EXEMPTED BUSINESS (Motion)

Column: 902

EXEMPTED BUSINESS:

(Motion): Resolved,

"That the debate on the Budget Statement be proceeded beyond 7.00 pm and the proceedings thereon be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 91(3). - [Mr Wong Kan Seng].

Column: 902

ANNUAL BUDGET STATEMENT: **** Debate resumed .

Assoc. Prof. Low Seow Chay (Chua Chu Kang): (In Mandarin) :Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this Budget benefits everybody.From the CPF top-ups alone and the reduction in maid levy, my family would benefit by $1,300. This is unexpected. Even the betting tax has been reduced. Maybe this is done in conjunction with the impending opening of the casino, although it is said that there is no direct connection with the opening of the casino. But the Government's revenue from betting will be reduced by half.

Perhaps the only people who are adversely affected by this Budget are the smokers. Tobacco tax has gone up by 5.9 cents per stick. To these people, they have not suffered much because if they smoke one packet of cigarettes a day, and also bet on 4D, and have two children studying in school, the benefits they will get from this Budget would be enough to offset the additional tax incurred.

Sir, all in all, everybody should be happy. Even the newspapers from

Column: 903

Malaysia commented that this was apeople's Budget.

Among the measures announced in this Budget, there are sevenitems relating to CPF, but most people are focusing their attention on one item - the topping-up of the various CPF accounts. Not many people would have realised that under the new measures, their contribution ceilings have been limited, so has the ceiling on SRS which is now capped at 17 monthsof the monthly CPF contribution limit. So those people earning $5,000 a month and those who have receivedmore bonuses, like those working in the newspaper companies and the airlines, will suffer a lot because of the cap. Withsuch a measure, of course, there will be an increase inrevenue for the Government, but it has a negative effect on the Government. Why do I say that? Because by so doing, it has acted in contradiction to the Government's call for the people to save more for their old age.

In the topping up of the CPF accounts, the Government emphasised assistance for the elderly. On the one hand, it shows its appreciation of the past contributions made by these old people but, on the other hand, it also shows thatGovernment isworried about the escalating healthcare cost of the elderly people. This can be shown in the proposed increase in the MediShield premiums.

The Lianhe Zaobao has reported that many people in the United States were made bankrupt because they could not pay for their medical fees, and this was recorded in the Journal of Health Affairs . In the year 2001, an investigation revealed that about 50% of the people were declared bankrupt because they could not pay for the very heavy medical cost incurred. Among them, about 75% of them had medical insurance, but the medical insurance had pretty high deductibles, and that alone had

Column: 904

bankrupted the people. They had to pay as high as S$19,000 out of their own pocket for some minor surgery, and if they suffer from cancer, their own contribution would be about S$58,000 though covered by medical insurance.

The article also estimated that in 2010,about 1.8 million to 2.2 million Americans would be made bankrupt because they could not pay for their medical expenses. In the United States where almost everybody has medical insurance, and it being the richest country in the world, yet they have such a phenomenon. I cannot help thinking whether this will one day happen to Singapore . I think this is a very important and complicated matter. On the one hand, it involves the containment ofthe rise in medical cost and, onthe other hand, themanagement of medical insurance in Singapore to ensure its healthy development.

Another point is this: how much savings do our people have? Can they cope with such very heavyexpenses for healthcare? Here, I do not want to talk about healthcare matters. I just want to talk about the personal savings of our people. Over the years, in Parliament, many Members have talked about whether or not Singaporeans have enough savings for their old age. The general impression gathered is that our people do not have enough savings for their old age, and this is the feel of the majority.

We all agree that Singapore has the highest personal savings rate in the whole world. We have a compulsory savings scheme in the form of the CPF. When the times are good, our CPF contribution rate could be as high as 50% of the monthly salary. Recently, because we want to improve on our business competitiveness, the CPF contribution rate has been reduced to 33%. With 33% CPF and 2.5% interest rate, if a person starts working at 21 and by the retirement age

Column: 905

of 62, how much would his CPF savings be? I made a calculation, and to my surprise, the expected savings worked out to be quite sizeable. For a salaried worker who earns $750 a month, by the age of 62, his savings would be as much as $250,000. If he earns about $1,000 a month, his savings would be $320,000. And for those whose monthly income is $2,000, they would have $650,000. Even my parliamentary colleagues here do not get as much as $650,000 in their pension when they retire as an MP.

With such high savings in their CPF accounts, it would appear quite incredible that our people would not be able to afford their medical expenses. But the fact remains that even if you earn $2,000 to $3,000 a month, you may not have much savings in the CPF account at the time of your retirement. Why is it so? The reason is that most of the people would have pre-spent a major part of their CPF savings for various purposes.

Now, let us look at the various schemes which the CPF Board has allowed our people to use their CPF savings. They use their CPF to buy a house or a flat and then rent it out to other people to collect rent. It is one way to make use of CPF savings before the retirement age. Then, CPF can also be used for certain medical purposes. People spend more than their needs like staying in better grade ward when hospitalised because they could use CPF. That is why they would have used up a large part of their savings before they retire. We all know that most people use large portion of their CPF for buying property. By the time of their retirement, they would have a property but little money left.

Let us do a simple analysis. If a person earns $750, he will buy a 3-room flat which is the lowest type flat; those who earn $1,000 will buy a 4-room flat; and

Column: 906

those who earn $1,500 will buy a 5-room flat - what would be the result? The result would be that, at the age of 62, their CPF account would not have savings of more than $50,000. So, if he lives from age 63 to, say, 80 years old, and he wants to enjoy life, but he needs to pay for medical expenses, clothing, transport, etc, this $50,000 is definitely not enough to see him through. But, if these people were to downgrade their flat size, say, from a 3-room flat to a 2-room flat, a 4-room flat to a 3-room flat, or a 5-room to a 4-room flat, the situation would have been much better.

