TACKLING THE ECONOMIC DOWNTURN

1.37 pm

Mr Leong Horn Kee (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join and take the lead in this debate, and put forth my views on the economic rescue package just announced by the Deputy Prime Minister.

Sir, I am very heartened to note that the package is indeed very wide-ranging, very well thought through and, of course, very substantial, amounting to $11.3 billion. This is in addition to the $2.2 billion announced previously. However, there are so many measures and so many incentives being announced that I also cannot keep track when I was taking down the notes. But allow me to make a few comments.

Sir, I intentionally called this the "economic rescue package" because our economy indeed needs rescuing. As the DPM has said, we are in the worst recession since Independence. In 1964 we suffered a 4.3% drop in GDP, whereas in 1985 we only saw 1.6% drop, and now we are expecting perhaps a -3% for year 2001. But for the rest of 2001 and the year 2002, the outlook still looks uncertain. Under this scenario, the people and local companies are extremely concerned. In this cold raging storm which would last into next year, or perhaps longer, the economic rescue package is warmly welcomed by all. The feeling is like the Chinese saying, "xue zhong song tan", which means, in a snowy storm you get warm coal, and this warms the hearts of the people.

Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me to make some quick comments and views on the various measures.

First, the economic package of $11.3 billion, I feel, is indeed very large. In fact, in comparison, we know that the USA has announced an economic stimulus package of about US$100 million, which is about S$180 million. Malaysia also announced a RM4.3 billion ringgit rescue package, which is about S$2 billion, and Hong Kong recently announced a HK$15 billion rescue package, which is about only S$3.5 billion. So, in contrast, I would like to say that it works out, in comparison, on a population basis, in the US the rescue package amounted to about $640 per person; in Malaysia, it is only about $90 per person; in Hong Kong, it is about $500 per person; and for Singapore's package of $11.3 billion, it comes out to about $3,500 per person (based on a population of about 3.2 million Singaporeans and residents).

So this package, indeed, is quite substantial. In fact, the Hong Kong package, in contrast, after its announcement, had been criticised by their locals as being insufficient and would not help the economy. This Singapore package, as I said, is very sizeable and should satisfy most expectations. The press has actually speculated that the package will amount to only $8-$10 billion. So this $11.3 billion is even higher than most expectations, in contrast to the 1998 package, which was $10.5 billion. But in that package, about $7.5 billion was from CPF cuts. So the actual contribution from Government was only $3 billion. Therefore, in contrast to this $11.3 billion rescue package, as announced by the DPM, it is over three times the 1998 package.

So, therefore, I would like to call this economic package bold and meaningful. Bold because it is sizeable enough to make an impact; meaningful because the measures are thought out to be targeted at several specific sectors of the economy and people who are most affected by the recession. These are the poorer families and unemployed, and also to help local companies so that they can survive the downturn. And if local companies survive, in turn, they would help to sustain employment and preserve jobs for the people.

My first comment on the Singapore Shares is that the concept of Singapore Shares, originally suggested by the Prime Minister during this year's National Day Rally, is innovative. The Government has means to pay out the huge sum of $2.7 billion because of the accumulation of surpluses from this current Government. The concept of Singapore Shares is a form of wealth sharing and wealth redistribution, and is appropriate and justifiable. In good times, we save; in difficult times, we take out the savings to help the people, especially those who are less well-off and less privileged. Therefore, I agree with the principle of the Government to give more of the Singapore Shares to the lower income group. Taking the amount of $2.7 billion, if we take a base population of about 2 million working adults and senior citizens, it would come to about $1,350 per person over five years. For a family of two adults of husband and wife, this would be about $2,700, which is quite a substantial and meaningful sum, especially for lower income families who will get more than this $2,700 per family. I hope that, of course, the Government can continue to do well, accumulate more reserves and in the future, perhaps give us more.

I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister a clarification. He said in his speech that for the current $11.3 billion package, there are sufficient funds in the current Government's reserves. For next year, assuming after the election which is definitely due by August next year, there may be a need for the Government to call on the reserves because the new Government may not have reserves. So could he clarify whether this present package of $11.3 billion is already accounted for and there is no need to dig into the reserves?

Sir, I would like to divide my comments on the various measures into two groups: (1) measures to help individuals; and (2) measures to help local companies.

First, measures to help individuals. On the intention not to have CPF cuts, I agree fully with the Government that there should be no further cuts in the CPF at this juncture. Anyway, CPF cut is a very blunt instrument. At present, the employer's CPF remains at 16%. There is already a 4% of CPF yet to be restored. Any further cut in the CPF would mean that the effective household income of Singaporeans is reduced. Many Singaporeans use their CPF to pay for housing loans. Hence, should the CPF be cut, they will have to take out of their own disposable household income to service their housing loans.

Sir, on the other substantial measures announced by the Deputy Prime Minister, such as the additional tax rebates for individuals, this again is most welcomed. The lower tax to be paid by the people would mean that people would have more money to cover for household expenditure, schooling expenses and other expenses that may need to be paid. The rebates could assist in some form of stimulating the consumer spending which will have a beneficial ripple effect on the retail sector, eating establishments and the overall domestic sector.

Sir, on measures to help companies, I am also in support and pleased to hear about the several schemes to help companies, which include enhanced LEFS, higher SDF rates, lower transport costs, reduction of stamp duties and various other measures. I would like to particularly praise the scheme which is to gather $500 million of loans to assist local companies, because this is the time when local companies do need help in terms of financing their operations. As their revenue drops, they may find that they do have a shortfall of earnings to cover their expenses. I do like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister that in implementing the disbursements of the loans, consideration be given to factors that are not just, say, liberal but at least easily accessible for companies that are still viable and would need the loan to sustain their businesses. Otherwise, if the money is there, with $500 million, and the loan is hard to be obtained for local companies, then it does not serve any purpose at all.

On the other measures to introduce pump priming measures, I support the proposal to identify 100 infrastructure projects, such as upgrading the NUS campus, constructing new polytechnics and various projects, to be accelerated. However, we are aware that such infrastructure projects have leakages of income mostly to foreign sources. Therefore, besides pump priming of infrastructure projects, I would like to urge the Government to also consider including in the pump priming programme, other non-physical works. These are in the areas of soft services, such as works to be issued by the Government for IT and software development, consultancy contracts, process improvements, product development and R&D projects. If the Government can push up more generously these non-physical projects, then local companies can also benefit more directly. The development of intellectual and human capital from these projects would be more enduring and have longer impact on promoting Singapore as a knowledge-based economy.

