with my mother who is getting old too.”
“Madam, on behalf of the Members in this House who have spoken earlier on, as well as the GPC, I would like to thank the Minister and all staff of MCI for a job well done and for giving us a very enlightened session today. I want to congratulate the Ministry once again for completing its first Budget session since its inception last year. With that, Madam, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. [(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of $539,386,700 for Head Q ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. (proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of $110,139,100 for Head Q ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. (proc text)] Page: 119”
“But content pricing, which refers to offerings from the private providers, is really very difficult for the Government to intervene. We just hope that sensibility and rationality can prevail among all partners and all stakeholders because, ultimately, we want to ensure that Singaporeans have access to good quality content, both local and acquired.”
“For all new buildings, we are now going to mandate them to have space to provide for the deployment of mobile infrastructure. For existing buildings, COPIF will apply, and the Member is right, we are now trying to increase the coverage as much as possible. We need to be able to have spaces to place the base station. There are times whereby we have difficulties engaging the building owners. A good number of them are private owners. I would like to assure the Member and the House that IDA is on top of the situation. We are in consultation and meeting the building owners as much as possible. But the most important thing is also to work with the Telcos to make sure that their requests are reasonable, because coverage and how they design it would also make sure that they have maximum optimal coverage in order to be able to relay the signals. On content pricing, the Member may be referring to the issue of cross-carriage. As I mentioned earlier in the reply, the purpose of cross-carriage is not content pricing but really to avoid the fragmentation that we have seen in the pay TV market. Ultimately, I think consumers will have to reflect their unhappiness to the content providers that they are not prepared to pay a certain price. We are subject to market forces, unfortunately. And I know the providers – SingNet, StarHub – are all negotiating to be able to bring content to Singaporeans. But having said that, those are contents which they acquire. In my reply, I also mentioned about PSB content in which the Government is supporting a lot − $630 million over the next five years and an addition of $182 million over four years – to build up information contents, such as documentaries and current affairs. So, we will do our best to provide content.”
“Madam, I just want to pick up on the earlier point raised by the Member, Mr Low Thia Khiang. I think this was a Parliamentary Question (PQ) I asked previously on mobile access speeds. The issue is not so much the Quality of Service but more in terms of accessibility of the base stations. What I understand from the Minister is that they are working on something like having the mandatory setting up of base stations in new buildings. However, I was quite surprised in the reply earlier on that we are not looking at existing buildings or we are having difficulty gaining access to existing buildings. My sense is we should work with BCA to make it mandatory for such access. Because I think most of the mobile operators today have difficulty trying to access existing buildings. And these are usually spaces that are not available for retail or any other meaningful purpose, so there should not be any need for them to negotiate with building owners for space that is not really required. I think there is cost involved just to rent space, and we pass on to consumers. Perhaps the Minister would like to clarify. The second question that I have, which I think is actually not covered so far, is about content pricing. On the last PQ that I asked, I was surprised that the Minister replied that content pricing was not the objective of MDA. If that is the case, the concern I have is whether content providers, like the three operators or even MediaCorp, out there are bidding for content at very high prices and passing the cost back to consumers. So, that is another question about Page: 117 affordability as well. Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: I thank the Member for asking the clarification. He is right. In my reply I mentioned about Code of Practice for Infocomm Facilities (COPIF).”
