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 32 of 36.
“In my view, this contradicts his point about declining wages of low income workers. In fact, that would even lower the wages of low income workers even further. He suggests that we go by dependency ratio. I am not sure if he had studied the impact on the companies. I think if he heard Mr Teo Siong Seng's speech earlier, being a businessman, many do feel that there is still a need for foreign workers here. On the foreign worker levy being a source of Government revenue income, it is a means for us to raise more income. I am not sure what he thinks we are doing with the $1.2 billion, whether we start playing in the casinos. If we look at this year's Budget, there is a lot more being put in WIS and for training of workers to also, hopefully, uplift our low income workers and ensure that they are more sustainable in the long term. So I think we need to look at the bigger picture and see how the PAP Government's solutions interconnect and give us a total solution package that will uplift the income of all Singaporeans. One focus of this Budget is to raise the productivity level of our workers and industries by 33% over 10 years. What I think is not commonly discussed is the associated growth in real income. I think when we talk about real income, we talk of cost of living as well. So the question is how do we grow our real incomes in line with productivity growth of 33% over 10 years? Is this possible and will companies buy into paying more for more productive workers? This is an important question for all of us in this social compact – the Government, people and employers.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, our latest move to ensure our nation’s economic growth reflects Singapore’s track record of always thinking and planning ahead. Since independence, we have not been afraid to take bold steps to make strategic changes to ensure our survival. The fast changing global economic landscape, with increasing competition, has made it vital for Singapore to adapt and innovate. The Budget seems to follow the Economic Strategies Committee's (ESC) recommendations closely. And for us to succeed in this next chapter, we need Singaporeans and employers to support the changes that are needed. As we put forth long-range strategies in this increasingly complex and volatile world economy, we need to constantly engage the people and give them visibility on how this Budget and this Government will continue to ensure that they can afford homes, maintain decent careers and sustain quality lifestyle. And, hopefully, many will also embrace expanding their families – give birth to more babies to solve our population problem. While the outcome of our target is important, so is the process through which we want to achieve that desired result. The way forward is to put policies and programmes in place so that we can achieve and sustain growth, including growth of real income for our workers. The Budget – the message to Singaporeans – highlighted various facets, such as lowering the dependency on foreign workers, the lack of direct transfers, for example. But on this point of lowering the dependency of foreign workers, it was interesting to note Mr Low Thia Khiang's criticism of Government's policy to reduce this dependency. In this, he suggests removing the foreign worker levy.”
“A quick question. Based on the number of families benefiting from ComCare, does MCYS track how many are also benefiting from social welfare programmes by other welfare organisations? I am just wondering whether the Many Helping Hands approach is still working out well.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to know whether there have been any changes in the planning consideration now that planning has been taken over by the LTA and what are some of these changes in planning consideration. The fear I have is that we may end up having similar replies as we used to get from the bus operators in terms of cost, stages, and so forth.”
“The feedback I have got from some residents is that some of these jobs are really not for those doing mid-career switches – those in their 40s and 50s, especially the senior ones. Some of them have tried to apply but, the teaching profession, for example, says it prefers younger teachers. I assume that some jobs in the Defence and Home Affairs Ministries may be targeted at the younger age range as well. So for senior Singaporeans, are there jobs that they could perhaps try to apply in the public service?”
“At the Meet-the-People Session, I still do come across residents who have gone to the CDC asking for jobs. They have also done what the CDC has asked, like they have gone for the SPUR and WDA-sponsored training. Yet after three or six months, they are unable to get jobs even after going for interviews. So this is a group of people that have been cooperative and gone through the process and yet somehow we are not able to help them. I am just wondering whether MOM has done a study of the profiles in its database to see whether we need a different measure to tackle this problem. Because I suspect they are the bottom of the barrel and we probably need a different strategy for them.”
“We are moving along in a changing world, no one knows for certain what our future holds, as circumstances may change overnight. But we cannot afford to remain still. We need to be nimble, resourceful and creative. We have all the resources and capabilities to face these new challenges, along with the old challenges. We have to move on with this together, taking into account all needs and sentiments, and to ensure, as many of our leaders have expressed in this House, that no Singaporean will be left behind. With this, I support the motion. 2.33 pm”
“While the Government could provide wider OB markers, this would still create grey areas - what is allowed and what is not. For example, while we avoid topics that bring religious discourse, do we avoid the discussions altogether? Or can we come to a stage where we are able to discuss such issues, yet remain sensitive and sensible as we engage others with different views and faiths? I believe the community has to find its own answers through trial and error. What regulators can and should do is to provide a wider space for this to happen. And I have faith that Singaporeans can and will reach the maturity in due time. With greater transparency of information and discussions, we cannot run away from the fact that there will be changes in political expectations. There will possibly be greater awareness and participation by the public. In fact, this House needs to be ready for a more vocal community, including minority segments, that will get louder over time. However, I believe this is a positive development for Singapore as we continue our on-going search for a Singaporean identity and way of life. Singapore has developed as a communications hub, so it makes sense that we continue our evolution into an arts hub and media centre, and develop towards a more cultured society, and hopefully a more gracious society. And I am glad that the arts community have banded together to ensure their representation in Parliament. Despite the downturn, I also welcome that several arts initiatives by MICA, such as the next phase of the Renaissance City Plan, continue to be promoted and supported by the sector. I also hope that this support also continues to nurture and develop our local arts talents.”
“It is a culture that we need to develop, especially with the current industry moving full-scale into paid television programming. The lack of quality television engagement may create even less interest among youths in current affairs and social issues as well as artistic contents It would thus be useful for MDA to look into this area, where MDA could consider more funding and act as a catalyst for the local media industry to produce television programmes that balance commercial aspects with our social interests. MDA can work with MediaCorp, Starhub Cable, educational institutions or independent local production houses to explore creative ways to incorporate messaging into entertainment. As we move along, we need to adapt to the changing media environment and, here, I agree with MICA's approach to have more frequent checks and relaxation of the new media space. Today, censorships may be less effective due to the variety of media. Children are more exposed to the global stage and are aware of alternative channels for information. Censorship is of limited practicality today, with the relative ease and availability of the Internet. In this regard, I welcome the recent announcement of the appointment of the Censorship Review Committee (CRC) to update policies on censorship of the media and the arts. I am glad that this review will result in citizens getting more choices without compromising racial harmony, social cohesion and family values. I believe that the Government is recognising that Singapore is a maturing society. The Government is gradually playing a lesser role in censorship and regulation while allowing space for the community to grow. We should encourage self-regulation, and develop a society that takes responsibility for its speech and actions.”