Now on some suggestions that the DPM may not have covered in his announcement. First, I would like to suggest allowing, on a very stringent and specific basis, families to draw on their CPF in case they are really in dire need of financial support. During this very difficult financial crisis, many people will lose their jobs and encounter severe financial difficulties, especially those with young families and children to support. I would like to suggest that, for those who are severely affected and they have run out of savings and all other means of supporting themselves and the family, they should be allowed to draw upon their CPF savings. If the Government is concerned about flagrant and wanton demands by certain people to spend their CPF savings, which are actually meant for old age, the Government can set up rules to limit the withdrawals. Withdrawals can be limited to only the Special Account, for example. I would also like to urge the Government to consider this suggestion seriously and, perhaps allowing it on a stringent case-by-case basis, and also with the support of the Citizens' Consultative Committee (CCC). The constituency's CCC can conduct visits - they know the ground, they know the people well - they can investigate the financial status of each applicant and they can only give their support or endorsement when they are persuaded that these families require financial assistance and therefore can be allowed to draw on their own CPF savings.

Next, the need to urge our banks, both local and foreign banks, to continue to support our companies. During the recession, many local companies will find difficulties in cash-flow management and making sufficient income to cover overheads and pay the staff payroll. Adding to the woes would be the bankers calling at the doors to repay bank loans, or insist on accelerated repayments of principals, or even payment of higher interest rates, or to provide more security cover, collaterals, or top up with cash. Although I agree that, in principle, we should not tell the banks how to run their business, but there is reason for the authorities to request the banks not to be overly panicky or being overly predatory. They commonly say that bankers are fair weather friends. In good times, they lend you plenty of umbrellas when the sun is shining. But at the first sign of rain, they will scramble to snatch back the umbrellas. Worse, now Minister BG George Yeo has told them that a terrific perfect storm is blowing. I think they are even more worried. Hence, I would like to ask the Government to urge the banks, especially local banks, who may have more local interest in their heart, to stay their hands in calling on defaulting loans. They should instead be sympathetic and call on their borrowers to see how they can help them restructure their loans or allow them to defer their repayments. It would be a sad case if many companies collapse because of forced loan recalls by the banks.

Sir, similarly, for housing loans, I am pleased to note that the Deputy Prime Minister has said that the HDB will introduce some schemes to help HDB dwellers to defer their loan repayments. On private residential properties, I would like to also call on the banks that, for Singaporeans who have taken up private residential property mortgages, they should be a bit more sympathetic and lenient in dealing with possible defaulting loans.

With the possibility of dropping property prices, many properties can go into a negative equity, that is, the market value of the property could be lower than the loan taken. In such an instance, some banks would be quick to protect themselves and ask for more cash or more collaterals. Those who cannot meet the bank's demand will encounter forced sale of their properties. I understand that, in Hong Kong, for example, there are about 300,000 loans that are already in the negative equity range. I do not know how many are there in Singapore. But with the raging storm and the coming recession, I am sure that more families will face the prospect of negative equity. So we would like to urge the banks to be more understanding and to try to allow their customers' housing loans to be restructured or deferred. As Minister George Yeo has said, in time the storm will blow over and then the umbrellas can be returned to the bankers gratefully by the lenders, but please do not take away the umbrellas when the storm is still raging.

Sir, finally, I would like to hail the move by the Government to have a wage cut of 10% for Ministers, office-holders, top civil servants, MPs and NMPs. This is a right move, especially for the Ministers, they will actually encounter a 17% wage cut, because 7% is from salary formula reduction and another 10% is from wage cut. This is a good gesture and a sign of good leadership.

Sir, in conclusion, I would like to repeat the fact that this economic package announced by the Deputy Prime Minister is most warmly welcomed by all. Let us hope that, through the collective concerted efforts of our honest and effective Government, the hard work and drive of the people and the perseverance and pioneering spirit of local companies, together we shall see ourselves through this dark period ahead. And let us hope that we can see some light sooner than expected.

Mrs Lim Hwee Hua (Marine Parade): Sir, the current downturn is very different from the last. The 1997/98 crisis was felt strongly throughout Asia and arose from several factors, including the high level of foreign debt and the need for major structural and economic reforms. The growing US economy then was a huge mitigating factor. Despite there being some tell-tale signs, Singaporeans were largely caught by surprise. Coping with the crisis then required a lot of effort. This time round, the effects are global.

In Singapore, over the last few years, we have proactively begun tackling several challenges, namely, reviewing the type of manufacturing activities and investments, promoting knowledge intensive industries and addressing structural unemployment issues. Hence, psychologically, Singaporeans are prepared for the challenges that we face as a country. However, the global nature of the downturn aggravated by the terrorist attacks in the US have added to the uncertainty and would prolong the recession. Singaporeans therefore need to be assured that we have what it takes to ride out this challenging phase of our nation's growth.

In this regard, the second package unveiled by the Deputy Prime Minister will go a long way towards providing the much needed assurance in a very concrete way but which, at the same time, contains a sense of reality.

Sir, let me now comment specifically on where assurance can be found by, firstly, individuals and families, and secondly, by businesses.

Firstly, individuals and families. Recognising that those who are retrenched would need assistance to be retrained, re-skilled and emplaced onto jobs, the Government has introduced a whole slew of schemes. But I would just highlight and applaud the following three moves: firstly, the inclusion of white collar and management staff, as a higher proportion than before, has been dislocated by both industry restructuring and the downturn; secondly, the devotion of sizeable amounts towards SDF support so as to cast the net even wider; and, thirdly, the refinements to both the work permit and employment pass criteria to ensure that foreign contributors are those whose skills we lack rather than those who are simply more price competitive.

Also, recognising the individuals and families who fail to secure employment for a while may experience cash flow problems, the Government has introduced ample reliefs in meeting basic needs, such as household living expenses, education and health. We can draw comfort from the freeze in education fees and suspension in payment of loans, the reduction in electricity tariffs and extension of rebates to lower income families.

Sir, what is especially noteworthy are the following three measures: firstly, the extension of temporary assistance to lower income HDB flat owners, especially those in three and four-room flats as they have also been badly affected, but have hitherto been excluded or ineligible for assistance under current rules; secondly, hospital bills - the 10% rebate for B2 and C ward charges and the 40% assistance for those who are retrenched; and, thirdly, additional help through CCCs for an effective meeting of needs at the more personal level.

