ANNUAL BUDGET STATEMENT

Debate resumed.

Dr Lily Neo (Kreta Ayer-Tanglin): I thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, for allowing me to participate in this debate. My intention is to appeal for bigger and sustained budget allocations for the Ministry of Health yearly. I would like to beseech the Minister for Finance to give my request earnest consideration in view of the fast and vast improvements in science and technology within the medical field and in view of the social changes within our society. Sir, the Ministry of Health, as a non-profitable and "expense only" economic contributor, may have received a low priority not only this time round but also in the future. However, I feel that this should not be the case because we may compromise our excellent healthcare system. The Ministry of Health deals with life - the very essence of our being. We would have accomplished nothing if we lag behind in providing excellent healthcare and in maintaining our people at their best in health.

For the past few years, Singapore's national health expenditure has remained stable at about 3% of GDP. However, a recent NUS/IPS study commissioned by the Ministry of Health indicates that Singapore's national health expenditure, at the current level of health servicing, will rise to 7% of GDP by 2030, due to the `ageing factor' alone. Sir, the economic pressure is also likely to be aggravated by rapid advancement in medical health science which brings, in its wake, the introduction of many life-saving but expensive new medical technologies and innovations. The present generation of Singaporeans is more savvy and will be even more so in the years to come. They will have higher expectations of our healthcare system and will demand much more in terms of their healthcare needs.

In order to cope with the changing social trend, there is an urgency to revamp some areas in our current healthcare system. Mr Speaker, Sir, our current healthcare system is very much orientated for a "young population". Our demographic profile is undergoing rapid changes, and our population will become a mature one within the next generation. By the year 2030, the elderly would constitute a tremendously increased 20% of the total population. There will be an increased prevalence of chronic diseases with conditions like dementia doubling in incidence. Sir, the elderly, those aged 65 years and above, consume a disproportionate amount of our healthcare resources. This increasing trend of demand will strain our present healthcare system. We have to be proactive to meet the needs of a `mature population'.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to suggest that more funds be allocated to the following areas at the very least:

(1) More funding, and an urgent one too, is required for building more nursing homes. We are short of 1,600 nursing home beds and we shall need about 15,000 more beds by the year 2030. Facilities for long-term care either in the institutional, day care or home care settings will have to be strengthened to cater to the needs of a "more mature" society. Sir, since voluntary groups run the majority of our nursing homes, and we need a speedy boost in the number of nursing homes, the Government may have to review the present method of funding. There is a need to encourage more voluntary groups to build more and reduce our shortfall. The present 50:50 sharing of running costs may be a little too arduous for many voluntary groups. The cost of building a new nursing home runs into tens of millions of dollars. The capital sharing of 90% by Government, which is still too onerous, may have to be reviewed as well.

(2) Sir, increased funds for setting up more disease prevention and intervention programmes will reap us rewards in the future. The key to successfully reduce projected cost of future healthcare burdens is to promote healthy lifestyles and provide preventive healthcare. The rewards can be immense if this is done swiftly and targeted towards the whole population. It has been shown that, among the middle-aged in Finland, the number of deaths from heart attack and cerebral stroke could be decreased to less than half through preventive measures.

(3) Another area that needs more funding, Mr Speaker, Sir, would be in the training of more healthcare professionals and other informal caregivers for the elderly. Training in geriatrics for doctors has to be accelerated and the opportunity for such training must be extended to all doctors and nurses. All these efforts will not only provide better care for our elderly but also facilitate the availability in due course of home care. The gist of "elder care" is to keep our elderly as ambulatory for as long as possible, to keep them in the community for as long as possible, to tap the care of families, friends and voluntary groups in the community for as long as possible. Institutional care should be used only as a last resort. In order to achieve this, promotion of healthy lifestyles and preventive medicine to our elderly is essential. More trained personnel is needed to work at the grassroots level island wide for this to succeed. Sir, this will require a lot of time, effort and funding.

(4) Support is also needed to address issues of prevention, early detection, treatment of many diverse conditions. A good illustration of this would be in the management of cancers. Many cancers, examples of which would be cervical cancer and breast cancer, are curable if detected early. Pap smear screening tests which are available readily in Singapore for many years have reduced the incidence of cervical cancer. We have now got to address the situation with other conditions. The prevalence of breast cancer - the most common cancer among Singapore women - is a good one to start with. We must see that funds are allocated towards more public awareness promotion programmes and mass mammography screening programmes. Accelerated provision of personnel and mammography machines are necessary to reduce the incidence of breast cancer. The Government must increase the aid given to voluntary groups that work for and support those with breast cancer in Singapore.

(5) Singapore has a growing reputation as a premier regional medical centre. High professional standards and a pool of well-trained doctors and healthcare workers have to be maintained to provide quality medical services. There had been a stream of foreign patients being treated in Singapore prior to this economic crisis. Although the numbers of such patients may have decreased, we should continue to maintain our reputation as a premier regional medical centre. To do this, more funding must be provided for more training and research, especially in those areas fast improving in science and technology. It is better for Singapore to keep abreast of new knowledge, perhaps even generate new knowledge, in order to remain relevant in this medical arena. This cannot be achieved without adequate and timely funding. Maintaining men and machines means money.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is a tremendous challenge facing us in the scope of healthcare in Singapore. The earlier we embark on meeting this challenge, the lesser we will feel the pinch of the expense and the better we can cope with the needs of our people. Sir, the provision of more money, and in steadily increasing amounts each year, is emerging as the way to successfully deal with the future healthcare needs of Singapore. Sir, the Minister for Finance holds the key to the money.

Mr Tay Beng Chuan (Nominated Member): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, there are two features in the 1999 Budget presented by Finance Minister Dr Richard Hu last week which I think are noteworthy and praiseworthy.

Firstly, this is Singapore's first deficit budget in many years, and the deficit is some $5.1 billion, equivalent to 3.5% of our GDP.

Secondly, in order to further strengthen the long-term growth potential of our economy, and to encourage the development of a knowledge-based economy, the Government has provided for $13.94 billion as development expenditure for the various ministries. The development estimate this year has grown by 9.8% as compared to last year. This is the highest development estimate in the history of Singapore.

I remember, last year, when I spoke in this House, I made a plea on behalf of the business community to the Finance Minister for a balanced budget, rather than emphasising how much surplus we have in our budget each year. I am pleasantly surprised that in the Budget for FY 1999, the Finance Minister has gone a step further than what I asked for - he has adopted a deficit budget rescue strategy for our economy. On behalf of the business community, I would like to say we welcome this decision of the Government.

Considering our economic foundation and strength, even in this economic downturn, it is still not impossible for us to maintain a balanced budget, but there is a price to pay.

In this year's budget, there is a $5.1 billion deficit. This means, if the Government wants to maintain a balanced budget, it would have to cut down its expenditure by $5.1 billion. In other words, the Government has to cut down spending on social and community development (39%), security and defence (32%), economic infrastructure development (19%) and other expenditures to save $5.1 billion in order to bring about a balanced budget.