“Notwithstanding these developments, as far as the media is concerned, no matter the form, I believe the basics should remain the same - it needs to be unbiased and reflective of Singapore's social dynamics and tolerance. This is more so in a plural society such as ours. Our local media has generally been responsible but there is still room for improvement. Coverage of the AWARE case recently, for example, could have been better done in a way that should not create division. I brought up this case because there has been feedback that the coverage by the media has been pro certain groups. This is akin to the various media channels each taking sides. This might be just a perception. Nonetheless, such observations are worrying and should be avoided especially with the rise of the new media. The reason is this. With the growing ease of communicating to masses online, people can extend their unhappiness through this platform amplifying discourse and divisions. Limited moderation of insensitive comments by other netizens or platform moderators further escalates reactions leading to netizens taking sides to defend their beliefs. This was also evident from the furour on issues relating to the unfortunate events of my parliamentary colleague, MP Seng Han Thong, and the late DBS corporate chief Richard Stanley. While we can have more freedom, media entities should also assume greater responsibility and seek to provide balanced arguments. They should promote online discussions and raise political awareness, but in a responsible manner. I also feel that our local television programmes can promote greater awareness and understanding of issues instead of just pursuing commercial entertainment.”
“Hence, we would like to see more Malays with potential to come forward, not only in politics but also in leadership roles of the Malay organisations. This is because there is space and opportunity to develop many programmes and initiatives that can help our community progress further. As a small community with limited resources, we need as much involvement as possible, especially among the talented young people, to come forward and contribute regardless of their education level. In this matter, the current leadership must provide a platform to encourage and facilitate this renewal process, not only to develop the new generation as leaders but also to provide support for the organisations' activities. With that, we can help guide and train them to better understand and be concerned with community issues, in the hope that some of them can develop and step into government leadership. By gaining experience in these issues, we hope that this will produce more Malay leaders that play an important role, not only in Malay issues and affairs but also in helping our community become cohesive, be economically relevant and connected to this region and the world. Looking at Malay issues from a wider perspective, we must acknowledge that they are also national issues, and problems faced by the Malay community also affect the nation. Hence, this increases the importance of leadership renewal, so that we can continue to build a wider and more capable group of leaders. (In English ): One key aspect of global development is the evolving role of the old and new media. In the case of the new media, this space has been evolving to define its rules of engagement, and has widened participation exponentially.”
“While we trust commercial professionals to do their jobs, we should also be mindful that, at the end of the day, they are investing Singaporeans' money and Singaporeans deserve greater accountability in how our money is being spent. Increasingly, we will also have to address issues on how we can match the commercial objectives of Temasek and GIC to the social objectives of the reserves that they invest in. Should greater transparency also be given to the public of the bonuses and performance of its staff, in return for the rate of return of investments over the years? We ask of the same of our professional investment fund managers and commercial banks, why not those who manage our reserves too? Sir, we need to assure Singaporeans that they have a role to play in this island state we call home. We need to engage in conversation more. We need to run Singapore Inc with the mindset that this is an open partnership and prove to Singaporeans with concrete actions that their voices are being heard. Only then can this House build more trust with our fellow Singaporeans. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to touch on the issue of leadership renewal. I will speak in Malay. (In Malay ): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A *.] Mr Speaker, renewal is an important process in any leadership, including in politics. With renewal, we can ensure that an organisation stays relevant and fresh, apart from bringing in new ideas. Touching on the Malay leadership, we must let the renewal process become a key foundation of our strength. I am sure that we can do it as we have more talent now, especially in the past few years, where we see the emergence of more Malays who are better educated and have global views. In fact, many have made their mark at the international level.”
“The launch of the National Integration Council is a good start to achieve this balance and I look forward to their work. But we cannot let such issues of growing resentment divide Singaporeans and how we develop as a nation. One of the key strengths of our system has been in it has always been open and transparent. The recent cases in the UK pertaining to MP expenses have shown the role that the public can play as checks-and-balances in Government excesses. This is made possible because in the UK as well in US, the system allows for people to request for information to be made public and the government is made accountable. Thankfully, in Singapore, MPs do not have expense accounts and our allowances are fixed and transparent. I am not advocating that we go the way of the Freedom of Information Act in the US and the UK. But an approach mid-way can improve the Government’s engagement and feedback mechanisms. We can make the array of information more accessible - on Government spending as well as on other policies that impact us - so that Singaporeans can contribute to policy feedback with better data and foster closer engagement. While the Auditor-General’s Office covers compliance and financial prudence issues, the public may be better served if it has greater information on Government spending to ensure that we do not undertake excesses. In the opinion of many from my generation, and as mentioned by my parliamentary colleagues earlier, Temasek and GIC investments are also areas that many believe should have greater public scrutiny. Our reserves involve our savings as a nation, our future and our children's future. We have lost money, whether realised or unrealised, that took generations and many good years to create.”
“Even the Job Credits scheme and other Budget measures are not enough to mitigate revenue declines and high overheads, especially commercial rentals which have remained relatively high. Revenue-wise, we can help companies open new markets but we are still not able to reverse global tides. The same applies to our assistance plans launched with the objective of defraying costs in these difficult times. The property tax rebates were of limited help to small businesses because they did not reach the tenants in many instances, especially for tenants of commercial properties. Retailers did not realise the full benefits because their small number of employees meant that the credits they received from the Jobs Credit Scheme were small compared to the increase in rents they had to pay monthly. While I recognise the Government's difficulties in reaching the tenants directly, we cannot always take the easy way out as this would leave well-intended schemes at the mercy of commercial landlords. I have raised this concern before at the recent Budget debate that we cannot rely on the commercial sector to bridge our policies and social interests. There is, hence, a need to re-look at how the Government can administer such assistance schemes. Our free market also means depending on foreign manpower. This, rightly or wrongly, creates resentment among Singaporeans. This is happening not only in the job market, but also in our schools and universities, where competition for spaces and top spots by foreign nationals has caused unhappiness among many parents. Even in the heartlands, many feel that the foreigners among them should abide by our norms in areas such as cleanliness and indiscriminate use of bicycles on pathways.”