Secondly, on the business front. Recognising that businesses, especially the smaller operations, could be financially strapped, the Government has sought to lower operating costs and ease cash flow via significant moves, including the steps taken to improve access to funds and the higher property tax rebate would be extremely helpful. Equally helpful would be the corporate tax rebates amounting to a hefty 50% rebate which will assist SMEs who may need help to continue investing in the business.

Sir, on a general note, there is comfort in the example set by the Government to restrain wage cost in the civil service as well as in the move to suspend land sales and remove the anti-speculative property measures. Moreover, the move to pump prime the economy to help bolster economic activity is also commendable and much needed. The introduction of the New Singapore Share is significant in bringing home the message that we should stay united as a people as we take ownership of our own future.

In conclusion, as the Deputy Prime Minister has stated, the challenges of economic strategy and employability are really long term and fundamental issues. However, the downturn has heightened some of these concerns which the Government has now addressed in a very concrete manner. I would like to urge the DPM to ensure that all these measures would be compassionately implemented. I believe the unity of Singaporeans and their support for the Government's endeavours will see us through these testing times.

Mr Hawazi Daipi (Sembawang): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I welcome this package presented by the Deputy Prime Minister and I would like to give some views on the efforts to assist our nation to overcome the present economic downturn. I believe the steps will not only help us to overcome economic problems now but also open up new avenues to address the long-term problems even after we have overcome the present economic problems. I believe the measures taken by the Government are comprehensive. It benefits not only the lower income group, but also those who are better off and the middle-income group who is also affected by this downturn.

The package of $11.3 billion and a deficit of around $5 billion are very significant and can surely help to increase harmony in Singapore. It is balanced in its attempt to assist the community and companies to overcome their problems. But, on the whole, the community too will benefit from the help given to companies because companies will be able to retain the jobs for them and our workers will continue to be employed. I welcome the Government's move to continue with the rebates on conservancy charges for flat owners, including bigger flats like the HDB 5-room flats, because those who live in the HDB 5-room flats, who enjoy a better income, have also been affected by retrenchments.

The Economic Downturn Relief Scheme, introduced to overcome the bleak economy, is most welcome to help those who have lost their jobs. I believe, if properly implemented by the CCCs, which operate in all our housing estates, it will not only be able to help the group affected, but will also be able to inculcate in them the feeling of nationhood because they receive assistance from the grassroots leaders who live in their housing estates.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would also like to touch on the "People for Jobs Traineeship Programme" which is specially meant for the older workers who are 40 years and above who have lost their jobs. I welcome the $200 million set aside for this group of people. I believe this is a very meaningful effort because it provides the opportunity for those who have greater difficulties in finding another job in the long term. Their effort to find new jobs and to retrain these workers to adapt themselves to their newly acquired jobs would be better and it would surely assist them in taking care of their families.

What is significant this time is that we give assistance to executives and skilled workers who have lost their jobs. I believe the package offered will be welcomed by the executive groups and skilled workers, because many of them who have lost their jobs feel that, due to less job opportunities and old age, it is a lot more difficult to find new jobs although they have the skills and educational qualifications. I would like to ask, from the sum of $200 million, how many of the retrenched who are 40 years and above would benefit from the scheme.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I also agree with the Deputy Prime Minister that it is not timely for us to cut the employers' CPF contribution. We agree that CPF is for workers to use in their retirement and, therefore, we should not cut the employers' CPF contribution, as long as we have other measures to overcome this problem. This includes lowering the costs of business operations. The problem faced by our companies now is not due to loss of competitiveness, but it is due to the fall in demands all over the world caused by the downturn in America, Japan and Europe. It is worsened by the terrorist attacks on 11th September. We should implement other measures to help these companies to lower their production and operation costs so that they can retain their workers, and I hope that the Government will not take early action to reduce the employers' CPF contribution.

In respect of foreign workers, I welcome the strict measures to be taken to tighten the employment of foreign workers, and to bring in those who are skilled rather than unskilled. Some jobs which are now given to foreign workers could benefit our own workers, provided our workers go through retraining courses and are given assistance to adapt themselves to take up these jobs.

I hope additional measures will be implemented to help our workers to change their mindset to grab the job opportunities in the sectors which they are not interested in presently, so that they have a stable job to maintain their family and, at the same time, we could lessen our dependence on foreign workers.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe these additional off-Budget measures are not only a package to assist Singaporeans to overcome this downturn, but that the assistance schemes, including the training schemes, together with the plans that have been arranged by the labour movement led by NTUC, could also help our country and people to overcome the challenges ahead. Even after we have overcome the present downturn, our workers should upgrade their own skills and acquire new capabilities to meet the competition from various countries that are now more competitive as compared to the past. I welcome this additional package and I hope it will be able to assist and strengthen further the solidarity among the people, the Government and employers.

Dr Wang Kai Yuen (Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, like my parliamentary colleagues, I am also overwhelmed by the package just announced by DPM. I find it very difficult to keep track of the details and all the individual measures announced by him. But there is really no need to.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I propose to state that, prior to coming to the House, what I had expected in the package - what are the factors we must address - and then look at whether all the measures announced by the DPM will be up to the task.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the first off-Budget package tabled by Minister George Yeo, it reflected a strategy to do just about the minimum that was necessary to help the economy and also to hope that the projected recovery of the world economy expected in first quarter 2002 would lift Singapore out of the current recession. The dose of medicine proposed by the good Minister was calibrated to be about just right - not too much, not too little. That strategy would have worked if the condition had been favourable. But it turns out that the confluence of weather fronts had produced a severe storm - what the Minister had said, a perfect storm, a once-in-a-lifetime occurrence.

The third quarter results show that our worst fear has been confirmed. We have, indeed, experienced our worst quarterly contraction since independence. Furthermore, with the terrorist attacks on 11th September, there is no longer any need to second-guess the duration or the severity of the recession. The drop in consumer confidence and air travel means that any hope of an early recovery in the US economy is dashed, so much so that the top executives of SIA have to take pay cuts to weather the severe buffeting the airline is expected to endure.

We have to accept that the recession in Singapore will be longer than expected and will be a difficult one - a recession that our people are not really mentally prepared for, a recession that Singaporeans will find it very difficult to tackle, based on our own individual resources.

In this severe economic recession, there is, indeed, very little that businesses or individuals could do to turn the situation around in the short term. For instance, no amount of job training will allow the retrenched workers to find a job if no one is hiring. Therefore, we, Singaporeans, are looking to the Government to provide the steady hand needed to steer the ship through the stormy sea. We are looking for bold measures, as the time for conservative step-wise measures is over. When we look at the US economy, we see that the Federal Reserve Bank has implemented nine consecutive interest cuts this year to tackle its recession. I was hoping that our Government could be just as aggressive.