Obviously, this is not feasible. The consequences will only be lower quality of social and community services, weaker defence and security, and slower development in our economic infrastructure, and our international competitiveness will be affected. Therefore, I feel that formulating a deficit budget is a very wise decision by the Finance Minister. On the one hand, it looks after our people who are facing difficulties, to solve their short-term problems; on the other hand, all the various development plans can continue to be implemented to look after the long-term interest of our people.

Some people hold the view that many countries in this region are facing economic difficulties and have cut down substantially on defence expenditure in order to squeeze more money to finance other development projects. They advocate that Singapore should also do the same and cut down substantially on defence expenditure.

I do not agree with such a view. In fact, I feel more comfortable that the budget has allocated 32% of our total expenditure for defence and security because, after all, security is of utmost importance. If we have no security for safety, then all our achievements accumulated through generations of toilsome hard work may be wiped out overnight at any time. Some people are concerned that at this time when the other countries in this region are cutting down on their defence spending, Singapore is increasing it, and we may give others the wrong impression that we are a bellicose. I feel such a view is 100% wrong.

Mr Speaker, Sir, more than 2,000 years ago, during the spring and autumn warring states period, the great military strategist, Sun Tzu, had already proposed that ever-winning strategic idea of building up a superior army while not at war. That is to say, at peace time, we must strengthen our defence to ensure that our defence strength will always be superior to any potential enemy. Realizing that their armies are not as powerful as ours, the potential enemies will not dare to act rashly and will leave us alone. Only in this way, can we enjoy true peace. In other words, by maintaining a large defence expenditure, it does not imply that Singapore is a nation which is wantonly engaging in military aggression. On the contrary, we are just practising Sun Tzu's ever-winning theory of "building up a superior army while not at war". Our purpose is to provide security to ourselves and to maintain peace and security in this region and the whole world.

In short, I support this deficit budget to pay for sustained development of the various ministries, including Defence, Education, Health, Trade and Industry, etc.

According to media reports, Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong pointed out in Melbourne last Friday that even if we continued to run into a budget deficit for the next one or two years, the surpluses accumulated by this current Government would still be adequate to support our necessary national development programmes, and there would be no need to dip into the reserves accumulated by the previous governments. As such, we need not be overly concerned with the deficit of $5.1 billion in this year's budget. The Prime Minister also said that if the external factors remained unchanged, the effect of this year's budget and last November's $10.5 billion cost-cutting package would come into full play in the second half of this year and it was envisaged that our economy at that time would see some growth.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the business community understands that this deficit budget and last year's cost-cutting package will take some time before there will be effects on our economic system. While waiting for these measures to bring about the desired effects to our economy, the business community has refrained from making too many requests, less we be accused of showing no understanding of the times. However, the Government must not ignore the plight of our small and medium enterprises and leave them to swim or sink by themselves.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have a friend who is a small entrepreneur with investments in the neighbouring countries. Because of the regional factors well known to all of us, he had no choice but to wind up his overseas business and return to Singapore. Upon his return, he wanted to lower his standard of living, but he cannot get any buyer for his house. He tried to look for a job, but he could not secure any. His wife who had not been working for many years wanted to come out and work to help support the family, but nobody was willing to employ her, because the type of industry which she was formerly working in had been phased out because of economic restructuring. This friend of mine has never been an employee. His wife was a salaried worker who resigned from her job many years ago. Now both husband and wife are unemployed. They have no business to do either.

I think there are many such families in Singapore at the moment. Therefore, I would like to ask the Government whether there are any statistics to show how many people in Singapore today are neither bankrupts nor listed in the unemployment list, but are actually jobless. How many such families are there in Singapore?

I feel that the Government should look at this problem squarely. It must seriously consider the plight of these families and help them as far as possible. Otherwise, very soon, a very serious social problem may soon emerge.

If we cannot help the entrepreneurs at a time when they are not doing well, we should give them a chance to be "born again". Otherwise, how could we be able to encourage more Singaporeans to take on greater risks of venturing overseas? How are we going to pave the way for our knowledge-based economy? I think this is a critical question that the Government cannot ignore and must find a solution to it as early as possible.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion in the name of the Finance Minister.

Mr Sin Boon Ann (Tampines): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of the motion standing in the name of the Minister for Finance.

The Minister mentioned that some positive signs have emerged over the last three months that the crisis is stabilising. The Minister also said that the quick succession of the US federal rate cuts and the coordinated interest rate reduction initiated by the European central banks towards the close of last year helped to allay concerns of a global credit crunch and set the stage for a rapid recovery of the financial markets in early 1999.

I am glad to hear the assurance of the Minister that the world economic outlook seems promising despite his concern that there could be sharp discontinuities for Singapore in the year ahead of us.

As a Singaporean, I would like to share the optimisitc outlook of our Minister. However, recent economic developments outside the region may serve to dampen much of our optimism for the future. In the last few months, we have seen the relative volatility of the financial markets not seen in recent times. To begin with, we have seen the financial instability which started in South East Asia spread in the last year to Russia and Brazil. Russia suffered a massive loss of confidence in its economy when the government defaulted massively on its external borrowing which included the default on the US$40 billion rouble bonds, and the interest and capital repayment which is due to the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. By its default, Russia has placed itself in the same company as the other third world countries like Sudan, Afghanistan, and Congo. It is a reflection of the poverty and weakness of the Russian economy, which arguably is also a reflection of the state of the world economy today. Fortunately, the default of the Russian government has had a limited effect on the rest of Europe and the world economy, in part, because of the relative size of the Russian economy compared to the rest of the developed world. Nonetheless, it is arguable that the collapse of the Russian economy portends that not all is well with the world economy at the moment.

Additionally, the floatation of the Brazilian real recently does suggest that the world economy is still fragile and prone, to use the words of the Minister, to bouts of nervousness. In fact, the devaluation of the Brazilian real initially brought about some anxiety that a new round of contagion could be triggered. Although, the Brazilian crisis did not turn out to be as bad as was anticipated, it nonetheless drives home the point of fragility and interdependence of the world economy. We are not, by any measure, shielded from that which is taking place elsewhere. We are still very vulnerable to external factors which are beyond our control. Much as we would like to think that present indicators show a stablising situation in the region, we should not be too sanguine about things. Things could still go wrong.

There are, at the moment, some signs that the world may be heading for a more serious downturn. The Economist in its recent publication argued that in much of the world outside America the risk of deflation is at its greatest since the 1930s. Japan is suffering from deflationary pressure. In China, prices are continuing to fall as with some other parts of East Asia. Continental Europe's inflation rate is close to zero. Prices are coming down, thanks in part to the effects of new technology and to falling commodity prices. Although deflation is generally benign, the long term effect of unbridled deflation, caused by excess capacity and weak demand, would easily lead to a depression, with prices and output falling as they did 70 years ago.