For those who earn between $750 and $1,500, at the time of their retirement, they would have $250,000 in their CPF savings. With this amount, they should be quite comfortable in meeting their expenses after retirement. If they have $250,000 each in their CPF account, and they do not squander it away, and they buy a smaller flat, from 63 years old up to 80 years old, they would be able to get $1,300 every month from their CPF retirement account.

From this analysis, we can come to certain conclusions. First, the Government should build more 3-room flats so that those who earn between $1,000 and $1,500 per month could apply, and those earning more than $1,500 could apply for 4-room flats. If the median income is not changed, at least half of our working population would be earning less than $1,500 per month. If we use the 4-room flat as anorm for our HDB building programme, then the result is that most people will retire with less than $50,000 in their CPF savings. So I think we should focus on 3-room flats instead, so that people still can own their own flats and, at thesame time, when they retire, they would have $250,000 in their CPF account that would pay them $1,300 a month as pocket expenses from 63 years old onwards.

Column: 907

The Government should review the various schemes that permit people to make use of their CPF savings. We should prevent people from pre-spending their CPF savings. For example, if I am staying in a C class ward, now I can stay in a B2 because I can claim from my Medisave account. There is also some unnecessary risk-taking, for example, buying shares, etc. I feel that the CPF Board should not allow their members to make use of their CPF savings to buy shares. I think we should review this. By so doing, we could ensure that our CPF members would be able to have enough money to spend during their retirement years. As for those whose income is less than $750 a month, perhaps, we should not have a Home Ownership Scheme for them. I think there are not many people earning $700 or less a month now. For this small group of people, we should provide them with rental flats so as to look after their housing needs. On the other hand, the Government should also counsel prospective HDB flat purchasers so that they will live within their means and buy the type of flats that they could afford and yet leave enough savings in the CPF account for their old age.

While preparing my speech today, I visited the politicalforum.org.sg on the Internet. Many people commented that upon purchase of their HDB flat, they became a slave to their flat. They said, "Why so stupid to buy a flat?�? I think Singaporeans should exercise more wisdom when buying their flat and dealing with their CPF money. They should not becomea slave to their flat and spend their whole life working towards the payment of its instalments and, at the end of it, they still have no money in their CPF account; or their savings are so small that they would not be able to pay for their expenses during their old age, especially when they incur heavy medical costs.

In the past, maybe Singaporeans had made the mistake - they bought a flat

Column: 908

which was too big for them, such as an Executive flat, a condominium or a 5-room resale flat. To these people, after their retirement at the age of 62, they can be asset-rich but cash-poor. How do they resolve their problems? The property they own cannot provide them with the daily needs, unless they sell it, and by so doing, they will not have a roof over their heads. In that situation, one way out for them is the reverse mortgage scheme so that they would be able to get some cash out of their assets. I would suggest that we introduce an insured reverse mortgage scheme. Under this scheme, maybe it would be applicable to these people and, every month, they can draw out some money for their expenses. Because of the insurance element, they could keep withdrawing money until they pass away. By so doing, for those who are caught in this asset-strapped situation, they would be able to live a comfortable life and pay for the possible high medical costs in their old age.

I have conducted a survey on the residents of the eight blocks of 26 year-old HDB flats in my constituency. There are a total of 196 owners who are aged 56 and above. 92% of them have already fully discharged their housing loan, and only 5% of them have outstanding housing loan of more than $20,000. In other words, some 95% of the ownershave $100,000 to $200,000 each strapped in their properties. If not for the flat, they would have very substantial savings to live comfortably in their retirement days. By way of reverse mortgage, these people should be able to withdraw between $580 and $1,100 per month for their living expenses till 82 years old. I feel that this insuredreverse mortgage scheme is something that is worth our consideration.

In fact, reverse mortgage is nothing new. In the past few years, this concept has been brought up many times in Parliament. Unfortunately, we do not see

Column: 909

this being implemented. I believe there are still many details that have to be worked out, resulting in this scheme not being able to be implemented. There may be some legal implications- financial constraints, constraints of MAS and CPF rulesalong the way. I hope that the Government, our insurance companies and financial companies would work out some thing in the near future so that they could market such a scheme to help these asset-rich but cash-poor HDB flat owners.

Now, this 33% CPF contribution rate could actually yield quite a lot of savings for our old age. However, the savings must be used very prudently and we should not use the money on high risk ventures, and do not buy HDB flats which are beyond our means. So do not just withdraw your CPF money at your whims and fancies for various purposes. If we are more disciplined in the use of our CPF savings, then we should not have any problems when we grow old. If we have managed our CPF savings prudently during our younger days, our old age will be a happy one, with enough money for us to live comfortably. The Government should look into all these to make sure that everyone would have enough money in their CPF savings, so that they will be able to live comfortably.

Sir, I support the motion.

Ms Eunice Elizabeth Olsen (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to participate in this Budget debate.

First, let me apologise for the hoarse voice and occasional cough.I seem to have contracted a rare virus known as the "Budget Fever"! Certainly, there has been some buzz since the Budget was announced, ie,like when a certain NMP missed her swearing-in. There has really been a buzz, because the initiatives

Column: 910

announced try to target as many people as possible. Sir, this is indeed a commendable effort.