So what kind of medicine do we need, Sir? It would be useful to think in terms of long-term measures and also short-term measures. I was hoping to see in the second package the following:

In the short term, we have to protect jobs and also to keep people, who are already employed, working. Therefore, we have to keep businesses viable, make less profitable businesses more profitable, make loss-making businesses profitable. And for those who are already retrenched, we need to provide assistance to help them to tackle the costs of basic necessities.

Now, Sir, with weaker consumer confidence, our domestic economy is winding down slowly. So, therefore, we need to increase the cash flow in the economy and keep our economic wheel turning. In so doing, I was looking forward to a massive injection of cash into the economy, and the only way I can see it coming from is a massive reduction of Government taxes.

As to whether we should be worried about creating a dependency mentality in our people, Sir, I think it is time that we did not worry too much, because now is the time to put help into their hands. Like Mr Leong has spoken earlier, xue zhong song tan. It is the time to send hot charcoal to the people in snowy weather, ie, to provide timely help.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me state that, after listening to the Deputy Prime Minister, I am very impressed that he has taken a complete relook at every issue facing the Singapore economy and has almost redone, single-handedly, a complete revamp of all our tax issues. Instead of having an energy drink - like Red Bull in its advertisement, he le jiu xing - we had had an intravenous injection of energy drugs, and I think the economy will benefit significantly from this injection. And since the Singapore economy is not dead - it is just very sick - I think the injection of this massive tax cut will bring around early revivals.

Furthermore, Sir, I am also very impressed that the leadership has taken the pain to take a 10% pay cut and also forgo a certain amount of bonuses. That indicates that they have learned their leadership skill very well from ancient military lessons that, in fighting wars, the generals and the soldiers must endure the same pain - the cold and also the hardship - together.

Mr Speaker, Sir, while it is heartening that the Deputy Prime Minister has indicated a whole host of measures to help businesses, it is also important that we realise the pain of those in the lower income group and extend assistance to them. The package is quite comprehensive. I just have a few comments to make.

For instance, in the extension of rebates in energy bills, utilities bills and service and conservancy charges, we have always depended on the classification of HDB housing types as a measure to provide such assistance. I believe this time round, Sir, we should allow for greater latitude and devise an escape route for even those who live in the bigger HDB types, eg, 5-room and Executive flats. This is because I believe some of them are really cash-strapped, and many of them are also faced with negative equity. If they were to sell their flat today to downgrade to a smaller flat, most of their lifelong savings will be wiped out. In handing out aids to HDB dwellers, we should take the plight of such residents into consideration and allow greater flexibility, even if they are staying in 5-room or Executive flats.

Coming to the anti-speculative measures, I was hoping that the Government will scrap the anti-speculative measures and which, indeed, the Deputy Prime Minister has done. However, I thought he should also look at the payment of stamp duty before transactions, because that was one measure introduced and which is still in force today.

While it is very important that we would like to look at all the short-term measures announced by the Deputy Prime Minister, we should also look at some of the medium-term and long-term measures, to shift the economic strategy of our development from past strategies to newer ones. Perhaps, because of time constraint, the Deputy Prime Minister had not touched very much on this. I was hoping that he would elaborate that, in future, we would shift our focus from multinational corporations to local entrepreneurial enterprises, a shift from Government-linked companies to small and medium enterprises.

Finally, Sir, what really impressed me is the fact that, by the measures announced and by the bold action taken, this is a Government in full charge of a ship in stormy seas - a Government of action that our people can depend upon - responsive, pragmatic and bold. To make the measures work, we need the wholehearted support of Singaporeans. In this respect, we have laid a good foundation by the leadership taking a pay-cut. Together, Sir, I think we shall be able to sail through this stormy sea to calmer waters ahead.

Mr Inderjit Singh (Ang Mo Kio): Sir, I am glad that the Government has thought of the wide ranging measures which I am confident will have a significant impact on Singaporeans and Singapore companies. While many people had asked for a package of between $10 billion and $15 billion off-Budget measures, I think they never expected to get so much. This time round, as opposed to the past, the Government has pleasantly surprised everyone, which is a $11.3 billion package. I applaud the Government for being bold this time.

It would have been pointless to give a small dose, like what Dr Wang Kai Yuen mentioned, like the $2.2 billion measures implemented earlier this year. In that instance, there was no impact at all, and another small package would have meant money down the drain. Governments must have the political will to take bold measures if they are really serious about making a difference in situations like the economic recession. Most of the time, piecemeal effects are wasted efforts. Mr Leong Horn Kee talked about the ineffective measures taken by some other governments in this region. I think this time round, we have shown to everyone, Singaporeans and to the rest of the world, that we are willing to take bold moves which are indeed necessary to make any significant difference in situations like this.

Sir, I would like to touch on a few issues. First of all, it is the predictive capability of the Government. Sir, the third quarter results of a negative 5.6% forecast and a negative 3% for the year are once again way off the mark, as has been the case for forecasts done by the Government in the past few years. I am sure that the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Trade and Industry must agree with me that the large negative swing of the economic indicators has got nothing to do with the September 11th actions in the USA. The fate of the third quarter results was mostly sealed by then. Many people are, of course, using September 11th as excuses for many things, but I think, in this case, at least for the third quarter results, that cannot be the reason. Looking forward to the fourth quarter and beyond, I think there will be significant impact. It is easy to say in hindsight, but we all know that the position held by the Government, even three months ago, was quite different from what many industry analysts were saying.

The reason I am raising this issue is because I am really concerned about the indicators that the Government is using to measure the future state of the economy. My impression is that we are using old models that may have worked in the past but these models may not be suitable in a rapidly changing new economy. I would like to ask whether the Government is doing anything to put in place better models for predicting the economy.

The second issue I would like to touch on is the issue of retrenched executives and professionals. While I am comfortable that we have sufficient measures to help the lower income families who may be hit by the recession, our various welfare schemes, including the public assistance, rental rebates, Medifund and others, are tailored to help the lower income Singaporeans. But people who were once drawing high income but are now retrenched are not eligible for any one of them. We are starting to see many cases of Singaporeans who may be asset rich but cash poor because of a sudden turn of events. This is especially so for those in the 40s and 50s, who may have been successful in their careers and have a steady income and have families to support. They would have been committed to a property and have many liabilities and responsibilities, especially paying mortgages for properties, children's education, expenses and others.