If both Europe and the United States join Japan in the current deflationary trend, I would say that we have a lot more reason to worry for the coming year. This would be contrary to what the press had reported earlier of the Ministry of Trade and Industry's statement that the economy in Singapore is expected to turn around by the middle of the year. In fact, my assessment is a more pessismistic one if recent indicators are anything to go by.

A recent comment by an official from the Trade Development Board has indicated that Singapore's share of the US electronics market, excluding consumer electronics, had fallen from 12.8% in June 1997 to 10.6% by September 1998. The decline in market share may be attributable to Singapore's loss of competitiveness against exporters from China and Mexico, among others.

Sassoon, in a recent report, argued that the loss of competitiveness has its roots as a result of the following developments in global trends:

(a) the advent of the budget PCs which are below US$1,000, as PC makers compete fiercely with each other to give consumers more value for money;

(b) the resultant plunge in prices of components such as disk drives and semi-conductors over the past two to three years, which reduces the high-rise, high margin products to high-volume, low margin commodities; and

(c) the constant pressure on manufacturers to outsource and supply at even lower cost, which lead contract manufacturers to locate their operations in places where the cost of manufacturing is substantially lower than Singapore. These countries include, for instance, China and Mexico.

We are faced therefore with a serious situation where we are losing our competitiveness to the other emerging economies. This is a challenge which should not be taken lightly. It is right that our Government should recently adopt the measures which the Committee on Singapore's Competitiveness has recommended. Hopefully, these measures will help to provide the much needed boost to our competitiveness. Unfortunately, these are still early days. It would be difficult to determine upfront at this moment whether the measures adopted by the Government will yield effective results in bolstering the competitiveness of Singapore's economy. At the moment, there are clear indications as we have seen in the electronics sector, that we are losing our competitiveness to our rivals. In the long run, this does not augur well for the Singapore economy.

In this difficult climate, it is heartening to note that our Government takes a long-term view of keeping our economy on track. In particular, our Government has identified several key strategies which included cutting business costs, easy access to working capital for the smaller enterprises, market diversification, investment promotion and capabilities building.

In November last year, our Government announced a series of cost cutting measures aimed at helping the businesses during this economically difficult period. The cost reduction packages include key elements of business costs such as wages, rentals, utilities and transportation. The $10.5 billion cost reduction exercise shows the resolve and the speed with which our Government has responded to the crisis; at times, to the envy of some other countries. We have no choice but to make the necessary sacrifice if we want to stay ahead of competition. As the Minister has said, only time will tell whether the measures introduced by our Government will have any beneficial impact on Singapore.

The cost cutting measures have had a significant impact on the wages of ordinary Singaporean workers. Our workers have to accept a 15% reduction in overall wages. Such a reduction, while painful for many, is important, and I would say that we really do not have a choice.

Sir, a recent economic survey of Singapore showed that in 1998, the economy continued to experience rising costs. This was due to the divergence between labour productivity and nominal wages. Labour productivity shrank by 1.3% in 1998, while nominal wages continued to increase in 1998. Nominal average monthly earnings grew by 2.8% in 1998. As a result, the unit labour cost index for the overall economy continued to increase for 1998. The November cost cutting measures will only begin to have an impact on the economy this financial year and we will only know the results in the next financial year.

We should bear in mind that if we had not done anything to our unit labour cost, our workers may price themselves out of the market. In the long run, we may not be able to compete effectively against our rivals in the world economy. We know that the unit labour cost comprises approximately 49% of the unit business cost. This is certainly quite a significant figure.

Fortunately, our workers understand the position we are in. If we want to improve our wages and enjoy a better quality of life and security of employment, there is really no choice except to ensure that our workers' productivity continues to outstrip our wage increases. If we do not understand this principle and choose instead to militantly demand higher wages without the corresponding improvements in productivity, we will end up poorer for it, especially when one takes into account the changing trends in the world.

Indeed, one of our key strategies which will underpin our long term competitiveness is to focus on our labour resource. In capabilities building, our Government is right in saying that we should focus on skills development to prepare our workforce for the next wave of industrial revolution which will prominently feature information technology. As the Minister has said, this is a pressing issue. A disproportionate share of the retrenched workers in 1998 were 40 years and older. This indicates a worrisome trend. We are seeing an increase in the profile of ageing employees in our workforce. In order that they should be placed in a position to be relevant to the workforce, it is imperative that our Government should continue to pour in resources to retool our workers for the next wave of industrial revolution. In this regard, I note that there have been many non-Singaporeans who have benefited from our worker training programmes. I would urge that in looking at this area of worker retraining, priority should continue to go to Singaporeans, especially older Singaporeans, for whom seeking re-employment upon retrenchment is made so much more difficult on the account of age.

Sir, many Singaporeans have expressed the concern that this year's Budget has run into a substantial deficit, the biggest we have seen in recent years. If anything, there is much concern that if we continued to spend in this manner, we would soon run out of the reserves that we have accumulated for ourselves in this current term of office. This would not be seen as prudent management on our part and should therefore be dealt with much care and concern. While I too would admit that our present budget deficit is large by any measure, standing at more than $5 billion, we should in fact see our budget deficit in a positive light.

We should note that the $5.1 billion budget deficit arises mainly because operating revenue is expected to fall by $3.1 billion. On the other hand, development spending has increased by a significant $1.2 billion. As was reported in last Saturday's Straits Times, our deficit comes after 10 straight years of surpluses. We should also note that our budget deficit spending is dedicated to capacity building, and is not used for consumption spending or for shoring up insolvent companies and financial institutions. The Government has always cited caution in planning our budget, ensuring that we do not spend more than we can afford. Accumulating surpluses in the good years to tide us through the lean years is a principle that seems like a leaf from the story of Joseph in the Bible when he advised the Pharaoh to save the excesses of the seven years of bumper crops in order to provide for the seven lean years that followed. That proved to be sound advice for the Egyptians, and it saved them from famine. For us, we are in a similar situation. The lean years have come and we should now dip into our savings. I would therefore support the deficit without any hesitation.

Sir, in an effort to help Singaporeans through this recession, we have focused in this Budget on the man-in-the-street. To this end, the Government has decided to provide such assistance as the 10% rebate on income tax for those who are paying taxes and the rebates on service and conservancy (S&C) charges to help the majority of Singaporeans who do not pay taxes. While these measures are well meaning, I would submit the assistance is not comprehensive enough. I am referring to Singaporeans who may not be paying taxes and who are not fortunate enough to own HDB flats and be in a position to enjoy the S&C rebates. What do we do to help them? Sir, these are Singaporeans who are no less deserving of our assistance during this difficult period. It has been said that for those who are not caught by the net, there is the CCC Assistance Scheme to help them. The scheme is, I believe, for those who are the abject poor and are therefore deserving of our assistance through the CCC. However, the people whom I am referring to are those who do not belong to the category of the abject poor, neither do they belong to the category of the taxpayers. Should we not do something for them as well?