For my part, I intend to focus on how the Budget aims to foster a caring and inclusive society. The Prime Minister has said, "It is ultimately a sense of community that makes us truly a nation". I could not agree more. I would like to encourage the Government, when it formulates policies, to be mindful of how those policies affect our sense of community and, as far as possible, to implement policies that help build that sense of community.

I was very pleased, for instance, to hear that measures would be introduced to help revitalise the shops in HDB estates. Many of us remember fondly, I am sure, how as children we bought flavoured ice and Mamee noodles from our neighbourhood mama shops. Our HDB retailers are very much a part of our national fabric, and this initiative is an example of what Singaporeans need to see to believe that we are building a society where every citizen belongs.

Shared experiences and memories, like those of our small HDB shops, are essential in building a sense of belonging, as the Prime Minister said. These memories are best forged in our younger days, and this is why the young are important to Singapore. A harmonious and united, caring and inclusive society can only be built if the seeds are planted in our youth. We should want to involve the young in national and community issues, because it is the best way for them to go beyond their self-interests. It is the best way to instil the desire to contribute to Singapore.

Unfortunately, there is a tendency for the younger generation to drift away from Singapore. There are no easy solutions to this trend. My take is that, if the young feel that the State's value system is not

Column: 911

consonant with the values they hold, they will continue to feel something is missing in Singapore.

To stay rooted to Singapore, the young need more compelling reasons than those solely of the economic kind. Having grown up in a stable and secure Singapore, more of our youths have post-material aspirations, according to the book Youth.sg, a study on the state of youth in Singapore. Growing our economy may provide more opportunities for our youth, as the Prime Minister said. But, then again, as a highly educated generation living in a globalised world, many of our youth will be able to seek out opportunities elsewhere. Singapore needs to offer them something more lasting so that, should our economy not thrive as hoped for, her citizens will stay loyal to her.

Some say what Singapore needs most is a soul. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I agree. Singapore needs SOUL, ie, a Spirit of generosity, Open-mindedness, Unity and Life.

Firstly, a Spirit of generosity. I am very pleased that one of the key aims of the Budget is to take care of the less able and fortunate by promoting community involvement as well as corporate philanthropy. I know I am a newbie in Parliament, but I think this is the first time that the Budget has elevated the status of volunteerism to this extent. For so many years, we seemed not to have looked beyond the pursuit of economic gain. And that is why, sometimes, some of our young Singaporeans say that something is missing in Singapore. We have been admonished far too often than necessary that nobody owes us a living and our policies seem to go the extra mile to prove that there is no such thing as a free lunch. So much so, unfortunately, that when it gets filtered to the man-in-the-street, it sounds like "every man for himself".

Column: 912

However, it may not be a bad thing to share your lunch. Take, for example the Share-a-Meal programme run by the Milk (Mainly, I love kids) Fund. By donating the cash value of their lunch, just once a year, donors help underprivileged children in their education. So, I welcome the Budget's emphasis on the importance of helping others. Measures, such as topping up the ComCare Fund and working in collaboration with VWOs, would create a conducive environment for volunteerism to grow. I look forward to the package of incentives to encourage more Singaporeans to come forward, and I hope it will be a genuine affirmation of the Government's message that it would work with the people sector so that "nobody should be left behind".

Secondly, Open-mindedness. Sir, Singapore has long been recognised for having one of the world's most open economies. The initiatives to grow our services industries and diversify our economy indicate that we are open to change. Of course, we must be open to such change if we are to remain relevant to the rest of the world. We should also be open-minded to non-economic changes in Singapore society. Singapore tends to err on the side of caution when it comes to social change. But, if openness to social change is like one side of a coin, the other side would be the culture of entrepreneurship and risk-taking Singapore needs. We cannot hope for one without allowing for the other.

Some young adults find that Singapore can be stifling at times, especially when they feel an open mindset is lacking. The almost inevitable path for most Singaporeans has been: a good job, an HDB flat, a car and two children. After some time, the formula for a successful life becomes: a better-paying job, a bigger flat and a bigger car, which means less time for children. It is like flying auto-pilot with the dials permanently set for "the next best thing".

Column: 913

Many youths, however, yearn for something other than the norm. For example, look at sailor Elaine Chua, who was the only Singaporean to sail around the world in a global challenge three years ago. She wants to take up the challenge again but, this time, all by herself, as well as become the first Asian woman to single-handedly cross the Atlantic. At 27, Ms Chua is someone whom we should uphold and whose choices we should affirm. I am personally very inspired by her. By supporting such role models, we can demonstrate to the young that there will be space for their passions and that we are open-minded to non-conventional choices.

Perhaps, MCYS could assist Singaporeans who have extraordinary dreams by extending to them small loans for their extraordinary ventures, similar to how there are loan schemes for SMEs. I agree with the Prime Minister that we should not create a culture of entitlement. However, I think this would help provide opportunities to those who want to put Singapore on the map, strive for something never done before, or whatever the possible criteria. If these individuals can raise some funds on their own, perhaps MCYS could act as a middleman to rope in corporate sponsors, who may be more willing to contribute, if there is an official endorsement by the Ministry.

Thirdly, Unity. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am pleased that the Prime Minister has decided to recognise sports as a charitable purpose, as well as to expand the definition of "charitable purposes". By explicitly recognising groups from various sectors in society, the message is that "every citizen belongs". This will go some way towards building unity in our society. This initiative could be the catalyst for greater integration of minority groups, such as the disabled, into society

Column: 914

and for developing a better understanding of the needs of these groups.