Our system of welfare schemes will not be able to support them. We must think of ways to ease their cash flow situations in the short-term. For such people, it does not make sense to give them the type of assistance given to the lower income Singaporeans. We need to think of new ways.

I urge the Government to start thinking out of the box and be flexible on some of its policies. I would like to suggest that we allow such people to borrow money from their CPF Special Account, as opposed to withdrawing it permanently, that they be allowed to borrow so that they can draw a monthly amount to help them tide over the difficult times. And when they are gainfully employed again, we can institute a higher monthly deduction from their employee portion of CPF to repay back into the CPF account with interest, if we have to. In this way, they do not have to be dependent on any of the welfare schemes. With this scheme, we do not have to put extra burden on the public funds as those affected will be using their own money in case they draw from their CPF. It is much easier to justify this to all Singaporeans than to support the asset rich and cash poor Singaporeans with public funds.

Sir, I welcome the extensive measures to help reduce business costs which were announced by the Deputy Prime Minister. But in my opinion, while they are going to be effective in the short-term, these are temporary measures. In fact, the measures that we have been used to in the recent past have been a temporary reduction approach of reducing costs. We have to put in more permanent cost reduction measures. Most of the measures put in place like rental rebates, property tax rebates, rebates on charges are all temporary in nature and such an approach does not give comfort to businesses that we have indeed identified a longer term solution for the country.

I feel it is about time that we seriously looked at permanent reduction measures. If we fail to do so, especially at this point of time, we may actually see a structural destruction of our industrial base. As countries like China and India catch up and are able to provide same resources at a much cheaper cost, we risk permanent loss of our industries and may see a hollowing of our economy. We have no choice but to keep manufacturing as an important wing of our economy and we therefore have to re-look at how we price the various resources which make significant impact to the cost of manufacturing. For example, why cannot we price industrial land differently? The costs of land and building are just too high, perhaps the highest in the world. We already have a mechanism of differential prices for residential properties, different prices for HDB flats versus private properties. It is really up to the Government to decide how they want to price industrial land. It is the Government which sets the price benchmark in this case. I feel that there needs to be a drastic reduction so that we will be able to address this cost issue once and for all.

I am glad that finally something substantial is being done to help SMEs secure funding through the loan insurance scheme. The $500 million will go a long way to help companies overcome their difficulties in securing financing for activities. In many cases, as has been in the past, there are companies with good business deals but lack the financing and result in the deals collapsing or collapse of the companies. I hope that the loan insurance scheme will be implemented such that it will not be too difficult for companies to apply. It cannot be left to banks to decide solely on disbursement of this loan. There must be some intervention and involvement of the Productivity and Standards Board for the scheme to be successful because leaving it completely to the banks may not change the situation because banks have typically not preferred to lend to small and medium enterprises.

Sir, on the issue of property prices, I am a little disappointed that the Government has become distracted from the original objective of preventing speculation in the property market. While I do sympathise with property owners, and I too own a property, that we have lost value in our properties, I feel that it is for the long-term good of the country if we do not allow property price bubbles to develop as a result of speculation. If it develops as a result of genuine buyers, I think we have no choice, but if as a result of speculation, this is something we should not accept. While up to now property buyers in the last few years may not have made gains, as the Deputy Prime Minister indicated just now, my fear is that this lifting of anti-speculative measures will spark off a rapid rise in property prices again by people who hope to make a quick gain, as was the case before 1996. And if we build up another bubble and it bursts again, we may go the way of Japan where they never recovered from the big burst of their property bubble.

Sir, on the whole, I would like to applaud the Government for its leadership in identifying the extensive off-Budget measures. I am confident that we will be able to turn things around as we start implementing these measures. It is always important in situations like this for the Government to take the leadership and to be bold rather than to be conservative. I think if we err, we will err on the positive side rather than on the negative side in the case of the situation when we are too conservative in the measures that we implement.

Mr Ang Mong Seng (Bukit Gombak): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, in 1998, we had the Asian financial crisis. At that time, it was just a mild cold but in the year 2000 and this year, we came across a very serious influenza. After September 11th, with the flu, we were drenched in a heavy rain, and the influenza has developed into something much more serious.

Just now, when I heard the off-Budget package announced by the Deputy Prime Minister, I am glad to know that our health is still very strong in Singapore, and that we are able to pull through all kinds of stormy weathers and remain safe and sound. A few months ago, we announced the first package of $2.2 billion and now this second package is $11.3 billion, making a total of $13.5 billion. This is a very comprehensive plan to help our people.

In this package, we have very detailed plans and schemes to help our citizens, including rebates on income tax, property tax, HDB and JTC rentals, etc. Among these, there are also extensions to the existing rebates on utilities, HDB and JTC rentals, etc.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I feel that all these rebates are part of a very good package that will help our people overcome this severe economic crisis. It is like the Chinese saying, "sending coal in a snowy weather or handing out umbrellas in heavy rain". It is a very good assistance package indeed, but we must not forget to look into the possibility of longer term schemes to help our citizens. The announcement made by the Deputy Prime Minister will surely be welcomed by our people. The Government is able to do this because we have "made hay when the sun shines, and prepared for the rainy days". During good times, through prudent management, we were able to accumulate surpluses so that when we come across any financial crisis, we are able to fork out extra money from our coffers to help our people. This is a good example and the result of cooperation between the people and the Government.

But on the whole, I think it is more important to have long-term plans to help the unemployed people in particular. How do we help them? We can train them, re-skill them and re-educate them in the hope that they can quickly find a job. But I am afraid the older people, those who are 50 and above, will have difficulty getting a job even after going through the training and enhancing their skills, in the present circumstances. I hope that the Government will take the lead because if our retirement age is 62, and the people are only 50 years old, they have 12 more years of working life. The Ministries in the Government should go through various avenues to help these people look for employment. If the Government can take the lead to absorb these people, I believe the private companies will also emulate the Government's move.

According to feedback received, when an applicant telephones in response to a job vacancy advertisement, the first question asked of him is invariably: "How old are you?" If the reply is 50 and above, he will be told, "Do not come, you are too old!" If this trend persists, those who are older and unemployed, or when they are retrenched, will face some very difficult times ahead.