Our Prime Minister in a recent statement stated that we should encourage a new breed of technopreneurs; investors who can put technology and business together. Towards this end, he said that we should review our bankruptcy laws to encourage people to go into business so that they should not be stigmatised by failures. Sir, I cannot agree more. Over the years, we have been so enamoured by the culture of success that we see failure as a disgrace or a blot in the record of those concerned. That is wrong and should now be changed. We should learn to give others a second chance in life and should learn to change our values to accommodate that change in principle. We should build a culture where failure is not always seen as a slight on the character of a person, but as a pillar upon which the foundation of success is built. Sir, I was told that in Silicon Valley, success is often measured not only by one's achievement, but by the number of times a person has failed. That, Sir, is the true spirit of technopreneurship; the kind of spirit that we want to engender in this country.

Aside from reviewing our bankruptcy laws, we can use tax incentives, as we are in the habit of doing, to encourage such spirit of enterprise. We know that start up companies would take several years before they can see profits. This is especially true with information technology companies where the incubation period for the hardware or the software can take several years before any prospect of profit may be entertained. Sir, where there are tax incentives for these companies to help them to establish their footing in the industry, it would certainly help these investors in a positive way.

Sir, we are all living in rather tumultuous times. The economic crisis may have gone into remission for the moment. However, as I said, the worst is not yet over. There could be another round of contagion to hit the region. We have seen how the economic crisis has given way to political crisis in some countries. We, in Singapore, are also affected, although, fortunately, not of the same extent. We are indeed fortunate to have a leadership that provided this country with the ballast to sail through this stormy economic weather. We should at the same time also note that the economic crisis in Chinese also means a crisis of opportunity. Our Budget shows the strategic direction taken by our Government for the long term to take advantage of the opportunity. We are on the right track, and it leaves us only to support the Minister's Budget Statement.

Dr Teo Ho Pin (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion as proposed by the Finance Minister. This year's Budget clearly shows that our Government is farsighted and cautious. As mentioned by the Finance Minister, "1999 may well turn out to be another difficult and challenging year for Singapore." The Minister reminded all Singaporeans that "we will live within our means." This is indeed a timely reminder for all Singaporeans who have been enjoying positive GDP growth for many years.

Although economic growth has increased the affluence of many Singaporeans, it has certain setbacks. Years of economic growth have also made Singaporeans to be over optimistic and sometimes wasteful. This is evident through the large amount of bulky waste such as furniture, electrical appliances, and renovation debris dumped by HDB residents yearly over the last 10 years.

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

4.12 pm

Dr Teo Ho Pin (Sembawang): Last year, many town councils noticed a drastic fall of between 25% and 50% drop in the bulky waste collection. This clearly shows that many HDB dwellers have understood the severity of the regional crisis, and are more prudent in their spending.

Sir, Singapore is experiencing a difficult period of uncertainty. I agree that we should seize the opportunity to strengthen our economic competitiveness. But this is also the time for the Government to extend a helping hand to Singaporeans who are in need. The crisis has affected many Singaporeans of all income levels in both the HDB and private estates. Thus, I hope the Minister could consider the following suggestions:

Personal tax rebate

The proposed Budget has provided a one-off 10% personal income tax rebate that is fair. But there is no relief measure for Singaporeans who were retrenched. Those who were retrenched may face difficulty to pay their income taxes. Thus, I would urge the Minister to consider allowing retrenched Singaporeans to delay paying their income taxes.

S&C and utilities rebates

In November 1998, working Singaporeans supported the cost cutting measures as proposed by the Government. Many have taken a 10% CPF contribution and wage cut, thus facing more financial strain to support their families. Feedback from HDB residents showed that many expected the Government to provide higher S&C and utilities rebates so as to alleviate their financial burden. Many have regarded the Budget as a "non-event" which does not provide much relief to reduce their living costs.

Although the cost cutting measures have saved jobs, many Singaporeans felt that businesses have not passed much of their cost savings to consumers. Prices of goods and services have not been reduced accordingly. As such, Singaporeans are experiencing a reduction of purchasing power.

Sir, utilities rebate provides an effective and simple means to assist Singaporeans in difficult times. While Singaporeans agree that water conservation is crucial, they hope that the Government could adopt other non-monetary measures to encourage water conservation instead of increasing the water tariffs during this difficult time. The increase will add further burden to all households, especially those with large families.

I would urge the Finance Minister to consider providing a $300 utilities rebate to all households in HDB estates. The rebate shall be paid on a monthly basis over a period of 12 months. The monthly rebate will serve as a minimum payment to Power Supply so that families in hardship will not face legal action or utilities supply cut by Power Supply during this difficult period.

The regional crisis has also increased the number of welfare cases in many constituencies. In Bukit Panjang, welfare assistance was provided to 59 families during the last six months. Of these cases, 53% are from 3-room, 39% from 4-room and 8% from 5-room flats. The figures show that 3- and 4-room flat dwellers face more financial strain during this period. Thus, I hope the Finance Minister can understand the plight of these two groups of residents and increase their S&C rebates accordingly.

Development expenditure

Although the development expenditure has increased by $1.2 billion to $13.9 billion, more could be allocated to expedite the development of a world-class land transport system, as proposed in the White Paper by the Land Transport Authority in 1996. As stated, LTA will provide a seamless land transport system, which will offer convenience, reliability, ease of use, comfort, affordability, and competitive travel times to all commuters of public transport.

Covered linkway is identified as one of the features in the seamless land transport system. Although LTA has implemented many covered linkways, it is also an opportune time now to expedite the construction of linkways for all bus stops, taxi stands and MRT stations to the housing estates. Covered linkways provide a vital link between our transport system and the housing estates. It has also become a way of life for many Singaporeans.

In order to encourage more Singaporeans to use the public transport system, we should expedite the construction of covered linkways. Therefore, I would like to urge the Minister to increase the development budget for covered linkways. This will not only provide much convenience to commuters but also save some jobs in the building related industry.

Incentive to replace diesel vehicles

I fully support the provision of a one year accelerated depreciation allowance to replace old diesel driven commercial goods vehicles and buses. To further protect the air quality of our environment, I would propose that the incentive scheme be extended to all diesel plants and equipment used outdoor, especially those at construction sites.

Similar incentives could be given to encourage construction firms and plant suppliers to upgrade their fleet of diesel driven plants and equipment such as cranes, excavators, compactors, rollers, and concrete mixers. All these plants and equipment are sources of air pollution.

Approve IT training grant

To develop a knowledge-based economy, we need to encourage Singaporeans to acquire life-long learning skills. Information technology provides an essential tool to facilitate knowledge acquisition. In the near future, e-commerce will become a part of life for many Singaporeans. But there is still a large proportion of our population who is not familiar with information technology.

Therefore, we should provide more incentives to increase the IT awareness of Singaporeans. To achieve this, I would suggest that an Approved IT Training Scheme be formed to provide low cost IT courses to Singaporeans, especially those in HDB estates. In addition, a capital grant could be given to all community clubs to set up a Community IT Centre which can provide training and access to computers for all Singaporeans.