“Several of our agencies are already moving in this direction, giving room for our philanthropists, community leaders, experts and volunteers to play their role as active citizens. To this end, we will continue to build skills and abilities within the public sector to better engage and involve stakeholders in policy-making and responding to ideas and feedback, and giving them space to take ownership. Beyond the intricate modelling and farsighted data and analysis we might have for policy-making, we will continue to built capabilities to better understand the various stakeholders and inspire to cater to their different needs. This will always be a work-in-progress to keep in step with the changes in society. Public communication and engagement are critical in building and keeping trust as we go forth and progress further as a people, as a nation. And that is how we have come this far and we will do more to go further. Now, let me invite the Senior Minister of State Mr Lawrence Wong to elaborate on our efforts. Page: 107”
“The Government is committed to making public engagement a cornerstone of policy-making. We have enhanced our efforts to engage stakeholders in policy making, explaining policies, getting feedback and tweaking policies to better benefit people from all walks of life. Page: 106 Last year, Madam, we embarked on a national conversation on the kind of home we would like to have in the future. Across the Government, many similar conversations have been taking place, and Singaporeans have responded very positively. We have to continue along this vein, listen carefully and consult widely before a decision has to be made at some point. Even as the Government expands on our public communication efforts, we are aware that there is room to do better. Where issues appear complex, we have to learn how to explain in bite-size fashion, in appropriate ways for different audiences, such as the elderly, especially policies that have great impact on our people. Many policies have benefited from Singaporeans' inputs and ideas and the Government will continue to bring people together to co-create long-term policies for our collective future. At the same time, in any public engagement or policy-making process, we need to realise that there will be benefits, conflicting interests and trade-offs. What may be of importance to our home-grown businessmen may not appeal to our graduates fresh out of school or the retirees. Some people get cautious or defensive at first glance but may later realise it is a good move when issues and trade-offs are discussed and explained. We also have to move towards not just engaging our stakeholders but encouraging them to share ownership and run programmes with our support.”
“For the past 50 years or so, this Government has been concerned with the survival and success of this nation and the aspirations of our people in wanting a better future. Public officers, especially those working on public communication and outreach in the various Ministries and statutory boards, have been integral in helping the Government explain policies and responding to feedback. No society remains static. As our society becomes better educated and open to ideas and influences from near and far, there are bound to be different views, perceptions and expectations. The ways in which the Government departments operate have to evolve with the times and, indeed, they have. Increasingly, we have seen different pockets of society forming quickly to declare their interest and take positions around an issue or a cause. Government agencies, therefore, got to be better equipped to engage an increasingly diverse society of Singaporeans. We also have to take note of the high expectations of those who sometimes want to have their way and quickly on an issue. And I am sure Members of the House have themselves noted the diversity of voices on the ground when they meet constituents and the challenges of representing conflicting viewpoints fairly. Even as some Singaporeans are increasingly articulate in expressing themselves and using various platforms, like new media, there remain many others who are quiet by nature but with dedication to their work, and their role in bringing up families and contributing to Singapore is no less important. They should never feel left out. We should be inclusive of as many views as possible and continue to engage in ways that they feel comfortable, such as the elderly.”
“This is something we are good at – the factual and logical explanations to explain any misinformation online. The online media provide the Government the ability to better sell its messages and policies. The Government should also explore how it can harness the online platform to "sell" its policies better and share stories of how various schemes and policies have helped the people, businesses or organisations in Singapore. The online media also provide the Government with the opportunity to capture people's imagination of our hopes and aspirations for Singapore to be better. Perhaps, our population paper could have also been better explained using multimedia through visualisations and stories to portray different scenarios being considered. In addition, difficult issues on housing prices and minimum wage can be better presented, through explaining the considerations of alternative models and taking citizens through why the Government's model is better through visualisation and stories and scenarios. The Government has always done well in providing information, perspectives and putting forth logic. But this is no longer enough in today's terms. The Government needs to engage citizens visually, emotionally and with Page: 105 narratives that will connect, especially online. The question the Government needs to answer is not just about whether Singaporeans receive accurate information and are well-informed on Government polices online. Just as important today is whether the people buy-in and accept the information provided; and whether the Government has connected and won the hearts of the people, too. Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: Madam, I agree with Members that Singapore society has grown more diverse and the public wants to have a greater say in policies.”