Finally, Sir, Singapore needs a healthy approach to Life, not just in the literal sense. We should have balanced lives and live them to the fullest. This is relevant for our children and our youths. Allow me to share with you a recent encounter I had with a boy who won an award for being the all-rounder pupil in his primary school. I asked him how it was like at his new secondary school, and I thought he might want to recount his new experiences or talk about the new friends that he has met and the new curriculum that he is experiencing. All I got were four words from him. He said, "I am very stressed." It was barely a month into the academic year, and I shudder to think what he might say when the examinations actually draw near.

I would like to juxtapose this conversation with the welcome news of the $100 one-off top-up to the Edusave accounts of eligible primary and secondary students. The Edusave scheme enables pupils to participate in enrichment programmes and provides them additional resources. Pupils can benefit from this scheme if schools can offer a range of creative programmes. I think this is an important part of education. Unfortunately, the more stressful features of our school system seem to have overshadowed these other facets of education.

Where does this stress come from? The 2002 National Youth Survey reported that the biggest source of stress for pupils was their studies. A 2001 UNICEF survey reported that 45% of our students felt sad when they do badly in school. That is a higher percentage than China, Hong Kong, Malaysia and Indonesia, and 4.5 times greater than in Australia. Newspaper reports add that children are afraid to disappoint their parents, whose

Column: 915

expectations of sterling academic success weigh more heavily on their little shoulders than their schoolbags.

The nub of the issue is that "doing well" and "success" are judged exceedingly by examination marks. The examinations have reached make-or-break proportions. But contrary to popular belief, the purpose of education is not to help pupils to ace in their examinations. It is to nurture inquisitive and nimble minds by instilling the joy of learning and the thirst for knowledge amongst our children, so that they can make a difference to society and realise their potential. It will definitely take some doing to change mindsets, even though the MOE is now injecting more diversity and plurality into the system.

I would like to suggest that our primary schools do away with examinations at the Primary 1 and 2 levels. At such a tender age, pupils would be better served by being initiated into formal schooling in a way that cultivates their innate sense of curiosity in the world and encourages learning for learning's sake. This could shift the undue emphasis away from examinations. The Primary 1 and 2 curricula could follow the same modular route the Chinese language is going. Just as the changes to the teaching of the Chinese language are not designed to lower standards, neither should this. If pupils can gain an enthusiasm for learning, which otherwise might have been dampened by examinations, I am confident they would have the right attributes to adjust accordingly as the rigours of education increase. This might also help to wean some parents off their proclivity for assessment books and examination results. I would like to think this could be the start of a better way of life for the young.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this year's Budget has been variously referred to as a

Column: 916

Budget for everyone. But, as the Prime Minister said, "Remaking our economy and society is not just the job of theGovernment." Everyone has a part to play, and that includes the youths. If we build a Singapore that the youths can be proud to call home, I am confident that they will carry the nation to its goal of becoming a caring and inclusive society in time to come.

Since we are all declaring interest today, I would like to declare myself as a member of the youth community.

Sir, with that, I support the Budget.

Mr Ong Kian Min (Tampines): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Budget Statement delivered by the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance. Its dual themes of creating opportunity and building community are very relevant and timely, given the global and local situations we are facing today. As the more able among us reach out, create and capitalise on new opportunities, we must foster a stronger sense of community and shared values among all Singaporeans, and not forget those who deserve help in keeping up in this fast-changing world.

To make Singapore a land of opportunity, we mustbuild and leverage on what we have achieved. Many things distinguish us from our competitors, but one that comes to mind first is our good reputation. We are known worldwide to be trustworthy, reliable, clean and honest. We have gained good standing for integrity, discipline and pragmatism. This is very valuable and sets us apart from many other countries. Recently, on the issue of casino, Deputy Prime Minister Dr Tony Tan reminded us to examine its impact on the Singapore brand. Having a casino here will have an impact on what we are known for. But the recent spate of corporate scandals has cost us dearly and made a very adverse impact on our reputation. China Aviation Oil, Citiraya

Column: 917

Industries and Accord Customer Care Solutions (ACCS) are names familiar to individual and institutional investors. But now these names are associated with CAD probes, weak corporate governance, corruption, falsifying records and false claims.

Sir, we are prominent enough to be noticed internationally. Although Flextronics, one of the largest global electronics contract manufacturers, is a Singapore-registered company, it is listed on NASDAQ and has its management in the United States. It does not have much of an operational presence here in Singapore, but it is often quoted as a Singapore company. Therefore, initially, I was very upset when CAO brought bad press and publicity on Singapore. When foreigners spoke about CAO at that time, I was quick to correct them and pointed out that CAO is only listed on the Singapore Stock Exchange, but its main business was in China under

PRC Chinese management, not Singaporeans. Then came local corporate high flyers like Citiraya and ACCS, in quick succession. In the news today, another public listed company,Greatronic Limited is under probe.

Sir, the Singapore brand name is a valuable one that took all of us several decades to build up and uphold. But just as it can take years to erect a building from empty ground, it can be destroyed and reduced to ground zero in a flash. We have taken decades to build Singapore's reputation, but our efforts can be undone in a very short time.

We are evolving from a tightly regulated environment to one that is more open, disclosure-based, more pro-business and entrepreneurial. In the past, only what is permitted was clearly prescribed, and one should assume that what was not prescribed was not allowed. Now we

Column: 918

want to have a defined line before which one is free to be creative and can operate. Surely, insider trading, false claims and corruption arebeyond that line.

Some feel that we should not be so tough. I disagree. I join the many who feel that while the stock exchange promotes new listings and more trading, the CAD, MAS, the Police and the other regulatory authorities must be there to enforce discipline and to rein in therogues. I urge our businessmen not to abuse the more relaxed rules and to remember that the consequences of their actions are much wider than their individual misdeeds.