“Thus far, with the privatisation of our transport services and industrial real estate, for example, we have seen increased costs for people and businesses even if productivity and quality of services have improved. This strategy has created unhappiness in many quarters. We cannot blame Singaporeans for feeling so. Many are experiencing rising costs of living despite the downturn affecting their jobs. Local businesses watch in despair as high costs of rental erode their business viability. As a result, many become dependent on low-cost foreign labour to keep prices competitive. Even before the downturn, we were hearing grouses on the ground on the increasing cost of living and the threats of foreign workers taking away jobs from Singaporeans. Thanks to the hard work and vision of our forefathers, Singapore has flourished since Independence. Most Singaporeans have roofs over their heads, benefited from world-class education and live in safe, stable surroundings. Today, we are no longer at the stage where maintaining economic prosperity for survival is our sole objective as a nation. We cannot always put economic importance ahead of social and other interests. There is a need to review this pace of development and have a strategy to balance the interests of the people. It should not be an approach in which we go full-steam on development, and then make attempts to assist the needy. This will create gaps - where everyone in between would feel stretched and pressured by increasing costs and other constraints. Despite our best intentions, these gaps may not always be bridged. Take the case of the Job Credits Scheme. The announcement was welcome by businesses. Yet the scheme can only provide temporary and limited relief.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to add my voice to support the motion of thanks to the President for his Address. Today, one thing is certain. This is a different world with a different set of challenges. And I think that the challenge for the Government of today, as we find our way through this economic storm, is to find the right balance between the pace at which we fight for our economic survival and how much stress our society can withstand in the process. The world's current economic storms show how quickly tides could turn, how easily Singapore could be affected. We can see for ourselves the degree to which our economy finds itself reliant on the global order. We thus appreciate the pressing need and efforts of the Government of Singapore to keep its growth to stay on course. However, in our pursuit of policy changes and initiatives for fiscal growth, the Government cannot and should not see growth as our over-riding objective. There needs to be a balance, taking into account the social aspects of a Singapore that is maturing in its multi-faceted views, beliefs and aspirations. Sustaining growth has to be a priority, but it should not be done where Singaporeans feel that they are short-changed in the process, feeling that they are not getting the returns on their hard work and loyalty to the nation. For a start, we should relook at our cost structures - our costs of living and our costs of doing business. Singapore's economy is built on the philosophy that a seemingly pro-free market will hopefully maximise the potential of our limited resources. Hence, we almost allow unrestricted competition with the assumption that private sector competition can bring about cost-efficiency and increased productivity.”
“But at the same time, I think we must be mindful and indeed careful to maintain the integrity of our electoral process and continue to keep our political discourse serious, rational and robust. We are fully aware that technological and societal landscape will change and continue to evolve. We are committed to ensuring that our rules will remain relevant and that they keep pace with time. We will make further changes when it is appropriate to do so. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time.”
“We will know better but we know that the formation of a separate PFCC will actually smoothen the process because, otherwise, all films will join the same queue and be submitted to the FCP for consideration, together with the rest of the commercial films and videos. So this will be an opportunity to try and move what are deemed party political films, to be considered more quickly by a panel that is independent and for their views to be made known. Ultimately, as I have said earlier, there will be a certain degree of judgment, always an element of subjectivity in their decision-making, and they will have to apply and interpret the parameters that have been spelt out in this Bill. There were also queries on whether the BFC or the PFCC should make their views and positions public. I think what will happen is that owners who submit the film to the BFC will have a chance to interact with the BFC should the conclusion and the decision be not in their interest and be adverse to what they would otherwise expect. And if they then edit the film and take into consideration the comments given by BFC, then the film can be submitted afresh to the BFC for reconsideration. Otherwise, if they are unhappy and aggrieved by the decision of the BFC, as I said earlier, there is always the opportunity to bring their case to the FAC and FAC will hear it independently. I have basically dealt with some of the main queries that were raised by Members. Let me say categorically that the amendments that this Bill proposes bring about what I believe to be significant liberalisation and change, and it will widen the space for political discourse and engagement, particularly through the medium of film and videos and, I hope, over time, to enable a more robust and vibrant political environment.”
“Right now, we involve the PFCC comprising private sector individuals, as well as refer the films to the Films Appeal Committee (FAC) should there be an appeal by an aggrieved owner of the film. The FAC has, over the course of the last five years or so, listened to 10 appeals from aggrieved owners who disagreed with the BFC's decisions. The FAC overturned the BFC's decision on six of those occasions and upheld the BFC's decision on four other occasions. And the BFC accepted the Films Appeal Committee's decision as final and went along with the FAC's final decision on the determination of the classification of the film. That was for commercial films; the same process will now be used for films that are deemed as PPFs. So there is a certain confidence, I hope, to give to Members that, firstly, the composition of the PFCC, a new entity, will comprise people who are non-partisan, who are serious-minded, who will exercise sound independent judgment. The BFC will take their views into consideration but cannot always abide by their views, just as the BFC cannot abide solely by the views of the PFCC, and let me explain why. Today, the FCP has about 65 members. We seek their views, not everybody responds, but for those members who respond, we consider all their views. Where the views are clearly in one direction, it is quite easy for BFC to make a certain decision. Where it is more finely balanced, the BFC will then have to take into consideration the individual views that are expressed and come to a conclusion, and make its decision accordingly. We do not yet know how the process with the PFCC will work out because it has not quite been formed yet, nor do we know how long it will take, a point, I think, that was raised also by Ms Sylvia Lim.”
“Ten percent of the films, again, more contentious, they sent it to the FCP for the views of members and for their input and assessments to be made, and they completed the process within the space of about one month. So, that is the time taken. For videos, because of the load generated by 16,000 videos, it took longer. About 40% of the videos were classified within two weeks. The rest took longer and those that have to be sent to the FCP came back within about two months. Let me move on before I come to the FAC later. What will change now is that with the formation of the PFCC, if the Bill is passed, films that the BFC deems to be political in nature, instead of rejecting it, it will now send it to PFCC. And PFCC, with its six to eight members plus the chairman, will then give their views and input, and this will come back to BFC before BFC makes the final decision. Composition of the PFCC has not yet been decided obviously, until the Bill is passed, but we have already announced that Mr Richard Magnus will be the Chair of the Committee. Ms Irene Ng asked why we selected Mr Richard Magnus, I think he is somebody we know well, retired Senior District Judge, has a distinguished career and established reputation, known for his impartiality. He will form the Committee, as I said, and the Committee will then be appointed by the Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts. And this Committee, together with the BFC, will then make the decision on whether a film is a PPF. What has shifted from our present position is that we are actually taking a more community-based consultative process. In the past, civil servants, BFC decides.”