“My next point, Government engagement with citizens is certainly important but cannot be just left to the officeholders and Members. Perhaps, we could also involve more civil servants and make them play a more active role in Government feedback as this will also help the whole-of-Government be in better touch with the ground and understand sentiments better. This will make for a more connected Government and policy-making if we can achieve this at connected levels, from political officeholders down to the executives. It is important for the Government to use the citizen engagement process with the aim of consultation and garnering citizen buy-in on public policies. This comes at a time when Government credibility and trust are at stake, given how little people feel they were engaged and consulted with recent policies, such as Page: 104 the Population White Paper and recent hot topics, such as minimum wage or car financing. More dialogue and engagements are certainly needed and the Government must be able to listen and reach a wider audience. Otherwise, this is a lost opportunity for the Government to build credibility and trust with citizens at a time when the Government needs it most. Government Online Outreach My next cut, Madam. Given the popularity of the Internet, more and more Singaporeans are turning to online sources for information and news. It is heartening to see Government communications have evolved to make more information available online and opening up more channels for feedback and interaction. Factually, a new site set up by the Government is an excellent initiative in harnessing information to clarify doubts and explain policies, especially if citizens are unclear or need clarification of hot topics online.”
“Often, at feedback sessions, the scepticism I sometimes receive from people is that, on top of their minds, is the Government ready to listen or have they already made up their minds? So, many feel that the Government spends a lot of time engaging on policies, but only done after the fact when the policies seemed to have been decided, especially the important policies that impact citizens. So, perhaps even we could look at the Parliamentary process to see whether it can be fine-tuned to allow for better feedback and engagement with citizens. We get this feeling that sometimes we run through a lot of approvals of the Bills in such a short space of time that leaves little time for feedback and engagement with citizens to make them believe that their views were taken on-board. The Second Reading and PQs provide a good platform for sharing of perspectives in Parliament because they enable both the Government and citizens to understand the various issues and concerns of a policy or Bill. But if we believe that the Government does not own all good ideas out there, it may be worthwhile to let the community internalise and revert with feedback following the Second Reading. Government agencies can then organise forums and feedback sessions with citizens, and this can be achieved if the Parliament's Third Reading comes a month later or at a later session, before Parliament comes to a vote on the Bill. And this enables the Government to make any amendments to policy after considering the debate by the Members and the Government's feedback channels with the public. It also enables the Government to assess public sentiments on the various issues and to make adjustments, if necessary, for immediate implementation.”
“Thank you, Madam. The Government has set up many feedback channels over the years. The Feedback Unit has evolved into REACH today, and the various Ministries and agencies also conduct regular feedback forums and consultation exercises. The participation rate and level of activity over the years have certainly increased – credit to the various agencies and staff. But based on my involvement with REACH previously, the quality of feedback is also getting better as more citizens have a better understanding of the social and economic environment, the policies, and they are also better able to look at alternative examples and models. There is, indeed, a strong desire among Singaporeans today to want to be consulted and have their opinions considered in policy decisions. However, despite the increased efforts, the question we need to answer as a Government is why do people still feel as though they have not been heard or engaged? Is it because the Government's outreach has not achieved a certain degree of scale? For those who participated, do they feel that the replies have not been convincing or they receive no replies to their proposals? I understand REACH has tried to aggregate some views, and Ministers and Members occasionally do explain why the alternatives were not considered at dialogues and interviews. But, perhaps, Government communication has not been effective enough in sharing the engagements, feedback and considerations out there with the wider public. The other question is whether or how the Government engages with the public needs to evolve because we do very well in one-to-one situations or small dialogues. On a wider scale – on a mass scale – I think there has to be Page: 103 some way in which we need to engage better.”