These IT courses can also be conducted at Residents' Committee Centres, thus making them easily accessible to residents. The People's Association can manage the proposed scheme.

Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Ahmad Mohd Magad (Pasir Ris): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Budget Statement for the financial year 1999-2000.

This year's Budget is also a difficult one. For the first time in more than a decade, the Government is presenting an unprecedented budget deficit of $5.1 billion and, more importantly, it is not letting off on spending aimed at investing in the future. For the first time in more than a decade, we are also in a recession, which is primarily attributable to the financial crisis which afflicted the region since mid-1997. At this juncture, a heavy cloud of uncertainty continues to hover in the horizon with Japan yet struggling to nurse themselves out of their prolonged economic downturn and, more so, with the economic, political and social situation in Indonesia yet unresolved. As the Finance Minister, Dr Richard Hu, has said, it is very difficult to predict the future and how long the current recession is expected to last. As a consolation, I am at least relieved that the Finance Minister has indicated that the Government might introduce yet another package of off-Budget measures in due course should the economy take a turn for the worse.

Sir, as earlier speakers have acknowledged, our business and industry groups are generally satisfied with the Budget as the majority of them feel that they are beginning to benefit from the host of cost-cutting measures introduced in November last year. Time is needed to allow the package to show its effect.

I would like to take issue on our vision to develop into a globally competitive knowledge-based economy (KBE). With the world fast changing from an industrial based economy to a knowledge-driven one, and with Singapore by and large already plugged to the global economy, we are now exposed to increasingly aggressive competition and challenges from every corner of the globe. To stay ahead of the pack, we need to quickly learn and master new and emerging knowledge and technologies and creatively harness this into products and services demanded by the world. While I am in full support of the host of programmes we already have and are putting in place to proceed in this direction, I do have some concerns.

First, although much has been said about the important need for us to transit into a KBE to stay ahead, I am not convinced that the majority of businesses, especially smaller ones, and also a large pool of individuals, know what a KBE entails. Many are still confused, with the majority associating a KBE with IT and feel that as long as they are competent in using computers, they are therefore already doing their part in KBE. While information technology (IT) is the key enabler for the KBE, a KBE itself is much more than that. It is primarily about unleashing and optimally employing knowledge that resides in people's heads or captured in IT systems and processes, and then tapping and applying this to work, or economic activities which, in turn, contribute to the nation's competitiveness, GDP and economic growth. It is not confined to certain sectors of the economy only, but permeates the entire economy.

Sir, I would urge the Government and the media to embark on another phase of public education to clearly explain, if necessary, in simple and caricature form of what a KBE is all about so that businesses and individuals alike can properly execute their roles in successfully transforming our economy into a KBE.

My next point is the impact of KBE on unemployment. As we push ahead to transform Singapore into a KBE, it is inevitable that some degree of structural unemployment will result. Even if our present recessionary economy is on the track of recovery, I still feel that structural unemployment is unavoidable. We therefore need to do everything within our means, at least to minimise this effect. I am happy that substantial amounts of funds have been set aside through major programmes, such as the Skills Redevelopment Programme, to press on with knowledge and skills upgrading to tackle this problem. Here, I think there will always be people who would adopt a wait-and-see attitude in the hope that they would get back their old jobs once the economy recovers. The fact is that with our stepped up effort to attract and create higher value-added jobs and activities, the old jobs these people have would have disappeared forever and therefore these people, especially the old and the lower skilled ones, will continue to remain unemployed. This group of people, therefore, needs to be continually warned of the danger of becoming irrelevant to the economy and remaining indefinitely unemployed if they do not take heed of the repeated calls to upgrade themselves. The NTUC and self-help groups and training providers could help in propagating such information.

While the SRP programmes are aimed at preparing our workforce to remain employable in the changing employment and economic landscape, managers and professionals too need to upgrade their academic and professional knowledge to keep up. Doing this through specialised or post-graduate courses can be very costly and can run into tens of thousands of dollars. I feel that Government could have done more in allowing a higher amount than the revised $2,500 in tax deduction for course fees to encourage professional adults to improve their skills and knowledge.

Sir, allow me to now turn to the subject of technopreneurship. The Government's recent step to support and promote technopreneurship is consistent with our KBE positioning. We need to nurture home-bred SMEs so that they can grow into world class companies capable of competing globally. We need to create more Sim Wong Hoos and diversify our economy so that we can become less dependent on multi-national companies (MNCs). While MNCs have played a key role in providing foreign direct investments (FDIs), create jobs and significantly contributed to our economic growth, we must bear in mind that most of these investments are mobile and can be quite easily relocated. This exposes us to economic vulnerability. With an increasingly educated workforce, we are in a better position now to encourage more sophisticated entrepreneurship to decrease our reliance on MNCs. Taiwan supposedly has been able to escape the worst of the financial turmoil because of its government's ability to create the conditions in which SMEs thrive.

I am happy to note that the Economic Development Board is setting aside funds to co-invest in Promising Local Enterprises to provide them with management expertise and capital infusion needed to grow their businesses. On the other side of it, we must not forget the smaller businesses with big ideas which also need cultivation. The move towards revising bankruptcy laws to provide businesses which failed the first time around a second chance, as Mr Sin Boon Ann, Member for Tampines GRC has said, and the set up of a high level committee to promote technopreneurship chaired by DPM Tony Tan, are all encouraging steps towards evolving a vibrant technopreneurship hub for Singapore. However, all these efforts could come to nought if we move too slowly. What is important to bear in mind is that even the best of ideas needs seed capital to get moving. Venture capital should be encouraged to focus on promising business dreams and help turn them into realities. The Government could assist by encouraging the pooling of start-up funds by individuals and SMEs to fund promising ventures or co-share in small loans to provide seed money for businesses which are risky but innovative. In a recession where jobs are less plentiful, this is the best time to arrest the risk-averse mentality and encourage such ventures.

Sir, allow me now to make a point on life-long learning which is also tied to KBE. I am thrilled with Dr Lee Boon Yang, the Minister for Manpower's recent announcement of Manpower 21 which addresses the strategy formulation for the development of a globally competitive workforce aimed at driving a knowledge-based economy. While the six key features supporting the concept of a school of life-long learning announced by the Minister are well conceptualised, I have one key concern, and this is the ability to reach out to older workers, particularly those with only primary and lower secondary education to embrace this concept. I believe it will require the continuous combined efforts of the Government, unions and employers to persuade this group of workers to upgrade themselves, so that they can remain relevant for the remaining balance of their economic life. Self-help groups and grassroots organisations could also play a meaningful role to assist the tripartite parties in this endeavour. I would also like to suggest that for greater effectiveness, life-long learning centres be brought to the HDB heartlands where reach-out can be more extensive.

In conclusion, Sir, I support the Government's emphasis on development expenditure targeted at long-term benefits in this Budget. However, I wish to note the need for us to monitor and strike a fine balance between managing the economic crisis and the push towards a KBE as there will be individuals as well as businesses who will become victims of the crisis to whom help needs to be given to prevent them from losing hope.