“Second, that we will couple this with public education and, indeed, we followed up on one of the AIMS' recommendations to have inter-Ministry cyber-wellness taskforce. Because we recognise that public education really would lay the foundation for further moves to expand the political space in this area, and to make sure that people exercise the right degree of discernment, judgment, to view things not in isolation but to be able to see things in totality, to recognise the larger picture and not to be misled by seductive arguments narrowly focused on a particular area. And the third limb, besides light touch and public education, was industry's self-regulation and co-regulation. And, basically, we will not deviate from this, going forward. Films that are available on the Internet will have to continue to abide by the class licence scheme as in the past. So enough on the intent and the content of the Bill. Let me move on to talk a little bit more about the process because I think there were some queries and concerns. Let me say, first of all, that today the Board of Film Censors (BFC) decides. The BFC takes a look at the film and if it deems it to be a party political film, it decides and it rejects the classification and prohibits it from being exhibited. That is for political films. For the rest of the films, it will decide those that are clear-cut – and about 90% of the films that it receives are largely clear-cut in nature. The remaining 10% will be sent to the Films Consultative Panel for their views and their input. The BFC received about 750 films and about 16,000 videos in 2008. Eighty per cent of the films were classified within seven days.”
“Section 35 is meant and reserved for serious situations where due to the circumstances of the day, the possession or distribution of the film would actually be contrary to public interest - presenting a threat to national security, danger to racial or religious harmony, and perhaps affecting even the very fabric of our multi-racial, multi-cultural society. Members have noted that so far, we have only used section 35 once and that was on "Zahari's 17 Years", and the Minister had come up with a press statement to fully explain why he issued the ban. We did not want to impose on the Minister the need to make such a press statement or to have to explain every time he exercises the jurisdiction to impose such a ban. But, where possible, he will indeed do so. But for those who have forgotten what "Zahari's 17 Years " was all about, the film was a revisionist attempt to have a distorted and misleading portrayal of Zahari's arrest and detention. It was an attempt to exculpate himself from his involvement in communist activities against the interest of Singapore. He had posed a security threat for which he was detained under the ISA, and he now wanted to exploit the use of film to project false and distorted picture of his past actions, and that is why the ban was made. It was not a political film. There were also comments as to whether this signals any change with regard to the way we view the Internet. Let me explain our position with regard to films on the Internet. First of all, the Films Act governs both offline and online films. But the Government had decided to adopt a three-pronged approach towards regulating the Internet. First, we say we will take a light-touch approach via the class licence scheme.”
“Let me touch on sections 33 and 35 because I think many Members have spoken out and raised issues regarding these two particular areas. Prof. Thio Li-ann, Mr Zaqy Mohamad, Mr Siew Kum Hong, Ms Sylvia Lim, amongst others, spoke on section 33, why are we not decriminalising the making of party political film as recommended by AIMS. Our position is that the Government is only disallowing what would be dramatised, sensationalised and emotive party political films which will do harm to rational and objective political debate. And so we feel that there is strong reason to maintain the sanction against the making of such films. But bear in mind also that while we retain this clause, and we have always had this clause since the inception of the Bill, we have not prosecuted anyone for the making of a PPF to date. That is an important point, that while it is retained, it is there and has been there over the last 10 years, there has been no move to prosecute anybody. So moving forward, whether or not a film-maker will be prosecuted for the making of a PPF, it is not an automatic process but it will have to depend on the facts and the significance and the merits of each case. Section 35: Again, same Members have raised their issues and comments on section 35. Let me clarify a misconception that this is a so-called backdoor way to catch the rest of the films that would otherwise have passed, because section 35 is not against PPFs; it is not to be used against party political films. PPFs, unless they fall under the exceptions, will already be banned from the onset and there is no need to apply section 35 to such films.”
“And we have to trust the process and the people selected to help us bring that process forward and I shall touch on this later. Let me deal with some of the words that have been used, "being partisan", "biased", "animation" and "dramatisation". Let me assure the House that simply having actors to portray a certain role will not cause a film to fall out of the amendments that are permitted. Limbs which allow for "live" recordings and documentary as long as the film does not sensationalise. For example, if you want to have a documentary on somebody who has passed on and he had been a political figure prominent in the political scene in Singapore, we will need an actor to re-enact important episodes in his life but, again, the intent is not to allow distortion so the dramatisation is permitted. But the distortion, if it takes place, will be what the BFC, PFCC and FAC will be most concerned about. Some degree of animation is also something that we will have to look at because if in a party manifesto, we are describing the future of Singapore, we have got to be able to depict it in a way that people can understand, visualise and be excited over. We have done so for the National Art Gallery. It came to mind, as I was listening to the Members, that part of it had to depict what was not yet in place, how we are going to transform those few things into something that, hopefully, will captivate the attention of Singaporeans and visitors alike. And I dare say that some animation is going to be permissible in bringing forward the message of how we intend Singapore to be, going forward. But, again, the extent of the animation – does it distort, does it mislead – will be something that the BFC and the PFCC will have to exercise judgment.”
“Let me say, first of all, that in coming up with such amendments and what we proposed to do, we have got to strike a balance between the prescriptive and the descriptive. We cannot be overly prescriptive, trying to tighten every loophole, trying to spell out to the nth degree what is permissible and what is not because it is not possible to do so. And certainly, in addition to the many examples that have been given, I am sure the creative film makers will also be able to find other ways to circumvent what we prescribe. What we try to do in the Bill is to set out certain parameters that I think would quite clearly indicate what is acceptable and what is not. But beyond being descriptive, we must also describe the intent of the Bill – what we hope that it will do, what we want it to achieve, what kind of guidance this will give to the people who eventually have to exercise judgment on whether a film is a party political film (PPF). So we are trying to strike a balance in the amendments as well as in this debate, together with the Second Reading speech, between being prescriptive and being descriptive. My second point is that I think it is worthwhile for films to be viewed in context and in totality: dramatisation and animation, is it partisan? Is it biased? Rather than picking out specific aspects of it and querying over certain segments of the film alone, I think it is important for those who are viewing such films to do so in the right context and in its totality. My third point is that at the end of the day, notwithstanding some comments that have been made about this being an art and not a science, there is always going to be an element of subjectivity in assessing whether such films are PPFs or not.”