The second point I am concerned about is that this financial crisis is not just in Asia but it is global in nature. With the opening up of the Chinese market to the world, the entry of China into the WTO, and its hosting of the Olympic Games in 2008, I think in the next few years, China will be able to attract a lot of foreign investments there. This is also a good opportunity for our people to invest there, but, of course, we must have the avenues and the way to go there. If you depend on special companies to go into China, you may have difficulties. I hope that the Government or MTI will take the lead again to lead our entrepreneurs there. Small companies should endeavour to join together so that they may have the scale and resources to venture into the China market. When you venture into a new market, there are lots of challenges facing us there.

I would like to ask the Government to consider giving some sort of special loans to those who are venturing into the China market, or to help them make some arrangements and give them assistance. As it is said: "The business world is like a battle field." When we fight a war, we must have the vanguards to charge ahead and lead the rest of the army forward. Of course, the vanguards are taking the biggest risk. But for the sake of a victory in a war, they will risk their lives and take the lead forward. Similarly, in the business world, when we invest in a new market, the challenges are tough and severe. The Government should give them greater encouragement and instill in them more confidence, so that we will be able to create more opportunities for our own people, spread our second wing and venture into this emerging market.

Thirdly, Dr Wang Kai Yuen said that the utilities rebate is a very good measure to assist people to overcome their financial difficulties. But for those who live in 5-room flats or private properties, they are not entitled to the benefits under this scheme. I believe that in this present economic downturn, they too are having similar difficulties. I think they too need some form of assistance from the Government. I hope that apart from HDB flat dwellers, the private property owners should also be given some utilities rebate, so that they can share the happiness and hardship together with their fellow countrymen.

Just now, DPM mentioned about the wage cut for our Ministers and senior civil servants. I believe that this is something which our people will all agree with. It also shows that we are prepared to share our woes together. Our leaders have put in a lot of efforts to make policies and work out strategies to lead our country. In good times, they lead us to prosperity and in bad times, they guide us out of troubled waters. Our people generally appreciate what these leaders have done. They realise that it is not easy for these leaders to lead our country through bliss and gloom. But during a financial crisis when the people are suffering under adverse circumstances, the Ministers also announced that they will take a pay cut. This is very laudable indeed!

Next, during bad times, we are not giving up our efforts to attract foreign investments here in Singapore. It is a difficult time, because many companies will choose to invest in China instead of Singapore. There may be opportunities for them to come here, but we must also review the terms and conditions we offer to these foreign investors so as to continue to attract them to come here. We should simplify our administrative procedures to make it easier for them to set up their businesses here in Singapore, so that in the process we can create more job opportunities for our people.

Dr Jennifer Lee (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have just one short point to make and two clarifications.

The point actually arises from my having sat in some recent dialogue sessions where some professionals have raised the issue of infrastructural work, now that we are accelerating some of the major projects to the tune of $3.5 billion. I believe PWD, which was corporatised not that long ago, is still enjoying a moratorium on major Government projects, and this results in PWD having a lion share of all this work. We have many professional firms - architects, engineers, various building consultants - who are having very bad times. They are struggling. And while it is nice to have acceleration of these projects, I trust that the entire amount would not end up going towards the corporatised PWD, leaving all of these firms out in the cold. I do hope some consideration will be given to this matter.

The two clarifications are: first, with regard to hospital fee rebates for classes B2 and C, we are targeting at citizens and their families. I was not clear on whether family members who are non-citizens would also qualify. I work in a hospital. Very often, we would see citizens who struggle with dealing with fees for their family members who may not be citizens. So that would be a good clarification to have.

The second clarification is with regard to the New Singapore Shares. I just want to make sure that I understand. The shares will be given through CPF accounts, current or non-current accounts. By that, I understand that all non-CPF account holders will not qualify for the New Singapore Shares. The New Singapore Shares are not the same as CPF Top-ups. I think they are meant to give all Singapore citizens the feeling of belonging and of sharing. A large percentage of home-makers would not have CPF accounts. Surely, it cannot be right that they will not be eligible for the New Singapore Shares.

Sir, that is all that I wanted to raise.

Mr Seng Han Thong (Ang Mo Kio): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, in a short period of three months, we are now introducing a second package, and this time it is for $11.3 billion. I think the important thing for us to do now is to restore the confidence of the people, because many workers are worried that they would lose their jobs and the businesses are worried that they would collapse. After the September 11 event, many people were saying that the World Trade Centre had collapsed and the companies here will collapse too.

Sir, $11.3 billion is a big sum of money. But no matter how much we have instilled in our economy, the most important thing is to maintain the confidence of the people, the businesses and the Government. The Feedback Unit recently conducted a survey on how much confidence the people had in the Government in leading us out of the present economic crisis. Only 56.5% stated that they had great confidence in the Government's capability in pulling us through, another 34% or so said that they had some confidence, not very much but not very little, but just some confidence.

Sir, how do we increase the confidence of this 34% in the Government? If this survey is conducted after the introduction of this package by DPM, I am sure many more people would have greater confidence in the Government. In the Skills Development Fund alone, the Government will be putting in another $50 million. I am sure this will give people more confidence that the Government is serious in equipping the workers so as to enhance their employability.

The People for Jobs Traineeship Programme will benefit those in the middle income group because, prior to this, the concern was on the lower income group only, but now we are looking into the benefits for the middle income people as well. But these people still do not have confidence in the Government. Many of them have reservations about undergoing retraining or skill enhancement. Many people say that they do not feel good about going back to the classrooms or the workshops. I think we should make them feel good and confident in being retrained. As many of my parliamentary colleagues have said in this House, many people above the age of 50 cannot get a job. Now, even those above 40 are having difficulty getting a job. Nowadays, at 40, you are looked upon as an old man. That being the case, then half of our population would be deemed to be old people. I think we should change this perception.

I am glad that the Government is granting a rebate on diesel tax. This will benefit the taxi drivers. Many taxi drivers told me that nowadays after queuing for four hours at the airport, they could not get any tourists as their passengers - no more American or Japanese tourists. After deducting their costs, their net income is just about $10 a day. I hope the taxi companies will pass on the benefit of this diesel tax rebate to the taxi drivers.

Another thing that is worth mentioning is the Government's decision not to cut the employers' CPF contribution. I think this is a good reassurance to the people. Of course, if the recession gets worse, I think we cannot rule out the possibility of a reduction in the employers' CPF contribution again.

Why have the people lost their confidence? This is because in the last few years, we have been developing too fast. Many companies are relocating and we have been importing a lot of foreign talents. Many people who were retrenched could not find an alternative job, and they put the blame on foreign talents. And now with China coming up, many people are also blaming China for all these problems. These are challenges which the Government will have to face and tackle.