On that note, Sir, I support the financial policy laid down by the Minister for Finance.

Dr S. Vasoo (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Budget announcement has been well received by the business and industrial sectors and the community. The Minister for Finance and his colleagues must be commended for the efforts to steer Singapore's economy through trying times. I must say that the Minister does not have an easy task nor does he have a magic wand to wish the problem away. He is indeed trying his best and we must commend him for his efforts, because many of the problems are outside his control. Because it is a problem of the region I therefore feel that what is most important is for Singaporeans - workers, employers, entrepreneurs and all that - to work together and not bicker about the problems and issues and blame one another for them. In doing so, we are not going to do good for Singapore. What is most important for us is to brace and face the challenges ahead. I see that is most important.

Sir, Mr Chiam, who is not around here now, has argued that democracy would provide economic growth and promote good life. But from what I know many democracies have not produced good life. And democracy without economic growth would not provide a good life and promote better livelihood. I assert it is fundamental that we have good economic growth in order that democracy can survive. I would also like to state that it is very important that we have our fundamentals right in the sense that we will have to generate economic growth in order to increase the pie, so that this could be redistributed in the interest of the community to achieve a better life. We know that in many places, if you look around, eg, in Asia, what is important is not just democracy itself. What is crucial is to have good social institutions and good leaders to manage them. And unless and until we have people with good integrity and honesty to manage these institutions and to be able to prepare ahead, to have good social and economic plans, I feel good lives cannot be achieved. Many democracies have that empty talks and not fulfilling the dreams and aspirations that the people are aspiring for. We know that democracy cannot just depend on empty stomachs. We cannot do that, because democracy on empty stomach means nothing. We will first have to try and meet the basic needs of the people, and it is very critical that we try to find different ways to generate economic growth. If we can do that, then we will be able to promote better life for the people.

Sir, in this respect, I must say that our Government is doing the best it can, given the constraints that Singapore is facing. We must admit that we are facing trying and difficult times. There is no easy answer to the problems. But what I hope is that Singaporeans can rally around, work together, think of new innovative and creative ways, and find new opportunities ahead, to help us tackle the difficult and challenging times that we are facing.

Sir, I feel that we need to look at the Budget more closely and I would like to pick up a few pockets of people whose needs have not been looked at more closely. The first group is the employability of older workers, ie, people who are less skilled. I see that the problems are real, and some of them have been retrenched. We need to look at their needs more closely and pay attention in terms of how this group could be helped. Many older workers are likely to find difficulty in getting jobs and it is a pity that their contributions are not tapped. In this respect, it would be desirable to provide more tax rebates and incentives for companies that are more prepared to employ and retain older workers. If we can do that, we will be able to provide a wider opportunity for our unskilled and older workers. Older workers who are unskilled are also vulnerable to lose their jobs through relocation of companies to cheaper economies. It is therefore necessary at this point to try and create employment to tap some of these semi-skilled and unskilled workers who otherwise find great difficulty in employment. So I hope that there could be greater public sector creation of employment for this group of workers, because in the private sector the jobs are shrinking quite dramatically. Therefore, I hope that one would be able to look at this group of workers and see how they can be helped.

I also would like to urge that the training grant be reviewed, particularly the tax rebate of $2,500 which is given for workers. We need to be more generous. Perhaps I would suggest that the Minister for Finance increase this tax rebate to $5,000 so that the older workers can take advantage of retraining, as some of the courses which enhance their skills would cost more than $2,500. Some generosity in this respect would be useful.

Sir, in this connection too, I urge that the training allowance for older workers at $500 could be reviewed, because it is very difficult to encourage workers to go into training if the allowances are marginal and are not attractive enough to sustain them. Sir, the next group of people who deserve attention are the pensioners who draw very low pension of less than $200. Monthly pensions of less than $200 might make it difficult for them to manage under trying times. I see that these pensioners are stretched, if they have no other means of support. They are, in fact, no better than those who are on public assistance. Sir, surely this group of pensioners deserves a better deal as they have given sterling services to the Government and many of them served their best for over 30 years. I see that there is justification for a base-up revision of their pensions to meet at least a minimum requirement for their living. These low income pensioners deserve a review - I have been making pleas on their behalf over the years - and I hope that this will touch the Finance Minister's heart and he would be able to do something for them.

Sir, another group is the 1- and 2-room families who have been given PUB rebates from $50 to $100. Many of these people are in seasonal employment and they are also hit by the economic recession. They do deserve a review in terms of the PUB rebates and perhaps the PUB rebates for 1-, 2- and 3-rooms could be standardised to $200. This, I think, will help to alleviate some of their problems.

The last group which requires our attention is those families which have to look after their aged sick parents. I am glad that the Ministry of Health is planning to subsidise these families. However, this move would not be able to reduce the burden of those families in the sandwich income group who faces financial burden in the increasing cost of nursing care. The number of families with aged sick parents will increase steeply in the near future. In this case, we have to try and find ways in which we could relieve the burden through more tax rebates, so that their aged sick parents need not be institutionalised. Substitute care can be implemented and other alternative forms of support can be mobilised in order that they can be looked after within the community.

So I hope that the Minister would be able to look at the few suggestions that I have given. It is not going to cost too much outlay. But it will cost some outlay. I hope that he will be able to extend assistance to these groups of people who I have requested him to help.

With that note, I would like to support the Budget Statement, Sir.

Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon (Bukit Timah): (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Budget announced by the Finance Minister this year has not drawn much reaction from our people because last year the Government had already announced packages to deal with the currency and economic crisis. The reaction by our people illustrates the maturity of our people and their confidence in the leaders of Singapore. More importantly, whenever the Government makes any important decision, they would first communicate with the people so that they could be psychologically prepared for it.

Undoubtedly, this Budget has basically looked after the needs of our people in this time of crisis. According to some of our workers, many seminars or talks were conducted over the past one to two years, and they are aware that the Government has been planning for their future.

Our workers are concerned with more long-term issues. From the feedback we have received, it appears that our workers want the Government to provide them with more opportunities to acquire the necessary skills to cope with the challenges ahead as we are evolving into a knowledge-based economy.

When computer was just a calculating machine, our Singapore Government has already established the National Computer Board (NCB) to actively promote computerisation. So when IT is going to be the security for our survival, should we not upgrade NCB to a higher profile Ministry of IT Power? I feel that we should have a Ministry to be overall in charge of all our computer resources. We should have a designated Ministry to monitor, supervise and manage the upgrading and evaluation of our IT needs and also to maximize the effects of IT on our social and economic development.

Information Technology (IT) has advanced very rapidly and has a great impact on our life. From telephone to television, from study to work, from shopping to investment, from Internet to e-commerce, IT has affected almost every aspect of our lives. Various ministries, statutory boards, departments and agencies of the Government, such as the NCB, PSB, Ministry of Education, TAS, SBA, MITA have also put in a concerted effort to popularise IT among our people. Looking at the future, would it not be better if we have a centralised authority to take charge of the overall planning and implementation of the national IT policies?