“And even if an individual watching films over the Internet gets worked up and very emotional, it is one person on his or her own, whereas a group of people coming together watching a film that has an emotive appeal coupled with commentary and incendiary remarks, the damage can be potentially catastrophic. So, what we are doing here, as far as the intent of the Bill goes, is to take a careful, calculated, calibrated approach to liberalising to include more categories under the segments that will be exempted from being party political films. This, I have said earlier in the Second Reading that we will make further changes when it is appropriate to do so. Prof. Thio Li-ann had also queried about the Bill vis-a-vis Article 14(2) of the Constitution and I know that Ms Irene Ng had suggested to her and others to table a proper motion to debate this. I am not a constitutional expert but my take on this is that I am fairly sure that this must have been deliberated quite extensively by our predecessors when the Bill was first moved in 1998. But, again, back to the fundamentals and principles which are to keep our political debates rational, non-emotive and serious to preserve the integrity of the election process, I think disallowing certain types of films does not affect the overall freedom of political debate in Singapore. My take is that there are sufficient avenues for political parties and individuals to get their views and manifestos across to the public. They can rely on the mainstream media. They can publish magazines, print newspapers if they are licensed to do so, host web pages online as well as debate about such issues in Parliament. [Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Matthias Yao Chih) in the Chair] 4.56 pm Let me move on now to talk a little bit about the content of the Bill.”
“Third is to try and explain more clearly what the process is with regard to the submission of a film to the Board of Film Censors (BFC) and how this will be subsequently treated with the formation, if the Bill is passed, of the Political Films Consultative Committee (PFCC). And, although Members have not brought this point up, the final appeal authority which is the Films Appeal Committee (FAC), and their decision being final on whether the film is a party political film. Let me deal with the intent. Members, by and large, have recognised that while the films will be a useful medium to communicate messages to reach out to the young and a particular segment of the society, there are also downsides to the film that it can mislead and distort, and there are certain emotive appeals that the film can make which could be damaging. My take on this is that if our democracy is reduced to slick commercials, clever editing, sharp sound bites and political spin, then I think our democracy is being debased. So I would say that when we crafted this, we were very much aware of the need to make sure that even as we liberalise – here, I want to give the assurance to the point that was raised by Ms Irene Ng that indeed this is meant as a liberalisation of the space that we have today with regard to the use of films – that we continue to want to make sure that the debate is serious, robust and rational. The second point is that I think films have a mass appeal that books and texts do not have. When we are watching a film together has a different appeal then if we watch it on television or over the Internet.”
“This means having a Government that is comfortable in addressing misinformation and alternative perspectives, and allowing Singaporeans to decide for themselves. It may well be, at the end of the day, a case such as the relaxation of demonstration rules at the Hong Lim Park. In the past, we had loud calls from various corners of the local and international interest groups for us to relax the regulations. The Government relaxed the rules, and things are still peaceful today with very little interest in what goes on. With that, Sir, I support the Bill. RAdm [NS] Lui Tuck Yew: Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, let me thank all the speakers who have spoken on the amendments to the Bill. The majority of them have expressed their support to the amendments that have been tabled. Some have done so with strong support and some are quietly applauding the amendments that we have made but they have all raised interesting perspectives and questions. Let me try and package them together and address some of them. I will do so along three limbs. First, the intent of the Bill, if I may borrow the structure from Miss Penny Low who spoke first. Second, the content of the Bill and, third, the process. I actually dwelt on the intent at some length in the Second Reading speech and so I hope to be brief on this particular aspect. For the contents of the Bill – to explain a little more on sections 33 and 35, although that is not part of the amendments, as well as address some of the points that have been raised: being partisan, biased, animation, dramatisation and the use of some of these words.”
“This may be perceived to be a backdoor for the Government to take action against errant producers of such films. What are the safeguards for producers who fail to make the grade through the PFCC from being charged for making such films? They are technically still guilty of making a party political film that is not within the legal framework. Under section 35 of the Films Act, a film can be considered to be against the public interest and the film can still be banned. It has only been invoked once since it was enacted and we have the Sedition Act and the Penal Code to deal with any material against public interest. Is this section still relevant, given the other safeguards in place? In relation to section 35, should we reconsider if a Minister should hold the power to ban party political films, as he is also a political figure from a political party? From a politically neutral point of view, should the Government consider letting the judiciary arm, or an independent panel hold this authority? Given the times, the Government needs to evolve and be able to accept a diversity of films and opinions. That is the key to show that Singapore has matured and that we are ready to go head-on to show that our Government is honest and transparent. I think the amendment is taking us in the right direction. The Government must continue to step up to engage, articulate and explain its policies and action to the people so that it can better accept alternative points of view or interpretation of history and current affairs. We must have more faith in our society to be able to distinguish acceptable political ideologies. Singaporeans are now better educated and more matured. We need to continually engage them and allow them to weigh different arguments and reach their own conclusions.”
“There can be many interpretations as mentioned by my other esteemed colleagues on the technical issue of dramatisation and the interpretation of events. The definition of dramatic elements is not clear and may turn out to be a technical no-go for films being produced for political purposes. In relation to the PFCC, I agree with Ms Irene Ng that they must remain independent and that the decisions must be made transparent. I think the selection of the panelists will also be crucial to the acceptance of the PFCC's role and judgment in this process. I fear scepticism in this de-regulation process if the Chairman and members of the PFCC are seen to be pro-establishment or have come from the Government in their previous roles. I also fear conservatism by the panel given that this is the first time we are relaxing the laws in this manner and the danger of their objectivity being hijacked by lobbyists. Pertaining to the use of films for elections purposes, I think that this will create a more vibrant run-up to the elections campaign. The changes effectively remove handcuffs from real political parties – like the PAP – with an interest to engage citizens through films and Internet. It is also important for parties, such as the PAP, to set the tone for its legal use and play by the rules. As a PAP MP, I think that we have always been hampered in this space as a result, compared to the many instances of politically-motivated groups circumventing the existing rules through the online media. Sir, I still think that there are two areas where we can relax further. In section 33, the Government still continues to criminalise the making of party political films in general.”