DPM has now introduced this package where a lot of money is put into our economy. I think this will help to boost the confidence of the people. As I see it, there are four levels of problems. First, the superficial level. We have to enhance the employability of the people, and the country must have the competitiveness. We have been emphasising this even in the 1960s, but the people just looked at the surface of the matter and were not prepared to look beyond the superficial level. In 1970s and 1980s, when faced with the economic downturn and recession, people began to look a little deeper, which I shall call the sub-surface level. The people were persuaded to cooperate with the employers to suffer a pay-cut to keep their jobs.

Then the Asian financial crisis in 1997 brought the people to the inner level, where they began to realise the importance of skills upgrading and retraining to stay competitive and enjoy better employability. The September 11 event in 2001 gave the people a rude jolt that took them into the deep-inside level where not only the ordinary workers but also the middle and senior management level people are feeling the pinch. The people begin to realise that they have to look far and beyond the present problems. I think the Government has a very long telescope which can see very far ahead. Perhaps, the Government should share this telescope with the people, so that they can look farther.

Some Members were talking about handing out umbrellas during rainy days. I think, in the present day context, the umbrella is not good enough, because it has its limitation. The feeling is that we should hand out umbrellas when it is raining. I think we should build up an environment whereby companies can carry on with their businesses, rain or shine, storm or no storm. We should convey this message to everybody. Nowadays, in every HDB neighbourhood, we have built covered walkways. Residents can walk along the covered walkways to the bus stop even when it rains. But, I heard that where there is no covered walkway, the residents would complain that they could not walk out to the bus stop when it rains. I asked them why they did not get an umbrella. They said that it was too troublesome. They would rather wait for the rain to stop. I think if you have to catch a bus to go to your destination, you should run across to the bus stop, whether there is a covered walkway or not, even if you do not have an umbrella. Otherwise, you will not catch the bus and get to your destination in time.

I think DPM should emphasise to the people that they on their part too must trim themselves in a difficult time like this and make every effort to lift up their heads and not walk around with their chins down. The people must not lose their confidence. Whether or not there is an umbrella, whether or not there is a covered walkway, life must go on. We should work together hand in hand to make Singapore strong and competitive. Yes, what we need is confidence in ourselves! 2.45 pm

Mr Chay Wai Chuen (Tanjong Pagar): Sir, before I came to this Chamber this morning, I listed down a list of what I thought Government could do in so far as these off-Budget measures to resuscitate the economy to achieve growth and employment opportunities in our economy are concerned. I must say that the Deputy Prime Minister's list far exceeded my expectations. My list also included cuts in Ministers' and Members of Parliament's salaries and allowances. So it is a sincere and genuine list.

But one policy that I really could not understand, and perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister could explain, is the GST. I believe that one of the most powerful instruments that we can do in this present circumstance actually is to reduce the rate of our GST without dismantling the structure of the GST operation. Why do I say that it is important? It is not a question of just 3% makes no difference to price cuts and whatever. It is really a question of a reduction of perhaps 2% and with that, a very sizeable flow of liquidity in the economy. It might not make much difference to price as to affect spending. But, nonetheless, it gives opportunities for small businesses and other businesses to survive and to improve their present situation. If you estimate the GST collection at about $1.5 billion a year, a reduction of 2% could well mean $1 billion immediate and sustained injection in the economy throughout.

One of the problems in resuscitating measures in off-Budget measures or fiscal spending measures is the time lag. Although we have here $11.3 billion, you can see that it takes probably two or three years before this whole package can be fully worked out. What we need now is actually a very strong dose for resuscitating the economy. So I hope that the Government could really think about this and perhaps consider this once more.

The second point that I would like to raise is for the support of small and medium-sized enterprises. There has been this policy suggested of a new look to assist local enterprises. One of the items listed here is the micro loan scheme. I really applaud this new out-of-the-box type of thinking by the Government in trying to look at these micro loan features. Of course, it will take time before micro loan features and micro loan lending can work out. But there are many countries where such schemes have worked successfully. So I would like to support this and urge the Government to work full steam ahead on such assistance schemes for small and medium enterprises.

In reducing rental property and property taxes, one of the problems that tenants always face is that the owners of property do not pass down these rebates to the tenants or the lessees. So I wonder whether there can be some measures or instruction or some conditionality placed such that tenants do get the benefits of this. Because right now it is really the tenants, not just the owners but also downstream across the economy, that people are faced with difficulties.

In trying to assist SMEs, I note in this Executive Summary that the Government talks about "improved access to funds for local enterprises", and this "improved access to funds" is really clearly underlined. This has been one of the complaints by SMEs that many of them do not seem to get the benefit of these funding schemes by Government. So by improving access, I really believe that the Government must work out features and processes for them to avoid the bureaucracy network and bureaucracy difficulties that they face.

I also hope that the Government could work out measures within this assistance package to the SMEs to help them refinance their lendings. One of the complaints that SMEs have been bringing up is that although interest rates right now are low, they are stuck with rates that they have fixed sometime ago and that this difference in spread really is now made by the banks. So they are thinking and asking of ways and means by which the authority and we, as the Government, can help them by refinancing such schemes and whether such refinancing packages that are announced today can be packaged into this difficulty that is specifically faced by them.

I also agree with what one of my colleagues, Mr Inderjit Singh, talked about just now on some of the investment criteria and requirements for industrial properties from the JTC authority. I believe that investment criteria by JTC should be relaxed so that you do not need to put in such high investments in order to secure leases. Perhaps even such lower investment criteria might generate more employment for our people.

Finally, I would like to raise the point that I agree with the Deputy Prime Minister that this present situation needs a complete re-look at how our domestic economy would have to perform in the future. One of the suggestions that SMEs have been bringing up is that they hope that they could also be part of this effort in re-looking at how to revitalise over a long term our domestic economy and how they can actually also make their views heard at higher levels, whether at statutory boards or at GLCs, where they can provide downstream facilities as well as business opportunities and contracts, so that the economy as a whole downstream can also benefit from the leading sectors in our economy. The view is that at the current stage, what they can do in presenting their views is usually done only in committees that are called from time to time, feedback and so on. But in actual business environment context, many of their views and capabilities, perhaps even their weaknesses, could be improved upon. So I hope the Government could take a new look at these whole measures and assist the economy, not just this present package but also in the coming one or two years to come.