In developing our brand, I feel that this year, now that we have passed the Parks and Trees Act, we should have done more to make our statement that we are concerned about protecting the environment we live in and the air we breathe. I thought this year would have been a good time to introduce some fiscal incentives for environmentally less pollutive vehicles. There has been much interest and action taken to promote hybrid vehicles. But these vehicles, being naturally more expensive to own and operate, need Government fiscal intervention to make them commercially more attractive. As a society, we should make a decisive stand on whether we consider ourselves mature enough to support cleaner environment-friendly options, most likely at an economic sacrifice, even if it means making a sacrifice in terms ofprice. We are penalising unclean leaded fuel by making users pay more. At the same time,we shouldgive incentives for choosing environment-friendly options.

On the subject of vehicles, I would also like to mention that many people are expecting a reduction in Additional Registration Fees (ARF). ARF was introduced to dampen demand for cars by raising the total price so that fewer can

Column: 919

afford them, and hence slow down the increase in numbers. However, now that we have the COE system which is singularly effective in controlling vehicle population, should we not take steps to continue to reduce the ARF further? The total cost of buying a car may not change much. Basically, ARF is calculated as a percentage of the landed cost (or OMV) of the car and varies from car to car, whereas COE is a flat fee based on the category that the car is registered in. Any reduction in ARF may lead to an increase in the price of COE as most car buyers look at the total price for the car and not in the breakdown of the taxes.

Sir, although our economy grew by 8.4%, led by the manufacturing and services sectors, the benefits of last year's economic growth have not filtered down to our local smaller enterprises and those which are structurally affected. Many are still struggling to maintain their revenue and with meeting their operating expenses and overheads. Many have difficulties in financing. Most of all, small businesses find it hard to grapple with the changes in the economy and in their sector that can occur globally, regionally, nationally or even in their backyard in their neighbourhood at the most inopportune times. Having to react swiftly to competitive forces at every level, small businesses have a tough challenge to stay viable as they are limited by their resources, market reach and financial strength.

The introduction of a one-year carry-back of tax losses will be a helpful relief to small businesses facing a downturn, although they are asking for three years' carry-back. In recent years, we have experienced saw-tooth economic growth. SARS in 2003 dealt us a heavy blow. Reports of bird flu in the region had more than a trickle effect on our tourism, aviation, food and retail industries. And many foreigners thought Singapore was wiped out by the tsunami.

Column: 920

We do not know when the next catastrophe will sweep over us. Hence, there is an anxiety on the part of the small enterprises that before they can reap any benefits from last year's good economic growth, they will yet again be hit by another downturn, by cutbacks on spending or by the withdrawal of corporate hirings and investments. I can see that the Government fully recognises the crucial role small businesses play in building a robust economy and is fully committed to growing the local SME sector. Apart from the carry-back of losses, various programmes have been in place to help small enterprises lower their expenses. But the real test is whether all these incentives and schemes will help them increase their revenue and profits.

Sir, to add fuel to our economy and our community for the purpose of further advancement, I am pleased that this year's Budget provides for top-ups to the Lifelong Learning Fund, Edusave accounts, Medisave accounts, Medifund, CPF Special/Retirement Accounts of older Singaporeans and the new ComCare Fund. These top-ups in total will cost the Government a staggering $1.3 billion. Both the objectives of the Budget- to create opportunity and to build community- are clearly behind the rationale for these top-ups. In the long run, the programmes that receive the top-ups will benefit our country. However, many people are complaining that there is no 'real money', that means hard cash, going into the hands of the intended recipients. For those who are in dire need of immediate financial assistance, the top-ups provide little comfort. They are already facing difficulties meeting their daily expenses and have little interest in long-term gains that do not immediately benefit them. What they would appreciate is immediate financial assistance to alleviate their struggles. We must understand their concerns. For this reason, the challenge now is to ensure that the ComCare Fund

Column: 921

gets up and functioning as soon as is practicable so that it can responsively address the needs of less fortunate families, children from disadvantaged backgrounds, senior citizens and disabled persons who may need longer term assistance.

However, in giving out financial assistance, we must not breed a culture of entitlement. It seems to me that the more effort the Government makes to foster a caring and inclusive society, the more people feel that they are entitled to Government handouts.

I was awakened to this attitude by two recent incidents. In the first case, a housewife approached me last year and wanted to appeal for public transport subsidy as she had missed the application deadline. I appealed for her but was unsuccessful since the funds had already been drawn down from the transport fund. She was very upset and I offered to help her out of other financial assistance schemes available. She replied that even if I could obtain benefits under other schemes, say, schemes B and C, to help her, that would not satisfy her becauseshe should have gotten scheme A, in addition to B and C. She had lost the benefits under last year's scheme A forever - that is gone,and that could not be compensated by any other benefits under any other schemes. Hence, surely this is a clear example of wanting to grab all that they feel entitled to.

In the second case, a Singaporean man asked me to appeal for him to be given his entitlement of New Singapore Shares and Economic Restructuring Shares. He said he had been away from Singapore the past10 years and did not top up his CPF accountas he only learned about these free shares when he came back for a holiday. I questioned that he was not here to contribute to Singapore

Column: 922

the last10 years, and he retorted, "But I am a Singaporean."

Sir, many of our benefits are pegged to one's status as a Singaporean or permanent resident. For example, one can be away from Singapore all his life but is still entitled to buy a new subsidised flat from the HDB as long as he still has his Singapore citizenship. I think we should question this rationale and move away from tagging benefits to the status of citizenship.