“While the Government always cites movies in the likes of Farenheit 9/11 that we must be wary of, where would films like Nixon/Frost, JFK – highly-acclaimed, political themed, commercial films – be if not for a film-maker's interpretation of events around political figures and provoking the thoughts of the people? Through this medium, we can also tell our Singapore story and our political struggles of individuals and political parties for our young and future generations to reflect on. There are certainly merits for the Government to further loosen this Act because such films are also important to a nation's heritage. Over time, it helps keep citizens engaged on Singapore's past and history, which sometimes documentaries are not able to do as there is always a human element to the story. So my concern is: to what extent can we allow space for film-makers and give them the creative licence for them to produce such films? Clearly, we can see that the authorities still maintain a conservative stand with regard to two categories: (i) party political films; and (ii) films deemed to be against the public interest. The Government may have its own reasons for this, but it still has grey areas that are not helpful to anyone trying to make political videos. I think what many are asking for is greater clarity on the OB markers. On the issue of OB markers, my concern lies with the PFCC. This panel does not just deal with content with respect to public interest but there is political sensitivity involved. I think questions will also arise on who sets the rules on the selection on what films are accepted and what are not, and what are the definitions of the political OB markers, if any.”
“Mr Speaker, I believe the amendments to the Films Act are timely, to widen the usage of films for political purposes, and loosening the regulations to keep pace with times. We can understand why there was a need to be cautious as far as films are concerned. This is a medium that can easily sway the emotions of people. However, the proliferation of the new media and the ease to get films produced and distributed outside of Singapore also signals that local regulations are becoming less and less effective. Singaporeans, especially the younger generation, are getting used to having access to a variety of films and media content – within and beyond our shores. Thus, we need to keep in step with these developments. Therefore, these proposed changes are a good first step in recognising this trend, and that the Government is willing to listen, respond and manage the variety of alternative views and messaging from the media. I think this will benefit our political landscape in Singapore. I believe the deregulation of this space will be beneficial not just to the opposition and neutral groups, but also for the ruling party to keep in step and further its causes in the arena. I hope for the Government to relax the regulations beyond the non-dramatised film documentaries as well as footage from legal events. I think that films are a good way to get people to understand and appreciate political affairs from different perspectives. Stifling such creative works will limit the outreach for political discussion and thought provocation. Today, many international movies portray political figures whose actions in histories are interpreted in different ways that enable viewers to reflect on moral issues, values and societal concerns in relation to politics.”
“Minister, I noted in your speech that the number of PMETs and polytechnic holders and above who were retrenched last year was about 37%. Are we sufficiently geared to help this group? I know the e2i and WDA, in terms of the scope, have always been geared towards the lower end of the workers' spectrum but this time around, the challenges are different. The opportunity should be different and the way to tackle the strategy should be different as well.”
“Madam, I am heartened that in Minister's reply to Mrs Denise Phua's question there will be more resources being put in to build up the capability of the social service sector. I was wondering whether there are existing service-delivery gaps that the Minister plans to bridge with the increased funding, and what are some of these services that are the Minister's top priority at this point. On the comments from REACH Chairman earlier - I thank her for presenting all the features and functionalities of REACH - but I also think that REACH needs to be a lot about the people it reaches it out to. So, could the Chairman also give us an indication on what is the profile of the citizens that they reach out to and what are the numbers? Is there a target number that we plan to reach out to?”
“[For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A*.] After years of enjoying economic growth, we now face an economic crisis. This will surely affect Malay workers; with 65% of them do not have post-secondary education. Hence, it is important for us to focus on this group, so that they can upgrade to relevant skills and grab job opportunities to take care of their families. The loss of income can affect the family's lives. It may also affect the educational expenses of the children. Thus, I hope the Minister can elaborate on the new developments in terms of measures that will be taken, to help Malay/Muslim families that are affected by this economic downturn, especially in helping them get stable jobs. In this matter too, are there steps to ensure that the Malay children's education, from pre-school the tertiary level, will still be a priority for such families? In this economic crisis, we understand that the community, especially the ones who are better-off, will probably be more cautious. This may affect their involvement and contributions in community work, and will more or less, slow down our efforts to help the community based on the self-help approach. What is the Minister's view on this, and what are the steps being taken so that the professionals and businessmen, who are the more successful groups in our community, can continue to contribute to Malay/Muslim bodies, community affairs and also MUIS? Malay/Muslim Affairs: Educational Help for the Needy”
“Sir, I initially planned to talk about the adequacy of funding and professional staffing for the CDCs, FSCs and VWOs, but the Minister has already covered it and said that he is going to increase the funding. I thank him as the social service sector will benefit. Sir, in these times, I also see an increase in demand for social assistance, as well as an increase in troubled and distressed families in this difficult period, ranging from house repossession, family tensions due to income issues, depression, etc. Yet, I feel that the current infrastructure, ranging from the grassroots, the CDCs and the VWOs, may be burdened by cases beyond their usual capacities. Does the Ministry have plans to increase the number of social organisations, such as FSCs, to cope with the increasing demand for financial assistance and social services, such as counselling in these difficult times? Can the Ministry elaborate if it has specific plans and if there are services it deems as a priority to be expanded and funded in these difficult times? I also think that this is a good time for VWOs and social organisations - what Ms Denise Phua was talking about to restructure the sector - to attract talent to the social sector, and it would be good if the Ministry can to provide assistance for these organisations to enhance their management and operation teams with better talent. Would the Ministry consider putting forth special schemes to help them attract good talent in this sector? Perhaps even consider helping to promote social work as a career, as some Ministries, such as MOE has done to promote teaching as a choice career?”
“How can we effectively determine what is enough for Singaporeans, and what is needed to uplift those who may be under-privileged, if we do not understand the total impact of cost of living to different groups of Singaporeans from the different quartiles of household income earners? CPI alone is too broad a spectrum to be used as an indicator of inflation. Different Ministries have different benchmarks and each one tracks these household costs differently. For example, HDB has its benchmarks of housing prices based on mortgage debt ratio, cost of utilities pegged to oil prices and transport prices to a different CPI ratio. I know that MCYS goes out there and purchases a basket of goods to determine what is the benchmark for public assistance. But this is not the total effective cost of living for Singaporeans and it is good for us to understand what is the impact on our households when each of these factors moves under different conditions. ComCare Utilisation Rate”
“Sir, given the current downturn, the issue of being needy can be relative, of course, with limits. The middle-income and lower-income earners are feeling the squeeze as one or more income earners in the family face retrenchment, salary cuts or poor commissions. Therefore, even if a family used to earn $5,000 a month, and are now down to $2,500, they are still not eligible for social assistance. Yet, they would still be short of $2,500 for their household commitments. For an extended period, they can be in severe credit debt or arrears. I think the Ministry needs to consider a more formalised approach to help these families for a temporary period. I agree with the Minister, when he said in this House, that our social system needs to be 'high on flexibility and low on entitlement'. So I am not asking for a broad spectrum of welfare to all middle-income families. But for a period of time, can the Ministry be flexible on the upper cap of ComCare's upper limit and increase it to $3,500 or more for the short term? The criteria for qualification can still be stringent to reflect that this is not an entitlement. But the impact is that this will give its frontline officers in MCYS, the CEC and other VWOs the flexibility to assess a broader band of citizens in need and allow for affected families to make their case. Right now, the answer is a straight "no" for many affected families in the middle-class. Sir, I think the Ministry should also spearhead a study to benchmark what is a minimum amount that families need to afford a basic quality of life in Singapore.”