“Can the Ministry update on the Council's efforts to promote Internet self-regulation? What is the latest development on the earlier suggestion to have an Internet code of conduct? And what is the Ministry's position on the recent International Telecommunications Union or ITU's proposal in the United Nations that will enable world governments to have more control of the Internet? The Internet should continue to be given a light touch and remain unregulated, but a good code of conduct and principles, if implemented well, can bring greater credibility and integrity to this Internet space. Industry Self-classification The Government has sent strong signals that have seen it increasingly moving towards co-regulating media content with the industry. Last year, it announced that the video industry will be empowered to classify or self-classify films up to PG13 rating. When will this be implemented and what are the details of this co-regulatory framework? Importantly, what same cuts should have been in place to ensure that films are classified appropriately as I am sure that many parents and members of the community are concerned that public trust in our classification systems will be dependent on the accuracy of the rating according to social norms and acceptance? Does the regulation have other plans to introduce or extend co-regulation for other forms of media as well especially in this era of media conversions that we earlier spoke about? Page: 87 Public Services Broadcast”
“Madam, the formation of the Media Literacy Council comes at a time when Internet participation, especially on social media, continues to grow. In the past year, we have seen high profile irresponsible use of the Internet, such as the one mentioned by my Parliamentary colleague, Mr David Ong, about Amy Cheong's racist postings. But beyond the radar are also many smaller incidences, such as classroom bullies in cyberspace among the school children, and regular occurrences of insensitive remarks posted online that hurt individuals. Early this week, I attended an event promoting mental health. A gentleman commented about his forum letter that was featured in The Straits Times online. He wrote about the lack of a support structure for care-givers like himself. He has been taking care of his spouse who suffers from mental illness for many years. He was upset with the online comments that followed. One said that if his spouse were taking over 42 pills to control her temper condition, even a doctor would go crazy. Another post said he should euthanise his spouse as he had already kept her for many years. Page: 86 I take the view that the Internet should be open and not be manipulated for censorship for political or commercial gain, but these hurtful statements, if they become an online culture, will only serve to divide and lead to the detriment of society. In many advanced countries, including Australia and UK, similar councils also promote media education as part of school curriculum. They also promote publication of journals and research on media literacy and conduct. I believe our own Media Literacy Council has an important role to play and can bring great value to develop Internet use in Singapore.”
“With the convergence of traditional and new media, many industry watchers are also looking to the Government on where the policy shift will take us. Will the Government deregulate and shift regulations and licensing policies towards greater openness and embrace the openness of the Internet players? Or will the Government try to fit the workings of the internet media and platforms into our traditional methods of regulating and licensing print media Page: 61 and broadcasters? From a policy perspective, some would say this is an opportunity for our media and broadcast policies to move into the Internet era. But at the same time, many Singaporeans are also cautious whether Singapore will take a liberal position with such regulations, especially with regard to content classification or censorship. So I agree that we need some sort of standardisation in how we manage content across different platforms. But we also need to keep pace with societal norms and acceptance – but this is a delicate balance, given the diverse views, perceptions and beliefs between the different segments of our population. Thus, I would like to hear from the Ministry on its position and which recommendation it plans to adopt from the Media Convergence Review.”
“Page: 60 From an industry standpoint, I hope there is also a concerted plan to take our media production and broadcast industry to a new level of play. It would be great if the Ministry uses this opportunity to further develop and bring fresh opportunities for our local talents, writers and production houses. But as we embark on this initiative, we must bridge the digital divide as 40% of Singaporeans today are not on pay TV, which is today's main digital platform. We must ensure that the transition leaves no one behind, especially low-income families. We must also ensure that every household will have the necessary infrastructure provided to ease the transition – whether it be a new antenna, receivers or other connectivity requirements. Media Convergence Review This brings me to my second cut – media convergence. Today, even before we embark on digital TV, the ways that people consume media has changed dramatically. In 2012, the Media Convergence Review Panel outlined its recommendations in a 64-page report to the Government. The recommendations aim at taking Singapore's media and broadcast regulation into this converged media landscape. Clearly, in this converged landscape, new commercial platforms, such as iTunes, have given us food for thought on how content regulation and licensing should differ online compared to those sold in our stores and those through pay TV. At the same time, whether there should be a difference in how we regulate or classify content that is user-generated, such as those on YouTube and Facebook. Thus, consumers and industry players are looking to the Government for its position, following the Panel's recommendation on which recommendations it will accept and how it will impact Singapore.”