Why do we have to actively and strenuously promote IT technology? We need to do so because this will give us a leading edge in a knowledge economy. As a small country, whether or not we could lead in the world of a knowledge economy would depend on two factors: first, the general standard of education of our people, and secondly, the general level of application of IT among our people. When we have more people using IT, productivity will go up. For example, engineers or doctors could use 3-D imaging to more accurately and quickly make diagnosis and decisions.

Now, e-commerce has become a new mode of business transactions. With more people possessing IT skills, they will be able to work smarter and faster. They will then have more leisure time to be with their families or to upgrade themselves. With more people possessing IT skills, their employability will be better and productivity of the various companies and factories would go up. This would enhance our competitiveness, and our world ranking.

How do we help Singapore to attain such a target and to supervise the implementation of such an effort? There are many foreign organisations that have been evaluating us from time to time. But which ministry or agency in Singapore can evaluate our level of application of IT in Singapore?

First of all, we would have to promote IT to our students because the students are the life-force for our future. Recently, the Minister for Education announced the IT Education Master Plan and the Finance Minister has generously allotted more than $5 billion to invest in education. I think we should have more resources available to promote IT in our schools and then our school principals would not have to worry that there is not enough money to use.

Recently, Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong announced the establishment of the E-commerce blueprint and NCB set up the Singapore ONE integrated network. EDB, TDB, PSB have also introduced various incentive schemes. NTUC and PA have also been very active in promoting IT and related skills training. I do no think there is any other country in the world that has so many ministries and government agencies working hand in hand and with such a high profile to promote IT among the people.

As for the non-professionals, they are the people with potential economic values. Our housewives have helped us to manage warm homes for the families, and to pass on our traditional values to the next generation. As for the retirees, they have contributed towards the building up of our nation to what it is today. They have a rich experience which we did not have the opportunity to live through.

Whether they are housewives or retirees, or even the less fortunate handicapped people, so long as they have the ability to apply IT, they can upgrade themselves and make their contribution to our knowledge-type production activities.

In the past, we have provided a lot of hardware to our grassroots organisations. However, in order to receive the arrival of the era of a knowledge economy, we should provide more training to the grassroots leaders and their staff so that they could have a more systematic knowledge of IT, in order that they may be able to effectively lead a new generation of Singaporeans. Perhaps, if we look five or 10 years ahead, we would wonder if it would not be more effective if we have a Ministry to be overall in charge of IT applications in Singapore.

I am not an expert but just an ordinary user of IT. I would like to make some suggestions. How do we promote? In the past, our Singapore Government has its "Home for Everyone" scheme which is well known throughout the world and our people are happy to have their own homes. Perhaps, as we step into the 21st century, we could have a "Computer for Every Home" scheme. We may perhaps want to help every family living in a 3-room flat and below to own a computer. At present, about 50% of our families have their own computers. We are slightly better than London because London is only 37%. Perhaps, we should set up an unprecedented target of 80% of our families owning computers in three years' time.

Secondly, we could have smart-type HDB flats. Under NCB's IT 2000 scheme, Singapore is going to become an intelligent island. At present, many commercial buildings are being rebuilt as intelligent buildings. HDB may perhaps try a pioneer scheme to design some intelligent-type flats conducive to the application of computers at home.

Thirdly, JTC may perhaps develop some "intelligent-type factories", providing our SMEs with e-commerce packages.

Fourthly, we may look into the possibility of providing intelligent-type bus service or intelligent-type MRT service on board buses or trains so that commuters could use the facilities to surf the Internet or send e-mail on their way to office or returning home after work. Students could also make use of these facilities to do their own work even before they reach home.

Of course, if we want to promote IT, we must promote it to everybody. Today, in Singapore, even the vegetable seller aunties could make use of the TV Teletext to check their 4-D winning numbers. Perhaps, in future, we can help the vegetable seller aunties to access the websites, to download correspondence course materials and submit their homework through the Internet. Some workers told me that if we want to encourage everybody to use IT, to use Internet, the most effective method is to allow them to place their bets on 4-D or TOTO on-line.

In the long run, our people hope that one day, our home can be a "intelligent" home. Even when we are working, we can remotely control the appliances at home, for example, to cook rice, bake a cake, etc. So it will become an IT-type style of living. We must let everybody possess the skills to use computers so that they could more effectively participate in all these IT activities.

The question is: who should be overall in charge of all the IT applications in Singapore? If we want to provide world-class information service, like our airport and seaport, we must have a world-class information infrastructure. Take, for example, our "Information Super Highway" system. It is like our land transport. There must never be traffic jams along the highway. So when our people surf the net from one website to another, they should be able to access the desired website within three seconds. According to feedback from some users, although our information infrastructure has attained a leading standard, sometimes we still need to wait 20 to 30 seconds to go into certain websites in Singapore. There are frequent traffic congestions. We must constantly monitor and upgrade our facilities so that our people will not have to waste precious time waiting for the congestion to clear. So, which Government authority should be in charge or be responsible to ensure that there is no traffic jam, and when traffic congestion appears to be building up, to upgrade our information infrastructure to clear the jam?

We must also set up new indexes and some means to measure the level of application of IT in Singapore. For example, the Lianhe Zaobao website has more than 30 million hits per month. Apart from people in Singapore, there are also people from all over the world who browse and visit the Lianhe Zaobao site. So with more people accessing our Lianhe Zaobao website, the newspaper's status would go up and it would attract more advertisements, and hence more revenue! With more people accessing the Singapore websites, the status of our nation will also go up and our economy will be stronger. We should perhaps set up a certain target to measure how many websites in Singapore has received more than 20 million visits per month.

We all know that the Ministry of Education, MOM, MTI, MITA, Ministry of Communications, MND, are all developing their own plans to promote the use of IT. I feel very strongly that we should have a Ministry to coordinate all these activities. At the moment, every Ministry is carrying out activities to develop their IT applications, using the guidelines issued by NCB. However, there should be more practical guidelines to keep abreast of the times. For example, I know of a civil servant who took his children to Funan Centre to buy a Pentium III. But, back in his office in a Government department, the computer on his desk is just a 486. If you go to Funan Centre, the shopkeepers there will tell you 486 is so far obsolete that it has become extinct in Funan Centre, but this 486 is still very much alive on the office desk of this poor civil servant. This is no good. We should have some plans to upgrade and replace our computers in the Government offices.

Our computer is no longer just a computer. It is a bridge or a window for our people to have a lifelong learning process or it may even set new policy and direction. We should set a target of, say, once in every three years, we must replace the computers in our Government offices. Although this may incur some heavy expenditure, it just cannot be helped.

If we have a centralised Ministry to be overall in charge and coordinate the replacement of computers in all the Government departments, community clubs, community centres and the People's Association, our civil servants and public officers will have their computers replaced, from time to time, with the latest models and the best capabilities available, it would certainly enhance their productivity.