“I agree with Minister Tharman’s view that we should help companies that are sound, innovative and with the potential for growth, but found challenges in doing so. We can also partner these EDCs with specialists such as venture capitalists (VCs) to deliver more specialised programmes such as IPO underwriting and special funding. This may mean also putting in place Government-developed systems, better resources and paying for better staff to reach out to the ground quicker and more effectively. The Budget measures and Government schemes are only as good as far as they can reach the ground. I think the Government needs more touch points on the ground to ensure the effectiveness of the Budget measures and obtain reliable ground feedback and data.”
“Given the indicators on the dip in the services sector, I believe that the MTI can also do more to pump prime the services sector in areas such as retail, hospitality, infocommunications, logistics and perhaps even the affected financial services sectors. The impact of pump-priming the services sector is towards generating local and consumer demand can be significant. The services sector is human resources intensive and sometimes, involves a significant proportion of Singaporean workers who are highly qualified and are likely from the lower- to upper-middle income segment. Giving them assurance of demand and jobs, may actually stimulate more corporate and consumer spending. In addition, there is a larger chance of leakage in construction and infrastructure projects because of the intensive use of cheap foreign labour at times and purchases of goods sourced from overseas. In the services sector, however, even if PRs and foreigners are involved, the money is likely to circulate in Singapore because people have to be here to perform the work generally. During the Budget debate, I think Member Gautam Banerjee’s suggestion for a committee to help businesses who are not able to obtain the SRI and bridging loan schemes is a good one. I would like to refine his proposition to the MTI for consideration. Rather than set up a new committee, existing EDCs can be used to help such companies. Given the speed at which industries and demand is contracting, time is not a luxury that we can afford, and the EDCs can provide a ready platform that can be tapped. I think this could be helpful, if staffed and funded correctly, to find good companies and innovative companies worth helping and growing.”
“Madam, the slew of budget measures have done well to help the bottomline of businesses with measures such as jobs credit, tax benefits as well as the SRI and bridging loan schemes. However, the survivability of companies also depends on the ability of companies to maintain or protect their topline. In his reply to the Budget debate yesterday, the Minister for Finance spoke how measures such as GST cuts in the UK failed to stimulate demand. Can the MTI perhaps update us what measures and activities it is embarking on to stimulate demand for goods and services in the business sector – locally and internationally? I agree with Mr Inderjit Singh that perhaps we need to rethink on our economic model to prepare for the future. Minister Tharman also mentioned that the Government will promote a variety of infrastructure projects across various sectors in his Budget debate reply yesterday. But today's Business Times reported that Singapore's GDP may face a sharp decline. And OCBC economist Selena Ling was quoted as saying the contractions of manufacturing and exports were expected. What was not was the speed of decline in the services sectors. So, are pump-priming measures such as constructions and infrastructure building still the way to go? I fear that the desired impact may not be felt by sectors concerned because pump-priming infrastructure projects may not be as effective in this day given Singapore's shift in focus towards services sector over the last few years. So are there other areas that the Government plans to pump prime?”
“Just three points. One, on the assistance to lower communications cost for the needy. I was just wondering whether the Ministry has any specific plans to work with agency MCYS to look at whether we can provide certain assistance to subsidise communications cost for the needy. Also, will MICA look to encourage telco providers to assist, especially the needy, in arrears over this period of time? On School of the Arts (SOTA), I was wondering what are the Ministry's plans to help SOTA develop our world-class potentials? I understand that there are probably one or two potentials who could be world-class. Have we got good links overseas with world-class institutions to help them develop themselves? Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong: Madam, since we have been talking a lot on new media, can I ask the Minister for his assessment on the mainstream media? There have been a lot of changes in the air – very fast changing world and people need to understand what is going on. And one of the missions of the media is to explain, educate and entertain. Can I ask the Minister for his assessment of the state of the mainstream media as he sees it, especially in explaining and educating the public as to the future direction that we are moving towards and the challenges that we face?”
“For all our investments in large, sophisticated projects, such as the SOE and NGN, I am sure the Government can consider implementing relevant infrastructure to be able to strengthen the connection between the Government and its citizens in a big way. There is certainly an increasing demand for greater access to the Government from the younger generation of Internet users who want their opinions heard, and have easy access to the right services and the right people. I hope that MICA, in view of Senior Minister of State Lui Tuck Yew's reply in this House two days ago, does not wait until the Internet community self-regulates in the way it feels comfortable before embarking on this open engagement on the Internet. Generally, Singaporeans do not speak out to right wrongdoings in public, and should we expect them to behave differently online. What would be the indicators where self-regulation is enough for the Government to liberalise and to open up online political space and media regulations? I say, let us focus on engaging the mainstream population and make the Government more accessible to be engaged constructively in nation-building and policy-making. Otherwise, we will lose an entire online generation, who could have had the opportunity to grow and engage with the Government, the same way as the previous generations had grown and engaged with the Government using the traditional media and broadcast communications. Minority TV Programming”
“Madam, earlier this year, MICA presented its response to the AIMS committee recommendations. The Government has responded that it would evaluate the capacity of the Government to communicate effectively online and rethink how it engaged its citizens via the feedback loop and replying to online letters. I would like to know what are the Ministry’s plans and if there are additional resources that will be put in place to adopt the above recommendations of the AIMS committee. What new capabilities and approaches can the public expect in their online engagement with the Government? I also noted that many groups have voiced their displeasure that the Government would not engage them beyond the current Government platforms and that REACH was to be the main point of engagement. Madam, I believe that the new media presents an excellent opportunity to engage citizens and never before has any medium enabled this opportunity for the Government to be able to reach each citizen directly – anytime, anywhere – be it in their homes, offices or personal communications devices. I hope that the Government will not give up the opportunity to be able to connect directly with mainstream public, just because of its cautiousness to engage its critics online, one-to-one. I admit that it is an onerous task, but the technology today allows it if we are prepared to spare the investments and manpower. We have developed online tax filing systems and NSmen application systems that reach all employers and income earners in a massive scale.”