The man who reminded me that he is a Singaporean after all thinks that he should be entitled to whatever other Singaporeans receive no matter how much or little he has contributed to his fellow men.

The tendency to look to the Government for ready solutions is a worrying trend that has to be stemmed, if not reversed. We must be mindful that the Government does not possess bottomless pockets that can dish out endless amounts of money to satisfy every demand.

From the feedback I heard recently, I am heartened tonote that more and more Singaporeans are saying, "This is taxpayers' money". There is increasing recognition by Singaporeans that we have a personal interest in the way the money is allocated and spent by the Government. More and more take the view that since Government funds come from taxpayers, they are, rightly as taxpayers, entitled to question and opine on the fiscal policies of the Government.

We do not have a lamp to rub as many times as we desire to release a genie that can produce from thin air a table laden with delectable culinary delights on gold platters every time. Instead of possessing a genie, we should possess ingenuity. We must appreciate the importance of balancing the budget. Balancing is both

Column: 923

an art and a science that must encompass and carefully weigh the needs of the nation as a whole. Whatever is allocated to any given cause will affect the amounts allocated to other areas.

We should move away from asking what more and how much more the Government can give to this or that. Instead of looking to the Finance Minister as the God of Fortune and asking for more and more ang pows to be given to more and more people, one should ask who need these ang pows moreand who would benefit most from these ang pows .

As we evolve into a more inclusive society, we should encourage more Singaporeans to express their views and concerns, not only on such basic issues as whatGovernment can do or how much more the Government can give but also on specific issues like which areas the Government should target their spending and the manner in which funds should be dispensed.

Take the top-ups to Medisave accounts, for example. The top-up will cost the Government $320 million. Instead of spreading the funds evenly but thinly so that each Medisave account gets between $50 and $350 depending on age, why not target the funds to those who are in real need and employ the balance saved towards more deserving causes?

In conclusion, we have developed into a nation that is comparable to the world's best in many respects. We are moving towards a more consultative, open and inclusive society. However, we must take care not to let the fruits of our labour whittle away through unguarded policies. While the needs and concerns of specific groups require attention, the inclination to expect ready handouts from the Government should be discouraged. Instead, we will do better to ask ourselves, after looking at our country's

Column: 924

needs as a whole, how our nation's funds can be better employed. I am confident that we will succeed in building a society that will be a pride and joy for us to live, play, work and raise our children.

Sir, I support the Budget.

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence and the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (Assoc. Prof. Koo Tsai Kee): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak at this late hour. I thought I would be speaking on Tuesday. I would like to hand out something here.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir,I would like to read a Tang Dynasty's poem to Members of the House, and particularly to the Prime Minister. This is the year of the golden rooster and this poem was written by Cui Dao Rong , a Tang Dynasty poet. The title of the poem is known as " ji ", meaning rooster. It says, " mai de chen ji gong ji yu, chang shi bu yong deng xian ming, shen shan yue hei feng yu ye, yu jin xiao tian ti yi sheng ." The gist of the poem says that in a moment of darkness and despair, the people hope that somebody somewhere will bring hope, will shine a torch and bring us out of this darkness into daylight. I want to congratulate the Ministry of Finance and the Prime Minister, who is the Minister for Finance, for making a very good Budget.

Dawn is not completely bright. Dawn is still quite dark but, at least, we are moving into brightness. It is a good Budget, Sir, because I think it is both evolutionary and revolutionary. No newspapers say that it is a so-so Budget or, at least, some people say that it is neither evolutionary nor revolutionary. I think otherwise. I think it is evolutionary because it sets clear goals and lays out a clear roadmap to a low tax regime. There are clear targets now as to when we will move to a 20% tax regime.

Column: 925

I think it is also revolutionary because it strikes both pro-business and pro-citizen at the same time. Think about it. To be pro-business means you collect less money per dollar of business output. To be pro-citizen means you spend more money per citizen. How do you square this circle? I have been looking at the Budget and recalled my days in the Finance Ministry. Historically, the operating revenue is about 23% of GDP. Today, the operating revenue is about 15% of GDP. If you look at the historical expenditure, it hovers around 15% of GDP. Today, it is still 15% of GDP. In other words, over the years, the Government has been collecting less but spending the same. It is okay if you collect less and spend the same because, in the past, we had a 5-10% buffer. But, I think, the Government would have a hard time holding the line for too long. Because in at least three areas, the Government would have difficulty holding the line in expenditure.

First, it is healthcare.We have not been spending a lot of money on healthcare because it has been well-managed. But, having said that, it is also because we are a young nation. The baby-boomers, like myself, are coming onstream and we are beginning to knock on the doors of health administrators. Groups like us would be big users of healthcare. To cap it at the present GDP of about 3%, I think it is going to be difficult. I think the Minister for Health would hold the line, carry out reforms, but, at some point, I fear, there would be more demand because the population is ageing and, it islegitimate demand.

In the case of education, I think we need to spend more, not less, because it is our only hope to grow the economy.

In defence, I think it is imperative that we spend enough to keep our operational

Column: 926

readiness. Defence, for us, is measured by percentage of GDP. But actually the defence budget, if you look at it in absolute dollars, if the adversary has X number of weapons and X number of platforms, to counter that, we could have more or we could have less, but we supplement that withadvanced systems and technology. But, at the end of the day, it is the absolute dollar output and not the GDP share of defence dollar that we spend that makes us effective.