“Madam, I beg to move, "That the total sum to be allocated for Head Q of the Estimates be reduced by $100". First, I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate the Minister and staff of MCI for its first official Budget session. On behalf of my parliamentary colleagues and the GPC, we look forward to a meaningful and enlightening session today. Madam, let me begin with some entertainment. I do not mean singing or dancing, but I will start with digital TV. Digital TV entertainment for Singapore comes at a time of media convergence where viewers have access to various technologies and platforms on the Internet. We have evolved from the times of communal TV at the CCs in the past, and today, we watch the TV in the comfort of our living rooms, on our computers and tablets and sometimes even our smart phones. Recent news of Singapore embracing digital TV is certainly exciting as this will change our perception and use of the TV. Digital TV will bring better quality images to our TV screens and I hope that MDA will play a proactive role to maximise the potential of this platform by increasing the range of content it can deliver, and more online services that can benefit and improve the productivity of citizens. I hope that MDA will further develop the industry as well, to enable more businesses to take advantage of this evolution. Ultimately, I hope that the MDA will foster a broadcast market that is more diverse and able to carry a wider variety of channels and programmes. I would like to hear more from the Ministry what benefits can Singaporeans expect of digital TV, when can they expect to start enjoying the benefits and how will this transition take place.”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for her comments. We have seen the current ratios. Will the Senior Minister of State explain whether we see a decreasing trend over a period of time where we will see less and less Singaporean lecturers who are given full tenure? That is the impression that many lecturers have. The Senior Minister of State mentioned retention and how we have programmes to encourage more Singaporeans to be retained. But retention of existing local lecturers whom we can keep can be addressed. And whether we studied whether there is a skills gap, and gaps in meeting the criteria in which we can also help them be retained, while at the same time adding more to build up our Singaporean Core?”
“I think the Member is confused about what I am trying to say here. There is a difference between the Anchor Operator scheme and what MSF is trying to do in subsidising childcare. The Ministry is putting forth a lot of subsidies to ensure that childcare is affordable. To a certain extent, yes, we are trying to make childcare affordable for all families who qualify in Singapore. That is the end objective but the Anchor Operators also serve certain social objectives which we should also protect. But, yes, we should do more and I think we should increase the number of Anchor Operators if we can but I leave to the Ministry to decide on the criteria relevant. Page: 91”
“I think the Member got me wrong. When I said Anchor Operators, I did mention that they also be charity organisations. And the criteria if they are similar, they should be in a similar fashion in that they should be charity organisations and foundations as well. So, if they are private organisations, then I think it is up to the Ministry to decide whether it wants to consider them in the evaluation. I think it is up to the Ministry to decide whether the criteria are right or not. But my personal belief – I did not say which criteria – I just said that we should have more Anchor Operators. I agree with the Member that competition is good but it is not just about competition among Anchor Operators; it is about giving that service to our citizens. At the same time, we have some leeway when we have charity organisations and foundations who are helping the lower income segment. So, it is not just about profit lining, but there is also a social objective that we are trying to achieve here with the Anchor Operators.”
“In response to Mr Yee Jenn Jong's clarification, first and foremost, I was not referring to your adjournment Motion. I was referring to your speech. The questions were directed exactly at your speech asking whether we should make all childcare operators public and not just subsidise the Anchor Operators. Secondly, I think the Anchor Operators today have a special function, in that they are targeting and helping the lower income segments. But whether the criteria is something that we have to go by, it is something I believe in, it is up to Ministry to decide, I am not in that position to decide on the criteria. Page: 90”
“Yes, Madam. The fears of Singaporeans are rational, especially when many see the competition for jobs, space, opportunities with the influx of foreigners and immigration. If Singaporeans are faced with such negative feelings for the population projection, it will be hard for the country to reach consensus this way. We need more time to let the messages sink in with the population, allow citizens to speak up, share their aspirations and fears. Madam, I stand and believe that Singaporeans do care about their future here and their children's future here – as much as I do for my future here and my children. So, I understand what they are asking for, and I share their aspirations and fears. Singaporeans are rational but on this Paper, I believe Singaporeans need more time and convincing. I ask that the Government give more time for citizens to discuss this issue and let Singaporeans know that this is not a plan cast in stone. Spend more time to present the scenarios the Government has studied and why the recommended approach in the White Paper is the best way forward. Not everyone will agree, but I believe, given more time, the country can rationalise and come to a consensus on our population challenges and the way forward. Madam, I support the White Paper and Member Liang Eng Hwa's amendments. Page: 89 4.32 pm”