Mr S. Iswaran (West Coast): Sir, this downturn is sharp, and the Deputy Prime Minister has described this as the steepest downturn Singapore has experienced. Singaporeans are hurting and having to make some very painful decisions in everyday life. A couple of days ago when I talked to some of my grassroots leaders, they gave me some anecdotal evidence which, I think, really rings true. Individuals are having to make decisions like whether to leave their children in kindergartens or withdraw them because they cannot afford the fees due to retrenchment. There are others who work in coffeeshops who tell me that even decisions as minute as wanting to buy a soft drink have become marginally significant. Also, individuals, young people who are at work, are afraid to go on leave because they are afraid that when they come back, they would be amongst those who are retrenched.

Sir, in this environment, the evidence is that Singaporeans are doing their best to help themselves, but they are also looking to the Government to do its part to help them through this period of difficulty. In that sense, I think the package has been a very significant one. It is significant, first, in terms of its size and how comprehensive it has been. I think, secondly, it has also been significant because it demonstrates that the Government has the will and commitment to come out with a large package to help Singaporeans when there is a time of need. Many times in this House in the last several years, I have heard questions raised on why we accumulate surpluses and insist on putting money away for a rainy day, and the Finance Minister has been hard put explaining the Government's rationale behind this prudent budgeting policy and attitude towards reserves. I think this particular experience demonstrates to Singaporeans that the Government does have the resolve to use the reserves when the need arises and that a rainy day is like what we have today.

Thirdly, Sir, I also would like to add my voice to the chorus of others who have lauded the leadership shown by the Ministers, other top civil servants and MPs to take a pay cut, in particular the 17% pay cut that the Ministers would be taking. Sir, there are many types of leadership - leadership by example which demonstrates an empathy and a shared sense of purpose, is perhaps the most compelling, and I congratulate the Government for taking that initiative.

The Deputy Prime Minister has also stressed one important point which I thought in our focus on dealing with this downturn and the measures that have come about in this package we should not overlook, which is that after this cycle is over and we come out of it, how well positioned will Singapore be to meet the longer term challenges and the structural changes. In particular, Sir, we have been made aware of many of these fundamental movements, like the shift of the economic centre of gravity towards Northeast Asia with the emergence of China, like the need to diversify our economic base more into services and in the manufacturing sector away from the electronic sector to other areas, the need to move up the skills ladder and also nurturing our SMEs as another engine of growth. And I think many of the new measures that have been introduced in this package can be harnessed to not just help deal with the pain of the downturn but also position Singapore for the longer term challenges.

Sir, I welcome the slew of measures that the Deputy Prime Minister has outlined and I would like to focus specifically on two or three key areas. The first is that I think it is good that we have come out with a package that would help many HDB residents meet their mortgage payments, etc, with respect to their home loans. The key though, Sir, is there are other aspects which I thought I should highlight, in particular with respect to the upgrading packages that the Government has introduced, ie, the MUP programme. These require typically for a household to commit between $10,000 and $20,000 expenditure, if they also opt for the space-adding item. This is a significant amount of money, and in the minds of many householders it is a sum that they are not prepared to commit. There are two categories - those who have already committed to it and the payment will be due over the next year or two because the projects are nearing completion. Then there are those who are having to make a decision over the next few months in a period of great uncertainty, and for whom this financial burden would be a pivotal factor in making their decision. We have some schemes in place but they are targeted at the elderly and those who are below a certain income threshold. I wonder whether the Government could consider broadening the scope of this in order to make it easier.

The other part, Sir, is on the servicing of housing loans. I am considering the question of those in the private sector, those who are taking up loans from banks and servicing loans on private homes, whether there is scope for some of them to be able to tap into the Special Account of the CPF, especially when they have been retrenched and contributions to the Ordinary Account dry up.

The other point I wanted to address is the Economic Downturn Relief Scheme, which is to be administered through the CCCs. I think this is a very welcome move because it brings assistance to the ground, closer to individuals and is to be administered through individuals who know the area well and the needs of their residents. I would ask, however, that this be administered in as efficient a way as possible by allowing the agencies on the ground, whether it is the CCCs or the CDCs, to acquire more manpower in order to do the job more efficiently and, at the same time, in terms of criteria, there is a tendency for such schemes to be bogged down by a lot of evaluation. And the question is whether we can be a little bit more relaxed with the criteria so that help where needed can be given quickly and it needs to be done in an early and expeditious manner.

Sir, the other point is on the delivery of the service itself. Sir, we live in a system where we are used to a very brisk and efficient form of service delivery. This is excellent, but especially at a time of trial like this, we may need to alter the mindsets of many of our civil servants or counter staff and even those on the ground who are being entrusted with the responsibility to administer some of the services we are talking about, like financial aid.

Sir, it takes a lot for an individual in hardship to swallow his or her pride and to come out and ask for help. What we want to make sure is that we do not make that task more difficult by either making the process too brisk or too open, denying them the confidentiality for the privacy which would help them preserve their dignity. I would urge that the Government seriously consider some form of training or guidance for those who are entrusted with this, both civil service staff, but, as importantly, the volunteers, the grassroots leaders who are being asked to do this on the ground, because they need to be made aware of the circumstances. This is not just about telling people, "Here is the form, here is the scheme, fill it up, let's do it.", but reaching out to them in a manner that is empathetic and sympathetic.

Ms Braema Mathiaparanam (Nominated Member): I would just like to say that the schemes that were introduced by the Deputy Prime Minister were very comprehensive. I have just two questions here. One is the retraining programmes for retrenched workers. I am curious to know as to how successfully those who are retrenched are retrained and to find a job again. Is there some kind of feedback here that we could have that would be useful to know how useful the retraining programmes are? The other issue leads to Dr Jennifer Lee's point about the New Singapore Shares and the position of women and housewives which she has already raised. I am not going to go further, but may I beg your indulgence here to ask for another group of people, and that is, the destitute elderly in the welfare homes. It may be quite right and justified to let them partake, to a certain extent, in this scheme that is coming down the Singaporean's way. We have no record in many cases of their histories. We do not know how they have contributed to what Singapore is today and since we have a scheme now called the New Singapore Shares to benefit all Singaporeans, I appeal that it is their right to be included.

One last point, if I may, on the whole question about what Mr Iswaran has brought up. In helping the people who need financial aid, I have a slight reservation here about the role of the CCCs. We have already present schemes through the FSCs and the CDCs and they have already got some kind of training in handling sensitively people who come through their doors for help. Could we not perhaps use them rather than a new instrument in this area like the CCCs?

Mr Speaker: Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.25 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 3.03 pm until 3.25 pm. Sitting resumed at 3.25 pm