“With the Next Generation Broadband project due to be launched in the near future, can this initiative make a difference to the level of competition to the communications and media services available to consumers and businesses? I would like to know if we can also expect better price rates for communications and media services when this is implemented. I noted that there is a possibility of the same telecoms service provider being involved to operate the OpCo and NetCo components. I was under the impression that the rationale for separating the two components was to avoid a monopoly of the core and backbone infrastructure. 5.00 pm With the NGN, what is the Ministry's execution strategy to fill its pipes with a greater variety of media and content and deliver them to consumers and businesses at affordable prices? How does it plan to balance the demand for lower content and connectivity prices, while trying to develop the industry at the same time? Especially in these difficult times, I hope that the iN2015 plan can deliver lower costs of communications while promoting the higher usage of value services and content for our businesses and consumers. Media Hub”
“Madam, much effort has been put in the Budget to reduce the costs of living and costs of doing businesses. One sizeable cost that we should address is the cost of communications. Given our developed society, communications services such as mobile and broadband services have developed to be as essential as electricity, water and waste removal services. Yet, no measures have been included in the Budget to subsidise or reduce communications charges with schemes such as U-save. Businesses incur significant costs through leased lines and IDD communications, while mobile and broadband subscriptions today form a substantial part of many households' expenditure. Does the Ministry have plans to reduce the cost of communications for businesses and consumers during this downturn? Are there initiatives in place to promote service providers such as the three telecom operators to provide relief vouchers for needy residents? The mobile and broadband connection today should be considered a necessity item given our connected society. The Ministry and IDA, the regulator for connectivity services, have put in place various measures, such as the implementation of number portability and recently, an attempt to reduce the contract period of mobile phone contracts, to reduce the costs of communications by promoting greater competition. We have yet to see significant impact on the cost of communications given these efforts. How does the Ministry rate the level of competitiveness between the telecoms, broadband and media services, such as cable and IPTV, to provide businesses and consumers with reasonable value-add and price? Is there more room to create greater competition to give better prices, content and application services?”
“With this, I support the Budget. 6.22 pm”
“Thus, I think that Government messaging is important to help Singaporeans and companies here find their ways around to seek new opportunities of growth or reinvent themselves. I have spoken at length earlier about finding a way to prepare ourselves for a better future. We have to do more than just create supply-side policies without generating demand or pointing to where we see demand. We forget sometimes that we are a small economy, a small country, and by measure of global demand, our GDP is not large compared to global trade. We can certainly find new niches and we need to train our companies to position ourselves as a whole. We have created a solid and sophisticated supply-side budget to help companies with their cost issues and save jobs. But there are areas in the Budget and policies that are not emphasised enough. Let us do more to communicate what businesses can do with innovation and R&D measures, rather than just cost-cutting. Let us have more success stories on talent retention and development using the various programmes available, rather than retrenchment. Let us show our workers the way to realise their value and potential – no matter how old they are – and the programmes that they can take advantage of to position themselves for growth, rather than focus too much on unemployment figures. Is the world economy in crisis? Yes, it is. Is it the end of the world? Last I checked, it does not seem so. So, let us accept that the picture is gloomy and work on the execution. We have an excellent budget laid before us. Let us send the signals in a big way to help the people and businesses find those silver linings in this gloom and, hopefully, the rainbow and the pot of gold at the end of it, when the sun shines again after the rain.”
“I feel that more focus is needed to deal with that trend and the Malay/Muslim community needs all available resources to overcome those problems. Possibly, during this crisis, we will see reductions in terms of volunteers and donations to Mendaki and Malay/Muslim bodies that are doing important initiatives. Hence, I hope that the Government will be able to provide more resources for them in addition to introducing more national programmes, especially in CDCs, FSCs and VWOs under NCSS, to help these families-at-risk. *Cols. 1615-1616. (In English): Each day, we read interviews and reports from the Government and the media that the economy is bleak and could get worse to the point that sometimes I take refuge by reading the sports and entertainment pages in the papers. The reality is that companies and people take cue from the signals that the Government sends. It is right for the Government to feed the right statistics and news to the people. But putting too much emphasis on the cloudy overcast feeds doubt and may cause unnecessary freezes on spending, hiring and salary adjustments. This, if overdone, by the Government and the media may create an environment that will only serve to create a self-fulfilling prophecy. Companies and consumers are already holding back spending, more than they need at times – being kiasu, just in case. Salaries are cut back, just in case. Bonuses are cut back, just in case. Corporate spending is cut back, just in case. If this happens too much, the economy will be further hit and there is only so much rebates and credits that the Government can offset. We always say that in every adversity, there are also opportunities.”
“Some could have previously been earning about $4,000-$5,000 a month, but are now earning $2,000-$3,000 a month. This means a financial gap between meeting their monthly commitments, and especially those supporting parents and children. I believe that more flexibility and support need to be given to this group. Mr Deputy Speaker, may I continue in Malay, please? (In Malay): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A*.]Even during this economic downturn, social assistance must continue as the poor and needy are the most affected. Hence, we must ensure there are sufficient resources for our self-help groups. I am happy to see many measures within this Budget aimed at helping affected families. However, I am worried that the Malay/Muslim community will be more affected this time based on their social economic profile. Generally, many in the Malay/Muslim community are in the low-income group. And due to their low education, many are vulnerable to the risk of retrenchments. Also, some statistics also raise some concerns. Many families are dependent on a sole breadwinner because statistically many women are also not economically active. This is worrying because in the blink of an eye, many families will lose their source of income. This situation may affect their children's education and the stability of the family unit due to the economic downturn. I hope the Government will closely monitor these at-risk groups as the Malay/Muslim community has a high number of young people in this category. Maybe it is good to examine this situation. Also, I hope that the socio-economic trend that I mentioned earlier, that is the dependency on the sole breadwinner, can be changed, especially among the low income that usually have larger families.”