So in these three areas and, perhaps there are others, I find it very difficult to see a lower budget further down the road. How do we square the budget? I think it is something the Minister for Finance must apply his mind to. And this brings me to the casino issue. But before I go to the casino issue, I want to thank the Finance Minister, especially on behalf of my senior citizens, because I am the MP of an area which is predominantly inhabited by older people.

Soon after the Prime Minister made his inaugural speech in the Istana, where some perceived it to be heavily accented on youth, I received emails that the Prime Minister is nurturing a future generation of young leaders. He was speaking out to the young, reaching out to them, but somehow neglecting the older people. I got it directly from the meet-the-people sessions, emails and, also, I heard it from the radio. After listening to one segment of the radio, FM95.8, one ofthese talk-back sessions, one old lady said in Mandarin, " Wo men nian qing deshi hou, shen me dong xi dou mei you, ye mei youyao qiu she me. Xian zai nianqingren she me dou you, zheng fu hai yao gei ta men ." So I emailed the PM telling him the gist of this monologue; in fact, she dropped it into the voice box. The PM emailed me and said, "Well, you wait tillBudget time". He has not forgotten the old. So I went back to the senior citizens andtold them that they should read the

Column: 927

inauguration speech again to see the substance of it andwait until Budget time. Older people have been watching and they say, " Wo bu zhi yao tingqi yan, hai yao guan qi xing " - I want to hear him and, more importantly, I want to see his action.

People like Tan Sai Siong wrote a piece of articlelast week in Today . She is past 60 now, self-confessed 60. She said she gave three cheers to the Prime Minister. The first cheer is for people who are above 60 years,which she is in, for the $350 top-up in Medisave. The second cheer is for people above 50 years, for the extra $100 in CPF top-up. Then what is the third cheer for? The third cheer is for just being old. Why should old people get more? Because the Government cares and the Prime Minister has not forgotten the older people.

I want to come to the casino issue because it is an issue that has embracedadult Singaporeans of all races, languages and religions.People have come out very passionately, mostly against it. Those who are for it, speak softly. I talked about squaring the budget circle, where you are collecting less and spending more down the road. The Government could dig into the reserves, but that should be the last resort, and it isa dangerous thing to do.

Where do I stand on the casino issue? Personally, I am a non-gambler and I am very worried about the setting up of a casino in Singapore. For various reasons,because it has been said many times, and I have seen it with my eyes, the Chinese are compulsive gamblers. We may not be congenital gamblers because congenital means it is wired to the DNA and there is no hope. But I think we tend to be compulsive and,in a sense, we are risk takers. The Chinese are risk takers and we have to mount massive educational campaigns to convince the Chinese that" bu zhi shi dujiu shu ", but should be" shi

Column: 928

dushi shu " - in other words, when ten people gamble, nine people lose, one person wins. But a Chinese always thinks he is the one who will win. Actually we should tell the Chinese that "when ten people gamble, ten people would lose".

But I am not closed to the idea of a casino. Why? Because I have not seen the proposal yet. I think the proposal comes in today.All Singaporeans should reserve their final judgement. They have their views and we should respect them. Religious leaders have their views and we should respect them. Some havestrong moral views, andwe should respect that. But, behind all these, we should look at the proposal objectively. Does it address our concerns? At the end of the day, is it a plus for our nation? I think, if we recall, one of the pillars of Singapore 21is nation before self. We may dislike something. We may, in fact, condemn it, but do we have to influence so strongly that the Government would take a position which might be against the nation?

However, I think this debate about the casino is a good thing.Has it united us or has it divided us? Some people said that this issue should never come up. This is a new Prime Minister and straightaway witha team of younger Cabinet Ministers, he istalking about gambling. Instead of unifying us, this issue is dividing us. I think otherwise. I think the camp against the casino is speaking out because they want a stake in Singapore. Their views should be heard and have been heard. The people who are for the casino, I think, also have an interest in Singapore.They also want to have a stake in Singapore.

First of all, not everybodywho goes to the casino is a gambler. You could just walk in and have a drink, put a chip there and then walk away. I think the vast majority of people who go to a casino are in this category. There is an addicted group of gamblers, a smaller group, that

Column: 929

would go anywhere to gamble, put any stake, and risk it all.

There are three issues I think the Cabinet should look at carefully. The three issues are economic, moral and responsibility. Dr Tony Tan has put up, perhaps, a fourth dimension, called the "branding" issue.

First, is it an economic issue? Yes, it is an economic issue. If the Government does not gain from it economically, it should never go in.And I am convinced of the economic pluses. TakeMacau, London and other Australian cities. You could not say that they have not benefited economically from having a casino.

Is it amoral issue? It is a moral issue because there are vices attached to gambling and some casual gamblers might become addicted gamblers, bringing grief to themselves, their families andrelatives.

Is it a responsibility issue? One MP spoke during the inauguration speech that it is not a responsibility issue. It is a moral and a money issue. I think it is also a responsibility issue becausewhether to go to a casino and gamble is basically a personal responsibility. If we could not take responsibility for ourselves, then I think we are not mature ourselves as a society. But there are critics who say that if the Government does nottrust us to do this and that, why do they trust us to gamble? I think this group of people should turn it around and say, "Well, if you think that we are responsible and mature enough to decide for ourselves whether to gamble or not, you should open up more areas to let us take responsibility." I thinkthe Government should take that as a challenge and turn it on its head. We should, in fact, ask the Government to open up more areas.

One area that has been done very well, startedwith Minister Lim Swee Say

Column: 930

and now Minister Yaacob, is the opening up of our water catchments. Before that, like my friend, Dr Low, who has left, he said it was "no" to everything - no fishing, no boating,nothing near water catchment areas. But, in the last year or so, we have opened up our precious water catchment areas to recreational users. This is a decisive change. We have handed responsibility to Singaporeans. Of course, there are other areas that the Government should slowly hand over responsibility to the people.