In the past, when not many families have computers at home, the Government used various channels such as the community centres, RC centres, etc. to promote the use of computers by making available the facilities in their computer rooms to the residents. Five years from now, when almost every family has a computer at home, the CCs and RCs should equip themselves with more high-end computers that an ordinary family could not afford. Only then can we attract a new generation of residents to come forward and make use of the latest technology. We should have a Ministry to be overall in charge, to provide the budget and to monitor and supervise such projects.

In conclusion, I would like to say that when the computer was just an apparatus for doing calculation, we had already established the National Computer Board to actively promote computerisation. So now when IT has become the security for survival, should we not upgrade NCB, TAS, SBA, etc;, related organisations, to become a centralised ministry like a Ministry of IT Power to be overall in charge of all aspects of IT applications in Singapore? I hope my suggestions would be seriously considered by the Minister for Finance.

Mr Hawazi Daipi (Sembawang): Mr Deputy Speaker, at no other time than in the midst of an economic crisis do we feel most strongly the bond of citizenship that ties us together as one community, one nation, as Singaporeans. Through the economic and political uncertainties in the region, hardship due to retrenchments and reduction in income, and the sheer grit to be on top of the challenges and to stay ahead of our competitors, I believe Singaporeans have become closer together. While the feeling is that the people have become closer to the Government, their expectation of the Government has also grown. We begin to demand much more from the Government than we did when the economy was booming and growing, when times were good. So, in good times people expect a lot from the Government, and in bad times, perhaps a lot more. Perhaps this is expected of a good Government, which means so much more to the people in adversity.

And the Government has indeed come through with several schemes and programmes to assist those in economic difficulty - to help our people deal with the difficult situation. These schemes and programmes comprise outright assistance to individuals as well as indirect assistance to keep businesses alive in Singapore, through incentives and tax cuts. For businesses, they are structurally well able to take advantage of the different Government programmes, some to maintain an existence until good times come again, while others take the opportunity to grow and generate more business.

Sir, it has not escaped the people that this Government cares for them. The tax rebate and the rebate on service and conservancy charges are cases in point. They are really important at a time when our workers have sacrificed in terms of wage and CPF cuts. The HDB heartlanders who may not pay income tax or pay little of it, I believe, do appreciate the rebate on conservancy charges.

I do agree with the Prime Minister and some speakers before me that we must help and take care of each other in times of difficulties. To start with, the social safety net in Singapore has been excellent. No one has been forced to be on the street when he is out of employment as the HDB allows mortgage repayment scheme that is sympathetic to them. The children of such workers would also not have to leave school as there are assistance schemes for them to pay their school fees. Those who fall sick and really cannot pay their hospitalisation bills, they too have not been turned away just because they cannot afford it. For individuals, especially the sole breadwinners affected by the economic crisis, ie, those who have been retrenched, forced into bankruptcy or those who have had their salaries reduced, a comprehensive scheme of referral and help would assist them to overcome the tremendous psychological impact of these difficult times.

Again, there are several different programmes devised by the Government or community organisations, but the individual in despair is usually likely not to know where or how to begin. To be more effective, organisations like the CDCs could create a one-stop centre with trained officers to advise and counsel those adversely affected by the economic crisis, steering them towards Government and community programmes which are available and suitable for their needs. These officers could then cater to the individual's specific needs as such a person has certain problems which are particular and peculiar to him or her. For union members, there are less problems as our network of unions has schemes to help members find alternative jobs and render relief assistance to the retrenched. But only about a quarter of our workers are union members, and in the larger context, we should help our fellow Singaporeans in a more coordinated way.

In our vision of a caring society, we need more than just the solutions to an individual's predicament. We also need to provide the "doctor" who will bridge the gap between the "disease" and the "medicine". We need a systemic approach to the situation rather than the laudable but ad-hoc actions. We should have officers in agencies like the CDCs, officers with the heart in the right places, to guide and advise fellow Singaporeans who have lost their jobs and are facing difficulties.

In an employers' market, the individual is helpless in the face of discrimination. Discrimination, be it along the line of race, gender or age, can become the root of contradiction to the bonds of citizenship that I spoke about earlier. When employers fall to temptation and take advantage of the present crisis to satisfy their prejudices against specific sectors of people, then Singapore as a nation becomes a sham. That is not what we aspire for Singapore. Luckily, this is not a widespread practice. I do not think that we are seeing the worsening of this situation. But when jobs are more scarce and the retrenched take more time to get alternative jobs, such form of discrimination becomes more glaring. The question before us then is: should we legislate against discrimination as in the United States?

I would argue against this. We do have in place instruments to counter outright prejudices, like the Presidential Council for Minority Rights. Legislation to implement the kinds of laws that enforce equal opportunity can be damaging to race relations which is already a sensitive issue in a multi-ethnic nation like Singapore. This kind of legislation can lead to the polarisation of society through confrontation as it dictates the correct responses with the likely result of anger and cynicism. The better path would be education and persuasion, that it is in the best interest of our society and our nation when there is respect for age, for women, for those who are handicapped and for people of other races. This can and should be taught, especially in a still developing, young society like Singapore. I am glad that Government leaders like Deputy Prime Minister, Dr Tony Tan, have spoken against discriminatory practices at workplaces. We must send the right signals that discrimination along the line of age, gender or race is also not acceptable.

Singaporeans must be provided with the necessary education and training to see that discrimination in any form is detrimental to the refinement of our society. We should make it even more possible for Singaporeans of different racial groups and social status to work with and support each other. Our self-help organisations should be provided with the incentives to open the doors of their services to members of other ethnic groups.

Sir, I think we should also try to ensure that what I consider as `manpower leakage' is reduced. I am talking about drop-outs from our education system. Over the years, our education system is designed to ensure that all young Singaporeans obtain a good basic education and skills training. At a time when we are worried about the vulnerability of our older workers to the structural changes of our economy, we cannot afford to see our young people wasting the educational and training opportunities open to them in our schools and institutions. Instead, we should push towards greater value-added performances by students and schools.

Sir, allow me to go back to a point I made earlier about how people expect so much from the Government, both in good and bad times. At a time when we are talking about re-skilling our workers, instead of giving outright rebates, should not the Government consider giving away the goodies in the form that can be used for skills training by our workers? In short, we should re-visit the idea of "skillsave" for workers along the same line that we give Edusave to our students.

Sir, NMP Mr Gerard Ee had earlier said that while we help our people prepare for the future challenges, we must not lose sight of their current difficulties. I would like to take a look at the other side of the coin. The point I am making is that while we earnestly help the needy in these times of difficulties, we must not lose sight of the long-term problems and challenges facing our economy. We must help our old and young Singaporeans to re-tool themselves with the skills that are relevant for the future. This is in their own interest and in the interest of our nation.

In conclusion, the raising of these issues is fundamental to the kind of society we wish to progress towards. It is perhaps the silver lining in the economic recession that we are faced with today when such issues come into sharper focus and we realise the need to address them to advance.