Similarly, in the case of gambling, I think the Government should ask the people whether they are responsible enough. My colleague, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, was lambasted on the Internet for opening up this new dimension - the responsibility dimension. I think it is a reasonable issue that we have to address and the question that the Government does not open upareas of responsibility, or more areasenough for us, should not stop us from challenging the Government to open up more areas for usto accept.

Finally, I would like to talk about this "branding" issue. Would the presence ofa casino be a branding gain or aloss? This is something that is very serious because Singapore is indeed a brand name. People relocate to Singapore because we are a secure place,a good place to raise a family,to make a living and a good place to call home. Indeed, one reader wrote that one Dutch banker decided to bring his team to Singapore because having surveyed all the Asian cities, he thinks Singapore is the best place. So would the presence of a casino deter people like that from coming, thereby, taking away investments? Because, if the expatriates or talented people do not relocate here, they do not bring their businesses here and the companies may not set up their bases here because they could not get a reliable right-handman here.

Column: 931

Well, we have to look at different cities. Macau, for example, was a sleazy gambling city. I say "was", because it appears that the new governor has somewhat eradicated thatimage, even though Macau is now a bigger gambling city.I think Macauhas that taint orsmell of being a one-product city, a gambling city associated with all thevices of gambling- prostitution, touting, smuggling, everything else.

But there are pluses that we could look at. London, for example. I studied in London and I lived on a street where therewere lots of casinos, small and not so small. They had not had big ones when I was there. Nobody would say London is a sleazy city. In fact, London is the city for banking. London is still the banking capital of the world, not Singapore. Singapore is the leading banking centre in this part of the world, but London is streets ahead of us. No serious banker, I think, would turn away a London posting if given the choice between London and Singapore, if the London expenses are taken care of. It is an essential mark in his or her CV. So London is a positive example.

If you look at other cities - Australian cities provide an illuminating example. Every Australian city has at least one casino. If you look at the Quality of Life Survey of Businessmenaround the world - every twoyears they do a world-wide survey. The Quality of Life Index is a composite index that measures many things. It measures security, job opportunities, the arts, recreation, the whole works - what makes a person wants to live in that city. You would find that the key Australian capital cities areranked among the top ten. Sydney andMelbourne are always up there, together with Auckland. They are always there. Singapore is not there. It is not in the top ten. It is somewheremiddling. We are a small nation. We could not provide the

Column: 932

kind of vineyards and thebeaches that these Australian cities have. But the key thing is that the presence of casinos in these cities did not smear these cities. They continue to attract immigrants, finance, top quality talents. And Singaporeans would, invariably, when they visit Melbourne, for example, go to the CrownCasino situated right in front of the South Yarra River. If they go to Sydney, I think they would go to Darling Harbour because that place is so beautiful. I do not even know where the casino is in the building, but I have been there. The Cruise Centre thereis a beautiful place. Perth is a lonely city, a quiet city. There is nothing much to do. Golfers could play golf every day, but if you are a non-golfer what do you do?The city shuts down. While we are still in Parliament, they are already sleeping now. But nobody would say Perth is a sleazy city. Nobody. You could say it is a quiet city,a small city, but it is not a gambling city. Theactualattraction there is Burswood and it is a big casino, but Perth's standing has not gone down. Singaporeans are making a beeline to go there on weekends and weekdays. Some are even emigrating there to put up homes.

So, overall, I think this branding issue is something which we must look at, whether we could add to it or subtract from it. If the casino adds to the value of Singapore as a financial centre,as like London, then I think people who come here, the high-stake rollers, the Mahogany members, might come here, feeling secure that if they win something, they would make it tothe airport and go home. In some casinos in the world, you might not want to win big because you might not be able to find your way to the airport. Not all bankers are addicted gamblers. Some of them just go there for entertainment, some just go in out of curiosity, but it is part of their livesthat some bankers find attractive.

But part of the question really

Column: 933

is: how do we educate Singaporeans, particularly Chinese Singaporeans, not to gamble at the casino as a habit? That is a challenge for the Government.

I think there are several issues that the Government has brought up. They have proposed an entrance fee andan annual membership fee. There isa social odium in going to the casino. But Singapore is a small place. Ifa personkeeps going to the casino, people will know. It is unlike Genting which is quite far away and not so easy to get to. There is an odium abouta persongoing to the casinoto gamble. Word might get around. Ifa person is a respectable professional in Singapore,he might not want to gamble here.He might go overseas to gamble.

For the average worker, the $100 entrance fee could be prohibitive, although some have argued that $100 would not deter himbecause he will go in to gamble even more hoping to win back the stake. The $100 is something which the Government has to calibrate, whether it is enough to be a barrier for a person to enter the casino to gamble.

Sir, this Budget, hopefully, is not a casino budget. But, for me, when I look at the overall figures, when I match the revenue with the expenditure and looking the way ahead, where the expenditures might balloon, I think the casino's place is established. Because if we turn away the casino, then we have to find alternative

Column: 934

ways of growing the economy. If we accept the casino andthere are social issues, we have to address them. I ask Singaporeans to reserve judgment and look at the proposals when the Government makes the announcement. The Government, of course, has to convince us that at the end of the day, the plusesare more than the minuses.

Finally, I want to come back to the Tang Dynasty poem. I hope the newspapers will publish it because I think thatin the Year of the Golden Rooster, the Prime Minister has delivered a very resounding hope for all of us.